Comments
121 - 140 of 326 Comments Last updated Mar 19, 2013
Zoe

Circleville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Mar 16, 2013
 
Back to Portman now we know why Romney didn't pick Rob!
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you have a hydrant to hump?
Not hump, pee on. Heck you probably think that's immoral too!!!

woof
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
Hey Tippy!!!
What qualifies you for the position of penis policeman or vagina vigilante? Don't you ever get tired of worrying about other people's sex lives?
Just what the heck is up with that?
woof
not as much as thinking about the money the government stole from me to abort and administer AIDS treatments due to bad behaviors of others.

you make a bad decision, then you pay for it.

above solves lots of problems for society.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>We Catholics who were taught about evolution, which the Catholic Church accepts, are brighter than you think, douche:
"Apparently, men's bodies are hard-wired to compete with rival semen. Some researchers suggest that the ridge of the glans (penis head) is designed as a semen-displacement device to "scoop" out rival semen during sex. Additionally, there are studies that suggest that when a man is away from his mate for a prolonged period of time, the volume of semen that he ejaculates into her vagina increases so as to flush out rival sperm."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-red-l...
ummmm..my sarcasm apparently drifted right over your head.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should be pumping my jizz out of your old lady's box instead of reading quack science.
That's funny!!!

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
Johnson and Duke can eat this:
A five-day conference, Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories, held in March 2009 by the Pontifical University in Rome, marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, generally confirmed the lack of conflict between evolutionary theory and Catholic theology, and the rejection of Intelligent Design by Catholic scholars.[43]
The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.54 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...
Translation:

After centuries of engaging in a planned policy of controlling the masses with fairy tales, and then realizing that there was no practical manner by which to prevent truthful information which would expose their ruse being widely disseminated, the Church eventually capitulated to science.

woof

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Mar 16, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Normalizing aberrant sexual behaviors of psychologically disordered people is unhealthy for society.
You refuse to address the implications of your above assertion -- an assertion that would create a society in which all sexual deviants may claim "natural orientation" as a defense for their aberrant sexual behaviors, and thus, elude moral judgment and, worse, demand society's affirmation of their behaviors.
tip--you are not a psychologist, nor do you have any particular claim to expertise in that area. You have a preference for regarding homosexuality as psychologocially disordered. You don't have the backing of the consensus of practitioners on this.

But, regardless of the determination of psychologists, you seem willing to overlook the notion of informed consent. A child cannot legally consent to sex (or anything else) with an adult. Nor can a dog, cat or sheep. And as the people of Steubenville are learning, neither can a drunken minor legally provide consent for a prolonged gang-bang by the football team. And this despite the normalization of hetersexual relations--and even the wide acceptance that "boys will be boys" and a cultural acceptance, particularly in places like Steubenville (small town America) of teenage sex.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Mar 16, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
BIOLOGY 101:
Heterosexuality is Nature's default setting so as to ensure propagation of the species.
Those who claim any other orientation are psychologically disordered against Nature.
So--nuns and priests (and Shakers) are psychologically disordered against nature?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
Mar 16, 2013
 
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
So--nuns and priests (and Shakers) are psychologically disordered against nature?
They are celibate heterosexuals by choice.
All sexual behavior involves choice.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
tip--you are not a psychologist, nor do you have any particular claim to expertise in that area. You have a preference for regarding homosexuality as psychologocially disordered. You don't have the backing of the consensus of practitioners on this.
But, regardless of the determination of psychologists, you seem willing to overlook the notion of informed consent. A child cannot legally consent to sex (or anything else) with an adult. Nor can a dog, cat or sheep. And as the people of Steubenville are learning, neither can a drunken minor legally provide consent for a prolonged gang-bang by the football team. And this despite the normalization of hetersexual relations--and even the wide acceptance that "boys will be boys" and a cultural acceptance, particularly in places like Steubenville (small town America) of teenage sex.
We've had this discussion numerous times, but you remain willfully ignorant.

Until lobbied by homosexual activists in 1973...the APA agreed, and published in their DSM, that homosexual behaviors were the result of a psychological disorder.

Consent is irrelevant to the discussion. If you hold that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable, then no one can be judged for their "natural" behaviors.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Mar 16, 2013
 
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>And there we have it folks...Johnson the leftist hates the messenger so much he disses a respected leftist publication.
You're a girly, pouty, miffed puss Johnson.
Psychology Today is a respected leftist publication?

Is there a list of these somewhere?

I always thought it was just sort of a light-read for folks mildly interested in science.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
Mar 16, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation:
After centuries of engaging in a planned policy of controlling the masses with fairy tales, and then realizing that there was no practical manner by which to prevent truthful information which would expose their ruse being widely disseminated, the Church eventually capitulated to science.
woof
Incorrect ...

(From the comment section at Amazon)

==========

I was disappointed with this (rather expensive) work. A bit of background may be helpful in understanding my review. I am a scientist specializing in geophysical hazards - Hurricanes, earthquakes, etc., and have published several dozen peer reviewed papers/articles. I am also a Psalti (Chanter) in the Greek Orthodox Church. I often find myself drawn in to discussions and debates on the subject of the relationship between science and religion. I have extensively studied the Church Fathers, the leaders and theologians of the Church through the first few centuries of Christianity, whose thoughts are the cornerstone of Orthodoxy, as well as Orthodox theologians up to the present. I feel that Orthodoxy can present a perspective that is far more compatible with modern science than much of Western Christianity.

This book is a collection of essays by a variety of authors, including the editors. Although the various authors did try to point out the substantially different approach to theology contained within Orthodoxy in relation to Western Christianity, I felt the book failed to capture the unique perspective on the natural world presented by the Church Fathers. All too often in the science/religion debate, religion resorts to the tired argument that "science can't know everything" and "religion is another way of knowing", and try to put science in a box constrained by the limitations of religious dogma. Those expounding this perspective invariably fail to give any concrete examples of where this is true, and the authors in "Science and the Eastern Orthodox Church" continue the tradition of making this assertion, then failing to back it up. Dr. Buxhoeveden (the lead editor) seems enamored of this "another way of knowing" perspective, yet in many ways it is not a historical Orthodox perspective. The Church Fathers did not seem to have that split mindset. They felt a study of the natural world was not "another way of knowing", but an integral and vital aspect of understanding God. While they realized the natural world was not the entire picture, they did not seem to set arbitrary limits on that picture the way modern theologians seem to do.

...

In short, I don't recommend "Science and the Eastern Orthodox Church", either as a significant contribution to the science/religion discussion, or as a reference for the relationship between science and orthodoxy. At the risk of sounding a bit snide, is perhaps valuable as a perspective on how shallow the thinking of modern orthodox theologians has become compared to the Church Fathers, and how contaminated they have become with western perspectives on philosophy. Certainly at nearly $90, I wouldn't recommend the book for anyone other than someone deeply immersed in the science/religion discussion on a professional or technical level, and absolutely do not recommend it for Orthodox seeking a deeper understanding of the relationship between their faith and the modern world.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Eastern-Orthodo...
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#140
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
They are celibate heterosexuals by choice.
All sexual behavior involves choice.
you just described why liberals hate church.

being held accountable for choices is against the liberal religion.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#141
Mar 16, 2013
 
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text> Eddie Long has been suspect of not coming all the way clean. Blacks can tell when a person like him is a little 'funny'. His clothes, for one ,were to tight and he liked to hang around younger boys (early 20's) too much. His excessive body building was another give away. Only ex-cons who've done long time get into that type of working out constantly. A lot of them are suspect of being bi- when they get out of prison anyway.
"Eddie Long has been suspect of not coming all the way clean."

Duh, ya think?

The point is that the guy preached all that same macho-macho line.

And the reality is that this has brought about a lot of harm, specifically in the black community. Public health workers had to learn to alter their messages about AIDs in the black community. Because many black men who have sex with men refuse the identity of being gay. Hence, messages using that specific language (men having sex with men) were developed to respond when other safe-sex messages were not getting through. The phenomenon of men on the down-low has been particularly damaging to black women who are exposed to the HIV virus while believing not only that they are in a monogamous relationship, but also that their man is fully heterosexual.

This is compounded by the reality of things that happen in prison--a non-normal socialogical environment--and the high percentage of black men who spend time in prison.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142
Mar 16, 2013
 
Zoe wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to laugh, as we watch the democratic party self-destruct with corruption, lazy people, stupid people, drugs, alcohol, killing each other and NO JOBS!
I think you may have them confused with the Republicans.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143
Mar 16, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
They are celibate heterosexuals by choice.
All sexual behavior involves choice.
So, when did they choose to be heterosexual?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144
Mar 16, 2013
 
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
you just described why liberals hate church.
being held accountable for choices is against the liberal religion.
Consservatives do not own Christianity, RS.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145
Mar 16, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
We've had this discussion numerous times, but you remain willfully ignorant.
Until lobbied by homosexual activists in 1973...the APA agreed, and published in their DSM, that homosexual behaviors were the result of a psychological disorder.
Consent is irrelevant to the discussion. If you hold that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable, then no one can be judged for their "natural" behaviors.
I don't agree with either of you.

1. People all over the world abstain from sex. In most parts of the world it is (or was) considered the natural, prudent and civilized thing to do. The last 50 years, however, people have gotten the notion that the behaviors that used to be confined to people who live in the gutter are the prudent thing to do.

2. Whether something is a psychological disorder or not, it is still connected with how you are wired. For example, many people who have issues that require the care of a psychiatrist, indirect issues such as anxiety or social phobia have go hand in hand with your wiring.

Therefore, homosexuality could be the direct result of being wired a certain way. It could also be an indirect symptom of something else in someone's wiring.

...... which brings me to point 3 .........

3. If someone is a dyslexic (wiring) or has anxiety issues, it is up to THEM to figure out a way around their defects and learn how to function in the real world. It is not up to society at large to display garbled road signs everywhere so they can figure out how to get around. We don't allow people with sexual deviancies to run around raping people because of how they are wired, so why should we allow homosexuals to run around acting on their deviant behavior?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146
Mar 16, 2013
 
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
So, when did they choose to be heterosexual?
Re-read for clarity:

All sexual BEHAVIOR involves choice.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147
Mar 16, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Re-read for clarity:
All sexual BEHAVIOR involves choice.
Agree. And the notion that people can't control their libidos is disproven by the behaviors of people in approximately 50% of the world.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••