Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#71125 Jan 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That camp has never produced viable theory - their hypotheses are never borne out.
Meh. Like I said, it was years ago.

Is there a more current theory?

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71126 Jan 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
anonymous, even if, no change that, when homosexual marriage is legally recognized in your state no one will force you to marry a "homo". So you can quit worrying.
Why are you so opposed to the concept?
Because he thinks it's a disease and could be contagious.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71127 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
As far as I'm concerned you were the one defending the neanderthals, um yeah. Bonobos are no different.
Defending the Neanderthals? What do you have against Neanderthals? Some of my best friends are Neanderthals!

BTW - a family member did have one of those marker tests and they did find Basque in the family tree so those Neanderthals were probably not-so-distant cousins.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71128 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm quite sure that I'm not interested in the private lives of gays!
This whole debate started when imsickofit dropped in with his usual mission statement that we must put down all those NAZI Christians and save gay marriage so that civilization can move on again.
Well, I don't like that childish slop. Whether you call it childish, mentally unbalanced or just plain nasty trolling, that was a disruption of the topic. I know the stereotype so I'm hunkering down for a stream of the megaphone toting shills.
That includes gays who are all messed up inside, male hating women and hypocritically bigoted white-male haters of all types who think we're hard-wired bigots until properly castrated. Toss in upper middle class, married, White men who still have a reason to ride the gravy train and you've got the Democratic party.
It was political jihad as soon as I replied to sickofit. I knew that. There's not one scrap of this story that hasn't been acted out a million times before.
Don't put the blame on someone who opened a can of your worms.

And no I am not one of those white-male haters. lol
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71129 Jan 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexual attraction is driven by genetics, it's connected to the reproduction system a species utilizes to assist in genetic diversity. Are you saying that the birds which choose based on plumage are just choosing based entirely on cosmetic traits as well? Same thing.
Well, I'm not sure that I agree, at least not totally.

I can't say why birds choose their mates, but plumage isn't a survival strategy in itself. A male with bright plumage may be demonstrating past successful survival ability by being conspicuous. As long as that conspicuous plumage isn't compulsory for the immature males, it's showing off. I guess female birds tend to go for the punks too!

That mating pattern DOES suggest that child rearing is mostly a female responsibility for such species. Is there a moral to this story?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71130 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to continue to discriminate them? I get it.
Hmm. Would you call it discrimination to not allow an epileptic to fly a commercial airliner? All I'm interested in is perspective, not litmus test politics.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71131 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't put the blame on someone who opened a can of your worms.
And no I am not one of those white-male haters. lol
My worms?

Anyway, I'm not sure you're a liberal either. You're all over the map.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#71132 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm. Would you call it discrimination to not allow an epileptic to fly a commercial airliner? All I'm interested in is perspective, not litmus test politics.
An epileptic airline pilot would be an obvious danger to humanity.

How could you say the same for a legally married gay couple?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71133 Jan 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha!
So...you came here to intimidate?
I came here to procrastinate. I know I am wasting my time trying to explain how reality works to people like you, but to be honest, I don't write for you. I write for others and use you as a foil. The things is, people without religious prejudice aren't going to ask such uninformed questions. So the forums need people like you, with all your biases and strange beliefs to drive conversations.
I used to post links to scientific articles to back up everything I write. Time after time they just get ignored - people with committed belief systems are immune to learning. You guys just ignore the science. So why bother posting the links?
Cheers.
OK, you're not here to intimidate.

What's so "hahaha" funny?

Just answer the question. Don't set up your choreography first.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#71134 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm. Would you call it discrimination to not allow an epileptic to fly a commercial airliner? All I'm interested in is perspective, not litmus test politics.
Then why do you insist on a litmus test for two people to get married?

You may not see it but you are being very hypocritical.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71135 Jan 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
anonymous, even if, no change that, when homosexual marriage is legally recognized in your state no one will force you to marry a "homo". So you can quit worrying.
Why are you so opposed to the concept?
First, I don't like the trivialization of real liberalism, and I don't like the Democratic party litmus test.

Second, you ask "Why are you so opposed to the concept?" What was that concept? Allowing other to engage in gay marriage, or your own sub-conscious (or conscious)effort to dominate the discussion with an invasion of my personal space?

Freudian slip or is that cigar just a cigar? Hmmmm..... hmmmmmm!

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71137 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm. Would you call it discrimination to not allow an epileptic to fly a commercial airliner? All I'm interested in is perspective, not litmus test politics.
false analogy fallacy
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71136 Jan 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do you insist on a litmus test for two people to get married?
You may not see it but you are being very hypocritical.
I already said, remove all financial considerations from the act of marriage, and get government out of the business of marriage. Problem solved.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#71138 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I don't like the trivialization of real liberalism, and I don't like the Democratic party litmus test.
Second, you ask "Why are you so opposed to the concept?" What was that concept? Allowing other to engage in gay marriage, or your own sub-conscious (or conscious)effort to dominate the discussion with an invasion of my personal space?
Freudian slip or is that cigar just a cigar? Hmmmm..... hmmmmmm!
anonymous, this is a public forum. You have no "personal space" here. And why do you think this is a Democratic party litmus test? When this motion failed in California it had more to do with the Democrats than the Republicans. The black and latino population voted strongly against it. In my state it passed largely because they aimed most of their advertisements towards Republicans. This is not a party issue.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#71139 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>I already said, remove all financial considerations from the act of marriage, and get government out of the business of marriage. Problem solved.
Once government has a power it practically never gives it up freely. Live in the real world, government is not going to get out of the marriage business. So why shouldn't gay people have the same rights in regard to their spouse as straight people?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71140 Jan 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
An epileptic airline pilot would be an obvious danger to humanity.
How could you say the same for a legally married gay couple?
You just said the magic word. "legally"

Nothing about sexual preference should be part of law. Been there already. Whether it's gay sex, bigamy or animal sex, there's no legal "right" that guarantees government protection. The reasons why one may be illegal and another is not is not based on any such right or official government endorsement.

“The..”

Since: Dec 12

"..who whating how with huh?"

#71141 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I don't like the trivialization of real liberalism, and I don't like the Democratic party litmus test.
Second, you ask "Why are you so opposed to the concept?" What was that concept? Allowing other to engage in gay marriage, or your own sub-conscious (or conscious)effort to dominate the discussion with an invasion of my personal space?
Freudian slip or is that cigar just a cigar? Hmmmm..... hmmmmmm!
Just wondering...do you happen to lick windows?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#71142 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't put the blame on someone who opened a can of your worms.
And no I am not one of those white-male haters. lol
Glad to hear that.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#71143 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You just said the magic word. "legally"
Nothing about sexual preference should be part of law. Been there already. Whether it's gay sex, bigamy or animal sex, there's no legal "right" that guarantees government protection. The reasons why one may be illegal and another is not is not based on any such right or official government endorsement.
When you say "animal sex" are you talking about sex between humans and animals, sex between animal and animal or really awesome sex?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71144 Jan 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
anonymous, this is a public forum. You have no "personal space" here. And why do you think this is a Democratic party litmus test? When this motion failed in California it had more to do with the Democrats than the Republicans. The black and latino population voted strongly against it. In my state it passed largely because they aimed most of their advertisements towards Republicans. This is not a party issue.
Because this is a public forum, I can call it a litmus test and that is what it is. However, you are confirming my observations that minorities don't tend to support gay marriage. It's because the topic trivializes real rights issues.

But don't believe me. Just don't ask questions about litmus tests if you're just acting out your choreography and the point couldn't be made more clearly yet never get through to you.

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.

Louisiana Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
HELP U.S. send MARY LANDRIEU back to her 2.5-MI... 22 hr MARK TRAINA - NAAWP 1
Is Rev. Gabriel Swaggart Teaching False Things? Wed Bible Bearer 6
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries Faces New Scandal (Aug '11) Sep 10 Ruthie W 340
Louisiana Poll Shows Tight Race Between Cassidy... Sep 10 Le Jimbo 9
Shreveport couple will appeal gay marriage ruling Sep 8 The Troll Stopper 3
Super Derby LuncheonSuper Derby LuncheonThe Shr... Sep 7 BossierDarby 1
Renee Stringer: Jonesboro's issues being ignored (Jun '12) Sep 2 Well 27
•••

Louisiana People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••