Don't think you can weasel your way out so easily. You were NOT merely analyzing someone else's position when you wrote your original post.
You stated, and I quote, "no God(s) have ever communicated with me on the subject, and I reject State pronouncements on the question... That leaves us with studying Nature for some clues about such behavior.
I believe one does not have to look very far in Nature, among a number of species, to observe what appear to be homosexual behaviors."
In context, your later statements can only be taken as personal beliefs, including your claim that violence against homosexuals is "natural" (perhaps it's even admirable, akin to John Galt for crying out loud) and that women's political participation is a sign of societal decay.
If we are not to learn from the state or from God, but only to learn from nature--and if these are the lessons that nature teaches--then would you be in favor of beating homosexuals? You may disavow this position, but it's one clear implication of your original post.
Personally, I prefer to learn from HUMAN nature, which teaches that many different modes of life can all coexist peacefully. I find it preposterous to dwell on animal examples when we are endowed with thinking minds that so easily do so much better.
Of course, you do have a right to say all these things. But I also have a right to tell you that I find your insinuations vile, offensive, and--worst of all--based on breathtakingly poor evidence.
by Jason Kuznicki on February 9, 2005 at 12:19 PM