Condoning Atheism. chat & forums.

Every child is going to be different. Not allowing children to watch scary movies isn't necessarily going to make things better or worse because you can't predict who will respond to them badly.

Wrong! Smallpox was completely eradicated by the use of drugs.

The next step towards the eradication of smallpox occurred with the observation by English physician, Edward Jenner, that milkmaids who developed cowpox, a less serious disease, did not develop the deadly smallpox. In 1796, Jenner took the fluid from a cowpox pustule on a dairymaid's hand and inoculated an 8-year-old boy. Six weeks later, he exposed the boy to smallpox, and the boy did not develop any symptoms. Jenner coined the term "vaccine" from the word "vaca" which means "cow" in Latin. His work was initially criticized, but soon was rapidly accepted and adopted. By 1800 about 100,000 people had been vaccinated worldwide.

The "modern" vaccine that was licensed by the FDA was taken from a weak strain of virus called the New York City Board of Health strain. It was produced by Wyeth Laboratories and licensed under the name Dryvax. The last outbreak of smallpox in the United States occurred in Texas in 1949 with 8 cases and 1 death. Even though most of North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand were free of smallpox by this time, other countries such as Africa and India continued to suffer from epidemics.
In 1967 the World Health Organization (WHO) started a worldwide campaign to eradicate smallpox. This goal was accomplished in 10 years due in a large part to massive vaccination efforts. The last endemic case of smallpox occurred in Somalia in 1977. On May 8, 1980, the World Health Assembly declared the world free of smallpox.

In fairness to you, ConsciousSoul, I surely used more inflammatory verbiage than I had to in order to make a few points. Like you, I love the language and a good debate. I also surely had a little more sting in how I worded a few things than was necessary to make my points. Perhaps a little self-righteousness too, only minus the "perhaps." For that I also apologize.

And I do accept yours, too, openly and completely. I know in your heart you are a good man. Not think. Know.

Don't know if you saw it or not, but I did say that I admire you and also asked two or three days ago for a game of chess on yahoo some time. Your intelligence suggests you might be a fun and challenging opponent.

There are no known way to science to this day about how to kill viruses.

That is completely wrong. Tamiflu, interferon and multiple anti-virals are commonly used.

HIV is a retrovirus, which means that after it infects a cell, it turns its RNA genome into DNA and then integrates that DNA into the host cell’s DNA (see diagram above). Usually, the life cycle continues after that – the viral DNA gets read and turned into proteins, which come together to make more HIV virions, which then go infect other cells. The thing is, though, the life cycle doesn’t have to continue immediately. After the HIV DNA has integrated into the cellular DNA, it can just sit there indefinitely – for as long as the cell is alive, which for some cells is a very long time. Virus in this state is known as latent virus – it’s still there, but it’s not actively doing anything. It can’t reproduce or kill cells – but it’s also invisible to the immune system and all the drugs we have.
The theory is that we can’t cure HIV because the drugs only kill the virus that’s actively replicating. They don’t do anything about latent virus because that virus is hidden in the cell’s genome. But latent virus can also reactivate itself, in ways that are still poorly understood.

The problem with treating viruses is that viruses mutate very quickly.

"Vaccinations" in most cases introduce the very beasties you don't want in your body.

First of all, please allow me to state, for the record, that I WAS WRONG.
I claimed that a "civil union" could accomplish the same thing for LG couples as a "marriage" could accomplish, without calling it a marriage.
Clearly, I was misinformed. In its current disjointed and scattered form -- which is practically formless, really -- a civil union does not afford the same protections. I confess my former ignorance on that matter and thank you, Torquoise Pixie, for setting me "straight." :-)

Can civil unions be codified into law, federalized and morphed to offer ALL of the same protections and benefits as are common to marriage?

Creating Civil Unions creates a separate and unequal status for some of America’s citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruled that creating a separate class for gay and lesbian citizens is not permissible and that is why they have voted that only marriage equals marriage. The precedent was set with Brown v. The Board of Education regarding segregation in public education.

