🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <AKHy2.1434$pE6.2564@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99@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.

Same to you. BTW I'm Mark not Jack :P

> > > 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?  

I imagine nothing to date to be correct. We will never know. I guess you 
can ask when you get to meet the originator ;)

> Granted, it's unfortunate
> that there were more than one version but I don't think it was dealt
> with in the correct manner.

Maybe they should have had an addendum/footnotes specifying that certain 
parts should not be taken as accurate since they were an "educated 
guess".

> > 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)

However, the bias only comes through when there are blanks to fill.

> > 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."

I answered the original supposition. 

> > > > > 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.

In which case the terms are synonymous. So what was my "incessant" 
reference then?

> > 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.

"No, I always said it was a combination." is what you said.

> The fact remains that a gene alone could not account for
> homosexuality, bestiality, alcoholism, or anything else.

It can and does. 

Have you ever known a homosexual? Talked with them? 

> Okay, I just wanted to make sure your stance on this was the same.

I am not in the habit of shifting "stance". If this was your intention 
then maybe you soul have asked if my feelings had changed rather than try 
to trap me into something.

> 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.

But the current discussion is not about their feelings but about how they 
are perceived by others. Two murderers might find killing people fun. 
That does not make it acceptable.

-- 
Mark