NationStates Jolt Archive

Hoo, fun questions!

Let's see...

1) it seems like there must be some "starter" in the egg that makes it get going once the sperm cell gets to the nucleus. is that contained in the dna?

When an egg cell is fertilized, this will trigger "egg activation." Egg activation is a cascade of events that will prepare the egg for development. I'm not up to speed on the most recent research in this field, but I believe that the idea is that sperm may carry a particular protein or signaling molecule that cues the egg activation pathway. The pathway itself (all the proteins and such that cause the changes in the egg cell) are contained in the egg itself.

It is possible to trigger this pathway artificially. I think electric current has been used to do it, actually, though I'm not positive on that.

Now, if you want to talk about how the zygote "gets going" in terms of differentiating into various types of cells, that is almost exclusively due to the cytoplasm of the egg cell. The egg's cytoplasm isn't a uniform mixture; it's actually got a lot of gradients of mRNAs and proteins that the egg cell has made. When the zygote starts "cleaving" or partitioning off into more cells, each of those cells will have a particular mixture in its own cytoplasm. That mixture will have a very large impact on what path of differentiation that cell will take.


2) is it part of the egg nucleus seperate from its dna?

The egg's DNA is used to make the proteins and such that are involved in the egg activation pathway. However, these proteins are primarily found outside the cell's nucleus (in the cytoplasm).


3) is it something in the sperm itself?

While sperm most likely carry a signaling molecule that helps to trigger the egg activation pathway, sperm don't carry most of the proteins and organelles that actually cause egg activation. Picture it as if the sperm were a mail carrier who delivers a letter from Grandma that tells you she's coming to visit. That letter might trigger a fit of house-cleaning or a sudden urge to fill the fridge with real food. The message causes other processes to be set in motion.


4) will 2 sperm sets of dna share one space--one you remove the sperm part is dna, dna so that it will do what any complete set of dna will do?

I'm not positive I understand what you're asking, here. I think you're getting at the fact that sperm cells are haploid, and each contain only half the DNA needed for a complete new person-cell. Normally, a haploid sperm and a haploid egg each contribute half the DNA needed, resulting in a diploid zygote. However, in theory, you could use the DNA from two sperm to produce that diploid cell. But neither sperm has the cytoplasmic machinery and proteins necessary for a zygote, so you'd have to take that genetic material and put it into a "blank" egg.


It's also important, as a side note, to remember the mitochondria. Mitochondria are the energy factories in your cells, and they have their own DNA. When we talk about the sperm and egg each contributing half of your DNA, what that really refers to is NUCLEAR DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is another story. While both egg and sperm cells have mitochondria, the mitochondria from the sperm cell don't end up contributing genetically to the zygote and the daughter cells down the line. So all your mitochondrial DNA is from your mother's cells.

Don't think I saw it mentioned, and it may be the n00biest genetics question ever...

If you take a blank cell, and pop two sperm into it, and let them fuse...

What happens if you get YY?

(Yes - Grave just admitted there's something he didn't know).

Don't think I saw it mentioned, and it may be the n00biest genetics question ever...

If you take a blank cell, and pop two sperm into it, and let them fuse...

What happens if you get YY?

(Yes - Grave just admitted there's something he didn't know).

It would probably start dividing and then spontaneously stop developing at a certain point. There are too many necessary genes located on the X-chromosome - which this zygote would lack - for full development.

It would probably start dividing and then spontaneously stop developing at a certain point. There are too many necessary genes located on the X-chromosome - which this zygote would lack - for full development.

I figured it would probably be non-functional. Thanks.

'Allow'? In what way does YOUR morality have any cause to impinge on MY rights?

Rights and Bible not the same thing. See now you are mixing stuff like everyone else. According to USA and the Bill of Rights maybe Gay Marriage should be allowed. That is not the same thing as being okay in the Bible.


See the conflict?

Yes I very much do my Bible tells me it is wrong, my country tells me it is right. My Pope tells me it is wrong as well as my pastor. Even some States are trouble with the issue. Arizona has a Prop 8 like piece of legislation. California has one. Several other states as well. So it is not just me.


If YOU think it's a sin, if YOU think god forbids it... don't do it.


But a religious majority imposing those restrictions on EVERYONE, religious or otherwise, Christian or otherwise - is an abuse of the power of the majority.

This makes me laugh. Just because everyone thinks it doesn't make it right.


It's also pretty clear that it's discouraged to work on a Saturday, to eat shellfish, for a woman to talk in church, and to mix fabrics. But it's okay to force a rape victim to marry her rapist, to cut off your genitals, and to keep slaves.

Saturday for Jews and Sunday for Christians. I gave up shellfish, nah seriously I never like them, not much to give up. No one should be talking in church except the priest and the readers. The rest of that is Old Testament. Jesus never said anything about this one so we can't even undo it that way.


You have to ask yourself how much these encouragements and allowances SHOULD be allowed to influence a society that isn't wholy comprised of 'believers'.

Sigh I agree. Maybe we need to create a Christian State. We could all move there and you guys could have the rest of the country.



Read through your bible and find where it mentions the sins of gay marriage.

You already know them. Gay anything is pretty much frowned on.


Then look through and find where it mentions the sins of gay lust.

Mostly Romans. I think you know the passages as well.


Then look through and find where it mentions the sins of straight lust.

See this is where we differ he is quite okay with us being fruitful and multiplying. He is also okay with straight marriage. Incest right out. Although the Bible never said so explicitly I think it would have ended up in that category.


Compare those two numbers.

Of course because fornication and adultery are much more prevalent.


The big deal for the bible (especially the New Testament) is sex outside of the sanctity of marriage. Gay or straight.

Straight only. Gay was even considered why do you think that was?


The 'christian' solution in the case of straight couples - is to encourage them to get married - which makes the Christian opposition to gay marriage extremely hypocritical.

Then as a society are we condoning the action? I think we are and we are making it official in a way.


Morally correct is irrelevent.

Not to my people which is the problem.


Your morals have no right to be imposed on me.

There you go with rights again.


If you think that's unreasonable - I advise you to look at the increase in Islam in America, and consider that America may well be a majority Islamic state some time this century - and then ask yourself if YOU want to have that law deciding YOUR choices.

Yep we are headed for a showdown it is only a matter of time. Although I wonder what the issue that sets it off will be. You can almost feel it brewing.


Which is not the same. No one is arguing that Picasso was MORE than human. A really good hotdog is still a hotdog.

So you learned to play the piano when you were 6? Se many kids who can play the piano that early?



Everything you know about Satan comes from the same source. You believe Satan is evil because you trust a book that could have been WRITTEN by the very Satan you're accusing of being a liar.

It's illogical.

You clearly haven't actually read your Bible.

Yeah it is Christian. It sometime defies logic. It is called faith. It is the believe in things you can not see. It is the belief that God will work things out for the good of all. I have read my Bible many times. I prefer to focus on what right than whats wrong. Again I say God has done very well for me and I see no reason to turn my back on him now.


I realize I am in the minority with my views.

Well, at least you have clarified that you were not trying to be right about any of this.

Honestly, I was. What I wasn't trying to do was proving that my opinion is the only one right. I am aware that I am just a human, and my reasoning doesn't have to be always correct. Here is a question for everybody: Are you?


(A) If all of this is JUST YOUR OPINION (using your caps and bold), then none of it needs to matter to anyone but you unless you are a supreme court justice. Are you a supreme court justice, either state or federal?


Does it mean that only state institution can show its opinion publicly? Dude, that's fascist. ;)

Nothing posted here does really matter. It's just an Internet forum - It was invented to share our opinions.


(B) At this point, your relative tolerance or lack thereof is irrelevant compared to the insulting, ignorant, and factually incorrect content of your posts


Insulting? Oh come on. I already apologized for UNINTENTIONAL insulting in my first post and explained what was the reason of the accompanying incomprehension. When my views were factually incorrect I improved them and informed everybody that I did. Is this really that ignorant?


which echo many arguments of the most intolerant gay-haters. So your claims that you are not one of them kind of don't mean much in that
context.


If that's really what you think after reading my posts, especially newer, you probably didn't understand them completely. Well, maybe some of gay haters share my opinion on some issues, but there is one big difference - I don't hate anybody.


(C) Further, your claims that you are just trying to improve your views don't stand up well as I watch your posts get progressively lamer.


Really? Because I think I made a nice progress - From a guy who opposed gay people adopting children and advised them to stay closed, to one who doesn't have anything against the first thing or their efforts towards equality. I just wish they were more well-thought and, in some cases, less obscene.

They aren't getting lamer, and I think that you know it rather well. Whatever...

Hoo, fun questions!

Let's see...

1) it seems like there must be some "starter" in the egg that makes it get going once the sperm cell gets to the nucleus. is that contained in the dna?

When an egg cell is fertilized, this will trigger "egg activation." Egg activation is a cascade of events that will prepare the egg for development. I'm not up to speed on the most recent research in this field, but I believe that the idea is that sperm may carry a particular protein or signaling molecule that cues the egg activation pathway. The pathway itself (all the proteins and such that cause the changes in the egg cell) are contained in the egg itself.

It is possible to trigger this pathway artificially. I think electric current has been used to do it, actually, though I'm not positive on that.

Now, if you want to talk about how the zygote "gets going" in terms of differentiating into various types of cells, that is almost exclusively due to the cytoplasm of the egg cell. The egg's cytoplasm isn't a uniform mixture; it's actually got a lot of gradients of mRNAs and proteins that the egg cell has made. When the zygote starts "cleaving" or partitioning off into more cells, each of those cells will have a particular mixture in its own cytoplasm. That mixture will have a very large impact on what path of differentiation that cell will take.


2) is it part of the egg nucleus seperate from its dna?

The egg's DNA is used to make the proteins and such that are involved in the egg activation pathway. However, these proteins are primarily found outside the cell's nucleus (in the cytoplasm).


3) is it something in the sperm itself?

While sperm most likely carry a signaling molecule that helps to trigger the egg activation pathway, sperm don't carry most of the proteins and organelles that actually cause egg activation. Picture it as if the sperm were a mail carrier who delivers a letter from Grandma that tells you she's coming to visit. That letter might trigger a fit of house-cleaning or a sudden urge to fill the fridge with real food. The message causes other processes to be set in motion.


4) will 2 sperm sets of dna share one space--one you remove the sperm part is dna, dna so that it will do what any complete set of dna will do?

I'm not positive I understand what you're asking, here. I think you're getting at the fact that sperm cells are haploid, and each contain only half the DNA needed for a complete new person-cell. Normally, a haploid sperm and a haploid egg each contribute half the DNA needed, resulting in a diploid zygote. However, in theory, you could use the DNA from two sperm to produce that diploid cell. But neither sperm has the cytoplasmic machinery and proteins necessary for a zygote, so you'd have to take that genetic material and put it into a "blank" egg.


It's also important, as a side note, to remember the mitochondria. Mitochondria are the energy factories in your cells, and they have their own DNA. When we talk about the sperm and egg each contributing half of your DNA, what that really refers to is NUCLEAR DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is another story. While both egg and sperm cells have mitochondria, the mitochondria from the sperm cell don't end up contributing genetically to the zygote and the daughter cells down the line. So all your mitochondrial DNA is from your mother's cells.
it is so cool to be able to ask questions of someone who not only knows what they are talking about but knows how to explain clearly what they are talking about!

thanks.

i forgot about that mitochondrial dna thing.....wouldnt that issue complicate the using 2 women's "stuff" to create a new life? (if someone already asked, ill read between there and here for your answer.)

This makes me laugh. Just because everyone thinks it doesn't make it right.

So you would be ok with someone else enforcing their religious beliefs on you by instituting them into law?

No one should be talking in church except the priest and the readers.

But what if the priest/reverend/readers are female?

Sigh I agree. Maybe we need to create a Christian State. We could all move there and you guys could have the rest of the country.

I am a Christian and I still wouldn't want to move there. What I believe is not the same as every other Christian, and I would neither want them enforcing their beliefs on me nor would I want to do so to them.

Straight only. Gay was even considered why do you think that was?

There are multiple explanations. One is that they never really even thought that someone might be gay. They weren't, so how could anyone else be, right?

it is so cool to be able to ask questions of someone who not only knows what they are talking about but knows how to explain clearly what they are talking about!

thanks.

i forgot about that mitochondrial dna thing.....wouldnt that issue complicate the using 2 women's "stuff" to create a new life? (if someone already asked, ill read between there and here for your answer.)

Probably not. The method would probably be to take one woman's egg and then insert DNA from the other woman, not the whole egg.

Even if you did insert the whole egg, I don't think there would be any major problems with having two sets of mitochondrial DNA, as long as the overall number evened out. I'm not an expert in mitochondrial biology, so I'm not certain exactly how the number of mitochondria in a cell is regulated, but I believe it has to do with energy supply, so I don't think having two separate sets of mitochondrial DNA wouldn't really be likely to lead to having too many.

Probably not. The method would probably be to take one woman's egg and then insert DNA from the other woman, not the whole egg.

Even if you did insert the whole egg, I don't think there would be any major problems with having two sets of mitochondrial DNA, as long as the overall number evened out. I'm not an expert in mitochondrial biology, so I'm not certain exactly how the number of mitochondria in a cell is regulated, but I believe it has to do with energy supply, so I don't think having two separate sets of mitochondrial DNA wouldn't really be likely to lead to having too many.
thanks!

Honestly, I was. What I wasn't trying to do was proving that my opinion is the only one right. I am aware that I am just a human, and my reasoning doesn't have to be always correct. Here is a question for everybody: Are you?
I am perfectly well aware that I will not be correct on every single point of every single issue, but I am also aware that on the points YOU raise on THIS issue, I AM right.

And you are wrong. Wrong in your logic and wrong on many of your facts, as has been established throughout the thread.

Does it mean that only state institution can show its opinion publicly? Dude, that's fascist. ;)

Nothing posted here does really matter. It's just an Internet forum - It was invented to share our opinions.
Yeah, except that we are discussing something that is happening out there in the real world, affecting the lives of real people. So, follow:

1) You say XYZ. XYZ represents a mindset that other people are using in the real world to strip gays of human and civil rights.

2) You make arguments in support of XYZ.

3) I challenge your supportive arguments by pointing out the flaws within your arguments as well as the bad effects of applying XYZ in reality.

4) You come back with XYZ is just your opinion.

5) I point out that, if XYZ is just your opinion, then it does not matter BECAUSE THAT MAKES IT ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE AND EXCLUSIVE TO YOU AND THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO ANYONE ELSE OR TO THE LAW IN REAL LIFE.

6) Therefore, saying that "if it's just your opinion, then it doesn not matter" means that XYZ has EVEN LESS validity as a set of reasons for stripping gays of their rights.

7) And where does SCOTUS come in? Because they are a very small group of people whose opinions arguably do matter because their opinions actually determine what the law will be. If they express opinion XYZ, then they must be argued out of it. But if anyone else expresses opinion XYZ, then that person can just be dismissed as a crank and a bigot.

Insulting? Oh come on. I already apologized for UNINTENTIONAL insulting in my first post and explained what was the reason of the accompanying incomprehension. When my views were factually incorrect I improved them and informed everybody that I did. Is this really that ignorant?
I stand by what I said.

If that's really what you think after reading my posts, especially newer, you probably didn't understand them completely. Well, maybe some of gay haters share my opinion on some issues, but there is one big difference - I don't hate anybody.
And yet you persist in pressing arguments in support of the arguments that favor stripping them of their rights. And you seem not to understand the simple concept of "actions speak louder than words." Saying you don't hate them means nothing when you continue to be a spokesperson for an agenda that harms them.

Really? Because I think I made a nice progress - From a guy who opposed gay people adopting children and advised them to stay closed, to one who doesn't have anything against the first thing or their efforts towards equality. I just wish they were more well-thought and, in some cases, less obscene.

They aren't getting lamer, and I think that you know it rather well. Whatever...
You have more work to do. If you want another poster to cheer you on as you learn to walk on this issue, talk to someone else. I am not a nurturer. I demand better of you.

Rights and Bible not the same thing.
If you had stopped typing right there, you would have been correct.

We are talking about rights. They are not the same thing as the Bible. Therefore, the Bible has no place in a discussion of rights.

Done.

Hey I said I could be wrong. Plus I don't really care about the moral issue of homosexuality. Furthermore if these people want to get married they should form their own religion and claim protection under the first amendment.The MCC (Metropolitan Community Church) is largely gay, and performs same-sex weddings (as do other denominations that are not mostly gay), but: MARRIAGE is a strictly LEGAL institution, and religious ceremonies have nothing to do with it. The fact that a church will perform same-sex weddings does not mean that the law will recognize that ceremony as having any effect; much as it is possible to have a legal marriage without going anywhere near a church.

Eh.

Those parades probably did speed up gaining full political rights. But they didn't speed up gaining serious social respect, which was built through years. When did women start to fill the most important positions? DECADES after receiving their proper position in law.
IMO only the education can speed this process up, not fancy protests.

It's respect of the general society what homosexuality need right now, and what are they fighting for. They do have political rights like everybody, but who would elect one of them? And this stretches through all spheres of life - from upbringing children to politics.
Gaining equal rights under the law is a necessary prerequisite to gaining social equality-- just as it was for women.

Rights and Bible not the same thing. See now you are mixing stuff like everyone else. According to USA and the Bill of Rights maybe Gay Marriage should be allowed. That is not the same thing as being okay in the Bible.


It doesn't matter if it's okay with the Bible.

That's the point.

In voting, you are expressing your rights and responsibilities as citizens of THIS kingdom, so why do some of you insist on imposing the laws of some other kingodm on it?

According to the Constitution - there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Thus, if you actively oppose gay marriage, based on a religious belief, you are chosing to impose your religion over the top of the founding document of your nation.

This nation assured religious freedom - and yet today's Christians have deliberately forgotten that.


Yes I very much do my Bible tells me it is wrong, my country tells me it is right. My Pope tells me it is wrong as well as my pastor. Even some States are trouble with the issue. Arizona has a Prop 8 like piece of legislation. California has one. Several other states as well. So it is not just me.


It is not just you, no.

That doesn't mean you don't have to take control of your own destiny.

What other Christians are doing is - and this phrase is bandied around far too much - un-American. You should really decide where you wish to stand on that.

Your god told you to stand on the side of your nation, and to abstain from sins yourself, but not to involve yourself in the sinful cultures of strangers. You are placing yourself in opposition of country AND god, to side with church.


This makes me laugh. Just because everyone thinks it doesn't make it right.


Exactly.

The Christian majority, imposing it's will, is abusing it's power. It is a tyranny of the majority.


Saturday for Jews and Sunday for Christians.


Saturday is the Sabbath. You were just telling me about the need to keep the old laws (as they regard homosexuality), and yet you don't even observe the Sabbath.


I gave up shellfish, nah seriously I never like them, not much to give up. No one should be talking in church except the priest and the readers. The rest of that is Old Testament. Jesus never said anything about this one so we can't even undo it that way.


The 'cutting off your genitals' thing is New Testament.

Incidentally - the passage that talks about emasculating yourself, can also be read as condoning homosexuality.


Sigh I agree. Maybe we need to create a Christian State. We could all move there and you guys could have the rest of the country.


You will move to your Christian state, eventually... at least, that's what most Christians tell me.

But this was never intended to be it.


Gay anything is pretty much frowned on.


Which doesn't answer the question I asked.

I asked about gay marriage - show me where it is condemned.


See this is where we differ he is quite okay with us being fruitful and multiplying.


Within the bounds of marriage, or not?


He is also okay with straight marriage. Incest right out.


Unless you're Lot?

Or Adam?

Or Cain?


Of course because fornication and adultery are much more prevalent.


Right. Straight intercourse is condemned, just as gay intercourse is.


Straight only. Gay was even considered why do you think that was?


Paul said it was better to marry than to burn - he didn't specify if that meant for heterosexuals or homosexuals.

You're taking the fact that it doesn't EXPLICITLY say anywhere 'marriage can be gay or straight', to MEAN that it can ONLY be straight, and never gay.

The Bible doesn't say that anywhere.


Then as a society are we condoning the action? I think we are and we are making it official in a way.


Whether or not you condone it is irrelevant - sorry, but that really is a cop-out answer.


Not to my people which is the problem.


'Your people' are not even representative of all Christians - you're a specific subset of Christian that imposes YOUR religious belief on others.

It's a soft theocratic despotism.


There you go with rights again.


That's because the issue IS rights.

The Constitution guarantees rights, and you allow your religion to ride roughshod over them, if they don't meet YOUR personal approval. But that's exactly WHY the Constitution exists - to create a model REGARDLESS of personal approval.


So you learned to play the piano when you were 6? Se many kids who can play the piano that early?


Being an exceptional human doesn't mean being more than human.

Unless you are arguing that Salma Hayek is god, because she has such a fantastic ass.


Yeah it is Christian. It sometime defies logic. It is called faith.


You're missing the point. Your claims of faith... are based ona book, that you BELIEVE was written by a specific entity... BECAUSE it says so in that same book.

Do you not see how that is illogical?


I have read my Bible many times. I prefer to focus on what right than whats wrong.


What you SAID was: "Seriously I don't hear anything Evil or Selfish in these words. They seem fairly Altruistic to me. Love your neighbor and all that."

You seem to be shifting those goalposts quite vigourously.


I realize I am in the minority with my views.

No - you're in the majority - which is why people are deprived of rights they really shouldn't have ever even had to ask for, to receive.

Unless you are arguing that Salma Hayek is god, because she has such a fantastic ass.

Are you saying she's not?

Are you saying she's not?

I believe in Salma Hayek, and I am willing to worship that ass.

Thus, Salma Hayek =/= god.

QED.

:D

I believe in Salma Hayek, and I am willing to worship that ass.

Thus, Salma Hayek =/= god.

QED.

:D

Now that's what I call genuflecting!

I just lost a hell of a lot of typing to a careless step by my office-mate who was disentangling our computers.

So...all of you who might have been waiting on replies...uh...

SEZ YOU.

And for the rest of you arguing on the side of reason, keep fighting the good fight, I'm still reading.

I just lost a hell of a lot of typing to a careless step by my office-mate who was disentangling our computers.

So...all of you who might have been waiting on replies...uh...

SEZ YOU.

And for the rest of you arguing on the side of reason, keep fighting the good fight, I'm still reading.

Its not hard. The opposition keeps saying things like "There you go with rights again" and "I prefer to focus on what's right then what's wrong" (when illustrated that they're ignoring huge swaths of their own contradictory information.

You're making sense from where I sit, for whatever that's worth.

You could also look at it from the other direction, of course:

Individuals who grew up in abusive households are known to be far more likely to engage in violent behavior than individuals who did not grow up in abusive households. However, I don't see anybody pushing laws that would bar abuse victims from getting married simply because they're more likely to abuse somebody. That would be pretty fucked up, wouldn't it?

Just because a particular group may be more statistically likely to engage in violence, doesn't mean you should strip rights away from individual members of that group.

This is what I am trying to say, and why I argue that the argument that we should allow homosexuals simply because they will stay together longer or any other similar argument is at best a poor argument because it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Well, if we look at the past, criminals have had their rights such as voting stripped.

I just want to make the point I'm 100% for homosexual rights, and I'm just arguing because I enjoy a good debate.

But that is because they have broken the law not because they are statistically more likely to.

In my chauvinistic ideals and opinions I believe that there are people that should not be allowed to procreate, and if they do their children should be taken from them. This is a very 1984 idea, but hey I'm arguing different points to argue them. If extremely narrow minded, skin heads or neo-nazis were to procreate it would be the civil approach to take the children away and raise them in a more suitable environment because in the end they would most likely end up as skin heads or neo-nazi themselves (nature vs nurture on the side of nurture)

Thus some people should not have rights such as raising their own children because by raising their children in a certain way it would be a disservice to themselves and the country. I would much rather have hippies raise children than right wing conservatives.

I've gotten so tangential I should be drawn and quartered. I'm going to stop now.

You do realise that hippies can be just as abusive and negligent to their kids as right wing conservatives? Now those households where the child is going to be abused or mistreated then yes I would say take them away but only when their is a serve threat to the welfare of the child not because some statistician crunched a few numbers and said well people who had a drug addicted mother are going to abuse their child so we should take any kids they have away from them.

It would probably start dividing and then spontaneously stop developing at a certain point. There are too many necessary genes located on the X-chromosome - which this zygote would lack - for full development.

Lies! A Y-Y zygote would develop into a DOUBLE-STUD! Muy macho! Truly, and almost literally, a man's man.

Its not hard. The opposition keeps saying things like "There you go with rights again" and "I prefer to focus on what's right then what's wrong" (when illustrated that they're ignoring huge swaths of their own contradictory information.

Ah. Same shit, different church.

Lies! A Y-Y zygote would develop into a DOUBLE-STUD! Muy macho! Truly, and almost literally, a man's man.


There are men with two Y-chromsomes. However they also have an X-chromosomes (XYY instead of XY).

Earlier they where thought to be more violent since this combination was found more among prisoners. This has however been debunked, and there don't seem to be any difference between these males and normal males except that they are not as fertile. Which I guess means that they are less macho?

Technically a human can also be man despite having two X-chromosomes if certain genes are (naturally) transfered to the X-chromosome.

Probably not. The method would probably be to take one woman's egg and then insert DNA from the other woman, not the whole egg.

Even if you did insert the whole egg, I don't think there would be any major problems with having two sets of mitochondrial DNA, as long as the overall number evened out. I'm not an expert in mitochondrial biology, so I'm not certain exactly how the number of mitochondria in a cell is regulated, but I believe it has to do with energy supply, so I don't think having two separate sets of mitochondrial DNA wouldn't really be likely to lead to having too many.
I don't know for sure either, but I would imagine it wouldn't be a problem because pretty much everybody starts out with two sets of mitochondrial DNA. When the sperm fuses with the egg, the entire contents (or, to use the technical term, the "guts") of the sperm get dumped into the egg. Sperm contain tons of mitochondria because they need to be energetic little swimmers, so that's a whole bunch of mitochondria with their own DNA getting dumped into the cell. I would assume that the egg cell simply has a means to "ignore" the new mitochondria and keep using its own.

EDIT: Whoops, this was a reply to what Demi replied to, but I fail at creating quote pyramids.

There are men with two Y-chromsomes. However they also have an X-chromosomes (XYY instead of XY).

Earlier they where thought to be more violent since this combination was found more among prisoners. This has however been debunked, and there don't seem to be any difference between these males and normal males except that they are not as fertile. Which I guess means that they are less macho?

klienfelter's syndrom if i remeber right? and symptoms do include an increased libido as well as difficulty (increased difficulty that is) expressing one's self esspecialy in emotional matters.

I am perfectly well aware that I will not be correct on every single point of every single issue, but I am also aware that on the points YOU raise on THIS issue, I AM right.
That’s partially what I was talking about. But ok, go on.


And you are wrong. Wrong in your logic and wrong on many of your facts, as has been established throughout the thread.


Many of them? But you still didn't answered or even named too many of them.


Yeah, except that we are discussing something that is happening out there in the real world, affecting the lives of real people:


So? I haven’t really seen many serious discussions which really didn’t. But whatever, let’s go further.


1) You say XYZ. XYZ represents a mindset that other people are using in the real world to strip gays of human and civil rights.


Maybe those people are frikkin' hypocrites and don't even know the true meaning of XYZ? Maybe they are in favor of it because they don’t understand it and see it as a good way to justify their hatred?


3) I challenge your supportive arguments by pointing out the flaws within your arguments as well as the bad effects of applying XYZ in reality.

4) You come back with XYZ is just your opinion.


But XYZ WON'T be applied in real world just because I think that it is right. I can’t directly change the world, nor can you. That's why for me, for you, those are just opinions (some of you acted like you had forgot about it, that’s why I have reminded it so many times) I can defend my views, and you can try to make them change. And that’s all about it.


5) I point out that, if XYZ is just your opinion, then it does not matter BECAUSE THAT MAKES IT ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE AND EXCLUSIVE TO YOU AND THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO ANYONE ELSE OR TO THE LAW IN REAL LIFE.


Like above.


6) Therefore, saying that "if it's just your opinion, then it does not matter" means that XYZ has EVEN LESS validity as a set of reasons for stripping gays of their rights.


That sounds like I used it to strip gays from their laws. I didn't. Sorry, but you don't act like you completely understood my intentions.


And yet you persist in pressing arguments in support of the arguments that favor stripping them of their rights. And you seem not to understand the simple concept of "actions speak louder than words.


I have just answered this issue like few times before. In short, I have already understood that action is needed, just criticize some of its methods.


" Saying you don't hate them means nothing when you continue to be a spokesperson for an agenda that harms them.


I' am nobody's spokesperson, especially a spokesperson of some full of hatred ignorants.


You have more work to do. If you want another poster to cheer you on as you learn to walk on this issue, talk to someone else. I am not a nurturer. I demand better of you.