Take you, for example. Clearly, you enjoy the company of a woman. And by the looks of you, if you have personality to match, she's a lucky woman. Do you want to honestly tell me that under no circumstances could you ever be turned on and satisified by a man? If so, I say you're not being completely honest. You choose to be with a woman, or with women. But the right man could surely light your fire if you were actually open to it. But your choice precludes that option, right?

There are people who at one time were perverse in their ways toward little kids. But they've turned it around and changed their ways.

There are people who were once into S&M at a level most of us would consider "over the top" or "really out there." But they claim they've "recovered" and do not let people beat them anymore to obtain their sexual pleasure.

will you agree to support blood relatives getting married as long as one of them is unable to produce offspring?

And to reduce the legal age limit to oh, say, 15, and then to agree that we must allow those relationships to also "marry" ?

and that we also need to allow one man to have up to 10 wives and one woman to have up to 10 husbands -- as well as group marriages that can involve up to 14 people?

Zero chance my son will ever get ANY "vaccination."
He's never been "vaccinated" against anything and is healthier than most any other kid I've ever met his age -- and much brighter than all the autistic kids whose entire lives were ruined by "vaccines" that actually caused their condition.
Different U.S. States have different laws on the forced poisoning children. I read of a story in Oregon where the police came in and oversaw a forced "vaccination." Fortunately, I did not have to use force to protect my son from such a violent, unConstitutional intrusion. Where my son was born, refusal to inject a bunch of toxic junk into a baby's bloodstream is optional. Here in Michigan, you can claim exemption for religious beliefs for sure, which we've done. He is healthier than all the plague-injected vaccine monkeys around him, by order of magnitude.
You're another misinformed mama. They are everywhere.

Before smallpox was eradicated with a vaccine, it killed an estimated 500 million people. And just 60 years ago, polio paralyzed 16,000 Americans every year, while rubella caused birth defects and mental retardation in as many as 20,000 newborns. Measles infected 4 million children, killing 3,000 annually, and a bacterium called Haemophilus influenzae type b caused Hib meningitis in more than 15,000 children, leaving many with permanent brain damage. Infant mortality and abbreviated life spans — now regarded as a third world problem — were a first world reality.

Can some of the backlash and resistance to homosexuality and marriages be based on that heterosexuals consider themselves and their sexuality superior to homosexuals and their sexuality? (...) This idea of heterosexual superiority was presented on another forum and it bears some consideration. White-on-white marriage was at one point looked upon as being superior to black marriage and a white who married a black therefore 'lowered' himself from his privilege position as a white.

Homosexuality is considered a flaw.

I try to choose my words carefully for some subjects because I think it makes the utmost difference in term and definition, so I chose 'anomaly' instead of 'flaw' or 'being wrong' because anomalies aren't always about flaws. It's just means something different and out of the ordinary. But if homosexuality is considered a flaw, then it is negated and therefor less than heterosexuality.

I think marriage should be reserved for a man and woman specifically, and I think the term 'civil union' would suffice, but I did not think I was endorsing hetersexual superiority (or homosexual inferiority) by stating or thinking that. So my delimma (not that I quite see this as a delimma on my part, but for the sake of argument) - should I just accept that I'm preaching heterosexual superiority (or homosexual inferiority) and discrimination by believing in and stating that marriage and the term 'marriage' be reserved for a man and woman?

So here is how I'm going to reconcile that within myself for now. I'm going to stick with the notion that marriage is for man and woman specificially, not man and man and woman and woman. On the other hand - I don't give a dam what happens or which way the wind blows. If homosexuals get the right to marry to use that term - it's not going to change anything about anything in my life, including marriage and my views on it. Wish 'em all the luck with that.

My stance on anything and everything can change depending on the information I get and which way I get screwed up (pun intented)

The thugs who believe they have a true and righteous authority to ban a plant created by God/nature but peddle whiskey and tequila by the truckload are, at best, complete liars.

Their concern is not about people's well being -- obviously, as hard liquor is certainly more dangerous than weed. Their "war on drugs" is about control and money.

