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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:57:39 -0700, Peter Franks <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> 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.
>
>That immutable trait, as you call it, is contrary to nature.  This can 
>be proven scientifically:
>
>	Take a hetero***ual couple and place in an
>	isolated yet life-sustaining environment.
>
>	Do the same with a homo***ual couple.
>
>	After a couple of generations of time,
>	evaluate the results. Does nature sup****t
>	human homo***uality?

What a remarkably ignorant plan. You really have no idea what is going
on.

>I don't know if homo***uality is immutable or chosen, just as I don't 
>know if a lot of behaviors are immutable or chosen.  I DO know that 
>controlling that which isn't beneficial to my or societal progression is 
>good for me and and society.  That is not unreal.

Did you forget why eugenics was abandoned?