[Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

[John W.]

Wayne, you're diggin' yourself a deeper and deeper hole, man.  Your
"reasoning" is based on Scripture much more than on biology, and a number of
folks on this list have made it clear that they don't subscribe to the Bible
as the ultimate repository of all Truth.  I know you do, but further
attempts to convince everyone else will be futile and will alienate you from
the rest of the group.  But what do I know?  Perhaps you WANT to be
alienated.

If I based my opinions only on Scripture, I would believe as you do.  I used
to believe as you do years ago.  But then I got to thinking a bit, or rather
looking around me and observing what was actually happening in the real
world.

My best "double-dating" buddy in high school turned out to be gay, and
eventually died of AIDS, one of the early casualties.  In high school he
dated girls, but he didn't really treat them the same way that other guys
treated girls.  He loved to dance, but mostly so that he could be admired
for his dancing skills.   He loved to look at himself in the mirror.  His
favorite activity with women was to sit and talk about fashion, hair styles,
makeup, etc.  At the time I thought he was a little odd compared to my other
male friends, but I had never even heard of homosexuality in those days.  I
was naive.  And he was my friend.

Eventually Marty got "turned out" by an older British gentleman, and ended
up living in San Francisco for quite a few years with male roommates.

Looking back, I can't IMAGINE that my friend Marty made a "choice", at age
13, to have those feminine characteristics.  It's clear to me that he was
born with a predilection to be gay.  And how can you hold someone morally
accountable for something that is not a choice?

You call yourself a biologist, and you say that homosexuality is an
aberration.  Let us try to reconcile seemingly disparate viewpoints.  Let us
suppose, just for the sake of argument, that something goes slightly awry in
the womb during the period of gestation, and more specifically during the
time of sexual development.  It is not inconceivable that the male fetus,
for whatever reason, receives slightly too much estrogen and not enough
testosterone.  For the female fetus it would be the reverse.  So they're
born with a slight imbalance of hormones, which would be sufficient to alter
their later gender attractions.  Is that not at least a biologically
feasible hypothesis?  And if it is, how can you hold the child/adult morally
accountable?

I note in passing that even my suggestion above will be utterly unacceptable
to some on this list.

I also note that you, Wayne, tend not to reply to my questions.  I wonder
why that is?  Am I simply too stupid for you?  Or could it be that you
recognize that I know what is in your mind and heart a little too well?
Just asking.



On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:26 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

As I recall, we got into this via a celebration of Obama "Getting it Right".
>
> 'Twas not I who brought up the issue of Homosexuality but I did offer my
> opinion
> once it was broached.  I think it was the rearing of children by
> homosexuals which I
> responded to, as that is definitely a case of the effect of adult behaviour
> negatively impacting children.
> Since the state is involved in legal adoptions, I would not favour the
> placement of adopted children
> or foster children into homosexual environments, nor into single parent
> homes, recognizing that
> some people I consider to be friends will disagree on this point.
> There are others, potentially enemies of the US, who view this society as
> decadent and they
> do seek to condemn and threaten this society and thus provide stimulus to
> our warmongers.  I did not suggest
> any particular action against homosexuals.  Finding the cause and treating
> the problem at its
> roots seems desirable as an option.  Some people in our society have even
> suggested capital punishment. I did not.  I do want to see a halt to the
> recruitment and promotion of homosexuality.
> While I think that law is rather incapable of inducing morality, I don't
> think immorality should be celebrated.
>
> We don't celebrate political corruption or theft or warmongering as
> acceptable behaviours.
> Homosexuality is likewise immoral and it is in the same class of pathologic
> sexual behaviour as
> adultery,  rape, and child molestation.  Some aberrent sexual behaviours
> include a component of
> violence and some do not.  It does contribute to the destructuring of the
> society.
>
> Dr. King whom we celebrated last week, also taught that Reality hinges on
> Moral Foundations.
> I don't think that we can achieve full potential as a society if we embrace
> and promote immoral
> behaviours.  There is a general negative effect on the non-participants.
>
> I would not agree that the practice of a homosexual lifestyle is a private
> matter because
> it is becoming pervasive and widely advertised as a reasonable alternative
> option to a heterosexual
> lifestyle.
>
>
> Bob Illyes wrote:
>

>  Mort wrote "Indeed, I wish and recommend that discussions of God's
>> immanence, how "we" are a Christian country, and why women's ability to
>> decide their own lives should be forbidden are inappropriate for a
>> peace-discuss list. (I wouldn't recommend Nazi propaganda on the list
>> either, but I suppose to some that would be bigoted.)"
>>
>> Indeed. Why strive for peace when we can have wars over sexuality and
>> religion, eh? This sort of thinking gave us the Spanish Inquisition, witch
>> burning, and the Holocaust. Why stop now?
>>
>> Wayne commented regarding same-sex couples with children that he is
>> "amazed that this sort of sick stuff is going on so close by." WHAT???
>>
>> Want to take this back, Wayne? Calling people you don't agree with "sick"
>> is really out of line.
>>
>> I agree with Lori's "Amen, Mort".
>>
>> Bob
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090126/7442c133/attachment.htm