Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 231
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No I'm speaking of genetics not environment.

    And you're seriously going to offer up that link as scientific research of some kind? It's from the Culture and Family Institute. It is an op/ed piece.
    As I said, I didn't RTFA. Your link (at least the one I read) says nothing of genetics, if I recall.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I did not say it was a scientific research paper. I said it was an article, the article refers to multiple studies and the findings of those studies, the studies were conducted by organizations and individuals who were seeking the biological/genetic link to homosexuality, as well as those who disagree with the genetic role.
    You are a little too fast to attempt to discredit any who disagree with you.
    I'm not referencing propaganda.
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm not referencing propaganda.
    So I take it I will not see any reference from you coming out of Berkley, UCLA, Columbia University, National Cancer Institute, or the University of East London to name a few.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    So I take it I will not see any reference from you coming out of Berkley, UCLA, Columbia University, National Cancer Institute, or the University of East London to name a few.

    You haven't in this thread. I can't make any promises though. (flaky liberals don't keep their promises anyway).
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    (flaky liberals don't keep their promises anyway).


    That should help
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl


    That should help
    I like the citrus one.

  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You haven't in this thread. I can't make any promises though. (flaky liberals don't keep their promises anyway).
    No argument from me.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #88  
    Legislating an intolerant society is certainly a hateful act. This is very similar to laws outlawing mixed race marriages, and the reasoning are very similar. People found what happened behind closed doors distasteful, and made laws against them. Its no more than pathetic, and indicates an underlying insecurity in the so-called "sanctity of marriage". Unless a gay man is trying to marry YOU, how does it hurt you to let them marry?

    I thought USA had a separation of church and state, but clearly some people in this very thread does not believe that is the case. Unless a moral case can be made that does not reference religion this should not even be legal.

    Surur
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Legislating an intolerant society is certainly a hateful act. This is very similar to laws outlawing mixed race marriages, and the reasoning are very similar. People found what happened behind closed doors distasteful, and made laws against them. Its no more than pathetic, and indicates an underlying insecurity in the so-called "sanctity of marriage". Unless a gay man is trying to marry YOU, how does it hurt you to let them marry?
    Do you think there are any limits on what should be allowed? For example, how do you feel about consensual polygamy? How about marrying one's adult children (whatever that's called)?

    I thought USA had a separation of church and state, but clearly some people in this very thread does not believe that is the case. Unless a moral case can be made that does not reference religion this should not even be legal.
    We have the first amendment in the Bill of Rights which restricts Congress from establishing or prohibiting a religion. That's been interpreted to mean that supporting one religion in any way restricts the practice of other religions, so the government should stay neutral about matters of religion. But legislation has always been driven by morality, which has historically been driven indirectly or directly by Christianity. All our currency and important documents reference God; the Supreme Court prays in court; and elected officials and trial witnesses swear on the Bible. So the tie has always been there. There's a growing agnosticism in this country that's been pushing back the Christian morality strongly in recent decades, and it's using the Church & State argument effectively.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Do you think there are any limits on what should be allowed? For example, how do you feel about consensual polygamy? How about marrying one's adult children (whatever that's called)?

    We have the first amendment in the Bill of Rights which restricts Congress from establishing or prohibiting a religion. That's been interpreted to mean that supporting one religion in any way restricts the practice of other religions, so the government should stay neutral about matters of religion. But legislation has always been driven by morality, which has historically been driven indirectly or directly by Christianity. All our currency and important documents reference God; the Supreme Court prays in court; and elected officials and trial witnesses swear on the Bible. So the tie has always been there. There's a growing agnosticism in this country that's been pushing back the Christian morality strongly in recent decades, and it's using the Church & State argument effectively.
    We also used to pile rocks on witches.

    Some of us have evolved since then.

    Pray all you want to whichever god you wish in whatever court you like.

    Furthermore your comparison of gays to those who have sex with their children tells us something about the hatefullness of YOUR views.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    We also used to pile rocks on witches.

    Some of us have evolved since then.

    Pray all you want to whichever god you wish in whatever court you like.

    Furthermore your comparison of gays to those who have sex with their children tells us something about the hatefullness of YOUR views.
    You're making a lot of assumptions.

    I didn't say anything about sex.
    I didn't say anything about gays.
    I didn't make any comparisons.
    I didn't express or imply hate towards anyone.
    I didn't say anything about my own views at all.

    I asked Surur a couple questions to understand his statement better, and I gave him some context for Church & State in the US, very neutral in tone, IMO.
    Last edited by samkim; 05/19/2006 at 11:48 PM.
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    ...Furthermore your comparison of gays to those who have sex with their children tells us something about the hatefullness of YOUR views.
    What does it tell us?
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Legislating an intolerant society is certainly a hateful act.
    you don't really believe that. There are plenty of things societies don't tolerate. That "intolerance" is backed-up with legislation. We don't tolerate stealing. We don't tolerate murder. We don't even tolerate speeding, and it has nothing to do with hatred for fast drivers.
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    This is very similar to laws outlawing mixed race marriages, and the reasoning are very similar. People found what happened behind closed doors distasteful, and made laws against them.
    Well, at the time people thought that the "races" were essentially different. Even the use of the term "race" as a reference to ethnicity continues that understanding. In any case, within that context, it is understandable that "mixing" races was considered distasteful. And it is no surprise that the society sought legislation to preserve the "natural order."
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Its no more than pathetic, and indicates an underlying insecurity in the so-called "sanctity of marriage". Unless a gay man is trying to marry YOU, how does it hurt you to let them marry?

    I thought USA had a separation of church and state, but clearly some people in this very thread does not believe that is the case. Unless a moral case can be made that does not reference religion this should not even be legal.

    Surur
    To make a case one way or the other, one needs to examine "why" marriage and child-rearing has been incentivized (a la tax benefits) in this nation. The reason is simple. The society needs a steady supply of productive citizens to continue its existence. Having a balanced influence of male and female authorities committed to each other and to the well-being of their descendents is the most beneficial model for accomplishing that.

    Of course, fine citizens have emerged from other scenarios, but the ideal remains marriage as it has been known for centuries.
    Last edited by shopharim; 05/19/2006 at 11:36 PM.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That is quite simply the facts. To believe otherwise is naive.
    so call me naive and the majority of the country....but *we* must be wrong, being a majority and all.
  15. #95  
    And, by the way, what's wrong with hate? Why is it undesireable to be hateful (if in fact that's what it is)?
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    And, by the way, what's wrong with hate? Why is it undesireable to be hateful (if in fact that's what it is)?
    good point
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    And, by the way, what's wrong with hate? Why is it undesireable to be hateful (if in fact that's what it is)?
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    good point
    nice
  18. #98  
    a) Regarding being intolerant of gays vs being intolerant of speeding - being gay is not a crime, yet they are being legislated against.

    b) Regarding swearing on the bible etc - is USA then a Christian theocracy, basing their laws upon 4000 year old mores?

    c) Regarding the government trying to promote children from marriage - thats a good argument, but it falls flat in 3 ways 1) How does letter gays marry damage straight marriage 2) If you dont let gays marry, will they then marry straight people and have children and 3) there is a growing disconnect between marriage and fertility, since the 1960's. Maybe its time the law caught up?

    Surur
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    b) Regarding swearing on the bible etc - is USA then a Christian theocracy, basing their laws upon 4000 year old mores?
    I think most western countries base their laws on 4000 year old mores, just to varying degrees.
  20. #100  
    Surur,
    I'm still wondering what you think about the limits of law:

    Do you think there are any limits on what should be allowed? For example, how do you feel about consensual polygamy? How about marrying one's adult children (whatever that's called)?
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions