Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 3,254)

Showing posts 65,061 - 65,080 of112,792
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69231
Dec 31, 2012
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1977, Dade County, Florida passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Pop singer Anita Bryant led a campaign to repeal the law.
She argued that homosexuality was a sin, and that it could be overcome through commitment to Jesus Christ.
Jerry Falwell took a trip to Florida to help in the campaign.
The law was subsequently repealed in 1977 and not reinstated until 1998.
In 1980, after preaching about healthy sexuality, Anita Bryant and her husband got divorced.
That was a gleeful day for the gay rights activists.
That's an anecdote, and it seems that there's a mean spirited message there. Why would you be glad to see a divorce? Did one of the two decide to come out of the closet, or was the glee really pure bile?

Now, discrimination based on sexual orientation. What is it? Are we allowed to discriminate against KKK members or people of another political affiliation? Yep! That's politics. You can't change your genes. You can change just about anything else, your religion, your political affiliation, your taste in music.

I'm against most social engineering. I accept some of it because discord is not in anyone's best interest. There is a point where the victim becomes a litigious crybaby who won't stand on their own feet. My solution is that if the majority won't live with you, do your best to befriend the minorities until you collectively become the majority.

Anita Bryant worked within the system as did the gay rights groups. Everyone's Constitutional rights were protected.

You haven't disproven my comment that sexual orientation is political at all. You've reinforced it!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69232
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hypocrisy. If you didn't have a choice, then the gay people didn't either. If the gay people did have a choice, then you did as well. That's how "choice" works.
You haven't heard any new "gay gene" theories being published recently, have you? You like science and the word hypocrisy. You just don't seem to be ready to combine the two.

Government isn't there to indulge every gut feeling, whim, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. Give them something tangible like a genetic adaptation that is more than a random mutation, and they may see fit to protect it. The issue is between protecting against genetic cleansing or protecting the rights of the genetically handicapped, but NOT about providing a wildlife preserve for whimsical, gratuitous sex on the backs of the people.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69233
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I mention your Jesus person as the commander? No. I mentioned your god. You are playing dishonest word games again. If your Jesus was your god, then all the commands to kill given by your god are also by him. If he is not your god then my point still stands because I said your god.
God it?
XO wrote: really?...show me the verse that Christ says...kill your enemies.

KittenKoder replied: No, your god commands it.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69234
Dec 31, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your god commands it.
Other Translations of Exodus 20:13

Thou shalt not kill.
- King James Version (1611)

"You shall not murder.
- New American Standard Version (1995)

Thou shalt not kill.
- American Standard Version (1901)

Do not put anyone to death without cause.
- Basic English Bible

Thou shalt not kill.
- Darby Bible

Thou shalt not kill.
- Douay Rheims Bible

Thou shalt not kill.
- Webster's Bible

You shall not murder.
- World English Bible

`Thou dost not murder.
- Youngs Literal Bible

Thou shalt not murder.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69235
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't heard any new "gay gene" theories being published recently, have you? You like science and the word hypocrisy. You just don't seem to be ready to combine the two.
Government isn't there to indulge every gut feeling, whim, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. Give them something tangible like a genetic adaptation that is more than a random mutation, and they may see fit to protect it. The issue is between protecting against genetic cleansing or protecting the rights of the genetically handicapped, but NOT about providing a wildlife preserve for whimsical, gratuitous sex on the backs of the people.
There are a lot of hypothesis, but it's clear that they cannot choose to be anything other than themselves. You are also asserting it's a disease, which does not bode well for your entire position. Then you enter into a slippery slope fallacy, which destroys your entire position.

