Xref: utzoo soc.men:8951 soc.motss:13476 sci.bio:1954
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!trantor.harris-atd.com!x102a!hnewstrom
From: hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com (Newstrom Harvey S 96783)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.motss,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Rocks and Homosexuals
Message-ID: <1808@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Date: 30 Mar 89 20:22:22 GMT
References: <78146WGN@PSUVM> <14042@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Sender: news@trantor.harris-atd.com
Reply-To: hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com (Newstrom Harvey S 96783)
Organization: Harris Corporation GSS, Melbourne, Florida
Lines: 46

In article <78146WGN@PSUVM> WGN@PSUVM.BITNET (James Whitehead) writes:

>This abominable lifestyle would never be selected by nature.

Wrong!  This lifestyle *has* been selected by nature.  Not only in human beings,
but in all of the higher life-forms on earth, including dolphins, monkeys, pigs,
mice, rabbits, horses, deer, etc.

>Also, in the definition of life is the
>ability to reproduce, and an argument could be made that homosexuals
>aren't even alive since if they continue this gross lifestyle they won't
>ever reproduce. One could then make a similiar comparison between
>killing a homosexual and kicking a stone.

Then we should perform fertility tests on everybody and kill those who
don't measure up.  They are not really alive, but are parasiting off of the
rest of the living.  Old people past their prime to reproduce should be
destroyed as well.  Priests should also be outlawed for choosing a perverse
sexual lifestyle that fails to reproduce children.

I hope for your wife's sake that she can bear you children.  If she should be
found to be barren I assume you will kill her (because she is not alive) and
remarry immediately.  You couldn't choose to stay in a non-producing
relationship, or you too would be "dead".

>My Disclaimer: I do not discriminate against others on the basis of
>race, or color. I do discriminate against others on the basis of
>personality and sexual preference because i believe the person has
>made a choice to live that way.

You left out part of your reasoning.  If you discriminate against everybody
who made a choice of sexual preference, than you discriminate against everybody.
I assume you only discriminate against those who made a choice different than
what you chose.  (Of course everybody must choose.  It would be silly to claim
that heterosexuals were born that way and homosexuals chose, because then you
would be arguing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are born into separate
categories.)

Why discriminate against people who choose differently?  Do you discriminate
against coke/pepsi drinkers?  What's the criterion for which choice is right?
If you point out a group of people who decide which orientation is correct,
could you turn gay if they suddenly say "gay is better"?  Or are you going
to do what you personally believe and feel, ignoring what other people might
think?
_____
Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com) (uunet!x102a!hnewstrom)