On the issue of genetics:
As you say, I made two comments that supposedly rely on simple high-school biology courses; I will address each comment on its own:
"I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation."
I don't see any area of contention. Let's say, for an instant (and I'm NOT SUGGESTING I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS), that both left-handedness and homosexuality are gentic. Left-handedness, if dominant AND expressed, doesn't seriously impede the organism's efforts to procreate and ensure the survival of its genetic information. Homosexuality, if dominant and expressed, causes the person to desire the opposite sex LESS than normal. Thus, the person is less likely to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, and is less likely to create any offspring. (A similar statement can be made for infertility: if a gene causes a lower sperm count, it's not going to do very well over time.) There's nothing controversial in my statement, and as far as I know, there's NOTHING that is refuted by ANY level of biological science.
(If you know of such a refutation, go right ahead.)
My other statement was this:
"the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex."
You attacked this comment once already, and I responded then:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." - Mark 10:6-8.
I didn't use Mendel, genetics, biology, or science to back up my claim that God intentionally created the two sexes. I used the BIBLE. Now, I grant that there are deviations from the norm, but they are simply that: deviations. I'm sure that those with XXY chromosomes, etc., are really nice people, but most of them can't reproduce. That they can't pass on their genes is a pretty damn good indication that something wrong about the genes - that they do not work precisely as intended. I continue to assert that male and female are the intended states of humanity, and that we were made to join a monogomous, heterosexual union - not because of genetics, but because of the Bible.
(I also note that you don't really refute the specific Biblical passages I quote, other than the usual arguments of "Old Testament bad" and "Matthew bad.")
At any rate, I'm sure plenty of people from the Christian Coalition have tried to use simplified genetics to back up their claims that there are no such deviations - BUT I HAVEN'T. Again, you're attacking claims I simply didn't make.
...
You bring up other quotes I made about bestiality. Let's - FOR ONCE - look at them in context:
"Simple: one would fear something that might arouse you because there are things that SHOULDN'T arouse you. Examples? Your own parents, children, and animals. Sexual attraction to such things is morally abhorrent and against natural laws.
"And if one subscribes to the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, it falls under the same category as incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.
"(Let me be the first to say that I do believe that homosexuality is against God's plan for humanity, and thus a sin. But just as murder is worse than taking the Lord's name in vain, pedophilia is far worse than homosexuality. Murder and pedophilia should CERTAINLY be illegal; swearing and homosexuality should not. If it's between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own property (and if there's no effort to INSIST that the behavior is just as normal as heterosexual monogamy), I say, live and let live.)"
What's this? I partially defend homosexuality, saying that it SHOULD be legal, AND that things like pedophilia are far worse. (For the record, bestiality is also worse, but I thought that could be left unsaid; sorry if that offended you.)
"I see no problem with homosexual couples having the same access to medical benefits and legal rights that married couples have. But marriage is an entirely different matter, because it is DEFINED to be the union of a man and a woman (usually sealed by an oath before God).
"If we're going to extend the definition to include homosexual couplings, there's no reason to NOT further extend it by including greater numbers, other species, or inanimate objects. If two men can be married, then why not five men, three women, a sheep, and a coffee table?"
And look: here I say that homosexuals SHOULD have the same medical benefits as heterosexuals. Ultimately, I was responding to the suggestion to redefine marriage from "one woman and one man" to "two adult humans." My response was that, if you can argue the opposite-sex requirement out of the definition, you could also argue out the other requirements: that the number be limited to two, the age be of consentual adults, and even the species. If you read the entire quote, you would see I'm only defending the definition of the word "marriage", not equating homosexuality and bestiality.
Any other quotes you want to take out of context?
...
Originally posted by melon:
I am "manipulative" and "dishonest"? If I may throw some name calling around, since you chose to throw the first punch, you are an imbecile. If I misinterpret your arguments, it is because they are literally stupid and incoherent. You do not know what you are talking about half of the time, and I spend half of my time correcting you on science and history, "facts" that you easily should have learned in school--or should have researched ahead of time, before trying to delve into this argument. If you can't play with the big players in this forum, then don't even start arguing with them.
I didn't throw the first punch. You called me a Pharisee. THREE TIMES.
