🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.10dd4275...@news.demon.co.uk>, in which a
one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:

> But it is not by gay men! Most prison "gay" sex is purely a release 
> brought on by sexual frustration. Confinement is unnatural for any animal 
> including Man. Gay rape in prison is also common and again it is about 
> power! Most men who experience gay sex in prison are the subject of rape 
> rather than willing participants!

So taking it a step further, we can safely say gay people in our society feel 
imprisoned.  

> > 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.
> 
> So assuming the "theory" to be correct, why does homosexuality differ 
> from any other genetic defect in your eyes?

It doesn't.  Genetic defects that affect appearance, or mind, I have no 
problem with.  Ones that affect someone's behaviour patterns are different, 
and it's important that people get treatment for it.  (And important that 
someone find a treatment, if one doesn't exist.)

> > > 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 It is an outdated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.  
> 
> It *is* forced upon society. It is part of our upbringing. And where does 
> it originate?

There was marriage before the Church was around.  If you want to blame 
someone, blame the Jews :P

> > I think now I see why you're so damn
> > aggresive towards the religious people now ;-)  
> 
> Don't ever jump to conclusions from my comments. Maybe you want to 
> describe your new found wisdom of my feelings. Personally I think they 
> will be wrong, but I want to hear them.

You think that the Church and religion, and religious people, all force their 
opinions on you so you reject them.  Similar to how I reject the Mormon 
teachings when they come knocking on my door.

People already *know* about religion, and if they want to join one they
will.  If they hear about it so many times, they just get sick of it.

> > Marriage is optional,
> > it's forced upon you in India maybe but not by the Church.
> 
> The Church *forces* marriage upon their followers. They do not condone
> "living in sin" as the bible puts it. Therefore to "be" a  "true"
> Christian you *must* marry! 

But if you're not a Christian, it doesn't really matter, now does it?
 
> As for society beyond the Church, it is still freeing itself from the 
> shackles of past religious following so marriage is seen as the *right* 
> thing regardless of religious belief. 

Marriage is a unity, and when you get married you're saying that you'll
spend the rest of your life with that person.  You can get married in a
Church if you like, or a synagogue (sp?), or a temple, or in a courtroom
if you have no religion.

> > > > 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.
> 
> No, suppression of the reaction normally leads to suppression of the 
> originating emotion. Eventually practice will make this process so swift 
> that full emotional control is feasible.

You cant "kill" the emotion.  The "abortion" mentioned below is possible,
but if you try to kill it, it will be left for dead, and then disturb you
by coming back in some other form.

> > > 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 ;)
> 
> I'd like to say yes ... but ... no!

:(

> I seem to be somewhere in the middle here and you seem to be coming more 
> closely to my understanding of it, so it looks like you'll soon be 
> agreeing with me more than I with Alex, but beyond that I cannot see a 
> majority win. :)

Guess all 3 of us have our own opinions then.
 
> > > 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.
> 
> So you are shifting opinion :). Even some control is definitely different 
> to no control ;)

Yeah...  that's because I hadn't thought of the "abortion".

> > > 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?
> 
> No. Your emotions and yourself are intrinsically linked. The extent of 
> emotion is controllable. The "murder" of an emotion is possible. The way 
> you deal with and react to emotions is also controllable.

The only thing I really disagree with you upon is the "murder" (or more 
precisely, the "killing") of emotion.  I think if you try, you'll get what 
seen like new emotions, but are actually just the old one in a new form.
You need to accept your feelings and confront them, but even then they're not 
gone *forever*.

> > > > 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.
> 
> Which species, the one we are murdering?

Yeah.  "So you see, folks, we need to kill these animals or else they'll
die!"  (That's a South Park joke)  It has to do with evening out the
population of the species and the food so that there's enough to go around.

> > 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.
> 
> Well done you have successfully described what is wrong with the human 
> race. We *do* attack out of fear rather than reasoning. Using your 
> comment .... There fore we *are* acting no better than them. Full Stop. 
> Period. 

That's right.  We aren't acting better than them.  But don't you agree that we 
should?

We can reason for a reason!

> > > 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.
> 
> Yes - because it *is* very *smart* to blow the world up!

We haven't blown it up yet, so nyeh! :P  Just the fact that we could if
we wanted shows that we are better, because animals *can't* (unless they
were taught to use something that we ourselves designed.)

> Apes do not always eat with their hands. They may not have fashioned 
> tools from base metals but the will use wooden implements that they will 
> hand make into a useable extraction and/or eating tool for say honey.

Oh.  Well we still have beter silverware.

> Otters are very good plumbers!

What?

> > > 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
> Best way I could think of given the rather limited options in text 
> messaging ;) It is based around the recognised <joke> ... </joke> so I 
> hoped it would work.

Maybe if you had told me BEFORE HAND not to delete instead of AFTER. :)

> No. Advanced and superior are sufficiently different in definition to 
> render the words non-interchangeable. Hence my choice of advanced. 
> Superior is as obtuse as your original word "better". They both need 
> qualifying. Advanced implies no sense of superiority and the context 
> usually provides the qualifier. Your argument now sort of reads "we are 
> better/superior because we are more advanced". 

But look how much we have advanced in the relatively short time we have
spent on this planet - and look at how far, say, horses have come along.
They have been here *longer*.  The fact that we have advanced so far in
such a short amount of time shows that we are superior.  This doesn't
mean better in *every* way, but in most ways.

> But then again, your implication that the use of tableware makes us 
> superior is somewhat pointless. In our eyes it makes us more civilised. 
> We are desperate as a race to distinguish ourselves from our animal 
> cousins and concepts such as civilised behaviour are enough to invoke our 
> arrogant assumption of superiority. 
> 
> Had we progressed beyond petty squabbling and fighting etc, I would be 
> more inclined to consider us superior. For now, I do not. I consider ants 
> and bees to be more organised, more sociologically advanced and therefore 
> "superior" to other animals including ourselves. 

But ants and bees cannot think for themselves - except for the queen.
Whole colonies are just run by one "person".  Ants, it is believed, 
are controlled by brain waves that go through their antennae - I have
never ripped off an ant's anntennae to see what would happen, but now I
sure would like to try and see what happens <evil grin> 
 
> > 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.
> 
> Then your definition of murder is incorrect. It is illegal to commit 
> murder since it is defined as the unlawful taking of a person's life. 
> There are no get out clauses for prejudice.

It is illegal to kill too - what's your point?

> > I still don't think the bible commands you to kill them though - I think
> > they're just saying they deserve it.  Another subtle difference.
> 
> So WTF does "put to death" mean. 

It means they *deserve* be put to death.  

> Here goes :)
> 
> Exodus:22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
> 
> (Not bad I wrote shall not shalt!)
> 
> There are also a number of other references to witches and witchcraft 
> within the old and new testaments.
> 
> And I am the unbeliever! :P

By witchcraft they usually mean fortune-telling.

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