alt.education

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:45:53 -0700 (PDT), ayatollah obama
wrote:

>In a weird way, I think we actually agree.
>
>
>> =A0 =A0You're confusing modern social convention with
>> =A0 =A0what's "natural". No such thing as a pedophile,
>> =A0 =A0necrophile or zoephile so far as 'nature' is
>> =A0 =A0concerned. Rats will hump dead rats, are they
>> =A0 =A0thus "necrophiles" ... or mearly "sexual" beasties
>> =A0 =A0which have spotted something that looks humpable ?
>> =A0 =A0Is the neighbors dog a 'homo' if it humps your leg ?
>
>Which is what I was saying, hormones are the reason, not genetics. The
>genetic code tells use to use our innie or outie as often as possible.
>Our own choices decide whether its M/F-?, M-M, F-F, or M-F. That being
>homo is a lifestyle choice.

Hmmm ... "choice" may be too strong a term. I can "choose"
to eat squash, but I *despise* squash ... I'm not wired the
way squash-lovers are wired. Nature has created a strong
bias in this case - one not remotely worth fighting against
unless I was literally starving to death.

Most homosexuals seem "strongly biased" towards it. While
they *could* have hetrosex - WHY ? Some 'homosexuals' are
less biased and their proportion of same/other-sex lovers
tends to reflect that. There's a species of 'feminist'
which, while biased bi or even largely hetrosexual, DOES
"choose" only female lovers because their political biases
are stronger than their innate gender-choice biases.

> And as long as it doesn't harm somone
>else, I could care less whom they hump. Just don't bring it into the
>classroom. Keep it in the bedroom.

Still making value judgements I see ...

When the guys kiss in the movie - just close your eyes
and pretend it isn't happening, OK ?

Bet you'll watch when the GIRLS are kissing though :-)

>> =A0 =A0Ah ... but YOU know "how it works", right ?
>
>Not completely, but I record-pause-process the info.


That's more than most people attempt ...