plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Tue Jan 6 19:49:31 PST 2009
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 14:52 -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Thus spake Michael Robinson circa 06/01/09 02:18 PM:
> > You insist that there are contradictions in my moral code
> > but astonishingly, you don't name them.
> I don't need to. Others have done quite well. Please read:
> as well as Jason's last criticism -- that you demand homosexuals change
> themselves, thereby advocating that they have no choice but to change in
> order to be moral ...
> ... and respond to your contradictions listed therein.
> If you make a reasonable effort to respond, then I'll give you the
> benefit of the doubt and suggest that (at least you _believe_) your
> disagreement with homosexuality is principled. But if you don't respond
> directly to your critics' criticisms, then you're just a parrot
> repeating rhetoric you've memorized, totally absent any principles.
I can't review all the posts because my filter won't allow me to, but I
can address two of them. First off, calling me racist all day will not
make me so. Second off, being against homosexual behavior is not the
same as being against homosexuals, in fact it is being for their good.
Third off, the whole skin color thing was pathetic and ridiculous, why
would I discriminate against anyone based on skin color which is way
different by the way than talking about behavior? Behavior is a
choice and no homosexuality is NOT genetic. There is no evidence for
a gay gene, only evidence suggesting that certain genes may predispose
a person to homosexuality if that person is in a favorable environment
for homosexuality to develop.
I have not committed any fallacies, people have merely either a
distorted the information I have provided, b attempted to discredit
it (David Mandel comes to mind), c attempted to pin discrediting
statements on me, or d ignored the information and commented
anyways. And no, I am not merely making the same argument over and
over, on closer inspection one will see that I am varying my sources
of information behind what I'm saying.
Homosexual activists want there to be a gay gene so that they can
get in the face of their critics with it and squash all dissent.
Homosexual activists have even been known to turn on fellow
homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle behind.
"The latest instance of the use of these same Marxian tactics (that is,
the latest version
of political correctness) is the Gay Rights Movement. In this latest
people, particularly those who harbor the notion that homosexuality is a
(which includes some gays), are characterized as oppressors and gay
people are the
oppressed; straight people are prejudiced and gay people are the victims
straight people are evil and gay people are innocent."
If this is even written by the good doctor, which it may not be, it is
anything but racist. Mob tactics are alive and well and have been
amply demonstrated on this list against me. This controversial paper
that he may have written is good. It is great in fact.
I reject the APA, the AMA, and any other national association that
agrees with, "homosexuality is normal" as being overtaken by radical
gay activists. The AMA is on my list for denying that there is an
abortion breast cancer link bending to the pressure put on it by radical
feminists. There is overwhelming scientific evidence against the notion
that homosexuality is normal. Anyone who tells a homosexual he/she
should live a homosexual lifestyle is committing a crime.
More information about the PLUG-talk