🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark wrote:
> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> Huh? WTF are you talking about now?

Remind me to avoid one word sentences :)  In prison, there's tons of gay
sex going on, and almost none of them have "the gene".  Therefore, it is
an awful experience (not just an isolated incident) that causes them to
act the way they do.  Is this any clearer?

> I hope you realise that behavioral patterns are built into our genetic
> makeup. Also consider this. Every single person begins with the very high
> chance of being female. Males are harder to produce. For a baby to be
> male requires the presence of an *extra* chromosome. Since we are all
> originally female, it is no surprise that any fault in the male genetic
> makeup would result in fucked up behavioral patterns including attraction
> to their own sex! (Note this is very oversimplified since I am sure none
> of us want to go into low level biology :) )

That's very oversimplifies all right, but a very compelling argument.
But it still has yet to be proven what the cause for it really is.
I persionally think it's different each time and is usually a
combination, but to me it doesn't even matter what the cause is.

> Actually I think we should drop marriage altogether. It is an outdated
> contract forced upon us by the Church. Gays only want to marry because
> straight people can. If you want to fix the problem get rid of marriage.

It's not forced upon you.  I think now I see why you're so damn
aggresive towards the religious people now ;-)  Marriage is optional,
it's forced upon you in India maybe but not by the Church.

> > > Why can you not live and let live?
> >
> > You know what, Alex could be asking that same
> > question about us and drug users.
> 
> I hope he does, I have an answer all lined up ;)

Maybe you could give it to me, so I could in turn use it on you :)
Probably wouldn't work for this situation though  :(

> > 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.
> 
> I did not say you could switch them off, They are an essential part of
> life. Succeeding in "doing your damndest to hold it all in" is
> controlling that emotion. 

Wrong...

> Emotion invokes a reaction. 

Right!  It's the *reaction* you can control.
The emotion is there, like it or not.

> Suppression of the reaction is control. 

Well I guess we're agreed then...  except upon the definition of controlling
the emotion :)  But Alex is alone on his opinion about being able to choose
your emotions, right?  I want to be in the majority on this one ;)

> Also you can actually predict an emotional situation
> and take steps to limit the impact thereby controlling your emotions.

Hadn't even though of that...  you can control your emotions *somewhat*
by stopping them before they start.

> People who cannot control emotions are described by doctors as
> hysterical. This is not the common sense of the word as in "hysterics"
> but the wider term meaning to be controlled by ones emotions.

I guess you and your emotions control each other - am I right or an I
right?

> > True, it would be better to put them to sleep in a humane fashion.
> 
> It would be *even* better to just leave them be! :)

Not if it can save the species.

> > 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.
> 
> You keep saying responsibility. To who?

To animals.  Maybe if we can set a good example for them, it will make
those idiots smarter ;)

Seriously though, we owe it to each other to act human and not like
(other) animals.  If we all acted like (other) animals - attacking
out of fear rather than reasoning - we'd be acting no better than them.
We can reason for a reason!

> <from here> (it will make sense in a minute... :) )

I hope this clears things up.

> > 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.
> 
> Please define your use of the word "better".

I mean superior - it's not better for the anyone if we blow the world
up.  But it shows that we have come a lot farther than animals and we
must be smarter if we can do these things.

> > 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.
> <to here>
> 
> I think for "better" you should be using "advanced". It is a different
> word with a different meaning but make make you point mean something.
> I'll await your definition requested above before replying to this so in
> any reply please retain these sections as is that I highlighted with
> <from here> ... to <here>

Kinda confusing...  I wish you had marked it some other way.  I think I
left it in for the most part.  But your right, I meant better in a
superior way, so advanced would fit the bill perfectly.  But, "you cant
have one without the other."

> Kill - deprive of life or vitality; put to death; cause the death of.
> 
> Murder - The unlawful premeditated *killing* of a human being by another;
> 
> Therefore, to "kill" a homosexual is "murder".
> 
> Your turn...

Killing - ending life.  Murdering - ending life when the victim has done
nothing to deserve it.  Killing a homosexual is killing someone who *has*
done something to deserve it, therefore it isn't murder.

I still don't think the bible commands you to kill them though - I think
they're just saying they desere it.  Another subtle difference.

> Tell that to all the women *murdered* throughout the world having been
> accused of witchcraft. Also look up what a witch is. It is not just some
> old hag on a broomstick. Now come back and tell me they are "fictional".

I know, a witch can mean...  well, a bitch.  Again, the English language
at fault.  Something was lost in the translation from Hebrew and Greek
and all the other languages it was written in.

I still don't know where the Bible says to do that, I do know that
people have carried out the sentence hundreds of years after the Bible
was written.

> > Show me where it says
> > that, but I think something was lost during translation.
> 
> Yeah cost I can remember ;) I'll try to find it though.

OK, you do that.

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