From: John Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 11:25:50 EST
Rch wrote many things about my comment that my homosexual friends did not
choose their orientation. I reply to some of his comments.
>>Where is the proof that they did not choose?>>
"proof in an absolute sense is, of course, not possible. I accept their
testimony, on the basis that I accept them as good people, devout
>>You mean their genes make them have sex with one another? There is no
>>proof that homosexuality is innate. NONE. If there is, produce it. and
>>even if you could show that there is a tendency for ultra feminized males
>>to become homosexual, how do you account for men in prison who are forced
>>to become homosexual or boys who are raped and become homosexual
>>(Montgomery Clift comes to mind - if I'm not mistaken he was raped as a
>>boy and eventually killed himself). Did their genes cause them to be
There is no content in what you write to which I wish to respond.
>>How do you candy coat homosexual rape?>>
I do not. Rape is a crime, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
>>And how does it fit into the "homosexuality is a valid life style" thing?
It does not. Heterosexual rape also does not fit into a valid life style.
>>There is no scientific proof for what you are saying. >>
I have commented before on the rather silly concept of a "scientific proof."
>>>A healthy people does not condone homosexuality. Zoroastrians are against
>>>homosexuality precisely because it lowers birth rates. So are Orthodox
Those are three claims. Without grounds, they are simply opinions. Believe
them if you wish.
>>Do you believe these other religious communities are hateful and
Of course not. And the essay I posted by Roy Clements was a plea for
tolerance. That's something I have spent a lifetime advocating. I am even
(usually) tolerant of those who are intolerant. <G>
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 11:32:36 EST