🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <oJjy2.1079$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

That bit was clear, the point was not. 

> > > > > 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?

Because homosexuality is not a mental illness. Therefore "wrong" is the 
correct response while "right" is not. That is how.

> > > > 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".

Quotation...

"Any number of defects or handicaps, for example, may be inborn, but we'd 
hardly call them normal for that reason alone. "
...
"We cannot assume, then, that because something is inborn, it is also God 
ordained. There are mental, psychological, physical and sexual aspects of 
our beings that God never intended us to have. "Inborn," in short, does 
not mean "divinely sanctioned." "

> > > > 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*.

You didn't.

> > > 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.

You still didn't.

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

At last!

> > > > > > 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."

9-11 actually :P

I Corinthians:6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the 
kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor 
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
I Corinthians:6:10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor 
revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
I Corinthians:6:11: 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.

Hmm, seems to be some disparity there. Mine comes from the King James 
bible. AIUI this is considered the definitive version.

It has brought up one line that maybe you would interpret ... "nor 
abusers of themselves with mankind".

[snip bestiality stuff]
> Coincidentally, you went on to say later that you find it an
> abhorrence.

Yes I do, so what? I also explained why. Personal preference and thought 
for the animal. The laws that are in place I will not ask to be removed. 
But if there were none, I would not request them. Personally, although 
you have taken to calling me hypocritical, this is not a comparable 
discussion. Homosexual sex is consenting sex between adults of the same 
sex. Bestiality is rape of an unwilling animal. Show me a case with two 
*willing* partners and I'll happily let it be. 

Besides, hypocrisy is actually postulating of a moral standard that you 
personally do not adhere to. Therefore by definition I am not. I 
understand you use of the term but as I have explained above, since the 
issues are sufficiently different, your use does not apply either.

> > > > 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

So why did this follow comments on homosexuality and why was it not above 
with the relevant passages on bestiality? It would have been much clearer 
in it's place.

> > 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

Your point?

-- 
Mark