http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6446707/

Pathetic attempt by the government. SO so sad. I'm waiting for the day another scientist grabs a hold of power in this country. Then logic will overcome tardition/religion/propaganda. But unfortunatly, Carter was as close as I think we'll ever come...and he disappointed.

This article is a red herring to cloud the facts.

I did research in college about this. The risk of breast cancer IS higher to those having an abortion versus someone carrying to full-term and breast-feeding.

As research proved, immature breast cells are more prone to damage from environmental pollutants than mature cells, or ones that have developed milk.

So, in reality, you can lower your chance of getting breast cancer by breast-feeding, but I don't know that any evidence attributes cancer to the act of abortion.

The truth of the matter is this, though, if you have two pregnant women (first time pregnancies) of the same age, the one that has an abortion will have a higher chance of breast cancer.

There may be some other link, but I haven't heard of it yet.

This article is a red herring to cloud the facts.

I did research in college about this. The risk of breast cancer IS higher to those having an abortion versus someone carrying to full-term and breast-feeding.

As research proved, immature breast cells are more prone to damage from environmental pollutants than mature cells, or ones that have developed milk.

So, in reality, you can lower your chance of getting breast cancer by breast-feeding, but I don't know that any evidence attributes cancer to the act.

There may be some other link, but I haven't heard of it yet.

It's not that misleading. Your research showed that breast feeding lowers the chances of breast cancer. Some women who have their babies don't even breast feed. So the link between cancer and abortions is tenuous at best. Also, the cells that produce milk exist in every woman. So are you saying there is a small window of time when the cells begin making milk and before they are 'used' that has a higher chance of environmental dammage? Somehow I doubt this is true...

Pathetic attempt by the government. SO so sad. I'm waiting for the day another scientist grabs a hold of power in this country. Then logic will overcome tardition/religion/propaganda. But unfortunatly, Carter was as close as I think we'll ever come...and he disappointed.


I'm waiting for the day that tradition, religion, and logic can all live together harmoniously. I'm all for tradition, religion and science BTW. Logic is just what makes sense to someone so its a relative issue. I seriously wonder why so many want people to abandon their traditions and religions in this country they are more often then not a good thing.

I'm waiting for the day that tradition, religion, and logic can all live together harmoniously. I'm all for tradition, religion and science BTW. Logic is just what makes sense to someone so its a relative issue. I seriously wonder why so many want people to abandon their traditions and religions in this country they are more often then not a good thing.

Don't abandon them. Personal religion is a wonderful and powerful thing.

Just get it out of government!!

So we should not vote according to our beliefs and convictions?

So we should not vote according to our beliefs and convictions?

You shouldn't deny other people the way they want to live thier lives (gay marriage, abortion, no prayer in schools) based on your religion.

You shouldn't deny other people the way they want to live thier lives (gay marriage, abortion, no prayer in schools) based on your religion.
Yes, and don't forget beastiality, polygamy, and other things associated with the loss of morals. I'll take 50s America over this any day. I want my children to say 'Under God" when they take the pledge.

You shouldn't deny other people the way they want to live thier lives (gay marriage, abortion, no prayer in schools) based on your religion.

I absolutely agree wrong or right people will do as they choose. The issue of gay marriage is one I have given a great deal of thought to I have been torn between my belief that it is wrong, and my belief that people should be allowed to do as they please so long as it does not harm another. I've decided that the sex is the wrong part and the issue of a civil union is one that needs be addressed. If people are to be truly free, right or wrong in this regard the government should do one of two things. Recognize all unions between consenting people of legal age, or recognize none and leave the issue of marriage up to the peoples customs and beliefs. If those were the choices on the ballot then either way the seperation of church and state would be served. But since those are not the choices I will have to follow my belief that its wrong and vote against it.

I absolutely agree wrong or right people will do as they choose. The issue of gay marriage is one I have given a great deal of thought to I have been torn between my belief that it is wrong, and my belief that people should be allowed to do as they please so long as it does not harm another. I've decided that the sex is the wrong part and the issue of a civil union is one that needs be addressed. If people are to be truly free, right or wrong in this regard the government should do one of two things. Recognize all unions between consenting people of legal age, or recognize none and leave the issue of marriage up to the peoples customs and beliefs. If those were the choices on the ballot then either way the seperation of church and state would be served. But since those are not the choices I will have to follow my belief that its wrong and vote against it.

So even though you believe that it's wrong not to allow people to get married no matter what sex they are because they aren't hurting anyone else you still vote against it?

You sound just like Kerry to tell the truth. He also said that he doesn't believe in it and thinks we should "protect the sanctity of marriage" and they should have to settle for civil unions.

If people are to be truly free, right or wrong in this regard the government should do one of two things. Recognize all unions between consenting people of legal age, or recognize none and leave the issue of marriage up to the peoples customs and beliefs. If those were the choices on the ballot then either way the seperation of church and state would be served. But since those are not the choices I will have to follow my belief that its wrong and vote against it.

I said that if those were the choices on the ballot then I would vote for one or the other, those are not the choices on the ballot so....
In other words the government should consider all relationships between any people of legal age to be "civil unions" and wether or not people are "married" would depend on what faith they belong to. But that is not what is on the ballot, the issue on the ballot is about marriage so its an issue of faith, I vote according to my beliefs. Am I really stopping gays from calling themselves married? No. Am I stopping them from sleeping with eachother? No. Am I voting against them having the same rights as hetrosexuals? No, I think civil unions is a good idea, but my belief is that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Is a civil union settling if they have the same rights?

I'll take 50s America over this any day. I want my children to say 'Under God" when they take the pledge.

Then you would have to pick the year specifically... Under God was placed into the pedge after 1950 (in fear of the pinko-Commies)

Yes, and don't forget beastiality, polygamy, and other things associated with the loss of morals. I'll take 50s America over this any day. I want my children to say 'Under God" when they take the pledge.

Do you want people that don't believe in "God" to be forced to say that when they pledge for the great country they live in?

Do you want people that don't believe in "God" to be forced to say that when they pledge for the great country they live in?
Do you want people to be forced to call other people "married" when they don't believe in gay marriage? If the government recognizes gay couples and heterosexual couples the same that is fine by me, if a gay goes to a church that says they can be married and they are married in that church, again fine by me. But my government forcing me to recognize a gay "marriage" is not fine by me.

Do you want people to be forced to call other people "married" when they don't believe in gay marriage? If the government recognizes gay couples and heterosexual couples the same that is fine by me, if a gay goes to a church that says they can be married and they are married in that church, again fine by me. But my government forcing me to recognize a gay "marriage" is not fine by me.

You don't have to call them anything. They don't have to be recognized by any church, nor married by a church. This is a government issue regarding the rights that they are allowed by the constitution. The gay community would be married by the state not your church.

But its ok if your government discriminates against them. There is a difference between what you are being "forced" to do and what gays are taken away. The government ask you to recognize them as equals. While you want to take that away from them. Which one is worse? Also you are basing this on your faith, which should have NOTHING to do with the government. While they are basing theres on being EQUALS by the laws of this nation, not the religion.

You don't have to call them anything. They don't have to be recognized by any church, nor married by a church. This is a government issue regarding the rights that they are allowed by the constitution. The gay community would be married by the state not your church.

Marriage is a religious, cultural thing. The state should have nothing to do with it.
The state is not a religious entity that should have the authority to "marry" people. Take away that authority and the problem of gay marriage goes away.
As far as rights allowed by the constitution, if a civil union grants those rights then is it settling?

But its ok if your government discriminates against them. There is a difference between what you are being "forced" to do and what gays are taken away. The government ask you to recognize them as equals. While you want to take that away from them. Which one is worse? Also you are basing this on your faith, which should have NOTHING to do with the government. While they are basing theres on being EQUALS by the laws of this nation, not the religion.

If they want rights then why the aversion to civil unions? They want to change American culture to view homosexuality as not immoral. That is their agenda. America is saying with its vote that the majority of us still feel that it is immoral, that said for the most part we think that they should have the same rights. We just don't want to call what they have marriage because it offends our faith.

Do you want people that don't believe in "God" to be forced to say that when they pledge for the great country they live in?

No, I'd prefer they move to Canada.

Marriage is a religious, cultural thing. The state should have nothing to do with it.
The state is not a religious entity that should have the authority to "marry" people. Take away that authority and the problem of gay marriage goes away.
As far as rights allowed by the constitution, if a civil union grants those rights then is it settling?

Marriage isn't a religious thing, I'm agnostic and I'm still getting "Married." It goes beyond the legal issues. It's a way of saying that your bonded more then legal papers ever could. My marriage won't be religious but that doesn't mean it's any less valuable to me to have it called a marriage.

As for HellaDumb's lovely comment that I should move to Canada, F off

Marriage isn't a religious thing, I'm agnostic and I'm still getting "Married." It goes beyond the legal issues. It's a way of saying that your bonded more then legal papers ever could. My marriage won't be religious but that doesn't mean it's any less valuable to me to have it called a marriage.

As for HellaDumb's lovely comment that I should move to Canada, F off

It may not be a religious issue to you but it is to most others. I'm pretty sure that the origins of marriage are religious though. I've been married four years now so I know my reasons for it, I assume that most others married or want to be married for the same reasons. If it goes beyond legal issues then why have the government involved?

It may not be a religious issue to you but it is to most others. I'm pretty sure that the origins of marriage are religious though. I've been married four years now so I know my reasons for it, I assume that most others married or want to be married for the same reasons. If it goes beyond legal issues then why have the government involved?

The whole point is for the government not to be involved. If people would just let same-sex couples marry then the government wouldn't have anything to do with it. But when people start stepping up to block others rights then the government has to step in the enforce the rights of same-sex couples.

Logic is just what makes sense to someone so its a relative issue.

I disagree here... isn't logic based in mathemetics? Logic is definite, unquestionable, and there isn't more than one version. The concept of 'logic' follows with that of 'true science,' in that it can be proven and modeled with equations. All else is a matter of faith, and is subject to interpretation.

I guess some people may try to say thier faith is based in logic, but I only see this as an effort to solidify the footing of what they'd like to believe, while making it easier to take the 'leap of faith' necessary when holding to such beliefs.

Or maybe I am just naive to and uninformed about various religions and the logic behind them.... you tell me.

Where in the Constitution does it say that same sex couples are allowed to be married? I thought it did not specifically guarantee that right, but Bush will be seeking an ammendment that specifically bans gay marriage. Which is not to say that civil unions between a same sex couple can't yeild the same results, just without calling it marriage.

I disagree here... isn't logic based in mathemetics? Logic is definite, unquestionable, and there isn't more than one version. The concept of 'logic' follows with that of 'true science,' in that it can be proven and modeled with equations. All else is a matter of faith, and is subject to interpretation.

I guess some people may try to say thier faith is based in logic, but I only see this as an effort to solidify the footing of what they'd like to believe, while making it easier to take the 'leap of faith' necessary when holding to such beliefs.

Or maybe I am just naive to and uninformed about various religions and the logic behind them.... you tell me.

You just don't know what logic means apparently. Logic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic)
I think this one says it best.

"The formal, guiding principles of a discipline (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discipline), school, or science."

Logic is not definate at least not when it comes to philosophy, its about reasoning, how you as an individual think and there are as many different ways of thinking as there are people.

Where in the Constitution does it say that same sex couples are allowed to be married? I thought it did not specifically guarantee that right, but Bush will be seeking an ammendment that specifically bans gay marriage. Which is not to say that civil unions between a same sex couple can't yeild the same results, just without calling it marriage.

So it doesn't say they can means that they can't?

And Mr. Bush is going to ammend our countries constitiution with an ammendment that's only reason for existing is to crush the rights of same sex couples.

Good job..... Land of the Free

When there is a question about it we put it to vote. The people will decide if they can or can't. Its the peoples country after all right? As I have said before. If they want rights then why the aversion to civil unions? Its because it is a moral issue and gays know it. They have an agenda to change American culture to believe that homosexuality is not immoral. That is their aim.

When there is a question about it we put it to vote. The people will decide if they can or can't. Its the peoples country after all right? As I have said before. If they want rights then why the aversion to civil unions? Its because it is a moral issue and gays know it. They have an agenda to change American culture to believe that homosexuality is not immoral. That is their aim.

They have an agenda to be able to get married. It's not an issue that should be decided like an election. It's an issue that should have never been brought up. Same sex couples should be able to get married even if other people's religion thinks it is wrong. If you think it's wrong then deal with it. Just like I have to deal with the fact that God is on our money, pledge and countless other things it has no place in.

It's not an issue that should be decided like an election. It's an issue that should have never been brought up.

Well ****! If we can't decide what is acceptable in our society who can?

Same sex couples should be able to get married even if other people's religion thinks it is wrong. If you think it's wrong then deal with it. Just like I have to deal with the fact that God is on our money, pledge and countless other things it has no place in.

That is your opinion, vote for what you think is right. Everyone else will do the same. If you don't like that other people voted otherwise then you deal with it.

Bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Actually a lot of people voted against civil rights for blacks does that make it right? No. You are mixing your faith with the law. And that is UNACCEPTABLE, simply because not everyone believes what you believe. You have stated in past threads how it effects your children and how its immoral. And I showed you how you are WRONG in each of those. And how this goes against the teachings of the Christian faith. You are misguided at best. But I guess I'll explain it to you once again.

Homosexuality is not immoral. And for the billionith time its not a choice, guess what its been scientifically proven. Again the Christian faith teaches acceptance of others. That is one of the greatest things about the bible, to me. Also morals CHANGE through time. Morals are not rigid. Morals confirm to societies needs. Just like 50 years ago it was frowned upon woman wearing pants now its acceptable.

I'll ask once more since you didn't respond to my comments on the last thread. How does gay couples getting married harm you in ANY way? It doesn't. You are imposing your views on them and that is immoral. Also just because the majority of the US are homophobic does not make it RIGHT. Might does not make right.

ericdared81:

While I must thank you for the deal on my STi (Shameless plug), I must tell you that no on is forced to say "under God" line or the Pledge, for that matter.
As for gay marriage, as it's not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, it's legal...in those places that don't a local law banning it.


I may not accept gay lifestyles, but I'll tolerate a person's "choice" to living a gay lifestyle. In all honesty, does any person's sexual preference have any bearing/impact on my life?
No.
As long as one doesn't force me to accept their lifestyle, I could really give two poops.
In any case, it's truly a shame that in the 21st Century America, people can't live free.

ericdared81:

While I must thank you for the deal on my STi (Shameless plug), I must tell you that no on is forced to say "under God" line or the Pledge, for that matter.


Thanks for the plug. It's true I'm not forced to say "under god" in the pledge and I don't. But I really don't see why it's there when there is a seperation of church and state and we are suppose to abide by.

It just kind of bugs me. Kind of like if we put "hail allah" in place how many people would lose their minds.

Ponder this:
If you were walking down the street with your buddies and came upon two male dogs going at it would you ridicule and/or poke fun at them and have a good laugh?

I am going to be honest and say-- yes; I would at the very least point and laugh and accuse one of my friends of being turned on by it.

My point is this-- It is abnormal or unusual to see two male animals interacting in this manner as it is with people(my opinion, sorry; not to say it can't be accepted). I can accept that there are gay people out there and that they want to have a happy and fofilling life and there is nothing wrong with that. But I do have a problem with people trying to change the definition of something I strongly believe in. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

If you are going to be part of a newly accepted way of life then come up with new definitions for defining that way of life-- call it a civil union and demand all the same benefits of marriage... hell, call it garriage I don't care. Two men/woman being together is not the same as a man and a woman being together so do not define them as so.

Remember-- it takes bread and meat to make a sandwich.
(as it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage)

This post may come off as harsh but that is not the intent. I have no problem with gays other than this issue.

Do you think that people had a hard time accepting the marriage of interracial couples before it was common?

Don't you think that people would have said almost the same thing you just did about gays to them?

Ponder this:
If you were walking down the street with your buddies and came upon two male dogs going at it would you ridicule and/or poke fun at them and have a good laugh?

I am going to be honest and say-- yes; I would at the very least point and laugh and accuse one of my friends of being turned on by it.

LOL That is the funniest thing I have read/heard all day! :D

Realistically, though, you would laugh if it was a male dog and a female dog anyways so the "example" you use is not really a good one.

Do you think that people had a hard time accepting the marriage of interracial couples before it was common?

Don't you think that people would have said almost the same thing you just did about gays to them?

The point Eric makes is a good one. When will the discrimination end? The bottom line is gay people are still that, people. They are still Americans and they deserve to have every right and privilege straight americans have. End of story.

Also I don't know why everyone is fighting to "ensure" the sanctity of marriage when the divorce rate in this country is almost at 50 percent now.

I love when religious and right wing nuts proclaim we must put a stop to gay marriage to ensure it's sanctity. (I said tity) check out this nice little list I found.

Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%

Here's another based on location. And to think that the south believes it knows more about values than the "coasts." :rolleyes:

Area % are or have been divorced
South 27%
Midwest 27%
West 26%
Northeast 19%


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

-Chris

Bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


I'm not intolerant, my problem is that we are not putting the right issue to vote. I'm not trying to stop people from being gay, I couldn't care less whom you sleep with. My problem is with the government saying whom can be married, "married" is a loaded word and to many people it means many different things. To most its means being married in a church. In many churches you can't be married if you are of the same sex as your intended spouse. That is up to the church, as far as legality and rights come into question we should all have the same rights as far as a union between the person you are sharing your life with. Like I've said the government should leave marriage to the churches and either endorse and legalize all civil unions between people of legal age, or endorse or recognize none.


You are mixing your faith with the law. And that is UNACCEPTABLE, simply because not everyone believes what you believe. You have stated in past threads how it effects your children and how its immoral. And I showed you how you are WRONG in each of those. And how this goes against the teachings of the Christian faith. You are misguided at best. But I guess I'll explain it to you once again.

Not everyone believes as I believe, no kidding? So its unacceptable to vote as I see fit? I thought that was my right? Its not? I've told you why I vote the way I do, and you don't like it period. Whats right and wrong is up to the person right?
You've showed me I was wrong?! That will be the day!



Homosexuality is not immoral. And for the billionith time its not a choice, guess what its been scientifically proven.

LOL! Wether its immoral or not is up to the individual to decide, not the government and its certainly not up to you to decide for me! I've decided its immoral, so have a lot of other people. Science can't prove or disprove someones sexual preference, that is up for the person to decide. Do you like girls or do you like boys? It seems to me you are the intolerant one, you don't like people having the choice to decide what is moral for them or not.


Again the Christian faith teaches acceptance of others. That is one of the greatest things about the bible, to me. Also morals CHANGE through time. Morals are not rigid. Morals confirm to societies needs. Just like 50 years ago it was frowned upon woman wearing pants now its acceptable.


Yes it teaches acceptance, tolerance and to allow others to do as they see fit. I see fit to not accept gay marriage can you tolerate that? Morals change!? Again that is up to the person, to my knowledge the teachings of the bible have not changed through time. They are the same today as the day they were written. Wether or not someones morals change is up to them not you, why can't you understand that? The question of morals and wether or not they are going to change is each individuals choice. Wether or not they remain "rigid" likewise.

Morals confirm to societies needs. Just like 50 years ago it was frowned upon woman wearing pants now its acceptable.


Morals conform to societies needs? Morals are decided by people, they decide what they need. What does womens fashion have to do with anything?


I'll ask once more since you didn't respond to my comments on the last thread. How does gay couples getting married harm you in ANY way? It doesn't. You are imposing your views on them and that is immoral. Also just because the majority of the US are homophobic does not make it RIGHT. Might does not make right.

I told you in the last thread. Gays being married is up to the church they attend, wether or not they have the same rights as heterosexuals is up to us to decide. If we decide to call it civil unions and give them the same rights as what the government calls married then whats the problem? The problem is that "married" is not up to the government, rights are up to the government, and the people.

There is one thing that's ok to be intolerant of...and that's others intolerance.

There is one problem with leaving marriage up to the churches. Not all marriages are done by churches. What about all the justices of the peace? They need to be able to marry people no matter what churches say.

There is one problem with leaving marriage up to the churches. Not all marriages are done by churches. What about all the justices of the peace? They need to be able to marry people no matter what churches say.

I keep saying, we should not have to go to the government to be married! If you go to a justice of the peace and you are joined in a civil union that is legally binding and affords you the same rights as a marriage then wether or not you are joined in a church in a religious ceremony is of no consequence to your rights.

There is one thing that's ok to be intolerant of...and that's others intolerance.

Like I said, what you view as ok is up to you. If your being intolerant of my intolerance then your a hypocrite. And if your ok with that then what does it matter what anyone else thinks right?

I keep saying, we should not have to go to the government to be married! If you go to a justice of the peace and you are joined in a civil union that is legally binding and affords you the same rights as a marriage then wether or not you are joined in a church in a religious ceremony is of no consequence to your rights.

So even if your not gay, and you get married at a justice of the peace your still not "married" by your standards?

Like I said, what you view as ok is up to you. If your being intolerant of my intolerance then your a hypocrite. And if your ok with that then what does it matter what anyone else thinks right?


Hahaha, to be honest, I don't really care either way about the argument at hand. My point was that to be intollerant of other peoples intollerance actually isn't hypocritical. If you tollerate other peoples intollerance, then you are in a small way condoning intollerance, which is an intollerant thing to do...on the other hand, your point that being intollerant of intollerance is, in fact, intollerant is also true. So basically, no matter what, everybody is intollerant, no matter how hard they try to be tollerant. But by not tollerating other people's intollerance, at least you are taking the moral high ground by saying that all intollerance is bad, so therefore I do not tollerate anybody's intollerance.

For the record, I'm for civil unions. I think it's silly that we're arguing over a word. Most people, even anti-gay-marriage types, will support legal rights for homosexuals that are identical as long as they're called "civil unions." Let the traditionalists have marriage, and give homosexuals civil unions at least for now. Fight over the words after you have the right secured, that's what I say.

Here's my question: For everyone who doesn't agree with people voting on moral questions, what about incest?

If a father waits for his daughter to turn 18, should he be allowed to marry her? Why or why not?

There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.

So, why shouldn't dads be allowed to marry their daughters at 18?

For the record, I'm for civil unions. I think it's silly that we're arguing over a word. Most people, even anti-gay-marriage types, will support legal rights for homosexuals that are identical as long as they're called "civil unions." Let the traditionalists have marriage, and give homosexuals civil unions at least for now. Fight over the words after you have the right secured, that's what I say.

Here's my question: For everyone who doesn't agree with people voting on moral questions, what about incest?

If a father waits for his daughter to turn 18, should he be allowed to marry her? Why or why not?

There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.

So, why shouldn't dads be allowed to marry their daughters at 18?

As sick as it is to me it doesn't matter what they do. If they want to get married that's fine. It's two adults that can do what they want with their lives. Just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean they can't.

[QUOTE=subaruguru]There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.[QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure I've read reputible journal articles that would argue with this. The inbreeding process starts messing up mice/rats in only 2-3 generations, and humans are actually not very much more complicated than mice genetically. There are also human communities that inbreed consistantly and show very obvious physical traits of it. All it takes is a recesive trait that is detrimental, and even in one generation the effects could be so huge that a child would die before birth.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1034/j.1399-0004.2001.600201.x/full/

Hahaha, to be honest, I don't really care either way about the argument at hand. My point was that to be intollerant of other peoples intollerance actually isn't hypocritical. If you tollerate other peoples intollerance, then you are in a small way condoning intollerance, which is an intollerant thing to do...on the other hand, your point that being intollerant of intollerance is, in fact, intollerant is also true. So basically, no matter what, everybody is intollerant, no matter how hard they try to be tollerant. But by not tollerating other people's intollerance, at least you are taking the moral high ground by saying that all intollerance is bad, so therefore I do not tollerate anybody's intollerance.

That was the philosophical equivalent of a dog chasing his tail around, and a terrible way to argue a point. That said, do it again! :D

[QUOTE=subaruguru]There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.[QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure I've read reputible journal articles that would argue with this. The inbreeding process starts messing up mice/rats in only 2-3 generations, and humans are actually not very much more complicated than mice genetically. There are also human communities that inbreed consistantly and show very obvious physical traits of it. All it takes is a recesive trait that is detrimental, and even in one generation the effects could be so huge that a child would die before birth.

I'm equally certain that no reputable journal article will argue with my point. Your own post has the key: a recessive trait that is detrimental. If there isn't a serious problem in the family gene pool, things will generally be fine. As it is, genetic defects transfer without incest, so I fail to see how that's an argument against it. Should we prohibit huntington's genes carriers from marrying too?


Edited to add:

Here's a post by a scientist that explains it. Inbreeding by itself does not cause any problems. It only increases the odds of offspring having more of the harmful recessive genes carried by one of the parents.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/940037873.Cb.r.html

Here's a post by a scientist that explains it. Inbreeding by itself does not cause any problems. It only increases the odds of offspring having more of the harmful recessive genes carried by one of the parents.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/940037873.Cb.r.html


I agree. But check out the link I added to my post. They have problems with recesive genetic diseases in many communities that traditional endorse consanguinese breeding.

EDIT: I like my source better...(PubMed Search for legit jounal > madsci.org)

So even if your not gay, and you get married at a justice of the peace your still not "married" by your standards?

Thats not what I said. What I said was that its a matter of legal rights. By definition a civil union is a marriage. Marriage. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage) We're voting on the government calling it something, I think that the government should leave marriage up to churches and worry about the rights of families no matter what they are constituted of. I'd be happier if the government called it something other than marriage for all involved. That way it won't be an issue of religion.

I agree. But check out the link I added to my post. They have problems with recesive genetic diseases in many communities that traditional endorse consanguinese breeding.

EDIT: I like my source better...(PubMed Search for legit jounal > madsci.org)

Yeah, you might like your source even more if you could read it. It says the same thing as mine, it talks about genetic problems within communities. The question stands: If amish can marry other amish, why not fathers and daughters? Especially if the father has a genetic screening that finds no recessive genes....why not?

First of all, there's no way you read that entire article in that amount of time. Second, it doesn't agree with you; there's no way to screen people for every recesive and detrimental genetic trait. Hell, there's genetic diseases that we don't even know how they work or how they're triggered yet. The reason inbreeding is not good is because of the uncertainty in predicting when something real bad could come up. That's a 'laymens' summary of the article I posted.
I agree with you on the legal issue though. If some idiot wants to take a chance and marry his daughter (once she's 18, of course), then I don't care. I think suicide should be legal too. And hard drugs. Because, and I'm sure you agree, the government should not control what we do to ourselves as long as we don't negatively impact the people around us.

Yeah, you might like your source even more if you could read it.


Arogant bastard. Where did you study molecular genetics? OH you DIDN'T. That's funny...

"This was evidenced by a survey conducted among medical geneticists and genetic counsellors in the USA, with estimated risk rates for birth defects and mental retardation in first cousin progeny ranging from 0.25 to 20%"

That's pretty obvious for you. Inbreeding causes problems even between cousins. By the way genes work, it's much worse between father/daughter.

First of all, there's no way you read that entire article in that amount of time. Second, it doesn't agree with you; there's no way to screen people for every recesive and detrimental genetic trait. Hell, there's genetic diseases that we don't even know how they work or how they're triggered yet. The reason inbreeding is not good is because of the uncertainty in predicting when something real bad could come up. That's a 'laymens' summary of the article I posted.
I agree with you on the legal issue though. If some idiot wants to take a chance and marry his daughter (once she's 18, of course), then I don't care. I think suicide should be legal too. And hard drugs. Because, and I'm sure you agree, the government should not control what we do to ourselves as long as we don't negatively impact the people around us.

I didn't need to read the whole article. The first three paragraphs and the "Conclusion" section pretty much make it obvious that you didn't read the article, and that it says nothing to contradict the post I put up.

Alright, so you're going back to "inbreeding is dangerous" without answering the point. What if a dad and daughter get a genetic screen? And, should huntington's carriers be allowed to marry? The evidence your posting does nothing for your point.

Now, you did answer the question: Fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry. Let's take it a step further: Do you think there's a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters? I'm hoping you'll say no. Why not?

What I don't agree with is your apparent assumption that nothing you do to yourself could hurt someone else. If you get addicted to drugs, and quit working, and start stealing to support your habit...that hurts other people. Just like some people's deeply held traditions are crushed by homosexual relationships in public. I'd like to see how you would draw the line between a permissible harm on someone else and an impermissible one.

I'd also like for you to read the pubmed article you posted.

Arogant bastard. Where did you study molecular genetics? OH you DIDN'T. That's funny...

"This was evidenced by a survey conducted among medical geneticists and genetic counsellors in the USA, with estimated risk rates for birth defects and mental retardation in first cousin progeny ranging from 0.25 to 20%"

That's pretty obvious for you. Inbreeding causes problems even between cousins. By the way genes work, it's much worse between father/daughter.

Again, read the article. Inbreeding does not "Cause a problem". It only compounds a pre-existing problem. So would genetic screening for genes make it permisslbe? And, should we ban huntington's carriers from marrying? Why or why not?

I never claimed to study molecular genetics. What I claimed, and what's obvious from reading your article and mine, is that there is no conflict between the two.

Edit:

Although I don't like to get off the point, I would like to point out...if you're going to call someone Arrogant, you should probably learn how to spell Arrogant first.

Alright, so you're going back to "inbreeding is dangerous" without answering the point. What if a dad and daughter get a genetic screen? And, should huntington's carriers be allowed to marry?
Now, you did answer the question: Fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry. Let's take it a step further: Do you think there's a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters? I'm hoping you'll say no. Why not?

What I don't agree with is your apparent assumption that nothing you do to yourself could hurt someone else. If you get addicted to drugs, and quit working, and start stealing to support your habit...that hurts other people. Just like some people's deeply held traditions are crushed by homosexual relationships in public. I'd like to see how you would draw the line between a permissible harm on someone else and an impermissible one.

I'd also like for you to read the pubmed article you posted.

If you read my post, I addressed the genetic screen. There are too many diseases that are too unpredictable to accuratly screen to the point that the threat of inherited diseases would be eliminated. The second question, about the carriers of disease, is a good question that is highly debated by many people that are a lot more qualified than both of us. My stance on that one is the same as my stance on inbreeding; if the people know they're getting into something that could end up bad, I don't care and it shouldn't be illegal, it's their choice to risk it.

Of course I don't think there is a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters. Unless you take a very liberal reading of the 'right to persue happyness,' but that's for the courts to decide, not the actuall constitution.

I see very clearly your point about the drugs and hurting people other than yourself. It's true, usually drug use does hurt people other than the user. But if drugs were legal, this impact would be lessened considerably. But comparing getting mugged for drug cash to being diswrought because you saw some lesbians making out is hardly a good comparison. Where would I draw the line? I'd have to go case by case in terms of what specific thing you had in mind. For the two examples we have going: drugs-legalize them to ensure quality and lower price (and taxes for the gov't), and designate places where they can and can't be done. So if you don't like it, go somewhere they're not allowed. Gays in public- if you don't want to see someone making out with their mate (regardless of if they're straight or gay) you should leave or look away. Otherwise your imposing your values on them, and that's exactly what America is not about.


Edit: thanks for being level headed and civil...for a second there I thought we we're gonna end up in another pointless argument, but somehow we saved it...

Although I don't like to get off the point, I would like to point out...if you're going to call someone Arrogant, you should probably learn how to spell Arrogant first.
Hahahaha, point taken...if you couldn't tell, I was a science+math guy and didn't pay much attention to spelling...

If you read my post, I addressed the genetic screen. There are too many diseases that are too unpredictable to accuratly screen to the point that the threat of inherited diseases would be eliminated. The second question, about the carriers of disease, is a good question that is highly debated by many people that are a lot more qualified than both of us. My stance on that one is the same as my stance on inbreeding; if the people know they're getting into something that could end up bad, I don't care and it shouldn't be illegal, it's their choice to risk it.

Of course I don't think there is a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters. Unless you take a very liberal reading of the 'right to persue happyness,' but that's for the courts to decide, not the actuall constitution.

I see very clearly your point about the drugs and hurting people other than yourself. It's true, usually drug use does hurt people other than the user. But if drugs were legal, this impact would be lessened considerably. But comparing getting mugged for drug cash to being diswrought because you saw some lesbians making out is hardly a good comparison. Where would I draw the line? I'd have to go case by case in terms of what specific thing you had in mind. For the two examples we have going: drugs-legalize them to ensure quality and lower price (and taxes for the gov't), and designate places where they can and can't be done. So if you don't like it, go somewhere they're not allowed. Gays in public- if you don't want to see someone making out with their mate (regardless of if they're straight or gay) you should leave or look away. Otherwise your imposing your values on them, and that's exactly what America is not about.


Edit: thanks for being level headed and civil...for a second there I thought we we're gonna end up in another pointless argument, but somehow we saved it...

Alright, so there's no constitutional right to marry your daughter. So now at least we know it's legal to ban it. Is the same true for homosexuality? FYI-There is no constitutional right to "happiness."

Now with drugs, yes there's the policy issue...I brought the example up only to point out how something you do to yourself might impact someone else. As for gays in public, would you extend that to say a community has no right to define standards of decency? What can people prohibit from public, and what can't they?

I'm with you on the policy question of homosexual unions, obviously as I said that in my first post on this thread. But the fact that you and I agree with a certain policy doesn't make it illegal for a city or state to enact a law that goes against it.

Well...I suppose that a very conservative reading of the constitution would allow the banning of just about everything. Except alcohol, guns, speach, etc... So I suppose it is LEGAL to ban homosexuality. But by that logic, it's also LEGAL to ban all sexual relations even between straight couples.

Good point about the standards of decency. Clearly we have laws to uphold those. I guess I would just hope that everyone that has the ability to make these laws would look at gay PDAs the same way as straight PDAs. Same thing for 'civil unions'. Like you said, our opinions don't make it illegal to make them illegal. But if enough like-minded people did get into office...you see where I'm going with that...I just have a problem when people say that they are 'personally hurt' or 'offended' by seeing gay people. To those people: are you personally hurt when you see an argument that uses bad launguage? Or a fist fight? Or adultary? If so...man up, mind your own business, and don't be so easily hurt/offended. If not, how does homosexuality affect your morals any more than those examples?

I'm a conservative and here is what I think.

Anti-Abortion, number one it shouldn't be up to me or anyone else to tell a woman what to do with her Vagina. If they don't want to bring a child into the world let that be up to them. If they keep it legal it will be a safe procedure, if they ban it people will still get it done illegally in shady places by shady people that may cause harm to them.

Gay Marrige, if gay people want to get married good for them. I'm not here to stop anyone from being happy. If they love each other and get along they will be better off then most straight marriges in the world today. I'm in the restaurant buisness, and I do weddings and catoring events at my job. I'd love to make even more revenue of gay marriges, it would probably double my wedding output I'm all for anything that will make me an extra dollar. But my moral and religous beliefs keep me from actually believing in it, morally I think it's wrong, I really couldn't understand how a man couldn't love a woman's body. But that's me, I'm not gay and I don't really care.

PDA's, are wrong. There is no worse thing then going out into public at a bar or anywhere and watch to people get in on. It's disgusting, no matter if it's straight or gay. It's very inconsiderate of others around especially if it's around children, and I don't go out to watch soft core porn movies.

Adultary is probably the worst thing anyone can do besides kill someone. If you don't want to be married and take it seriously don't be married.

I'm not intolerant, my problem is that we are not putting the right issue to vote. I'm not trying to stop people from being gay, I couldn't care less whom you sleep with. My problem is with the government saying whom can be married, "married" is a loaded word and to many people it means many different things. To most its means being married in a church. In many churches you can't be married if you are of the same sex as your intended spouse. That is up to the church, as far as legality and rights come into question we should all have the same rights as far as a union between the person you are sharing your life with. Like I've said the government should leave marriage to the churches and either endorse and legalize all civil unions between people of legal age, or endorse or recognize none.

Reading comprehension? YOU ARE INTOLERANT. Thats why you are AGAINST them, and it shows it in the way you speak about them and what you have stated in the past on here. Here's something you are missing though you stated it. In "MANY" churches you can't be married if you're the same sex. See it didn't say ALL churches. And the government ISN'T leaving it up to the churches its trying to pass a law YOU support because its the popular vote. Like you stated in the past. You have said they are PUSHING there beliefs on you.

Not everyone believes as I believe, no kidding? So its unacceptable to vote as I see fit? I thought that was my right? Its not? I've told you why I vote the way I do, and you don't like it period. Whats right and wrong is up to the person right?
You've showed me I was wrong?! That will be the day!

Wrong again. Your vote constrains others who believe differently than you. And that Is WRONG and IMMORAL. In this issue as is usual with most civil issues you vote for what is right not just what you believe. If people like you still ruled we would of never left the 50's.

LOL! Wether its immoral or not is up to the individual to decide, not the government and its certainly not up to you to decide for me! I've decided its immoral, so have a lot of other people. Science can't prove or disprove someones sexual preference, that is up for the person to decide. Do you like girls or do you like boys? It seems to me you are the intolerant one, you don't like people having the choice to decide what is moral for them or not.

Again you are wrong. Science HAS proven that its not up to the person to decide. So right off the bat YOU are wrong. I could careless what you think is moral or not what I can't tolerate is someone that IMPOSES their "morals" on someone ELSE. You are the one who decides what is right for them and that is wrong.

Yes it teaches acceptance, tolerance and to allow others to do as they see fit. I see fit to not accept gay marriage can you tolerate that? Morals change!? Again that is up to the person, to my knowledge the teachings of the bible have not changed through time. They are the same today as the day they were written. Wether or not someones morals change is up to them not you, why can't you understand that? The question of morals and wether or not they are going to change is each individuals choice. Wether or not they remain "rigid" likewise.

Wow, go read the bible dude. Just WOW. The bible HAS changed in the way it is perceived. Prime example your little divorce link you gave us on a past post. I can tolerate your views but what you don't seem to is tolerate what others choice to get married. Again morals are not just individual morals its also societies morals. Morals HAVE changed.

Morals conform to societies needs? Morals are decided by people, they decide what they need. What does womens fashion have to do with anything?


I guess you TOTALLY missed the boat on that one. It was immoral for woman to show so much skin in the past. It was seen as not moral. Get it? Now it doesn't matter if they wear pants or really high skirts. It is not seen as immoral. Wow HARD concept to grasp.


I told you in the last thread. Gays being married is up to the church they attend, wether or not they have the same rights as heterosexuals is up to us to decide. If we decide to call it civil unions and give them the same rights as what the government calls married then whats the problem? The problem is that "married" is not up to the government, rights are up to the government, and the people.

Actually you never said that in the last post about this. You actually said it harmed you and your children by the government saying it was "moral". Since the government supports STRAIGHT MARRIAGES I see no problem whatso ever to support GAY MARRIAGES. Why do we have a double standard? See the PROBLEM?! Its not that HARD!

By the way genes work, it's much worse between father/daughter.

What about 1/2 siblings...'cause my 1/2 sister is porn star hot! :D

What about 1/2 siblings...'cause my 1/2 sister is porn star hot! :D
If you don't share blood, fair game!

...that is, considering birth defects, etc. I'm sure society would still think you belonged on Jerry Springer.

You shouldn't deny other people the way they want to live thier lives (gay marriage, abortion, no prayer in schools) based on your religion.

Thats funny. People who get abortions are denying that child his or her right to life.

Thats funny. People who get abortions are denying that child his or her right to life.

If you're talking about late term abortions then I would agree with you. But most abortions are performed when it is just a mass of cells and no heartbeat. Therefore there is no "child"

If you're talking about late term abortions then I would agree with you. But most abortions are performed when it is just a mass of cells and no heartbeat. Therefore there is no "child"

From the moment of conception, the embryo is biologically active. It cells are alive. The embryo is working it's way to to become one of us.

http://www.personalism.net/Intentionality.htm

hopefully this could change your mind.

http://www.personalism.net/Intentionality.htm

hopefully this could change your mind.

While I respect that that is your opinion, it is just that. Your opinion. By the logic in that article a sperm "intends" on being a human at some point so when you nut in a towel you are commiting mass murder. There is no scientific argument for what you are saying.

As soon as that embryo has a human heart beat then I assure you I am dead set against abortion but up until that point it is a womans right to choose. Just my opinion

Reading comprehension? YOU ARE INTOLERANT. Thats why you are AGAINST them, and it shows it in the way you speak about them and what you have stated in the past on here. Here's something you are missing though you stated it. In "MANY" churches you can't be married if you're the same sex. See it didn't say ALL churches. And the government ISN'T leaving it up to the churches its trying to pass a law YOU support because its the popular vote. Like you stated in the past. You have said they are PUSHING there beliefs on you.

Spelling! I think its wrong, I'm not stopping them from doing anything, to most that would mean I'm being very tolerant. How am I missing it if I stated it!? I didn't say ALL churches! WTF!? They are pushing their beliefs on me. Like I keep saying, the government should have nothing to do with marriage. Its a shame it does.



Wrong again. Your vote constrains others who believe differently than you. And that Is WRONG and IMMORAL. In this issue as is usual with most civil issues you vote for what is right not just what you believe. If people like you still ruled we would of never left the 50's.

How exactly is it constraining them again? Like I said by definition a civil union is a marriage. WTF!? "In this issue as is usual with most civil issues you vote for what is right not just what you believe." You are too much!LOL! IF YOU BELIEVE IT IS RIGHT THEN THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE. NO ONE CAN TELL YOU WHAT TO BELIEVE, THAT IS UP TO YOU. Can someone please explain this to him. So if people like me ruled time would have stopped? Do you think I'm a racist? You do know I'm a minority, as well as a first generation American. I was not even born in America.



Again you are wrong. Science HAS proven that its not up to the person to decide. So right off the bat YOU are wrong.

Please point me to this irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and instead has some genetic cause so that I may be enlightened and delivered from the dark ages OH WISE ONE!


I could careless what you think is moral or not what I can't tolerate is someone that IMPOSES their "morals" on someone ELSE.

I'm not asking you to care, thats my business. How again am I imposing my morals on someone? I thought that this was about rights, I want them to have those rights!?


You are the one who decides what is right for them and that is wrong.!

OK! Lets get back to reality here. I thought we all chose what our morals were? So I decide for them, who decides for me?




Wow, go read the bible dude. Just WOW. The bible HAS changed in the way it is perceived. Prime example your little divorce link you gave us on a past post. I can tolerate your views but what you don't seem to is tolerate what others choice to get married. Again morals are not just individual morals its also societies morals. Morals HAVE changed.

Thats right, perceptions have changed not the Bibles teachings though. Morals have changed, but not every ones. Societies moral say that everyone should have the same rights. I'm for that, I simply believe that the government should keep out of marriage and stick to rights. Let them marry whom they please but keep it out of the government. Have you even read my other posts? I think the government should stop calling it marriage for everyone, and just give everyone the same rights. That way we don't have to compromise our morals to make sure everyone has equal rights.


I guess you TOTALLY missed the boat on that one. It was immoral for woman to show so much skin in the past. It was seen as not moral. Get it? Now it doesn't matter if they wear pants or really high skirts. It is not seen as immoral. Wow HARD concept to grasp..!

It was socially unacceptable, social acceptance and morals are not mutually exclusive buddy, get it?! Now its socially acceptable, that is not to say everyone believes that its not immoral. I'm sure that Quakers would tell you they think its immoral, and in their society its not socially acceptable. The two are related but they are not dependant on one another. I know that is an advanced concept for you, and that you would like if it were much simpler but the reality is just that.



Actually you never said that in the last post about this. You actually said it harmed you and your children by the government saying it was "moral". Since the government supports STRAIGHT MARRIAGES I see no problem whatso ever to support GAY MARRIAGES. Why do we have a double standard? See the PROBLEM?! Its not that HARD!

Care to quote me on that one? I thought I said that I cannot in good conscience vote contrary to my beliefs. Like I keep saying, but you keep ignoring is that I beleive that the government should support no marriages, they should not call it marriage. But since that is not the issue on the ballot I will have to vote against what I believe is wrong. Wether or not you or anyone else thinks its wrong or right.

Ok, I'm wrong your right. :rolleyes:
Its not up to us to decide what is wrong and right for ourselves and our society, its up to you and people like you to decide what is wrong and right and what our morals should be for us.

Spelling! I think its wrong, I'm not stopping them from doing anything, to most that would mean I'm being very tolerant. How am I missing it if I stated it!? I didn't say ALL churches! WTF!? They are pushing their beliefs on me. Like I keep saying, the government should have nothing to do with marriage. Its a shame it does.

Yes you are stopping them from getting married. The whole freaking argument is about that.

How exactly is it constraining them again? Like I said by definition a civil union is a marriage. WTF!? "In this issue as is usual with most civil issues you vote for what is right not just what you believe." You are too much!LOL! IF YOU BELIEVE IT IS RIGHT THEN THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE. NO ONE CAN TELL YOU WHAT TO BELIEVE, THAT IS UP TO YOU. Can someone please explain this to him. So if people like me ruled time would have stopped? Do you think I'm a racist? You do know I'm a minority, as well as a first generation American. I was not even born in America.

You do know I'm a minority and a immigrant to the US, also your point? That doesn't change one bit that you are intolerant of others. Your beliefs can be wrong and they are. Sheesh you still believe its a choice.

Please point me to this irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and instead has some genetic cause so that I may be enlightened and delivered from the dark ages OH WISE ONE!

You wanted scientific proof well here you go.

http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://www.emperor-penguin.com/gay-penguins.html
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea3.html
http://www.emergence.qc.ca/mariage_articles/20040424_7.htm

Want more stuff? If you know anything about what drives a spieces, no animal would be gay. Since it goes complete against everything they are. The number one drive in a population is to have children and pass on your genes. Why would animals "choose" to take themselves out of this. They wouldn't, hence besides the fact that homosexuals have different sized hypothalamus and express genes differently, it is not a choice. Maybe if you actually read up on a issue like this you wouldn't make stupid comments.


I'm not asking you to care, thats my business. How again am I imposing my morals on someone? I thought that this was about rights, I want them to have those rights!?

If you want them to have those rights why make it illegal to get married by a church? You are imposing your morals and trying to make it a law, which hence imposes on there rights. 1+1=2 get it!?

OK! Lets get back to reality here. I thought we all chose what our morals were? So I decide for them, who decides for me?

Yes you choose your own morals, but your trying to choose other peoples morals by not letting them get married by the church.

Thats right, perceptions have changed not the Bibles teachings though. Morals have changed, but not every ones. Societies moral say that everyone should have the same rights. I'm for that, I simply believe that the government should keep out of marriage and stick to rights. Let them marry whom they please but keep it out of the government. Have you even read my other posts? I think the government should stop calling it marriage for everyone, and just give everyone the same rights. That way we don't have to compromise our morals to make sure everyone has equal rights.

So you agree that Societies morals have changed? Yet you say the Bibles teachings have not? Sigh,
I understand that they are "different", and as far as pushing my beliefs on them this has turned into a case of them pushing their beliefs on me, and them losing. People are constantly trying to take away my rights, but these rights that we are "taking away" are rights that have never been in this country. No man has had the right to marry another man in this country and likewise women. Are we going to start giving them that right? It seems the answer is no. I sure have read your other posts.

It was socially unacceptable, social acceptance and morals are not mutually exclusive buddy, get it?! Now its socially acceptable, that is not to say everyone believes that its not immoral. I'm sure that Quakers would tell you they think its immoral, and in their society its not socially acceptable. The two are related but they are not dependant on one another. I know that is an advanced concept for you, and that you would like if it were much simpler but the reality is just that.

So some people find it morally alright to eat other people. Does that make there morals right?


Care to quote me on that one? I thought I said that I cannot in good conscience vote contrary to my beliefs. Like I keep saying, but you keep ignoring is that I beleive that the government should support no marriages, they should not call it marriage. But since that is not the issue on the ballot I will have to vote against what I believe is wrong. Wether or not you or anyone else thinks its wrong or right.


I teach my children its wrong, that marriage is for a man and a woman. Thats my right, thats my prerogative. I raise my children as I see fit, the government nor anyone else should have a say in it. That said how am I too vote to allow it when I believe its wrong and teach my children its wrong? I'm not a bigot, but I do think marriage is sacred and a sexual relationship between people of the same sex is wrong.


Ok, I'm wrong your right. :rolleyes:
Its not up to us to decide what is wrong and right for ourselves and our society, its up to you and people like you to decide what is wrong and right and what our morals should be for us.

Actually I am right on this issue and you are wrong. I hope after you read those articles you will come to that conclusion that you are wrong. How many homosexual friends do you have? Proably none knowning your stance, go meet some you might be suprised and see that they are normal people just like you and I. And sometimes you can't even tell which ones are gay.

Yes you are stopping them from getting married. The whole freaking argument is about that.

I'm not stopping them from getting married in a church that allows it. We are arguing about what the government calls it my friend.

Marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage)
"A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage."

Like I said by definition a civil union is a marriage.


You do know I'm a minority and a immigrant to the US, also your point? That doesn't change one bit that you are intolerant of others. Your beliefs can be wrong and they are. Sheesh you still believe its a choice.

My point is that you keep comparing me to those that would deprive minorities their civil rights. I keep telling you gays should have those rights. You are intolerant too. My beliefs can be wrong? To whom? Yours are wrong to me. Wrong, right. That is a relative issue, there is no set wrong and right for everyone each individual sets those standards for themselves. I hate to sound like a broken record but again, WE DECIDE WHAT IS WRONG AND RIGHT FOR OURSELVES.



You wanted scientific proof well here you go.

http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html


A lot of conclusions and speculation, nothing irrefutable.

Some other articles from the viewzone.

"A Weapon of Total Destruction was built in the Alaskan wilderness by the US military. Called "HAARP" it is based on Tesla's "death ray" and is capable of incredible destructive power."

" More Underground Cities are being constructed in the rugged mountains of Russia. U.S. Officials openly worry that Russia has a secret agenda."


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

From the national geographic article:

"In other words, if the urge to have sex is strong enough it may spill over into nonreproductive sex, as suggested by the actions of the bonobos and macaques. However, as Dunbar admits, there's a long way to go before the causes of homosexuality in humans are fully understood.

He said, "Nobody's really investigated this issue thoroughly, because it's so politically sensitive. It's fair to say all possibilities are still open."

What does this have to do with humans being born gay? Its a study on animal behavior specifically non reproductive sexual behavior.


http://www.emperor-penguin.com/gay-penguins.html


From the emperor penguin website:

"We're here, we're queer,
we're penguins"

Lol! You're an idiot.


http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea3.html


More conclusions drawn from wild animal behavior!? You can't do anything better than that? Maybe you don't know the definition of irrefutable (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrefutable)?


http://www.emergence.qc.ca/mariage_articles/20040424_7.htm

Your argument is nothing less than pathetic.


"The gay wild kingdom Yes, some animals are homosexual, and studies of rams and zebra
finches suggest that sexual orientation is established very early
in development."





Want more stuff? If you know anything about what drives a spieces, no animal would be gay. Since it goes complete against everything they are. The number one drive in a population is to have children and pass on your genes. Why would animals "choose" to take themselves out of this. They wouldn't, hence besides the fact that homosexuals have different sized hypothalamus and express genes differently, it is not a choice. Maybe if you actually read up on a issue like this you wouldn't make stupid comments.

Please no more stuff! I think you should keep your fetishes to yourself from now on. If you choose to believe that then fine. I don't see any of the information that you presented as being proof, they are unproved theories at best.




If you want them to have those rights why make it illegal to get married by a church? You are imposing your morals and trying to make it a law, which hence imposes on there rights. 1+1=2 get it!?

Like I said its about rights, civil unions give them those rights. If they get married in a church that allows that then fine! I'd vote for a law that removes the word marriage from the governments vocabulary personally! Leave marriage to churches, give everyone the same rights.



Yes you choose your own morals, but your trying to choose other peoples morals by not letting them get married by the church.

How again am I stopping them from being married in a church that allows it? Oh, thats right. I'm not! ????????????




So you agree that Societies morals have changed? Yet you say the Bibles teachings have not? Sigh,
I sure have read your other posts.

Societies, peoples, yes we are in agreement. No the bibles teachings have not, just peoples perceptions of those teachings as you said. Those are great quotes of mine! They didn't have anything to do with proving your point about me saying it harmed me and my children, but since your in the habit of not making points. Thanks for that! :)



So some people find it morally alright to eat other people. Does that make there morals right?

It makes their morals not my morals. Over and over again I have to beat you in the head with it. Right is relative to ones beliefs! If they thinks its alright to eat people or spoon eachother than whatever. That does not mean its alright with me.


Actually I am right on this issue and you are wrong. I hope after you read those articles you will come to that conclusion that you are wrong. How many homosexual friends do you have? Proably none knowning your stance, go meet some you might be suprised and see that they are normal people just like you and I. And sometimes you can't even tell which ones are gay.

You are a piece of work. To you, you=right. To me, me=right. Its relative. If you were hoping to sway anyone with those article you are delusional. Once again you hurt your cause with your arguments. I have very few homosexual friends, but not none. I live in CA man! Yeah, I'm not easily surprised about who is gay. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything but a lot of what you say is along those lines.

A lot of conclusions and speculation, nothing irrefutable.
Some other articles from the viewzone.
"A Weapon of Total Destruction was built in the Alaskan wilderness by the US military. Called "HAARP" it is based on Tesla's "death ray" and is capable of incredible destructive power."
" More Underground Cities are being constructed in the rugged mountains of Russia. U.S. Officials openly worry that Russia has a secret agenda."
From the national geographic article:
"In other words, if the urge to have sex is strong enough it may spill over into nonreproductive sex, as suggested by the actions of the bonobos and macaques. However, as Dunbar admits, there's a long way to go before the causes of homosexuality in humans are fully understood.
He said, "Nobody's really investigated this issue thoroughly, because it's so politically sensitive. It's fair to say all possibilities are still open."
What does this have to do with humans being born gay? Its a study on animal behavior specifically non reproductive sexual behavior.
From the emperor penguin website:
"We're here, we're queer,
we're penguins"
Lol! You're an idiot.
More conclusions drawn from wild animal behavior!? You can't do anything better than that? Maybe you don't know the definition of irrefutable (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrefutable)?
Your argument is nothing less than pathetic.
"The gay wild kingdom Yes, some animals are homosexual, and studies of rams and zebra
finches suggest that sexual orientation is established very early
in development."
Please no more stuff! I think you should keep your fetishes to yourself from now on. If you choose to believe that then fine. I don't see any of the information that you presented as being proof, they are unproved theories at best.



Forget the rest of the stuff, what you just said here boogles my mind!!!!! My bachelors is in Mirco Cell biology. I worked in a lab for over TWO years in UT. We had meetings with other groups and there studies. And your telling me there is no corelation between animals and humans?! Thats why THOUSANDS of studies are done a year on animals and are then corelated to how HUMANS work?! Especially the mind!!!!! YOU DID NOT DISPROVE ANY OF THOSE ARTICLES. On top of that you didn't say anything on the difference between the hypothalamus of a straight person vs a gay person. You do know people get dissected, and if irregularities are found it usually means that is the cause of something. Amazing, really that is the fondation of what science is based on! So come on explain to me moron of the year what is the cause for homosexuals to have different sized hypothalamus than straight individuals? Why is it that homosexuality is both in the Homo sapiens and other spieces around the world. How come they also have different sized hypothalamus? On the first article you didn't even argue any of the points he made. I no longer have access to science journal online or I would of brought up the article by Dr. Barry Kosofsky. Or other scientist that are studying this. You are a dumbass. Jesus, if I can't use animals and I can't use humans to show you that it isn't a choice. What would I have to do?! Do you want me to say that "god told me it wasn't a choice?" What the **** is wrong with you? You in one single notion discredited thousands if not millions of studies that corelate humans with animals. Good job.

In my utter astonishment I forgot to mention a couple of other things. Animals are driven to reproduce to pass on there genes. It goes against what nature wants them to do if they are gay. Hence if it was a choice they would reproduce with the opposite sex. So you are discrediting this entirley, by saying woohoo some animals are gay. While in fact it corelates very well to humans. Also this shows exactly what type of person you are. You are ignoring facts, and going with god knows what to make your case to yourself. Next time when you try to debate with someone about this subject make sure they didn't at one point in time make a living doing research...
Oh and being gay isn't a "fetish". And since you said you have gay friends, which I strongly doubt, do they know that you think there life style is not only immoral but wrong and that they are pushing there beliefs to you? I seriously doubt you have any gay friends at all. All my gay friends that I have wouldn't talk to you after they found out what you thought about them. Hence either you're hiding who you are to these people or your lying.

In my utter astonishment I forgot to mention a couple of other things. Animals are driven to reproduce to pass on there genes. It goes against what nature wants them to do if they are gay. Hence if it was a choice they would reproduce with the opposite sex.

This makes no sense at all. Does this mean that suicide is not a choice, murder is not a choice, etc, because if they could choose they would remain alive to reproduce? What on earth makes it impossible to choose something that is bad for you?

I don't think the question about homosexual marriage should be about choice. Choice doesn't matter. But that doesn't mean that there is no choice. There isn't one scientific study that proves that ANYTHING is chosen, much less that homosexuality is NOT chosen.

There isn't one scientific study that proves that ANYTHING is chosen, much less that homosexuality is NOT chosen.


Nature vs. Nurture...the debate will rage on for decades. The truth, by the way, is almost certainly somewhere in the middle; my prediction is that science will prove that we have genetic dispositions for things that can be triggered or activated by some environmental factors.

Forget the rest of the stuff,


Yes lets forget the rest of your losing argument.

And your telling me there is no corelation between animals and humans?! Thats why THOUSANDS of studies are done a year on animals and are then corelated to how HUMANS work?! Especially the mind!!!!!!!!

I didn't say there was not a correlation, what I said was that they were unproven theories. They are just theories. As the holder of a bachelors in micro cell biology I would think that you would know what a theory was.



YOU DID NOT DISPROVE ANY OF THOSE ARTICLES. On top of that you didn't say anything on the difference between the hypothalamus of a straight person vs a gay person.

I didn't have to disprove a theory, because it is a theory means it is unproven.

From the article:

"...The present data support the hypothesis that

Hypothesis anyone, present data anyone? Who knows what future data will show? It may prove or disprove this theory. I'd rather not speculate or rely on the mirad of hypothesis put forth on the subject. The fact is that man is capable of cognitive reasoning that is unparralleled in the animal kingdom. An animal can't say. "I'm homosexual." An animal just is, in its natural state. Man is more than a mere animal and we have long since exsisted in our natural state. If you don't believe that then I guess comparing us to mice and rats and drawing the conclusion that it must be the same in both species because it is in one would be proof enough for you.


You do know people get dissected,

Holy ****! People get dissected?!


and if irregularities are found it usually means that is the cause of something.

Well damn if that aint scientifical proof! LOL! "Usually means something"?
All the time, or usually? Do we always know what that something may be? Are we absolutely sure in this case? No.



Amazing, really that is the fondation of what science is based on! So come on explain to me moron of the year what is the cause for homosexuals to have different sized hypothalamus than straight individuals?

This theory may never be proven because it would be nearly impossible to disect enough gays and straights to get rock solid evidence. Not that I wouldn't be skeptical if we did. And are we talking about the hypothalamus in mice or in people? Because that study had soley to do with mice. The article said nothing about a study on people other than implying that because there are theories that say "this may be the cause of homosexual behavior in mice" so it must be true for humans, instead its a fact in humans and a theory in mice?!



Why is it that homosexuality is both in the Homo sapiens and other spieces around the world. How come they also have different sized hypothalamus? On the first article you didn't even argue any of the points he made. I no longer have access to science journal online or I would of brought up the article by Dr. Barry Kosofsky. Or other scientist that are studying this. You are a dumbass. Jesus, if I can't use animals and I can't use humans to show you that it isn't a choice. What would I have to do?!


Back it up there Einstein. Your whole argument in its entirety is based on theories. I don't know why there is homosexuality in man and beast, neither do the scientists that study it. They are just drawing conclusions (guessing) based on "present data" how they interperet that data is entirely up to them. I'm sure if that have left leaning political views then that data is more likely to support those views. They are just people, no matter what control you use in an experiment it must be interpereted by a person. And people are not infalible. You are a dumbass. I've know people whom experimented with homosexuality, was that their choice or did that have to do with their hypothalamus? What about bisexuals, or people that are attracted to animals. Is that because of the size of their hypothalamus too? If someone is attracted to people of the same sex but they choose to have sex with only people of the opposite sex is that not their choice? You don't have to do anything to show me it isn't a choice because you neither have the mental capacity nor the solid proof that it would take.



Do you want me to say that "god told me it wasn't a choice?" What the **** is wrong with you?

What is wrong with you! Cut the bull****! Stop trying to paint me as some religious wack job. My arguments are infinitely more coherent then yours regardless of my religious beliefs.


You in one single notion discredited thousands if not millions of studies that corelate humans with animals. Good job.

Studies, leading to theories I have not, nor need not discredit. They are studies to formulate theories and a theory is, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

In my utter astonishment I forgot to mention a couple of other things. Animals are driven to reproduce to pass on there genes. It goes against what nature wants them to do if they are gay. Hence if it was a choice they would reproduce with the opposite sex. So you are discrediting this entirley, by saying woohoo some animals are gay. While in fact it corelates very well to humans. Also this shows exactly what type of person you are.

I am astonished. Believe all of the guess work you want man. Good luck with that.


You are ignoring facts, and going with god knows what to make your case to yourself. Next time when you try to debate with someone about this subject make sure they didn't at one point in time make a living doing research...
Oh and being gay isn't a "fetish". And since you said you have gay friends, which I strongly doubt, do they know that you think there life style is not only immoral but wrong and that they are pushing there beliefs to you? I seriously doubt you have any gay friends at all. All my gay friends that I have wouldn't talk to you after they found out what you thought about them. Hence either you're hiding who you are to these people or your lying.

You must have been some researcher, we do know a lot of facts concerning science and research has proven many a theory to be either false or fact. This particular theory has not passed scientific muster enough to be fact. But you won't listen to reason. I'm some right wing nut job and your morally superior because of an unproven science.


Oh and being gay isn't a "fetish".

I was poking fun at you, with all of your links to homosexual animals. But hey you have a bachelors. You knew that right?


And since you said you have gay friends, which I strongly doubt, do they know that you think there life style is not only immoral but wrong and that they are pushing there beliefs to you? I seriously doubt you have any gay friends at all. All my gay friends that I have wouldn't talk to you after they found out what you thought about them. Hence either you're hiding who you are to these people or your lying.

Yeah they know I think its wrong on top of icky. But I'm not pushing my beliefs on them, nor am I constantly trying to get them to see the light. We have a mutual understanding that it is their choice what lifestyle they live and likewise it is my choice what lifestyle I live wether or not we think its wrong or right. Why would I need to lie about knowing gays? I've lived in Northern CA for 17 yrs. You don't think I've gone to school with, worked with, socialized in some way with homosexuals?! That would be hard to believe, not that I know them!

Nature vs. Nurture...the debate will rage on for decades. The truth, by the way, is almost certainly somewhere in the middle; my prediction is that science will prove that we have genetic dispositions for things that can be triggered or activated by some environmental factors.

I'm sure you know much more about the subject than I do, but I agree FWIW. There's a lot to be investigated, and I'm not sure what the right answer will be here. I just don't think this is an issue that's been proven either way yet.

Nope, Unregistereds research in micro cell biology on the intraweb proved it.

because it is a theory means it is unproven.



Aren't you confusing Hypothosis and Theory?

The hypothosis is the unproven idea, it becomes a theory only after it is found to hold up to scientific testing, evidence, and peer review.

This makes no sense at all. Does this mean that suicide is not a choice, murder is not a choice, etc, because if they could choose they would remain alive to reproduce? What on earth makes it impossible to choose something that is bad for you?

