🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.1133b5915...@news.demon.co.uk>, in which a
one mark@mhetherington.demon.co.yk (Mark) wrote:
> In article <AWcy2.807$pE6...@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
> tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
> > > Also some regard for animals.
> > 
> > Right, it's okay to kill them and not fuck them.  We're really looking
> > out for them.
> 
> Huh?

Them = animals

> > > > discovered that this (bestiality) was caused by DNA and so forth
> > > > (making it another of nature's ways to limit our species' numbers).
> > > > Would that make it okay?
> > > 
> > > Not to today's society no. It would however offer explanation. 
> > 
> > The real explanation (for both of 'em) is that it's a mental illness.
> 
> Wrong.

How can you say "Wrong" when it's right?

> > > Personally, I stopped reading the article when I came across the passage 
> > > regarding normality where the author highlights disabilities as 
> > > abnormalities in the same sentence he decries homosexuality. This 
> > > demonstrated extreme prejudice on his part and I hope he hasn't offended 
> > > the many disabled people in the world. Not for grouping with 
> > > homosexuality, but his implication of abnormality.
> > 
> > You misread what he said, he was trying to say that those weren't a
> > normal characteristics for people to have.
> 
> But then going onto to say that abnormal characteristics should not be 
> accepted and were not acceptable to God.

No, what he was saying was "Inborn != normal".

> > > Societies that probably do not follow Christianity so I am afraid 
> > > that your point remains irrelevant. 
> > 
> > There are some (remember the Amish are still around).
> 
> Some != All.

Yes, but it is still worth it if there are some.
(Rememer, some != none)

> > > But what if they failed to take care of it for you?
> > 
> > That didn't happen, now did it?  
> 
> Read the question. What ***if***?

I already went on to say later what I would do *if*.

> > If I were one of the doctors on the
> > list, and I chose not to fight, then the other doctors still would
> > have.
> 
> Maybe they would have all shared your cowardly approach. Then what?

Again, I already said.

> > > > The "minimal" risk in *your* choice is still more risky than *my*
>  choice.
> > > 
> > > Not as I see it.
> > > 
> > > Besides, let's say you email the site asking them politely to remove your 
> > > name and they say no. What then? 
> > 
> > I'd keep trying for a little while, that way I could use their refusal
> > as evidence in the lawsuit.  Yes, I would take action then, happy?
> 
> Confused actually. You do seem to have developed a little back bone but 
> why wait?

Because I would fight back as a last resort.  If there are other (less
risky) approaches, I would take those first.

> > > > > Such as? Name more than homosexuality since your views on this seem 
> > > > > clear. 
> > > > 
> > > > That's the only one (except maybe abortion).
> > > 
> > > So the only relevant portion of the bible is a few Old Testament lines 
> > > about Homosexuality. Yet you constantly tell me that the New Testament 
> > > overrides much of the Old. So maybe we should ignore this and ... wait we 
> > > got rid of the bible ;)
> > 
> > No, there is still mentioning of it in the New Testament also.
> 
> Yet you always quote Leviticus. Maybe you could update your sources and 
> then we will reconsider the issue.

I Corinthians 6:10-11:

"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor
sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor 
extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you:
but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name
of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

> > > > > Since you are a homophobic I cannot really take this as a valid
> > > > > argument. 
> > > > 
> > > > You know that's not any more true than saying you're a zoophobe.
> > > 
> > > No. Your feelings were made clear and in the same way you tried to force 
> > > me into this little box.
> > > 
> > > IIRC both Alex and I absolved ourselves of any "zoo phobia" since we 
> > > don't give a fuck. We may not find it to our taste but we do not demand 
> > > death or cures. 
> > 
> > Alex said he thought it was okay.  You did not.
> 
> What I originally said was ...
> 
> "Seriously though, there are some sexual activities I would never get 
> into [...] I also would never even consider sex with a man or an animal. 
> All of this is personal preference.
>  
> I have not been told not to, I decided I did not want to. Other people 
> feel differently. As long as both partners are willing so be it. 
> 
> So what if someone wants to lick an animals balls and comes back to tell 
> the tale. As long as it does not affect me or mine I do not care. I think 
> it is sick, but without getting into all that again, it does exhibit 
> itself in the animal kingdom as a whole."
> 
> OK!

Coincidentally, you went on to say later that you find it an
abhorrence.

> > > Sex with another Man is not to my taste either but I would never
> > > suggest that we "cure" it for those that do enjoy it. 
> > 
> > You said you were happy with the fact that they were going to jail
> > for it.
> 
> Huh? When did I say that?
> 
> And you accuse me of putting words in you mouth. Twice in this response 
> you have told me that I have said something which I have not. The first 
> was simple to disprove. This, I would have no idea where to start. Nor am 
> I completely clear what you are talking about.
>
> I never suggested jail terms for homosexuals. 

They = practicers of bestiality

> The closest I ever said was that it used to be an imprisonable offence
> and then the world grew up a little.

Growing up != becoming a total hypocrite

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|      Change "Geoshitties" to "Geocities"
_|    _|  _|      To reply via e-mail.