🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Z%Sc2.2527$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> 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.  

Only by bigots such as yourself. 

> 
> > > 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.)

Why? Did you never hear of something called discrimination? It is when a 
person or persons discriminate against one or more other persons. We have 
it with race and with sex. There are also a multitude of other forms. 
Basically by picking on one small characteristic of a person and calling 
them unnatural is discrimination. If it is so unnatural how come there 
are so many instances of it?

> > > 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.

As I suspected you could not be more wrong.

> 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.

Most people are forced into religion rather than doing it by choice. 
There are exceptions but the majority of religious followers were brought 
up within the doctrines of the religion they now "follow". 

> > > 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?

Yes it does!

> > 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.

Really, I always wondered how you did it :P

> 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*.

Actually you will strengthen other emotions but more importantly your 
ability to "control" them.

> > > > > 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.

So we kill one species which puts another at risk so we fix it by killing 
them? Where do you draw the line? What if the first one was at the bottom 
of your personal favourite "the food chain" so we keep going all the way 
up to us? Maybe we should just start with the root of the problem and 
press the bloody button!

> We can reason for a reason!

No it is a combination of coincidental elements which caused us to reach 
a stage of evolution where we could do so. 

> 
> > > > 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

But we *have* blown up *parts* and tested blowing up others. 

> we wanted shows that we are better, because animals *can't* (unless they

No it is just everyone who can, knows they won't live to tell the tale. 
It is fear that stops us launching not respect or brains.

> were taught to use something that we ourselves designed.)

Or maybe they had the respect and fore thought to not consider it!

> > 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.

I am sure they would disagree. What good is an ornate fork for eating 
from a honeycomb?

> > Otters are very good plumbers!
> 
> What?

You know the creatures that live in rivers and build damns. They can also 
direct the water in such a way as to limit the potential of damage during 
floods etc. 

> > 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

Or good at keeping others down. Look how far the aborigines had advanced 
before the discovery of Australia. Look today at the tribes in the 
deserts and jungles of the world. How advanced are they?

They are not as advanced as Western "civilisation" but they have a hell 
of a lot more respect for the planet, their environment, other animals 
and what they will subject their bodies to.

> > 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.

"Soldiers" will defend the nest without direction. It is their job. 
Workers work without the overseeing of every single task by the fat slug 
ruling them. They have enough free thought to carry out their task and 
ensure the future of their species and the protection of their home. They 
work together. 

> Whole colonies are just run by one "person".  Ants, it is believed, 

Whereas the US has the President! One person!

> > > 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.  

So how about

"Leviticus:20:16: And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down 
thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be 
put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

What does "thou shalt *kill*" imply? And does this not qualify the term 
put to death to mean kill?

There are also suggested means of death such as burning or stoning. 

They seem quite clear in their implication.

> 
> > 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.

So?

-- 
Mark