I don't think the question about homosexual marriage should be about choice. Choice doesn't matter. But that doesn't mean that there is no choice. There isn't one scientific study that proves that ANYTHING is chosen, much less that homosexuality is NOT chosen.

Read up on homosexuality and choice. There is a direct corelation between the hypothalums and being gay. Nothing in science is 100%. Theories are proven all the time wrong. That is one of the first things you learn as a scientest. The difference is these are animals they have drives which make them do something by just being born. There thought process lean towards certain ways because of that fact. Sexual reproduction is one of those drives, that is had in all spieces. My point being is that it goes against everything in nature what they are doing. Also the corelation between the fact that they also have the same distinct difference in there hypothalums as humans. Which would lead almost anyone to conclude that they are BORN this way. A lot of studies lean to this. But the fact is that some can make a choice but over 95% of homosexuals say they where born like that. And science backs that statement.

Yes lets forget the rest of your losing argument.



I didn't say there was not a correlation, what I said was that they were unproven theories. They are just theories. As the holder of a bachelors in micro cell biology I would think that you would know what a theory was.




I didn't have to disprove a theory, because it is a theory means it is unproven.

From the article:

"...The present data support the hypothesis that

Hypothesis anyone, present data anyone? Who knows what future data will show? It may prove or disprove this theory. I'd rather not speculate or rely on the mirad of hypothesis put forth on the subject. The fact is that man is capable of cognitive reasoning that is unparralleled in the animal kingdom. An animal can't say. "I'm homosexual." An animal just is, in its natural state. Man is more than a mere animal and we have long since exsisted in our natural state. If you don't believe that then I guess comparing us to mice and rats and drawing the conclusion that it must be the same in both species because it is in one would be proof enough for you.



Holy ****! People get dissected?!



Well damn if that aint scientifical proof! LOL! "Usually means something"?
All the time, or usually? Do we always know what that something may be? Are we absolutely sure in this case? No.




This theory may never be proven because it would be nearly impossible to disect enough gays and straights to get rock solid evidence. Not that I wouldn't be skeptical if we did. And are we talking about the hypothalamus in mice or in people? Because that study had soley to do with mice. The article said nothing about a study on people other than implying that because there are theories that say "this may be the cause of homosexual behavior in mice" so it must be true for humans, instead its a fact in humans and a theory in mice?!





Back it up there Einstein. Your whole argument in its entirety is based on theories. I don't know why there is homosexuality in man and beast, neither do the scientists that study it. They are just drawing conclusions (guessing) based on "present data" how they interperet that data is entirely up to them. I'm sure if that have left leaning political views then that data is more likely to support those views. They are just people, no matter what control you use in an experiment it must be interpereted by a person. And people are not infalible. You are a dumbass. I've know people whom experimented with homosexuality, was that their choice or did that have to do with their hypothalamus? What about bisexuals, or people that are attracted to animals. Is that because of the size of their hypothalamus too? If someone is attracted to people of the same sex but they choose to have sex with only people of the opposite sex is that not their choice? You don't have to do anything to show me it isn't a choice because you neither have the mental capacity nor the solid proof that it would take.




What is wrong with you! Cut the bull****! Stop trying to paint me as some religious wack job. My arguments are infinitely more coherent then yours regardless of my religious beliefs.



Studies, leading to theories I have not, nor need not discredit. They are studies to formulate theories and a theory is, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."


Read up on what a theory is. Moron. I'll get back to this after this weekend but you are wrong. And the reason I said forget the rest of the stuff is because this baffled me on how stupid you can be.

I am astonished. Believe all of the guess work you want man. Good luck with that.
You must have been some researcher, we do know a lot of facts concerning science and research has proven many a theory to be either false or fact. This particular theory has not passed scientific muster enough to be fact. But you won't listen to reason. I'm some right wing nut job and your morally superior because of an unproven science.
I was poking fun at you, with all of your links to homosexual animals. But hey you have a bachelors. You knew that right?
Yeah they know I think its wrong on top of icky. But I'm not pushing my beliefs on them, nor am I constantly trying to get them to see the light. We have a mutual understanding that it is their choice what lifestyle they live and likewise it is my choice what lifestyle I live wether or not we think its wrong or right. Why would I need to lie about knowing gays? I've lived in Northern CA for 17 yrs. You don't think I've gone to school with, worked with, socialized in some way with homosexuals?! That would be hard to believe, not that I know them!

Again wrong. Everything in science is guess work. NOTHING in science is concidered 100% fact. I could get into this in great debth but I don't have time right now. So sad how wrong you are.

I'm sure you know much more about the subject than I do, but I agree FWIW. There's a lot to be investigated, and I'm not sure what the right answer will be here. I just don't think this is an issue that's been proven either way yet.


See you have to understand that in all research there is a percent that doesn't add up. Its the error of the study. In this situation "choice" ie those choosing to be gay. Is that percent. Its pretty well established in the scientific community that its not a choice for the majority of homosexuals.

Nope, Unregistereds research in micro cell biology on the intraweb proved it.


Funny guy what background do you have in any biological field? How many years did you work doing research? I got my degree from one the best public universities in america. You? To say I don't know my stuff is laughable.

Aren't you confusing Hypothosis and Theory?

The hypothosis is the unproven idea, it becomes a theory only after it is found to hold up to scientific testing, evidence, and peer review.


Ooops you beat me to it. And theories are on a constant basis being proven wrong. But hey deyes thinks if something isn't 100% its wrong. Sad. Doesn't understand basic research principles.

Read up on homosexuality and choice. There is a direct corelation between the hypothalums and being gay. Nothing in science is 100%. Theories are proven all the time wrong. That is one of the first things you learn as a scientest. The difference is these are animals they have drives which make them do something by just being born. There thought process lean towards certain ways because of that fact. Sexual reproduction is one of those drives, that is had in all spieces. My point being is that it goes against everything in nature what they are doing. Also the corelation between the fact that they also have the same distinct difference in there hypothalums as humans. Which would lead almost anyone to conclude that they are BORN this way. A lot of studies lean to this. But the fact is that some can make a choice but over 95% of homosexuals say they where born like that. And science backs that statement.

There's also a direct correlation between an enlarged hippocampus and being a london cab driver. Correlation is not causation. What we find in the brain doesn't necessarily tell us anything about choice. How do you know the difference isn't a result, rather than a cause, of their being homosexual?

The "this is in the brain therefore we don't have a choice" argument confuses me. Does this mean that, when people make a choice, they don't use their brains, because if some part of the brain is involved it couldn't possibly be a choice?

Its pretty well established in the scientific community that its not a choice for the majority of homosexuals.

The scientific community? Hmm...that's interesting. I'd like to see at least something about this, news article, whatever.

.... theories are on a constant basis being proven wrong. ...

Well, I wouldn't probably go that far, only weak theroies or those based on outdated knowledge tend to fall by the wayside when evidence mounts against them or when better knowledge replaces the mistaken propositions that supported the original theory.

When you get right down to it, scientific theories form the basis for all of scientific knowledge, if they were "constantly being proven wrong", our very science itself, (including the theories that explain how your subaru works) would all be a very unstable proposition,

Ideas generally do not fall into the catagory of theory until evidence and repeatability provide a basis in fact to support the idea, before that it is merely a (an?) hypothesis.

Aren't you confusing Hypothosis and Theory?

The hypothosis is the unproven idea, it becomes a theory only after it is found to hold up to scientific testing, evidence, and peer review.

Hypothesis (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis)

"Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

Theory (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. "

Very similar definitions, the two words are almost always interchangeable. Nothing to do with peer review, there is no board that "cerifies" theory.

Read up on what a theory is. Moron. I'll get back to this after this weekend but you are wrong. And the reason I said forget the rest of the stuff is because this baffled me on how stupid you can be.



Ooops you beat me to it. And theories are on a constant basis being proven wrong. But hey deyes thinks if something isn't 100% its wrong. Sad. Doesn't understand basic research principles.


See above genius. You are going to school me on definitions?! You can't even spell. You obviously don't understand basic research principals, given your arguments I question wether or not you actually have a bachelors in anything! You have presented no research/evidence of a even a study on humans regarding the cause/possible causes of homosexuality. Furthermore I seriously doubt that any such study would overlook the choice of a human being to of their own free will engage in homosexual behavior! Let alone any behavior. I would not doubt that some have a predisposition to homosexuality, some have a predisposition to alcholism. However wether or not they drink is entirely up to them, as is whom they choose to have a relationship. But hey you're the holder of a bachelors in micro cell biology and a study on homosexual behavior in mice is proof positive for you.:rolleyes:

Funny guy what background do you have in any biological field? How many years did you work doing research? I got my degree from one the best public universities in america. You? To say I don't know my stuff is laughable.

I said it buddy, and laughed all the while. Plus I called you a liar and rolled my eyes.

Again wrong. Everything in science is guess work. NOTHING in science is concidered 100% fact. I could get into this in great debth but I don't have time right now. So sad how wrong you are.

What was I wrong about again? What exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement? I called the science you are basing your beliefs on quesswork and you agreed with me but I'm wrong?! So sad your arguments, how bad they are. :(

Read up on homosexuality and choice. There is a direct corelation between the hypothalums and being gay. Nothing in science is 100%. Theories are proven all the time wrong. That is one of the first things you learn as a scientest. The difference is these are animals they have drives which make them do something by just being born. There thought process lean towards certain ways because of that fact. Sexual reproduction is one of those drives, that is had in all spieces. My point being is that it goes against everything in nature what they are doing. Also the corelation between the fact that they also have the same distinct difference in there hypothalums as humans. Which would lead almost anyone to conclude that they are BORN this way. A lot of studies lean to this. But the fact is that some can make a choice but over 95% of homosexuals say they where born like that. And science backs that statement.

You missed the point. My comment had nothing to do with "100 percent" or probabilities. You need to read my posts before you respond.

First of all, what I said was: Correlation is not causation. Like the london cabbie and hippocampus correlation. The fact that a part of your brain is involved in something, or correlated to something, doesn't mean you don't have a choice. If it did, there would be no such thing as choice because a part of your brain operates for everything you do.

Your animal/species/scientific method point here is irrelevant. You did not read my original post, or you did not understand it.

Finally, you get to this "95 percent of homosexuals say..."...uh, so is it the brain, or did you find this out by survey?

Guru say: "latest science" is code word for "whatever unregistered wants to believe"

Hypothesis (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis)

"Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

Theory (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. "

Very similar definitions, the two words are almost always interchangeable. Nothing to do with peer review, there is no board that "cerifies" theory.

Well my definition has more to it than yours so there:


Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>


So there are in fact several meaning of the word theory, but only one of these is in reference to scientific method; that being #5 and it includes "scientifcally accepted general principle".

did you ever take any science classes?

Well my definition has more to it than yours so there:


Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>


So there are in fact several meaning of the word theory, but only one of these is in reference to scientific method; that being #5 and it includes "scientifcally accepted general principle".

did you ever take any science classes?


Of course I've taken science classes, and biology classes. Was that an insult? And I think you left out the word "plausible" in your quote to help your argument. I didn't see the word fact in there though, funny? I still don't see that these theories on animal behavior are scientifically accepted to apply in humans, or that they are even conclusive evidence to fully explain the animal behavior.

"a plausible (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plausible) or scientifically accepted"

From a weakly reasoned article, that was supposed to deal with a curious issue, which is abortion, and that was written by Mr. John deLaubenfels on strike-the-root.com , contradicting an original article written by an author who went with the name “Weebies” I quote “Women have wonderful imaginations, and picture vividly what the child might have been like, had it been allowed to grow into an actual baby capable of living outside the womb.” “had it been allowed to grow”, I know that for someone who has such kind of reasoning, in which he puts himself in an imaginary place, from where he thinks that he is in control of everything, even life, it will be very difficult for him to have himself convinced with something that just can not be tackled materialistically. Such characters seem to hate the fact that the secret of life has never been discovered, and to my mind, will not be. They “speak” about issues like abortion, as if they have discovered that secret long time ago, and as if it was submitted to them to control it.

It was a very careless way, with which Mr. John contradicted Weebies’ article. And I think it is the same way always a lot of people “speak” about the issue. For that, I wanted to contradict each argument mentioned in Mr. John’s article.

The author first made a very sketchy approach to the subject. He wondered why would not the perpetrator of abortion be punished in a perfect society -having admitted abortion as a crime that equals a murder of a fully sentient person?

Within that sketchy approach, he went on imagining the perfect society’s response to the absurdity of abortion, as if he has lived there for some time on another planet or universe. Although, I personally wish to live in a perfect society myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there, they consider abortion as a murder! I mean, why not?! It is just that my imaginary perfect society might defer from his!

To speak about abortion as a real murder, we should bring into or consideration a lot of valid factors within the discussion. Laws, legislations, being anti- /or pro- family, sexual freedom, freedom as a symbol, and religions. All of those factors are very much related to our subject. And reality tells that neither I nor “John” can tell that we effectively helped putting an end to such a widely debated issue; its present rules just can not be changed easily, and most probably, political administrations usually maintain keeping such an issue always under debating –since they usually, and stupidly, have that “stupid religion phobia”, and they just want to be as separated as they can from religion\religions in their countries.

“Yes religion”, I think when the world’s legislations can not put an end to a debate like this one, we should go to our last resort, which is religion –to my mind, it should not be a last resort, especially when it is a life and death debate. You see, since nobody can decide when to be born, or when to die, then life is a gift from a supreme force. And, throughout the life history this gift was associated by that force with its own “instruction menu” in order to make us able to invest it in the right way, which is religion.

For all of what was mentioned above, I can see, why “Weebies”, the author of the article “John” contradicted, “side-stepped” this point -as “John” put it.

It also seems that Mr. “John” just does not like “scientific medical facts”, although he seems to be “libertarian”! He opposed the fact that an embryo is an equivalent to any human life. And his opposition did not go without some more spicy sketchy deluding approaches, made by comparing the disposable sperms and unfertilized eggs, with the living embryo. He can't understand, why it is accepted for the sperms to be disposed of, and it is not accepted for the embryo.

Fist of all, I can say that this kind of comparison is just absurd –“it stroke me as nonsense” like “John” would like to read it. A normal human living cell with full genome, just can not be compared with neither the sperm nor the unfertilized egg, that have only half of the normal genome for a normal human living cell. (They are very limitedly programmed cells!)

Another defying fact to “John’s” comparison, is that, a normal human living cell has the ability to be divided into new cells, which are fully alive and have full genome, or at least, had been conduced due to a dividing process, and lost the ability to divide later. (Like nervous cells) But neither the sperm nor the unfertilized egg has shown the ability to be divided before the fertilization takes place. And “Yes” both of them were due to a dividing process, but it is a very special process and it is designed to create half-genome cells which help nothing in the human body, and are sharply pointed towards fertilization.

To keep the very few life-aspects, both, the sperm and the unfertilized egg show, they should have the support of some other normal human living cells; sertolli cells for the sperms. And the Follicle cells for the unfertilized egg. -And “surprise!” for a very limited period of time! They are just not deigned to live without cells or Cellular systems to feed them! What kind of life is there in those “things”?! "Yes, thing” they are nothing but equipments to help the fertilization process start and ‘create life’.

The huge number of sperms and the potential unfertilized eggs a woman has reflects that they are disposable. One Sperm and one unfertilized egg are needed to accomplish a single fertilization. So what destiny awaits the rest of this huge number when there is no fertilization, but to decay?! They are disposable. And on the contrary, just because a single fertilization usually produces one embryo, this makes this embryo indispensable.

I would like to draw the attention of the reader to another very simple fact. Human beings just do not throw cells out of their bodies, unless they are crippled cells in away or another; they might be dead cells, like those we lose all over or skin every day, or a programmed special cells with half genome, that help one exact purpose.

When an infertile couple have some of the woman’s eggs fertilized outside the womb, and then implanted inside, Mr. John asks “Why is possible to dispose of the unused fertilized eggs we still had, without considering that as a murder? – Although I don’t like to have my writing awash in questions, like Mr. John’s, but I would address the reader about this point by asking only two simple questions. Do those fertilized eggs inside that lab container have any tiny chance to develop a normal human life, without being implanted inside the womb? And, are not doctors and experimenters working every day on experiments in which they do dispose of some living cells within their work? The point is that “Yes” when an embryo is under a microscope for example outside the womb, then it is nothing but a living cellular system, like any other one in any other experiment, that does not have any chance to develop a new life, no matter what assisting medium we might use to help it actually achieving that.

Mr. John Admitted that abortion represents a tragedy, but at the same time he excused women for taking a decision towards it, by saying that it is a personal affair, and that nobody should meddle in it. He did not even bring into account the reasons why those women would take such a decision. In fact, what we should be asking ourselves is that “why is it a tragedy for them?” What usually happens is that they may face some social or financial problems, or may want to run away from responsibility, while they think that they are too young to have baby. But at the same time, and deep in their minds and hearts, they know that the price for solving those problems, or for running away from responsibility, is to actually kill their own baby. And, to accept living with such an Idea is just tragic! (Here, I would like to say that it is ‘pathetic’) And I would go further and ask “is it enough/ or fair to just watch those women?” I mean, all what they are doing is throwing themselves into such a tragedy, killing a life chance in their wombs, and forcing their societies to tolerate the scene. For me, to intervene in such a situation is something very much recommended. Why do not we try to adapt our rules and institutions to the whole issue? I mean, there should be institutions that work on fighting the reasons why a woman might take such a decision. And, it should be practical enough to sort out all of their problems, and to help them have the baby born, and even help them afterwards in bringing him\her up.

Mr. John also wondered “what if precautions to avoid pregnancy fail?” Of course, to his consideration, a woman in this case, with some problematic motive, should strike the problem at the root and abort the child. Well, to my mind, the embryo in this case is just a branch of the problem, which is rooted at what I call “Casual Sex”. Even if I had to accept that “Casual Sex” is becoming a live style nowadays in some societies, I would not accept that very open willing to dispose a life in case of a “precaution failure”. The least that can be said here is that “Is not working on the precautions themselves, and make them more strict and effective, better/ or more logical than working on killing a life instead!”
Mr. John’s last ‘curious’ argument was the following: “(Karl Marx supported abortion rights. Marx was evil. Therefore anybody who supports abortion rights is evil). This makes as much sense as saying, (Hitler urged people to drink milk. Hitler was evil. Therefore milk is evil, and anyone who drinks milk is Hitler's soul-mate)" I hope Mr. John understand why I’m going to ‘side-step’ this underestimating idea, and restrict my response to it to saying that “Mr. John is FUNNY”

Finally I will say, all of us were life chances, and we only made it by the help of our mothers. Plus, even for a living human being, all what he has, is a life chance for the next moment.

Muddar Al-Nahed

A 27-years old student in the pharmacy college at Damascus University Syria.


Mr. John's Article .... http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/delaubenfels/delaubenfels1.html

wow. welcome to i-club!!

feel free to participate in any ongoing debate on this site

:banana:

political administrations usually maintain keeping such an issue always under debating –since they usually, and stupidly, have that “stupid religion phobia”, and they just want to be as separated as they can from religion\religions in their countries.

What?!?! Our current gov't does NOT try to distance itself from religion.

You see, since nobody can decide when to be born, or when to die, then life is a gift from a supreme force.

Nobody can decide to be born, but anyone can decide when to die. Furthermore, people DO decide when someone is born (within a month or two) when they copulate with the intent of bearing a child. This is the worst 'proof' that there is a god I've ever seen.


That whole post is full of serious problems in logic and reasoning. These two example just jumped out at me the most.

“Yes religion”, I think when the world’s legislations can not put an end to a debate like this one, we should go to our last resort, which is religion –to my mind, it should not be a last resort, especially when it is a life and death debate.
So our government should start making decisions based on their religion? But don't the citizens of america follow hundreds of different religions? Which one is right and which one do we follow?
And, it should be practical enough to sort out all of their problems, and to help them have the baby born, and even help them afterwards in bringing him\her up.
Shouldn't we worry about the thousands of un-adopted kids in america now rather than arguing that we could take care of these babies as well?

ericdared81:

So our government should start making decisions based on their religion?

< Why not?..... (Decisions, about abortion in particular) >

But don't the citizens of america follow hundreds of different religions?

So what?!

Which one is right and which one do we follow?

< You follow yours! -of course, if you "trust" it! >

Shouldn't we worry about the thousands of un-adopted kids in america now rather than arguing that we could take care of these babies as well?

< Good point! but i don't think that numbers are actually on your side on this.
I mean, babies who are fading because of "Abortion rights", outnumber those who are un-adopted!>
__________________________________________________ _____

MVWRX:

What?!?! Our current gov't does NOT try to distance itself from religion.

<Really!- I think that you should think agian!

if you think again and reach the same dead-point\idea, then I think that you should get to know your religion better, and then -Sorry- WORK HARD to find out wither your "GOV'T " is actually, practicing it correctly regarding issues like abortion. >


Nobody can decide to be born, but anyone can decide when to die.


<Yes Of course.... And you can decide when to end others lives-when to KILL!>

people DO decide when someone is born (within a month or two) when they copulate with the intent of bearing a child

<(within a month or two) OH!... how accurate they are!!!!!!>

This is the worst 'proof' that there is a god I've ever seen.

<Who's taking about this! -- "Proving that there is a God"!!!!!
I'm not intersted in proving that to "YOU"!
the point was "life is percious" that's all!--do you usually read that way ... ?!>

That whole post is full of serious problems in logic and reasoning. These two example just jumped out at me the most.

< Well, I'm waiting for the rest of them to "Jump out at you". You see... you may be hopeless, but I have free time!!!!!>

__________________________________________________ __________

You really like that article don't you?

I would hope that almost anyone on this board (especially the one's with more than 2 posts) would agree that making political decisions based on religion rather than the constitution, laws and reality would be very, very wrong.

Sure, if we don't allow any abortions we won't have to worry about it because there aren't many un-adopted kids to worry about now. Sounds like a plan. I shall follow your logic right into a brick wall.

FIrst off there is a quote feature...would make it easier to read what you are saying.


< Why not?..... (Decisions, about abortion in particular) >
Because not everyones religion follow the, big shock here, same ideals! Hence for example one of my friends religion says its ok to have abortions So what now? Should we follow his or yours? Also what about those that don't believe in god and religion as a whole?

< You follow yours! -of course, if you "trust" it! >

And if you do not follow any religions what then?

< Good point! but i don't think that numbers are actually on your side on this.
I mean, babies who are fading because of "Abortion rights", outnumber those who are un-adopted!>

What do you mean by fading? Again, I would love to see your numbers on this. Have a legitiment site with these numbers?


<Really!- I think that you should think agian!

if you think again and reach the same dead-point\idea, then I think that you should get to know your religion better, and then -Sorry- WORK HARD to find out wither your "GOV'T " is actually, practicing it correctly regarding issues like abortion. >

The current administration core base is, the religious right. Not only that they tend to pander to that group. So in all honesty you are wrong here. Not only that again you assume that every religion has the same ideals as yours about abortion.

<Yes Of course.... And you can decide when to end others lives-when to KILL!>

Thats a matter that is not as crystal clear as you put it. For that matter, I take it you are a religious individual, hence I ask you when exactly is a new born really alive? When sperm and egg meet or further down the line?

<(within a month or two) OH!... how accurate they are!!!!!!>

Don't see whaat your point is here at all, mind explaining? Im pretty sure the science on how long till a child is born is pretty exact now.

<Who's taking about this! -- "Proving that there is a God"!!!!!
I'm not intersted in proving that to "YOU"!
the point was "life is percious" that's all!--do you usually read that way ... ?!>

I think we can all agree that life is precious. But we do not all agree when life starts like you do. Actually I still do not think you have stated exactly, for you, when life starts.

< Well, I'm waiting for the rest of them to "Jump out at you". You see... you may be hopeless, but I have free time!!!!!>

So your trying to save him I take it? But from what? Having his own opinions? More than anything your arguments have been i'll founded and not very well explained. But please continue, after all you do have all this free time.

<sitting in bleachers, holding up a 'helladumb is #1!' foam hand, waiting for the next move>


...I cant wait till the new guy gets into one with Salty... ;)

FIrst off there is a quote feature...would make it easier to read what you are saying.
Because not everyones religion follow the, big shock here, same ideals! Hence for example one of my friends religion says its ok to have abortions So what now? Should we follow his or yours? Also what about those that don't believe in god and religion as a whole?


A quote feature!-------- thanks.
Well, in some cases, I myself say that abortion is ok! – I mean, even from a religious perspective, there are some cases, where abortion is allowed; those cases are mainly those, in which the woman’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy itself; where the price for a life is a life. I double that your friend’s religion tells that abortion is ok in all cases, like “on request”!

And if you do not follow any religions what then?

Anther reason why we should obtain the solutions from religions, and include them in as articles in the constitution. You see, when they are in the constitution –those person’s hand-written “holy book”- then they will have to follow them!

What do you mean by fading? Again, I would love to see your numbers on this. Have a legitiment site with these numbers?

To fade : To disappear gradually; vanish. www.dictionary.com .
You asked for numbers… here is one of them.
(As it is well known, yearly number of abortion all over the world, approach the number of 50 million.) This was quoted at the link:
http://www.contraception-esc.com/congress/abstracts/state_of_the_art_18.htm
I THINK YOU’LL LIKE WHAT YOU’LL READ THERE!! A LOT!!!
I don’t have the yearly number of un-adopted kids, but I don’t think that it will ever be competitive… (maybe you have it!)

The current administration core base is, the religious right. Not only that they tend to pander to that group. So in all honesty you are wrong here. Not only that again you assume that every religion has the same ideals as yours about abortion.

“The religious right” … the religious right to do what? Isn’t it a right to pray and preach, and never a right to materialize those religions' own societies.
I’ll try to make it easier for you. You’re saying that “not all religions have the same ideas about abortion”. I can understand that you agree that due to “some of them” abortion should not be allowed. The question here is “does your constitution respect those religions’ attitudes? I don’t think so. When you make the same approach regarding so many compelling issues; abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality,….etc, you will feel how much your constitution is far from most religions in your country.

Thats a matter that is not as crystal clear as you put it. For that matter, I take it you are a religious individual, hence I ask you when exactly is a new born really alive? When sperm and egg meet or further down the line?
I think we can all agree that life is precious. But we do not all agree when life starts like you do. Actually I still do not think you have stated exactly, for you, when life starts.


First, a “new born” is always alive!
And, when somebody decides to end his\her life, I think the right definition of what actually he\she intends to do is to actually “KILL him\herself” –it just can’t be less crystal! –eventually, it is the same as when someone decides to kill others! –to my mind, it is even way more absurd!!!!!!!!!
And, maybe it was not stated latterly, but I think that it was clear in my first post that I think life stats right after the fertilization is accomplished inside the womb.

Don't see whaat your point is here at all, mind explaining? Im pretty sure the science on how long till a child is born is pretty exact now.

When you claim to know when something is going to happen, you should be able to master it; (within a month or two!) it is a clue that we just master nothing!

So your trying to save him I take it? But from what? Having his own opinions? More than anything your arguments have been i'll founded and not very well explained. But please continue, after all you do have all this free time.

You see, “to have my own creative opinions” is something very much tempting to me. But for me, there should be a background, which I can describe as an interactive mixture of “religion, traditions, and laws”, for my opinions to be productive in away that induces benefits for myself and my society. When any of those three is missing in my background, then my opinions can be really destructive for myself and my society.

I would hope that almost anyone on this board (especially the one's with more than 2 posts) would agree that making political decisions based on religion rather than the constitution, laws and reality would be very, very wrong.

Political decisions! Hmmmm –
Although some politicians do use the issue for their OWN advantage when they go canvassing within their campaigns, but this, to my mind, does not make the issue a “political” issue . For me, it has always been a extensively-humanitarian issue, where both women, and their babies, are in danger.


Sure, if we don't allow any abortions we won't have to worry about it because there aren't many un-adopted kids to worry about now. Sounds like a plan. I shall follow your logic right into a brick wall.

When we don’t allow any abortions, there WILL be more un-adopted kids.
But to my mind, for them to live –which would make the burden bigger for a country’s institutions-, is better than to “execute” them!

When we don’t allow any abortions, there WILL be more un-adopted kids.
But to my mind, for them to live –which would make the burden bigger for a country’s institutions-, is better than to “execute” them!

Yeah, you're right...it's better for everyone in a society to bear the burden of a rapist's crime, or a couple's mistake, than for one ball of ~15 cells that has more in common with the larvae of a house fly than a human to be disrupted. You're a whacko by the purist definition of it.
And what you're implying about religion and politics goes against 100+ years of progress in this country. If you want to live in a religious state, buy an island and make your constitution the 10 comandments. But I'm not Christian. Hell, I'm not even religious. And most of the world is not Christian. So don't be trying to get your religious laws mixed up with all the rest of our secular laws.

Yeah, you're right...it's better for everyone in a society to bear the burden of a rapist's crime, or a couple's mistake, than for one ball of ~15 cells that has more in common with the larvae of a house fly than a human to be disrupted. You're a whacko by the purist definition of it.
And what you're implying about religion and politics goes against 100+ years of progress in this country. If you want to live in a religious state, buy an island and make your constitution the 10 comandments. But I'm not Christian. Hell, I'm not even religious. And most of the world is not Christian. So don't be trying to get your religious laws mixed up with all the rest of our secular laws.

Are you done preaching? If you like killing unborn kids that is your own problem, so don't try to pretend that everyone is as selfish and against life as you.

So, are the children from rape and "mistakes" less worthy in your eyes? The monetary cost to support future contributing members of a society grossly outweighs a morally bankrupt society that approves of killing unborn fetuses, mentally challenged people, and the elderly. Of course, we could just do like the french and stick our old people outside during the next heat wave.... oh how it would be selfish to do otherwise!!!!!!!

Helladumb...nothing about abortion is selfish for me...what is selfish is thinking that YOU know better than a raped woman what she needs/wants to do with her pergnancy. Does it hurt you inside when a fetus is aborted? Do you believe that the child that would have been born would somehow improve your life so much that you NEED them to be born? You think that killing in the name of oil/democracy/freedom is allowable, but aborting a fetus (which I don't believe is killing, since in the 1st trimester a fetus is about as developed as a snot rocket and could not sustain life on its own...) is somehow so sacreligious and offensive that NOONE should ever do it, even if it means a better life for the woman AND one less neglected or abused child. That sounds...wait...it's...oh yeah...that's SELFISH.

And, I will reiterate this for you because I think you need to hear it from time to time, religion has no place in the secular world of law, medicine, and human wellfare. It can only possibly cause problems and inefficiencies.

so don't try to pretend that everyone is as selfish and against life as you.


That's hellafunny AND helladumb. I'm against life? Not exactly...I'm against overpopulation, especially when many of the children born in situations where the mother wanted an abortion and couldn't get one end up neglected and abused. Yeah, yeah...I know what's next "Weeel I reckin she shidn't uh biin f***in if she didn't want her some childrens." Well, that's true, but if we relied on logic like that for STDs and drug use then there'd be no condoms and no rehab for anyone. It's flawed, because human's are falible and make mistakes...sometimes big ones.

MVWRX:

What?!?! Our current gov't does NOT try to distance itself from religion.

<Really!- I think that you should think agian!

if you think again and reach the same dead-point\idea, then I think that you should get to know your religion better, and then -Sorry- WORK HARD to find out wither your "GOV'T " is actually, practicing it correctly regarding issues like abortion. >
_
I'm with MV on this one: our government, though supposedly "secular" is not distanced from religion at all. Whats on all our money? In god we trust. What does the president take the oath of office on? A BIBLE. What does the president end all of his speaches with? "May god bless america". These things are unheard of in Europe and appauling to them.

And muddar... you still havn't answered the questiion: At what point does life begin in your opinion? Is it when sperm meets egg? Later?
-Jeff

And another question: Why do you believe (please explain in depth) that

A quote feature!-------- thanks.
Well, in some cases, I myself say that abortion is ok! – I mean, even from a religious perspective, there are some cases, where abortion is allowed; those cases are mainly those, in which the woman’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy itself; where the price for a life is a life. I double that your friend’s religion tells that abortion is ok in all cases, like “on request”!