The marijuana de-criminalization issue is another litmus test on how much someone really believes in freedom. People who oppose de-criminalization oppose freedom, plain and simple.

And, no, I do not smoke pot. But I find the abusive enforcement against the right of a free individual to do so to be an abomination against the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Communism - when one person, a dictator, tries to run an entire country.

Socialism - when a contry's government has control of all available resources and tries to divide all available resources (or the GDP) between all people, thereby limitting or eliminating the 3 social classes (middle, wealthy, poor). There usually are a lot of social programs run by the government to help the poor or those who them became poor (as the wealthy lost of lot of it's wealth).

From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think."

Yes: It is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

David Boies
is the chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner in New York.

In the debate over gay marriage there are two related but distinct questions.

One question is whether people believe, for religious or other reasons, that people of the same sex should not fall in love and marry each other; many people have strong and sincere beliefs on each side of this question.

The second question is whether state laws prohibiting persons of the same sex from marrying each other violate the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the U.S. Constitution; this is the question that former Solicitor General Ted Olson and I are now litigating in our case to overturn California's Proposition 8, which prohibits gay marriage in that state.

People's personal views of the appropriateness of same-sex relationships naturally influence their views of our lawsuit. However, it is important to remember that the legal question does not, and under our Constitution cannot, depend on people's personal preferences.

The constitutional issue is quite simple. The Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Constitution:

In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, a unanimous court overturned the laws of more than 20 states that at the time prohibited interracial marriage.

In 1978, the Supreme Court, in Zablocki v. Redhail, vacated as unconstitutional (by an 8-1 vote) a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The court emphasized, "Decisions of this court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

In 1987, in Turner v. Safley, the court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying, holding that marriages were "expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship."

In 2003, Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that the court's ruling undermined the rationale for any state limitations on gay marriage.

There are five basic arguments that are made to support state prohibitions. First, it is argued that the prohibitions are the result of the democratic process. This is true but irrelevant to the constitutional question. The purpose of constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process is to limit the power of the majority to restrict minority rights.

Second, it is argued tautologically that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. That is the question, and a circular answer does not advance the analysis. In fact, marriage is not, and has not been, limited to persons of different sexes. Not only are there historical examples, but there are a number of states in this country (including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and California before the passage of Proposition 8) and a number of foreign nations (including countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada) that have embraced gay and lesbian marriage.

Third, it is argued that same-sex marriages are inconsistent with religious teachings. As a Christian, I would disagree. (See Matthew 22:35-40.) As a lawyer, it is irrelevant. The First Amendment guarantees the right of religious opponents of gay marriage to express their personal disapproval of such unions and the right of churches that forbid same-sex marriages not to perform them. But the same First Amendment, as well as the due-process and equal-protection clauses, precludes anyone from using state law to enforce his or her religious beliefs on others.

Fourth, it is sometimes argued that permitting gays and lesbians to marry will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage. There is no evidence that this is so, and contrary evidence from places where same-sex marriage is permitted. Moreover, it is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two heterosexuals in love deciding not to marry, or to get a divorce depending on whether their gay neighbors are permitted to marry.

Fifth, it is argued that it has "always" been true that gays and lesbians have been prohibited from marrying. As already noted, this has not been, and is not, true. Moreover, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy elegantly wrote in Lawrence v. Texas, rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights:

"Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Truth is, as far as legality, it boils down to money, as do most major changes that require changes in statute.

For example, as the ONLY group of people who DUE TO their sexual orientation, engage in the behavior most risky as far as contracting aids, are homosexual men, insurance companies could refuse to cover their treatment. It may seem ridiculous, but it could well end up a valid legal argument.

The arguments presented thus far do not address the money issue. Arguments based on religious beliefs are no more or less effective than those based on personal feelings due to upbringing aside from religion, either.

In any case, what does any of this have to do with Atheism?!?!

There are plenty of homosexual, as well as heterosexual Christians, who believe that God loves everyone, just as HE made them. If YOUR God doesn't believe that Muslims, or Catholics, etc., are deserving, does that mean no one else gets into heaven? or that no one else deserves to marry? Seems a bit ridiculous, at best, and very unchristian, if you ask me.

Fascists, socialists, communists -- all cut from the same cloth, which is a worship of the State and a general premise that you take from producers and give to government to dole it out to consumers.

and all those whose "social" policies paved the way for the social destruction yet to come.

Yes. Take (steal) trillions of dollars from people who work and give it to those who don't. Problem solved. It just fixes itself. :-)

Should angels fly down from heaven and rub their feet, too?

Treating two married men as equal to a married man and a married woman is precisely why it's an uphill fight -- because they aren't equal in the minds of millions and millions of people, and those millions refuse to ever agree that they are.

Calling a homosexual civil union a "marriage" would -- to millions of people in an actual marriage -- sully the very concept of marriage.

It is precisely the "evolving to the greater good" that clashes in the "gay" marriage conversation.

In America, there are many, many millions of people who do not see that as a move toward a greater good, but away from it.

Nobody is saying homosexuals have to sit in the back of the bus.

Nobody is denying them the vote.

Nobody is trying to sell them, or beat them and force them into slavery.

My opinion that marriage should be reserved as between a man and a woman does not harm anyone.

All the privileges and benefits of "marriage" (as well as the problems and troubles!) can be accessed via a legally recognized "civil union" -- complete with a contract, a license, etc.

The sodomites of the world can get their benefits without intruding upon the institution of marriage ...

...and without forcing tens of millions of people to link their actual marriage to these civil unions.

historians tell us that homosexuality has existed since the earliest of human societies.

So has murder. So what? That something has existed for a long time does not make it proper. That argument is therefore meaningless.

They are trying to force people to sacrifice thousands of years of understanding about the very meaning of marriage.

First, what does "advancing humankind" means, exactly

It means procreating. Having children.

I do know that every society on the planet since antiquity has been putting two people together, a man and a woman, with or without ceremony – for the purpose of having children to further their own society and human species

Homosexuality is an anomaly of the human and animal species that you probably can’t change but anomalies are not the accepted norm. I’ll have to repeat that since many people do not want to understand or accept that - Homosexualty is an anomaly and not an accepted norm for the human species. That’s why they are anomalies – meaning they are different and out of the ordinary.

Society is changing and I do believe there is a place for same-sex couples in it and to thrive in it and do well – children or no children.

I thought a ‘civil ceremony’ was just fine.

OK, I understand this now. Even if I knew that the person's comments where meant to be taken as sarcasm or as a joke, I too would have felt compelled to answer in a similar and defensive way that you did because I still would have seen it as offensive to me as a black person. ‘Oh nice joke hahahaheehee but what the hell does black rights and black/white screwing around have to do with incest, animal sex and pedophilia? Are you trying to compare these? That’s not funny, its derisive and offensive.’

women who ‘turn gay’ because of constant bad relationships with men or because they are ‘gay’ as long as the their fling lasts with a woman and when its over they are back with a man. Or the men who are ‘straight’ but has the desire to get his butt poked or been turned out in jail, through abuse, or some wild ass same sex fling he had in college or high school.

Or the bisexuals who can’t seem to make up their mind and go either whichaway – thereby making a choice to be either gay or straight depending on whichever way the wind blows (now I understand why they had to fight to be included in the antonym. Gays don’t like it either when you can’t make up your mind and including bisexuals would seem to actually hurt the cause than help it. Including bisexuals would make everyone else think homosexuality really was a choice and not born).

And then there are transsexuals who claim they are straight but dress in drag.

Is being raised into hatred and bigotry why some of the choose to stay there? Like homosexual Catholics? I never could figure that one. I mean even if they chose a gay pope - the entire religion is ademently against homosexuality. That's like me becoming treasurer to the KKK. The KKK wants to diversity and choose me, but they're still against blacks. That's an absolute cross-parallel.

A homosexual person would say the exact same thing. Even gay people aspire for their offspring (gay or biological) to be heterosexuals, not gay. Any idea why?

Conscious soul, that video is not only hilarious but brilliant, thanks for sharing it. Also thanks for all the information on the background of the gay rights struggles, it was interesting to read.

