TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- I we thought Bush had something to say....
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

IOW, he's correctly stating the irony of God DELIBERATELY creating homosexuals, since according to Christian belief God does in fact have a hand in all of creation, and yet he's creating these "sinful" people DELIBERATELY as a result of the supporting evidence of a genetic component to homosexuality vs. the "nurture" aspect. Did you get that champ, or do you require some further clarity?

God creates people have the capability to sin but ultimetly its there choice are you trying to tell me homosexauls cant control there own body? ultimetly its there choice to sin and dont try to make it out like God forced them to sin....

quote:

And in regards to that lying sack of shit, Safire's point on Job ending up with a happy ending, I'll heartily disagree personally because God was completely fucking with Job just to prove a point to Satan, and it was complete bullshit all the heartache he gave him just to prove His point. I mean really � what kind of sick fuck would grant Satan powers to essentially destroy a person�s life, only to prove a selfish point about how loyal His followers really are? So great, in the end he gave him a new wife, new monies, new land, and I guess Job being the dipshit that he was, was supposed to forget about God literally giving him the shaft by killing off his family, stealing his lands, etc. etc. No worries about those memories - you've got yurself a brand new wife that you'll now love because God said so.

God is the almighty you have no right to question his motives for they are pure. God tests all and we all need testing even thought Job was a good man he still had no reason to turn away from God go read the book of Job again maybe youll understand it...

quote:

Yes, I know it's another foreign concept to Republicans like yourself and Bush when someone like Dean actually puts himself out to EVERYONE. Is Dean trying to kowtow to evangelicals, especially in comparison to what Rove and the RNC did by pulling out anti-abortion and anti-gay hate mailers to church groups and church organizations? Hardly. And that was my point here, in reference to how the RNC essentially uses the fundies and their votes. Surely you're not suggesting that Dean or any other Democrat for that matter does anything remotely comparible to getting at the religious fundie base the same way that Bush and the Republicans did, are you?

well what did Bush do ? ask yourself does Bush stand for the common christians beleif if he does then he has every right to reach out to those he can represent actaully its his moral duty to...eitherway Bush never preached in church I remember the media made a big deal about a pastor in my local town who said "Vote for God" and laid out what God would want you to vote for based on the bible but a pastor in a church in illinois said "vote for kerry" and no one even as much as batted an eye

quote:

But let me play devil�s advocate for a second and see perhaps what kind of moral values I might have as a Christian. If you could please open your Bible, any version will do, and please take note of how many times Jesus Himself refers to homosexuality being a sin. Now let�s compare that to how many times Jesus addresses the poor, addresses our responsibility to help the poor, the disabled, and the poverty-stricken. In fact, let�s take it one step further and compare how many times the Bible refers to homosexuality AND abortion being a sin, versus our responsibilities to help the poor, the disabled, the disease and poverty-stricken.

and we do help the poor are you trying to say Bush has not done anything to help the poor.. and if you are fact is in a nation as rich as the united states of ameirca very few are truly poor and those who are are just trying to get money of the state or are lazy and refuse to work ...and dont you dare tell me there arent those type of people out there in the world...

quote:

Now I do believe if memory serves you are a Christian, right? Since when was it acceptable for a Christian to believe that moral values is what the public cares about? I don�t know about your brand of Christianity, but when I myself was a Christian I had a firm belief that morality was absolute and came from God himself, not the public. Surely you believe in absolute morality, do you not?

I was referring to morality in the public eye which is to be used to choose what is immoral or not in the goverment. I could easily take the bible and say all definitions of morality come from it and I beleive they do but a secular goverment still should not base its definitions of morality on a single book. So please define what is morality?

quote:

And if memory serves, wasn�t there an African American woman AND man running for the Democratic Presidential nomination? Would you please point to where Republicans have run an African-American woman for a Presidential nomination? Wasn�t there a woman who ran as a Vice-President on the Democratic ticket back in �84? Would you please point to where Republicans have held a similar position for a woman running on their VP ticket?

no republican women have wanted to run im very sure laura bush could run for presidency as a republican and win easy

hmm maybe in 2008

im sure shell beat out mrs. clinton

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 God creates people have the capability to sin but ultimetly its there choice are you trying to tell me homosexauls cant control there own body?

Umm, what the fuck? You seriously define �controlling� your body to a homosexual by telling them to avoid their undeniable attraction and desire to love someone of the same sex when:

1. Some homosexuals could give 2 shits about current Christian anti-homosexuality beliefs, even though Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality being a sin. IOW, some homosexuals aren�t Christians, nor do they in any manner have to uphold any Christian discriminatory beliefs like this of any kind.

2. Why the hell would they find a need to �control� their bodies when they feel they are perfectly in �control� of their bodies in the first place? Their bodies tell them that they like the same sex, their minds tell them that ever since they can remember, what the hell is so wrong or threatening to you or anyone that they only listen to what they�re bodies and minds are telling them is right?

quote:

ultimetly its there choice to sin and dont try to make it out like God forced them to sin....