Why do you doubt that his religion tells him its ok in all cases? Because it goes against your religious beliefs? Thats my main point, not everyone has the same beliefs as you. And I am certainly not arrogant enough to believe that im 100% right and they are wrong.

Anther reason why we should obtain the solutions from religions, and include them in as articles in the constitution. You see, when they are in the constitution –those person’s hand-written “holy book”- then they will have to follow them!

Wrong. You see there are MANY different religoins in this world. To enforce your beliefs on others is WRONG. How would you like it if someone like my friends religion was the on that the constitution followed? Wouldn't like it much I take it. And thats the key thing I think your missing here.

To fade : To disappear gradually; vanish. www.dictionary.com .
You asked for numbers… here is one of them.
(As it is well known, yearly number of abortion all over the world, approach the number of 50 million.) This was quoted at the link:
http://www.contraception-esc.com/congress/abstracts/state_of_the_art_18.htm
I THINK YOU’LL LIKE WHAT YOU’LL READ THERE!! A LOT!!!
I don’t have the yearly number of un-adopted kids, but I don’t think that it will ever be competitive… (maybe you have it!)

I'd go re-read that link you posted. If anything it pushes for the right to have abortions more than anything else. And no I don't have the link since I didn't make the statement why would I.

“The religious right” … the religious right to do what? Isn’t it a right to pray and preach, and never a right to materialize those religions' own societies.
I’ll try to make it easier for you. You’re saying that “not all religions have the same ideas about abortion”. I can understand that you agree that due to “some of them” abortion should not be allowed. The question here is “does your constitution respect those religions’ attitudes? I don’t think so. When you make the same approach regarding so many compelling issues; abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality,….etc, you will feel how much your constitution is far from most religions in your country.

The religious right is a term used for individuals of Christian belief that lean to the conservative side of politics. Usually VERY extreem. It would seem you fall pretty nicely in that catogory. And you are WAY off on what the Constitution is about. The Constitution protects religious freedom, not at all what you are saying. I'd give you a link but www.google.com just died. Well atleast for me.


First, a “new born” is always alive!
And, when somebody decides to end his\her life, I think the right definition of what actually he\she intends to do is to actually “KILL him\herself” –it just can’t be less crystal! –eventually, it is the same as when someone decides to kill others! –to my mind, it is even way more absurd!!!!!!!!!
And, maybe it was not stated latterly, but I think that it was clear in my first post that I think life stats right after the fertilization is accomplished inside the womb.

I would really like to know how a "new born" is always alive. Your point of view is really really not well thought out scientifically. If anything, with your thought process, if its alive right after fertilization then compared to other cells they are as much alive as the new born.

When you claim to know when something is going to happen, you should be able to master it; (within a month or two!) it is a clue that we just master nothing!

Nothing can be exact about a pregrnancy. They can give estimates of the exact week it will happen. But MANY things can and do change inbetween that time period. So yes we have mastered the art of child bearing pretty damn well. But of course its not 100% exact.

You see, “to have my own creative opinions” is something very much tempting to me. But for me, there should be a background, which I can describe as an interactive mixture of “religion, traditions, and laws”, for my opinions to be productive in away that induces benefits for myself and my society. When any of those three is missing in my background, then my opinions can be really destructive for myself and my society.

I don't see how your benifiting society by forcing your religion on others. Just like I would not see how it would benifit you if someone forced their religion on you. Its a two way street.

Why do you doubt that his religion tells him its ok in all cases? Because it goes against your religious beliefs? Thats my main point, not everyone has the same beliefs as you. And I am certainly not arrogant enough to believe that im 100% right and they are wrong.

If it is arrogance to think that "religions- all religions- value life, protect life, and don't allow anything that might endanger life", then I will say "OK… I might be arrogant!).


Wrong. You see there are MANY different religoins in this world. To enforce your beliefs on others is WRONG. How would you like it if someone like my friends religion was the on that the constitution followed? Wouldn't like it much I take it. And thats the key thing I think your missing here.

Hye… why don't you be specific, and tell about “YOUR FRIEND’S RELIGION”, and tell what does it really tell about Abortion?!!!!!
The name of the religion, and what does it tell about abortion? (HOW does it justify abortion?)


I'd go re-read that link you posted. If anything it pushes for the right to have abortions more than anything else. And no I don't have the link since I didn't make the statement why would I.

Of course , why would you?!!!!- Since it goes against your believes!!!!!!!!!!!!


The religious right is a term used for individuals of Christian belief that lean to the conservative side of politics. Usually VERY extreem. It would seem you fall pretty nicely in that catogory. And you are WAY off on what the Constitution is about. The Constitution protects religious freedom, not at all what you are saying. I'd give you a link but www.google.com just died. Well atleast for me.

Are you used to throw out accusations like those so frequently?! –while you honestly seem to have very deformed perspectives over religions!

And although I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t like it, but religions were not sent to fulfill an “INDIVIDUAL” spiritual thirst only! There were sent to organize the SOCIETY as a whole too. People shouldn’t assist constitutions to make religions shrink into that “INDIVIDUAL” pathetic shape –especially when those "constitutions" prove as much failure as they have proven up till now; dealing with issue like abortion.

Nothing can be exact about a pregrnancy. They can give estimates of the exact week it will happen. But MANY things can and do change inbetween that time period. So yes we have mastered the art of child bearing pretty damn well. But of course its not 100% exact.

“Nothing can be exact about a pregrnancy”… They can give… “estimates”…. of the… “exact”… “week”… it will happen. But …“MANY things”… can and do change inbetween that time period. So …….”yyyyyeeeeesss”…. we have…. “mastered”…. the art of child bearing ………“pretty damn well”……….. “But of course its not 100% exact.”

Those lines were really really, honestly, frankly, the most confused set of words I ever ever ever read.

I don't see how your benifiting society by forcing your religion on others. Just like I would not see how it would benifit you if someone forced their religion on you. Its a two way street.

. A real vivid mixture of “religion, traditions and laws” can make every one happy –even nonbelievers!
No religion forces itself on other religions –it’s either you believe or you don’t. this is one basic natural feature of all religions, as long as people –no matter what they believe in, or don’t believe in- are treating there lives naturally. Due to the social responsibility of a religion towards the society it lives in, it should intervene when people start treating life “unnaturally” by legislating killing; and it should do so for those people’s own sake. Because after all, to live with the feeling that you were somehow suppressed(deprived from a “right” for example), is better than to live with the feeling that you’ve killed someone.
And, no matter what people –like abortionists- try to do to convince themselves that “OK… it’s not killing” it will live with them -at least it will make them live in a dilemma for the rest of there lives (it was killing…. It was not….no … it was … no.. not). And people like you, and instead of helping those women face the fact that it was killing, and help them to lives with it, they try to cozy the whole thing up for them.

Such a dilemma will, most probably, help either demolishing those women lives, or will help turning them into evil-people, who will consider no deterrent to do more extreme unnatural things within their lives. Those women have not thought it out right, and they might have been bewildered by people like you maybe, but when abortion is not legislated at all then, at least, they will feel how serious it is, before they make up their minds!

I'm with MV on this one: our government, though supposedly "secular" is not distanced from religion at all. Whats on all our money? In god we trust. What does the president take the oath of office on? A BIBLE. What does the president end all of his speaches with? "May god bless america". These things are unheard of in Europe and appauling to them.

First, Christianity –which is a religion I personally value-, nor any other religion (and I would like to put a lot emphasis on the main three religions) is restricted to such nonessential aspects like those you mentioned.

If religions were not to organize social interaction (the way of living, and the way of dealing with others) then you could hardly find a word, or an equivalent of “reward and punishment” in those religions.

God does not need your religious phrase on your money-papers, the Bible to oath on, nor some religiously phrased words at the end of a political speech. Although I believe they are good to make someone’s spirit closer to God, but he\she has to maintain the main core of a religion he\she follows.

My core-interpretation of a ‘religion’ is “to INTERACT RELIGIOUSLY with the whole atmosphere\environment around” –sounds stupid doesn’t it! I would elaborate a lot about it, but I would rather urge you to think deeply about the way your Government deals with those issues, and to compare that way with what the main core of Christianity dictates. 1-devorse. 2-homesexuality, 3-abortion.4-euthanasia. 5- political & economical issues; like the economic sanctions on a poor country, or the stupid wars against poor weak countries under so very stupid propagandas. Is real Christianity fully alive in your society? Isn’t it only the laws and legislations that are thriving? Didn’t they kill Shiavo USING some legislation, while she could’ve lived if the issue was dealt religiously with?

Most of what was mentioned above can be said about my religion too.

And muddar... you still havn't answered the questiion: At what point does life begin in your opinion? Is it when sperm meets egg? Later?
-Jeff

It's after the fertilization is accomplished. (but, I think that I've stated it before)

And another question: Why do you believe (please explain in depth) that

I think this should happen in a different forum! Don't you think so! –this is a completely different issue, you see.

Helladumb...nothing about abortion is selfish for me...what is selfish is thinking that YOU know better than a raped woman what she needs/wants to do with her pergnancy. Does it hurt you inside when a fetus is aborted? Do you believe that the child that would have been born would somehow improve your life so much that you NEED them to be born?

“Yes” it does hurt inside to abort that fetus! Because, you wouldn’t know whether he\she will be a beneficial member of the society or not, as your parents didn’t know the same about you! (it is always like this and you should think of living with it. All fetuses are pro-members of the society, which “can” sustain their good and bad behavior in it, like it “can” sustain yours. And it is not that fetuses’ fault that that woman was raped. When she had been raped and it was over, then we should deal with that criminal situation and its consequences, but, not by allowing the woman to perpetrate another crime! The victim should be helped –God will her and the government should\and –in most cases -is, and the rapist should be rought to justice.) As simple as that.

You think that killing in the name of oil/democracy/freedom is allowable, but aborting a fetus (which I don't believe is killing, since in the 1st trimester a fetus is about as developed as a snot rocket and could not sustain life on its own...) is somehow so sacreligious and offensive that NOONE should ever do it, even if it means a better life for the woman AND one less neglected or abused child. That sounds...wait...it's...oh yeah...that's SELFISH.

I don’t know where we are going in this; as I am deeply convinced that it would never be easy to have a reasonable outlet of a discussion between multilateral-cultural- sides. But I think, the key point where we could “approach” a reasonable outlet is to agree to one thing “is the embryo alive or not”. At least, and if you agree that it is, then this will keep you away from straying, and connecting the issue with so my different issues, just because you "tend" not to believe it is alive. (You see, lets save time!).
I think the embryo is alive, and I think I gave some aspects for why I think so.
So why don’t you stop making those hyper-connections of yours, and try to give a logical reason why you think the embryo in not alive. (Your own detailed paper of why you think so. …… … … .(May be just because IT IS VERY SMALL!!!!!!).

I think the embryo is alive, and I think I gave some aspects for why I think so.
So why don’t you stop making those hyper-connections of yours, and try to give a logical reason why you think the embryo in not alive. (Your own detailed paper of why you think so. …… … … .(May be just because IT IS VERY SMALL!!!!!!).
The embryo in the 1st trimester is only a bundle of undeveloped cells: most the time when a abortion is performed, they have not specalized into anything at all (arms, legs, w/e).

HellaDumb, I hope that you die slowly, and suffer infinitely...

Can you feel the love tonight! ;)

I think the embryo is alive, and I think I gave some aspects for why I think so.


Do you believe war can be justified? Because if you do, then the argument that the fetus is alive is irrelevent. Why can you justify killing sometimes (for political/national gain) but not when it is on a personal level and has the potential to do more good than a war? The hypocrisy that is inherent in religion makes your argument against abortion unintelligible.

If it is arrogance to think that "religions- all religions- value life, protect life, and don't allow anything that might endanger life", then I will say "OK… I might be arrogant!).

Yes you are if you believe that since not all religions are MAIN stream. And thats what you are missing here.

Hye… why don't you be specific, and tell about “YOUR FRIEND’S RELIGION”, and tell what does it really tell about Abortion?!!!!!
The name of the religion, and what does it tell about abortion? (HOW does it justify abortion?)

He is in some satanic religion last I talked to him. (What don't tell me you never heard of satanic religions? Or do you not concider that religion?) He switches around a lot but one of the ones he was in allowed abortions. It's justified by looking at it as a bunch of cells not a human being. Or in other words in a scientific manner! Shocker there!

Of course , why would you?!!!!- Since it goes against your believes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Um no. You made that statement hence its your issue to prove right not mine. Pluss I don't want to do the research for you. Since maybe you'll learn something along the way. And for you to tell me I would deny things because it goes against my beliefs is hypocrisy at its worst.

Are you used to throw out accusations like those so frequently?! –while you honestly seem to have very deformed perspectives over religions!

And although I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t like it, but religions were not sent to fulfill an “INDIVIDUAL” spiritual thirst only! There were sent to organize the SOCIETY as a whole too. People shouldn’t assist constitutions to make religions shrink into that “INDIVIDUAL” pathetic shape –especially when those "constitutions" prove as much failure as they have proven up till now; dealing with issue like abortion.

Yes your religion could be to shape society. But society as a whole in this MODERN era does not have to take the shape of YOUR religion. And thats whats GREAT about our constitution. Our constitution protects EVERYONES right to have their OWN beliefs and their OWN morals. As long as they don't hurt others they are fine. And, I believe our constitution is doing an AWESOME job protecting people to have a choice whether to have a abortion or not. Maybe instead of saying the constitution is failing us, you should look inside yourself first and see why you fail.

“Nothing can be exact about a pregrnancy”… They can give… “estimates”…. of the… “exact”… “week”… it will happen. But …“MANY things”… can and do change inbetween that time period. So …….”yyyyyeeeeesss”…. we have…. “mastered”…. the art of child bearing ………“pretty damn well”……….. “But of course its not 100% exact.”

Those lines were really really, honestly, frankly, the most confused set of words I ever ever ever read.

What you can't read simple english? Or just don't want to admit that when dealing with humans nothing can be 100% sure for everyone since, heres the big shocker, everyone has a different body than the rest! Hence while something might be true for one person something may change and no longer hold true! This isn't rocket science.


A real vivid mixture of “religion, traditions and laws” can make every one happy –even nonbelievers!

WRONG. Dead wrong. I'll give you one example off the top of my head. GAYS would hate it. Yep im sure gays would love living in your world. Or better yet "non-believers" that believe in pre-martial sex, abortions, drinking, smoking, and the list goes on and on. How could you even say such a comment like this? What drug are you on seriously?

No religion forces itself on other religions –it’s either you believe or you don’t. this is one basic natural feature of all religions, as long as people –no matter what they believe in, or don’t believe in- are treating there lives naturally.

I figured it out you're on crack! You have to be, jesus christ almighty, go pick up a history book and then come back to me that religion doesn't force itself on other religions. Thats just pathetic!

Due to the social responsibility of a religion towards the society it lives in, it should intervene when people start treating life “unnaturally” by legislating killing; and it should do so for those people’s own sake. Because after all, to live with the feeling that you were somehow suppressed(deprived from a “right” for example), is better than to live with the feeling that you’ve killed someone. And, no matter what people –like abortionists- try to do to convince themselves that “OK… it’s not killing” it will live with them -at least it will make them live in a dilemma for the rest of there lives (it was killing…. It was not….no … it was … no.. not). And people like you, and instead of helping those women face the fact that it was killing, and help them to lives with it, they try to cozy the whole thing up for them.

What a bunch of a assumptions you are making here. I know several girls that had abortions and I DATED one that had one. And none of them are living with that "dilemma". Its pretty simple actually it wasn't a kid yet it was a bunch of cells. And get this several of those girls are atheist and then some are even CHRISTIANS! And all from last I heard are doing very well. How many woman do you know that have had abortions?

Such a dilemma will, most probably, help either demolishing those women lives, or will help turning them into evil-people, who will consider no deterrent to do more extreme unnatural things within their lives. Those women have not thought it out right, and they might have been bewildered by people like you maybe, but when abortion is not legislated at all then, at least, they will feel how serious it is, before they make up their minds!