At any rate, you CONTINUE to take me out of context, and continue to assert that I made claims that I simply didn't make. Oh, I know what you'll say, because you've said before:
"If I take your words out of context, it is because you don't make any sense."
Well, frankly, that's bullshit. IF I don't make any sense, you would quote me in full, so all the world could see how idiotic I am. Rather, you take sentences utterly out of context and see things that simply aren't there to be seen.
You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of--filled with consistent falsehoods you claim as "truth." I argue on "theory," which is all you can argue this topic on, and there are multiple theories. That may be why you mistake it as "inconsistencies." I call it honesty: there are no facts on homosexuality here to speak of, neither on my side, nor your side. I am more here to inform on the various theories, rather than do an elementary argument that has a "winner" and a "loser."
"You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of--filled with consistent falsehoods you claim as 'truth.'"
"I call it honesty: there are no facts on homosexuality here to speak of, neither on my side, nor your side."
So, you can't be lying because are no truths. But in addition to that, I MYSELF AM LYING.
If there are no facts, how can there be falsehoods? If there's no such thing as truth, how can I be lying?
Or is this some more of your deeply philosophical bullshit?
"Ignoring past comments?" What are you doing with your "bestiality" comments? I explained to you the meaning of my comments, just as you explained your "bestiality" comments. And you've taken tons of my arguments out of context. You just completely ignore any of my explanations, and I doubt even if you read all of my arguments. After explaining the dubiousness of the so-called "pro-divorce" passage in Matthew, you used it again as "evidence." Poor arguing, Bubba.
What am I doing with the bestiality comments? Restoring them to their true context and explaining what I meant.
IF I took YOUR comments out of context, prove it, in the same way I defended myself.
On the issue of divorce - surprise, surprise - I already answered your objection. Your objection was this:
Originally posted by Melon:
You are ignoring everything I've written. The Catholic Bible rightfully states that that passage is INCORRECT. An analyzation of the original language shows that the Catholic Bible is most CORRECT. By saying "except when unlawful," it is a reference to blood mixing (incest).
My reply was this:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Either way, it still proves my point. Regardless of what exceptions it makes, it does make an exception to divorce, and that fact discounts your assertion that Christ "totally condemns it everywhere else in the gospels." A minor point, I know.
As far as I can tell, you never noticed that reply. That's not my fault.
"Deep arguments" they are indeed, especially when stacked up to your sloppy ones I could have likely picked up from a Christian Coalition web site. Nothing you've stated, from beginning to end, is anything new to me, but you are good at writing pseudointellectual psychobabble arguments that look intelligent, but are filled with falsehoods passed off as "truth." At least I'm admitting mine are "theories," and I'm well-versed in several theories. You should work for the Catholic Church...they always need writers like that up in the Vatican.
I thought you liked Catholics, that "Luckily, my convictions are close to official Catholic stances." Or was that just another theory?
Anyway, I believe you're giving away one of your problems: the fact that you think I'm spouting off things that are exactly like a Christian Coalition website, which lets you believe all you need to do is find the reply to those sites and post it here. Hence, you believe I am EQUATING homosexuality and bestiality; hence, you think I have some grand proof that homosexuality is immoral on genetic reasons.
You THINK I say those things because I use two words (homosexuality and bestiality; homosexuality and genetics) in the same paragraph. You then cut out that paragraph, ignore the crucial explanations before it, after it, and in successive posts. You then act like I said something that I didn't, and criticize the imaginary argument as "pseudointellectual psychobabble."
I then explain myself, you then take THE EXPLANATION out of context to further "prove your point."
Melon, that's fucking insane.
And if you honestly think I'm doing the same thing to you, I invite you to prove it.
If you want to stop arguing, then stop arguing. I will continue to correct your Limbaugh-esque manipulation of my arguments as long as I have to.
Again, I AM willing to stop this, if you could simply stop taking me out of context.
Including your most recent post, you have taken me out of context, utterly misunderstood my argument, and ignored my successive replies some SEVEN times in the past three posts. Hell, just taking me out of context ONCE a post would be an improvement.
Stop doing that; prove IN CONTEXT that I said what you think I said, or simply shut up.
[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-08-2002).]