Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 231
  1. #41  
    As already stated above: The subject is which group will you deny rights to based on their biological condition.
  2. #42  
    Because I do not support an issue does not mean I hate it or the people involved. I frankly do not support a majority cramming its desires down my throat. The majority of this nation also does not support your issue. When someone does not support an issue you do, you turn and twist it into an issue of hate and race. Well buddy, there is a big problem there. We are not an overly racist society. Look around the world and you will see that. We are a religious society that works upon moral responsibility, there are places in this world that do not. Your attitude moves us toward a "feel good society" where you can do anything you want at any time as long as the government approves of it. This issue is not something the government needs to get involved in.

    Do I speak of hate? No. Am I expressing hate? No. You, daThomas, bring up the hate and make a big deal of it. The others here do not.

    Ben
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Now substitute "negro" for "homosexual" and the racial slur of your choice for "limp wristed" and tell me how that sounds.
    Hey da

    You threw the race card gauntlet down.....

    I am still waiting for your Devilcrat reasoning for making me a racist because I do not accept the homosexual behavior......waiting.....waiting....waiting

    Come on da, explain why I am a homosexual racist...

    Is it because homosexuals are another race in your Devilcrat thought process????

    Still waiting....

    Chuck
  4. #44  
    Originally Posted By: bclinger at Today 06:33 PM

    Because I do not support an issue does not mean I hate it or the people involved.



    There's quite a difference between being non-supportive of said issue and the red herring push for a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. Not saying you support that Ben, but that is the OT.

    I just love how this particular civil rights debate fires up before every significant election cycle. Gotta fire up those red staters. Yeeehaaaaw.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Now substitute "negro" for "homosexual" and the racial slur of your choice for "limp wristed" and tell me how that sounds.
    Come on da...

    Still waiting for your weak explaination of your racism statement.

    I invested $4.95 for 24 hours of wifi so I can get your reply quickly. Don't waste my money. Give me your reasoning for making the above statement.

    Go to Starbucks in Seattle, get some kind of fluffy coffee and think about your reply....I'll wait a little longer if I have to....waiting....waiting....waiting...

    Chuck
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Come on da...

    Still waiting for your weak explaination of your racism statement.

    I invested $4.95 for 24 hours of wifi so I can get your reply quickly. Don't waste my money. Give me your reasoning for making the above statement.

    Go to Starbucks in Seattle, get some kind of fluffy coffee and think about your reply....I'll wait a little longer if I have to....waiting....waiting....waiting...

    Chuck
    Already replied. Not calling you a racist, just using race as an example for this issue, As in:

    which group will you deny rights to based on their biological condition.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Because I do not support an issue does not mean I hate it or the people involved. I frankly do not support a majority cramming its desires down my throat. The majority of this nation also does not support your issue. When someone does not support an issue you do, you turn and twist it into an issue of hate and race. Well buddy, there is a big problem there. We are not an overly racist society. Look around the world and you will see that. We are a religious society that works upon moral responsibility, there are places in this world that do not. Your attitude moves us toward a "feel good society" where you can do anything you want at any time as long as the government approves of it. This issue is not something the government needs to get involved in.

    Do I speak of hate? No. Am I expressing hate? No. You, daThomas, bring up the hate and make a big deal of it. The others here do not.

    Ben

    In speaking of race and rights you beg the question. If you don't support one's biological directive within your society, how is this different?
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    Originally Posted By: bclinger at Today 06:33 PM

    Because I do not support an issue does not mean I hate it or the people involved.



    There's quite a difference between being non-supportive of said issue and the red herring push for a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. Not saying you support that Ben, but that is the OT.

    I just love how this particular civil rights debate fires up before every significant election cycle. Gotta fire up those red staters. Yeeehaaaaw.

    That's why Karl Rove loves it to.

    MeThinks he's just a little too close to the issue (guckert/gannon).
  9. #49  
    How dare you make such outrageous claims about pig vomit.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes, I know you want to believe that. It's simply not true.

    "The progesterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and the estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) are candidate compounds for human pheromones. In previous positron emission tomography studies, we found that smelling AND and EST activated regions primarily incorporating the sexually dimorphic nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, that this activation was differentiated with respect to sex and compound, and that homosexual men processed AND congruently with heterosexual women rather than heterosexual men. These observations indicate involvement of the anterior hypothalamus in physiological processes related to sexual orientation in humans. We expand the information on this issue in the present study by performing identical positron emission tomography experiments on 12 lesbian women. In contrast to heterosexual women, lesbian women processed AND stimuli by the olfactory networks and not the anterior hypothalamus. Furthermore, when smelling EST, they partly shared activation of the anterior hypothalamus with heterosexual men. These data support our previous results about differentiated processing of pheromone-like stimuli in humans and further strengthen the notion of a coupling between hypothalamic neuronal circuits and sexual preferences."
    This is useful information. Please post a link to the source.

    It would be interesting to note the age of the test subjects. They were referred to as "homsexual" "heterosexual" and "lesbian." That suggests to me that the test subjects identified themselves. As such, the processing of the EST and AND could be a result of their decision instead of a cause. I think the testing would be more conclusive if the tests were performed on new-borns.

    In either case, I am not disputing the results, but sharing my observation in light of the fact that the cite was made as evidence of the practice of homosexuality being "biological" as opposed to intellectual (i.e. choice).
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Hey da

    You threw the race card gauntlet down.....

    I am still waiting for your Devilcrat reasoning for making me a racist because I do not accept the homosexual behavior......waiting.....waiting....waiting

    Come on da, explain why I am a homosexual racist...

    Is it because homosexuals are another race in your Devilcrat thought process????

    Still waiting....

    Chuck

    Would you read the friggin thread:
    As already stated above: The subject is which group will you deny rights to based on their biological condition.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by ttrundle
    wow, you say that as if it's fact. Quite simply it's your opinion and yet you took the low road.
    That is quite simply the facts. To believe otherwise is naive.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Would you read the friggin thread:
    As already stated above: The subject is which group will you deny rights to based on their biological condition.
    Don't we deny children the right to drive/vote/drink, etc. Elderly the right to drive. The insane the right to their freedom. The physically mobile to disability benefits. The unborn the right to live. It is not as cut and dry as you think.

    And note, unlike you and your "negro" comment, I am not equating this with any of the above. Merely pointing out that overly simplifying things is not the way to go.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    This issue is not something the government needs to get involved in.

    Do I speak of hate? No. Am I expressing hate? No. You, daThomas, bring up the hate and make a big deal of it. The others here do not.

    Ben
    The gov't is already involved in it when they require a marriage license. Keep up here huh?

    Denying rights to a minority group is hateful in my opinion. Using anti-gay emotions to win elections, that's hateful.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    ... "feel good society" where you can do anything you want at any time as long as the government approves of it.
    Yeah, we kinda can. That's how it works.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Hey da

    You threw the race card gauntlet down.....

    I am still waiting for your Devilcrat reasoning for making me a racist because I do not accept the homosexual behavior......waiting.....waiting....waiting

    Come on da, explain why I am a homosexual racist...

    Is it because homosexuals are another race in your Devilcrat thought process????

    Still waiting....

    Chuck
    Don't know if you hate black people chuck, but it is apparent that you hate homosexuals.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The subject is which group will you deny rights to based on their biological condition.
    Playing devils advocate here: What rights do we deny homosexuals? As far as I know, they are free to marry people of the opposite sex surely as heterosexuals are. And two straight men can't get married any more than two gay men can.

    Edit: To answer my question above, as far as I know, homosexuality is not a "protected" status under federal law and therefore discrimination is not illegal at the federal level. I think the line of reasoning in marriage stil holds, though.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    This is useful information. Please post a link to the source.
    Link to the source.



    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It would be interesting to note the age of the test subjects. They were referred to as "homsexual" "heterosexual" and "lesbian." That suggests to me that the test subjects identified themselves. As such, the processing of the EST and AND could be a result of their decision instead of a cause. I think the testing would be more conclusive if the tests were performed on new-borns.
    I'm betting every research ethicist on the planet got a cold chill up there spine when you posted that.



    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    In either case, I am not disputing the results, but sharing my observation in light of the fact that the cite was made as evidence of the practice of homosexuality being "biological" as opposed to intellectual (i.e. choice).
    This is just the latest in a mountain of evidence showing a biological cause of homosexualiy. And given the level of discrimination homosexuals experience in this country, why would anyone choose this?
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Don't we deny children the right to drive/vote/drink, etc. Elderly the right to drive. The insane the right to their freedom. The physically mobile to disability benefits. The unborn the right to live. It is not as cut and dry as you think.

    And note, unlike you and your "negro" comment, I am not equating this with any of the above. Merely pointing out that overly simplifying things is not the way to go.
    If anyone is oversimplifying the above certainly did.

    I believe it's being succinct to state a group of people is being denied rights based on what sexuality they were born with. Suggesting one substitute what race they where born as or even what sex is merely a means of helping people to see how ridiculous it is to accept this discrimination.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    If anyone is oversimplifying the above certainly did.

    I believe it's being succinct to state a group of people is being denied rights based on what sexuality they were born with. Suggesting one substitute what race they where born as or even what sex is merely a means of helping people to see how ridiculous it is to accept this discrimination.
    My point exactly Da! I was showing you how crazy your comment was. Changing the subject of a statement (and this shouldn't surprise everyone with a third grade education) changes its meaning. And when you change the meaning of your argument, you are no longer arguing the same thing. My point is that if you want to "help people" see how "ridiculous" this is, you have to accept it when people do the same thing in the opposite direction. Believe it or not, just because you say something doesn't mean it's right (and it especially doesn't mean people will agree).
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions