🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.113554469...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> 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.

Just the facts, Jack.

> > 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. 

Yes, but who's to say which one is correct?  Granted, it's unfortunate
that there were more than one version but I don't think it was dealt
with in the correct manner.

> 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.

Yes, this is unfortunate but it just has to be lived with (I doubt
there are any non-biased translators)

> > > > 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)

Nope, freedom of choice would be way to vague to include in there.
In the first amendment, there's free speech, religion, press,
assembly, and petition.  That's all.

Anyway, making something illegal would not violate any freedom
of choice clause if there was one.

> > > > 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.

I guess that's true.  That's done to keep the animal population in
check, but the point was "Suppose it were consential."

> > > > 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. ;)

Uh...  Catholics were the only Christians at that time.

> > > > 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.

I was referring to a specific situation there actually, not all.
The fact remains that a gene alone could not account for
homosexuality, bestiality, alcoholism, or anything else.

> > 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.

I could just as easily say if society were less tolerant we wouldn't
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!

Okay, I just wanted to make sure your stance on this was the same.
That way it might be easier for you to see why "Two people having
a good time" can still be a bad thing, even though they don't feel
like they're doing anything wrong.

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