*sits in the corner taking notes... minus the ones about evolution*

What do you all think of the statement, "Most homophobes are homosexual, but in denial of their sexuality," ?

Yeah, it's made out of magic rainbows. And fried babies.

Have you seen the following article?



BaenSidhe

Most of those people who believe in ID believe that natural selection can take place, but perhaps there was an outside influence. The truth is, people who think that their theory is absolute and there is no other answer when it hasn't been proven are ignorant. That goes for both Creationists and Evolutionists. And furthermore, anything that someone believes can be a theory. Religion is a theory because it is an idea used to explain something. When you are trying to have an intelligent discussion it is best not to belittle other's explanations because theirs are often as valid as your own. In summary, I think the evolution argument in here has gone far enough. Both sides are fools who simply try to tear down other's ideas because they do not "agree" with their own line of thought. Bertrand Russell once said: "I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." And I agree.

It definitely does, unless you think it means that people should be put do death for doing the right thing. The Bible definitely says homosexuallity is wrong. Now, that doesn't mean it only says it's wrong. The Bible is full of contradictions. This is one of the reasons I don't think it is a very effective source to be quoting.

---now about evolution---

As for the person who says that evolution won't work until we find fossils of creatures from the gap between man and ape, umm, I hate to break it to you but a long stream of fossils have been found between ape and man.

Also, Intelligent Design(which is not creationism) is basicly saying "evolution is how things work but God decided how things went", so believing in it is fine, but teaching it in a secular school system would require you to remove God from the equation and basicly teach "evolution is how things work" which is the same as teaching evolution.

Also, the first life evolved from the soup (which by the way, the initial conditions have been simulated and scientists have had basic amino acids and such develop just by hitting the "soup" with electricity, which occurs naturally in the form of lighting, an event that happened more on the early earth) over 300 million years. Do you realize how long that is? Chemical reactions on the small scale (remember that the initial life was bacteria so small that you need special microscopes to see) are usually very quick and 300 million years is a very long time. That means there are an unfathomable number of reactions that took place and the likelyhood of at least one of those producing very very simple life(which then evolves to be more complex) is almost 1.

Even if it weren't so high, the universe is incredibly large, if there was let's say a million planets somewhere in the universe that have the potential for life. The odds of at least one of those having life are insanely high. You might say that why do the other planets matter at all, we're talking about earth? But then you aren't using logic, as the fact is, IF there is a living race that can question how life came to be, it must be on a planet with life. Which means, that if even one planet in the entire universe evolved life, there'd be at least one planet with life and so the whole "how did life come to be on this planet?" question would be meaningless, since, as living creatures, we'd be on one of those planets with life.

Since evolution is an entirely viable theory, (and I mean theory in the scientific sense, where creationism is not trully a theory since there is no evidence to support it), teaching Intelligent Design has no point except to show the existence of God. I'm not saying that God exists or doesn't exist, but we shouldn't be teaching in public schools theories that are designed to show the existence of God. Save that for parents and private schools. Teaching intelligent design in public schools is akin to teaching in social studies not only the wars, but that each war is caused by God for punishment. You may believe God causes wars(or peace for that matter), but it has no place in the school systems.

Well Ilkidarios, I am reminded of two quotes:

"In real life, every field of science is incomplete, and most of them - whatever the record of accomplishment during the last 200 years - are still in their very earliest stages." - Lewis Thomas

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." - Stephen Jay Gould

However, Dragon Master's statement is the key. ID says 'evolution happens, but something 'guides' it'. The silly thing about this is that it you still have to explain where that 'thing' came from. If it was space aliens, then how did 'they' become able to 'guide' life? The inevitably answer is still going to be God, but not one that is all powerful, but one that created some life, which then created more, that then created something else, etc., while God was on lunch break. Its infinitely recursive, right back to the formation of the first planet actually capable of 'maybe' having life. And, its a pointless complication. Fossil records will 'never' likely be comeplete. Too many geological events have happened that would have destroyed the majority of them. Your right that anyhing can be a 'theory', but we have to limit the theories to ones that have evidence to support them. There are several hundred myths, besides the Christian one, which describe how things where 'created', there are additional stories, many similar to ID that describe how it all could have been created. Any crackpot can come up with a 'theory' about how things work, but a science class is about what we have "provisional assent" to, not 'any' and 'every' theory someone else comes up with. If we had to teach every theory someone comes up with for every bit of science that is 'imperfect' and therefor not 100% proven, we would spend 7 hours out of every 8 hour school day just learning about all the 'alternative' theories various people now have, did have or invent while in the classroom for every single subject in science.

Let me repeat that, science classes are about what the majority of scientists who are involved with a subject have provisionally assented to as the most likely answer. And by provisional assent, they mean that they accept it as the most 'likely' explaination so far, given all of the evidence so far, and that such assent will be given up if evidence arises to suggest that the present theory is invalid, while an alternative better represents what the evidence suggests. Evolution has undergone multiple adjustments and modification to provide more accurate theories about specifics, but the general concept is still sound, much like how Newtonian physicals 'still' applies in simple systems where absolute precision is not needed, but has been otherwise superseded by Einsteins theories and those will probably be adjusted or replaced with something even more accurate.

The only possible reason for teaching ID in a school is if you want to permanently discredit it. However, given that ID proponents would be providing the details of 'how' it should be taught and thus how evolution itself would be, the result is an even more serious failure at teaching what nearly 'all' biologists assent to as valid, in trade for someone basically asking, "What if something else did it?" Of course the joke here is that Avida already proved that once life in 'any' form starts to evolve at all, any 'creator' would lose all capacity to guide or control it. At best such a creator would have lost complete control over the situation the instant they so much as dropped the first microbe on the planet.

As for the supposed claim that evolutionists believe that their theory is an absolute. What part of "It has changed multiple times since first proposed", and, "provisional consent", do you not understand. The simple truth is that the **only** people claiming that evolution proponents are inflexible, unable to see the gaps in their ideas, or close minded are those trying to get creationism taught in schools. Even the Catholic Church has dropped the issue and accepted that evolution is the most likely answer to how life came to be how it is and that they all must have had a common decent. The 'only' exception they insist on making is claiming that 'man' was specially created 'after'. As Dragon Master points out, if ID's 'only' argument was that something might have 'started' life on earth, then let it evolve on its own, there would be no point whatsoever of even mentioning it in a class, since while there are some theories about how life 'may' have started, evolutions main focus is on everything that happens once life already exists. (At least until they can show life simply starting up.) ID goes beyond that though and tries to claim that specific structure where 'designed' and that some force 'guides' the process. There is no evidence of this and 'all' existing evidence suggests that it is not only unnecessary, but that while complex those structurs can arise without guidence and show precisely the sort of flaws, errors, inefficiencies and mistakes that 'only' happen due to random chance.

Its no more reasonable to teach ID as an alternative in a science class than to teach that storks deliver babies, Santa Claus has a shop at the north pole, that gravity is really millions of tiny demons holding onto out feet, or that the entire universe came about through the pagan legend of a lonely female diety, who split off a part of herself, which became different (male), then sped off away from her, thus becoming 'our' universe. Science requires a reason to believe that a theory may be true, before it can consider it, otherwise its nothing more than fiction. The problem in this case being that there is evidence to completely disprove 'all' of IDs assertions and 'none' to support them. The reason why you keep hearing about scientists being closed minded is simply because they get seriously ****ed off at every nut on the planet, who knows absolutely nothing about the science, trying to shove undefensible philisophical nonsense into science with the claim, "But I have this theory!"

But not a scientific theory.

You think that's bad? Non-religious intelligent design does not agree with its own line of thought. You have incorrectly characterized a logical flaw with a subjective opinion.

While not a proponent of ID I don't think it is fair to compare it to Santa Claus. After all, noted physisist and cosmologist (not the hairdressers, the other guys) devote more time and energy to studying the existance of God than, Kris Kringle.

Just like I said in an earlier post, if something guides evolution, evolution exists.  If something can guide evolution, then they have most probably evolved themselves.  This means that there is no mystery to where a creator came from.  It evolved.  However, it would have used evolution to create life on Earth.  One example of using evolution to create life that can succeed is in animal husbandry.  Essentially these alien "creators" would have husbanded apes together to create a life-form capable of eking out a living on Earth.  It's quite simple actually.  Its much easier to create successful life when there is external influences.  That means that evolution exists, but our evolution was a controlled evolution.  Think about the breeding of dogs.  I could take a large, frail dog and a small, tough dog and hopefully breed out the small and frail genes to create a better dog.  Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, pioneered the modifying of lower lifeforms with the humble pea plant.  Presumably over years of genetic manipulation and experiments, you could create a being on the sentient level of ourselves.  And that being that we created would have been made from Intelligent Design.  Once again: Intelligent Design is not the denial of evolution, but the suggestion that Earth was subjected to external influences in its own evolutionary path.

And tell me where the contradiction is?  Lets say a lifeform evolves on its own by random chance over trillions of years.  Lets call this "Lifeform A".  Lifeform A advances rapidly and suddenly they are able to reach the stars and extend their knowledge of the universe.  One day, Lifeform A decides to create a pet project to see if it is possible to breed lower lifeforms into ones of comparable intellect, maybe for slaves, cheap labor, or perhaps just to see if it could do it.  Lifeform A begins the long, complex process of genetic modification and selected breeding.  After thousands of years, a primitive being is created (evolution happens faster with external influence and selective breeding).  We will call the new product "Lifeform B".  Lifeform B questions its own existence and purpose, so Lifeform B decides to attribute it to the very force that created its own creators, standalone evolution.  (but of course, with an all-knowing view such as this short story, you can see that it wasn't standalone evolution, but controlled evolution that created lifeform B, but we won't tell them).  Is anyone going to create another thread about this?  I hate to intrude on a perfectly good discussion of homosexuality.
P.S. The above post doesn't represent my own beliefs. I happen to be a Methodist who believes evolution. I am simply stating what believers in non-religious Intelligent Design have said to me.

There are a thousand such complex, deeply abstracted possibilities on the origin of life. Science classes are not the place to choose arbitrarily. Given evolution's pivotal role in your scenario, it's clear you too believe that ID and evolution are not on equal footing.

So, right here, this would mean that evolution has to be able to work without intelligent design. Since it can work without intelligent design, there is NO reason to add intelligent design in unless we have some sort of evidence for it. That is, assuming you want to follow the scientific method. If you don't, you might as well say that although we understand why birds fly. For all we know, there could be little invisible aliens that can't be measured in any way pushing them along. Well, we could never prove that not the case but there is NO reason to assume it is. Just like there is NO reason to assume that secular intelligent design is the case. It takes a perfectly valid theory(one that must be perfectly valid for the aliens to even exist) and adds unproven complications to it that do nothing to support it. We may not be able to prove we aren't the descendants of aliens, but in science, you DON'T accept something just because it hasn't been proven wrong, you need evidence that it has been proven right. This is one of the standard things that science is based upon. There are an infinite number of likely wrong things that haven't been proven wrong (let's take the existance of unicorns for example) but you don't teach that they are right in classrooms.

Oh, and by the way, the universe has only been around for 20 billion years(or less by many estimates) and wasn't in shape for life to evolve for a while after that. Even 20 billion years however is a VERY longtime. People often take large numbers and shrink them into something imaginable when immagining them, and then think they aren't large enough for, let's say life to evolve. But they have to remember that they aren't imagining the full amount of time. 20 billion years is INSANELY long. Even 300 million years is INSANELY long. Do you truly realize how much could happen in that amount of time?

*watches the Gay Rights debate fly out of the window*

HEY YOU!!

How about we stick to what the topic says we're talking about maybe? Could we take the evolution discussion to another board? Has -nothing- to do anymore w/ the GR debate.

Right.... And why exactly is it necessary or reasonable to assume that life on earth didn't 'evolve', without guidence? Because if the supposed guides did, then why not here? Or if they where, then you keep regressing back to some point where either a) life was not yet possible or b) God did it. ID asks several false questions, but gives no suggestions about how one goes about testing if some outside force guided things. It simply insists that it 'must' have been guided. The problem is that the premise itself is false. There is no evidence of good design in genetics, but plenty of basic chemical factors that dictate that DNA can **only** work using the proteins we see. Not the combinations we see, but flat out 'only' those. Any carbon based form would have to use the same proteins. This doesn't mean some non-carbon based ones couldn't exist, just that the laws of physical and chemical reactions make anything other than what is found in our cells simply won't work, being too unstable, corrosive, etc. This hardly requires someone to have 'designed' it. The genes themselves, while they are quite complex, contain numerous errors, things where some transitional species by shear fluke passed on a trait which didn't benefit it and later got patched by something else. Mice a a good example. The segment that is 'supposed' to code for the G type protein, instead codes for the A type. The RNA literally has to derail from the 'normal' pattern, jump to a different point, then chemically modify the A type to become G, in order to fix the mistake. No guided evolution should produce such a mistake. The fact is, the only people who support ID are people that have virtually no comprehension of evolutionary biology. Their arguments for ID and against evolution are no more reasonable than a chemist talking about gravitational acceleration in space. They may have degrees, and a few barely passed the classes to 'technically' have some skill in some subject like molecular biology, but they don't know what they are talking about.

Again.. If **our** evolution was guided, all ID theorists need to do is provide a means to test that theory and evidence to support it. They have none, so science rejects it in favor of something for which real evidence does exist. Where is the supposed proof of this guidence? And why if it isn't about religion was is religious institutions like the Discover Institute that came up with it and whose pseudo-science and complete lack of accurate facts is used to defend it?

All that is required for scientists to take it seriously is proof, but all ID has provided is false accusations of close mindedness, false assertions about the existing theory and a lot of babble about 'gaps' in the theory, which exist in **all** sciences.

Because most people don't care, the ones that do also once took the Bibles similar declaration to kill all Witches literally, but somehow figured that maybe it was stupid to do that and also completely ignore 90% of everything else in the same section of the Bible they use to condemn gays, and those not in either group are reasonable sure its either genetic or developmental and that treating them like paria is just as morally reprehensible as locking a down syndrome child in an insane asylum, because 'good people' shouldn't have to see and deal with the mentally disabled.

What more is there to say on the subject, other than to rehash the same BS arguments by the Religious Blight about why they are 'sure' Christ wanted us to continue condeming gay people (but apparently according the the same Biblical passages, not lesbians), but that its no longer OK to stone a child to death for disobeying (as just one example...).

I don't think Christ thought gays are evil.  I think it was probably the old testament god.  Yes, I think they are two seperate gods.  Think of the stark contrast between old testament and new testament doctrine.  One god would kill off all the children in an Egyptian city and then rain fire down from the sky onto the remainder of them, followed by an immense flood to make sure no human remains alive.  Meanwhile, the god of the new testament would attempt to teach these people to lead good lives and love their neighbors without having to set them all to fire or turn them into pillars of salt.  I would love to see someone convince me that those two polar opposite personalities are the same god.  Basically what I'm saying is that Christianity is polytheism.  Think about it.  There's three forms of god, but other Christians try to say that they are all the same guy.  I simplify it, they are seperate beings. Works for me, I can still believe in Christianity, there's nothing wrong with polytheism.

I think the Christian Bible is an epic fantasy tale with no basis in reality whatsoever.

So as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what Jesus the Christ or the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" trinity would or would not have thought, because in MY world, they never existed in the first place. They're just fictional characters in an epic fantasy.

I say, leave religion out of legal issues completely. Gays are human beings, consenting adults, and so long as they are not committing crimes of law, such as rape, murder, fraud, etc - then they should have the same privilege of legal status in their partnerships as non-gay marriages.

Edited to point out: Even convicted criminals in jail have the right to join in legal union, and receive inheritence rights, joint tax returns, etc. Why place law-abiding citizens below convicted criminals on the food chain, just because they wish to join with someone of the same gender?

If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, the law should stay out of it and let the church reject the request. And the church should stay out of the rights for gay couples to enjoy legal benefits of civil unions. It *should* work both ways. That's the whole point of "seperation of Church and State."

That's pretty much my belief to. Except that I believe the Bible has a lot of Basis on reality. There probably was a large flood somewhere in the middle-east that became Noah's flood. Lot's of the wars recorded in the Bible actualy did happen. A lot of works of Mythology are grounded in truth and then expanded upon. The Bible is the same way. Some of the events that happened in the Bible likely did happen but there has been so much Mythology added that you can't be sure about the truth of any given event(though some, you can be pretty sure didn't happen). Given this, drawing Morals from the Bible just doesn't seem that bright. But if you want to draw morals from a book that tells you that you are cursed for holding back your sword from bloodshed, that you should wipe out entire cities because a few people there aren't chrisitian, that God enjoys tearing children to pieces with bears, that Gays are evil, as are witches, as are all non-christians, then at least keep it away from our legal system.

The Ku Klux Klan had more to it than kill gays, kill blacks, and burn crosses.

But you are probably 15. Right Korabear? Failed Social Studies, didn't you? How about History?

Anyways.

Gays should be shot.
A gay flight attendant started the AIDS epidemic.
Now how many people a year are dyeing because of that on gay "Human" had to skrew another man and then another, and then another?
When supposedly that gay man he skrewed had sex with a monkey or ate one.

All those gay bastards signing up to be Catholic Priests, so they don't have to come out. So the end up touching and molesting little kids. (Blame that on me and the burning crosses Kora. go ahead)

Now I have to see the American Gay Rights Parade every year right outside my window. But if there is a Straight Rights Parade they will be arrested because that offends people.

What good has come from it?
Two people get to be happy? Woop de do dah.
They can be happy after I shoot them.

The course you've failed is logic. Your post has inductive fallacy written all over it.

Sweetie, before you ask if I've failed any classes. how about you pass your English/Grammar class? Yeah.

Anyway, a gay flight attendant did NOT start the AIDs epidemic. Stop using your little non-facts as backup for your disgusting views. ...Homosexuality has nothing to do with eating monkies, either. Dunno where you got that one.

Child molesters are not homosexuals usually, mmkay? One doesn't just 'become' a Catholic priest. Check out your theology before you open your hideous, undereducated mouth.

And technically no one can be arrested for a peaceful demonstration, though demonstrating for 'straight rights' would be little pointless because... what rights are straights looking for? Murder, however, is something you CAN be arrested for. ^^

BY THE WAY...
You refer to gays as 'he'. I'm betting you have no problem with lesbians... or perhaps you're one of those sick S.O.B.s who like to WATCH some 'hot girl-on-girl action' ... hmm, says something about you, doesn't it, lover?

Also... stop calling me Kora. It's Kopri. KOPRI. Thx.

<3
Kopri

What would be poetic justice, is if Destro actually manages to kill a homosexual, gets sent to jail, and becomes some big serial killer's "girlfriend."

I find that oddly amusing.

And if it had been a straight person that ate or screwed a monkey, would it be acceptable to kill all straight people? You really are a narrow minded, irrational idiot. Heh, I know, all people of European decent should die because they brought disease to indians too, even if their family was never involved with it... You are the one that should be shot, for everyone else's protection.

*falls over laughing* *muses* hmm, Delstro as prom queen of cell block six... don't drop the soap, lover.

I'm a history professor, and I can tell you right now...the Ku Klux Klan got together in order to keep blacks in their place by any means necessary. So whoever else may or may not have studied history I have.

This is the single most ridiculous and stupid statement I've heard on any forum in a decade. Where do you get your news from, the National Equirer? Come on...you cannot be an adult and hold such a stupid and simple view.

This is the remark of a childish mind. I don't care how old you are, you are obviously the one with issues. In fact, as vehemently (look this one up if you don't know the meaning) as you advocate violence against people who are different I would suggest that you probably have some hidden sexual issues that could require therapy. See a doctor, Buddy.

Jesus Christ did exist.  He was referenced in other historical texts of the time period.  It's not a question of whether or not he existed, it's a question of whether or not what he was saying and teaching was the truth.  It's like if I said that Caligula didn't exist because I didn't agree with his methods of dealing with things, it doesn't make him any less real, just because I can't see him now doesn't mean he didn't exist in the past.  A proper way to state your post would be "I think that God and the dieties of the Christian religion are human constructs and non-existent."  Because unlike Jesus, God isn't referenced as existing in other non-religious books. Of course, I wouldn't discount the informative nature of religious texts myself. They are great resources for historical information.

I'm sure there was a man who lived in Jerusalem, who served as a Jewish Rabbi, who went by the name Yishua (the english transliteration of the hebrew name). In fact, I wouldn't doubt it if there were several. It's not an uncommon name for the era this person was assumed to have lived in.

However I do not believed there existed a "Christ" by that name, particularly because the whole notion of "Christs" is a construct of man, who created the term after the man known as Yishua had already been dead a few hundred years.

I stand by my words: Jesus the Christ is a fantasy. As is the New Testament (all versions) which were written by various anonymous authors a hundred years after the stories were alledged to have occurred.

I also believe the Old Testament, and the Torah, are man-made fantasies, with some vague basis in history. In other words, Historical Fiction.

And I respect your ideas and will not try to change them.  The same way I don't think there was anything special about Gautama Siddhartha. A buddhist would try to change my opinion, but I wouldn't listen anyways.

...It is rather ridiculous and stupid, though, you must admit. Plus grammatically very incorrect.

See Kobebear, I could care less what you think. So keep your thoughts to yourself, I read them, but I won't remember them by the time I Push that little "Add Reply" button down there.
Seriously.


Here are my views, Gays should be shot. Male or Female.
Along with anyone that has sex with animals.
Racism is bad, and I would hate it if the government took away all the firearms of the law abiding citizens.
But that won't stop me from being as racist as I want in a MUD.
All those sex offenders and rapists should be hung by the end of a rope.
Along with the leader of North Korea, though I respect the #### out of the guy.
I always believed that theory that "Two countries that have MCdonald's in them, won't ever go to war"
But don't worry. I am of Russian Descent and "Native American's" Not "indians", should have been handled better.

History Books are written by the Winners, by the way.

This is my last post by the way for this topic, Kopribear. So either Email me or get over it.

You, my friend, never make any sense in any of your posts. Have you ever considered making a complete sentence? Following through with a whole thought? ...checking your facts before you post?

It was started by wealthy Democrats to organize poor southerners in an attempt to keep Republicans(remember the parties weren't the same back then, Abraham Licoln was a Republican) out of the south. Since African American people were the major supporters of Republicans at the time, the creators of the Klan mainly had them targeted, justifying their attacks with the racism that was rampant in the South at the time. The Klan has since then changed, become even less political and more about spreading hate.

And I'm assuming when you say "keep blacks in their place", you mean from the Klan's perspective and don't mean that African Americans actually deserve to be treated like that.

Vultuuures... stop picking apart what she said. I think, as a history professor, she knows these things, and in an effort to not give us a history lecture, accidentally oversimplified what she meant to say. Jeena does not seem like a white supremacist to me.

By the way, just to defend my statements before they are also picked apart, I was referring to the KKK -after- they became much more radical (among other things) than originally intended.

<3
Kopri

WOW! I just had to comment on this quote (and there are a few others JUST like it). I was originally going to stay out of this discussion after my initial post ... but I didn't realize this board was populated by so many highly educated, scholarly theologians.

Maybe you could point me to a few stories (not just mere verses) in the Bible that support any of these claims? I must have missed those when reading it ... I mean, I can google too for a few verses here and there that LOOK like that - but when studying the stories they are in, AND understanding the time in history they take place ... these bold claims seem pure FICTION to me.

Although I am very liberal, and do not agree with these things. Here is a few samples.

SODOMY IS AN ABOMINABLE SIN, WORTHY OF DEATH.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.
See also Leviticus 18:22, Genesis 19, Romans 1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7.

Singer, that's according to the bible you choose to use as your personal moral and ethic set of rules. Not everyone is Christian, and the government is -required- by law of the Constitution to remain a seperate entity from religion.

Remove all reference to "sin" and quotes from bibles to support your opinion, and try again. Find a reason WITHIN THE LAW that supports your opinion that gays should not be allowed to form legal civil unions and receive benefits that heterosexuals already enjoy.

Furthermore..even if we were to use your bible to support the law - you realize that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy right? And that some heterosexuals enjoy it with partners of the opposite sex, right? And that lesbians lack the equipment required to perform it at all, right?

So - according to the "Sodomy is a sin" theory - lesbians should be free to join in civil unions, because they don't commit sodomy. And heterosexual men and women who commit sodomy should have their marriage licenses revoked.

Also remember, according to the very same bible you use as your support system: Jesus died for your sins. So it's OKAY to commit Sodomy, since Jesus forgives you. And therefore all claims to "sinful" activities are moot.

Wow folks read the entire message before commenting. The fellow said he didn't agree with these things and just googled them.

And of course I was speaking from the KKK point of view earlier. Sheesh.

As for myself, I'm sorry, but there was never a time when the KKK was an okay institution. Yes, it's purported reason for organizing was as a political group and to help the poor. They even said they were a religious organization like the masons. They had secret meetings and handshakes and the whole nine yards. But it was a political group who did not simply use politics in order to push it's agenda. In the very early stages, it harrassed people, was largely responsible for threats against blacks and whites who supported black rights. Frequently, threats were carried out.

Now, all that aside...
Let's face it...it's no one's business what goes on in the bedroom of another person. If one important thing is kept in mind.
"No other person's rights are violated."
Honestly, who cares who is gay and who is not? I don't. No one should. Being homosexual has nothing to do with whether a person is a hard worker, or is a caring person, or is able to fight as a soldier. It has to do with who that person has sex with. A private act which is no one's business.

I agree with Jeena, except on the KKK issue where I declare ignorance.

Oh I just have to comment on this.

Firstly, read the point Jeena makes.

If you follow your argument to conclusion, all the sins are ok, since Jesus died for our sins.

It doesn't make sence.

Note though that I agree that it is noncense to derive Homosexuals of rights due to quotes from the bible.

You can actually bring the bible into play here for deriving homosexuals out of rights. The bible contradicts itself in many ways. One in particular was brought up by Singer. If Jesus died for our sins, and if he forgives us for them all, then why would someone go to #### for sins if they are being forgivin? (I spelled that wrong, I know)


Just a thought.

First of all, I never said the KKK was a good thing, EVER. It was always a bad thing, from having an ickyish goal with a very bad means to go about it to having very bad goals in general with very bad means to go about them.

Second, he Bible is just one big story or I guess a whole bunch of little ones, so I don't see what you mean about not finding stories.

Leviticus 20 opens with the "The LORD said to Moses," and goes on to say things like gays should be killed, as should adulterers, disrespectuful children, fortune tellers, and such like that. So, if the stories in the bible are true, God actually said that.

If you want something more storyish, (because maybe you do believe that although the bible is perfect right, God lies in places like Leviticus 20) that actually tells about God doing something awful, how about this:

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up, baldhead," they shouted, "go up, baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

These aren't isolated occurences either, there are all sorts of death and destruction as well as encouragement upon things like slavery. The Old Testament encourages all sorts of dreadful things that aren't usually accepted by today's moral standards. Yet, there are lawmakers who look at this same book and take the anti-gay quotes and use them to make laws.

Not if you think like I do, like I said earlier, in my beliefs the old and new testement gods are two different dieties.

"Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine. " -- Henry S. Haskins

So... in my opinion the bible arguments are over to be honest. Redundancy is fine and well for a while... basic points:

The bible says that homosexuality is wrong.

The bible also contradicts itself all over the place.

I agree that the diety in the Old Testament and the One in the New Testament are completely different...

But anyway, as was stated before, since there is separation of church and state, taking away the religious argument and trying to argue for depriving people (gay or not) of their rights is almost impossible. ...but I'd like to see it tried. So...

Putting personal opinions and religious bias aside, who can give me an argument that shows the legitimacy or even legality of depriving law abiding individuals of their rights?

<3
Kopri

Hmm. Lets see:

Health - Probably not. Gay or straight, its the presense of a disease that is a problem, not 'who' is exposed. However, the CDC has stated that nudity is actualy a slightly lower risk to disease transfer, since diseases don't survive sunlight or exposure to dry and/or cold environments and clothes provide dark, warmth and moisture (sweat), yet you won't find one person arguing for the 'healthy' nature of nudity, unless its a nudist. Same with homosexuality. Its benefit is lack of pregnacy, which is definitely also a health issue, so 'could' by a bit of a stretch be considered 'safer'. But definitely a stretch. What is true is that there is a lot of inuendo, but no evidence of 'any' greater health risk, aside from that arising from promiscuity, which those trying to enter into civil unions are either not interesting in or willing to give up.

Child health - Bad idea to argue this. Every study every done so far suggests that if anything homosexuals are 'more' dedicated to and empathic with the needs of children they raise. It might actually be a major boon to be raised by one.

Psychological - Same as child health to some extent. The anti-gay crowd screams about exposure to them 'turning' people gay and even claims they conspire to convert people. Again, every study in existance indicates that children raised among them have no higher a percentage of homosexuality than society in general. I'll repeat that, all these horrible conspiring gays are failing to convert any more people to it than would already have shown the behaviour, to word it so the loony right wingers comprehend it. Note, I didn't say 'believe' it, just understand it.

Hmm. What's left? Gross out factor? Maybe for two men together, but most males would have no problem with two girls they know involving themselves with each other, while he watched. lol Double standard at its best. That pretty much 'only' leaves religion. Unfortunately, Christianity and Islam are still edging out all the 'sane' ones by at least a slight margin:



Yep, I would love to hear about the 'legal', 'medical', etc. reasons, without finding out that the author claiming them pulled the whole article out of religious propoganda, pseudo scientific groups like the Discovery Institute or his own ass.

There wouldn't be an expanse in anything... it'd be just like a heterosexual couple marrying. Two lesbians + two gay males could= two hetero couples if not for pre-stated sexual persuasion. It equals out.

And... sad social commentary that 'inevitable' comes before 'divorce'.

Plus, we're talking about civil unions remember. We don't want the zealots getting uppidy.