🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.1134d87a...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> In article <Fjoy2.1202$pE6....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
> tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
> > "Right, it's okay to kill animals and not fuck them.  We're really
> > looking out for them."  Seems clear enough.
> 
> I have never said it is OK to kill animals. Therefore your point is still 
> unclear.

You still eat meat, right?

> > > > 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.
> > 
> > It is a mental illness; therefore "right" is right and "wrong" is wrong.  
> 
> In your misguided opinion maybe. In reality not.

Yeah, in *your* reality.  The truth is, it is a mental condition.
It was on the American Psychiatric Association's list of pathological
psychiatric conditions (until 1974 when it was removed for purely
political reasons rather than scientific ones).  There has been
no evidence since then to show otherwise.

> > > > I already went on to say later what I would do *if*.
> > > You didn't.
> > Then WTF do you call this:
> > "I'd e-mail them a few times trying to get my name removed, and if
> > none of that worked I would save the e-mails and use them as evidence
> > in a lawsuit."
> 
> This was not in response to letting others do your defence. 

I'm pretty sure it was, I'll have to look back on that.

> > Yes, unfortunately there are several different versions of the Bible
> > floating around...  nevertheless, the New Testament still makes
> > references to it, and there was nothing to replace Leviticus 18:22.
> > Other things were replaceable (ie. "Thou shalt kill..." is replaced
> > by "Love thy enemy.")
> 
> OK. Any thoughts on "nor abusers of themselves with mankind"?

Obviously, homosexuals.  Many other translations don't say
"abusers of themselves with mankind", they say "homosexual
offenders".

> Also, many different versions of the Bible change those words which are 
> unknown to match the followings of that branch of religion. I can guess 
> homosexual appears quite often in yours, while in early editions of 
> Catholic bibles, masterbation was in that very same place.

But if it were referring to masturbation, the "with mankind" wouldn't
really be necessary.

> > Rape is not as serious a crime as murder, as far as humans are concerned.
> 
> As far as *I* am concerned rape is as serious as murder. I am pretty sure 
> that rape victims also see it this way. I am human and rape victims are 
> human therefore at least some humans do see them as equally serious.

The punishment for murder is more serious than rape; also many people
in jail rape others and never have to serve any punishment at all.  They
would have to stay in jail for the rest of their life if they killed
the other inmates.  It's pretty much understood that rape is not as
serious a crime as murder, and even if they were equal, rape would
never be *worse* than murder.

> > > The laws that are in place I will not ask to be removed. 
> > > But if there were none, I would not request them. 
> > And can you apply that to homosexuality as well?
> > (Meaning, if homosexuality was still jailable, would you not ask
> > that law to be removed?)
> 
> Yes.

And if new laws making it jailable were "voted in" would you have
a problem with those?

> > > 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. 
> > 
> > So much for "innocent until proven guilty".
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > The issues are the same, I guess you just don't see it though.
> 
> I have explain why I do not see them as the same.
> 
> Let's throw this back into your court. What is your opinion of the 
> practice? And what biblical law covers it? Why do *you* see them as the 
> same? Finally, rate them with regards each other I.e. which is worse?

They're both just as bad as each other.  The same thing causes both of
them (even though we cannot agree on what that is).  If someone has
sexual relations with a member of the same sex, it's just as bad as
having it with his/her dog.  The reasons why people are expected to
except homosexuality are "I'm born with it", "I can't help it", "It's
not my fault", etc. then it's "We want equal rights", "We should be
free", etc. and all the while people who are "born" to bestiality
are suffering for it even though their case is exactly the same
as the homosexuals.  They're both the same damn thing, and if one's
jailable the other should be.  Otherwise the government's being
worse hypocrites than the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages (you
should know who I'm talking about, hence your incessant references
to that group).

> > > > > 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?
> > 
> > My point == The "world" did not grow up when they became hypocrites & 
> > legalized homosexuality without doing the same for bestiality.
> 
> I said "... grew up a little ..."! This is still a much bigger step than 
> the bible has made in thousands of years. Besides, I think you are 
> abusing the term hypocrite. 

No I don't think I am.  Telling people not to discriminate against
people based on sexual orientation while jailing people for their
sexual orientation is hypocritical (look it up :P).

> To condone sex between humans is not comparable to condoning sex with 
> other species. I guess you see them as the same since in your opinion 
> they are both a crime against God. This is not the way to look at the 
> issues. Unless of course you are going to throw in prostitution, 
> adultery, murder, theft, graven images and the like into the same basket. 

That's not how I'm looking at the issues.  I don't see why my belief
in God has anything to do with this.  I'm looking at the issues by
examining what causes it (Again, I believe a gene causes people to
be more prone to it, a bad experience would have more of an impact
on those people's minds.  Similar to alcoholism, but it's never a
gene alone.  Of course science still has a long way to go to prove
even *that* much.), how the person stricken with it feels, what
could be done about it, etc.  

Before, you said "If two people are enjoying it, then why cure it?"
or something similar.  It's kind of like the drugs problem...  if
people are enjoying an acid trip, does that mean the government
shouldn't take them to rehab for treatment?

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