Hi, I like the part about the Duck.
My friend in Kansas email my this. He said Kansas is about to vote on this constitutional amendment.
He ask for help on a poll.
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended to define marriage and civil unions as between one man and one woman only? Poll ends friday.
http://www.hdnews.net/
This headline would be really funny (albeit redundant) in Spanish.
BTTT!
Good letter and it looks like a good website starting up.
Good fortune to you folks. I passed the link to a few folks.
Even with this argument it still doesn't appear that gays chose to be that way. I do subscribe to this idea though, I would imagine their relationships with their parents would cause them to gravitate towards one sex or the other. But still it isn't a choice they made, they just feel more comfortable around one of their own sex.
I had some friends in Denver that raised rabbits and Pekinese dogs for sale. Both were allowed out in their large fenced backyard. Everyone of their puppies would start to run and then end up hopping across the yard after about one or two steps. One of the funniest things I ever saw. The dogs hopped like bunnies when they ran for the rest of their lives.
I like the duck analogy. I'll have to use it next time I talk to one of my crazy liberal friends (few and far between- can't stand talking to most liberals.)
So is dropping the soap in the shower.
:-)
ping
They quit the debate because they realized they were dealing with a moron.
Believe me, no one was "disarmed" by the author's comparing homosexuality to a duckling "imprinting" on a human, rendering it forever "stunted" in its growth to mature duckhood.
Of course, this could be intended as satire on imbecile arguments, in which case forgive me for not getting the humor right away.
***"There was no 'choice'........there was never any question........my gravitation towards the opposite sex occured as naturally as breathing air. Now for yourself, 'something' occured that interfered with your natural 'gravitational' process towards the opposite sex and manhood that, in effect, stunted it in much the same way as a baby duck can have its natural progression towards becoming a mature duck interfered ...***
During research at a local university library I came upon an interesting story.
During WW11 doctors examined a rather "strange" soldier who was NOT homosexual. He had been born so far back in the hills that he had never seen a woman. His mother died when he was born. He only lived around MEN yet was not homo.
When, after he was drafted, he saw women he was not affected in any way, yet he WAS turned on when he saw a cow.
No more needs to be said yet this is a true story. I just wish I remembered what book it was in.
I told him I thought homosexuality was aberrant behavior. Stopped him cold.
WOW excellent analogy!!! Excellent!
In a contentious debate between myself and some radical 'gays' who support the teaching of the 'gay' lifestyle to children one of them asked me if and when I had 'chosen' to be heterosexual. "Was it at age 3, 6, 13, 19?" he asked, "Or did you (a female) just 'naturally' gravitate towards boys or men without any outside pressure or force?"
One wonders, what question would "non-radical" gays ask, or what other proof is there of the radicalism of the "some" who asked this question? And if there is none, what point is there of the word "radical"? And what sense does it make for these "radicals" who allegedly "teach children the gay lifestyle" when the whole point of their question is that people are not taught their lifestyle, neither would they choose it.
This question, laden with implied meaning, is a favorite tactical 'trap' set by 'gays' for unsuspecting and unprepared heterosexuals. It plays upon and manipulates our consciences so as to cause us to feel guilty; it lures us into setting aside logic and reason and calls upon us to be led by emotion; it purposefully lends itself to creating confusion. Its' underlying premise is that 'gay' behavior is the result of 'orientation', a meaningless, nonsensical term meant to fool us into believing in the existence of a hitherto unheard of third gender or race.
The author here begins to beg the question, which means she assumes as her argument the conclusion which she reaches. The question -- according to her -- is a trap, manipulative, and designed to create confusion. In other words, there is no need to answer the question, because the motives of the questioner are bad, and the motives are bad because the questioners are wrong and the author is right. Otherwise, why not answer the question, which, you will observe, the author never does? One wonders what the next question might have been, if the author had answered the first, but we never get that far because the author's basic premise is that she is right and they are wrong.
It is also amusing that the author alludes to a "hitherto unheard of third gender or race." I guess this means she disagrees with the folks in this thread who assign to homosexuals the role of undermining various civilizations for thousands of years. Or has she not heard of that?
Thus we are coaxed into concluding that 'gayness' and heterosexuality must be the same and therefore 'gayness' is deserving of 'inclusion, sensitivity, and rights.' This is nothing but a cleverly crafted fable, but to dissent against it is to be guilty of hate, 'homophobia,' bigotry, and racism.
ANYONE who concludes that "gayness" and heterosexuality "must be the same" has fundamental problems with logic. Maybe the author is easily coaxed. The question is not whether they are the same, they arent, but whether heterosexuals, qua heterosexuals, are moral, and homosexuals, qua homosexuals, are immoral. The point of the original question was: if heterosexuality is "moral" to you, because it is natural to you, then why isnt homosexuality moral to those who deem it not a matter of choice, but as natural as heterosexuals deem their romantic, sexual, caring, friendly desires?
My response, just below, seemingly disarmed them and after calling me a few obligatory names, they quit the debate. "There was no 'choice'........there was never any question........my gravitation towards the opposite sex occured as naturally as breathing air.
I realize that no Christian on this board has had the open-mindedness or understanding to reach this far, but if anyone else has, pay attention. The author's sexuality was as natural as breathing air. She doesnt tell us why we should believe that. LISTEN: she doesnt tell us why we should believe that. We have to take her word for that. She may be a radical lesbian who is lying to us, or who has duped herself, or who is frightened by the hatred toward radical lesbians. Personally, I believe her, but I have no evidence to back me up. I believe her, out of respect for her, and on the theory that people have zero incentive to misrepresent their sexuality, all things being even.
Now for yourself, 'something' occured that interfered with your natural 'gravitational' process towards the opposite sex and manhood that, in effect, stunted it in much the same way as a baby duck can have its natural progression towards becoming a mature duck interfered with and stunted. This usually occurs when a human causes the chick to imprint upon the human rather than upon an adult duck.
This is a mysterious statement. The author is saying that sexuality is gravatational, natural, a process, subject to imprinting. She is saying that it is not innate. She is saying that the air you breath is both natural and gravitational. The little baby chicks can be imprinted to think they are not chicks, but human. Oh, the horror for those chicks! And the reprehensible consequences for chickenhood! And the utter ruin for the other chickens who are taught by radical humanized chicks that a human/chick lifestyle could or should be anything other than an immoral blot!
So does the 'interference' with natural progression make the baby duck into something other than a duck? That the chick seems to believe itself to be, and even tries to be human make it human in fact? Of course not. It's still a duck in every sense of what it means to be a duck. Just as you are still a heterosexual despite that you believe you are 'something else'.
So we see clearly what the author is saying. Homosexuals are heterosexuals, but homosexuals are immoral, even tho they are heterosexuals. Homosexuals are heterosexuals in "every sense" except for their immorality. A homosexual's belief in natural and unalterable homosexuality is immoral and gravely mistaken, a heterosexual's belief in heterosexuality as natural as breathing air and moral. And a chick is stunted in its natural growth toward duckhood by being imprinted, just as a homosexual is stunted by some vague unmentioned process the author refrains from specifying.
Should duck society and the laws of nature by which that society exists be overturned and forced to become upside-down in order to accomodate improperly imprinted ducks? Of course not. That would be insane. Just as it is dangerously insane for "improperly imprinted" human beings to demand that heterosexual society and the laws of nature by which it needs to exist should be turned upside-down in order to accomodate them.
Man, I wish the Christians would have stuck around for this one. But, predictably, they didnt and will have no answer. Nothing ... zero ... is required of human ducks to "accomodate" duck-ducks. Nothing is turned upside down. The natural air, for whatever reason, maybe the way a Creator intended, is breathed by all. Is there a single heterosexual man who can imagine passionately kissing another man? Or a homosexual woman? Let alone deciding to devote one's life to the opposite of what strikes the innermost chord?
What happened to the duck was wrong. What happened to you was not just wrong, but horribly tragic. However, for the greater good of our civilization, you and others like you should not be advocating that society, the innocence of childhood and the traditional family be swept aside and made to accept that "improper imprintation" is somehow a 'good' thing. Although you ardently wish to pretend otherwise, you do know deep down inside yourself that it isn't 'good', that it's incredibly morally wrong.
OMG ... the ultimate liberal false appeal ... it is for The Children. And, of course, EVERY REPUBLICAN KNOWS DEEP DOWN THAT BUSH IS HITLER. See what I mean? Anyone can say anything about anybody. Assertion is the argument of morons. Sorry ... not very bright people.
And homosexuals know that they are not only morally wrong, but "incredibly" morally wrong, as wrong as ... what? Burglars? Robbers? Nazis? Wow. How can anyone doubt that a group of radical homosexuals intent on teaching the homosexual lifestyle to children would have been disarmed and defeated by THAT argument?
What you should be doing.......for the GOOD of all mankind and most especially for children........is learning {gaining wisdom} from your suffering in order that you can PREVENT what happened to you from happening to other children. That would be not just love, but agape, the highest form of love........love that calls for self-sacrifice for the good of others.
Linda's personal experience is the standard for all mankind, most especially for the children. Homosexuals suffer ... Linda knows, based on her non-suffering heterosexuality ... there is no gay person who is happy or unhappy apart from being gay. They are little ducklings who actually realize they have fallen short of their full duckitude. If only they could breath they natural air Linda breaths. Lord knows, they do not share the same human experiences Linda has.
Linda Kimball
Oh wow... that is GOOOD!
A really crummy answer. The reason for asking the question is to blur the distinction between innate desire vs. chosen behavior, and she plays right into that.
The correct answer is yes, heterosexuals consciously choose to be heterosexual, and that occurs at the point where they willingly engage in sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex.