Scorpio + Wood Tiger. :)
> Yeah, and I'm a Sagittarius.
> On 3/15/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've never considered personality archetyping to be a
>> science. I
>> consider it to be an interesting conceptual model that
>> can lead to
>> what seem to be insightful analysis o
The best I've ever seen is that any personality measure correlates
around .40 or so with a behavior. That means that around 16% of the
variation in that behavior's measure can be attributed to the
personality construct. Not a good predictor at all.
larry
On 3/15/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTEC
Yeah, and I'm a Sagittarius.
On 3/15/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never considered personality archetyping to be a science. I
> consider it to be an interesting conceptual model that can lead to
> what seem to be insightful analysis of behavior.
~
I've never considered personality archetyping to be a science. I
consider it to be an interesting conceptual model that can lead to
what seem to be insightful analysis of behavior.
> all I can think of when I hear this is Barnum's thing with
> This way to
> the egress.
> do a scholar.google searc
all I can think of when I hear this is Barnum's thing with This way to
the egress.
do a scholar.google search on typology and personality. You'll find
that that whole thing on personality type has been subsumed years ago
in what's been nicknamed the big 5 personality theory.
larry
On 3/14/06, S.
Tragically, you were a very confused young man.
On 3/15/06, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=> Of course if they really look they'll find about 80% Gay porn and about 20%
> lesbian porn...
>
> Let 'em 'splain that! ;^)
~|
M
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:07 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> The current administration?
>
> Obviously that since then, you've been &q
The current administration?
Obviously that since then, you've been "cured".
On 3/15/06, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was an odd time for me... I owned the TV and VCR and (since the 7-11 I
> worked at was also a video store) the video club membership: if anybody ever
> digs into my pa
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:26 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> > Now, admittedly that was more in my youth... nowadays,
> > well - I just don&
>> -Original Message-
>> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:51 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>>
>> > My experience has been the opposite. I've not met
econd sound bites we usually
get ;D
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
> Thanks for cutting through the bullshit, David.
>
>
TED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
> HA that was funny jerrr.
>
> and david, whats up man, havent heard from ya in a while!
> anyway... i think the reason is the same reason we have a fuckface
> lik
I have a number of friends who say the exact same thing :D
David
- Original Message -
From: "Jerry Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
> I once worked fo
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:51 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> > My experience has been the opposite. I've not met the
> > militant homo
S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
> Hey baby! You like my ride?
> Check out the sweet stereo! It's bisexual!
Male *and* female ports!
Comes with both woofers and tweeters!
Insert a CD or extend the antenna!
Runs off AC or DC!
Yep, that dead horse is well-beaten.
--Ben
~
> On 3/14/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Have you never heard of bears? Gay men who are large and
>> hairy and
>> prefer to be with large hairy men? They exhibit all of
>> the
>> stereotypical behaviors of verile, rugged, macho men,
>> except that they
>> fuck each other instead
> S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
>>> Well... anything can be done half-assed. Even the
>>> utterly
>>> simple process of gender preference. Besides... we all
>>> know you bi-sexuals are just plain greedy. ;^)
>>
>> See, there you go with the stereotypes. :P
> Since stereo refers to multiple angles, or s
CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> Yeah, that's kinda strange given that they're run by the same parent
> company... But then, there's a lot of content and their editors can't
> possibly nail every perceived content discrepancy.
>
>
I was introverted as a child but have worked toward being extroverted
over the years and am now comfortably extroverted. I didn't like being
introverted actually, so I changed. :) It took a lot of work for me to
be able to talk to people without being afraid of them.
And as I become older I'm find
S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
>> Well... anything can be done half-assed. Even the utterly
>> simple process of gender preference. Besides... we all
>> know you bi-sexuals are just plain greedy. ;^)
>
> See, there you go with the stereotypes. :P
Since stereo refers to multiple angles, or sides, then a
Damn, I'm an enfp too.
Although I go through periods of infp, then enfp, then infp over the years.
On 3/14/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which is actually unusual for me because I tend to be very "intuitive"
> (ENFP) with regard to non-moral judgements... with moral judgements
>> -Original Message-
>> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:14 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>>
>> > In short I really wouldn't surprised if, at the g
> or a theory or system of moral values.
>> -Original Message-
>> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:52 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>>
>> "Understood&qu
>> Your argument sounds stupid. :)
> That's because you either refuse, or are incapable
> of, understanding it, apparently. Because your
> comments that follow don't address any aspect of
> my argument.
I'm not going to get into 3rd grade debate tactics with you.
>> You're still saying "I'm in
On 3/14/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you never heard of bears? Gay men who are large and hairy and
> prefer to be with large hairy men? They exhibit all of the
> stereotypical behaviors of verile, rugged, macho men, except that they
> fuck each other instead of women.
I'd
Funny; because dictionary.com defines ethics as the study of moral values,
or a theory or system of moral values.
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:52 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Na
> Teething on girls toys?
Ian Skinner wrote:
> Exactly! I guess you have not seen how early our society
> starts teaching gender roles to our children in what toys
> they play with and how they play with them. Boys = trucks
> and rowdy play, Girls = dolls and quiet play to just pick
> a couple.
OTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:21 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>>
>>
>> Which was a moral judgement (a set of judgements
>> actually) made by our
>> government. :)
s. isaac dealey 434.293.6201
hics.
You can accepts and forgive immoral behavior, but that never makes it moral.
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:21 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
&
> Your argument sounds stupid. :)
That's because you either refuse, or are incapable of, understanding it,
apparently. Because your comments that follow don't address any aspect of my
argument.
>
> You're still saying "I'm in the 'in' crowd, so you're wrong/stupid".
> That's a logical non-sequi
No, it was an ethical judgment based on what they understood to be the moral
truth.
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:21 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
>
This is the difference between morality and ethics. The ethics of the
situation are understandable, but the morality is not.
> -Original Message-
> From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Understandable? What exactly do you mean by that? You discover a new
> culture
> that deems rape a mora
Your argument sounds stupid. :)
You're still saying "I'm in the 'in' crowd, so you're wrong/stupid".
That's a logical non-sequitur for starters.
On the subject of killing in particular, it's not black and white. You
say "it's allways wrong to kill except in self defense", but killing
isn't always
> Our government was founded on the idea that there is a
> universal truth, and
> that we don't know what it is, we are capable to adopt our
> human laws to
> what we feel and learn. But in the end, there is one
> answer, one set. And
> that is the answer to the meaning of life.
Which was a moral
> You misunderstand the long view of relativism then. It's not so much
> that the behavior of the Other is "okay" but is it understandable? You
> don't have to agree with them, but understanding them without
> demonizing is the first step to dealing with the issue in a way that
> doesn't involve ge
You misunderstand the long view of relativism then. It's not so much
that the behavior of the Other is "okay" but is it understandable? You
don't have to agree with them, but understanding them without
demonizing is the first step to dealing with the issue in a way that
doesn't involve genocide.
O
Nope, but this conversation would have been a waste of time for both
of us if you had answered "yes".
Since it was a no:
I think that "right and wrong" and morality are not absolutes. In my
life, my beliefs have undergone numerous changes and refinements. My
beliefs of right and wrong are somewha
Of course notwhat does that have to do with anything? You can't form
an opinion and defend it unless or until you can provide evidence that your
opinions are never wrong?
What's your point?
> Are you completely and utterly sure you are always 100% correct on
> every issue, and that no o
Are you completely and utterly sure you are always 100% correct on
every issue, and that no one who disagrees might ever be right?
On 3/14/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cultural relativism says that anything goes, as long as the local "culture"
> deems it ok.
>
> Ergo.slavery, murder, rap
Cultural relativism says that anything goes, as long as the local "culture"
deems it ok.
Ergo.slavery, murder, rape..you name it.is all fair game, as long as
you can get enough people to agree with it.
