[Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Alienated?  Strong disagreement doesn't have to necessarily lead people 
to be disagreeable.

If your friend had chosen a different lifestyle he may have lived longer. 
The life expectancy of homosexual men and women is 20 to 30 years 
shorter than
the general population, not just due to "AIDS" but also due to 
accidents, heart disease, homicides,
and suicide.  It seems that the benefits of working out a cure for 
homosexuality rather than
assimilating it are significant.

I havent been ignoring your questions. I will go back and see what I 
missed. 
I should not shy from controversy nor your questions.

Your hypotheses are interesting but difficult to test, but I don't 
believe that homosexuality is
obligatory.  One might be hot tempered but not allow rage to proceed to 
homicide.  One could
be tempted by something seen, but not be a thief.

Going to look for your other questions that I must have missed...



John W. wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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/20090126/99868cd3/attachment.html