We as parents who are heterosexual and have been brought up in a society with a low level of understanding of homosexuality (whether because of society in general or perhaps of our religious upbringing) often have a very hard time in coming to terms with news that our very courageous and honest children have given us.
Most of our children whether they are younger or older when they have come out to us have usually taken years to try and come to terms with their sexuality or gender. Some have a very hard time with this process and some never really come to terms with it themselves. Some find it easier not for you to know at all. But they all have seriously thought it through and have finally wanted to be honest to themselves and their loved ones by coming out.
This Is Not Something They Choose To Be.
Unfortunately when they come out to us (intentionally or other wise) we tend to go straight into that same closet they came out of. Now We have to come to terms with our child's sexuality or change of gender.
Just remember we cannot change them, they are who they are as we are who we are and no one can change us or would we want them to.

Myth. * The Majority Of Child Molesters Are Gay Men And Women.
Fact. Statistics have shown that paedophelia or child molestsation is perpetrated by mainly heterosexuals. In fact, over 90% of all reported molestations are carried out by heterosexual males.

Myth. * All Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual And Transgender People Choose To Be That Way.
Fact. The only place where choice seems to come into play is when they decide how they will acknowledge their identity. Choosing if and how to 'come out' and choosing who to tell.

counter to the fabric of American sovereignty and several founding principles we hold dear.

Marriage is simply something that should be reserved for a man and a woman.

You disagree. Nothing you can say will ever persuade me of the sanity or soundness of your position.

And since I have no interest in attempting to change your mind, we may as well stick a fork in this conversation and call it done, CS.

I am really OK with you believing I am a fool for knowing my Creator intimately, and a really mean and selfish person because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

I do not wish to try to change your beliefs and would fight to defend your right to believe as you do.

I have been a very, very open man in my life to all possibilities surrounding my convictions and have arrived at them by choice and experience, not coercion.

Do you choose to be with women or it's natural to you ? Is it something you prefer ?

Yes. But not "women." One woman. When I find her.

Who chooses to get into your bed? You? Or someone else chooses for you?

I understand, and I RESPECT, that you feel very differently. I honor your RIGHT to believe as you choose. I truly mean that.

The United Nations has no authority over the United States Constitution.

Furthermore, their organization openly and adamantly opposes some of the bedrock principles upon which America was founded ...

...and which made America great.

There is no denying that white heterosexual men have more priveledge than any other group in society....but how does one change that?

We change it by sending a message along the lines of fvck you....I am entitled to the same rights and freedoms as you are (legislation making hate crimes or discrimination an illegal act). You can't keep me from gaining employment because you don't like my race/gender/sexual preference/age/etc...... You can't stop me from having access to the same services and treatment under the law. You can't stop me from being married because you don't approve of my sexual orientation. I am a human being just like you. (ItsAllInTheSoul)

Are you saying a man "accidentally" sodomizes another man?
Do they suddenly find themselves, by no choice, in bed together?

I do not CARE what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, AT ALL.

Do they suddenly find themselves, by no choice, in bed together?

People choose what they do with their own bodies. Some choose S&M. Some choose master/slave stuff. Some use kinky toys. Some, group sex (orgies). Some choose to be with members of the opposite sex. Others, the same sex. Some like missionary, others doggie style. It's ALL about making choices and following through on them.

Now if you are talking about what gets someone sexually aroused, riddle me this, Monkey: If queers "have no choice, because that is what turns them on," then where do you stop using that excuse for behavior? Pedaphiles allege the same thing.

I am not "comparing" beyond reason, just making a point that just because someone gets aroused by a thing doesn't make that thing right, good, wholesome, natural or normal -- let alone Marriage Material.

But to say a guy has no choice in who he beds or is absurd.

And to suggest that anything that turns you on should be allowed a blanket under the banner of marriage is ludicrous.

Their "principles" are more important than the principles of those who oppose "gay" marriage, even though their principles are in the gross minority

I see. So perhaps we shouldn't have abolished slavery. After all, the white were definitely a majority, and they faught tooth and nail to keep their so called "rights" to enslave black people.

