🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.10dcd46d9...@news.demon.co.uk>, in which a
one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> In article <emmc2.2285$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
> tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...

> 
> > The evidence was set up 
> > for them to get the desired conclusion.  
> Sorry you must have mis-posted, should this not be in alt.conspiracy-
> theory :P
> 
> Who *set up* the evidence? Are you suggesting a bunch of homosexual guys 
> created a human DNA pattern and impregnated all gay men with it just so 
> the scientists could find out it was genetic. And oh yeah they abducted 
> all us straight men and made sure we did not have this gene to make the 
> results more accurate. :P

They *didn't* find proof yet.  People have done weird tests like examining 
twins, and seeing that the gay one has a gene that's bigger than it should be. 
They do this a couple times and start to figure out they're right.  Then later 
they come across a gay guy who has the gene *smaller* than it normally is, and 
straight guys who have the gene larger than normal.  By this time, they 
already have the idea that the gene is causing the homosexuality though, so 
they ignore it.

It still is possible that it's genetic, but they haven't proven it yet and 
they need to find the right gene to do that.

> > Sounds like something you said about 
> > psychologists a long time ago, hmm?
> I think I missed that, care to expand? :)

Alex said something a while ago about psychologists...  how they structure 
evidence to meet the desired conclusion, then when they reach that conclusion, 
they "prove" how they were right.

> > Maybe it is caused by genes sometimes, maybe a hormone imbalance, or a 
> > horrible childhood incident, or any combination.  I think it's different in 
> > each case.  
>
> And you base this evidence on?

Prisons.

> > Supposing though that it was caused by nature rather than nurture - does
>  that 
> > legitamize it?  If they found out that most killers and rapists have a 
> > defective gene, would that make it right?  Would it be OK for them to do as 
> > they do?
> 
> There are a number of "illnesses" passed on genetically. Obesity is one 
> such example. Should we outlaw obesity because some people have a fucked 
> up gene? It does not hurt anyone. How about disability? Some disabilities 
> are caused by genetic defects. Should we outlaw this?

No.  If you're fat you're fat.  If you're dumb, you're dumb.  Homosexuality 
isn't just a trait - it's a behaviour.  It's an act.  If bestiality were 
caused by a gene, should it be legalized?  Should marriages to animals be 
legal too, and condoned by the Church?  Otherwise they'd be hypocrites, 
discriminating solely on sexual preference.

> Why can you not live and let live?

After you laced into me like that about my religion :P  (Don't worry, you 
weren't really that bad).  You know what, Alex could be asking that same 
question about us and drug users.  LdyMagic33 (the pigfucker) could be
asking the same thing about him and barnyard animals.  In fact if he were 
smart enough, he could use those other arguements you mentioned too - "If I'm 
no better than an animal, why can I not lick it's balls?"

> > OK, that was a bad example.  But still, emotions are not decisions - the 
> > choice is how you react to them.  No one, no matter how they try, can
>  control 
> > their emotions.
> Actually you can control your emotions. How often do you suppress anger 
> or personal suffering in the company of others? It is also possible to 
> change your state of mind from a depressive one to a more happy one. All 
> of this is control of emotion. Have you never lied? This is a great 
> example of emotion control. Without it the lie is obvious!

If you could control your emotions, you wouldn't *have* to supress your anger. 
Rather, your emotions control you - forcing you to either lash out or do your 
damndest to hold it all in.

> > Well, sometimes they need to thin out their numbers.  I guess it's
>  acceptable 
> > then too.
> 
> Culling of animals is very often the defence a hunter will use. 
> Personally I do not see how whales and baby seals require culling. Most 
> hunting is for fun pure and simple. It is a cruel sport and in the 
> unlikely event that culling was deemed necessary, there are more humane 
> ways to cull animals than to hunt them.

True, it would be better to put them to sleep in a humane fashion.

> This "responsibility" is just another example of human arrogance. We 
> claim to be "better" than other animals. 
> 
> Amongst our great achievements are the wiping out of a number of other 
> animal species purely for sport or to adorn our fragile bodies or our 
> homes with their dead skin. We did not even have the respect to hunt the 
> animal for food and use it's then useless carcass for furnishing, we just 
> killed it and took what we wanted. 

So we don't akways act better, that doesn't rid us of our responsibility and 
doesn't justify some of the things we do.

> Or how about the mass destruction of parts of the world both through war 
> and for raw materials. We have cut down so much rain forest and created 
> many other imbalances in the atmosphere thet we are changing the very 
> nature of the planet. Our research into nuclear reactions is still having 
> long term side effects. 

Just the fact that we can take matters into bigger situations than animals 
could is evidence that we are better.  And how about the fact that we can 
understand concepts like DNA, evolution, and all that - animals would never 
figure this stuff out and even though we figured it out we couldn't make them 
understand.

> So far I see no responsibility and nothing that says we are "better". No, 
> wait a minute we are better ... at fucking up.

We fuck up just as much as animals, but in a bigger and better way.  Just 
about every possible thing other animals do, we do better.  Examples, eating 
(we use silverware), cleansing (we built all these pipes that go into our 
homes and can control when the water comes in for us to shoer or bathe in), 
killing (we built guns, and while this isn't better *morally* it is more 
effective *physically*), and prety much anything animals do, we do better.

> Ob boy. All this murder was carried out in God's name and was often based 
> on the very passages you have been quoting. Please read below...
> 
> > non Christians, not God.  God in fact said to do the opposite (Thou shalt
>  not 
> > do murder)
> 
> So how are we supposed to carry out his will with regard homosexuals!
> 
> I quote from a previous message ...
> 
> "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of
> them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;"
>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Please, define murder and then define the killing of a homosexual in the 
> above quote and explain the difference. I see none. 

You mean killing.  "Kill" and "murder" have subtle differences.

> Interestingly it seems very similar to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to 
> live" (Did I get that right? :) ) Yet you claim that the witch hunts were 
> instigated by the people and not the God that spoke those very words.

I think that's a mistranslation, witches are fictional.  Show me where it says 
that, but I think something was lost during translation.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|