Evolution vs. Creation

[macumazahn]

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>I see Missouri is on there. Got to be proud of that.
A very widely spread group of states. I am surprised.

So was I.

[Ashelah]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>Bestiality, or more precisely, zoophilia.
It's legal in 18 US states.

Really?

O_O

[Subduction Zone]

Washington should no longer be on that list. For at least the third time. Since the Enumclaw incident in 2005 it has been defined as animal abuse in my state.

[Subduction Zone]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>Hehehe.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[Wolfganged]

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>I agree too. Fundamentalists seem to have a fascination with what others do with their junk.

Yea funny that. Perhaps they should look in their own backyards and stay out of peoples private affairs... But that makes to much sense.

[DanFromSmithvill e]

Wolfganged wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea funny that. Perhaps they should look in their own backyards and stay out of peoples private affairs... But that makes to much sense.

Agreed.

[Chimney1]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
Epileptics, Tourette's patients and others aren't considered mentally handicapped in that way either. I never claimed that gays were mentally handicapped in a cognitive way. They have a medical symptom which may be the result of biology or environment. Some may have genetic reasons for the symptom, but not all. A lot of effort was made to find the "gay" gene. Nothing was found.
Freud's abstractions are awful. Even modern psychology is pathetic. Here's a good government source quote.
"The accuracy of psychiatric diagnosis was the highest for cognitive disorders 60%, followed by depression 50% and anxiety disorders 46%, whereas the accuracy of diagnosing psychosis was 0%."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
Well, who's to say who is political and who isn't? The question is, if homosexuality is a medical problem, then is it sensible to address it constitutionally? Race? Sex? Part of the human condition and consistent with evolution. Religion? Sexual preference? Not so absolute.
We protect the medically afflicted. We don't nurture their conditions.

I have to agree that psychology for much of its history looks like pseudoscience with unfalsifiable dogmas rather than testable hypotheses.

Perhaps now with some good hard neuroscience and direct observation we can get a bit further in understanding how we tick.

In the meantime...homosexuality is victimless, consensual behavior and therefore no more requiring government control than any other victimless activity, whatever its presumed causes. And disappointed mums or dads do not count as "victims".

As for the difference between "civil union" and "marriage", isn't that just primitive voodoo word magic? So long as any couple forms a permanent bond and is given the same rights in law (taxation, inheritance, etc) as a result of that bond, who cares what we call it?

Religions of course can forbid it internally as we always give cults the right to enforce whatever barmy idiocy they want on their subjects.

Bacon, anyone?

[MAAT]

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>I may not be correct on all southern states, but a lot of them have laws with wording like "act against nature" or something similar. I don't know what Missouri laws are. As you say, it never occurred to me to concern myself, but I grew up in the Ozarks where stories if not factual occurrences abounded. But sadly, it was not confined to animals either.
I disagree with anonymous regarding laws being on the books against bestiality in part because it is a form of cruelty to animals.

I still have to scroll back to anonymous' statement.
But do i understand that you are against laws on bestiality if they are only seen (the ratio) as a form of cruelty to animals?
I would agree since it is a rather male-oriented point of view.
Not representative of the abject actual goings on.

Sex is more often than we would ideally want about power.

[MAAT]

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>Bestiality comes to mind. Yeah, because you could have meant one of three different things here. You can do what you want about the first two, but I don't want anyone messing with that last one.

You speak in riddles...or have rather more imagination than i have.

Another page back.

[MAAT]

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.

You sound like the NRA...let everybody have any kind of gun and as many as they want, because you can't prevent atrocities happening anyway.(Compared to banning heroine and why only the police should cary guns. Added to that why Obamas kids would be entiled to protection. Does he think he is the president ..or a king. Yep there was a tiny hesitation their when the spokesman realised the grotesqueness and implied racism and low opinion he just vented on international television.)

As long as privately guns can be sold without control you can stop neither, since a lot end up in f.i. Mexico to support the drugtrade.

Ban the sale of bullets and have people undergo a yearly psych evaluation plus a permit and id cheque before renewing.
If they have to protect themselves they can start clubbing.

But bestiality would usually be after the fact and when caught. Repressive acting.

Isn't everyone in America supposed to live free, happy and without harassment. I would see precedent there.
And in international human rights as well.
So homosexuality would fall under freedom of expression and human rights laws that protect minorities.

[anonymous]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Do I have to point out that you ducked when I corrected you for claiming that I had invaded your personal space? I guess so.
And I am not bullying you, I am showing how pathetic your argument is, I guess you might call that bullying I am not.
And you are still the one who wants to apply a litmus test. Hypocrites rarely can see when they are being hypocritical.

You didn't correct me at all. You blustered.

My observation remains. Was your ambiguous choice of words an effort to engage in harassment? I don't need an answer. Ask yourself the question, because you claim you don't have a stake in this while I do.

[KittenKoder]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
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?

Plumage is a survival strategy, it is how the species improves it's genetic diversity. You speak from ignorance, that is easy to see, but you should actually look up and study something before making assertions. There are also many instances of homosexuality in many animals, we are not unique in that regard. That is what bothers you most, I am betting, having to admit that we are indeed animals.

