Virginia senatorial candidate Jim Webb is getting a taste of his own medicine. After sending a busybody with a camcorder to stalk Senator George Allen, the Webb campaign charged racism when Allen referred to the unwelcome paparazzi as "macaca." The non-word was also, not surprisingly, a non-epithet before Webb lackeys began to claim it as a slur on par with the "n" word. Whatever. Fast forward to now--a more advantageous time to divert the debate from more pertinent issues--and one finds Webb in a bind not unlike the one in which Allen found himself several months back. Allen's supporters have lifted numerous passages out of Jim Webb's books, which I'm told are quite good, including an absolutely disgusting bit about a Cambodian child's privates and his father's mouth. "It's not a sexual act," Webb was left to lamely remark.

Sorry, Mr. Webb. The average voter in the commonwealth is not as up to speed on bizarre Cambodian customs as you seem to be. The more you attempt to make them understand, the more repulsed they become. Was that passage, and other passages, taken out of context? I bet. But what context, exactly, could make Webb's sickening images more palatable to voters? None, I bet--not that too many voters have the time to read Webb's books cover to cover, a fact the Allen campaign knows well.

Novelists haven't fared too well in American politics. Upton Sinclair, author of The Jungle, lost his 1934 bid for the governorship of California despite being the Democracy's standard bearer in the midst of the New Deal. Gore Vidal, Democratic nominee for Congress in upstate New York in 1960 and seeker of the Democratic nomination for governor of California in 1982, had greater success writing political novels, including Lincoln, Burr, and Washington, DC.

America has had a George Washington, an Andrew Jackson, and a Dwight Eisenhower, which makes one wonder "what might have been" in Virginia had Jim Webb relied on his exploits with a rifle, instead of reviling with his escapades with a pen. America has yet to have its Vaclav Havel, its Benjamin Disraeli. James Webb won't be the first. Like Huck Finn's father, American voters aren't impressed much by book learnin'. Intellectuals repulse the masses. Doers--military heroes, rags-to-riches businessmen, even actors and athletes--fare much better at the ballot box than thinkers.

Jim Webb is a good man, and as Ronald Reagan's secretary of the navy and author of (the book) Rules of Engagement--that rare Hollywood product that conservatives found politically appealing--he's also a Democrat that can win some Republican votes. But he won't win enough. When one chooses to write books one necessarily chooses (consciously or not) to eschew electoral politics. Jim Webb wrote George Allen's most effective campaign material many years ago. Those writings put millions of dollars in his pocket. They also determined that he would not sit in the United States Senate.

George Allen's bit part in Gods & Generals has made it into the news too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/johnny-reb-allens-swift-_b_32694.html

Dan there are boys dying over in Iraq right now.

If at this critical juncture in history people actually decide their US Senate vote on dirty book excerpts, they don't deserve to be Amerians anymore.

This is the scariest part of the Chrisian Riech.

They fear sex more than war(nessesary or unnesesary)

Wait a minute *** NEWSFLASH ***: there are boys dying in Iraq? Now?

Have to wonder what the Christian Right has to do with any of this. If you're saying that voting sometimes tracks along moral lines, then that doesn't mean you have to be a dyed in the wool hard right Christian holy roller to go there.

You sound like Johnny one note with this Christian Right stuff. Anything to straighten things out for you in your limited little mind I suppose.

HeHe,

A couple of questions: (1) What are your criteria for deserving to be an American?

Also, (2) if some people no longer deserve to be Americans, then surely something should be done about them. What ought to be done with those who no longer deserve to be Americans?

I think we should all follow Homer's advice and ignore this troll. We've had our fun, with this guy being a dullard and all, but it's time to stop letting him derail the posted subject. Enough is enough!

Q."Have to wonder what the Christian Right has to do with any of this" ~asdf

A.Who do you think the "Webb wrote dirty books" campaign is targeted for?

Christian Richers who are scared of that icky thing called sex. That's who.

Webb is in a close race, but the latest polling has him benefiting from Allen's desperate ploys, pulling ahead 47-43.

Besides him, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, and Sheldon Whitehouse are on their way to Washington DC.

And if either Claire McKaskil or Harold Ford win, they're be in the majority.

Its coming down to the wire, and classless appeals to the Riech are not enough.

We may just have a Democratic Senate.

Which may just mean that Hillary Clinton will appoint the next Supreme Court nominee.

Wasn’t it Webb who started the ball rolling here? And, in kind, Allen used a similar cheap a$$ ploy to battle back. And it worked! Much better than Webb’s cheap a$$ ploy. So, what’s the problem? Politics ain’t bean bag.

I don’t think that it would only be the, so called, “Christian Right” members who might take pause at Webb’s musings. So pinning Webb’s demise on something libs define as the “Christian Right” just sounds dumb. You people are so limited.

And I'll match quantity and quality of hetero $ex experiences with a self proclaimed open minded lib any day of the week. Only thing "icky" is how you guys think.

"Classless appeals to the Riech [sic] are not enough...."

Quite humorous. Do you suppose anyone here -- all your betters -- takes you seriously? It's bad enough that you write in broken English with the spelling skills of a eighth grader, must your rhetoric be ridiculous too?

If you insist on commenting here, you might as well learn something, viz., what conservatives actually believe and why. I doubt you'll take my advice, which is just fine with me. Unlike some here, I happen to enjoy a bit of comic relief on Flynn Files.

Look dude, spelling is a arbritaty system of representing meaning. People who think they're smart because they're good spellers are like people who think they're smart cuz they have a high IQ.

They're not. In the words of Steven Hawking "They're losers".

A little education for you:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225741.600-whats-intelligence-got-to-do-with-it.html

Pick up the article, its a good read.

Now, onto your "point", who else do you think Allen is trying to reach with his novel stunt?

The novels have been published for decades, you know his opsearch guys must have known about these passages for months. He broke this out now because he's tied in the polls and needs a a few thousand more people to go vote for him on election day.

So I ask you. Who did he want to reach with these naughty sexy passages? Who did he want to get to the polls?

Young voters? African-americans? Libertarians? Fiscal conservatives? Gun rights advocates? Environmentalists?

No.

This message was meant for Reichers. Liberty University going, 700 club watching, Christian Radio listening, Bible Thumbing, sex-fearing holier-than-thou Reichers.

Its the only logical conclusion.

asdf i don't know of any dirty tricks on the Webb side.

And FYI I'm not objecting to Allen's trick, I'm just saying it won't work.

Allen strikes me as a chump trying to be a lifer politician. I think I want him to lose between these two guys, but that is an unschooled opinion from afar, I have no say in Virginny.

And thanks for the news flash Obi Juan b/c if Allen will attack someone for being in one of the better war films made and one of the few great Civil War films then he certainly doesn't deserve to represent the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia whose ancestors heroically fought against the nascent American Imperium.

And Dan, that story of the Cambodian father is very icky and the article I read on this actually found some earlier newspaper story describing a Vietnamese woman engaging in the same act in L.A. I know that various cultures can engage in very strange behavior but now I am curious, is that act actually common in Vietnam and Cambodia? What's up w/ that? Anyone read any National Geographic stories on it or anything? I know Webb says the context he used it in was as a look into Cambodian culture, so I don't have any particular problem with his having written of this as long as that is the case.

Oh, and HeHe . . . do you think a father sticking his child's privates in his mouth is disturbing b/c it has to do w/ "sex"? How does that have to do w/ sex? Where are you from anyway? Not even people in San Francisco would fail to be skeezed out by that story. Is the disgust that most non-Muslims feel in reaction to stories of Muslim girls being "circumsised" (a terrible misappellation for a vicious mutilation) due to their prudishness as regards sex? You are a real f'ing tool man. Grow up or go away.

Bruce,
For my money, Allen is the lesser of these two men. But far from attacking someone for being in the war film, it was Allen himself who was in that film in an extra role. In the photo linked Allen is on the far right.

HeHe is right insofar as the election should turn on issues rather than on who hurled racial slurs and who put what in a novel. I do think Webb's military background speaks to his motivations and abilities in a way that is beyond Allen. Allen, a professional politician, will probably win. Webb wears the politician hat very uneasily, but Allen is slick and he has much the better organization behind him.

So let me see if I've got this -- the only people who take offense to graphic depictions of pedophilic incestual acts are pious Christians?

Look. The only reason religious conservatives who vote Republican would stay home is to punish the party for not being conservative enough. Webb's depictions of perversity wouldn't change that.

The strategy, and it's a good one, of releasing the Webb quotations to the press is aimed at a much wider demographic. Believe it or not, people with normal mores are offended by the acts Webb portrays.

No Raplh.

The only people who would base their US Senate vote on what one of the candidates wrote in a novel published decades ago are pious Christians.

The only people who would think that this kind of thing is more important than the men and women serving in Iraq, the budget deficit, and energy policy are pious Christians.

Other people might be offended. But most non-Reichers are adults: they can seperate fact and fiction.

Reichers can't. Allen knows this, and that's why he's releasing these quotes now.

"The only people...."

And you know this how?

"Other people might be offended. But most non-Reichers are adults: they can seperate fact and fiction.

Reichers can't."

I am a macaca-American.

Webster thanks for setting me straight on that! That seals the deal both camps down there blow but I agree w/ your take that Allen has come off as much more the lifer-politician always looking for the angle and the grift to get elected, more so than Webb.

HeHe, do you even understand that you aren't using that German word "Reich" properly? It is an inapt fit. I suggest that you use the more clever and grammatically coherent "American Taliban." If you insist on likening American Christians to Nazis then how about "Christian Stormtroopers" or "Brownshirts" or something?

Where did you get that "Religious Reich" phrase anyway? Someone like Janeane Garofalo?

I don't speak German Bruce, and this wouldn't be the first time that a word is incorporated into a different language and takes on a meaning of its own.

Its actually kinda common.
---------

Looking it up it seems that "Reich" falls somewhere in between "realm", "kingdom" and "empire".

That's what I thought, and that's what I mean to say when I say the Christian Reich.

They believe that the US is their realm, their Kingdom on Earth, and they want to claim it as their own.

They are wrong.

As to the Nazi comparison, its tenuious but there. Surely I mean to associate them with authortarian movements becuase that's what they are.

But the "Reich" just happens to fit better than say "royaume", "reino", "regnum", or "realm" because its a semi-rhyme with "right", the usual word.

I dunno. I didn't make it up, everyone says it on the West Coast.

But I figure that's why it started.

Oh yeah most people say "Religious Reich", but I always screw it up and say "Christian Reich".

They both get the point accross I suppose.

Speaking of them, has anyone seen the latest Youtube clip from these people?

Check it out;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TDgKxbL2jq4

It'd be funnier than Chapelle if it weren't so scary.

"As to the Nazi comparison, its tenuious but there."

This isn't a complete sentence, and you've mispelled "tenuous." And your comment that religious conservatives are authoritarians demonstrates that you are an ignorant or deceitful. I suppose you could be both.

No Ralph, the Religious Reich is a authoratian movement.

Why is that Youtube clip so scary HeHe? Are you insecure about who you are? I didn't see those guys beating or torturing anybody, in fact, they seemed logical and intelligent and certainly didn’t seem to offend the people they were talking about. And when did it become a crime for one to have an opinion or to speak freely about that opinion? The only "Nazis" I sense here are the liberal ones who would squelch others who don’t hold the same point of view.

Are you serious?

You have an orginization producing a video that tries to convince gays they are sinners and need to repent of they'll go to hell.

Are you SERIOUS?

Of course they can have and express an opnion.

And I can have, -and do- have an opnion that their opnion is scary as sh*t.

We live in a day and age when science can prove that homosexuality is a natural behavior exhibited in thousands of species, is most likely an epigeneic phemonomen with limited environmental input, and most certainly is not a choice.

And these people (friking Mike Seaver of all people) are going around telling people its a sin cuz they read it in some old book?

This is nuts!

They can be as respectful as they want to be.

It doesn't make thier cause any less bonkers.

Here's a real vid for ya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09bOAJKS8Gg

Does Hell really scare you that much? Hell, Hell, Hell....go to Hell.....BOO!!! ur' nuts.

"We live in a day and age when science can prove that homosexuality is a natural behavior exhibited in thousands of species, is most likely an epigeneic [sic] phemonomen [sic] with limited environmental input, and most certainly is not a choice."

That's hilarious. Where to start? Is homosexuality a behavior? What do you mean by "natural"? What "proof" are you referring to? Where did you learn a big word like "epigenetic"? Can choices run contrary to "natural" dispositions? Didn't you take any philosophy at your junior college?

Philosophy is bulls*it Ralph.

Science rules.

Homosexuality is a behavior. By natural I mean that it occurs in nature.

The 'proof':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5120004.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/61639.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2266135.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

Tip of the iceburg my friend.

I can't post links to scientificjournals cuz they're subscription only.

So here goes:

The following paper was published in Nature:
(Nature 404, 455 - 456 (30 March 2000); doi:10.1038/350065550

Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation

Measuring people's finger patterns may reveal some surprising information.

Animal models have indicated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence the sexual orientation of adult humans. Here we examine the androgen-sensitive pattern of finger lengths1, and find evidence that homosexual women are exposed to more prenatal androgen than heterosexual women are; also, men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood2, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons. Prenatal androgens may therefore influence adult human sexual orientation in both sexes, and a mother's body appears to 'remember' previously carried sons, altering the fetal development of subsequent sons and increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in adulthood.

In women, the index finger (2D, second digit) is almost the same length as the fourth digit (4D), although it may be slightly longer or shorter; in men, the index finger is more often shorter than the fourth. The greater 2D:4D ratio in females is established in two-year-olds1. Because all non-gonadal somatic sex differences in humans appearto be the result of fetal androgens that masculinize males3, the sex difference in the 2D:4D ratio probably reflects the prenatal influence of androgen on males4.

In an anonymous survey, 720 adults who were attending public street fairs in the San Francisco area were asked their gender, age, sexual orientation, handedness, and the number and gender of children their mother had carried before them. As expected, men have significantly longer fingers than women (P 0.09). However, segregating male subjects based on birth order provided support for the role of fetal androgens in male sexual orientation. The more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to develop a homosexual orientation2. Confirming these reports, we also found that only homosexual men had a greater than expected proportion of brothers (P

whoa I got cut off.

sucks. There's a LOT more where that came from.

The bottom line is that although we cannot yet sya for certain what makes people gay, homosexuality is a behaviour exhibited in many animals, including humans, and is very unlikely to be a choice.

I'll leave you with this article that shows why just how out of touch the Christian Riech in America is with the rest of the world's mainline Christian beliefs.

From this weeks Nature:

When science and theology meet

Declan Butlerg

Catholic Church ready to reject intelligent design.

Religion is religion, science is science, and good fences make good neighbours. That seems likely to be the thrust of an expected clarification by the Roman Catholic Church of its position on biological evolution, according to a prominent biologist who spoke at a retreat on the topic held last weekend by Pope Benedict XVI.
When science and theology meet

T. GENTILE

Creative thought: Pope Benedict XVI is wrestling with how to square evolution with religion.

This outcome would be a blow to supporters of intelligent design who had hoped that factions in the Vatican sympathetic to their ideas might prevail in an internal feud over evolution that has opened since the death of Pope John Paul II in April last year. That could have given a global axis to what has been largely a US cultural phenomenon.

John Paul II perhaps did more than any pontiff to reconcile faith and science, declaring in 1980 that there was no contradiction between the two. He subsequently described darwinian evolution as more than a hypothesis, and in 1992 officially rehabilitated Galileo Galilei, admitting the Church's fault. Benedict XVI, however, has long been more ambiguous on the topic. In his first mass as Pope, he stated that "we are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution".

Last year, the prominent Cardinal Christoph Schönborn wrote an article in The New York Times expressing doubts about darwinism. He also seemed to advocate intelligent design, a movement whose advocates seek to give creationism scientific credibility by arguing that the complexity of science can be explained only by divine intervention in the process of evolution.

Although Schönborn has since back-pedalled on the way his ideas were expressed in the article, the piece fuelled rumours that Rome, which currently endorses darwinian evolution and rejects any literal interpretation of biblical creation, might instead endorse intelligent design.

Speculation increased last month when Schönborn announced that creation and evolution would be the topic of the Pope's annual retreat, to be held in Castel Gandolfo near Rome. As a former cardinal and German theology professor, Joseph Ratzinger has long held this informal gathering, where he discusses a hot topic with his past students. But the retreat has taken on new significance since Ratzinger became Pope.

Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, which represents the intelligent-design movement, welcomed the choice of topic in a press release published on the institute's website last week. In it he wrote: "What's good about all this is that they're taking up the issue seriously...it will be conducted at a very high level and I think it should give cheer to people who are critics of Darwinism."

