In article <kEfKj.1947$bQ1.1232@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, shegeek72 says...
>On Mar 31, 6:41 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
><matthew_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> This is like saying, "everyone who has doubts about whether or not he
>> should purchase a timeshare, should attend one of those free
>> high-pressures sales presentations".
>Poor analogy, as usual.
Well, of course, _you_ would call it a "poor analogy". I think it is
both telling and apt.
>There's a big difference between a high-pressure timeshare
>presentation and a GLBT-friendly church.
Why, yes, there is. The dishonest salesmen making the timeshare
presentation is not nearly as dangerous and malicious. He only wants
to steal your money, not your salvation.
>In the former, someone is trying to sell you something; the latter
>Christians (who happen to have a different ***ual orientation) are
>wor****ping at a church.
Not everything people _call_ 'wor****p' really is wor****p, not every
building they _call_ 'church' is really a church.
>One doesn't normally attend a sales presentation to get to know the
>sales people.
You are missing the point. One of the first things a 'good' salesman
does is make you feel like you _do_ know him. That makes it easier for
him to deceive you.
>> >When one gets to know these wonderful (often better people than
>> >straights)
>> Wow! Such obvious bias and prejudice! Yet you would have us believe
>> they are "often better"?
>Indeed, I've found them often better in terms of intelligence,
>creativity, compassion and caring.
Repeating your bias for all to see? That is not a very intelligent
thing to do.
>My opinions are based on years of personally associating with GLBT
>and straight folks.
So? It is still bias. You have said nothing to prove otherwise.
>Whereas, your's isn't.
You don't know that. That is your own bias popping up again.
>> >folks he or she would be hard pressed to maintain their negative
>> >opinions of gays and lesbians.
>> Whereas if they believe they are all like you, they will keep their
>> negative opinions?
>People's opinions don't bother me and negative ones are almost always
>based on ignorance.
That is a whopper of a false generalization. No, "negative ones" are
NOT almost always based on ignorance.
>> >To anyone who still thinks being gay is a choice: do you honestly
>> >think someone would voluntarily subject him or herself to
>> >potential taunting, ostracizing, discrimination, verbal or
>> >physical violence, even murder?
>> Yes. People make even stranger and more mysterious choices.
>The differences being: 1) ***ual orientation is not a choice.
Look: we all know _you_ believe that. But not all of us do. I
certainly don't. And since you have _repeatedly_ shown your own
_inability_ to judge what is 'scientific' and what is not, I don't
_believe_ you when you claim to have scientific proof of this. Nobody
should believe you.
>Anyone who believes otherwise has not read up on the science of
>***ual orientation that states it usually has genetic, hormonal and
>environmental causes.
Anyone who believes _you_ know what is 'science' and what is not is
VERY much deceived. You cannot know, as along as you still embrace
astrology.
>2) Being gay doesn't have the negative consequences of consuming too
>much alcohol, abusing drugs, stealing, etc.
Oh, but it does. It leads to _far_ more negative consequences. This is
the _reason_ it is more harshly punished in Canon Law: because it is
so deadly to the soul.
>Indeed, any negative consequences to being gay come from homophobes
>and those who have misguided beliefs (such as you).
Another of your extremely unscientific conclusions.
>> Besides: astrology doesn't make sense, yet you believe in that. So
>> your plea here is all the more unconvincing.
>Ah, still dredging up astrology. I'll repeat: my investigations into
>astrology have proven to my satisfaction that it's valid.
And I'll repeat: your 'investigations' must have been extremely
unscientific if they allowed you to fool yourself into such a
blatantly false conclusion. You weaken your credibility by advertising
such _weak_ investigative capabilities.
Did it ever occur to you, that there might be a GOOD reason why _all_
astronomers reject astrology as a pseudo-science? And they have all
rejected it since Newton's time.
>There are just too many characteristics that astrology is right on
>concerning people's personalities, character, etc for it to be
>coincidental.
No, there are not. It is all a cleverly crafted illusion, crafted by
the same basic method of fraud St. Augustine described so long ago
when he described why _he_ gave up on astrology.
As described in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.v.xxii.html:
Chapter 22 .The FOLLY of Observing the Stars in Order to Predict the
Events of a Life.
33. But to desire to predict the characters, the acts, and the fate of
those who are born from such an observation, is a GREAT DELUSION AND
GREAT MADNESS. And among those at least who have any sort of
acquaintance with matters of this kind (which, indeed, are only fit to
be unlearnt again), this superstition is refuted beyond the reach of
doubt. For the observation is of the position of the stars, which
they call constellations, at the time when the person was born about
whom these wretched men are consulted by their still more wretched
dupes. Now it may happen that, in the case of twins, one follows the
other out of the womb so closely that there is no interval of time
between them that can be apprehended and marked in the position of the
constellations. Whence it necessarily follows that twins are in many
cases born under the same stars, while they do not meet with equal
fortune either in what they do or what they suffer, but often meet
with fates so different that one of them has a most fortunate life,
the other a most unfortunate.
[capitalization mine]
He has much more to say in proof of the folly of astrology, the proof
that is is VERY unscientific indeed: just like your beliefs concerning
human
***uality.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