Wait I was wrong you're not on crack your on L.S.D. Where do you come up with this stuff? Who feeds you this bull****? What religion are you? None of the girls I know are "evil-people". One is married and raising a family and has a daughter. Another is in med school right now going to be a doctor soon. Another is getting a Masters in one of the best schools in the nation. Another is a nurse, and we all know nurses are "evil-people". And I could go on. You need to open up your mind and your eyes. Someone is lying to you about the world. Seriously, I pitty you. Also if you think people shouldn't have abortions I suggest you start adopting every child that was not aborted but the mother couldn't support it, in your city. Why not put your money where your mouth is. So sad to see that people like you are still alive, in a country that is so educated.

So sad to see that people like you are still alive, in a country that is so educated.


That's the sad part, we're not that educated anymore. And we have some conservatives saying all college is good for is to brainwash good people into being liberal. And some religious people saying that the future is irrelevent because the rapture is coming. And they use these viewpoints to vote for policy. So my guess is that our education system will get much worse before it gets any better.

That's the sad part, we're not that educated anymore. And we have some conservatives saying all college is good for is to brainwash good people into being liberal. And some religious people saying that the future is irrelevent because the rapture is coming. And they use these viewpoints to vote for policy. So my guess is that our education system will get much worse before it gets any better.

Amen to that brother! ;)

I can't see how with all the money we spend on education in this country!

never mind

After re-reading this whole thread (yeah, it took me a while), I've concluded that there is no such thing as anti-abortion logic. Only anti-abortion feelings, sentiments, and 'reasons' for being anti-abortion that have to do with a higher power. Logic, no matter who is using it, says that abortions make sense in some circumstances and therefore they should be optional for everybody. If you are one who disagrees with abortions on a spiritual or emotional level, don't have one. There, now everyone should be happy.

After re-reading this whole thread (yeah, it took me a while), I've concluded that there is no such thing as anti-abortion logic. Only anti-abortion feelings, sentiments, and 'reasons' for being anti-abortion that have to do with a higher power. Logic, no matter who is using it, says that abortions make sense in some circumstances and therefore they should be optional for everybody. If you are one who disagrees with abortions on a spiritual or emotional level, don't have one. There, now everyone should be happy.


Man, what planet are you on? Substitute the word "murder" for "abortion" throughout your paragraph, and the same non-sensical, moronic conclusion still holds! Brilliant!

Tell me you posted that after coming home from the bars or something...

Murder does not equal abortion....

There are a lot of logical reasons to not murder that don't have to do with a higher power. The only reasons anyone has brought up against abortion have to do with a higher power.
If murder=abortion, and murder is always wrong, then how can war be justified by a religious person. It can't. But religious people support wars anyway. If abortion is always wrong, wars are always wrong. Since it is clear that wars are not always wrong, then abortions are not always wrong either.

The only reasons anyone has brought up against abortion have to do with a higher power. If murder=abortion, and murder is always wrong, then how can war be justified by a religious person. It can't. If abortion is always wrong, wars are always wrong.

Well, I think you make a compelling argument proving that anti-war, pro-abortionists are two-faced flip-floppers. Well stated.

Well, I think you make a compelling argument proving that anti-war, pro-abortionists are two-faced flip-floppers. Well stated.


Anti-abortion, pro-warists are much moreso. That's my argument. But you are correct, both sides are completely hypocritical when it comes to the issue of justifying murder.

The pertinant argument, however, is this. Wars will happen, and most of them will be justified in the minds of those involved. That means that people are justifying murder for political/nationalistic gain. That means that even if you believe abortions are murder(which many people don't), there are times when murder is justified. If there are times when murder is justified, then abortions can be justified by the same people who justify war. So if you believe that there are good reasons to go to war, then you are hypcritical and blind if you simultaniously believe that there is never a good reason for an abortion.

What I love is bush being a pro-lifer but frying every single person he could during his governorship in Texas. Even a mentally challenged individual, just off.

I love it too. The life of an innocent child is worth a lot more than that of a murderer, mentally challenged or not.

How do you put certain value on life for one individuals against anothers?

The embryo in the 1st trimester is only a bundle of undeveloped cells: most the time when a abortion is performed, they have not specalized into anything at all (arms, legs, w/e).

life has different stages. Not having (arms, legs, …. Etc), is an idea that can easily be diminished when we all recalled that we’re going to decay into dust, in a different kind of “life” –here, not diminishing the idea that BOTH of them are life-stages. Life-aspects are not the same throughout one’s –so called – life; they vary a lot; one might not lose an arm, but he\she loses nervous cells all the time, women lose their fertility by time, and ones’ mental activity is not the same all the time throughout ones’ life. So, due to the “LOGIC” I experienced it this forum, I think, “logically” the “constitutional” range of rights should vary in parallel! –shouldn’t it!!

Do you believe war can be justified? Because if you do, then the argument that the fetus is alive is irrelevent. Why can you justify killing sometimes (for political/national gain) but not when it is on a personal level and has the potential to do more good than a war? The hypocrisy that is inherent in religion makes your argument against abortion unintelligible.


Two different things!- abortion, and war. War\killing can be justified when the “other side” behaves in a manner, that is harmful to a country’s land, or ones’ life. Abortion is not the same; you simply don’t have enough “prosecution” against that fetus to justify killing it –“constitutionally” speaking!

Have you ever been a practicing religious individual through your life-time so far?! –you see, this is the only notion, for me, that would make me think of you as “eligible” to claim that there is hypocrisy inherited in, only, the religion that you’re practicing. Otherwise, you’re not eligible for such a claimer!

Yes you are if you believe that since not all religions are MAIN stream. And thats what you are missing here.

“Not all religions are MAIN stream” right, absolutely right, and I assume you already have numbers of the religious proportions in your country. And, I think you’re very much aware of what’s so called (the decision of the majority) –your constitution does solve a lot of the debated issues depending on this mechanism.
To leave an issue like abortion “optional” does force the “religious” perspective of a very limited segment of the society –those who are like you- upon almost the majority! –Don’t tell me that disbelievers and those “satanic” are the majority!


He is in some satanic religion last I talked to him. (What don't tell me you never heard of satanic religions? Or do you not concider that religion?) He switches around a lot but one of the ones he was in allowed abortions. It's justified by looking at it as a bunch of cells not a human being. Or in other words in a scientific manner! Shocker there!

OH yeah, and what is the “HOLY SANATIC BOOK” called? Lol……

Um no. You made that statement hence its your issue to prove right not mine. Pluss I don't want to do the research for you. Since maybe you'll learn something along the way. And for you to tell me I would deny things because it goes against my beliefs is hypocrisy at its worst.

So you’ve been a hypocrite yourself all the time! --- Remember, you started it, you started claiming that I “would deny things because it goes against my beliefs!.” –why to start yelling in the first time I say that to you?!



Yes your religion could be to shape society. But society as a whole in this MODERN era does not have to take the shape of YOUR religion. And thats whats GREAT about our constitution. Our constitution protects EVERYONES right to have their OWN beliefs and their OWN morals. As long as they don't hurt others they are fine. And, I believe our constitution is doing an AWESOME job protecting people to have a choice whether to have a abortion or not. Maybe instead of saying the constitution is failing us, you should look inside yourself first and see why you fail.

Do you want to know what’s “Great” about your constitution? ! –follow me….
Why do you think your constitution left Abortion –for instance- to be “optional”?! –since it could’ve used a mechanism like “the decision of the majority” to “DECIDE” whether it should be a right or not! Is it just to preserve your individual freedom, or it goes beyond that?
Using the temptation of “optionality” your constitution is emphasizing the wall it maintained to drop between religions, and at the same time, maintaining the credits it has to actually stay alive, by luring people like you with that temptation. Optionality is used as a shell your constitution is hiding behind to actually run a way from facing the very coherent position a religion –Not like your friend’s “religion”!- holds from such issues.
What your constitution dictates makes people like you raise up in an educational environment that makes their main priority focuses on this line “I Am completely free. I don’t have any restrains. I can do anything I want; I even can kill myself” A line that, to my mind, can put the most intelligent creature in this universe in absolutely nowhere.
Lured with temptation of “optionality”, people like you measure almost anything on the scale that tells whether that thing can restrain their so called “freedom” or not, and not putting the required emphasis on whether it is actually right or not.
This is what’s “Great” about your constitution….!
And believe me “unregistered”, you, and especially you, are way far to be able to judge what is “inside myself.” And yes, I do fail –from time to time- and I know exactly why I fail, and I have ability to admit my failures. Things you may have not practiced enough recently, because you think of yourself as a “perfect machine,” or so!
Clarification. (our constitution is not so far away from yours, from so many different angles).

What you can't read simple english? Or just don't want to admit that when dealing with humans nothing can be 100% sure for everyone since, heres the big shocker, everyone has a different body than the rest! Hence while something might be true for one person something may change and no longer hold true! This isn't rocket science.

Hye…. Where is MASTERING child bearing in your lines! –child bearing has its own rules, that I would think of you as an utter hypocrite if you say that doctors, scientists, and all those who are in the medical field, have MASTERED all of them, and that they can draw a time-line and point to a specific point of it claiming that giving birth would take place on it. All they can draw are some ranges on that time-line, that are more wide than to suggest any “mastering” of the whole process.

WRONG. Dead wrong. I'll give you one example off the top of my head. GAYS would hate it. Yep im sure gays would love living in your world. Or better yet "non-believers" that believe in pre-martial sex, abortions, drinking, smoking, and the list goes on and on. How could you even say such a comment like this? What drug are you on seriously?

WRONG. Dead wrong. In my society, which I think is more close than yours, to the one that has a “vivid mixture of religion, tradition, and laws/constitution,” GAYS would face more religious and traditional isolation than they might face in your society, where religions, and traditions have “surrendered” to the constitutional might. Simply, in my society GAYS are disgusted, religiously and traditionally! –so, NO, they wouldn’t love living in my world!


I figured it out you're on crack! You have to be, jesus christ almighty, go pick up a history book and then come back to me that religion doesn't force itself on other religions. Thats just pathetic!

Since religions were sent to all mankind on this planet, they, in their early times, had to break some “political walls” - the “regimes” that were thriving at that time, in order to actually deliver the Holy message to common people, like you and me, beyond those walls. Now, if think of that as “enforcing” then this IS what I call pathetic!



What a bunch of a assumptions you are making here. I know several girls that had abortions and I DATED one that had one. And none of them are living with that "dilemma". Its pretty simple actually it wasn't a kid yet it was a bunch of cells. And get this several of those girls are atheist and then some are even CHRISTIANS! And all from last I heard are doing very well. How many woman do you know that have had abortions?

Hye…
Consider a typical situation. A young lady and a young gentleman meet and sparks fly and they have an unplanned, unprotected but steamy and thoroughly enjoyable sexual encounter. Neither regrets it, but after cooling down a bit they both agree to leave it as a “happy memory”; neither is interested in marriage. But the girl gets pregnant!
The young gentleman, being a gentleman, offers to share the “least-cost” solution with her equally, and that of course is to have an abortion. Let's say it costs $10,000 plus some measure of trauma for the girl. They agree on a deal: he puts up $6,500 cash and she pays the rest.
Of course, for a dating guy, like yourself, it is not more than a bunch of cells! – it just can’t be more than that, or you will have to pay more! lol
For me, that was very comic & pathetic.
And about that dilemma thing, I would urge you to know something more about “Subconscious” –it’s a very powerful thing, you know.
Anyway…..




Wait I was wrong you're not on crack your on L.S.D.

Such stuff are not very much available around here!

Where do you come up with this stuff? Who feeds you this bull****?

Religion -which I don’t think you know more than the surface of it; the part of it, that tells, there are rules one should not violate. One like you wouldn’t compromise his “freedom” by inquiring after WHY those rules were set up, with the will to understand -you just don't want to understand!

What religion are you?

Islam.

None of the girls I know are "evil-people".

How do you know?! – how would anybody know?! Do you really know them?! I mean, you hardly DATE some of them for, what, 5 … 10 hour a week!
But, it is always this way; most probably, how steal once will steal again! And who kills once will kill again! .... those women -stupidly- accept to have the Potential!!!!!


You need to open up your mind and your eyes. Someone is lying to you about the world.

I’ll consider that!!!!


Seriously, I pitty you.

OH…I feel privileged! lol

Also if you think people shouldn't have abortions I suggest you start adopting every child that was not aborted but the mother couldn't support it, in your city. Why not put your money where your mouth is.

Hmmm ….. NO…. I wouldn’t do it; I don’t usually pay for other’s mistakes! –I would rather participate in a public financial effort to help lunching an institution that take on the burden of actually convincing those women NOT to take the abortion-“option” and even to help them financially.


So sad to see that people like you are still alive, in a country that is so educated.


IS IT!

Islam.



How do you know?! – how would anybody know?! Do you really know them?! I mean, you hardly DATE some of them for, what, 5 … 10 hour a week!
But, it is always this way; most probably, how steal once will steal again! And who kills once will kill again! .... those women -stupidly- accept to have the Potential!!!!!



What the hell?

1: You are really Islamic? I do not believe that right now at least as normally you wouldn't say I am "Islam". You would say I am "muslum" or even "Islamic. You would only say I "Practice Islam". Just by the fact that you said that I do not believe you as much. What you say sounds like it comes straight out of a crazy-ass EXTREME christian right winger.

2: SO now you are saying that becasuse somebody had an abortion they are now on the same level as muderers? WTF mate, that is crazy. They do not even THINK on the same level as someone who kills another PERSON (not bundle of undeveloped cells!)
-Jeff

What the hell?

1: You are really Islamic? I do not believe that right now at least as normally you wouldn't say I am "Islam". You would say I am "muslum" or even "Islamic. You would only say I "Practice Islam". Just by the fact that you said that I do not believe you as much. What you say sounds like it comes straight out of a crazy-ass EXTREME christian right winger.

2: SO now you are saying that becasuse somebody had an abortion they are now on the same level as muderers? WTF mate, that is crazy. They do not even THINK on the same level as someone who kills another PERSON (not bundle of undeveloped cells!)
-Jeff

Don't try to reason with the new resident nut job. It won't give you any satisfaction.

Its true. HellaDumb actually brings up some good points, and has some knowledge. This guy on the other hand, does not.
-Jeff

Yeah tell me about it Im sorty of missing HellaDumb right now. :( Shh don't tell him. This guy s a moron. I never knew that me dating a girl for 2 years = 5hours or 10 hours. Or how her being with the same guy before that for 3 years and some how while being on the pill and him using a condom she still got prego. Yep this guy is brilliant I better stop feeding the ignorant troll.

Two different things!- abortion, and war. War\killing can be justified when the “other side” behaves in a manner, that is harmful to a country’s land, or ones’ life. Abortion is not the same; you simply don’t have enough “prosecution” against that fetus to justify killing it –“constitutionally” speaking!

Have you ever been a practicing religious individual through your life-time so far?! –you see, this is the only notion, for me, that would make me think of you as “eligible” to claim that there is hypocrisy inherited in, only, the religion that you’re practicing. Otherwise, you’re not eligible for such a claimer!


You're either: A) on freebase cocaine (aka CRACK) or B) an 8th grade smarta$$ who has as good a grasp of language as Mike Tyson.

*Waits and sees if the guy will ever post here again*


*Grabs popcorn*

أعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَسْتَمِعُ إِلَيْكَ وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَى قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَنْ يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا وَإِنْ يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا حتى إِذَا >
جَاءُوكَ يُجَادِلُونَكَ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَذَا إِلا أَسَاطِيرُ الأوَّلِينَ
<
صدق الله العظيم


In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

<Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; if they saw every one of the signs, not they will believe in them; in so much that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients.">

Al-Qur'an, Chapter/Sura 6 (Al-Anaam), verse 25.

The verses:
Al-Qur'an, Chapter/Sura 17 (Al-Isra), verse 46.
Al-Qur'an, Chapter/Sura 18 (Al-Kahf), verse 57.
Are almost the same

Guys….!

I could foretell it would be this way in the end! I could do that ever since I first posted my first post.

Now, it is way far from the main issue. And, my exam will start in early June, so I don’t have more time…I might get back after the exams end.... in ... late June!

Arabic looks so cool!

What the hell is that guy talking about?

Guys….!

Whhat...... ! :eek: