Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

[Guest guest]

Because it appears that this syndrome affects learning and cognitive ability.

I'm thinking that the ability to do and understand math uses a part of the brain

that isn't affected by this syndrome. But, it doesn't mean these people will be

great in math, as a large majority of them, have a lower IQ for some reason.

jafa

" bellasol.organics " <bellasol.organics@...> wrote:

Jafa, why is it *interesting* that men with Kleinfelders Syndrome

don't appear to have much of a problem with math?

Jan

>

> Some may find it interesting that there is a condition called

Kleinfelders Syndrome. This is where a male has an extra x

chromosome. xxy, instead of xy. This is more common than you would

think. 1 out of 700. The clinical findings are very low levels of

testosterone, higher levels of estrogen, infertility (no sperm to

malformed sperm-possibly some normal sperm), breast tissue in some,

decreased muscle gain, laziness and lethargy, social problems

(because of decreased cognitive development and language abilities -

including reading, writing and expression). Many are diagnosed as

ADD, as they tend to not understand and phrase out during

instruction. Math doesn't appear to be as much of a problem, which

is interesting. ...>

> jafa

>

---------------------------------

Never miss an email again!

Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

" " :

>>Actually, looking at the dictionary....bigotry applies to

intolerance in matters of religion, race, and politics. It says

nothing about homosexuality<<

It apparently says nothing about blindness either. I am so glad I am

not a Christian. Look what it has done: " It says nothing about

homosexuality " , thus the implication: judgmentalism toward ~gays~

cannot be bigotry. Such sneaky self-justification and ignorance of

the vice of Pride.

What a sad country this is.

[Guest guest]

Tim,

by all means dude...don't take out the parts you want to use....I'm not

judgmental...if you read the " entire " email...some of my best friends are gay.

The way I see it...that is their business..not mine. please.....don't take it

out of context. And I'm glad to be an American..and a Christian. I don't think

I'm the " blind " person here.....I don't condone any attacks on anyone...for any

reason....even religious reasons.

!!

Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

" " :

>>Actually, looking at the dictionary....bigotry applies to

intolerance in matters of religion, race, and politics. It says

nothing about homosexuality<<

It apparently says nothing about blindness either. I am so glad I am

not a Christian. Look what it has done: " It says nothing about

homosexuality " , thus the implication: judgmentalism toward ~gays~

cannot be bigotry. Such sneaky self-justification and ignorance of

the vice of Pride.

What a sad country this is.

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Tim " <friarslantern@...>

> " " :

> >>Actually, looking at the dictionary....bigotry applies to

> intolerance in matters of religion, race, and politics. It says

> nothing about homosexuality<<

>

> It apparently says nothing about blindness either. I am so glad I am

> not a Christian. Look what it has done: " It says nothing about

> homosexuality " , thus the implication: judgmentalism toward ~gays~

> cannot be bigotry. Such sneaky self-justification and ignorance of

> the vice of Pride.

>

> What a sad country this is.

>

>

Indeed....plus - dictionaries report on usage. If a dictionary does not include

sexual preference in that list, it is incorrect. Well, I can't put it better

than 'sneaky self-justification'. Nice.

[Guest guest]

I imagine they had blond hair and blue eyes too.

>

> LOl...sorry...I had to respond to this one...and yes it will

probably fuel the fires..however...my nearest relatives look nothing

like an ape....they had names..Adam and Eve....are the most distant

ones I have

>

> Re: Re: Homosexuality In Primitives

>

>

> Interestingly though Bonobo apes which are our nearest relatives

practice all

> types of sexuality including homosexuality>>

>

> " Our nearest relatives " , huh? Well...following that line

of " reasoning " (or,

> relevance)...then to find the HomoSexxed practiced in a human

would signal a

> .

>

> .

>

>

[Guest guest]

If you believe that bigotry does not apply to categories

beyond " religion, race and politics " -- and nothing else, then, I'd

say, I'm not taking ~anything~ out of context. Dude.

>

> Tim,

> by all means dude...don't take out the parts you want to use....I'm

not judgmental...if you read the " entire " email...some of my best

friends are gay. The way I see it...that is their business..not

mine. please.....don't take it out of context. And I'm glad to be an

American..and a Christian. I don't think I'm the " blind " person

here.....I don't condone any attacks on anyone...for any

reason....even religious reasons.

>

> !!

> Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

>

>

> " " :

> >>Actually, looking at the dictionary....bigotry applies to

> intolerance in matters of religion, race, and politics. It says

> nothing about homosexuality<<

>

> It apparently says nothing about blindness either. I am so glad I

am

> not a Christian. Look what it has done: " It says nothing about

> homosexuality " , thus the implication: judgmentalism toward ~gays~

> cannot be bigotry. Such sneaky self-justification and ignorance

of

> the vice of Pride.

>

> What a sad country this is.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Which syndrome are you refering to, Kleinfelders or ADD? And why do

you think that syndrome affects the learning and cognitive ability?

> >

> > Some may find it interesting that there is a condition called

> Kleinfelders Syndrome. This is where a male has an extra x

> chromosome. xxy, instead of xy. This is more common than you

would

> think. 1 out of 700. The clinical findings are very low levels

of

> testosterone, higher levels of estrogen, infertility (no sperm to

> malformed sperm-possibly some normal sperm), breast tissue in

some,

> decreased muscle gain, laziness and lethargy, social problems

> (because of decreased cognitive development and language

abilities -

> including reading, writing and expression). Many are diagnosed as

> ADD, as they tend to not understand and phrase out during

> instruction. Math doesn't appear to be as much of a problem,

which

> is interesting. ...>

> > jafa

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Never miss an email again!

> Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it

out.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Why is it perfectly acceptable to call people who think differently

> and are more creative Attention Deficit *DISORDER*, and look for all

> kinds of chemical and nutritional causes, and then drug millions of

> children and adults because they don't *fit-in

ADD can change quite dramatically with different nutrition. To the

point of symptoms disappearing at least in the families I have met

where the kids have cleaned up the food and gained focus etc off meds.

Every single person I've met who resists the disorder label has 1) been

diagnosed while still eating whatever they like, ie

whites/sugars/alcohol/additives/processed, and 2) wants to keep using

same.

I do believe that there is different wiring. But to diagnose it when

the food is adulterated - you don't get a clean picture of what is

caused by food and what might be independent of that. I suspect it's a

multiply effect - there is a germ of truth and what you eat FUBARs it.

Connie

[Guest guest]

Kleinfelders. From what I've read, they (researchers, M.D's) don't know why a

genetic defect like this affects brain functioning. They also don't know why it

is worse in some of these people and not others.

" bellasol.organics " <bellasol.organics@...> wrote:

Which syndrome are you refering to, Kleinfelders or ADD? And why do

you think that syndrome affects the learning and cognitive ability?

> >

> > Some may find it interesting that there is a condition called

> Kleinfelders Syndrome. This is where a male has an extra x

> chromosome. xxy, instead of xy. This is more common than you

would

> think. 1 out of 700. The clinical findings are very low levels

of

> testosterone, higher levels of estrogen, infertility (no sperm to

> malformed sperm-possibly some normal sperm), breast tissue in

some,

> decreased muscle gain, laziness and lethargy, social problems

> (because of decreased cognitive development and language

abilities -

> including reading, writing and expression). Many are diagnosed as

> ADD, as they tend to not understand and phrase out during

> instruction. Math doesn't appear to be as much of a problem,

which

> is interesting. ...>

> > jafa

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Never miss an email again!

> Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it

out.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> If we approach this from a scientific point of view...and grant

> you..I'm no scientist, the female body is designed to " fit " the

> male body. Anything outside of that would be considered

> " abnormal " .

That's an absurd, arbitrary judgment that I hope no real scientist

would ever make or try to pass off as scientific. There is nothing

inherent about the physical fit or even the reproductive capability of

male and female genitalia that precludes their use in context with

other objects and/or body parts. It's like saying the mouth is

designed for the intake and chewing of food, the formation of speech,

and breathing, and any other use of the mouth is considered

" abnormal " . Therefore, kissing, among many other things, is abnormal

deviant behavior.

It is very common in discussions about homosexuality for people to use

teleological arguments, i.e., appeals to design. And, without fail,

those arguments against homosexuality lack intellectual robustness

because the actual design features are not fully considered.

