🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.11352a562...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> In article <xqAy2.1334$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?
> 
> Bestiality involves long term abuse of a given animal. I consider this 
> cruel. I also consider the unwarranted murder of animals cruel. 
> 
> Killing animals for food is a different issue. I consider some 
> farming/butchery methods cruel so will pay more for my meat purchases to 
> ensure that the farming/butchery process was comparatively humane. 
> 
> We have already done the meat issue so I am not quite sure why you feel 
> it is necessary to bring it up again. 

Just forget I asked.

> > 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.
> 
> But had there been evidence to prove this ridiculous position it would 
> still be on the list and would still be a jailable offence. Since it was 
> removed from the list some 25 years ago, this is not a valid argument for 
> you to make. 

No, they removed it under pressure from homosexuals in *spite* of the
evidence.

> > > 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.
> 
> I was not suggesting it were, I was merely asking for your 
> interpretation. 

I was not suggesting that you were suggesting that either :)
Just stating that I thought it meant homosexuality rather
than masturbation because of the "with mankind".

> The paragraph you replied to was on a slightly different 
> topic to masturbation hence it not being mentioned as the salient
> point.  I was agreeing with and illustrating your own point about
> inconsistencies between versions of the bible.

The same thing happened with the Old Testament...  there was a
'movement' to compile everything into one version (around 100-300
A.D.).  I think this was a bad decision, because people don't get
to choose between the different versions.

> > > > 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.
> 
> All crimes are punished on more than the actual act. Murder is punishable 
> in various forms. As is rape. I have stated my view and you yours. I 
> guess this closes the issue.

Alright then.

> > > > > 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?
> 
> Yes.

You would?  Please explain, I don't follow you...

> > > 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.  
> 
> Consentual sex vs. rape. I think one is definitely wrong while the other 
> is not.
> 
> > The same thing causes both of
> > them (even though we cannot agree on what that is).  
> 
> Arguable, but I'll read on...
> 
> > If someone has
> > sexual relations with a member of the same sex, it's just as bad as
> > having it with his/her dog.  
> 
> Consentual sex vs. rape. 

Suppposing it were consentual then!  If I can pretend I was a
pro-choice doctor, I'm sure you can use your imagination a little
on this.

> > 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.  
> 
> Sorry, I am missing something. How can consentual sex be the same as 
> rape?

Again...  suppose it were consentual, and read the paragraph over.
I'm sure it is consential most times (and even if it weren't,
neither is taking your cat or dog to be flea dipped).

> > 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).
> 
> I do not remember any incessant references to any particular group. Maybe 
> you want to remind me rather than making snide comments.

You were always going on about how hypocritical they were.
Killing while preaching Jesus's word, and all that.

> > 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).
> 
> I do not need to look up the word. I am quite adept at handling the 
> English Language, thank you. As I said before I understand your use of 
> the term but since the issues are wider than mere sexual orientation it 
> is not applicable to these two issues.

But I am not the one who made it seem that simple, you can blame
that one on the government.

> > > 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 did not *know* for sure, hence the use of "I guess".

Okay, just letting you know.

> > I don't see why my belief
> > in God has anything to do with this.  
> 
> Possibly your incessant quotations from Leviticus in previous discussions 
> on similar topics :P

Yeah, a couple but the only reason I've done one recently is 'cause
you were askin' for it (literally).

> > I'm looking at the issues by
> > examining what causes it (Again, I believe a gene causes people to
> > be more prone to it, 
> 
> You discounted this theory completely in the last discussion!

No, I always said it was a combination.

> > 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
> 
> They do not feel stricken. Terms like that are discriminating since it 
> highlights the difference. Comparing a natural process with an affliction 
> is exactly the kind of attitude that gets you the homophobic badge every 
> time.

Of course not all of them feel stricken (because society's too tolerant
of it) but that does not change it.

> > could be done about it, etc.  
> 
> Nothing need be done about it. If they are happy and people can let them 
> be, so be it. 
>
> > 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?
> 
> We have done drugs to death. (No pun intended). 
> 
> The drugs issue is very different to homosexuality and to bestiality, to 
> incest and whatever you wish to bring up next. 
> 
> A sexual relationship between two people is quite natural. The use of 
> processed chemicals to "get high" seems unnecessary. It seems a shame 
> that we have reached this stage of evolution yet now want to escape all 
> our achievements by pumping chemicals through our body until it doesn't 
> really matter any more.
> 
> If we put the same effort/money into improving our lives that we do into 
> creating ways to escape reality and destruction, I think we would be much 
> further along. 

You dodged the question, do you feel it is right for them to be 
stopped (even though they don't feel "afflicted" either) from having
a good time?

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