Is homosexuality a sin?

Is homosexuality a sin?

Created by Travis Morgan on Oct 27, 2007

59,181 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101708 Jun 20, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Australian University Dumps Bob Carter, Advisor To Multiple Global Climate Science Denial Groups
Dr Robert Carter
CLIMATE science denialist radio host Chris Smith - of the shock-jock variety - got a little upset recently at a decision made quietly more than six months ago by James Cook University in Queensland, Australia.
Cook University gave your professor the boot.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/09/australi...
Thanks for making my point, if anyone dares questions the alarmists, they are quickly out of the picture, the debate of no debate is over. Who pays the Universities? Follow the money.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101709 Jun 20, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
OK then. Now name an atheist who murdered for the sake of it, not the ideology of Communism.
then if I do will you stop using derogatory names for gay men? Keep your "poof" slang for your people. Shame on you. ok here it is: During the French Revolution, a campaign of dechristianization happened which included removal and destruction of religious objects from places of worship and the transformation of churches into "Temples of the Goddess of Reason", culminating in a celebration of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral.
Unlike later establishments of anti-theism by communist regimes, the French Revolutionary experiment was short (7 months), incomplete and inconsistent [better source needed] Although brief, the French experiment was particularly notable for the influence upon atheists Ludwig Feuerbach (who called religion an opiate before Marx , Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx.] Using the ideas of Feuerbach, Marx and Freud, communist regimes later treated religious believers as subversives or abnormal, sometimes relegating them to psychiatric hospitals and reeducation

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101710 Jun 20, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Despite his popularity, Dr Carter rarely subjects his thoughts to scientific peer review. On two occasions when he has, the work has been roundly criticised.
One paper was described by Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, as “probably the worst paper ever published on climate change”. In another, Dr Carter co-authored a paper which claimed natural variation was to blame for recent global warming - a conclusion which a group of leading climate scientists concluded was “not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper”.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/09/australi...
So much for peer review.
Professor Carter has been rebuked by his peers.
Why don't you start a new topic about this Professor? Otherwise, who cares?

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101711 Jun 20, 2014

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101712 Jun 20, 2014
John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, and various other critics have called the theory that human use of carbon-based fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change a “hoax.” It is, but it’s more than that, it’s criminal.

Here are some of the scientific questions at the core of this issue:

Is the climate changing? Of course. The climate always has changed and always will.

Is the earth getting warmer? We should hope so for at least two reasons: First, the world emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, so it would be worrisome if it weren’t getting warmer. Second, all the history indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones. It is likely, though, that earth has warmed less than many official temperature records indicate for a variety of reasons, including: few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water; distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting (e.g., temperature sensors next to asphalt parking lots, etc.; the decline in weather station reports from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet government; the arbitrarily ceasing to include measurements from northern latitudes and high elevations, etc.) The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.

Is the earth getting dangerously warm? Probably not, since the earth was warmer than it is now in 7000 of the last 10,000 years. By the way, does anybody know what the “right” amount of global heat is?

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101713 Jun 20, 2014
Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.

It’s even possible that CO2 may not affect global warming at all. During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, the variations of the two factors followed a significant sequence: increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries. You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that, in a temporal universe, cause does not follow its effect.

Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth’s temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth’s orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth’s crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#101714 Jun 20, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Girls,
I'm not trying to be mean, but it really makes you look stupid to claim two guys standing next to a husband and wife with children are the same.
I'm just warning you, that in every person's mind, that is a marring of marriage. And YOU will feel the full weight of inferiority.
Why are you setting yourself up for something so idiotic?
Smile.
You're also not trying to be stupid, but you just can't help it. Blather on, you bloviating, blow-hard.
Toby

Eugene, OR

#101715 Jun 20, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>No NASA says the sun is causing it, last time I checked NASA is paid by the Gov. don't play the big oil card. http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowled... Read your third grade science book again, the climate always changes. The winds always blow, the rain will fall and etc. Stop you doom and gloom keeping the people scared crap. If it's hot, move. If it's cold move.
David S. Bernstein-
"What seems to have happened is that in May 2008, a NASA employee wrote a general interest article, relying on NASA materials and quoting NASA researchers, about solar variability and climate change. It ran on Science Daily's site on May 12, 2008. The article is about how climate-change researchers are working to understand the relationship between solar variability and earth's atmosphere, in order to more accurately measure and predict the real global warming problem happening now, being caused by man-made emissions.(Andrews concedes that the "NASA study" blames current global warming on human behavior, but writes that this was where the study "went badly off the tracks.")
Andrews appears to have just stumbled across the article, didn't notice the old date, mistook it to be refering to a new study, completely misinterpreted the actual substance of the article, and -- voila!-- hot news item!
And guess who's buying it hook, line and sinker?
This morning Newsbusters posted an article touting that "the NASA study has found that solar activity is the real culprit of any global warming." American Thinker predicts that the NASA scientist in charge will probably now be fired for "telling the truth." Neal Boortz blogs that "NASA believes the sun's radiation may have more to do with climate change than your cute little hybrid and reusable grocery bags." And... well, you can Google and enjoy for yourself."
Toby

Eugene, OR

#101716 Jun 20, 2014
Brian Angliss--

"Today, Memeorandum featured a post by climate disruption denier Michael Andrews and writer for the website DailyTech that claimed, among other things, that “even NASA’s own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past.” Not exactly news, but given that this article has been linked by other prominent denier sites like American Thinker, Newsbusters, and WattsUpWithThat, I figured that it was worth a little more looking.

And I’m glad I did, because I came across a great post at The Phoenix Talking Politics blog that pointed out something I’d missed: Andrews got all hot and bothered by a general interest piece that ran in ScienceDaily in May, 2008.

Oops.

And just in case you think this is isolated to just a couple of denialist sites, here’s a list of various blogs parroting, reposting, or linking to Andrews, Watts, or Newsbusters (in no particular order): Climate Change Fraud, CongressCheck.com , Truth11, Salt Lake Tribune message boards, Truth is Contagious, Climate Realists, Republic Broadcasting Network, Prairie Pundit, Hyscience, Deceiver, Jumping in Pools, Bluffton Today, The Witless Knower, Political Wrinkles forum, The American Right forum, Bob’s Bites, Cool Science News, Lucianne.com , The Global Warming, Righting the Ship, Micky’s Muses, Fabius Maximus, Melvin Udall, The Political Fish, Right of Course, The Political Asylum forum, Rantings of Mine, Atomic Fungus (as of about 24 hours after the original posting. More will be forthcoming, I’m sure.)

Apparently a significant number of climate disruption deniers are getting desperate for vindication. Talk about embarrassing.

What’s far more embarrassing, however, is what was written in the American Thinker piece:

This report may represent the third time that NASA’s DR. James Hansen, Al Gore’s point man on his AGW hoax, has had to backtrack on his claims that humans are responsible for climate change.
…
Could Dr. Hansen’s Reign of Error as head of the Goddard Institute for Space Flight be coming to an end?

To say that American Thinker is confused is to be generous. Hansen runs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space STUDIES at Columbia University in New York City, not the Goddard SPACE FLIGHT CENTER in Greenbelt, Maryland. American Thinker must have been in such a hurry to slam Hansen that they forgot to check their facts.

Just a hint, guys – getting your facts this wrong doesn’t do your already nonexistent credibility on this issue any good.

(For the record, the latest science supports the idea that part of climate disruption is natural, so anyone who says that the sun has some impact is entirely correct. However, anyone claims that the sun is the dominant factor over human emissions of greenhouse gases is incorrect. In fact, we know that solar energy output can’t be the dominant factor – if it were, then the stratosphere would be heating up, but instead it’s cooling off as energy from the surface is prevented from entering the stratosphere by greenhouse gas buildup in the troposphere.)"

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#101717 Jun 20, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Who pays NASA? The Climate has always been changing, come out of your bunker, it's safe now. Keep posting more bs lol Follow the money! Do you really think the earth is that sensitive? Here this is from NASA blaming the sun: The Sun and Global Warming
Of the many trends that appear to cause fluctuations in the Sun’s energy, those that last decades to centuries are the most likely to have a measurable impact on the Earth’s climate in the foreseeable future. Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001). Since pre-industrial times, it’s thought that the Sun has given rise to a global heating similar to that caused by the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the past is any indication of things to come, solar cycles may play a role in future global warming.
Let's build a giant shade....LOL
Your appeal to emotion means nothing. The earth is warming.

What is the effect of burning 1 billion barrels of oil per day?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#101718 Jun 20, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you start a new topic about this Professor? Otherwise, who cares?
You care because your source has been rebuked by his peers.

What this means is your position on global warming means nothing.
Toby

Eugene, OR

#101719 Jun 20, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014 /03/a-history-of-the-disastrou s-global-warming-hoax/
Alan Caruba is a total wingnut, he admits he is prejudice against homosexuals but says it's science based hate. What's humorous about Caruba is he is always ranting on about the wacky greenies but yet he lives in his own world of conspiracies where environmentalists, progressives, the United Nations, homosexuals, and of course communist are out to destroy America. So you don't believe that Caruba is biased yet is a public relations expert for the pesticide industry?

Here is a small summary of some of his wingnut ideas.

DDT is not harmful, it needs to be used more.
Species going extinct is no problem, it's always been happening.
Acid rain doesn't really exist.
Coal, not a problem we need to burn more of it.
No such thing as global warming.
Guns,guns, guns, everyone should own a gun!
Homosexuals are abnormal and they also want to taint the nations blood supply.
All illegal immigrants need to be arrested and sent home immediately!
The United Nations is trying to destroy America, it's a communist plot!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#101720 Jun 20, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.
It’s even possible that CO2 may not affect global warming at all. During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, the variations of the two factors followed a significant sequence: increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries. You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that, in a temporal universe, cause does not follow its effect.
Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth’s temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth’s orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth’s crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive.
Big article which is simply an unsupported opinion.

Gullible much?

Are you saying 1 billion barrels of oil burned each day has no impact?
Toby

Eugene, OR

#101721 Jun 20, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for making my point, if anyone dares questions the alarmists, they are quickly out of the picture, the debate of no debate is over. Who pays the Universities? Follow the money.
You're starting to sound like Alex Jones

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#101722 Jun 20, 2014
KiMare wrote:
In the context of the question, I didn't judge, you did.
But it's your position that gay couples are too inferior for legal marriage. Not mine. In the context of the entire issue, the judgment is yours.
KiMare wrote:
Of course people judge relationships. All the time. And they call them different relationships based on those judgments.
Great, good, go for it. Nothing wrong with making personal judgments. As long as you recognize their personal limits. Your judgments (and mine) are meaningless to anyone else besides ourselves.
KiMare wrote:
As noted, we both agree ss couples and marriage are clearly distinct.
No, we certainly don't agree on that point. You've now rephrased it. My position is that, while all couples (married or not) are individually unique, the uniqueness of any given same-sex couple does not (and should not) disqualify them for marriage. In the context of comparing same-sex married couples to opposite-sex married couples, although each will have their own uniquenesses, married is married is married. They're all comparable on that level. There's no need for any "special" distinction to be given to same-sex married couples, certainly none that would bar them from having their marriages recognized by the governmental authority which recognizes marriage.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101723 Jun 20, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Your appeal to emotion means nothing. The earth is warming.
What is the effect of burning 1 billion barrels of oil per day?
Prove it's warming because of oil. What affect have you personally noticed? CA has the cleanest air ever, what affect has it created on the climate? Can you prove it?
Michael Thomas

Richmond Hill, NY

#101724 Jun 20, 2014
Answer: No!

The very concept of "sin" is an imaginary construct of religious types. I concern myself with what is legal, ethical and moral, not biblical.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101725 Jun 20, 2014
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
You're starting to sound like Alex Jones
You sound like gore and the gov. alarmist nuts.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101726 Jun 20, 2014
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
You're starting to sound like Alex Jones
Toby wrote:
RicarrdoFire arguing there was always an internet-
RicarrdoFire- " Oh and suddenly there was the internet right, and no record of an internet before that throughout history, come on !"
Since the poof wants us to not post lies and nonsense, I suggest you backing up your mouth and show us the post where I said that? Post or Lie.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101727 Jun 20, 2014
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
Alan Caruba is a total wingnut, he admits he is prejudice against homosexuals but says it's science based hate. What's humorous about Caruba is he is always ranting on about the wacky greenies but yet he lives in his own world of conspiracies where environmentalists, progressives, the United Nations, homosexuals, and of course communist are out to destroy America. So you don't believe that Caruba is biased yet is a public relations expert for the pesticide industry?
Here is a small summary of some of his wingnut ideas.
DDT is not harmful, it needs to be used more.
Species going extinct is no problem, it's always been happening.
Acid rain doesn't really exist.
Coal, not a problem we need to burn more of it.
No such thing as global warming.
Guns,guns, guns, everyone should own a gun!
Homosexuals are abnormal and they also want to taint the nations blood supply.
All illegal immigrants need to be arrested and sent home immediately!
The United Nations is trying to destroy America, it's a communist plot!
Link or Lie

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min Into The Night 55,928
How to find good supplier from china 12 min choise 1
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 23 min Marylin 35
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Steve III 650,012
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Brian_G 445,893
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 2 hr Tony 6,077
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 2 hr ImFree2Choose 2,306
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr brandy trujillo 971,739
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) Mon Jesus 47
More from around the web