The " sex is for procreation, therefore homosexual activity is wrong "

argument fails to consider the actual biological design of human

sexuality. Human males, in general, are receptive to sexual activity

all the time. And, human female receptiveness to sexual activity is

not restricted to the time around ovulation, as is the case with many

other species. Clearly, in the human design, sexual activity is not

meant solely for procreation. And, in fact, most human sexual activity

is not procreative. The multi-purpose design of human sexuality

carries no inherent bias against homosexual activity.

Another common teleological argument is " the anus is not designed for

sex " . The validity of that argument relies on a failure to consider

the actual design features, like the huge number of erogenous nerve

endings in that area and the particularly well-designed location of

the prostate in men.

[Guest guest]

I was watching a doctor on Oprah the other day and they were talking about women

who shave themselves below. I have no idea why anyone would want to do that but

none the less. The doctor said that our hair down there kept in the oils and

pheromones. Which attracts the opposite sex.

Here is an interesting article on pheromones:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/women/9906/25/sexuality.scent/

I found a site that talks about how gay men's sexual response to male pheromones

is simular to straight women. And it even went on to say how gay males respond

to other gay male's scents.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050510_pheremones.html

So there has to be a hormonal component to this I would think. And that gay men

react to this sexual stimulous the same way a female does, I still think there

is some sort of estrogenic influence going on.

I did post another that must have gotten deleted about gays having a much higher

depression and or suicide rate than those of heterosexual males. Even in New

Zealand where homosexuality is not discouraged.

Have they ever done tests on what happens to the brains of gay men who undergo

sex change and actually take estrogen to make them look more femine? I wonder

if they are less prone to depression than those who don't.

Lorie

[Guest guest]

,

Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you

protective of your own sexual orientation? But IT IS COMMON SENSE

that sex is meant between a man and a woman. If we all went " homo " ,

our species would die off. It is abnormal because if we all did it we

COULDN'T REPRODUCE. One man, one woman, the perfect fit.

> That's an absurd, arbitrary judgment that I hope no real scientist

> would ever make or try to pass off as scientific. There is nothing

> inherent about the physical fit or even the reproductive capability

of

> male and female genitalia that precludes their use in context with

> other objects and/or body parts. It's like saying the mouth is

> designed for the intake and chewing of food, the formation of

speech,

> and breathing, and any other use of the mouth is considered

> " abnormal " . Therefore, kissing, among many other things, is abnormal

> deviant behavior.

>

> It is very common in discussions about homosexuality for people to

use

> teleological arguments, i.e., appeals to design. And, without fail,

> those arguments against homosexuality lack intellectual robustness

> because the actual design features are not fully considered.

>

> The " sex is for procreation, therefore homosexual activity is wrong "

> argument fails to consider the actual biological design of human

> sexuality. Human males, in general, are receptive to sexual activity

> all the time. And, human female receptiveness to sexual activity is

> not restricted to the time around ovulation, as is the case with

many

> other species. Clearly, in the human design, sexual activity is not

> meant solely for procreation. And, in fact, most human sexual

activity

> is not procreative. The multi-purpose design of human sexuality

> carries no inherent bias against homosexual activity.

>

> Another common teleological argument is " the anus is not designed

for

> sex " . The validity of that argument relies on a failure to consider

> the actual design features, like the huge number of erogenous nerve

> endings in that area and the particularly well-designed location of

> the prostate in men.

>

[Guest guest]

Excellent points, . ~Thank you~.

Tim Reeves

> >

> > If we approach this from a scientific point of view...and grant

> > you..I'm no scientist, the female body is designed to " fit " the

> > male body. Anything outside of that would be considered

> > " abnormal " .

>

> That's an absurd, arbitrary judgment that I hope no real scientist

> would ever make or try to pass off as scientific. There is nothing

> inherent about the physical fit or even the reproductive capability

of

> male and female genitalia that precludes their use in context with

> other objects and/or body parts. It's like saying the mouth is

> designed for the intake and chewing of food, the formation of

speech,

> and breathing, and any other use of the mouth is considered

> " abnormal " . Therefore, kissing, among many other things, is abnormal

> deviant behavior.

>

> It is very common in discussions about homosexuality for people to

use

> teleological arguments, i.e., appeals to design. And, without fail,

> those arguments against homosexuality lack intellectual robustness

> because the actual design features are not fully considered.

>

> The " sex is for procreation, therefore homosexual activity is wrong "

> argument fails to consider the actual biological design of human

> sexuality. Human males, in general, are receptive to sexual activity

> all the time. And, human female receptiveness to sexual activity is

> not restricted to the time around ovulation, as is the case with

many

> other species. Clearly, in the human design, sexual activity is not

> meant solely for procreation. And, in fact, most human sexual

activity

> is not procreative. The multi-purpose design of human sexuality

> carries no inherent bias against homosexual activity.

>

> Another common teleological argument is " the anus is not designed

for

> sex " . The validity of that argument relies on a failure to consider

> the actual design features, like the huge number of erogenous nerve

> endings in that area and the particularly well-designed location of

> the prostate in men.

>

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " jesusfirst369 " <jesusfirst369@...>

> ,

> Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you

> protective of your own sexual orientation?

You are one nasty individual, and I'm very glad that you are being called out on

it.

A person can publicly defend the rights of homosexuals to be treated like human

beings without being homosexual (I'm not, for instance), just as they can defend

the rights of women, or whomever.

>But IT IS COMMON SENSE

> that sex is meant between a man and a woman. If we all went " homo " ,

> our species would die off.

Can you really be this, uh, ignorant? If we were all women, the species would

die off also. Whether the species would survive if we were all a particular way

isn't an argument that if some people are that way, they are abnormal, deviant,

or evil in any way.

What we really have here is an ignorant person who is using their religions as

a pretext for their own hatred and superstition. It stinks, and if you post to a

public forum which I am on, I will most certainly call you to task for it.

By the way - I hope you " go homo " .

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: <jesusfirst369@...>

> ,

> To interpret homosexuality you have to base your ideas on

preconceived

> notions. If you believe in the evolution religion, and,therefore, that we are

> highly evolved monkeys, then, of course, homosexual behavior is just animal

> instinct. But if you believe that we are a special creation of God, then our

> Creator meant for there to be one man and one woman. You seem to be basing

your

> point-of-view on the evolution religion. Thats fine. But thats your RELIGION.

I

> personally can't see how any man could deviate from having sexual intercourse

> with anyone other than a woman, the most gorgeous " creatures " on the planet,

> unless there was some kind of mental problem. But I have no " scientific proof "

> that they have a mental problem; I'll admit that. I believe the Bible ( " my

> primitive text " ) and therefore it says that homosexuals have a spiritual

> problem. I believe that. Science can't prove or disprove that. It's outside

the

> realm of the spiritual. Thanks for your time.

>

Well, I have no scientific proof that you have a mental problem either....

[Guest guest]

Yeah this is the kind of crap im talking about.

People twisting other's words and immature

name calling.

Kindly please take my name off this list.

thank you.

-Lovely

> >>I reread your previous post and I'm comfortable with what I wrote.>>

>

>

> Cool. Im comfortable with what i wrote too.

>

> Jane

>

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " kilroy " <kilroy@...>

> Ummm - who has suggested anything like 'pc' here? I think, and it's

> > really a

> > > very simple position - that people who consider homosexuals to be

> > > degenerates, and abnormal, are classic bigots, no different than

> > people who

> > > consider blacks, women, jews, whomever, to be inferior. What about

> > this do

> > > you disagree with?

>

> Being black, women, jews or whomever isn't a choice. I don't see the

> connection.

> Lorie

>

Really? Well, why would someone choose to be a homosexual, given the stigma

attached to it, and given the level of ignorance that still exists in this

society...manifest so blatantly on this list? Why would anyone CHOOSE to be

someone who is so reviled by people like you? I just have to laugh at garbage

like this, and people like you.

[Guest guest]

Jan,

> Hormones are a large part of our sexuality, sexual behavior, and

> attraction (Do we need citations on this?). Of course one would

> suspect that hormones will have an impact on sexual behavior,

> heterosexual or homosexual. I would like to see just one study that

> concludes that hormones do NOT have any effect at all on sexual

> behavior.

No one is disputing this. High estrogen and deficient testosterone

probably causes gynecomastia and impotence in gay men just like it

does in straight ones.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 2/16/07, jesusfirst369 <jesusfirst369@...> wrote:

> Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you

> protective of your own sexual orientation? But IT IS COMMON SENSE

> that sex is meant between a man and a woman. If we all went " homo " ,

> our species would die off. It is abnormal because if we all did it we

> COULDN'T REPRODUCE. One man, one woman, the perfect fit.

Our species would die out if we all became celibate priests too.

