Posted on 10/10/2003 1:48:17 AM PDT by kattracks
Well, hey, why stop there? Let's forget about anything we've learned since the good old days. Why don't we teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Prior to 1632 the world considered that to be the gospel truth (literally). The church finally came around to exonerating Galileo for his audacious theory in 1992. Prior to 1892, most of the U.S. didn't consider Afican-Americans to be biologically human. They considered them to be on par with a dog or a mule.
Why don't we just go back, huh?
Sorry, that doesn't seem to make much sense. We're all "filtered out" eventually. We all die, unless you have some secret immortality you're not telling us about.
What about people who don't have children either by choice or by inability? Are they somehow an abomination also?
I'm sure you think this Darwinian argument is so very persuasive, but trying looking objectively. It's really a very weak argument.
Say what. Catholic priests are mentally disordered? Also nuns. Mother Therese was and the Pope himself?
you->Sorry, that doesn't seem to make much sense. We're all "filtered out" eventually. We all die, unless you have some secret immortality you're not telling us about.
We are talking about the gene pool here. If I die without having children (preserving my genes) then I have filtered myself out of the gene pool. Since homosexual behavior has no chance of passing on the genes of the participants it is a behavior that effectively filters the practitioners of that behavior from the gene pool.
What about people who don't have children either by choice or by inability? Are they somehow an abomination also?
They are simply removing themselves (their genes actually) from the pool. Who said anything about abomination here?
The original point of the discussion was that 'homosexuality' is a mental disease, as is any 'sexual preference' that does not have a chance of producing children (necrophilia, beastiality etc)
Of course we should take your word on this and not listen to those silly medical associations who say it isn't. What do they know.I then provided a statement from a gay activist [Simon Levay] who said the APAs decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental disease was the result of "Gay activism". It certainly wasn't the result of new scientific research.
When lefthanded folks start asking for rights based on their behavior of using their left hand, when the use of their left hand can spread a deadly disease to innocents though the blood supply, perhaps then we can discuss your statement.
All the facts and research state the major factor in determining homosexuality is environment. Homosexuality behavior is a choice and having realized this, thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle.
Until recently gays were pressed to "act straight" and so far as to marry and have children.
If it becomes so acceptable to fully live the homosexual lifestyle that they NEVER get married or have children THEN in a few generations homosexuality will fade away. That is only if it is genetic.
So basically...
1. If homosexuality is a choice, and there is no genetic component, there is no basis for "gay rights."
or
2. If homosexuality is a genetic "defect," letting it be fully expressed will eventually lead to it fading away.
Sounds like a "win-win" proposition to me...
If they keep it a private matter as they keep screaming that it is (all the while conducting those silly gay pride parades), then there's no problem. When they demand that I 'accept' it as normal, they they have a problem.
I thought schools existed to give the students some education.
Ostensibly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.