15349, RE: question 4 original poster|
Posted by standard deviant, Wed Apr-25-01 04:20 PM
>Let the world engage in what
>homosexuals debate as "natural" and
>there would be NO MORE
>Man and womb-man fit like puzzle
>Man and man do NOT.
>Woman and woman do NOT.
And what do you call other instances of homosexuality in other animals? Is that "unnatural" as well? Is nature defined by the direct propogation of a species? What about hermaphrodites?
>When homosexuals use things(real and fake)
>that are naturally attributed to
>the opposite sex, it makes
>you wonder WHAT exactly is
>the attraction to the SAME
So I suppose if you drink something that isn't pure water when you are thirsty, I should ask you WHAT exactly is your attraction to that other liquid? Are homosexuals attracted only to the sex? Are you with your mate (if you have one) strictly because he/she is a penis/vagina?
>That is confusion.
That is a poorly reasoned arguement