Didn't St. wish that all could be chaste, but allowed that

marriage was good, to save them from burning with passion?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Lorie,

> I found a site that talks about how gay men's sexual response to male

> pheromones is simular to straight women. And it even went on to say how gay

> males respond to other gay male's scents.

> http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050510_pheremones.html

> So there has to be a hormonal component to this I would think.

A more logical interpretation would be that there is a brain chemistry

component specifically related to the receptors and interpretors of

pheremones.

> And that gay

> men react to this sexual stimulous the same way a female does, I still think

> there is some sort of estrogenic influence going on.

What is your evidence that estrogen levels determine reactions to

pheremones? Wouldn't it be much more direct evidence to show that gay

men have higher estrogen levels?

> I did post another that must have gotten deleted about gays having a much

> higher depression and or suicide rate than those of heterosexual males.

> Even in New Zealand where homosexuality is not discouraged.

> Have they ever done tests on what happens to the brains of gay men who

> undergo sex change and actually take estrogen to make them look more femine?

> I wonder if they are less prone to depression than those who don't.

If they did, how would you interpret this vis-a-vis the hormonal cause

of homosexuality?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I'm sure they have no problem either...the only problem is that where they put

their frontward parts, is in the exit hole for the wastes that the body

produces. In response to your stating that I'm the greater abomination in His

eyes...if He existed........I haven't judged anyone...other than your

remarks...lol........your taking things out of context. In today's

world...going to church and believing in a living God is considered

abnormal....and abnormality I gloriously will acknowledge. It is so hilarious

that when one makes a statement about a person's sexual preference...if they are

in fact a homosexual....they are called homophobic. When it is within the realm

of facts....they are still called homophobic...or in your case.. " bigots " . If

you look at the reproduction system of our bodies...it takes a male phallus with

semen to enter into a woman who carries the eggs..to reproduce. Anything

outside of that....is abnormal...even down to in-vitro fertilization. Why do

people feel uncomfortable when someone makes a comment about it being abnormal?

As far as your comment about judging people by God's laws...I've mad no such

comment.....you have me confused with someone else. Would you say that such a

comment as that is considered " bigoted " ?

Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

>

>

>

>

> ³Dang...Gene....MANY things we do in life are judgments.²

>

> Well, Dang ­ how in the world are you interpreting anything I say as

> disagreeing with that. However, the point was made that the discussion was

> scientific, and I pointed out that, no, because of certain presuppositions

and

> terminology, people were being judged. And there is a term for people who

> judge blacks/women/jews/homosexuals negatively because of who they are.

> Obigot¹.

>

> ³If we choose one thing over another thing..even simple things like the

> color of a shirt we are going to wear..it is a judgment. If we approach this

> from a scientific point of view...and grant you..I'm no scientist, the

female

> body is designed to " fit " the male body. Anything outside of that would be

> considered " abnormal " . ³

>

> You are clearly a student of science. Actually, this is pretty hilarious.

So,

> for instance, going to church would be considered ³abnormal²

>

> ³ I think it is unfair that a man cannot experience the " joys " of

childbirth.

> But, on that same note...if a man were to conceive..that would be

" abnormal " .

> We live in a world full of " abnormalities " that is the way it is. ³

>

> You know, I am not a homosexual myself, but I trust that homosexuals who do

> practice their craft don¹t have a problem in fitting their bodies to one

> another. I do enjoy that you feel so justified in judging people by god¹s

law.

> I¹d say that you are the one who is the abomination in his eyes, that is if

he

> existed.

>

> ³ I don't see how you can justify calling someone a " bigot " simply because

> they disagree with your thoughts. ³

>

> I¹d agree with that statement and obviously I don¹t call someone a bigot

> simply because they disagree with my thoughts. I do call someone a bigot

when

> they express sentiments that are, well, bigoted.

>

> ³ I applaud Jane...I think she makes a very good statement. You have a

> liberal point of view...and that is ok. Others on here have a more

> conservative point of view, and that is ok.²

>

> At one point in time, what you say here could have been applied to

> discrimination against black people. Sure ­ on one level these were based on

> differences of opinion, but the attitudes were bigoted.

