[PLUG-TALK] The homosexuality discussion is pointless now...
ronabop at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 00:25:03 PST 2009
On Jan 7, 2009, at 11:22 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:
> I have put up very compelling information. I realize though that
> it doesn't matter what I say and perhaps
> I have tended toward some sweeping generalizations because I'm
> tired of fighting a losing battle on here.
When a single tactic fails to defeat one's enemies, it does not mean
the enemy is right, it means the tactic is wrong.
> I respectfully disagree that we can't say with any certainty
> whether or not homosexuality is genetic. It isn't. I believe
> there is genetic expression of certain genes that may contribute to
> a homosexual orientation given the right environment, but that's
> all I believe about the genes side of this issue.
Perhaps a new perspective:
One can say that breast cancer *is* genetic, because certain genes
One can say that breast cancer *is not* genetic, because certain
genes may not express.
Regardless of the two conflicting perspectives, however, one can say
that breast cancer has known genetic components, but those components
do not determine an individual's fate.
> I respectfully disagree that there is any individual
> who lacks a dominant gender. There is a landmark
> case of a man who was raised as a girl only to commit
> suicide later. It was believed he could be dressed
> in girl's clothes and surgically altered to look
> like a girl and it was believed that that would work.
> It did not work. He suffered severe depression
> because he knew he was a man where everyone around
> him wanted him to be a girl. I do not believe
> for a second that anyone can mentally become a woman
> if they are a man or vice versa. I have a hard time
> believing that anyone is both a man and a woman
> mentally, a very hard time.
What is a man?
What is a woman?
What makes our identity?
What is interesting about the case you bring up is that a "man" was
raised as a "woman".... but who/what determined whether they were a
man or a woman to start with? Was "he" a "failed woman" trying to be
a man? Was "he" a "gay woman" who didn't like advances from men? Was
As far as not being able to have two genders in one person, I don't
know what to say. There's quite the historical record to reference.
> This list is strongly biased, I can't let it warp my view of the
Welcome to Oregon!
We're Pioneers here.
We kind of like to think we're part of a "new world", not an "old
> I'm still for a ban on IVF because it isn't fair for a child to not
> be connected with his/her biological parents if at all possible.
If you were a child of a rapist, you might think differently. Who knows.
> I'm still for sweeping legislation to clean up porn on the Net. It
> is too accessible to people who really shouldn't get into it. I
> run a filter, so I am less tempted to look at it and dwell on it.
There are things that you think are "porn" on the 'net?
Oh, by all means, try to report it to the local authorities.
While you're at it, you can report blasphemy, un-patriotic activity,
sedition, and whatever else warms your Maoist/Stalinist heart.
Personally, I prefer an internet without state/belief/government
More information about the PLUG-talk