Anti-Abortion Logic

[EricDaRed81]

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

[MVWRX]

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.

[HellaDumb]

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.

[MVWRX]

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...

[deyes]

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.

[SilverScoober02]

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!!

[deyes]

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

[EricDaRed81]

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.

[HellaDumb]

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.

[deyes]

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.

[EricDaRed81]

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.

[deyes]

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?

[dub2w]

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)

[EricDaRed81]

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?

[deyes]

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.

[EricDaRed81]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[deyes]

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?

[deyes]

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.

[HellaDumb]

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.

[EricDaRed81]

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

[deyes]

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?

[EricDaRed81]

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.

[scoobsport98]

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.

[deyes]

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.

[deyes]

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.

[EricDaRed81]

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

[deyes]

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.

[EricDaRed81]

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.

[deyes]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[Paul@dbtuned]

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]

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.

[sloppyjoe]

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.

[EricDaRed81]

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?

[SilverScoober02]

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.

[bassplayrr]

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

[deyes]

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.

[MVWRX]

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

[EricDaRed81]

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.

[deyes]

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.

[deyes]

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?

[EricDaRed81]

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?

[MVWRX]

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.

[subaruguru]

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?

[EricDaRed81]

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.

[MVWRX]

[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/

[deyes]

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

[subaruguru]

[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

[MVWRX]

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)

[deyes]

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.

[subaruguru]

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?

[MVWRX]

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.

[MVWRX]

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.

[subaruguru]

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.

[subaruguru]

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.

[MVWRX]

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...

[MVWRX]

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...

[subaruguru]

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.

[MVWRX]

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?

[WRX2ndregime]

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.

[Unregistered]

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!

[Paul@dbtuned]

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

[scoobsport98]

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.

[Petty]

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.

[SilverScoober02]

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"

[Petty]

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.

[Petty]

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

hopefully this could change your mind.

[SilverScoober02]

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

[deyes]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[deyes]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[subaruguru]

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.

[MVWRX]

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.

[deyes]

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."

[deyes]

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!

[subaruguru]

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.

[deyes]

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

[psoper]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[Unregistered]

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.

[subaruguru]

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?

[subaruguru]

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.

[psoper]

.... 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.

[deyes]

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.

[deyes]

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:

[deyes]

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.

[deyes]

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. :(

[subaruguru]

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"

[psoper]

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?

[deyes]

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"

[muddar]

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 t