Re: The Religious Rights' Unreal Understanding of Homo***uality:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:37fe85c8-ecdf-454e-ac38-9c792c0e6b91@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 May 10, 9:41 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:2aa79cd1-5079-495b-b79f-1a89b02078e6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 10, 5:28 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > > On May 9, 7:07 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > >>> On May 9, 4:24 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >>>> buckeye wrote:
> > >>>>> Thursday, May 08, 2008
> > >>>>> The Religious Rights' Unreal Understanding of Homo***uality:
> > >>>> Who/what is an example of the "Religious Right"?
> > >>> James Dobson.
> > >> Thanks.
>
> > >> What is unreal regarding his understanding of homo***uality?
>
> > > That is not primarily an immutable trait, but rather is a chosen sin
> > > to be treated like every other sin.
>
> > Sorry -- I don't follow.
>
> You can't change an immutable trait (you are what you are). Dobson
> thinks homo***uality is not immutable, but rather chosen. And since
> it is chosen, you can choose not to be gay. That's unreal.
>
> <JS>
> Dr. Dobson is not unique in that belief.

Yes, there are others of the religious right who are equally unreal.

> He merely vocalizes that which many people believe.
>
> I believe that what Dr, Dobson has said isn't that you choose to not be 
> gay,
> he says you choose to be gay. The natural state of being is to not be
gay,
> therefore this would come without a choice. The choice, Dr, Dobson would
> say, is to violate the natural state of being, and choose to be gay.

That's unreal.

Josh Rosenbluth



<js>
Perhaps. But by the same token, your view that gayness happens by design
in 
a world where the prime purpose of *** is childbearing, and it takes 
opposite ***es to bear children. In the natural world, ***uality is such 
that offspring are the intended result. *** for pleasure is not uniquely 
human, but humans seem to demonstrate *** for pleasure to a much greater 
degree than any other species.

Removing *** for pleasure, the only remaining purpose of *** is for 
procreation, and same *** partners can not procreate, therefore 
homo***uality is not the natural manner of being. Since homo***uality is 
only for pleasure, it must be chosen.

I'm not saying you have to go along with that. What I am saying is that it

is a natural conclusion whether you agree with it or not. The corollary 
conclusion is that believing that same *** relation****ps is natural or 
normal is unreal. Ergo, Dr. Dobson has a valid view, you do not. You argue

that Dr. Dobson has a wrong headed view, but I would argue his view has 
better standing than does yours. Dr. Dobson has a view -- however much you

do not like it -- that he can sup****t with a logical argument. Your view
is 
only sup****ted by emotion.

</js>