>

> ³While others...will jump at the opportunity to debase and offend others

> because they disagree with them. This is an open board, and no one...should

> be calling others names. Actually, looking at the dictionary....bigotry

> applies to intolerance in matters of religion, race, and politics. It says

> nothing about homosexuality. This may actually shock you, but I have many

> friends who are homosexuals, and some are even my best friends....I might

> add...and I am a Bible believing born again Christian.

> It is no crime for someone to voice their opinion, and they should be

allowed

> to do so without being attacked. ³

>

> If you voice bigoted hateful sentiments, and you cloak them in superstition,

> you¹re a bigot, and I am totally justified in calling you on it if you do it

> in a public forum.

[Guest guest]

,

> To interpret homosexuality you have to base your ideas on

> preconceived notions. If you believe in the evolution religion,

> and,therefore, that we are highly evolved monkeys, then, of course,

> homosexual behavior is just animal instinct. But if you believe that we are

> a special creation of God, then our Creator meant for there to be one man

> and one woman. You seem to be basing your point-of-view on the evolution

> religion. Thats fine. But thats your RELIGION.

Ah, then your belief is based on religious doctrine rather than common

sense. You'd have saved yourself some trouble if you'd have said " It

is simply a matter of RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE that men are meant to have

sex with women, " rather than the formulation you chose.

> I personally can't see how

> any man could deviate from having sexual intercourse with anyone other than

> a woman, the most gorgeous " creatures " on the planet, unless there was some

> kind of mental problem. But I have no " scientific proof " that they have a

> mental problem; I'll admit that. I believe the Bible ( " my primitive text " )

> and therefore it says that homosexuals have a spiritual problem. I believe

> that. Science can't prove or disprove that. It's outside the realm of the

> spiritual. Thanks for your time.

Do you really consider it a " mental " choice to be sexually attracted

to women? I consider it a mental operation to read a book or write an

article, but I find getting aroused at the site of a woman to be a

different phenomenon. Maybe you meant to say they have a defect of

sexual arousal?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>

> ,

> Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you

> protective of your own sexual orientation?

As I mentioned in another post in this thread, yes, I am a gay man.

> But IT IS COMMON SENSE that sex is meant between a man and a

> woman. If we all went " homo " , our species would die off. It

> is abnormal because if we all did it we COULDN'T REPRODUCE.

> One man, one woman, the perfect fit.

All you're doing there is extrapolating out to a ridiculous and

unrealistic extreme and basing your judgment on that. One can just as

easily condemn bus drivers because if everyone were a bus driver,

there'd be no one to grow our food, and humanity would starve to

death. It is therefore COMMON SENSE that bus drivers are evil!

From a rational and realistic perspective, it is clear that survival

of our species does not require that every individual human reproduce.

That a few percent of humans, for whatever reason, do not reproduce

has done absolutely nothing to hinder our success as a species.

Additionally, homosexuality does not equate sterility. There are lots

of homosexual men and women who have taken part in procreation, and

not always via heterosexual coitus.

[Guest guest]

Lorie,

> Being black, women, jews or whomever isn't a choice. I don't see the

> connection.

Being born of Semitic decent is not a choice, but practicing the

Jewish religion is certainly both a choice and a behavior.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " " <bible770@...>

> I'm sure they have no problem either...the only problem is that where they put

> their frontward parts, is in the exit hole for the wastes that the body

> produces. In response to your stating that I'm the greater abomination in His

> eyes...if He existed........I haven't judged anyone...other than your

> remarks...lol........your taking things out of context. In today's

> world...going to church and believing in a living God is considered

> abnormal....and abnormality I gloriously will acknowledge. It is so hilarious

> that when one makes a statement about a person's sexual preference...if they

are

> in fact a homosexual....they are called homophobic. When it is within the

realm

> of facts....they are still called homophobic...or in your case.. " bigots " . If

> you look at the reproduction system of our bodies...it takes a male phallus

with

> semen to enter into a woman who carries the eggs..to reproduce. Anything

> outside of that....is abnormal...even down to in-vitro fertilization. Why do

> people feel uncomfortable when someone makes a comment about it being

abnormal?

> As far as your comment about judging people by God's laws...I've mad no such

> comment.....you have me confused with someone else. Would you say that such a

> comment as that is considered " bigoted " ?

>

I'm not going to play any more. If you post something that is blatantly bigoted,

I'll comment. If not, I won't. But I don't see you as having the slightest

inclination to educate yourself outside of your narrow minded biblical

reference point, so it's silly.