Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:44:08 -0500
Reply-To:     "(Ruth M. Hanschka)" <ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu>
From:         "(Ruth M. Hanschka)" <ap290@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Mechanics of Response Style (was Re: amendment 2)
Comments: To: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk
Comments: cc: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

>
>: Oh yes, and that crack about the illustration I used?  It's unworthy of
>: you, if you really can think.  It's not a 100% exact comparison, although
>: there are some who would say that it is.  Go ask a geneticist and a
>: one of the experts out at Moody Bible Institute.  Listen to what they have
>: to say, then form a judgement.
>
>
>Oh yes, I'd *love* to hear your views on genetics.  Tell me, why is a

Go ask a biology professor.  I think it's a science, and I'm no scientist.

>religious organisation researching this?  To prove it's genetic, not

As far as I know, it isn't.  You're being deliberately dense as far as I can
tell.  The Moody people are theologians - you need one of those too, to answer
the question Jim asked.  The institute's in Chicago.  I'm no expert on either
subject, and won't try to answer the question for that reason.

>cultural.  Fine - no problem with that (the case is unproven yet but
>in principle I'll concede that perhaps it will be proven.)
>And what will they do with this proof?  Say, 'Oh, sorry, we've been

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse?  At best they'll probably only
be able to find a predisposition to a preference for same-sex partners.  Or
maybe that's at worst from your point of view.  Whatever.  I don't think they
could really find such a gene yet anyway, unless things have really improved
lately.  How the heck they'd isolate that I don't know.


>Then there's disease prevention.  The holier-than-thou anti-abortion
>camp have suddenly discovered that if embryos can be detected that

I knew it!  Sooner or later, this one was going to be dragged in.  Graham,
you're being insulting again.  I know a lot of people on both sides of the
fence, pro-choice, pro-life, whatever, and the holier-than-thouest of the lot
are all pro-choice.  There probably are some total jerks on both sides, so
don't give me that.  You know better.

>isn't long enough to develop a soul. It isn't murder, no, no way)

Want to bet?  I believe the soul is present at conception, not whenever.
You're confusing pro-life with pro-choice again.  It's murder all right.

>So tell me Ruth, don't let me tar you with the Loony follow-the-party-line
>Fundamentalist brush - what would *you* advocate if sexuality turned
>out to be genetically preprogrammed?

Easy.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  Well, it's not easy, but it is the
only thing to do.  Only thing I *can* do.  I can't even stay mad for long.:-)
I love you Graham, in that sense, no matter what you say to me in here.
You can make me angry; you can even chase me away, but you can't stop that.

>Bayla, these people are heading us for the biggest genocide since the
>second world war.  And you *still* think they're harmless?
>
Who is "these people"?  I think you're confusing Christians with Nazis.
Nazis concentrated Christians too, Graham, lots of them.  My mother had
aunts, uncles and cousins murdered by that bunch.  At least one didn't even
make it to the cattle cars; the Gestapo just shot her because she wouldn't
go along with them.  So don't give me that - it's a very foul lie.
If you're in Poland, check the memorial walls on some of the sites of
former work camps.  Look for the name, Deitzner.  It'll be there.

>

--
		###	Ruth Hanschka, the Nethead    ###
			- ap290@cleveland.freenet.edu
	      Where anything can happen, and it usually does
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU