🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ePGy2.1416$pE6....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
> > > 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.

I hardly think that to be correct.

> 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.

But surely there is only one true interpretation anyway. Having various 
versions of the text merely serves to confuse while allowing fringe 
groups to rewrite parts to adapt to their own moral codes. 

Besides, not one version has yet been complete since there are terms 
within the original text whose meaning is lost in history. Each 
translator places his own interpretation in these places thereby lending 
a specific context to the text.

> > > 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...

Yes, I would have a problem with them. First amendment. (assuming it 
covers freedom of choice as well as freedom of speech, otherwise feel 
free to correct)

> > > 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.

Role playing :)

I have already explained that I am all for consentual sex. This covers 
all forms.

> > > 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).

I hardly think the two compare. You would have done better to compare 
with neutering since that has no real benefit for the animal in question 
unless it is performed for medical reasons.

> > > 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.

Oh, you mean Christians. ;)

> > > 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.

I thought I was talking to you not the Government ;)

> > > 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).

Yeah I know, I was referring to the earlier articles in "Happy 
Thanksgiving" and it's children. That is what started the whole God thing 
anyway.

> > > 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.

Took some finding, but ...

[Alex]
> > Well i can remember the details exactly, because it doesn't really interest
> > me, but i do know that scientists are pretty sure that they've isolated a
> > certain gene which always appears in homosexuals, but they haven't found out
> > what the precise identifier is on that gene which makes a person homosexual. 
> > The biological lingo in there is probably wrong, but that's the gist of it.
[Kombat]
> They only reached that conclusion cuz they wanted to.  
> The evidence was set up 
> for them to get the desired conclusion.  

Very little mention of combination there. You relented some in later 
discussions so obviously your choice of "always" above is a long way from 
the mark.

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

Society is not tolerant enough otherwise we would not be having this 
conversation.

> 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?

I was not dodging, I pointed out we have done this already. Since you 
insist on going over old ground : Quick answer, yes. Long answer - search 
Dejanews, we have done this already!

-- 
Mark