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

On May 10, 10:16=A0pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:37fe85c8-ecdf-454e-ac38-9c792c0e6b91@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 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
ga=
y,
> > 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.
>
> <js>
> Perhaps. But by the same token, your view that gayness happens by design

I hold no such view.  I merely observe that ***uality is primarily
immutable.  Unlike the religious right which cannot tolerate
homo***uality being immutable, I'm open to data.

> 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.

A concluson that is odds with observed data is not natural.

> 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
i=
s
> only sup****ted by emotion.

Look at the data.

Josh Rosenbluth