Schönborn was one of four invited speakers at the meeting, which also included Robert Spaemann, a conservative German philosopher, and Paul Erbrich, a Jesuit priest who questions the random nature of evolution. The fourth speaker, the only working scientist present, was Peter Schuster, a molecular biologist and president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

In a break with tradition, the proceedings of the meeting will be published later this year, says Schuster, with a preface written by the Pope. The message will be to promote dialogue between faith and reason, Schuster says. Given the power struggles within the Church, however, the precise outcome of the overall debate is impossible to predict, he says: "We have to wait."

But discussions at the meeting suggest that the Church will probably affirm a form of theistic evolution, which posits the general principle that biological evolution is valid, although set in motion by God. At the same time, it seems likely to reject the fundamental intelligent-design principle that God was a watchmaker, intervening in the details. "Intelligent design as an intervention of God during evolution will not be an outcome," predicts Schuster. "I got the impression that there was general agreement that evolutionary biology is a undeniable science and not a hypothesis."

I got the impression that there was general agreement that evolutionary biology is a undeniable science and not a hypothesis.

The Pope in particular "immediately accepted that theology is not going to interfere with science", Schuster adds. "He is not a scientist, but I was surprised by the sharpness of his intellect. He wanted to be informed; he was very interested in science."

But although there is likely to be agreement that the Church should not attempt to question the basic theory of evolution, those at the meeting were also adamant that science should not stray into theology. Schuster says there was a wide desire to address the Church's concern that darwinism is being extrapolated as a wider metaphysical stance. This argues that we are random products of evolution, and that there is therefore no need for God. "I agree that, as in science, everyone should stay within their realms of competence," says Schuster.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4236/443895ai10ln4.jpg

Proof positive.

"Philosophy is bulls*it. Science rules."

You're an idiot.

"Homosexuality is a behavior."

So by your definition, people who do not engage in the sort of behavior in question (in the interest of decency, I won't elaborate), cannot be homosexuals, i.e., an "abstinent homosexual" is an oxymoron.

"By natural I mean that it occurs in nature."

And now I'll ask you to define "nature." In particualr, what does it mean to occur "in nature."

The article you posted begs the question, i.e., it assumes that there is a physiological cause of homosexuality and then proceeds to speculate on what that cause may be. It is also important to realize that correlation is insufficient to establish causality. Thus, even if exposure to "prenatal androgen" is correlated with homosexuality, it does not establish that it is a cause of homosexuality (assuming there is a physiological cause; an assumption that has not been established).

You didn't answer my question: "Can choices run contrary to 'natural' dispositions?"

I'm a Catholic and find no fault with Darwinian evolution.

BTW, this is truly funny: "[The Pope] is not a scientist, but I was surprised by the sharpness of his intellect."

Shocking that a non-scientist would know much of anything.

Science does rule, it is the sole source of truth.

Now, when scientists study homosexuality they describe it as a "behaviour'. As in "fruit flies exhibit homosexual behaviour".

Scientists do this because although homosexuality most likely has phyisological roots, they have not yet disovered them. So the only way they can observe and record homosexuality is through observing the subject's behaviour.

You are correct that "homosexuality" itself is not a bahaviour. But homosexuality itself is not observable. So "homosexual behaviour" is what is measured and studied.

Most of the time, homosexuality exhibits itself as homosexual behaviour. Even the most stridently anti-gay, Chriaitan preachers out there engange in homosexuality if they are indeed homosexuals.

Exhibit A: Ted Haggard has just been outed.

(Not that we couldn't have guessed that before, with his voice)

The evidence strongly supports a physiological cause for homosexuality.

After all, do fruit files really have a "choice"?

The scientific debate now is centered on what that physiological cause is, and the answer will most likely be incredibly complex.

"... After all, do fruit files really have a "choice"?" - HeHe

Right, fruit flies don't have choice. But this is what makes us "special," i.e., unique as a species. We DO have a choice, and responsibility, to act not simply on our basest, physical drives but for the sake of higher, nobler, rational ends and purposes.

Empirical science shows us that other species sometimes consume their young, oust and starve various members within their social groups, etc. Are these "natural" phenomena justifications, by ana-logy, for similar behaviors within the human species? You argument seems to imply as much, HeHe.

Hehe,

You failed to respond to the rest of my comments.

As for your ramblings on homosexual behavior, let me help you out a bit. I think you mean to say that homosexuality is a disposition to particular behavior (again, decency forbids further elaboration), and that such a disposition is the effect of a genetic cause.

Now, you state that scientists study homosexual behavior because "although homosexuality most likely has phyisological roots, they have not yet disovered them." If scientists have not discovered the genes that cause homosexuality, what is the basis for claiming that "homosexuality most likely has phyisological roots"? Why is it likely?

"After all, do fruit files really have a 'choice'?"

Along the same lines, it might be asked "Do fruit flies really engage in homosexual behavior?" Even if flies behave in a manner that resembles copulation with flies of the opposite sex, does that constitute homosexual behavior? Do flies, for example, possess sexual desires for flies of the opposite sex? Consider a similar case: Does a dog engage in the equivalent of bestiality when he "humps" a man's leg or fellatio when he licks himself? Or isn't that a bit of anthropomorphism?

Excellent point, Buzz.

OK Buzz you need a crash course on how the brain works buddy.

Not everything we do is governed by the rational, choice enabling part of our brains.

We do not choose to breathe. We do not choose to be hungary. And we do not choose to be gay.

We may only choose to hold our breath, to fast, or to abstain from homosexual sex.

Your argument about other species consuming thier young is laughable.

I mean litterally LMFAO over here dude.

The agument against homosexuality being natural centers on the idea that it is a choice. But if it were a choice, it would be a uniquley human behavior because we are the only animals capable of such higher decision making.

This is why data on homosexuality in other animals is important to this debate. It refutes the thesis that homosexuality is a choice.

Now, just becuase animal behaviours have been introduced into the debate doesn't mean that one can take any behavior exhibited by any animal, apply it to humans, and call it 'natural".

For one, the consumption of one's young is very very rarely observed in humans. This alone makes the behaviour "unnatural", in a way that cannot be said about homosexuality- which occurs in all societies, in all cultures at rate of about 9% of the population.

And secondly, there are no animals with close evolutionary links to humans that exhibit this behaviour. Our closest realitives- the Chimps and the Gorillas- live remarkably like we do. Everything from family to morality to war is present in some rudimentary form in great ape societies.

Taking one single behavior from one specific species that has no evoltionary links to human beings and pronoucing that behaviour in humans to be natural is a bit like claiming that it is unnatural for humans to not be purple- becuase after all that's what color eggplants are.

BOOM! Buzz you just got SMACKED DOWN like a little beea*tch buddy.

I suggest you all put down the Kant and the Hayek, and pick up some Popper.

Ya'll are in desperate need of an eduation only science can give ya.

Peace World Is Flaters. Come back when you've discovered the scientific method.

Oh and BTW your boy Ted Haggard IS A GAY METHHEAD!!

You're simply an idiot. And the suggestion that you've read Popper, much less Kant or Hayek, is ridiculous. What a fool. I'm done wasting time with you.

Right ok Ralph.

Hate the game, not the player big boy.

Not a bad idea, Ralph. But just this time, I have my comments in brackets...

"OK Buzz you need a crash course on how the brain works buddy. [LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.]

"Not everything we do is governed by the rational, choice enabling part of our brains. [NO SH*T]

"We do not choose to breathe. [OK] We do not choose to be hungary. [NOPE. IN FACT, I DON’T THINK ANYONE CAN CHOOSE TO BE A GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION.] And we do not choose to be gay. [NEVER DEBATED THIS POINT.]

"The agument against homosexuality [DO YOU MEAN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR (OR "BEHAVIOUR" IF YOU ARE FROM ACROSS THE POND, OR NORTH OF THE BORDER, OR SOME OTHER FORMER BRITISH DOMAIN, OR JUST A POSER ANGLOPHILE) OR DO YOU MEAN HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCY/INCLINATION?] being natural centers on the idea that it is a choice. But if it [WHATEVER "IT" IS] were a choice, it would be a uniquley human behavior because we are the only animals capable of such higher decision making. [OK. AGREED.]

"This is why data on homosexuality in other animals is important to this debate. It refutes the thesis that homosexuality is a choice. [IF THE "HOMOSEXUALITY" IN QUESTION IS HOMOSEXUAL INCLINATION, YOU DON’T NEED OT CONVINCE ME OF THE POINT YOU ARE ARGUING.]

"Now, just becuase animal behaviours [OR BEHAVIORS] have been introduced into the debate doesn't mean that one can take any behavior [GLAD YOU’RE A FELLOW YANKEE AGAIN] exhibited by any animal, apply it to humans, and call it 'natural".

"For one, the consumption of one's young is very very rarely observed in humans.[NOT VERY TASTY, I GUESS.] This alone makes the behaviour "unnatural", in a way that cannot be said about homosexuality- which occurs in all societies, in all cultures at rate of about 9% of the population. [WHATEVER. OK. I’LL JUST TAKE YOUR WORD ON THIS HIGHLY PROPAGANDIZED STAT.]

And secondly, there are no animals with close evolutionary links to humans that exhibit this behaviour. Our closest realitives- the Chimps and the Gorillas- live remarkably like we do. Everything from family to morality to war is present in some rudimentary form in great ape societies. [I WONDER, WHERE ARE THE 9% HOMOSEXUAL GREAT APES HANGING OUT?]

Taking one single behavior from one specific species that has no evoltionary links to human beings and pronoucing that behaviour in humans to be natural [SIMPLE MAN, IS THIS NOT THE SIMPLE POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE IN YOUR REFERENCE TO FRUIT FLIES?] is a bit like claiming that it is unnatural for humans to not be purple- becuase after all that's what color eggplants are. [RIGHT, NATURALLY PURPLE EGGPLANTS CERTAINLY DO NOT IMPLY NATURALLY PURPLE HUMANS. SO WHY WOULD YOUR “NATURALLY HOMOSEXUAL FRUIT FLIES” WITH QUITE DISTANT EVOLUTIONARY LINKS TO HUMANS IMPLY ANYTHING ABOUT THE “NATURALNESS” OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN HUMANS?]

BOOM! Buzz you just got SMACKED DOWN like a little beea*tch buddy. [ouch]

I suggest you all put down the Kant and the Hayek, and pick up some Popper. [NO FAN OF HAYEK. GOT ANYTHING FROM TO CITE FROM POPPER THAT’S HELPFUL TO YOU HERE?]

Ya'll are in desperate need of an eduation only science can give ya. [DOES SCIENCE TEACH HEHE EBONICS?]

...

Oh and BTW your boy Ted Haggard IS A GAY METHHEAD!! [SOUNDS LIKE HE’S MORE YOUR TYPE. THOUGHT YOU ALREADY KNEW MOST HERE WERE NOT EVANGELICALS. SHORT TERM MEMORY PROBLEM?]

Oh sorry about the ebonics Buzz.

Silly me for using the 'negroe" words.

Do black people really scare you that much?

BTW great way to respond to a reasoned argument with a lame "Hey-Hungray is a country" joke.

Loser.

Oh and FYI that's L-O-S-E-R.

Not ebonics, HeHe-bonics, your personal way of trying to communicate.

You are not a scientist. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just a HACK who doesn't realize that all he does is take scientific data and use it to support bad (i.e., logically unsound) metaphysical conclusions.

FYI, I did respond to your "reasoned" argument:

Taking one single behavior from one specific species that has no evoltionary links to human beings and pronoucing that behaviour in humans to be natural [SIMPLE MAN, IS THIS NOT THE SIMPLE POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE IN YOUR REFERENCE TO FRUIT FLIES?] is a bit like claiming that it is unnatural for humans to not be purple- becuase after all that's what color eggplants are. [RIGHT, NATURALLY PURPLE EGGPLANTS CERTAINLY DO NOT IMPLY NATURALLY PURPLE HUMANS. SO WHY WOULD YOUR “NATURALLY HOMOSEXUAL FRUIT FLIES” WITH QUITE DISTANT EVOLUTIONARY LINKS TO HUMANS IMPLY ANYTHING ABOUT THE “NATURALNESS” OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN HUMANS?]

Oh, and is "Hungray" a country now? Not a joke. Dude, your brain is fried.

Actually I'm taking the conculsions of scientists and defending them with evidence.

You're using philosophy, which is basically witchraft, to try and refute scientific fact.

Oh that and terminology. Its obvious that the word "behaviour" can have different meanings in different contexts. But you- and your "philosophy" seem intent upon exploiting semantic differences to desperatly try and change the meaning of what I have to say.

Only then- when you have changed its meaning- does my argument falter.

"We do not choose to be hungary. [NOPE. IN FACT, I DON’T THINK ANYONE CAN CHOOSE TO BE A GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION.]"

Lame joke.