That's sweet you care about me so much. But I already regret posting in here. Maybe in some other thread we will be able to get along, who knows.


I stand by what I said.

This is to much, sorry, I tried.
And YOU are calling me ignorant? No, sorry, But you didn't even refuted most of my arguments (though you called them lame and now your main card is that someone full of hatred show some views a bit ALIKE SOME of mine - but the point is, what I have already told you is that I don't hate anybody). And now you just speak about my intention just like you knew better. My only intention right now - is to get your acceptation of the fact that I am not some gay basher. I only criticize some methods of homosexuals' fight.

Now I am not even trying to show why my reasons are right to me - I am just tired of talking with people like they were some chatbot, which just won't keep in mind the whole discussion, which just doesn't accept some facts. Not everyone, but many of you act like this, sorry I must admit that.

Nah, people, sorry for getting this attitude but discussion like that is no fun. :(

klienfelter's syndrom if i remeber right? and symptoms do include an increased libido as well as difficulty (increased difficulty that is) expressing one's self esspecialy in emotional matters.

No, Klinefelters is when you are XXY, and give much more severe effects.

XYY can give higher risk of learning dysfunctions (50% risk compared to 10% for normal men) and later development of the language. 1 in 1000 males have this so it is actually quite common.

No, Klinefelters is when you are XXY, and give much more severe effects.

XYY can give higher risk of learning dysfunctions (50% risk compared to 10% for normal men) and later development of the language. 1 in 1000 males have this so it is actually quite common.

aw shucks my bad your right. Sorry i thought Klienfelters covered all trisomy 23s.

aw shucks my bad your right. Sorry i thought Klienfelters covered all trisomy 23s.

Actually one effect of XYY is that you are an average of 7 centimeters longer...however it doesn't say what gets 7 centimeters longer :)

lol maybe I DO have it lmao :D(<---- gratuitous sexual inuendo)

Sigh I agree. Maybe we need to create a Christian State. We could all move there and you guys could have the rest of the country.

A christian state already exists... (http://www.vatican.va/)

Unless you are arguing that Salma Hayek is god, because she has such a fantastic ass.

Now that's a religion I could get behind... :p ;)

Good point. To my knowledge there has not been a Christian Theocracy so we have to wait. Assuming you wanted to get rid of all us. This is all we would have to do, setup a Christian Theocracy. Some or a lot of the Christian would relocate. You guys get a country where you can do whatever you want without interference from us. We get a country with the rule of the Church. Everyone is happy? For the record I would relocate. For some reason I still think people would still rain on our parade. Oh well I can dream.

A christian state already exists... (http://www.vatican.va/)

Yeah. And that's just the most obvious. There's also, for example, the Roman Fucking Empire after Christianity was made the state religion.

Well, the sad part for you is that you don't get to dictate the rules for people outside your church.

Another sadness for you is that worrying about "push back" from you and the likes of you is not a primary concern for those fighting for equal rights for all people. Your feelings about a word are not as important, let alone more important, than other people's legal standing in society and access to equal protection of the law.

If anyone is "pushing back" here it, I would say it is supporters of gay rights against people like you, who wish to stymie social progress and prevent others from improving their lot in life for no apparent purpose than your own superficial privileges.

Those privileges, by the way, did not exist until people like you invented them and are claimed by no one but people like you. So it seems to me that the "just don't call it marriage" argument amounts to little more than "you shouldn't be allowed to be married because I say so." Guess what our response to that is always going to be.

You advise us who fight for rights to accommodate you so we'll get less "push back" from you? Well, two can play that game, TB. If you stop bitching about that one little word, you'll experience less "push back" from those who are fighting for a real legal right in the US.

Understand that what is at stake for gays seeking equal rights is infinitely more vital and valuable than your jealousy over a word. Citing "just don't call it marriage because we call dibs on that word for ourselves" expresses a jealousy over a privilege so petty and small that it is an insult to the entire movement for the civil and human rights of gays.


What's wrong with compromising? Homosexuals get all the rights of a marriage while the conservatives get to say that marriage is holy.

What's wrong with compromising? Homosexuals get all the rights of a marriage while the conservatives get to say that marriage is holy.

Whats wrong with compromising? Those n*ggers get all the rights of being citizens, they just stay the fuck out of my neighborhood.

What's wrong with compromising?

In the matter of equality under the law? The problem with compromising is that it means you do not reach your goal. Having someone a little bit less of a second class citizen doesn't change the fact that they are still second class citizens.

Whats wrong with compromising? Those n*ggers get all the rights of being citizens, they just stay the fuck out of my neighborhood.

If homosexuals want rights then they need to be patient. It took the African Americans 100 years to gain all the rights they wanted and then they had to wait longer for the respect to follow along with it. I'm not saying that it is going to be that slow for homosexuals but all of Rome was not built in a day.

If homosexuals wan't rights then they need to be patient. It took the "African Americans" 100 years to gain all the rights they wanted and then they had to wait longer for the respect to follow along with it.

And thats a fucking embarassment that speaks very very poorly about the US.


When you have an oppertunity for rights, you take it, and ignore the whining of he bigots. Rome wasnt built by appeasing their enemies, to go along with your analogy.

And thats a fucking embarassment that speaks very very poorly about the US.


When you have an oppertunity for rights, you take it, and ignore the whining of he bigots. Rome wasnt built by appeasing their enemies, to go along with your analogy.

Well that is what really happened I'm not proud of it but it is what it is.

I didn't say that they should comply I said they should have patience. Someone in here suggested that they petition for civil union and then just wait awhile and then have the name change once people have gotten used to it. If they try to get all of their demands met now then the people are going to resist and not give them anything (passing of prop 8 in california for example). I think that the best course of action is to compromise on most of their demands and then complete their goals down the road aways.

If homosexuals want rights then they need to be patient. It took the African Americans 100 years to gain all the rights they wanted and then they had to wait longer for the respect to follow along with it. I'm not saying that it is going to be that slow for homosexuals but all of Rome was not built in a day.
Point made...
And thats a fucking embarassment that speaks very very poorly about the US.


When you have an oppertunity for rights, you take it, and ignore the whining of he bigots. Rome wasnt built by appeasing their enemies, to go along with your analogy.
Point destroyed.

When you have an oppertunity for rights, you take it, and ignore the whining of he bigots.

Furthermore I don't believe you have the right to call these people bigots. They are just following their faith and are acting according to what you believe. Just because you don't agree with their opinions does not mean that they are wrong.

Furthermore I don't believe you have the right to call these people bigots. They are just following their faith and are acting according to what you believe. Just because you don't agree with their opinions does not mean that they are wrong.

He has the right to call them whatever he likes, and they are bigoted. I have been labelled a bigot for less.

I didn't say that they should comply I said they should have patience.Someone in here suggested that they petition for civil union and then just wait awhile and then have the name change once people have gotten used to it. If they try to get all of their demands met now then the people are going to resist and not give them anything (passing of prop 8 in california for example). I think that the best course of action is to compromise on most of their demands and then complete their goals down the road aways.

Proposition Eight has done more harm to the bigots then good. Its mobilized the gay rights group in a way that it wasnt before.

You dont cooperate with people that hate you. The bigots will never change their minds. You take your rights. If African Americans could have gotten them all at once, would you hav cautioned then to be patient?

He has the right to call them whatever he likes, and they are bigoted. I have been labelled a bigot for less.

damn forgot about the first amendment. sorry 'bout that.

Furthermore I don't believe you have the right to call these people bigots. They are just following their faith and are acting according to what you believe. Just because you don't agree with their opinions does not mean that they are wrong.

No, see, they are bigots. They are the very definition of it.

And trying to enforce their narrow minded world view, based off a centuries old book written by cattle sacrifing primitives, in a country that is secular and based off the rule of law and the ideals of equality and personal freedom IS wrong, no matter how much you serve as their apologist.

Proposition Eight has done more harm to the bigots then good. Its mobilized the gay rights group in a way that it wasnt before.

You dont cooperate with people that hate you. The bigots will never change their minds. You take your rights. If African Americans could have gotten them all at once, would you hav cautioned then to be patient?

Thats just the thing, they can't get all their rights at once. There are too many people currently apposed to gay marriage for that to happen now. They need to work to change public opinion and if they want anything while they're waiting for results from that venture then they should compromise.

damn forgot about the first amendment. sorry 'bout that.

I ain't a Yank and I don't think he is. We have free speech here ya know.

Thats just the thing, they can't get all their rights at once.

Mass, Vermont, and Iowa disagee.

There are too many people currently apposed to gay marriage for that to happen now. They need to work to change public opinion and if they want anything while they're waiting for results from that venture then they should compromise.

Great thing about the Consitution, it doesnt matter what the bigots want. The law is the law. Rights are not subject to the majority.

No, see, they are bigots. They are the very definition of it.

And trying to enforce their narrow minded world view, based off a centuries old book written by cattle sacrifing primitives, in a country that is secular and based off the rule of law and the ideals of equality and personal freedom IS wrong, no matter how much you serve as their apologist.

I am a christian. I don't apologize for them. All I am trying to do is to find a decent way that the two sides can compromise.

I ain't a Yank and I don't think he is. We have free speech here ya know.

Well this is embarrising. Well I forgot about the fundamental freedom of speech in general and I apologize.

I ain't a Yank and I don't think he is. We have free speech here ya know.

Close. Im a yank.


I just talk so much shit about America is often times hard to tell:D

Well this is embarrising. Well I forgot about the fundamental freedom of speech in general and I apologize.

I forgive you, I only hope god will do the same.

Close. Im a yank.


I just talk so much shit about America is often times hard to tell:D

Well thats the whole reason America was founded.

I didn't say that they should comply I said they should have patience.

Someone shouldn't have to wait patiently for equal rights.

Someone in here suggested that they petition for civil union and then just wait awhile and then have the name change once people have gotten used to it.

It's one possible way of doing things. Of course, it could backfire. There'd be a lot of "Well, they got civil unions. Why would they want more?"

Furthermore I don't believe you have the right to call these people bigots. They are just following their faith and are acting according to what you believe. Just because you don't agree with their opinions does not mean that they are wrong.

Are homosexuals less worthy of equal protection under the law?

If not, then those people are wrong. And yes, they are bigots, just as someone who made the same argument about a minority ethnicity would be.

Someone who believes homosexuality to be wrong can live by their faith by not engaging in homosexual relationships. They don't need to enforce that faith on others.

I am a christian. I don't apologize for them. All I am trying to do is to find a decent way that the two sides can compromise.

In most issues, I'm a big proponent of compromise. Not so much on matters of civil rights, though. I understand the point of view that one might get there in steps, but the ultimate goal must be full equality.

Close. Im a yank.


I just talk so much shit about America is often times hard to tell:D

It is! Really? You're one of... one of them?

It is! Really? You're one of... one of them?

"Them" in the sense of me living on the landmass that is the United States of America.

Not "them" in the sense that share very little in common with most of my Usian cohorts in terms of politics and worldview:D

Now that's a religion I could get behind... :p ;)

I like the addition of the pokey out tongue smiley. That's conviction.

Someone shouldn't have to wait patiently for equal rights.

Your absolutly right they shouldn't. But most times minorites do have to wait.



It's one possible way of doing things. Of course, it could backfire. There'd be a lot of "Well, they got civil unions. Why would they want more?"

Which is why I said they should work a public relations thing to promote understanding

Are homosexuals less worthy of equal protection under the law?

If not, then those people are wrong. And yes, they are bigots, just as someone who made the same argument about a minority ethnicity would be.

Someone who believes homosexuality to be wrong can live by their faith by not engaging in homosexual relationships. They don't need to enforce that faith on others.

I already clarified that statement.

Your absolutly right they shouldn't. But most times minorites do have to wait.





Which is why I said they should work a public relations thing to promote understanding



I already clarified that statement.




The great thing about the US is when it comes to rights, who gets them, and the Constitution, what the public wants doesnt really matter.

So, no, they dont need to work on a "public relations" campaign.

The great thing about the US is when it comes to rights, who gets them, and the Constitution, what the public wants doesnt really matter.

So, no, they dont need to work on a "public relations" campaign.

If they want respect they'll have to.

And if I remember correctly back to Plessy v. Ferguson what the public wants does affect who gets what rights.

Well that is what really happened I'm not proud of it but it is what it is.

I didn't say that they should comply I said they should have patience.

Why should they have patience?

I see no reason.

If they want respect they'll have to.


You get respect when you have rights. Most people already respect gays. A vocal minority of homophobes will never respect them.

And if I remember correctly back to Plessy v. Ferguson what the public wants does affect who gets what rights.

Really? The public voted on that case?


Youre full of crap.

Well that is what really happened I'm not proud of it but it is what it is.

I didn't say that they should comply I said they should have patience. Someone in here suggested that they petition for civil union and then just wait awhile and then have the name change once people have gotten used to it. If they try to get all of their demands met now then the people are going to resist and not give them anything (passing of prop 8 in california for example). I think that the best course of action is to compromise on most of their demands and then complete their goals down the road aways.

In every era of civil rights, there are those who say "wait patiently, and maybe some day the bigots will let you have your rights."

And every time, those on the side of equality only prevail when we say "fuck that, we're not going to compromise anymore. This injustice ends now!"

So it was with Blacks. And with Women. And every other oppressed minority-- oppression only ever ends when the oppressed seize liberty whether the oppressors like it or not.

Furthermore I don't believe you have the right to call these people bigots. They are just following their faith and are acting according to what you believe. Just because you don't agree with their opinions does not mean that they are wrong.

I agree. It's just like with black people: if somebody believes that black people should not have the right to vote, then they aren't bigoted as long as it's their faith and they are acting according to their beliefs. Just because you don't agree with their opinions does not mean that they are wrong.

Oh wait, no. That's a stupid argument.

Furthermore I don't believe you have the right to call these people bigots. They are just following their faith and are acting according to what you believe.

None of which is contrary to them being bigots.

NO its not what u do in ur life is nobody eles bissnes

NO its not what u do in ur life is nobody eles bissnes

u sed it m8

Thats just the thing, they can't get all their rights at once. There are too many people currently apposed to gay marriage for that to happen now. They need to work to change public opinion and if they want anything while they're waiting for results from that venture then they should compromise.

But they SHOULD get all their rights, shouldn't they?

If everyone takes the approach of sitting back and hoping the situation will eventually sort itself out... it probably will. Eventually.

On the other hand, if people start applying pressure, educating, and unifying NOW, well maybe there'll be equality in THIS lifetime, rather than that of our children's children.

You get respect when you have rights. Most people already respect gays. A vocal minority of homophobes will never respect them.



Really? The public voted on that case?


Youre full of crap.

You're right I am full of crap... and alot of other things. Of course the public didn't vote on that case but as with earlier cases prevailing pubilc opinion influenced the case. The justices who are part of the public just like everyone else shared the opinion of the majority and decided to restrict peoples rights even though it was later proved unconstitutional.

u sed it m8

I woz gonna say dat.

None of which is contrary to them being bigots.

Ok fine I made a mistake there. I just don't appreciate someone being told their opinion is wrong when it is impossible to have an opinion that is "right".

Which is why I said they should work a public relations thing to promote understanding

They do. There are all sorts of awareness campaigns and the like.

Unfortunately, such things rarely sway those who are already bigoted. Generally, we just have to wait for those people to die out.

"Them" in the sense of me living on the landmass that is the United States of America.

Not "them" in the sense that share very little in common with most of my Usian cohorts in terms of politics and worldview:D

I'm in a state of shock. You always seemed so... British.

Ok fine I made a mistake there. I just don't appreciate someone being told their opinion is wrong when it is impossible to have an opinion that is "right".

No one said it was wrong, they said it was bigoted.

No one said it was wrong, they said it was bigoted.

Well maybe not these people but I could probably find statements from earlier in this thread.

And why am I being overwhelmed with rebuttals? I'm neither for nor against gay rights all I tried to do was suggest a compromise.

Ok fine I made a mistake there. I just don't appreciate someone being told their opinion is wrong when it is impossible to have an opinion that is "right".

Oooh! Oooh! I get to bust out one of my favorite quotes ever:

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

-- Douglas Adams

Oooh! Oooh! I get to bust out one of my favorite quotes ever:

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

-- Douglas Adams

Whether or not an argument is supported has nothing to do with how right or wrong it is.

Well maybe not these people but I could probably find statements from earlier in this thread.

And why am I being overwhelmed with rebuttals? I'm neither for nor against gay rights all I tried to do was suggest a compromise.

That's the problem. Compromise is anti equality. Either people are equal, or we are not. If we compromised on civil rights for black people, we'd integrate schools but still have "colored' and "white" fountains.

Well maybe not these people but I could probably find statements from earlier in this thread.

And why am I being overwhelmed with rebuttals? I'm neither for nor against gay rights all I tried to do was suggest a compromise.

They shouldn't get a compromise. What good is that? They should be equal. But your backwards state is clearly to stupid to realise this.

That's the problem. Compromise is anti equality. Either people are equal, or we are not. If we compromised on civil rights for black people, we'd integrate schools but still have "colored' and "white" fountains.

They did that? I thought they just had white and black schools.

Whether or not an argument is supported has nothing to do with how right or wrong it is.

Sure it does. A conclusion that follows from a well-reasoned argument is far more likely to be correct than one supported by nothing, or by purely fallacious arguments.

They did that? I thought they just had white and black schools.

You missed my point. My point was, it would have been wrong to "compromise" on school integration-- anybody who didn't like black people going to their school had to deal.

You missed my point. My point was, it would have been wrong to "compromise" on school integration-- anybody who didn't like black people going to their school had to deal.

I said they should TEMPORARILY compromise. I didn't say they should make a compromise and give up there. I said they should take small steps and acheive what they want when they have more people on their side.

I said they should TEMPORARILY compromise. I didn't say they should make a compromise and give up there. I said they should take small steps and acheive what they want when they have more people on their side.

Well it's hardly a huge leap to give them equal rights.
#
Now you've got a black president, I wonder how long it will be before you get a gay one.

Well it's hardly a huge leap to give them equal rights.
#
Now you've got a black president, I wonder how long it will be before you get a gay one.

He or she will have to wait in line behind whoever is going to be the first women president. Homosexuals will probably need to have at least a little more role in government for that to happen. Any all of my opinions are based on the belief that the large majority of the population is still uncomfortable with gay marriage. If you can proove me wrong then I will freely admit that I had a foolish opinion.

You people must not have read Hobbes or 1984.

I said they should TEMPORARILY compromise. I didn't say they should make a compromise and give up there. I said they should take small steps and acheive what they want when they have more people on their side.

The problem is that there are likely a number of people who will be satisfied with a compromise.
"Oh," they might say, "There. We got rights that are equal, just separate, for gay people. Mission accomplished, we don't need to fight anymore!"

Equality or bust. If the bigots don't like it, then tough shit for them. I have no more sympathy for anti-gay bigots than I do for segregationists.

Again, never has an oppressed group gained liberty and equality without struggle, without offending those who would keep the status quo. Why do you think this time will be any different?

He or she will have to wait in line behind whoever is going to be the first women president. Homosexuals will probably need to have at least a little more role in government for that to happen. Any all of my opinions are based on the belief that the large majority of the population is still uncomfortable with gay marriage. If you can proove me wrong then I will freely admit that I had a foolish opinion.

It doesn't matter what percentage of the population is bigoted. Equality is equality, and those who don't like it can fuck off.

You people must not have read Hobbes or 1984.

Wrong. I imagine most everybody here has read 1984, and a number have probably read Hobbes. We're quite the well-read bunch.

The problem is that there are likely a number of people who will be satisfied with a compromise.
"Oh," they might say, "There. We got rights that are equal, just separate, for gay people. Mission accomplished, we don't need to fight anymore!"

Equality or bust. If the bigots don't like it, then tough shit for them. I have no more sympathy for anti-gay bigots than I do for segregationists.

Again, never has an oppressed group gained liberty and equality without struggle, without offending those who would keep the status quo. Why do you think this time will be any different?

Because your not only arguing with beliefs that people passed through their family your going straight against what the bible and the church say about homosexuality. The bible is in this instance actually pretty clear about not "laying in bed with another man."

Because your not only arguing with beliefs that people passed through their family your going straight against what the bible and the church say about homosexuality. The bible is in this instance actually pretty clear about not "laying in bed with another man."

And? I don't give a fuck how they justify their bigotry; I just want equal rights for my fellow human beings. The Bible is quite clear about slavery too: it even says that you can beat your slaves as hard as you want as long as they survive for three days after.

It doesn't matter what percentage of the population is bigoted. Equality is equality, and those who don't like it can fuck off.



Wrong. I imagine most everybody here has read 1984, and a number have probably read Hobbes. We're quite the well-read bunch.

1984 is where I get my opinion of there not being such a thing as right and wrong. Although we would agree with Winston that the government does not have a right to spy on people like they do because everyone around him disagrees he is technically wrong and is deemed crazy. So intern I don't think it is fair that we as a society can say that someones beliefs make them wrong or crazy. No matter how outlandish the things they believe in may seem.

And I apologize for making the assumption that we were not all well read.

And? I don't give a fuck how they justify their bigotry; I just want equal rights for my fellow human beings. The Bible is quite clear about slavery too: it even says that you can beat your slaves as hard as you want as long as they survive for three days after.

You may not care, but if the majority of society thinks that they do not deserve rights than you can be damn sure they are going to do all in their power to make sure they don't get it. And contrary to what you may believe they could probably be a real nuisance on the way to equality.

Ok fine I made a mistake there. I just don't appreciate someone being told their opinion is wrong when it is impossible to have an opinion that is "right".

One 'opinion' is inculcated in the very language that defines the antion.

If you live in that nation, and your 'opinion' fits - you are 'right' and ANYONE else, is wrong.

Sorry - that's just how it is.

Well maybe not these people but I could probably find statements from earlier in this thread.

And why am I being overwhelmed with rebuttals? I'm neither for nor against gay rights all I tried to do was suggest a compromise.

Suggesting compromise means you are against gay rights.

I truely don't support or endorse homosexuality. I don't see how it came to be either. I have never read anything that was based between Ancient times to the 19-century with a homosexual couple. I grew up knowing people marry into man & woman relationships.

But if the world comes to this, what can you do?

Suggesting compromise means you are against gay rights.

How?

Because your not only arguing with beliefs that people passed through their family your going straight against what the bible and the church say about homosexuality. The bible is in this instance actually pretty clear about not "laying in bed with another man."

1) But curiously silent on gay marriage.

2) Irrelevant, anyway - basing our laws on the religious doctrine of whichever group happens to have the majority is probably not a road that even Christians really want us to embark on.

How?

Group A wants the same rights as Group B and Group C - and has a legitimate claim.

Group A thus, should get the same rights.

Compromise means that they do NOT get the same rights.


Thus - by suggesting compromise, you are actually working against gay rights.

Suggesting compromise means you are against gay rights.

To be fair, if one is suggesting it as a step on the road to full equality, that doesn't mean that one is against equal rights.


I have never read anything that was based between Ancient times to the 19-century with a homosexual couple.

So you haven't read much history, then?

Not wrong.

Just kinda wierd.

I truely don't support or endorse homosexuality. I don't see how it came to be either. I have never read anything that was based between Ancient times to the 19-century with a homosexual couple. I grew up knowing people marry into man & woman relationships.


The fact that you are not very well read, shouldn't matter. But, apparently, it does.


But if the world comes to this, what can you do?

Celebrate the wonderous variety of human life.

Seriously - we're talking about love. We're talking about people that LOVE each other. How is that so hard to tolerate?

But how is the population going to grow, if there are no women for men or men for women? For they'll all be in bed with the same sex. I don't understand how this should be legal, it would hurt us economically eventually.

To be fair, if one is suggesting it as a step on the road to full equality, that doesn't mean that one is against equal rights.


I disagree. The 'compromise' that is offered isn't 'well meet you halfway' - it's 'will you shut up if...'

That's not a compromise that works towards equal rights, it's meeting someone else 100% of the way, and accomodating.

The fact that you are not very well read, shouldn't matter. But, apparently, it does.



Celebrate the wonderous variety of human life.

Seriously - we're talking about love. We're talking about people that LOVE each other. How is that so hard to tolerate?

Love? How do we even know what love is? How can we say that they deserve this just because they "love" each other?

I'm sorry, its just not something I'm used to. I'm not against gay people, I have friends who are gay but its not the most comfortable thing to know.

But how is the population going to grow, if there are no women for men or men for women? For they'll all be in bed with the same sex. I don't understand how this should be legal, it would hurt us economically eventually.

Ok now I have to disagree with you. All of this only happens in theory. Most likely the amount of gays is going to stay the same seeing as they cannot reproduce. This means that society and the population will be just fine.(Though if the population did decrease as a result of this then I would be just fine with that.)

But how is the population going to grow, if there are no women for men or men for women? For they'll all be in bed with the same sex. I don't understand how this should be legal, it would hurt us economically eventually.

First - legalising gay marriage, or acknowledging gay sexuality... doesn't mean making it compulsary. So the idea that suddenly 100% of women are boffing other women and 100% of men are off bumping ugly with other men... is patently ridiculous.

Second - I have lesbian friends that have children because - DESPITE being lesbians, they are also smart enough to know that an innie-plus-an-innie doesn't give you babies. They found accomodations to this situation. (I also have gay friends, but the dynamic is slightly different when neither partner can give birth).

So - even if everyone WAS hopping in bed with the same sex - they could still arguably manage to make children.

Love? How do we even know what love is? How can we say that they deserve this just because they "love" each other?

How can you say anyone loves anyone?

That's irrelevant quibbling over the terminology. The relationships we grant to heterosexuals are based on an ASSUMPTION of love. You can even change your legal status as an immigrant, etc - based on the assumption of love.

And, when a man and a woman choose to marry, in our societies, it is taken as read that they 'love' each other... or - if they don't, we don't care.

So why plead special exception just because both people stood in front of the preacher are brides?

I'm sorry, its just not something I'm used to. I'm not against gay people, I have friends who are gay but its not the most comfortable thing to know.

Why?

Because maybe they 'fancy' you?

Are you really that irresistable to the same sex?

its wrong

But how is the population going to grow, if there are no women for men or men for women? For they'll all be in bed with the same sex. I don't understand how this should be legal, it would hurt us economically eventually.

Riiiiight. I'm calling Poe on this one.

its wrong

if its wrong why does it feel right

Well I say that because of that fact that there are so many heterosexuals that claim to love someone then divorce them. I am not even sure if society as a whole even understands what love is anymore which is why I made my previous statement.

Why?

Because maybe they 'fancy' you?

Are you really that irresistable to the same sex?

I cannot deny that I say this partly because of my religion and partly because of my homophobia.

if its wrong why does it feel right

new signature.

new signature.

*cough*

I think the real question is - is a three-way involving myself and two women wrong?

If it is, I don't want to be right.

But how is the population going to grow, if there are no women for men or men for women? For they'll all be in bed with the same sex. I don't understand how this should be legal, it would hurt us economically eventually.

Wow. How convincing. Because legalization of gay marriage will make us ALL gay!

Wow. How convincing. Because legalization of gay marriage will make us ALL gay!
Didn't you get the memo of The Gay Agenda?

crap I saved it but it is not showing up. What do I do?

Looks like it's showing up. You need to compress it a little bit, though. We're only allowed 8 lines in the signature.

good idea

Well I say that because of that fact that there are so many heterosexuals that claim to love someone then divorce them. I am not even sure if society as a whole even understands what love is anymore which is why I made my previous statement.

I don't care about whether society as a whole understands love. I don't care if society as a whole likes to lube up baseball bats with peanut butter and then swivel round on top.

What I care about, is that people are being denied the 'rights' inherent in 'loving one another', BECAUSE of who they would choose as a partner... and being ALLOWED those rights, if they pick the option with the right number of holes.

That's bullshit.

How can you tell me that gay marriage cheapens the institution, when I can get married in a DRIVE-THROUGH in Vegas? When Britney-the-media-darling can opt in an out of (straight) wedlock in the time it takes me to get to and from work? When you can get married by someone dressed as Elvis?

The 'sanctity of marriage' is a lie. It's sacred to those who make it sacred, and it's not to anyone else. My marriage isn't sacred to you, and yours would make bugger all difference to my life - and that's whether you married a boy or a girl. Or a fish. That's how little difference it would make.

I cannot deny that I say this partly because of my religion and partly because of my homophobia.

Your religion is a personal relationship between you and god. It shouldn't be setting the rules for the personal relationships between your neighbour and her girlfriend.

Regarding homophobia - how would granting rights change that?

new signature.

*bows*

I don't care about whether society as a whole understands love. I don't care if society as a whole likes to lube up baseball bats with peanut butter and then swivel round on top.

What I care about, is that people are being denied the 'rights' inherent in 'loving one another', BECAUSE of who they would choose as a partner... and being ALLOWED those rights, if they pick the option with the right number of holes.

That's bullshit.

How can you tell me that gay marriage cheapens the institution, when I can get married in a DRIVE-THROUGH in Vegas? When Britney-the-media-darling can opt in an out of (straight) wedlock in the time it takes me to get to and from work? When you can get married by someone dressed as Elvis?

The 'sanctity of marriage' is a lie. It's sacred to those who make it sacred, and it's not to anyone else. My marriage isn't sacred to you, and yours would make bugger all difference to my life - and that's whether you married a boy or a girl. Or a fish. That's how little difference it would make.

You've convinced me. I admit that you have made arguments superior to mine and have beaten me in this argument. Very well played.

Didn't you get the memo of The Gay Agenda?

Yep. "Coffee at Starbuck at 11. Bring Bagles."

How does that help?

You've convinced me. I admit that you have made arguments superior to mine and have beaten me in this argument.

I don't care for 'beating' anyone. If I've actually convinced you, then I'm happy. And I commend you on changing an argument in face of reason - not everyone would do it.

I don't care for 'beating' anyone. If I've actually convinced you, then I'm happy. And I commend you on changing an argument in face of reason - not everyone would do it.

I'm pretty much taking the same opinion as on abortion. Let each person do his own thing and just have the church or whoever just try to convince a person to change instead of forcing them. I still think the idea of love is a load of crap though.

I'm pretty much taking the same opinion as on abortion. Let each person do his own thing and just have the church or whoever just try to convince a person to change instead of forcing them. I still think the idea of love is a load of crap though.

And, ten or fifteen years ago, maybe I'd have agreed.

But now I have a wife and kids, and I know it's not a load of crap.


My position on gay marriage is also like my position on abortion - if you don't want one, don't get one - no one is trying to force you to.

And, ten or fifteen years ago, maybe I'd have agreed.

But now I have a wife and kids, and I know it's not a load of crap.


My position on gay marriage is also like my position on abortion - if you don't want one, don't get one - no one is trying to force you to.

Congratulations on a succesful marriage I pray that it will continue to do well(knock on wood). I commend you for not divorcing like the majority of american couples. But that is a topic for another thread.

Yep. "Coffee at Starbuck at 11. Bring Bagles."

How does that help?
Well, if you had bothered to actually show up...
Just because it was a meeting of a dark and secret cabal, doesn't mean that it can't be hip and trendy you know?

Congratulations on a succesful marriage I pray that it will continue to do well(knock on wood). I commend you for not divorcing like the majority of american couples. But that is a topic for another thread.

Is it, though?

When the heterosexual galsshouse is in such disarray, is there REALLY any highground on which to stand and throw stones?

Are homosexuals so bad, when heterosexual relationships are so obviously failing? It'd be interesting to see how many gay couples stay married - if it's better than 33%, gay marriage is actually MORE secure than 'straight' marriage.

It's all interconnected - the majority preaches a morality that it fails to live up to. It decries the failings of the minority, while it, itself, is no better.

Is it wrong for a man to love a man, or a woman to love a woman? Why would it be? Even the Bible doesn't say that.

Is it wrong for two peope that love each other to want to express that love? Through sexuality and or ceremony? No matter what you personal faith's handbook might tell you, it's only natural to try to hold closer to those we love.

So long as everyone is old enough and consenting, I don't see how that could be wrong. Ever.

But how is the population going to grow, if there are no women for men or men for women? For they'll all be in bed with the same sex. I don't understand how this should be legal, it would hurt us economically eventually.

Even if it caused us all to go gay (which would not happen), there is still IVF etc.

Anything to back yourself up on your economical claim?

Well, if you had bothered to actually show up...
Just because it was a meeting of a dark and secret cabal, doesn't mean that it can't be hip and trendy you know?

I was fashionably late. If you bastards had left a note, I'd have met you all at Taco-Bell.

1984 is where I get my opinion of there not being such a thing as right and wrong. Although we would agree with Winston that the government does not have a right to spy on people like they do because everyone around him disagrees he is technically wrong and is deemed crazy. So intern I don't think it is fair that we as a society can say that someones beliefs make them wrong or crazy. No matter how outlandish the things they believe in may seem.

And I apologize for making the assumption that we were not all well read.

I don't see how that follows. Yeah, society disagreed with Winston Smith. But 1984 is a dystopia. The whole point is that the society is fucked up.

You may not care, but if the majority of society thinks that they do not deserve rights than you can be damn sure they are going to do all in their power to make sure they don't get it. And contrary to what you may believe they could probably be a real nuisance on the way to equality.
The majority was against integration when it happened. You know what? The government said "tough, you have to live with it. And if you try to stop it, we'll mobilize the national guard and make you integrate."

I'm saying it is the government's responsibility to do the same here. If the populace doesn't want to grant everybody equal rights, the government should say "tough shit, the Constitution protects the minority from oppression by the majority."

Well, if you had bothered to actually show up...
Just because it was a meeting of a dark and secret cabal, doesn't mean that it can't be hip and trendy you know?

Yeah. I mean, our new robes are fabulous.

I'm sorry, its just not something I'm used to. I'm not against gay people, I have friends who are gay but its not the most comfortable thing to know.Why?

Because maybe they 'fancy' you?

Are you really that irresistable to the same sex?

More likely because they don't 'fancy' him... :p

My position on gay marriage is also like my position on abortion - if you don't want one, don't get one - no one is trying to force you to.

*forces United Dependencies to marry GnI*

[QUOTE=Pirated Corsairs;14677743]I don't see how that follows. Yeah, society disagreed with Winston Smith. But 1984 is a dystopia. The whole point is that the society is fucked up.


The majority was against integration when it happened. You know what? The government said "tough, you have to live with it. And if you try to stop it, we'll mobilize the national guard and make you integrate."

I'm saying it is the government's responsibility to do the same here. If the populace doesn't want to grant everybody equal rights, the government should say "tough shit, the Constitution protects the minority from oppression by the majority."
QUOTE]

Yea but 1984 was written to teach people about the dangers of totalitarianism so I think a connection could be made.

As for the second part please refer to the part where I submitted to Grave n idle's superior arguing.

*forces United Dependencies to marry GnI*

Yea too bad he's already married and I'm celibate.

More likely because they don't 'fancy' him... :p

I worked in an office with one of the most outrageous homophobes I've ever met. One of our management was rather flamboyantly gay, and this other chap would literally jump out of his seat and press his back to the wall whenever that manager came in - accompanied by various commentaries that matched his actions.

The fact that he was, personally, rather less than impressive looking, coupled with a personality that would make rabies seem welcoming - was apparently lost on him.

Works for me.

*forces United Dependencies to marry GnI*

Not until they legalise polygamy.

Damn - that's like the second 'proposition' I've got on the forum this week!

Not until they legalise polygamy.

Damn - that's like the second 'proposition' I've got on the forum this wekk!

It's the eyes dude. People like staring into your eyes.

Or maybe they can't look away out of sheer terror. Could be either one.

who was the first???

Yea too bad he's already married and I'm celibate.
Not until they legalise polygamy.

Damn - that's like the second 'proposition' I've got on the forum this week!

*legalizes polygamy*

*legalizes polygamy*

Wow I wish I had the power to total ignore both the constitution and the laws of the United States.(I can think of another who wishes he had the same power)

No really Gni: who was the first person?

Wow I wish I had the power to total ignore both the constitution and the laws of the United States.(I can think of another who wishes he had the same power)

It's the internet, you can do anything you want, for example I am currently hovering 2 inches above my chair...

no way. And all this time I thought that rules of the real world actually applied. Wow I sure have been missing out.

It's the eyes dude. People like staring into your eyes.

Or maybe they can't look away out of sheer terror. Could be either one.

Wow. I edited that so quick it didn't even get a time-stamp and you STILL managed to catch the unedited version. You're good.

I'm going with the terror.

who was the first???

I can't go outing people without their permission!

yes it is wrong and they say so in the bible

It's the internet, you can do anything you want, for example I am currently hovering 2 inches above my chair...

Pics or it didn't happen!

yes it is wrong and they say so in the bible

So, it's okay for non-Christians, then?

yes it is wrong and they say so in the bible

As has been covered many times before, why should non-christians care what the bible says about anything?

Wow. I edited that so quick it didn't even get a time-stamp and you STILL managed to catch the unedited version. You're good.

I'm going with the terror.

*blows the smoke off his index finger*

<snip repetitions of the same points, denials of the content of previous posts, moved goalposts, and personal verbal attacks against me>

Nah, people, sorry for getting this attitude but discussion like that is no fun. :(
1) I have explained at least twice precisely what in your posts mean what I think they mean. Constantly just denying that you said those things is neither a defense nor a counter-argument.

2) I have refuted points you have made. Pretending otherwise will not make those refutations go away.

3) I have not refuted every single point you have made because I am not the only person talking to you, therefore I am not the only person who has refuted points you have made. I see no reason to duplicate other people's work when I can simply incorporate the whole thread into the conversation.

4) No, I'm not going to go find the posts in which this happened and repost them for you to not read again. Although the thread is long, your conversation with me has been short, and neither one of us has forgotten any part of it. If you have not seen or refuse to acknowledge that I have done things you accuse me of not doing, I don't think that posting it again for you is going to make any difference.

5) I have also stated clearly at least twice before now that, regardless of what you claim are your personal beliefs about gay rights, you are making an argument that has the real world effect of stripping gays of their rights. It is true that I implied that I don't believe you when you say you don't want to strip gays of their rights, but my belief on that is irrelevant. So are your claims that you don't want to do that. In the real world, your argument strips gays of their rights. The real world is all I care about. You may wish to pretend there is no real world, only NSG, but I don't play that way.

What's wrong with compromising? Homosexuals get all the rights of a marriage while the conservatives get to say that marriage is holy.
Damn, others beat me to this one. But yeah, as has been said, compromising on rights means only one thing = one group remains unequal. That is not ethically acceptable and it is also not legally acceptable.

By the way, it is also not compromise. In a compromise, your side would have to give something up to compensate the gays for what they are giving up. What will you give up for the gays, if they give up their right to marry for you? How will you reduce your rights to make yourself equal with them?

If homosexuals want rights then they need to be patient. It took the African Americans 100 years to gain all the rights they wanted and then they had to wait longer for the respect to follow along with it. I'm not saying that it is going to be that slow for homosexuals but all of Rome was not built in a day.
Gays have been fighting for their rights -- even for their right to exist at all -- for hundreds of years. How much longer should they remain unequal to suit you?

damn forgot about the first amendment. sorry 'bout that.
What does the first amendment have to do with this?

If they want respect they'll have to.

And if I remember correctly back to Plessy v. Ferguson what the public wants does affect who gets what rights.
Alternatively, you could work on your public image in an effort to win their/our respect. For example, you could quit dictating to other people that they haven't suffered enough injustice yet to satisfy you that they deserve equal protection of the law. That tends to rub people the wrong way.

They did that? I thought they just had white and black schools.
They had black and white, schools, water fountains, hospitals, doctors, buses, hotels, restaurants, stores, EVERYTHING. If a black person was injured and there was no "colored" doctor or clinic, that black person would be left to die. When baseball teams from northern states that were racially integrated, went to play games in the south, the hotels the teams stayed at would not allow their black players to stay there. It affected everything. The only things there were no "colored" versions of were police, courts, and other forms of government authority. That was all white and it made damned sure the segregation rules were followed -- and heaven help any black person who so much as seemed like he/she might have crossed a line ever.

Because your not only arguing with beliefs that people passed through their family your going straight against what the bible and the church say about homosexuality. The bible is in this instance actually pretty clear about not "laying in bed with another man."
You referenced the First Amendment. Did you miss the part of it that separates church from state? What the Bible says is utterly irrelevant to what US law will say about legal marriage.

You may not care, but if the majority of society thinks that they do not deserve rights than you can be damn sure they are going to do all in their power to make sure they don't get it. And contrary to what you may believe they could probably be a real nuisance on the way to equality.
And that majority rule crap again. Debunked at least twice before in this thread.

Muravyets is multi-postgasmic.

Muravyets is multi-postgasmic.
I got carried away. :blushes:

My theory is that a large portion of anti-gays are gay themselves and feel self-conscious. Its like they say, no one hates communism more than a communist

My theory is that a large portion of anti-gays are gay themselves and feel self-conscious. Its like they say, no one hates communism more than a communist

Could be. At least some of them are just straight and inculcated with a needlessly bigoted mentality.

But yeah, lotta Hagees out there.

If you had stopped typing right there, you would have been correct.

We are talking about rights. They are not the same thing as the Bible. Therefore, the Bible has no place in a discussion of rights.

Done.

Yeah I am well aware of this. Even though they majority speak the judges know better than the populace in this case and pretty much every case. So maybe I have to move to Texas, I hear the weather is nice.

It doesn't matter if it's okay with the Bible.

That's the point.

In voting, you are expressing your rights and responsibilities as citizens of THIS kingdom, so why do some of you insist on imposing the laws of some other kingodm on it?

According to the Constitution - there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Thus, if you actively oppose gay marriage, based on a religious belief, you are choosing to impose your religion over the top of the founding document of your nation.

This nation assured religious freedom - and yet today's Christians have deliberately forgotten that.

I think that is the issue, sometimes you can not separate the two. Which is why you see constitutional amendments and all that. When in some States 75% of your population feels the same way. They tend to be Southern States but none the less. This issue seems to have polarized to some degree the population. Even California which arguable has one of the larger populations of gay people. New York feel the same way and we have the parade and a huge population as well. Strange how things work out.



It is not just you, no.

That doesn't mean you don't have to take control of your own destiny.

What other Christians are doing is - and this phrase is bandied around far too much - un-American. You should really decide where you wish to stand on that.

I personally do not have a vested interest either way. If happens it happens, if it doesn't I am okay with that too.


Your god told you to stand on the side of your nation, and to abstain from sins yourself, but not to involve yourself in the sinful cultures of strangers. You are placing yourself in opposition of country AND god, to side with church.

I disagree. There are a ton of quotes. He basically say stand on the side of Righteousness. To not pick up bad habits from your neighbors.



Exactly.

The Christian majority, imposing it's will, is abusing it's power. It is a tyranny of the majority.

That is the way Democracies work. It seems the courts do the exactly opposite of what the population wants. Which is why you hear so much frustration.


Saturday is the Sabbath. You were just telling me about the need to keep the old laws (as they regard homosexuality), and yet you don't even observe the Sabbath.

Romans is in the New Testament. That was just a tradition thing. Depends which day is first. Just kidding. Since Jesus came you can worship any day pretty much.


The 'cutting off your genitals' thing is New Testament.

Incidentally - the passage that talks about emasculating yourself, can also be read as condoning homosexuality.

Yes it could but there are a few. I don't even like needles. i am going to pass on that one.



You will move to your Christian state, eventually... at least, that's what most Christians tell me.

But this was never intended to be it.

Yeah so I am told.



Which doesn't answer the question I asked.

I asked about gay marriage - show me where it is condemned.


Ephesians 5
3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.



Wives and Husbands
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


Jesus said the same: Mark 10

6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.
7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

That is just for starters if you need more I will get them for you.



Within the bounds of marriage, or not?

In marriage.



Unless you're Lot? -> Got turned into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God.


Or Adam? -> God created Eve

Or Cain? -> Even he was taken care of although we do not know here name.



Right. Straight intercourse is condemned, just as gay intercourse is.

Intercourse is okay within the bonds of marriage.


Paul said it was better to marry than to burn - he didn't specify if that meant for heterosexuals or homosexuals.

That is just what I am talking about. It was not even an option to be Gay in his day.


You're taking the fact that it doesn't EXPLICITLY say anywhere 'marriage can be gay or straight', to MEAN that it can ONLY be straight, and never gay.

The Bible doesn't say that anywhere.

Again Gay wasn't even an option. It was against the Bible law. I said law before and I think everyone misunderstood. I meant Biblical Law.



Whether or not you condone it is irrelevant - sorry, but that really is a cop-out answer.

Are we not legitimizing it my condoning it?


'Your people' are not even representative of all Christians - you're a specific subset of Christian that imposes YOUR religious belief on others.

You are correct to a degree but according to wiki there are many States that have essentially banned it.


It's a soft theocratic despotism.

Also know as a democracy.



That's because the issue IS rights.

The Constitution guarantees rights, and you allow your religion to ride roughshod over them, if they don't meet YOUR personal approval. But that's exactly WHY the Constitution exists - to create a model REGARDLESS of personal approval.

So I see.


Being an exceptional human doesn't mean being more than human.

Unless you are arguing that Salma Hayek is god, because she has such a fantastic ass.

In that case he was an exception human being.


You're missing the point. Your claims of faith... are based on a book, that you BELIEVE was written by a specific entity... BECAUSE it says so in that same book.

Do you not see how that is illogical?

That plus church. Plus other religious book. Same could said about the Koran. Same could be said about many of the works of Buddha.


What you SAID was: "Seriously I don't hear anything Evil or Selfish in these words. They seem fairly Altruistic to me. Love your neighbor and all that."

You seem to be shifting those goalposts quite vigorously.

I suppose I could be.


No - you're in the majority - which is why people are deprived of rights they really shouldn't have ever even had to ask for, to receive.

In likely only a matter of time and you will likely get your wish. All the people who were protesting can hand there placards to the other side and they can begin. They will likely get their "rights" and we will get a cause to rail against everyone wins.

The Bible has no place in any government, State or Federal; do we all agree?

A christian state already exists... (http://www.vatican.va/)

Yeah but it too small to house all of us. Then we would have to take over Italy and it would just be a mess after that.

Yeah. And that's just the most obvious. There's also, for example, the Roman Fucking Empire after Christianity was made the state religion.

Yes they are extremely good at spreading the word. Sorry I should have said current. A modern day Christian Theocracy.

Buddhist have a few

Jews have one

Islam has several

I think that is the issue, sometimes you can not separate the two. Which is why you see constitutional amendments and all that. When in some States 75% of your population feels the same way. They tend to be Southern States but none the less. This issue seems to have polarized to some degree the population. Even California which arguable has one of the larger populations of gay people. New York feel the same way and we have the parade and a huge population as well. Strange how things work out.


New York recognises gay marriage.

It just doesn't allow gay marraiges to be performed, yet.

California recognised it as a constitutional right and had it overturned by (what looks like) unconstitutional measures.

They're probably not the best examples.


I personally do not have a vested interest either way. If happens it happens, if it doesn't I am okay with that too.


I don't have a vested interest, either. I'm not looking to get into any gay relationships, and have been happily married across the gender-divide for almost a decade.

But I won't sit around and watch people be treated as less than human, just because of bigotry.


I disagree. There are a ton of quotes. He basically say stand on the side of Righteousness. To not pick up bad habits from your neighbors.


Right. That's not a disagreement. He tells you to be separate and he tells you not to pick up bad habits - those two things complement each other - not contradict.


That is the way Democracies work. It seems the courts do the exactly opposite of what the population wants. Which is why you hear so much frustration.


That's nothing to do with being a Democracy - that's to do with having a Constitution.


Romans is in the New Testament. That was just a tradition thing. Depends which day is first. Just kidding. Since Jesus came you can worship any day pretty much.


The Sabbath is Saturday. That has not changed.

Just another of the Levitical Laws that most Christians chose to ignore, though... which makes me wonder why y'all pretend so hard that those laws are immutable.


Ephesians 5
3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.

Wives and Husbands
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


Jesus said the same: Mark 10

6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.
7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

That is just for starters if you need more I will get them for you.


You'll have to. None of that says what you think it says.

You've yet to show me ONE condemnation of gay marriage.


In marriage.


Yes. Sexual activity is not disapproved - IN marriage.

Straight intercourse is disapproved of OUTSIDE of marriage, but is okay in marriage.

Gay intercourse is disapproved - and then you compound it, by denying it marriage.


Unless you're Lot? -> Got turned into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God.


Or Adam? -> God created Eve

Or Cain? -> Even he was taken care of although we do not know here name.


All of them had incestuous relationships - you must have lost track of the point.


Intercourse is okay within the bonds of marriage.


Exactly.


That is just what I am talking about. It was not even an option to be Gay in his day.


That's bullshit.

I want you to provide me even one source to back it - we're talking about Hellenic Jews.


Again Gay wasn't even an option. It was against the Bible law. I said law before and I think everyone misunderstood. I meant Biblical Law.


You're so wrapped up in 'Christian' thought that you've forgotten how to read your Old Testament. Things being sins in the Old Testament doesn't mean they DON'T happen - it means they DO.


Are we not legitimizing it my condoning it?


I take it you mean 'are we not condoning it, by legitimizing it?' Maybe? That would make more sense.

The answer would be no.


You are correct to a degree but according to wiki there are many States that have essentially banned it.


Yes. A lot of Americans place their own will above the Constitution - at least for a short time. The Constitution has proved fairly resilient, though - it usually ends up reasserting itself.


Also know as a democracy.


Actually - no. By design, America is NOT a democracy.


In that case he was an exception human being.


Not god. Seems fair.

Certainly more believable.


That plus church. Plus other religious book. Same could said about the Koran. Same could be said about many of the works of Buddha.


Church - based on religious book. Other religious books - based on religious book.

If Satan dictated the scripture - everything else is a lie, on top of it, because it is all based ON it.

As for the Koran and the works of Buddha - yes, Christians have told me that other holy scriptures were written by devils or The Devil... they often seem a little hazy.


I suppose I could be.


There's no 'could be' about it.


In likely only a matter of time and you will likely get your wish. All the people who were protesting can hand there placards to the other side and they can begin. They will likely get their "rights" and we will get a cause to rail against everyone wins.

You would rail against equality, if it were to be granted?

I do believe I'm thinking less of you.

New York recognizes gay marriage.

It just doesn't allow gay marriages to be performed, yet.

California recognized it as a constitutional right and had it overturned by (what looks like) unconstitutional measures.

They're probably not the best examples.

Yeah pretty much the whole South.


I don't have a vested interest, either. I'm not looking to get into any gay relationships, and have been happily married across the gender-divide for almost a decade.

But I won't sit around and watch people be treated as less than human, just because of bigotry.

Well now we have 4 States they can get married in.



Right. That's not a disagreement. He tells you to be separate and he tells you not to pick up bad habits - those two things complement each other - not contradict.

So then we have to ask ourselves which side is the "righteous" side. This is where the conflict come in my case.



That's nothing to do with being a Democracy - that's to do with having a Constitution.

Yes I well aware.


The Sabbath is Saturday. That has not changed.

Just another of the Levitical Laws that most Christians chose to ignore, though... which makes me wonder why y'all pretend so hard that those laws are immutable.

True enough we celebrate mass on Sunday. I guess so we are not all going to church on the same day. Beats me why.


You'll have to. None of that says what you think it says.

You've yet to show me ONE condemnation of gay marriage.

I can show several condemnations of homosexuality. Homosexual marriage would have been right out of the question.



Yes. Sexual activity is not disapproved - IN marriage.

Straight intercourse is disapproved of OUTSIDE of marriage, but is okay in marriage.

Gay intercourse is disapproved - and then you compound it, by denying it marriage.

I think the whole practice was frowned upon.



All of them had incestuous relationships - you must have lost track of the point.

I think Eve became a different person once the rib was removed.

Lot was drunk at the time. I am not sure that is much of an excuse. That is a strange story. I think is trying to explain how two tribes came into being. Later on when we start fighting them it is sort of okay because they are products of Incest.


Exactly.



That's bullshit.

I want you to provide me even one source to back it - we're talking about Hellenic Jews.

Let me come back to this one has there are a bunch.



You're so wrapped up in 'Christian' thought that you've forgotten how to read your Old Testament. Things being sins in the Old Testament doesn't mean they DON'T happen - it means they DO.

Of course they do happen but here is the kicker. God does not make allowances not even for his anointed ones. It would like getting a license to commit Adultery, it is just not going to happen. How can you allow marriage to two people who should not be together in the first place? Either with or without marriage?



I take it you mean 'are we not condoning it, by legitimizing it?' Maybe? That would make more sense.

The answer would be no.

If that is the case then line them up. Marry them all.


Yes. A lot of Americans place their own will above the Constitution - at least for a short time. The Constitution has proved fairly resilient, though - it usually ends up reasserting itself.
No argument here.


Actually - no. By design, America is NOT a democracy.


You got that right, we will tell you what to believe. I am not sure which is worse.


Not god. Seems fair.

Son of God and part man.


Certainly more believable.

I think it can work both ways.



Church - based on religious book. Other religious books - based on religious book.

If Satan dictated the scripture - everything else is a lie, on top of it, because it is all based ON it.

As for the Koran and the works of Buddha - yes, Christians have told me that other holy scriptures were written by devils or The Devil... they often seem a little hazy.

The Devil doesn't have a book, he borrows ours. Beside he doesn't need one. Few humans read anyway.



There's no 'could be' about it.

Yeah I am less than convinced but I see no need to argue it.



You would rail against equality, if it were to be granted?

I do believe I'm thinking less of you.

Me, rail, no, I have better things to do. Same way I feel about abortion. I think it is a shame, I think if at all possible it should be avoided. We should look for every other way but in the end it is her body and her decision. The alternative is Back alley jobs and those are unacceptable. Which is kind of the way I feel about this issue. i think we should make them sign something saying they have been notified it is against the rules of the church and they accept full responsibility for their actions. That they were not coerced in any way and that they do so of their own "Free Will".

Yes they are extremely good at spreading the word. Sorry I should have said current. A modern day Christian Theocracy.
And as I already pointed out Christianity has one as well...
Apparently one is enough for you.
Buddhist have a few
Name one.
Jews have one
Not really, I assume you are referring to Israel. Unfortunately for you Israel doesn't really qualify as a theocracy.
Islam has several
Yup, 2. Can you name them?

So then we have to ask ourselves which side is the "righteous" side. This is where the conflict come in my case.


That doesn't actually even connect with the point.

The point was that you are told to be separate, and absolve yourself of the sins of others - no need for you to define righteous, or decide which 'side' - you're not to take sides - that's the whole point of being 'separate'.


I think Eve became a different person once the rib was removed.


Different to what? Different to Adam? Was it the tits that gave it away?

Either Eve IS Adam - in which case we are all spawn of masturbation

or Eve IS derived from Adam - in which case we are all spawn of incest.


Of course they do happen but here is the kicker. God does not make allowances not even for his anointed ones. It would like getting a license to commit Adultery, it is just not going to happen.


You clearly didn't pay much attention to David, when you read your Bible. I advise you to go read about him, read what Jehovah God says about him, and meditate on it.


How can you allow marriage to two people who should not be together in the first place? Either with or without marriage?


The Bible doesn't say they shouldn't be together.


You got that right, we will tell you what to believe. I am not sure which is worse.


That's not it, at all. I'm getting about sick of Christians whining about how the Constitution tells the what to believe.

This country was founded as a Republic, because Democracy was argued as being corrupt. The Constitution guarantees YOUR right to believe what YOU believe - it doesn't tell you to believe a thing.

This nation was founded on the principles of human equality, liberty, and freedom. That doesn't just mean freedom FOR Christians.


Son of God and part man.


Can't have it both ways.

You just said he was an exceptional man - that means he wasn't god.

Either that, or he's god AND man - in which case he didn't truly sacrifice anything on the cross, and never really knew what it meant to be human.


The Devil doesn't have a book, he borrows ours.


Christians don't have a book - you're using his.

Prove me wrong.


Which is kind of the way I feel about this issue. i think we should make them sign something saying they have been notified it is against the rules of the church and they accept full responsibility for their actions.

Who cares if it is 'against the rules of the church'? Fuck the church.

The church doesn't own marriage. Atheists can marry, mormons can mary, muslims can marry - the church is irrelevant to marriage.

The only thing the church has to do with it, is that the church performs SOME of the ceremonies.

The Bible has no place in any government, State or Federal; do we all agree?

I do.

I do.

A rare breed, you are. I think you are the only religious person who has said that so far in this thread.

1) I have explained at least twice precisely what in your posts mean what I think they mean. Constantly just denying that you said those things is neither a defense nor a counter-argument.


I didn't deny what I said. It would make no sense. I apologized for an unintentional, bad selection of words, rectified misunderstandings and agreed with some arguments of my adversaries.


2) I have refuted points you have made. Pretending otherwise will not make those refutations go away.


You did? But in my feeling, many of them have been just ignored and not answered. Like my final statement about superiority of voting rights (or free speech rights for instance, to be detailed), or the misunderstanding of XYZ by gay haters, just for example.


3) I have not refuted every single point you have made because I am not the only person talking to you...

To be honest, right now you are (or at least you were at the time of my previous post). If you speak about the work of my previous adversaries - I just accepted some of their arguments, neutralized or kept some of mine. The ones which left (were kept) were stated to you. Simple.


Although the thread is long, your conversation with me has been short, and neither one of us has forgotten any part of it. If you have not seen or refuse to acknowledge that I have done things you accuse me of not doing, I don't think that posting it again for you is going to make any difference.


My feeling is different. I'm sure I have already explained why. But maybe it's just me.


5) I have also stated clearly at least twice before now that, regardless of what you claim are your personal beliefs about gay rights, you are making an argument that has the real world effect of stripping gays of their rights. It is true that I implied that I don't believe you when you say you don't want to strip gays of their rights, but my belief on that is irrelevant. So are your claims that you don't want to do that. In the real world, your argument strips gays of their rights. The real world is all I care about. You may wish to pretend there is no real world, only NSG, but I don't play that way.

Which arguments? Please, be specific.

BTW. Do you really think that my last post was insulting? Sorry then. But if that was an insult, I should feel insulted at least twice as much as you are (not entirely by You, our discussion is relatively calm).

Our debate is really getting void. I accept gay rights to marry each other, to adopt children, to have their own fight for social acceptance, just criticize some methods of the last one. What is the problem then?

I accept gay rights to marry each other, to adopt children, to have their own fight for social acceptance, just criticize some methods of the last one. What is the problem then?
It's called "concern trolling" when you say "I'm on your side really but I have to be concerned about what you're doing..." and offer unsolicited advice. You aren't the one facing the problem, so let us be the judge of what the best approach is.
Not really, I assume you are referring to Israel. Unfortunately for you Israel doesn't really qualify as a theocracy.
Not in general, but on the particular subject of marriage law, yes Israel's system is totally theocratic, with the most obnoxiously retrograde rabbis controlling who can and can't get legally married.
That is the way Democracies work. It seems the courts do the exactly opposite of what the population wants.
The courts did exactly what *I* want. We are a nation founded on liberty: that means that for most issues, the person should be allowed to decide, for him/herself, not the people as a collective entity. A majority should only be allowed to impose its will on the minority when there is a good reason for it: of course the majority does impose its will on many issues, from the ban against murder down to traffic rules; but in personal issues the majority has no right to impose its will, what's it to you?

Or to put it more briefly: why do you hate freedom?

That is the way Democracies work. It seems the courts do the exactly opposite of what the population wants. Which is why you hear so much frustration.

Not only is America not a democracy, it never has been, and it was specifically and intentionally set up by the Founders so that it would hopefully never become a democracy. And you know why? For PRECISELY this type of reason.

The Founders had this wacky notion that there are some rights that should never be up for majority vote, most likely because they knew damn well that majorities tend to vote in favor of taking rights away from minorities.

America isn't perfect, and our system of government isn't ideal, but the single greatest feature of our system is that we are explicitly banned from putting fundamental human and civil rights to a majority-rules vote. It just takes a while for the majority to get over themselves and stop bitching about this, so every time we notice that there's a minority being treated unfairly we have to put up with a bunch of selfish babies crying about how unreasonable it is to ask the majority to share their toys.

yep

yep

What an intelligent, thoughtful, and well-reasoned post.

A rare breed, you are. I think you are the only religious person who has said that so far in this thread.

I'm pretty sure I've said it multiple times, and so has Murv.

What an intelligent, thoughtful, and well-reasoned post.

As far as that and a first post goes, I give it a 7/10.

I'm pretty sure I've said it multiple times, and so has Murv.

Murv is religious? :confused:

A rare breed, you are. I think you are the only religious person who has said that so far in this thread.

Then let me also add my own 'I do'.:D

The Bible has no place in any government, State or Federal; do we all agree?


No we do not all agree

The Separation of Church and State was originally meant to keep the goverment from starting a State Church that they forced everyone to attend like they did in Engand. It was not meant to keep the Bible out of Government. The fact the Government has been taken over by greedy uncaring people in recent years speaks volumes about how we need the teachings of Jesus in government.

No we do not all agree

The Separation of Church and State was originally meant to keep the goverment from starting a State Church that they forced everyone to attend like they did in Engand. It was not meant to keep the Bible out of Government.
Please explain how the Bible can be "in Government" without this constituting state religion.

Also, do your feelings apply only to the Bible? What about the Quran, the Torah, or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard?

Please explain how the Bible can be "in Government" without this constituting state religion.

Also, do your feelings apply only to the Bible? What about the Quran, the Torah, or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard?


A State Religion is one that everyone is FORCED to attend. Christiany doesn't force you to attend or believe. The fact that God gave us all free will to choose for yourselfs proves that. Can all other religions say the same?

No we do not all agree

The Separation of Church and State was originally meant to keep the goverment from starting a State Church that they forced everyone to attend like they did in Engand. It was not meant to keep the Bible out of Government. The fact the Government has been taken over by greedy uncaring people in recent years speaks volumes about how we need the teachings of Jesus in government.

No theocracies, please.

http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc83/TomCat1948or2/Blog2008/Jan-Mar/TheFruitofTheocracy_487E/22inquisition.jpg

A State Religion is one that everyone is FORCED to attend. Christiany doesn't force you to attend or believe. The fact that God gave us all free will to choose for yourselfs proves that. Can all other religions say the same?

Judeo-Christian law is pretty darn quick with the stoning. I am pretty sure one could be stoned for denying belief in God. There is certainly an example of someone being put to death for working on the Sabbath.

Please explain how the Bible can be "in Government" without this constituting state religion.

Also, do your feelings apply only to the Bible? What about the Quran, the Torah, or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard?

Quite a few western countries are based losly on the ten commandments. Tho they have nothing to do with homosexuality.

A State Religion is one that everyone is FORCED to attend. Christiany doesn't force you to attend or believe.

Sorry, but Christianity has in fact ruled for well over a thousand years. It was not quite as nice and free as you seem to believe it was.

You had your chance and failed miserably. Now move over.

Quite a few western countries are based losly on the ten commandments.

Concepts like "do not steal" do not have to be based on the Bible. For some reason societies seem to be able to make such things up by themselves.

Commandments like "worship no other gods before me" are not really codified in law in most western nations.

I see. So, being elderly is immoral, huh? Not to mention those disgusting "toddlers" - I mean, if being a toddler weren't wrong, two toddlers would be able to conceive a baby!

this is not logic this is stupidity masquerading as logic. The argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it cannot continue the human race is logical. Gay people cannot procreate. That alone if looking at the perspective the survival of the human race would make it wrong. What everyone is really asking is should it be accepted in society. Fine do what you want. If you are stupid enough to think that you are "born gay" than it means that in a generation or two this aberration will correct itself. I say its stupid beacause their is absolutely no evidence saying that there is a "Gay Gene". So please if you are going to speak like you know what you are talking about try thinking about it first so the rest of us dont have to listen to your idiotic comments.

Sorry, but Christianity has in fact ruled for well over a thousand years. It was as nice and free as you seem to believe it was.

You had your chance and failed miserably. Now move over.


Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

Nice sermon, but you didnt actually address his point.

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

I find it interesting you avoid adressing the fact that history shows Christian rule was.. "unpleasant".

I also find it interesting you make us choose between Jesus and Satan. Where is God ?

Then again, if we are going to compare crimes committed against life, God beats Satan hands down. Satan never killed all firstborn. Satan never drowned almost all non-aquatic life on the planet. So I see why you would want to leave Him out of it.

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

I'll take special pleading for $500 dollars Alex.

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

If every government but a theocracy serves Satan, then I will have to side with the horned-guy: Civil rights and freedom of speech are things I value dearly.

Quite a few western countries are based losly on the ten commandments. Tho they have nothing to do with homosexuality.
If by "loosely" you mean "include prohibitions against theft, murder, and perjury," then yes.

However, 3/10 is a failing grade in every class I've ever taken, so I don't think that's much support for your statement.

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.
Oh.

Never mind.

You can't even spell at an elementary-school level, and here I was expecting you to reason at a Junior High level. My bad.

No we do not all agree

The Separation of Church and State was originally meant to keep the goverment from starting a State Church that they forced everyone to attend like they did in Engand. It was not meant to keep the Bible out of Government.
God Im so sick of seeing the piously uninformed say this crap over and over again as if that arguement has been beaten over and over again.

The fact the Government has been taken over by greedy uncaring people in recent years speaks volumes about how we need the teachings of Jesus in government.
Dude, the government was ALWAYS filled with greedy, uncaring people. When was this magical time of rainbows where the government was filled with people who only did anything to benefit others?

A State Religion is one that everyone is FORCED to attend. Christiany doesn't force you to attend or believe. The fact that God gave us all free will to choose for yourselfs proves that. Can all other religions say the same?

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

I'd say that encourages forcing attendance...

As does this:
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

God Im so sick of seeing the piously uninformed say this crap over and over again as if that arguement has been beaten over and over again.


Dude, the government was ALWAYS filled with greedy, uncaring people. When was this magical time of rainbows where the government was filled with people who only did anything to benefit others?

Indeed. And speaking as a religous man myself, the very thought of any form of theocracy turns my blood cold.

I'd say that encourages forcing attendance...

As does this:
But THOSE bits of the Bible totally won't be forced into the Government, we promise. We'll only put in the bits about how faggots aren't humans, women are house-slaves, and black people are inherently sinful.

Dude, the government was ALWAYS filled with greedy, uncaring people. When was this magical time of rainbows where the government was filled with people who only did anything to benefit others?

http://www.faithmouse.com/bush-easter-bunny.jpg

When we had a government which made its decisions based on prayers.

And as I already pointed out Christianity has one as well...
Apparently one is enough for you.
Vatican.


Name one.

I suppose I should have said had several. Tibet but I suppose you could say this in dispute. I would have said Nepal and Mongolia but since the revolution they have been communist.



Not really, I assume you are referring to Israel. Unfortunately for you Israel doesn't really qualify as a theocracy.

Yes, there is a lot of argument to this one. I suppose it is a democracy today.



Yup, 2. Can you name them?
Iran is the first and easiest to remember. Saudi Arabia is somewhere in between a monarchy and Theocracy. Although you could say Monarch exclusively. If we count Sharia Law then the number grows a little. Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nigeria. These make the mnemonic device of SPAN.

Shouldn't poke the crazies
QUOTE]
I didn't read the post, but are you calling me crazy?
[QUOTE]If by "loosely" you mean "include prohibitions against theft, murder, and perjury," then yes.

However, 3/10 is a failing grade in every class I've ever taken, so I don't think that's much support for your statement.[/

Meh, that's what my school told me...

this is not logic this is stupidity masquerading as logic. The argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it cannot continue the human race is logical. Gay people cannot procreate. That alone if looking at the perspective the survival of the human race would make it wrong. What everyone is really asking is should it be accepted in society. Fine do what you want. If you are stupid enough to think that you are "born gay" than it means that in a generation or two this aberration will correct itself. I say its stupid beacause their is absolutely no evidence saying that there is a "Gay Gene". So please if you are going to speak like you know what you are talking about try thinking about it first so the rest of us dont have to listen to your idiotic comments.

Flamey post is flamey.

this is not logic this is stupidity masquerading as logic. The argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it cannot continue the human race is logical. Gay people cannot procreate. That alone if looking at the perspective the survival of the human race would make it wrong. What everyone is really asking is should it be accepted in society. Fine do what you want. If you are stupid enough to think that you are "born gay" than it means that in a generation or two this aberration will correct itself. I say its stupid beacause their is absolutely no evidence saying that there is a "Gay Gene". So please if you are going to speak like you know what you are talking about try thinking about it first so the rest of us dont have to listen to your idiotic comments.

wait lets follow you argument through here. You believe that being homosexual is "an aberation" because homosexuals cannot procreate. So according to you not procreating= Sinful, evil, whatever. Continuing that logic, anyone not procreating is evil meaning that at any given moment the vast majority of the population is engaged in sin and, in fact, the only way to be "pure" would be to procreate constantly because if no one ever procreated the human race would die out (essentially your argument above, if everyone was gay the world would die out therefore being gay is bad. See that is silly though because if everyone did ANYTHING the world would come to an end. for example if everyone was a farmer we'd run out of room, buildingmaterials, farming tools, food then people in that order. Or if everyone we're a doctor there'd be no food.)

Futher issues.
1)the world is overpopulated. Homosexuality in a portion of the population is a good thing as it slows the massive overpopulation of our planet

2)You shouldn't be making comments about others argument when yours ammounts to "but but but if EVERYONE did it there'd be no more BABIES!"

3)For someone who claims that homosexuals can do whatever they want, you use the word aberration rather freely.

this is not logic this is stupidity masquerading as logic. The argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it cannot continue the human race is logical. Gay people cannot procreate. That alone if looking at the perspective the survival of the human race would make it wrong. What everyone is really asking is should it be accepted in society. Fine do what you want. If you are stupid enough to think that you are "born gay" than it means that in a generation or two this aberration will correct itself. I say its stupid beacause their is absolutely no evidence saying that there is a "Gay Gene". So please if you are going to speak like you know what you are talking about try thinking about it first so the rest of us dont have to listen to your idiotic comments.

There is something really funny about telling people they dont know what theyre talking about and then getting nearly every point wrong yourself.

Thanks man, this post actually cheered me up a bit. I needed the lulz today.

It's called "concern trolling" when you say "I'm on your side really but I have to be concerned about what you're doing..." and offer unsolicited advice. You aren't the one facing the problem, so let us be the judge of what the best approach is.


I thought that was just an ordinary criticism. But if you put it this way... Though I don't really agree with what you said, rules are rules, if my actions aren't considered as acceptable, I won't conduct them anymore.

BTW. Do you know how IMO would look an ideal Gay Pride public assembly?

Homosexual people meet at the local, lets say, Market Square. They don't block roads there, though are seen, because after all it is a frequently attended public place.

They wear ordinary, casual clothes and stand still. They all have masks on their faces and hold tables with words "I am a teacher", "I am a journalist", "I am an engineer" etc. Over them there is a big transparent showing phrase "I AM GAY".

Nobody feels offended, nobody is really annoyed/irritated, everybody can see that gay people are normal, valuable members of the society.

And this is nothing made up by me. There was one similar assembly organized few years ago in Poland, I have read about it.

But you know what really bothers me? It was extremely unpopular, only ten (or even less) homosexuals attended this thing.

Yup, 2. Can you name them?

iran and. . . um?

I thought that was just an ordinary criticism. But if you put it this way... Though I don't really agree with what you said, rules are rules, if my actions aren't considered as acceptable, I won't conduct them anymore.

BTW. Do you know how IMO would look an ideal Gay Pride public assembly?

Homosexual people meet at the local, lets say, Market Square. They don't block roads there, though are seen, because after all it is a frequently attended public place.

They wear ordinary, casual clothes and stand still. They all have masks on their faces and hold tables with words "I am a teacher", "I am a journalist", "I am an engineer" etc. Over them there is a big transparent showing phrase "I AM GAY".

Nobody feels offended, nobody is really annoyed/irritated, everybody can see that gay people are normal, valuable members of the society.

And this is nothing made up by me. There was one similar assembly organized few years ago in Poland, I have read about it.

But you know what really bothers me? It was extremely unpopular, only ten (or even less) homosexuals attended this thing.

Gee, you mean people don't really like to be told how they should express themselves? Shocking.

yes it is definately wrong

yes it is definately wrong

What a convincing arguement! I must now rethink my whole worldview!

yes it is definately wrong

Why?

Why?

He doesnt need to say why! Whats wrong with you? He stated that it was wrong in a very defiant, end of the discussion manner! How is that not good enough for you? Arent you convinced?

iran and. . . um?

Saudi Arabia

yes it is definately wrong

Why?

Indeed, why do you feel it is wrong.

He doesnt need to say why! Whats wrong with you? He stated that it was wrong in a very defiant, end of the discussion manner! How is that not good enough for you? Arent you convinced?

I, for one, welcome our new close mouthed homophobic leader

:p

He doesnt need to say why! Whats wrong with you? He stated that it was wrong in a very defiant, end of the discussion manner! How is that not good enough for you? Arent you convinced?

It's called not scareing the newbie's off and trying to engage them in conversation to find out why they think like they do.:D

Gee, you mean people don't really like to be told how they should express themselves? Shocking.

I just stated the fact.

EDIT: You know, to end my part in this discussion with something choco, and stuff.

He doesnt need to say why! Whats wrong with you? He stated that it was wrong in a very defiant, end of the discussion manner! How is that not good enough for you? Arent you convinced?

I detect a hind of sarcasm.

I detect a hind of sarcasm.

you wha? *tilthead*

Not only is America not a democracy, it never has been, and it was specifically and intentionally set up by the Founders so that it would hopefully never become a democracy. And you know why? For PRECISELY this type of reason.

The Founders had this wacky notion that there are some rights that should never be up for majority vote, most likely because they knew damn well that majorities tend to vote in favor of taking rights away from minorities.

America isn't perfect, and our system of government isn't ideal, but the single greatest feature of our system is that we are explicitly banned from putting fundamental human and civil rights to a majority-rules vote. It just takes a while for the majority to get over themselves and stop bitching about this, so every time we notice that there's a minority being treated unfairly we have to put up with a bunch of selfish babies crying about how unreasonable it is to ask the majority to share their toys.

You got that right and those objections are totally based on religious texts. Whether they want to admit it or not is another story. Which perplexes me somewhat, why the difficulty getting it into the Supreme Court? Since it doesn't matter what the populations think just move ahead. Do we have to have a Civil War every time? Is it just that they have not found the "right" argument? Let the States decide doesn't work because then each will do there own thing.

The other thing is it kind of cowardly to say we will recognize Gay marriage from another State but not our own? What that makes no sense? Either you allow them or you don't. What should it matter if they came from overseas? So people go to Canada to perform the ceremony and then it is okay? Or worse they go to Vermont but when they go home it isn't recognized. Either we are for it or against it and the losing side, which will likely be mine for the record, will just have to live with it. There will be protests one way or the other. I think if your side wins then at least the issue will go away and we won't have to hear about every 2 years or so.

I detect a hind of sarcasm.

Really now?:D

Really now?:D

lol. :p

this is not logic this is stupidity masquerading as logic. The argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it cannot continue the human race is logical. Gay people cannot procreate. That alone if looking at the perspective the survival of the human race would make it wrong. What everyone is really asking is should it be accepted in society. Fine do what you want. If you are stupid enough to think that you are "born gay" than it means that in a generation or two this aberration will correct itself. I say its stupid beacause their is absolutely no evidence saying that there is a "Gay Gene". So please if you are going to speak like you know what you are talking about try thinking about it first so the rest of us dont have to listen to your idiotic comments.

Fine. Let us assume homosexuality is a choice.
Let us assume that that also means that homosexuals also refuse to have children, either through adoption, with the help of other people or whatever.

Now, you claim that that is bad. Is that also true for people who decide not to produce children for reasons other than homosexuality, despite the fact that they are not infertile or anything ? In case you have trouble envisioning such people, let me give me some examples. Numbered, so you can easily address them.

1. The couple that does not want children, simply because they do not want to.
2. The couple that does not want children, because they value their career more.
3. The couple that does not want children, since they are already taking care of the orphans of their cousins, who died in an earthquake.
4. The couple in the warzone, who do not wish to raise a child there.
5. The monk or nun, who wishes to devote his/her life to worshipping God instead of reproducing.
6. Jesus Christ, who as far as we know, and most Christians seem to insist, opted to not marry.

Feel free to tell me why these people are or are not bad for not reproducing, while gays are.

Not only is America not a democracy, it never has been, and it was specifically and intentionally set up by the Founders so that it would hopefully never become a democracy. And you know why? For PRECISELY this type of reason.

The Founders had this wacky notion that there are some rights that should never be up for majority vote, most likely because they knew damn well that majorities tend to vote in favor of taking rights away from minorities.

America isn't perfect, and our system of government isn't ideal, but the single greatest feature of our system is that we are explicitly banned from putting fundamental human and civil rights to a majority-rules vote. It just takes a while for the majority to get over themselves and stop bitching about this, so every time we notice that there's a minority being treated unfairly we have to put up with a bunch of selfish babies crying about how unreasonable it is to ask the majority to share their toys.
Quoted for truth. It gets frustrating to have to have these arguments over and over, about everything -- and people do complain about forums like this being taken up with the same debates over and over -- but this is the reason why. Some people are invested in a social order that treats people unequally, that places them above others in a social hierarchy and demonstrates their superiority by giving them rights that the "inferior" group is denied. People who want that kind of social order and who especially want the sense of privilege that comes with it, never willingly let go of any part of it, no matter how small. And so we have to keep fighting the same battles over and over.



I'm pretty sure I've said it multiple times, and so has Murv.

Murv is religious? :confused:

Non-Abrahamic. And vehemently pro-separation of church and state. Keep that wall high, wide and strong!




A State Religion is one that everyone is FORCED to attend. Christiany doesn't force you to attend or believe. The fact that God gave us all free will to choose for yourselfs proves that. Can all other religions say the same?
I see. You get to defined the terms and then you get to declare that your pet project doesn't fall under them. Well, wow, how convenient for you.

Completely false, of course, but I can see why you try this trick.



this is not logic this is stupidity masquerading as logic. The argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it cannot continue the human race is logical. Gay people cannot procreate. That alone if looking at the perspective the survival of the human race would make it wrong. What everyone is really asking is should it be accepted in society. Fine do what you want. If you are stupid enough to think that you are "born gay" than it means that in a generation or two this aberration will correct itself. I say its stupid beacause their is absolutely no evidence saying that there is a "Gay Gene". So please if you are going to speak like you know what you are talking about try thinking about it first so the rest of us dont have to listen to your idiotic comments.
Okay, once more with feeling and 4-party harmony:

1) Gay people CAN procreate. They do it often. Always have, one way or another. Gay =/= sterile.

2) If it is "wrong" not to procreate, then are heterosexuals who choose not to procreate committing a wrongful act? If so, what do you intend to do about it?

3) Who are you attempting to flamebait with your belligerent use of the word "stupid"?



I find it interesting you avoid adressing the fact that history shows Christian rule was.. "unpleasant".

I disagree. Far from avoiding that fact, he is in fact carrying on the tradition. The implicit threat in this post is pretty clear, don't you thing:

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

You got that right and those objections are totally based on religious texts. Whether they want to admit it or not is another story. Which perplexes me somewhat, why the difficulty getting it into the Supreme Court? Since it doesn't matter what the populations think just move ahead. Do we have to have a Civil War every time? Is it just that they have not found the "right" argument? Let the States decide doesn't work because then each will do there own thing.

The other thing is it kind of cowardly to say we will recognize Gay marriage from another State but not our own? What that makes no sense? Either you allow them or you don't. What should it matter if they came from overseas? So people go to Canada to perform the ceremony and then it is okay? Or worse they go to Vermont but when they go home it isn't recognized. Either we are for it or against it and the losing side, which will likely be mine for the record, will just have to live with it. There will be protests one way or the other. I think if your side wins then at least the issue will go away and we won't have to hear about every 2 years or so.

And do you know how much adjustment you'll have to make to "live with it?" None at all. Your life will continue just as it did before equal rights were finally recognized for gay couples who wish to get married. Funny, that.

this is not logic this is stupidity masquerading as logic. The argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it cannot continue the human race is logical. Gay people cannot procreate. That alone if looking at the perspective the survival of the human race would make it wrong. What everyone is really asking is should it be accepted in society. Fine do what you want. If you are stupid enough to think that you are "born gay" than it means that in a generation or two this aberration will correct itself. I say its stupid beacause their is absolutely no evidence saying that there is a "Gay Gene". So please if you are going to speak like you know what you are talking about try thinking about it first so the rest of us dont have to listen to your idiotic comments.

I love how many people keep calling me stupid and then completely failing to address my apparently "stupid" argument. An elderly couple is no more able to procreate without outside assistance than a gay couple is - less so, in fact. So why precisely aren't old men sinful when they have relationships with women their own age instead of 18-year-old girls?

Also, the irony of your last sentence is just adorable.

It's called "concern trolling" when you say "I'm on your side really but I have to be concerned about what you're doing..." and offer unsolicited advice. You aren't the one facing the problem, so let us be the judge of what the best approach is.

Not in general, but on the particular subject of marriage law, yes Israel's system is totally theocratic, with the most obnoxiously retrograde rabbis controlling who can and can't get legally married.

The courts did exactly what *I* want. We are a nation founded on liberty: that means that for most issues, the person should be allowed to decide, for him/herself, not the people as a collective entity. A majority should only be allowed to impose its will on the minority when there is a good reason for it: of course the majority does impose its will on many issues, from the ban against murder down to traffic rules; but in personal issues the majority has no right to impose its will, what's it to you?

Or to put it more briefly: why do you hate freedom?

It is not freedom, it is give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. Yeah it doesn't matter what I think or the majority think. This is what scares some of us.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" -Goethe

I love how many people keep calling me stupid and then completely failing to address my apparently "stupid" argument. An elderly couple is no more able to procreate without outside assistance than a gay couple is - less so, in fact. So why precisely aren't old men sinful when they have relationships with women their own age instead of 18-year-old girls?

Also, the irony of your last sentence is just adorable.

god ur so0o0o st00pid teh gayz cnt make babiez but old people can. In teh gay marrage who has teh vagina?!?!?!?!?!?!?


EDIT: Im having an off day, can you tell? :p

yes, i think that homosexuality is wrong because the sole purpose of sexual reproduction is to create a baby so that the human race can continue to exist so i don't think that it is natural otherwise a baby will be the end product. and if you think of it if the number of homosexuals outnumber the number of hectrosexuals then soon by the human race would diminsh. but it has been proven that people are born gay but i still think that people have a choice about their sexuality and therefore would not be a threat.

It is not freedom, it is give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. Yeah it doesn't matter what I think or the majority think. This is what scares some of us.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" -Goethe

"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire

yes, i think that homosexuality is wrong because the sole purpose of sexual reproduction is to create a baby so that the human race can continue to exist so i don't think that it is natural otherwise a baby will be the end product.

So being sterile and having sex with birth control is "teh sin"?

and if you think of it if the number of homosexuals outnumber the number of hectrosexuals then soon by the human race would diminsh.

Who the fuck thinks that?

but it has been proven that people are born gay but i still think that people have a choice about their sexuality and therefore would not be a threat.

This statement contradicts itself.


Seriously.... *goes to Mur's house and jumps out her low window*

the sole purpose of sexual reproduction is to create a baby so that the human race can continue to exist so i don't think that it is natural otherwise a baby will be the end product.

I feel so very sorry for anyone you ever date.

I feel so very sorry for anyone you ever date.

Now now, to be fair, he probably hasnt gotten his koodies shot yet, so I dont think thats something we need to concern ourselves with right now:p

And do you know how much adjustment you'll have to make to "live with it?" None at all. Your life will continue just as it did before equal rights were finally recognized for gay couples who wish to get married. Funny, that.

So long as they all sign off that they were warned what the consequences might be I am okay with it.

I feel so very sorry for anyone you ever date.

I feel sorry for him!

So long as they all sign off that they were warned what the consequences might be I am okay with it.

Huh?

So long as they all sign off that they were warned what the consequences might be I am okay with it.

What consequences? Having the same rights as heterosexuals? I think they already know.

I love how many people keep calling me stupid and then completely failing to address my apparently "stupid" argument. An elderly couple is no more able to procreate without outside assistance than a gay couple is - less so, in fact. So why precisely aren't old men sinful when they have relationships with women their own age instead of 18-year-old girls?

Also, the irony of your last sentence is just adorable.

Drat. See thats what I wanted to say only I'm not quite eloquent enough for it :(

yes, i think that homosexuality is wrong because the sole purpose of sexual reproduction is to create a baby so that the human race can continue to exist so i don't think that it is natural otherwise a baby will be the end product. and if you think of it if the number of homosexuals outnumber the number of hectrosexuals then soon by the human race would diminsh. but it has been proven that people are born gay but i still think that people have a choice about their sexuality and therefore would not be a threat.

[pounds head off wall] look at the last 100 or so posts for a massive number of arguments as to why this type of argument in very very . . . .new . . ..

yes, i think that homosexuality is wrong because the sole purpose of sexual reproduction is to create a baby so that the human race can continue to exist so i don't think that it is natural otherwise a baby will be the end product. and if you think of it if the number of homosexuals outnumber the number of hectrosexuals then soon by the human race would diminsh. but it has been proven that people are born gay but i still think that people have a choice about their sexuality and therefore would not be a threat.

Wrong.

Seriously.... *goes to Mur's house and jumps out her low window*

Everything thinking person needs one. :D

So long as they all sign off that they were warned what the consequences might be I am okay with it.

This smells like a threat. What consequences? There are no consequences that require signing off on. If some radical homophobe commits an act of violence as the result of gay marriage laws being passed, then that person goes to jail, plain and simple. There are no consequences of giving gays the right to marry, except the consequence of gays getting married.

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even tries to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teaches Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

I am with you but I think our side will lose this battle. In the end all we can do is say we tried to warn you.

Matthew 18:15-18 (New International Version)

A Brother Who Sins Against You
15"If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[b] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Okay, is this a threat or you're telling gays you'll give them money?