pajarito

Not true at all. It is to protect the fundamental institution of marriage. I don't care at all what two people of the same sex wish to do.

I think you missed my point. I have no idea if it is biological or not. It doesn't matter. You say they have no choice in being homosexual. Ok. I'll buy that (maybe even in the majority of cases). However, them choosing to act on that impulse or tendency is as much of a choice as any impulses or tendencies that I deny myself for the good of the whole. You cannot elliminate personal responsibility. This ability think and choose is what separates us from the animals.

That's not what I'm saying. Of course, I can't and would not want to force my religious beliefs on anyone for this reason or any other. They should be able to enter into whatever relationship they choose. It's none of my business or anyone else's. However, it should not be promoted in the sense of same sex marriage.

Right on! “we control that impulse because we’ve learned that natural isn’t always the best course of action.” Assuming that homosexuality is in fact a natural, however abnormal, occurrence, we should not promote it as a norm like heterosexuality because we’ve learned over thousands of years of civilization that it is not a best course of action with reference to the survivability of a species. It would not mean that I was not still heterosexual. I would still have those feelings or impulses whether I acted on them or not.

I love quiche.

That is my contention but the reason for that part of it is religious in nature. I was just trying to put down the assumption that they can't help what they do because they were born that way.

I wasn't arguing the "right" or "wrong" of it in my post above. I have in the past but not in that one. I was simply stating that, whether biological or environmental in nature, it is still a choice.

That is what I was trying to imply (i.e. choice in behavior or, more specifically, action). Maybe I didn't do a good enough job. That's not to say that I think every instance of homosexuality is biological in nature. I think some is learned behavior from one's social environment.

Where did you get that all this was limited to the context of war?

I'm assuming that you mean euthanasia? If so, there are other reasons why that is wrong. Sticking to the context of what we were talking about, however, do you then believe that, in every instance, the taking of another life is murder?

I haven’t been following this thread so I sincerely hope I’m not repeating what someone has already said. If so, I apologize up front. I very briefly glanced over the 6 pages of stuff and came across this justification for homosexuality. This might in fact establish that homosexuality occurs naturally in some instances; however, it does not prove that it is as natural as heterosexual unions or that it isn’t an abnormality. In the sense that it shouldn’t happen because it serves no fundamental purpose for the species. There’s a big difference between animals and humans. We can decide to act or not to act on impulses such as these whether they are natural or learned. We are not necessarily under the control of them. We can also decide to act based on what we consider to be right or wrong. Whether homosexuality occurs naturally or by means of some environmental influence, the person still chooses to act on that tendency. I am heterosexual. I think most of the reason that I am is due to the way I am wired biologically. I’m also sure, in our society and especially in the South; there is also a big environmental influence to lean in that direction. I also, however, have the very common natural tendency to be an adulterer and a polygamist as I am sexually attracted to other women. I as a human, however, “choose” not to act on the natural impulse to have relations with any attractive woman I meet. I “choose” to be monogamous and faithful to my wife. I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong on other levels but that is beside the point I’m trying to make with this post. Without reference to “right” or “wrong”, I just wanted to point out that I think it’s a choice and that it’s not something one “can’t help” or “choose” not to do as is inferred in the quote above.

I see you've got that problem too. No matter what I do. Every day when I look in the mirror, I get better lookin'. It's a hellava burden to bear.

I consider myself right handed. I write with my right hand and cannot with my left. However, I have to swing a baseball bat or golf club in a left handed manner. I also lead with my right foot and push with my left on a skateboard like a left handed person would do. I can't really consider myself fully ambidextrous because I can’t reverse myself in what I mentioned. However, I can eat pretty well with both hands. I just prefer my right.

I've been meaning to for a year but just haven't yet. I've heard lots of good things about it. Nothing bad.

You're a nut!

FahrenHYPE 9/11 Just want you to be fair & balanced Bill.

Yup...you got a point there Daryoosh!!!

Free James Brown instead! FREE JAMES BROWN! FREE JAMES BROWN!

So you’re gonna rush out there and get “Farenhype 911” too, right?

Crack

So as to make an "informed" decision?

Actually brown but with a ring of hazel around the outside.

I think I'm going to go out this year wearing a skin tight Spider Man costume with one of these .

You so crazy!

Tink...tink...