Now you tell me..what argument sounds stupid?
> That really is a dumb argument r
Teething on girls toys?
Exactly! I guess you have not seen how early our society starts teaching
gender roles to our children in what toys they play with and how they play with
them. Boys = trucks and rowdy play, Girls = dolls and quiet play to just pick
a couple.
--
Ian Skinn
Don't forget all the gratuitous e's we removed... :)
olde, shoppe, thwarte
> Actually, we took a language with too many U's in
> itand corrected it.
> Honour, humour.completely unnecessary u's.
>>
>> Americans, you take a perfectly good language... ;)
s. isaac dealey 434.293.6201
Gruss Gott wrote:
> Although that's got to be only one factor as there
> are twins who turn out different. In the case of
> the article I posted the mother said she noticed
> the difference in the boys at about 18 months.
> At a minimum that alone seems to prove that Gay is
> genetic, not upbring
G wrote:
> Killing another human being for a reason other than self
> defense IS wrong, universally and objectively. Claiming
> otherwise is cultural relativism...a position who's
> ludicracy has been made evident time and again.
>> Good point, but it could be argued that the vast majority
>> of r
What about suicide? For the terminaly ill? In great and untreatable pain?
As for murder, it is wholly a legal concept (not meaning American
laws, but law none-the-less).
On 3/14/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is always gray area. Only a religous nut or a Bush worshipper would
> say oth
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:14 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> > In short I really wouldn't surprised if, at the genetic
> > level, t
But it does speak to the foundation of this government, and the use of
government to ensure some level of morality in society. It is not law,
however the supreme court has noted that document in cases.
Part of this I guess is based on my belief that there is order to the
universe, that there is so
> In short I really wouldn't surprised if, at the genetic
> level, there's a very fine (and pretty damn malleable)
> line between "straight" and "gay".
There can't be... because some of us aren't straight or gay. :)
The presence of cultures in which bisexuality was a norm in one
fashion or anothe
> What? First, I'm not a religious person. I do think there
> is something that
> created things and put things in motion, I think there is
> evolution,
> however, I think there is something that sets humans apart
> from every other
> living thing.
> According to the modern ethics of some Muslims
EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:42 AM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>>
>> That might be largely nurture... The more older brothers
>> you have as a
>> child, the more you are going to be nurtured
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:06 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> It could be triggered by food differences (a woman with 9 boys is
> going to get MUC
argue over what they are, but in the end they just are.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:57 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> You are of the opinion that every s
yes, and too many variations that we create to pontificate :)
tw
On 3/14/06, Wayne Putterill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually on a re-read I did work it out, but I didn't get it the first time
> - possibly because I am diving in and out of this while I'm trying to get an
> Oracle report to
Actually on a re-read I did work it out, but I didn't get it the first time
- possibly because I am diving in and out of this while I'm trying to get an
Oracle report to translate into 4 languages.
Too many words in the world today.
On 3/14/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> put honestly way
On 3/14/06, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Such colour in American language.
>
> I always though they removed U's in many words because the early
> American printers were too cheap to buy more than one U.
I thought it was because Americans never like to consider "U"...
(ducks and
Don't forget the Founding Fathers of the US in that list. They felt the same
way, and wrote so in the Declaration of Independence.
If your deity told you to kill someone I'd be a little worried about the
power of your deity, they should be able to take life without you.
> -Original Message---
put honestly wayne, you *KNEW* what he meant. you just
were playing hardball. i know the kind.
i know it.
and you know it!
tw
On 3/14/06, Wayne Putterill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It probably means nothing, because I may have expounded on it's
F-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> what is self defense? Does protecting another constitute self defense?
> What about preemption? What if your deity told you to do it? Or you
> had to kill to prevent a desecration?
>
> You're saying killing anothe
Such colour in American language.
I always though they removed U's in many words because the early
American printers were too cheap to buy more than one U.
larry
On 3/14/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, we took a language with too many U's in itand corrected it.
>
> Honour, humou
Actually, we took a language with too many U's in itand corrected it.
Honour, humour.completely unnecessary u's.
>
> Americans, you take a perfectly good language... ;)
>
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lis
> what is self defense? Does protecting another constitute self defense?
> What about preemption? What if your deity told you to do it? Or you
> had to kill to prevent a desecration?
>
> You're saying killing another person is a moral absolute. Perhaps not.
>
There is always gray area. Only a reli
On 3/14/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It probably means nothing, because I may have expounded on it's root word
> in
> a way that isn't necessarily correct :)
Americans, you take a perfectly good language... ;)
But here's the definition of it's root word, which gives you an idea of my
>
Thanks for cutting through the bullshit, David.
On 3/13/06, David Churvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *delurks for a moment*
>
> As the resident gay person on this list, I figured I should say *something*
> :D
>
> Reading this thread, I see a lot of different perspectives on this issue,
> and I
what is self defense? Does protecting another constitute self defense?
What about preemption? What if your deity told you to do it? Or you
had to kill to prevent a desecration?
You're saying killing another person is a moral absolute. Perhaps not.
On 3/14/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Killin
What? First, I'm not a religious person. I do think there is something that
created things and put things in motion, I think there is evolution,
however, I think there is something that sets humans apart from every other
living thing.
According to the modern ethics of some Muslims killing \ people
It probably means nothing, because I may have expounded on it's root word in
a way that isn't necessarily correct :)
But here's the definition of it's root word, which gives you an idea of my
new word's intended context:
Ludicrous - Laughable or hilarious because of obvious absurdity or
incong
What on earth does ludicracy mean? Google can't find a definition for it.
On 3/14/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Killing another human being for a reason other than self defense IS wrong,
> universally and objectively. Claiming otherwise is cultural relativism...a
> position who's ludicracy
if her subjective evidence is to be taken at face value
tw
On 3/14/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jim wrote:
> > I just don't see how that could be evolutionarily based: how could any
> > genetic marker be triggered by the number of siblings?
> >
>
> They all have the same mother!
> Jim wrote:
> I just don't see how that could be evolutionarily based: how could any
> genetic marker be triggered by the number of siblings?
>
They all have the same mother! The mother's body/cells/eggs could
change with the more children she has thus affecting each additional
child while it's
Killing another human being for a reason other than self defense IS wrong,
universally and objectively. Claiming otherwise is cultural relativism...a
position who's ludicracy has been made evident time and again.
> Good point, but it could be argued that the vast majority of religions and
> soc
You ever seen male siblings in which the older ones nurtured? Usually they
just give the younger ones hell.
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:42 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Na
Good point, but it could be argued that the vast majority of religions and
societies in the world do make killing others sinful or immoral via various
laws, precepts etc. That would suggest that it is a universal truth that
humanity as a whole views killing as wrong.
On 3/14/06, Jerry Johnson <[EM
It could be triggered by food differences (a woman with 9 boys is
going to get MUCH less food than a woman with 1 boy), by general
health, tiredness, number of previous pregnancies (hormonal
differences). The mechanisms for small gene changes are unbelievably
numerous.
On 3/13/06, Jim Davis <[EMAI
You are of the opinion that every subscribes to your beliefs. They don't.
Many Gods (and their followers) do not have a prohibition against
killing. Some even think it a religious necessity.
In your belief system, you have defined rights and wrongs. They will
not match the beliefs of others. I kn
> That doesn't make any sense, it is never RIGHT to kill for
> any reason, you are not God, you are not a creator of life.
> Our society has created laws that allow for sanctioned
> immoral behavior.
See... that's part of the problem. If you can't provide a reason
without invoking God, then the ar
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:38 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>>
>> I think this gets right down to a real question of
>> de
ts and none
> gay.
> I don't think anybody has a clue what makes one person
> gay, anymore than
> we can understand the emotions behind love.
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 10:59 PM
>>
> Ah those aren't morals. Morals is right vs wrong. Some
> people believe
> something is acceptable, but that doesn't make it right.
Umm... nope, those are morals. People do not all have the same set of
"right and wrong" -- there is a fantastic amount of variation between
what two cultures believe
-
>> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:13 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>>
>> Then the nerve endings are still in the wrong place...
>>
>> While we have nerve endings
> *delurks for a moment*
> As the resident gay person on this list, I figured I
> should say *something*
> :D
You're gay? ... hrm...
::shuffle::
rotate world view 0.02 degrees clockwise
okay... I'm better now. :)
Granted I'm sure some folks had that reaction to my saying I was
bisexual a whil
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 10:59 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> > Jim wrote:
> > Homosexuality could be essentially natural but also be an evolutio
HA that was funny jerrr.
and david, whats up man, havent heard from ya in a while!
anyway... i think the reason is the same reason we have a fuckface
like bush in office. the religious wingnuts that vote with their bible
and not their heads!
the same ones that are googling kiddie pr0n and th
ion of
morality.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 9:06 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> But morals and right from wrong IS completely subjective.
>
> It is su
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 10:59 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> The 60 minutes link that I posted gave this interesting fact: the more
> older brothers a boy has, the higher th
> Jim wrote:
> Homosexuality could be essentially natural but also be an evolutionary
> dead-end.
The 60 minutes link that I posted gave this interesting fact: the more
older brothers a boy has, the higher the probability he has of being
Gay.
So, evolution may have found a way of controlling the
I once worked for a man who had the following philosophy.
He hated the idea of lesbians, but was all for gay men. When we who
were barely 18 (and picuring hot lesbain sandwiches with us in the
middle) asked increduously why, he simple pointed out it improved his
odds. thTroughly and practically se
erican Heritage dictionary states.
Of course, the meaning of these words can change every few minutes.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:38 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture
*delurks for a moment*
As the resident gay person on this list, I figured I should say *something*
:D
Reading this thread, I see a lot of different perspectives on this issue,
and I think it's an amazing thing that society's reached the point where we
can even have this discussion.
I know that e
I just ordered it. I don't have that one. I love his writings.
On 3/13/06, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 9:50 PM
> > To: CF-Community
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 9:50 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> Isn't the purpose of opposable thumbs? It allow us to handle tools?
>
> On 3/13
Isn't the purpose of opposable thumbs? It allow us to handle tools?
On 3/13/06, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (very few animals masturbate).
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199977
Archives: ht
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:24 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> what benefit evolutionarily? really.
> one less rooster to hound then hens?
> if they w
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:16 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> Not really. Evolution is applied to groups as well, it may be to the
> group's adva
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:08 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> Not just children, but family. I've done a lot of reading on the subject,
> and for
and for the record, im not a homophobe, i used to be, im a reformed
homophobe if you will.
i think its incredibly fucking weird, but to each his/her/confused own. its
the science behind it that i argue for. i think :)
anyway, back to your regularly scheduled debate!
tw
On 3/13/06, Jerry Johnson
Without the head the sperm doesn't have anyway out.
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:13 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> Then the nerve endings ar
But morals and right from wrong IS completely subjective.
It is subjective on an individual level, and it is subjective at a
societal level.
There are no absolutes in right and wrong. I personally believe it is
RIGHT and moral to kill a child rapist. Completely right. No question
about it right.
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:04 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>
> > But isn't the protection of liberty a morally based ideal?
>
> > Morality isn't arbitrary.
>
> > It is wrong to kill somebody; that is a mora
I think this gets right down to a real question of definition.
Is it the DESIRE/PREFERENCE or the ACTION that defines one as gay?
On 3/13/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think most people would argue that if they don't have sex at all
> then they're not homosexual, since the
day, March 13, 2006 8:13 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture?
>> I thought the amount of nerves was also there to ensure
>> we protected
>> it more than other areas because it is required to
>> continue the
>> species.
>> Those
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