Brilliant. The majority even in liberal California want to protect marriage as between a man and a woman, and that means they want to own humans as slaves. Excellent deductive reasoning once again, ConsciousSoul.

Disagreeing with a minority means you are a close-minded bigot.

But disagreeing with the majority makes you a compassionate scholar.

Please show me where there is a "right to have a government sanctioned marriage." I've studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights and have yet to see it.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status...
Article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution".

A historic declaration was launched at the 60th anniversary of the UDHR at the UN in December 2009 to de-criminalize homosexuality. Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration, which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination."

I would never ever ever never turn my back on my kids for being gay/lesbian. Of course i dont aspire for them to be, but if they are, it doesnt change that it is my beloved child. I would invite their partner over for Sunday dinner even.

Me either. No normal parent wants a child to grow up to be LBGTQS&MPDQBFEXD. You want a normal child, like every other normal parent.

But if he came home and asked for my support to fight for his "right" to get "married" to his boyfriend, I'd lovingly and respectfully decline.

We can recognize their alternative lifestyle choices via a civil union. They are trying to force people to sacrifice thousands of years of understanding about the very meaning of marriage.

Right. Their "principles" are more important than the principles of those who oppose "gay" marriage, even though their principles are in the gross minority and fly in the face of the principles of the majority and clash harshly with the majority's belief systems, values and morals.

BTW, I referenced earlier my best friend having been bi and having died. He and I used to discuss all this stuff endlessly. I persuaded him that marriage is between a man and a woman and did so while having him know and feel how much love I had for him. He finally agreed willingly and changed his position.

Tell that to the majority of voters in California. Even in that very liberal land you cannot get a simple majority vote to support "gay" marriage. That's a clue.

I find myself unable to invest further time engaging your mind now that your inability to debate is confirmed.

I'd already given up on your cohort on this thread ...

To answer your other Bible-directed question after being incorrectly accused of "hiding" behind scripture would be an invitation to further insult.

That debate got so old so long ago I just can't waste the time on it.

The color of your skin is not changeable (not easily anyway), nor is it a choice.
What you do in your bedroom is a choice. (openHeart)

...so is trying to force everyone else in the world to think about what you do in your bedroom. (openHeart)

I'll answer your questions ConsciousSoul but it will require more time and thought than I am willing to give it right now. (nappyKAT)

You know I always felt irritated when LGBTQ compared their struggles to Blacks.

I didn't think it appropriately fit especially with whites because they would still be very racist and yet choose to hide behind their minority status as a different sexual orientation. It still irritates me because I see whites as a privilege majority and sexual orientation can easily be hidden unlike the color of one's skin.

btw, that antonym gets longer and longer. I remember when it was just Lesbians and gays, then LBGT, and now it's LGBTQ.

But on the other hand I do relate to things better from a racial perspective. And what I just said can be said about blacks - that we can be very heterosexist or against gays but can comfortably choose to hide behind our own 'minority' status. Ofcourse I don't believe that about us, don't want to believe it; but it may be a very apt argument.

What about incestuous people's rights? What about the rights of people who want to have sex with animals? And with young children? Can't we all just get along?

Highly debatable quote but I thought this was sarcasm and trying to deflect an answer away from the intended question of gay/lesbian rights, not that he means this on the same level.

I still think marriage was meant for a man and a woman but what changed my mind about their 'right' to have a legal state sanctioned marriage was just exactly that - it's a legal, state sanctioned, privilege with a signed document that grants you governmental perks that they are wanting and this should be absolutely void of religion.

At the very basic, marriage was about putting two people together to advance humankind (and keeping paternity in tact), and two people of the same gender can not do that.

I believe (may still believe) that marriage was intended for a man and a woman. That is how it's been in every country and every society whether 'advanced' or 'primitive.'

If you are familiar with that very long word antidisestablishmentter..... then you know that religion shouldn't be in legal and government matters anyway - something we preach but do not practice.

I'll inform my friend whose son was instructed by a "gay" teacher how to give a BJ.

To answer your other Bible-directed question after being incorrectly accused of "hiding" behind scripture would be an invitation to further insult.

I know you aren't suggesting, surely, that all sexual acts between two men are "love-making," are you?

But hey, at least we agree that there is some intrinsic value for burnings at the stake.

what does "Your Father" drew as a line for LGBTQ people's rights, according to you?

If you have to ask someone else, you haven't done your homework on the subject.

Personally, I do not believe it is under the purview of government to lay down laws that force sexual morality on free people.

Yes, varying degrees of social acceptance of sexual practices that are not mainstream lumps them all into a category. Man/Woman monogamy outside the bounds of marriage is in the same category, if the subject (domain of conversation) is sexual practices. In fact, even INSIDE marriage, things can be rotten. Case in point is a man who rapes his wife -- subject of a news report recently.

My point was not and is not to say that I would view a dude screwing a pig in the same way I'd view a dude screwing another dude.

But if you lay with a child, male or female, I am absolutely for burning you at the stake, and that is final.

Probably not much different than Christians being compared to Satanists, don't you think?

Just look right here right now at OpenHeart's response about gay/lesbian rights, which he happily compares to child rape, bestiality or incest!

I never made any such comparison. I asked three questions that arc further down a path of sexual practices that extend deeper and deeper into "not accepted by society."

"ConsciousSoul" asked: What about gay/lesbian rights?
I replied with questions:
What about incestuous people's rights? What about the rights of people who want to have sex with animals? And with young children?

With you, "ConsciousSoul," even a question gets me falsely accused and terribly mislabeled.

My questions were about where one draws the line. You draw your own. I prefer to allow my Father to draw them for me and be obedient to Him on such matters.

And there ARE people who believe that people should be allowed to have sex with animals. And dead people. There ARE people who believe adults should be able to have sex with children. The most vocal among them are the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), in which homosexual men press for the right to sexually indoctrinate little boys into their practices.

I find myself unable to invest further time engaging your mind now that your inability to debate is confirmed.

I'd already given up on your cohort on this thread ...

How do you come to term with all these paradox?

I couldn't. I also can't deny that which for me seems right...believing in God. Perhaps your post might have been better directed at religious people, not all believers. (ItsAllInTheSoul)

One thing you don't seem to be catching on to is that the Bible is written by man. It was divinely inspired, yes, but it was written by men. The crusades were done by men. Witches burned at the stake, all done by mankind. Yes, done in the name of God, but still done by mankind. (ValkyrieHJR)

I honestly believe that there is a difference between organized religion & a belief system (ohwhynot46)

At the same time - I really do believe there are some things that are beyond human definition and comprehension. I've somewhat witnessed this in my life when it comes to certain events. I know there are other's who have witnessed it because they have a supernatural gift - whatever that is. (NappyKAT)

Those are the hypocrites. For Christians, once you truly accept God into your heart it means that you try to live your life in a Godly way. You don't go around beating people up. You don't steal or murder. You try to live and do the right things because they are the right things to do. (ValkyrieHJR)

Also, (and please don't go wild or crazy on this as what I am about to write is purely speculation, after doing a lot of studying on my part. No proof, no theory or hypothesis, just speculation) in the Bible there is a long period of time missing from Christ's life. Around the same time of those missing years there was a prophet traveling through India preaching some of the same things as Jesus, only difference, said prophet was supposedly Hindu, not Jewish. But what is to say that that wasn't Jesus spreading his teachings? (ValkyrieHJR)

What about gay/lesbian rights?

What about incestuous people's rights? What about the rights of people who want to have sex with animals? And with young children? Can't we all just get along?

As to sex education, I do not want a government indoctrination center (skool) teaching my son their version of morality any more than you want religious folks teaching your son their values and beliefs on that subject. Sex education should happen in the home, with proper parenting.

But if you think the government can do a better job at teaching your son what's what about sex...

School-taught values are probably closer to your own in areas of sexuality, no naturally you're more willing to hand over that responsbility than I am.

to date nobody has been able to prove how the universe started, nor validate God's address.

If you need science to prove God's existence before you allow yourself to meet Him ...

I could have written on about the scientific method, hypotheses and the like to "prove" that God is an unsound theory.

If you need science to prove God's existence before you allow yourself to meet Him, that's okay. To me it sounds very sad and lonely. But I do understand that mindset. I truly do.

It's actually "energy is neither created or destroyed," but your point is well taken.

Speaking of which, have you looked at the science behind where a person's consciousness/soul goes at the moment of death? It's measured in perceived weight loss. If not, start with snopes so you know it's not an urband legend. http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Those who believe that the body becomes lighter [at the moment of death] seem to think that the soul has weight, weight that must of necessity depart with it, and — with that brisk disregard of strict veracity which so frequenly marks discussions of this nature — have claimed that dying men, at the very moment of their decease, have been placed on delicate scales that have recorded their mortuary degravitation. But these persons have never been able to specify in just what ghoulish laboratory this took place, or what private home was so interestingly equipped, or the names and addresses of the relatives who so commendably placed scientific and religious curiosity before sentimental concern for the patient's comfort.

It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more.

The Scientific Method isn't going to answer that question any time soon.

But a parent teaching a kid to be an atheist oughta maybe give it some consideration, perhaps.

what explosion have you ever known that CREATED? Every time I've blown something up it was destroyed

You believe in what you can study and understand. Okay, then, can't you read and understand religion?

Don't you ever just ask, "why is this happening to me?"

Haven't you ever had something horrible happen in your life and you wish you knew why it happened? I am not talking about the circumstances surrounding the tragedy, but the reason it happened to begin with.

Belief in anything offers people hope that there is something greater than them.

That there is a reason why these horrible things in our lives happen.

But there has to be some hope for an afterlife. Otherwise people will lose the will to fight for the things they want and love and believe in.

I have tried to discuss this with family and close friends, but ended up bombarded by everyone from my mother in law from from the teacher to her estranged bio-father on how im poisioning her by telling her it is ok tio be an atheist.

I think that it is important for people to believe in something. What that is, though, is completely up to them.

If next week she wants to be a Buddhist, Jew, Wiccan, or Taoist, or go back to Catholicism, thats fine also.

Sounds rather unstable to me.

Does anyone else think the bible is a disgusting book not for for children whatsoever?

I have said this before and will say it again that men will agree to kids to make mates happy and to keep the poon happenin'.

Men are simple, women are like computer hacking ...

Trust me liz, having a hard time being proud to be guy these days myself.

a women doesn't have to have reason to divorce,

Women are way too fickle to even bother marrying anymore. It's way too dangerous and risky.

He got promoted and power and money tend to skew a persons morality a bit so this lead to either him banging his secretary or some tart who figured she would get him to leave the wife and take her away

sure you may have been abused or cheated on but all in all you still came out on top.

Meanwhile, she got swept up in the disney movie scenario of perfect kids, perfect hubby, perfect house and gave up her career. Lots of faith considering the numbers ( and we all know you guys hate stats) and now do we blame him? Her?

What did she do? Married him and had his child and then couldn't stand it any longer and they separated in less than two years. His fault? Hardly...

All of your facts are pretty good ConciousSoul. I have commented myself that the first few years of a baby's life can be expensive. Just as a side note though, the way you were talking in this thread I assumed that you had kids, but I just looked at your profile and it says that you don't. Whats up with that?

child support is bullcrap. if a woman did not have children she would still need...a house...

a car, gas in the car...

food (and let's face it if you make hamburger helper for 3 instead of 1 how much more is that really)

she needs electricity even if alone, water, and cable tv.

let's say the kids have 200 dollars every 6 months in new clothes.

so what is child support really?

It's odd isn't it? Single moms are not allowed to adopt, but gays and lesbians are.

This does not mean that of both a man and woman were painter's helpers the man would be making 30% more than the woman. That is actually extremely illegal here in the states. It just means that positions that are more typically assigned as being a "woman's job" tend to pay less than those typical assigned to men.