[Hidingfromyou]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Plumage is a survival strategy, it is how the species improves it's genetic diversity. You speak from ignorance, that is easy to see, but you should actually look up and study something before making assertions. There are also many instances of homosexuality in many animals, we are not unique in that regard. That is what bothers you most, I am betting, having to admit that we are indeed animals.

Uhm...species don't set out trying to improve their genetic diversity. That sort of just happens through mutation and population increase.

Everything else you wrote is spot on though.

:)

[Hidingfromyou]

Wolfganged wrote:

<quoted text>
Sexuality is not even the issue,I do not for the life of me understand why it's such a big deal.

But...but...if homosexuality is natural then suddenly gay marriage is ok and then the whole world will stop buying gasoline and the sun will nova!

No! We cannot allow the end of all humanity!

[KittenKoder]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Uhm...species don't set out trying to improve their genetic diversity. That sort of just happens through mutation and population increase.
Everything else you wrote is spot on though.
:)

I didn't mean that they do it on purpose or with intelligent intent. I just failed to combine a better descriptive of the cause and effect.

[KittenKoder]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
But...but...if homosexuality is natural then suddenly gay marriage is ok and then the whole world will stop buying gasoline and the sun will nova!
No! We cannot allow the end of all humanity!

You forgot about the Moon crashing into the Earth! The horror! The horror!

[Cybele]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
interesting to say the least...I would say that maybe the book choose you by way of synchronicity...and there was a important message for you contained somewhere within the book...you should know it when you find it...I found it's best not to really try to search for it, but try just reading like you normally would, and if indeed there is,it will present itself...that's been my experience anyway.

No I don't try to search for it, it just comes. I love meaningful coincidences, it makes life really interesting ;-)

[Subduction Zone]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
You didn't correct me at all. You blustered.
My observation remains. Was your ambiguous choice of words an effort to engage in harassment? I don't need an answer. Ask yourself the question, because you claim you don't have a stake in this while I do.

Nope, you said something idiotic, I corrected you, you ducked, and then complained when I pointed out that you ducked. All of the moves of a typical loser when it comes to a debate.

My choice of words was not ambiguous, there was no effort at harassment until you asked to be harassed.

[MAAT]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
False. I corrected your ridiculous statements and fabrications. Then I pointed you to people who, if you read them, would enlighten you about the strange things you claim. They're scientists.
You have only succeeded in writing a lot of projection above. You haven't produced a single cogent argument based on any science whatsoever. You are, however, quite good at making garbage up.

The wiki has one on bias.
Once you are in the system and diagnosed for one thing, it's likely you could be diagnosed for more things. Before you know it you are labeled allavro, which could , given the narrow definitions easily lead to a psychiatric stigma.
Parents in particular would not want this.
So we get some new 'disease'.(Always good for the pharmaceutical industry to try some processed salt on. Since that comes in countless varieties for $65 per metric ton. If it does nothing -good- one can still use it as placebo in psychiatry!)
So whe looking how many people have this affliction we meet medical bias allavro, preselection.
But if we looked at the overall population we would see that a lot of behaviours are widespread and nothing special, at least those never got medicalised.

So anonymous stated that he intended to point out that those people want to get rid of the behaviour.
And with psychologized he might maybe have meant the bias as it works in reality, as mentioned above.
With the remark that they are not cured, nor is any intention made to do so.

But on the whole the communication went awry.

[MAAT]

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Epileptics, Tourette's patients and others aren't considered mentally handicapped in that way either. I never claimed that gays were mentally handicapped in a cognitive way. They have a medical symptom which may be the result of biology or environment. Some may have genetic reasons for the symptom, but not all. A lot of effort was made to find the "gay" gene. Nothing was found.
Freud's abstractions are awful. Even modern psychology is pathetic. Here's a good government source quote.
"The accuracy of psychiatric diagnosis was the highest for cognitive disorders 60%, followed by depression 50% and anxiety disorders 46%, whereas the accuracy of diagnosing psychosis was 0%."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
Well, who's to say who is political and who isn't? The question is, if homosexuality is a medical problem, then is it sensible to address it constitutionally? Race? Sex? Part of the human condition and consistent with evolution. Religion? Sexual preference? Not so absolute.
We protect the medically afflicted. We don't nurture their conditions.
---
Well that is the same as implying that homosexuality is a medical condition and there fore they must be cured.
Well it is not.
But if i put the accent on nurtured, then i face the wall of your quotes of proper -biassed?-diagnoses. Were apparently a lot of people ended up in the system without having the infliction or a different one and thus not cured, so frankly nurtured!
Further complicated by taking the discussion to CDO.'They are properly diagnosed but labeled and want to be cured but not cured.'
Well and then you loose me also, literaly, since form that point on i can not untie the gordian knot.
---
Followed by if not medicalised, why is a civil union not good enough?

Well simply because it does only stand as long as you stay under the same condition in the same state. Especially when children are involved.
Mariage is solid, federally covered.
(I looked into it)