It�s cute little Christian fundie comments like this that only exemplify how little you know or refuse to acknowledge about homosexuality. First � it�s not a sin to homosexuals to acknowledge their homosexuality when they may not be Christians you twit. Second, it�s a complete contradiction that you skipped right over for God to deliberately create them this way, yet deny them exactly how they were created. As a consequence, many homosexuals who deny who they are become psychologically tormented as well as psychologically torment their families including their opposite-sex spouses they marry as well as their children. There�s a reason why those church-group homosexual rehab. places have such a terrible record of successfully �rehabilitating� a homosexual and attempt to turn him/her back to heterosexuals. They fail miserably for a reason � the same reason why you continue to completely misunderstand homosexuality in general.

quote:

God is the almighty you have no right to question his motives for they are pure.

Spare me your sanctimonious, All-knowing righteous bullshit on your Christian God, son. I gave at the office a number of years ago on fearing a selfish entity such as the one you worship, nor have you ever sold me on it in the first place.

quote:

God tests all and we all need testing even thought Job was a good man he still had no reason to turn away from God go read the book of Job again maybe youll understand it...

What part of my statements have led you believe that I don�t understand Job? I�m willing to match Bible wits with you all you want. I�m well versed growing up as a hardcore, Midwestern Bible-thumpin� fundie myself. I never stated Job wasn�t a good man. I stated that Job was being used as a fucking puppet by a selfish God who was out to prove a point to Satan by killing off innocent people and livestock.

quote:

well what did Bush do ? ask yourself does Bush stand for the common christians beleif if he does then he has every right to reach out to those he can represent actaully its his moral duty to...

I ask myself that often. Then I look at Bush�s actions, not his words, and judge for myself whether or not he truly represents Christian doctrine. Judging by his actions of protecting the tax cuts for the wealthy, while wanting to cut programs for the elderly, the poor, the disabled, our veterans, and minorities (like the Indian reservations), I�d say his actions are anything but Christian:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=242694

So no, Bush does not represent a good Christian in any manner.

quote:

eitherway Bush never preached in church I remember the media made a big deal about a pastor in my local town who said "Vote for God" and laid out what God would want you to vote for based on the bible but a pastor in a church in illinois said "vote for kerry" and no one even as much as batted an eye

Bush never preached in church? Did I say that he did? Are you trying to tell me that Dean preached in church? What I did say was that Bush and Rove appealed ardently toward the right-wing fundies, dangerously crossing the line of separation of church and state:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jun30.html

Seeking church directories:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...1,6220321.story

as well as dangerously towing the line on current tax laws:

quote:

President Bush's reelection campaign is trying to recruit backers from 1,600 religious congregations in Pennsylvania � a push that critics said Wednesday could cost churches their tax breaks. An e-mail from the campaign's Pennsylvania office, obtained by Associated Press, urges churchgoers to help organize "Friendly Congregations" where backers can meet to sign up voters and spread the Bush word. http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...ack=1&cset=true

Which actually didn�t sit well for the Babtists for the aforementioned reasons:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politi...sts-upset_x.htm

But what I really found pretty disturbing was the RNC�s involvement with anti-gay propaganda and hate fliers, as well as terribly distorting Democrats:

quote:

On Thursday the Republican Party owned up to sending mass mailings that demonize homosexuals and predict liberals would ban the Bible if Democrats won in November. On Thursday the Republican Party owned up to sending mass mailings to residents of Arkansas and West Virginia demonizing homosexuals and predicting liberals would ban the Bible if Democrats won in November. The campaign literature featured a picture of the Bible with the label "banned" slapped on top of it, and a picture of a man proposing to another man with the caption "allowed." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ngantigayfliers

It really is a lovely flier by the RNC, which has DIRECT contact and connections with the Bush Administration and campaign. Have a look yourself:

http://www.bumperactive.com/archives/000385.jsp

quote:

and we do help the poor are you trying to say Bush has not done anything to help the poor.. and if you are fact is in a nation as rich as the united states of ameirca very few are truly poor

I�ll let his record and proposals speak for themselves. Have you even bothered to examine his record on poverty? Do you think it�s some coincidence where his budget proposals are slashing, yet keeping his tax cuts for the affluent goin� strong?:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...omment-opinions


And you think it�s a coincidence how the poverty rate has gone up under Bush, effectively having 4 million or so new folks under the poverty line under his Presidency?:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5829707/

http://www.detnews.com/2005/census/.../a06-256048.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug26.html

And what about those without health insurance? You think it�s some coincidence that the number of those uninsured, including children, has risen under his regime?

How�s those Bush Christian values holdin� up for ya?

quote:

and those who are are just trying to get money of the state or are lazy and refuse to work ...and dont you dare tell me there arent those type of people out there in the world...

Why would I? I�ll easily concede that there�s some people like that. But for you to generalize everyone under this category demonstrates a serious ignorance on your part of those in poverty as well as why. Here�s one shining example on a similar topic of folks who have to claim bankruptcy and why:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ight=bankruptcy

quote:

I was referring to morality in the public eye which is to be used to choose what is immoral or not in the goverment. I could easily take the bible and say all definitions of morality come from it and I beleive they do but a secular goverment still should not base its definitions of morality on a single book. So please define what is morality?

Well much to my surprise � I heartily agree with you that the people under a secular government should define what is considered moral. But correct me if I�m wrong, but don't you advocate a law banning homosexual marriage and marriage rights and benefits in this country? If so, what do you base your advocacy on if you do, in fact, believe that morality should be run by a secular government?

And for the sake of brevity, I�ll answer your question of morality in terms of what you asked previously:

quote:

then mighty you provide what levels moral values shoudl be debated on I was under the impression that moral values is what the public cares about but im sure youll come up with something about no wars, no protecting ourselves letting terrorists come in and bomb our nations because its immoral to try to kill ...

Do I think war is immoral? No � a justifiable war that is based on correct pretenses is one worth fighting for. Most instances of our country going into war fall into this category. This is hardly what could be said of this current fiasco Bush got us in, however.

Do I think not protecting ourselves and allowing terrorists to come in and bomb us is considered moral? How the fuck would I think such a ridiculous notion? That�s patently absurd, and I�m not sure if it really needs a justifiable response. What person wouldn�t think our country has every right to protect itself from extremist killers out to harm the innocent?

Now here�s an argument I ask of you � do you think Bush did everything in his power to stop such people from coming into our country and causing harm? Be careful � both the bipartisan Senate Commission report, the 911 Commission report, and just plain old facts would tell you otherwise, such as this:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=243472

Do I think it�s immoral to kill in general? Well I certainly think it should always be the last option � diplomacy should be used to the very last breath. But of course this last option can and has been justifiable in the past.

quote:

no republican women have wanted to run im very sure laura bush could run for presidency as a republican and win easy hmm maybe in 2008 im sure shell beat out mrs. clinton

Future projections are fun, but not very useful nor pertinent to my question � what about the past, sir?

quote:

It�s cute little Christian fundie comments like this that only exemplify how little you know or refuse to acknowledge about homosexuality. First � it�s not a sin to homosexuals to acknowledge their homosexuality when they may not be Christians you twit. Second, it�s a complete contradiction that you skipped right over for God to deliberately create them this way, yet deny them exactly how they were created. As a consequence, many homosexuals who deny who they are become psychologically tormented as well as psychologically torment their families including their opposite-sex spouses they marry as well as their children. There�s a reason why those church-group homosexual rehab. places have such a terrible record of successfully �rehabilitating� a homosexual and attempt to turn him/her back to heterosexuals. They fail miserably for a reason � the same reason why you continue to completely misunderstand homosexuality in general.

blah blah blah spare me your pity party God did not make them that way the chose to be that way anything else from yorufat imprentensious mouth will be ignored

quote:

Spare me your sanctimonious, All-knowing righteous bullshit on your Christian God, son. I gave at the office a number of years ago on fearing a selfish entity such as the one you worship, nor have you ever sold me on it in the first place.

God can do what he wants when he wants get that throught your head!

quote:

I ask myself that often. Then I look at Bush�s actions, not his words, and judge for myself whether or not he truly represents Christian doctrine. Judging by his actions of protecting the tax cuts for the wealthy, while wanting to cut programs for the elderly, the poor, the disabled, our veterans, and minorities (like the Indian reservations), I�d say his actions are anything but Christian:

you know liberals say this ALL THE TIME and im tired of it..

quote:

And what about those without health insurance? You think it�s some coincidence that the number of those uninsured, including children, has risen under his regime?

so what it is not the presidents fault or the presidents responsablities to insure every fricking child or people who cant afford healthcare

theyre already getting more healthcare than they deserve with free hospitals if I had it my way only those who truly deserve healthcare would have it

the goverment does not owe society or people anything they do not have to give them free healthcare because most of those pigs dont give anything back to the goverment
accept it this is not europe were not gonna make a system that can easily give you free living for the rest of your life without pay

and those christian values are holding up very nicely Jesus commanded individauls to help the poor not nations its a very big difference ....

quote:

Well much to my surprise � I heartily agree with you that the people under a secular government should define what is considered moral. But correct me if I�m wrong, but don't you advocate a law banning homosexuality in this country? If so, what do you base your advocacy on if you do, in fact, believe that morality should be run by a secular government?

I advocate a law banning homosexaul unions in this nation because why does the goverment have the right to recognize a possibly immoral union between a man a man? Recognizing such a union would automatically be aproving of it and the goverment does not have such rights now powers to aprove of a possibly immoral proceeding.

quote:

Do I think war is immoral? No � a justifiable war that is based on correct pretenses is one worth fighting for. Most instances of our country going into war fall into this category. This is hardly what could be said of this current fiasco Bush got us in, however.

No I dont think war is immoral either ways the point is moot


what about the past

in the past no woman have wanted to run for republican weve tried to get them to run even senator johnson of arkansas one of the strongest women ever to be a senator did not want to run for president or any other major office to be the fact

women are happy taking the minimal seat

you keep atacking poverty

big deal theres ten times as much poverty in othern ations in the world

accept it the united states gives its people WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH

they get care and schools and educations people in other countries only dream about and jobs that they only dream about too

actaully i think the goverment should force worse education , jobs and treatment on the nation so that people will understand there freedoms and there oportunities and not take them for granted any more

maybe Bush has neglected helping some of the poor but at this point in history its moot protecting our nation is 1 million times poor important and it takes center stage any extra money that could go to the poor should go to protecting ourselves and getting rid of terrorists there will be plenty of time in the future when its more peaceful that we can take care of the poor but what will it benefit us now

the poor are not dying on the streets here like in brazil, argentina, colombia, over 60 african nations

they have he possiblity to get jobs, get clean, and get healthcare if they dont take those possibilities then its not our fault that they are poor its there own...

LOL you got him frothing at the mouth opus!

If you're lucky you'll turn him into a pet troll who'll follow you around in unrelated threads and slip into tongues to denounce you. Lucky bastard ...

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 blah blah blah spare me your pity party God did not make them that way the chose to be that way anything else from yorufat imprentensious mouth will be ignored

And spare me your fucking ignorance. And what the fuck is �yorufat imprentensious�? Could you please use a dictionary for once in your life, champ? Jesus � it�s bad enough to see you spit on logical arguments. Do you have to do the same with the fucking English language?

And yes, God did make them that way if there�s evidence of a genetic component involved. I�m sorry you continue to leap right over that point, but no matter how childish you become you cannot overlook it. Sorry, champ.

quote:

GOD CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS WHEN HE WANTS GET IT THERES YOUR FUCKING BITCH ASS EXPLANATION I HOPE ITS GOOD ENOUGHT FOR YOU YOU PIGFUCKING BITCH SON OF AN DEVIL WORSHIPER NOW GO WORSHIP SATAN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE PAGAN..GOOD HAHAHA I HOPE YOUU LIkE IT!

Wow, so not only do I fuck pigs, but I�m a devil worshipper as well because I don�t adhere to your arbitrary God-doing-whatever-the-fuck-He-wants-whenever-he-wants-and-we-must-all-simply-accept-that-ridiculously-fucked-up-illogical-notion, and because I�m a Democrat. How silly of me not to know myself the way you do.

I didn�t realize it was okay to worship an illogical God the way you do. But considering your arguments are about as paltry as your illogical God, I guess I shouldn�t be too surprised.

quote:

you know liberals say this ALL THE FUCKING TIME AND IM FUCKING TIRED OF IT OK THERE IS NO FUCKING PROOF YOU ****** YOU JUST SAY IT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE VOTE

YOU KNOW, THE CAPS LOCK IS REALLY FUN TO USE OFTEN, BUT IT DOESN�T MAKE YOUR ILLOGICAL DRIVEL ANY MORE COGENT, GOT IT CHAMP?

And yes, I just did prove it, dipshit. Unless you�re a speed reader, which judging by your obvious destruction of the English language I�ll guess you�re not, I�m going to guess that you didn�t even read my posts on Bush�s slashing proposals on the elderly, the poor, the disabled, the veterans, and the minorities.

Facts do tend to be your enemy here, champ. Sorry �bout your bad luck.

quote:

OK ****** WHAT YOU LIKE THAT HHAHA FUCKK MOTHERUFKC FuCK YOU HA

Can anyone by chance decrypt this last statement for me?

quote:

WHAT ABOUT ABORTION, GAY MARRIAGE THOSE ARE TEN TIMES MORE IMPORTANT THEN THAT EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE

Well you�ve done quite a piss-poor job explaining why you think this is so, champ, either on your own Christian level or even on a secular level. So please indulge us all and start firing up a few neurons to explain yourself a bit here.

quote:

YOU DONT UNDERSTAND BUSHS POLICIES DONT COMMENT ON THEM GO FUCK YOURSELF

Explain, be specific on how I don�t understand his policies.

You know, if I didn�t know better, judging by your caps lock and insults I�d say you�re beginning to get a little desperate, and that your arguments are falling apart quite well. You think you might be able to defend your arguments without such 12-year old childish remarks?

quote:

so what it is not the presidents fault or the presidents responsablities to insure every fricking child or people who cant afford healthcare

Well isn�t that the Christian thing to do � take care of the children and the poor? Make sure they have equal access to good doctors and medicine? Or is your version of Christianity somehow different?

quote:

theyre already getting more healthcare than they deserve with free hospitals if I had it my way only those who truly deserve healthcare would have it

Well that�s quite the draconian view to hold, especially on those who can�t afford it. So kill off the weak, is that it?

How very Christian of you.

quote:

the goverment does not owe society or people anything they do not have to give them free healthcare because most of those pigs dont give anything back to the goverment

Like veterans?

Oh wait, since children don�t give anything back to the government � they don�t deserve any coverage? Man I am truly loving your logic here.

quote:

accept it this is not europe were not gonna make a system that can easily give you free living for the rest of your life without pay

Who says I wouldn�t accept it? Who said anything about Europe? Why the strawman argument?

quote:

and those christian values are holding up very nicely Jesus commanded individauls to help the poor not nations its a very big difference ....

Oh, I see � so Jesus feels it�s the obligation of a nation to ban gay marriage and protect the fetus even if the mother�s life is in danger, but not protect the children once they�re born as well as protect the elderly and poor?

I�m flippin� through my King James version of the Bible and I can�t seem to find that anywhere. What version are you readin�?

quote:

I advocate a law banning homosexaul unions in this nation because why does the goverment have the right to recognize a possibly immoral union between a man a man? Recognizing such a union would automatically be aproving of it and the goverment does not have such rights now powers to aprove of a possibly immoral proceeding.

I�m sorry, but that made absolutely no sense. And you didn�t address how a secular nation would consider gay marriages immoral. Please do so now.

quote:

what about the past in the past no woman have wanted to run for republican weve tried to get them to run even senator johnson of arkansas one of the strongest women ever to be a senator did not want to run for president or any other major office to be the fact

She didn�t run because her party told her it would be a cold day in hell when her own party would nominate her as a President.

quote:

women are happy taking the minimal seat

Sometimes I think it�s best to let idiotic statements stand all by themselves. This one is a shiny example, and certainly deserves no comment.

quote:

you keep atacking poverty big deal theres ten times as much poverty in othern ations in the world

Not a fully developed, industrialized nation like ours, no. Sorry.

quote:

accept it the united states gives its people WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH they get care and schools and educations people in other countries only dream about and jobs that they only dream about too

Son, did you read anything I gave you? Are you going to even bother?

quote:

actaully i think the goverment should force worse education , jobs and treatment on the nation so that people will understand there freedoms and there oportunities and not take them for granted any more

Again, some idiotic comments deserve to stand all alone�

quote:

maybe Bush has neglected helping some of the poor but at this point in history its moot protecting our nation is 1 million times poor important and it takes center stage

Interesting strategy � so kill off the weak in our nation in order to protect it? Oh, BTW, could you demonstrate how invading Iraq protected our country from Al Qaeda? You know, the ******s that actually attacked us on our soil?

quote:

any extra money that could go to the poor should go to protecting ourselves and getting rid of terrorists there will be plenty of time in the future when its more peaceful that we can take care of the poor but what will it benefit us now

Ah yes, I think we see your point � the poor are weak and feed off the government. Fuck �em all because we�re fightin� terrorists.

Terrific commentary. I really do commend your rationale.

quote:

the poor are not dying on the streets here like in brazil, argentina, colombia, over 60 african nations

Why the strawman again? It�s irrelevant to compare us to other nations, especially those who are not as advanced as ours. We have the viable means to give better healthcare and protection to those who do not have it � what�s stopping our �Christian nation� from doing so, champ?

quote:

they have he possiblity to get jobs, get clean, and get healthcare if they dont take those possibilities then its not our fault that they are poor its there own...

That was really a beautiful rant. By all means keep going!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider LOL you got him frothing at the mouth opus! If you're lucky you'll turn him into a pet troll who'll follow you around in unrelated threads and slip into tongues to denounce you. Lucky bastard ...

Jealous much?

Damn, and I thought my Monday was gonna be a drag!

quote:

And yes, God did make them that way if there�s evidence of a genetic component involved. I�m sorry you continue to leap right over that point, but no matter how childish you become you cannot overlook it. Sorry, champ.

so what it hasnt been proved

So people are born naturally horny that still makes premarital sex and YES masturbation included a sin

you still choose whether or not you have a homosexaul relationship or be homosexaul

homosexaulity in all comes down to sex since Jesus himself said sex should not exist outside of marriage and marriage is defined by Jesus as a union between a man and a women Jesus did say homosexaulity is wrong

oh and about genes making you gay

complete

utter


bull

http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/edi...study_print.htm

^^^You're fucking kidding with this whole thread right? I sure hope so. You have your had so far up your ass its not funny. I feel bad actually. I'm going to pray for you.

You may want to read about the end of times and all of the false teachers using Jesus name. Then you might see it is yourself who worships Satan.

Its time someone injected some science into this argument


There is little evidence to support the genetic view of inherited sexual preference. There have only been three studies (although several are ongoing) that found a link and none of them have been repeatable with the exact same results at this time. The three studies in question are Hamer/Hu in 1993, Hall/Kimura in 1994, and McGue/Bailey in 1998 and 1999

Hamer/Hu - This study found a correlation between homosexual orientation and the presence of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome. One of the interesting points of this particular study was the lack of correlation in females, the study's findings relate to males only.
This study was rebutted by Faust-Sterling/Balaban in 1995 (not sure about that date, but I think that's it) Faust-Sterling/Balaban did not attempt to recreate the Hamer/Hu study, rather they focused on the methodology of the study arguing that the results were invalid due to an inadequate control group, various statistical assumptions, and a low number of significant cases. They called for a more scientific repeat of this study. To my knowledge this study has not yet been repeated.

Hall/Kimura - This study showed that a particular type of fingerprint pattern was statistically more prevalent in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. Because the formation of fingerprints occurs early in fetus development Hall and Kimura hoped that this pointed to a link between this gene and homosexual.
This study was repeated in 2002 by Forastieri. He could not reach the same results and concluded that there were no significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual males. Several other studies since have generally confirmed this lack of a link.

McGue/Bailey - In 1998 McGue used twin adoption studies to show that behavioral characteristics are heritable. In 1999 Bailey repeated McGue's twin adoption experiments. His results showed much less connection but came to the same conclusion. This is the only study that I am aware of (I did do all this research last year so there might have been some developments) that supports the genetic based theories of homosexuality. There have as of yet been no studies refuting it but several articles have been written questioning the differences in results between the two studies. Some questions have also been raised as to whether there were other related cause other than genetics which might have screwed the results in one study or the other.


If anyone cares I can find the sources for most of these articles with little trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 so what it hasnt been proved

Uhh, yeah it has, even with the recent study you cited, which I'll get to in a minute. Sorry bub.

quote:

So people are born naturally horny that still makes premarital sex and YES masturbation included a sin

Which says nothing about my points I made earlier:

quote:

1. Some homosexuals could give 2 shits about current Christian anti-homosexuality beliefs, even though Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality being a sin. IOW, some homosexuals aren�t Christians, nor do they in any manner have to uphold any Christian discriminatory beliefs like this of any kind. 2. Why the hell would they find a need to �control� their bodies when they feel they are perfectly in �control� of their bodies in the first place? Their bodies tell them that they like the same sex, their minds tell them that ever since they can remember, what the hell is so wrong or threatening to you or anyone that they only listen to what they�re bodies and minds are telling them is right?

It may be a bit shocking to you, but others do not adhere to your religious intolerance and beliefs. Sorry, champ.

quote:

you still choose whether or not you have a homosexaul relationship or be homosexaul

You may choose it, but you can't choose whether or not you are one. That's patently absurd. You can't make a gay man be attracted to a woman, no matter how hard you try. The success of those Christian "reparative" therapies are extraordinarily low, something like 0.1%:

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

In scientific circles, they are laughed at for their terribly high failure rates.

quote:

homosexaulity in all comes down to sex since Jesus himself said sex should not exist outside of marriage and marriage is defined by Jesus as a union between a man and a women Jesus did say homosexaulity is wrong

No, Jesus never addressed homosexuality, period. Paul addressed it in the NT, Moses addressed it in Leviticus, but Jesus himself never DIRECTLY addressed homosexuality. You�d think that since this was such a critical issue amongst Christians that surely Jesus Himself would have something that would directly address the issue. Instead, we have to rely on indirect reasoning. Now in contrast, how many times did Jesus directly address tending to the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and to the poverty-stricken?

And BTW, again you�re pretty uneducated about homosexual relationships since you believe that it all comes down to sex. Indeed, my gay cousin and his partner abhors the thought of homosexual sex, yet he�s done just fine in his 9-year monogamous relationship.

And Jesus� definition of marriage is not equivalent to the State definition of legal unions. So again we can give homosexuals the exact same rights and benefits given to heterosexual marriages without addressing Jesus� definition of marriage.

So again I ask you, what is your non-Christian rationale of not allowing legal unions between two consenting same sex adults? Since you adhere to a secular government like myself, surely you�d have an answer by now.

quote:

oh and about genes making you gay complete utter bull http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/edi...study_print.htm

I�m sorry, but did you read the article at all? Here, first from the highly biased editorial you cited (and I�ll explain why it�s biased in a moment):

quote:

"There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

Now from the actual news release, which Throckmorton conveniently omitted:

quote:

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

So even the authors readily concede there is a GENETIC component to homosexuality. It may not, however, be limited to one specific gene, nor may it be entirely without environmental factors involved. I must also personally say that the article itself is a bit amiss of some obvious everyday genetic traits, not that it really had to address them in the first place. But polygenetic traits, or traits that are determined by the influence of multiple genes, are quite common. Skin color is one that comes to mind. If anything this article simply demonstrates the possible polygenetic influence of homosexuality. So no matter which way you cut it, there�s still some genetics involved, perhaps even more than we originally thought. You actually just helped reiterate my point. Thanks!

What�s more, the authors are really stating that there are likely several genetic regions involved in the homosexual genetic expression � some 60% likeness compared to a 50% likeness among the genes in heterosexuals. That�s only 10% a difference, though admittedly it�s likely a statistically significant one. Still, it�s very interesting and far from conclusive about the implications of multiple gene expression and influence. More studies must follow that repeat these results to give their research further validity

Oh, about good ol� doctor Throckmorton, the guy who gave the editorial on the piece and willfully distorted the findings:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/xgw/2003/...rockmorton.html

http://www.exgaywatch.com/xgw/warre...rton/index.html

http://www.exgaywatch.com/xgw/2005/...enetics_st.html

So this conservative Christian professor of a Christian school who has no education in genetics seems to be an advocate of those failed �reparative� therapy sessions on homosexuals, as well as a willful distorter of the current scientific evidence on homosexuality. Go figure.

quote:

so what it is not the presidents fault or the presidents responsablities to insure every fricking child or people who cant afford healthcare theyre already getting more healthcare than they deserve with free hospitals if I had it my way only those who truly deserve healthcare would have it the goverment does not owe society or people anything they do not have to give them free healthcare because most of those pigs dont give anything back to the goverment accept it this is not europe were not gonna make a system that can easily give you free living for the rest of your life without pay and those christian values are holding up very nicely Jesus commanded individauls to help the poor not nations its a very big difference ....

Then this right after:

quote:

I advocate a law banning homosexaul unions in this nation because why does the goverment have the right to recognize a possibly immoral union between a man a man? Recognizing such a union would automatically be aproving of it and the goverment does not have such rights now powers to aprove of a possibly immoral proceeding.

Wait, so government should not help to provide healthcare for citizens when they are very sick, only people who "deserve" healthcare should actually get treated because Jesus was teaching individuals should not government, yet the government is allowed to take an active roll in promoting what you consider Christian beliefs when it comes to a civil marriage? You can't have it both ways.

the goverment does not have the right to bless the union between a man and a man they do not have the right to accept such a beleif or to rewrite the meaning of marriage

misteropus your last post was complete utter ignorance and bullshit im ignoring at and you have found your way onto my ignore list

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 the goverment does not have the right to bless the union between a man and a man they do not have the right to accept such a beleif or to rewrite the meaning of marriage

Well you seemingly continue to step right over your rationale in believing the government somehow has this right. Are you ever going to answer this question?

quote:

misteropus your last post was complete utter ignorance and bullshit im ignoring at and you have found your way onto my ignore list

Does this mean you won't be inviting me to your birthday parties anymore? I can't even get a balloon? You poor fella - I hope I didn't hurt any feelings. You could, however, drop the ignorance bullshit yourself and address my specific refutations of your points made. That would entail a bit of debate and intellectual courtesy on your part - which may be difficult but I have faith that you can do it.

and again even if people are born gay which they are not and its further proved by the fact that you dont know two cents about science you have not answered my statement

so what humans are born horny it still makes premarital sex and YES masturbation a sin. We can still control our actions and so can so called homosexaul

homosexaulity is about what type of person you like to sleep with thats all it boils down to outside of that there is very little different from a homosexaul liberal and a straight liberal

you may say that they have a certain lifestyle...ever heard of metrosexauls even they can use such a lifestyle without being homosexaul

so again all it boils down to is sex

homosexaul couplesin todays world should not receive any benefits from a secular socialist poitn off view.........because why do we give married couples advantages in the first place because they give back to the earth

they procreate

the main reason for sex is procreation so is the main reason for marriage therefore in giving back something to the united states of america, strong, healthy young children that they produced or have the capability of producing we give them benefits


homosexauls are unable to and never will be able to procreate

they give nothing back
they deserve nothing in return

oh my mister liberal is so nice

this is why nobody likes you your mean

thats why were gonna kick you out of the united states and go to canada

then were gonna nuke canada

you can say whatever you want

but you have to pay the consquences

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 the goverment does not have the right to bless the union between a man and a man they do not have the right to accept such a beleif or to rewrite the meaning of marriage

But you argued that the government is a secular body when it comes to promoting healthcare and helping the poor as a Christian cause, which you even agreed was a Christian thing, yet you're arguing that the government is not a secular body when it comes to preventing two people of the same sex from getting a CIVIL marriage, which not everyone even agrees Jesus stated he was against. You're saying that the government should enforce a law against people based on your religious beliefs, which is not something a secular government can do.

And furthermore how do you legislate based on Christian beliefs anyway? Do we do it based on Catholic, Episcopalian, Evangelical, Mormon, Pentacostal, etc? There's many different sects because they interpret the religion differently, so who are you to say which one is right?

I never said christian I said moral

the majority of people in the nation beleive gay marriage is wrong

therefore it is immoral

either way what right does the state have to bless a homosexual union you tell me that

i never said anything about christianity

and the only one that doesnt beleive that the bible doesnt talk about gay marriage is the liberal troll whos not even remotely christian

to quote one of my favorite djs

youve been invaded by the socialistic pro here to infiltrate your radio and disco my people to to barricade and cant succeed im injected with the dna to stampede so its the same purpose same type of gender same call to brawl with the enemies of the leverer ...from nashville to cape town we enter all points with plans to break down...

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 I never said christian I said moral the majority of people in the nation beleive gay marriage is wrong therefore it is immoral either way what right does the state have to bless a homosexual union you tell me that i never said anything about christianity

So whatever the majority of people think is moral? I guess the Nazis were justified in the 30s & 40s and slavery was perfectly fine here. Brown vs. Board of Education should be overturned as well since segregation was accepted at the time and therefore moral, right? In any case you just said that the government doesn't decide what is moral, so why would they determine who can have a civil marriage based on morality in your view? A civil marriage is not the same thing as a religious marriage. There's nothing to "bless" in a civil union between 2 people, it is meant to give them equal rights under the law for things like inheritance, hospital visits, etc. Even athiests get married everyday in this country in the eyes of the law.

You're trying to turn the tables around, the question is really what right does the government have to prevent them from getting married if they allow it for other people? You tell me that. The burden is on the government to rationalize why they should have the right to prevent individuals having some sort of freedom, not the other way around. I thought conservatives wanted freedom from government interferring in their private lives? Obviously there are exceptions when people don't live their lives like you would. And actually you said a lot about Christianity in your various arguments with Opus throughout this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 and the only one that doesnt beleive that the bible doesnt talk about gay marriage is the liberal troll whos not even remotely christian to quote one of my favorite djs youve been invaded by the socialistic pro here to infiltrate your radio and disco my people to to barricade and cant succeed im injected with the dna to stampede so its the same purpose same type of gender same call to brawl with the enemies of the leverer ...from nashville to cape town we enter all points with plans to break down...

Were you aware that there are different interpretations of what the Bible says and there are even some contradictions? Where does Paul stand exactly on the rights of women for instance? Does he believe they cannot speak at all in Church and have no position like he says in the 1st letter to the Corinthians or does he see them as active members of the Church spreading the name of Jesus, like in Romans? Look at how the bible came together amongst many different groups of Christians and understand that not everyone interprets it the same way, especially since there are contradictions, before you label people as unholy compared to you.

quote:

You're trying to turn the tables around, the question is really what right does the government have to prevent them from getting married if they allow it for other people? You tell me that. The burden is on the government to rationalize why they should have the right to prevent individuals having some sort of freedom, not the other way around. I thought conservatives wanted freedom from government interferring in their private lives? Obviously there are exceptions when people don't live their lives like you would. And actually you said a lot about Christianity in your various arguments with Opus throughout this thread.

no one ever said they couldnt get married

they can get married they just cant get a marriage license of marry in a state building

marriage is not a right i think you need to go read the bill of rights again ...

they have the right to marry as much as any other person in a state building and getting a marriage license as long as they marry

marriage is a union between a man and a women nothing else can be called it...

quote:

Were you aware that there are different interpretations of what the Bible says and there are even some contradictions? Where does Paul stand exactly on the rights of women for instance? Does he believe they cannot speak at all in Church and have no position like he says in the 1st letter to the Corinthians or does he see them as active members of the Church spreading the name of Jesus, like in Romans? Look at how the bible came together amongst many different groups of Christians and understand that not everyone interprets it the same way before you label people

point being ? point being moot were not here to debate the interpretation of the bible..

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 oh my mister liberal is so nice this is why nobody likes you your mean thats why were gonna kick you out of the united states and go to canada then were gonna nuke canada you can say whatever you want but you have to pay the consquences

Has anyone seen your argument lately? It seems you've lost it a bit.

And BTW, weren't you banned before posting as Electronicmaji or something? What happened to you, and are the Mods aware that you're back? Will you behave this time around?

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 I never said christian I said moral the majority of people in the nation beleive gay marriage is wrong therefore it is immoral

Well using your twisted example from another thread - the majority of people at one point in time believed:

Slavery was okay

African-Americans should sit in the back of the bus

African-Americans should never marry a Caucasian.

Things change, don't they? People learn to become more tolerant and accepting once they realize it's logical to do so. But sadly, it does take time. As another example, the majority of Americans still believe that Saddam was involved with 9/11, even though we've had to reports, one from the bipartisan Senate, and one from a bipartisan 9/11 Commission clearly outlining no Saddam involvement.

Ignorance takes time to overcome.

quote:

either way what right does the state have to bless a homosexual union you tell me that

What right? Because if they fail to do so it is completely discriminatory. Do you realize just how many benefits are given to heterosexual marriages and civil unions vs. same-sex civil unions and marriages? Here's a nice list:

quote:

Marriage Rights and Benefits Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life. Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes: Tax Benefits Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Estate Planning Benefits Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse�s behalf. Government Benefits Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. Receiving public assistance benefits. Employment Benefits Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse�s close relatives dies. Medical Benefits Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Death Benefits Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. Making burial or other final arrangements. Family Benefits Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. Applying for joint foster care rights. Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Housing Benefits Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Consumer Benefits Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance. Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities. Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Other Legal Benefits and Protections -Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy). -Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). -Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can�t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. -Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. -Obtaining domestic violence protection orders. -Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. -Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family. http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

If these benefits are not given to consenting same-sex adults who love each other and do no harm to society, that is discriminatory, plain and simple.

quote:

i never said anything about christianity

You've been talking about christianity throughout the entire thread. Are you in denial of your own statements?

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 marriage is not a right i think you need to go read the bill of rights again ...

For someone who lives in Columbia, you seem quite fond of preaching enlightenment of the American political system to others when you appear to lack a simplistic understanding of our laws/system yourself.

Going to the bill of rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If you're going to argue that marriage is a religious institution or a moral institution based on religious values, the government has no right to grant such institutions legal or societal benefits as dictated by the bill of rights.

In other words, if the government wants to grant marriage the sanctity of its religious undertones by limiting it to a man and a woman only, the government should not use the same definition to determine rights and benefits. Instead, the government should cede such rights to marriages under the umbrella of civil unions that grant equal rights to same sex unions alike. Go read the bill of rights yourself ffs.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.