So when does getting rid of bans cause such things? Did getting rid of the ban that prevented black people from marrying white people make the ground split open and consume the country? Did getting rid of the ban preventing black people from voting cause our country to fall apart? Did stopping most of the anti-sodomy laws result in public gay sex?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69236
Dec 31, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you deny that female asexuals exist? Asexuality is simply having no desires for sexual activity, no sexual attractions, and no pleasure from sexual activity, it has nothing to do with male or female by definition. So if you classify female and male asexuals differently then it proves you are being dishonest, it also demonstrates you know nothing about sexuality as a whole.
Creativity takes many forms. It doesn't have to be displayed in sexual intercourse. That's why we have experts studying about the subconscious. You are not conscious of your own sexual desires. The fact that you try to look like a woman is a form of creativity. The fact that you wish you can grow breasts is proof that you have sexual desires. But you have suppressed for some reason. Perhaps you found other things that satisfied them such as eating eggo waffles. There are different degrees of sexual desires. lol

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69237
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
XO wrote: really?...show me the verse that Christ says...kill your enemies.
KittenKoder replied: No, your god commands it.
Yes, your god. You keep asking me for evidence of something I did not say. I didn't mention your Jesus, I mentioned your god.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69238
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

"Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69239
Dec 31, 2012
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
XO wrote: really?...show me the verse that Christ says...kill your enemies.
KittenKoder replied: No, your god commands it.
obviously the opposite is true.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69240
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't heard any new "gay gene" theories being published recently, have you? You like science and the word hypocrisy. You just don't seem to be ready to combine the two.
Government isn't there to indulge every gut feeling, whim, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. Give them something tangible like a genetic adaptation that is more than a random mutation, and they may see fit to protect it. The issue is between protecting against genetic cleansing or protecting the rights of the genetically handicapped, but NOT about providing a wildlife preserve for whimsical, gratuitous sex on the backs of the people.
I think homosexuality is in the genes. Some have them stronger than others and some more predisposed to it than others. Engaging in homosexual activities however is a choice.

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69241
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I think homosexuality is in the genes. Some have them stronger than others and some more predisposed to it than others. Engaging in homosexual activities however is a choice.
Yes you are right, engaging in homosexual activities is a choice. Just like engaging in heterosexual activities is a choice.

Last time I checked this is the United States of America, where people are free to make choices, including the two above.

If you have a problem with that, maybe you should consider moving.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69242
Dec 31, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
"Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
and the lesson is?...those in power mis-use the idea of God to promote their own agendas.

The exact same way they do today.In fact, it's the exact same thing that you are doing.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69243
Dec 31, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is provoking riots? This is news.
There are still laws banning gays fro participating in certain aspects of legal proceedings, some states still ban gay people from adopting, for example. Gay marriage is still a ban in most states. These are bans, they are not simply how people are treating them but how the government is treating them. If this goes unchecked then what if the government decides the Amish shouldn't be allowed to remain secluded how they are? What happens when the government decides that only men are allowed to vote again? What happens ....
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller
I want people to stand for me when I need it, so I stand for them now. It's pretty basic logic.
You provoke a riot when you provide misinformation and when you start a fight that you won't get your hands dirty in. Show me any legal process that gays are denied except for the ones that involve marriage and the implied or specific act of raising children.

Otherwise, that's OK logic, but I consider it a lie. Personally, I don't trust the gay community to stand for anything other than the gay community. I don't trust the liberal community to stand for anything other than themselves, but they will throw a bone to those "with nothing to lose" who are willing to do their dirty work for them. They are just like the conservatives, only based on a different economy.

If you're content to live off of the table scraps of the liberal aristocracy, well, I don't see too much of a future in it, but I've seen it all before and I doubt that I'll change you. Just remember that you've crossed a line, one where I will not share personal things anymore. The two parties take and never give back. I have no interest in revealing my vulnerabilities to such buzzards. You claim to be a conservative but that angle was tried and it was a political loser. The liberals would ignore you and the conservatives won't have you while you endorse a liberal agenda.

You all collectively just don't see how completely everyone is quickly coming that some conclusion about political selfishness, but by many different paths. Someday soon there will be consensus builders again. They will deny gay marriage and they will defend abortion because those are THE litmus tests that define you. They will be insanely obsessive on the topics because you are insanely obsessive on the topics, but they will not be servants of doctors and lawyers and professors, nor will they be servants of corporate executives. They will be defined by their support for the working people who are sick of paying for "protection".
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69244
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a lot of hypothesis, but it's clear that they cannot choose to be anything other than themselves. You are also asserting it's a disease, which does not bode well for your entire position. Then you enter into a slippery slope fallacy, which destroys your entire position.
So when does getting rid of bans cause such things? Did getting rid of the ban that prevented black people from marrying white people make the ground split open and consume the country? Did getting rid of the ban preventing black people from voting cause our country to fall apart? Did stopping most of the anti-sodomy laws result in public gay sex?
The act of homosexuality is sex without reproduction. Yes, I call that a disease. It's harmful to biology. The slippery slope was always there. You just don't like the wording. That's not my problem.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69245
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Creativity takes many forms. It doesn't have to be displayed in sexual intercourse. That's why we have experts studying about the subconscious. You are not conscious of your own sexual desires. The fact that you try to look like a woman is a form of creativity. The fact that you wish you can grow breasts is proof that you have sexual desires. But you have suppressed for some reason. Perhaps you found other things that satisfied them such as eating eggo waffles. There are different degrees of sexual desires. lol
You assume I'm trying to look like a woman. You shouldn't assume, it's a sign of ignorance. I have breasts too, you made another assumption, but breasts prove nothing, as I pointed out, other than I am a mammal. Breasts are for food, not pleasure, also. The sexualization of them is due to infantile tendencies caused by the longing of "good ole days," it's actually a well understood psychological phenomenon. Not all living things, even in the inherently flawed binary reproduction system, have sexual desires of any sort. Nothing is sexual to me, and that's what you are missing. You are applying your own self image onto others around you, and thus become unable to perceive of anything different than you. Commonly it is called projection, the term in a psychological/anthropological sense is often misused, but you are exhibiting it in this post very clearly.

The only reason life thrives is because of it's differences, it's uniqueness, the traits that vary between offspring and parent. For any species to hope to last forever it must embrace these differences and incorporate them into their population, those that do not will, and have many times in the past, become extinct, some very rapidly. For it is not our similarities that make us alive, it is our differences.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69246
Dec 31, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a lot of hypothesis, but it's clear that they cannot choose to be anything other than themselves. You are also asserting it's a disease, which does not bode well for your entire position. Then you enter into a slippery slope fallacy, which destroys your entire position.
So when does getting rid of bans cause such things? Did getting rid of the ban that prevented black people from marrying white people make the ground split open and consume the country? Did getting rid of the ban preventing black people from voting cause our country to fall apart? Did stopping most of the anti-sodomy laws result in public gay sex?
As you can see, most of those laws are gone. Good politics.

Rewording marriage as as "between a man and a woman". Bad politics.

Getting rid of government subsidized breeding? Your call!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69247
Dec 31, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
"Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
It is called CHRISTianity after all...based on the teaching of the Christ. Even Christ chastise their barbaric ways.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69248
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The act of homosexuality is sex without reproduction. Yes, I call that a disease. It's harmful to biology. The slippery slope was always there. You just don't like the wording. That's not my problem.
No, a slippery slope is almost always a fallacy because until something happens, you cannot normally, reliably, predict the outcome of social policies.

Lots of straight people have sex "without reproduction," are they diseased as well? What about the sterile people, is that a disease as well? So you are saying that a pretty large chunk of straight people are in fact diseased, by your own logic.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69249
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
As you can see, most of those laws are gone. Good politics.
Rewording marriage as as "between a man and a woman". Bad politics.
Getting rid of government subsidized breeding? Your call!
People need to stop breeding anyway. So I fail to see your point here. Since gay people cannot breed, they're cheaper than straight people to allow to pair up.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69250
Dec 31, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I think homosexuality is in the genes. Some have them stronger than others and some more predisposed to it than others. Engaging in homosexual activities however is a choice.
More or less what I've been saying.

It doesn't have to be considered a "disease" but if it's a highly disruptive pattern of behavior, I won't contest the label. I absolutely do reserve my right to defend myself against advances by a homosexual without being accused of a hate crime. I like the idea that I can interact socially without behaving like a macho-man just to keep gays away. I don't feel the need to make timid girls feel special because they talk about such weighty issues, when it does not impact them personally.

I know! I'm just being cynical, right?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 65,061 - 65,080 of112,792
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••