Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#69387 Dec 31, 2012
Time and Space wrote:
'God' simply being used as a generic term for higher beings...for the sake of this discussion...
Still don't care about them freekin aliens.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69388 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in marriage. period. I don't know why women fantasize about this fairy tale of meeting their prince charles. I'm not into that thing.
Don't blame ya. I mean Prince Charles, come on...

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69389 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Queen Victoria might have said:
"We are not amused!"
Ah, well...

:-/
Dozerman

Danville, WV

#69390 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It started on Earth once Earth had life.
<quoted text>
The chemicals present on Earth were the result of Earth's formation from the proto-planetary disk, plus anything that hit the Earth later on, such as asteroids or comets.
if you say so. the question remains where did the chemicals,asteroids,comets come from. let me guess another form of chemical or dust. it all started somewhere everything comes from something they don't just appear
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69391 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Well, that escalated quickly!
I think marriage is an oath that is best enforced by the religious community, not the state. Let the state deal with the legal complications, whether in a civil union or a marriage. Let the state stay out of the morality issue and the religious endorsement of the conditions of a marriage.
The gays can't tell the church to marry them. The state can't wave a wand, demanding that churches recognize state marriages. Nobody gets tax breaks or inheritance breaks for marriage and no legal segue for turning gay marriage into affirmative action or hate crime laws. Makes sense yet?
Churches aren't necessary for marriage. State doesn't have to give a fig about any morality issue, it just needs to legally recognise the marriage and whatever legal benefits/detriments that go with them. Religion only enters in to play if those who are getting married give a fig about religion. Then they can work out all the religious details to their hearts content.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69392 Dec 31, 2012
Dozerman wrote:
<quoted text> ok so what started the natural process were did it come from i mean if humans evolved from chimps or whatever were did the the chimp come from and why are they not still evolving
(sigh)

:-/

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#69393 Dec 31, 2012
Dozerman wrote:
<quoted text> ok so what started the natural process were did it come from i mean if humans evolved from chimps or whatever were did the the chimp come from and why are they not still evolving
A long time ago our DNA threw out an anomalous gene that had two parts joined and we ended up with 46 chromosomes instead of 48 like the chimps and great apes. That along with our hox p2 gene and hyiod bone that is necessary for speech and here we are.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69394 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Churches aren't necessary for marriage. State doesn't have to give a fig about any morality issue, it just needs to legally recognise the marriage and whatever legal benefits/detriments that go with them. Religion only enters in to play if those who are getting married give a fig about religion. Then they can work out all the religious details to their hearts content.
That's a stealth tactic to begin with. Recognizing gay marriage implies that you recognize homosexuality as normal behavior. That leads to the hate crime laws, the Affirmative Action agenda, and all of the silly things that the state doesn't want to get tied up with, like dealing with like unwanted advances, and so on.

The state should provide civil unions that have no bearing on sexual relationships. That's it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69395 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a stealth tactic to begin with.
Nope, just a recognition of equal rights without religious interference. Of course those who WANT religious interference still have that choice.
anonymous wrote:
Recognizing gay marriage implies that you recognize homosexuality as normal behavior.
It occurs in human communities, it occurs in animal communities. Hence, normal.
anonymous wrote:
That leads to the hate crime laws, the Affirmative Action agenda, and all of the silly things that the state doesn't want to get tied up with, like dealing with like unwanted advances, and so on.
If you don't wanna be hit on by a gay man just tell him. If you don't wanna be hit on by a black person just tell them. If you don't wanna be hit on by a woman just tell her. Any potentially illegal responses from either party are dealt with in the normal way.

Note how your concerns are just as equally addressed whether we're talking about homosexuals, blacks or women.
anonymous wrote:
The state should provide civil unions that have no bearing on sexual relationships. That's it.
And marriages that have no bearing on sexual relationships. Girl/guy? Same marriage laws. Guy/guy? Same marriage laws. Girl/girl? Same marriage laws. Black/white? Same marriage laws. Simples. The only reason NOT to allow this to happen is a desire to impose unequal restrictions on a particular group. This is very potentially unConstitutional.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69396 Dec 31, 2012
Even atheists marry.
anonymous wrote:
Or they can have a civil union.
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69397 Dec 31, 2012
Dozerman wrote:
it all started somewhere everything comes from something they don't just appear
At this point, the evidence allows us to push back the history of the Universe to the hot dense state that preceded the Big Bang. More than that, we can say only "We don't yet know". It certainly doesn't allow us to conclude "It was poofed into existence magically by a god".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69398 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
Recognizing gay marriage implies that you recognize homosexuality as normal behavior.
It *is* normal behavior, for gay individuals.
TheIndependentMa jority

Hazard, KY

#69400 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I need gay sex! Will he fill that need for me? Or just more of that placebo nonsense?
:-/
I need sunshine, but hey you know...there are days, where there sure isn't much.

And sometimes on those types of days, Lord give me strength!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69401 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just a recognition of equal rights without religious interference. Of course those who WANT religious interference still have that choice.
<quoted text>
It occurs in human communities, it occurs in animal communities. Hence, normal.
<quoted text>
If you don't wanna be hit on by a gay man just tell him. If you don't wanna be hit on by a black person just tell them. If you don't wanna be hit on by a woman just tell her. Any potentially illegal responses from either party are dealt with in the normal way.
Note how your concerns are just as equally addressed whether we're talking about homosexuals, blacks or women.
<quoted text>
And marriages that have no bearing on sexual relationships. Girl/guy? Same marriage laws. Guy/guy? Same marriage laws. Girl/girl? Same marriage laws. Black/white? Same marriage laws. Simples. The only reason NOT to allow this to happen is a desire to impose unequal restrictions on a particular group. This is very potentially unConstitutional.
Now you're being simple. Blacks and women are not being denied marriage nor do they have any interest in hitting on me. Blacks and women are what they are by genetics. What is the recognition and what is the religious interference that you talk about? It sounds rhetorical, not real.

If gays want the government to dictate to churches, that's wrong. They can always make their own church. The recognition isn't morality, it's a legal prejudice. It's recognition with a money angle, as all politics is. I'm not lifting a finger to help them blockade my political agendas or harass me with legal vigilantism.

I suppose you haven't ever worked in government and seen how people abuse discrimination laws either. Social engineering is a sloppy, last-chance effort to prevent riots at best. At worst, it buries the problems until they blow up in everyone's face.

I have a sister who ran on and on about how bad ol' business didn't hire minorities. We were at a scientist convention of hers and I asked her why no minorities (OK, mostly Blacks, and in Washington DC, 80% or so Black!) were in attendance. She blamed it on bad ol' business and wasn't even slightly interested in the fact that these were all university eggheads who probably never punched a clock off-campus in their entire lives!

The social problems are EVERYONE'S problems. You can't cherry pick the ones that fit your political pose and toss out the rest. Get rid of the tax breaks for married people and the inheritance breaks. See if anyone cares about recognition when you've eliminated the prejudicial treatment that married people get in their favor.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69402 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Even atheists marry.
<quoted text>
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.
Then that should change, but not just for gays, and not to the detriment of single, tax paying citizens.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69403 Dec 31, 2012
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.
anonymous wrote:
Then that should change, but not just for gays, and not to the detriment of single, tax paying citizens.
And the legal recognition of marriage is detrimental to single, tax-paying citizens how, exactly?
rushlimbaughdotm e

Titusville, FL

#69404 Dec 31, 2012
www.rushlimbaugh.me
get your very own rush limbaugh email address

yourname@RushLimbaugh.me

get yours today

write on the Rush Limbaugh Forum and more!

www.rushlimbaugh.me
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69405 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It *is* normal behavior, for gay individuals.
....Who make up a minute portion of the population. Most estimates, about 1 or 2 percent, liberals always claim about 7 percent and gays think Lincoln was gay. I don't have time to waste on the statistics.

Normal is also biological normal, where sex is about reproduction. Anything else, is your personal thrill and not anything that the state needs to protect.

Our Constitution allows people to pursue happiness. It doesn't guarantee happiness. At what point do we pack it all in on freedom and wad everything up into a ball do be dispersed in quotas? If that's your idea of government, have at it. Most of us are willing to give freedom a chance as long as we really are getting that chance. Quotas aren't freedom and they aren't a chance to improve one's place in the world.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69406 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just a recognition of equal rights without religious interference. Of course those who WANT religious interference still have that choice.
<quoted text>
It occurs in human communities, it occurs in animal communities. Hence, normal.
<quoted text>
If you don't wanna be hit on by a gay man just tell him. If you don't wanna be hit on by a black person just tell them. If you don't wanna be hit on by a woman just tell her. Any potentially illegal responses from either party are dealt with in the normal way.
Note how your concerns are just as equally addressed whether we're talking about homosexuals, blacks or women.
<quoted text>
And marriages that have no bearing on sexual relationships. Girl/guy? Same marriage laws. Guy/guy? Same marriage laws. Girl/girl? Same marriage laws. Black/white? Same marriage laws. Simples. The only reason NOT to allow this to happen is a desire to impose unequal restrictions on a particular group. This is very potentially unConstitutional.
Oh, yes. Animals have diseases just like people do! Will you accept "recognition" of a mentally handicapped status?

Didn't think so. Politics!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69407 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.
<quoted text>
And the legal recognition of marriage is detrimental to single, tax-paying citizens how, exactly?
Unequal taxation....or are you just going to deny that obvious truth. SOMEone has to pay for all those social engineering programs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
German court upholds man's right to pee standin... 3 min DILF 18
Lets Discuss Men (Dec '13) 7 min Sublime1 493
what are you drinking (May '13) 8 min DILF 1,139
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 9 min Doug77 4,394
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 9 min DILF 149
unjumble - jumble 6 letter words 11 min Doug77 248
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 12 min LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 38,505
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 30 min Spirit67_ 28,626
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Camilla 155,313
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 1 hr Mechanic 3,632
More from around the web