Open letter to Bush on Church and State

[ofiba]

Yeah that might be one.

Or another might be that it's posted on a site which claims to be "A pro-people organization offering Christian support to men and women choosing to leave homosexuality, and equipping the church to minister effectively and compassionately."

 

I'm sure there's no bias and that it must be pure science

 

124020[/snapback]

 

Care to show me a non-biased study that proves homosexuality is genetic?

[Simon]

Oh and by the way, for some reason The Mayo Clinic seems to view the results of Hamer's study slightly differently than your church site.

 

From the Mayo Clinic: "Dean Hamer and colleagues reported at least one gene related to homosexual orientation that appears to reside on the X chromosome and is inherited from the mother."

 

Gee, who could have an agenda here?

Yeah, it must be the Mayo Clinic.......

[Simon]

Care to show me a non-biased study that proves homosexuality is genetic?

 

No study has yet to prove anything conclusively. However, I will avoid referencing a spurious study which is currently being investigated by the scientific community. Neither will I link anything from an anti-gay site which appears intent on interpreting the results with no other intention than to further it's own narrow-minded agenda.

 

Here's a little something from the National Institute of Health in Bethesda:

 

"A DNA transplant made these male fruit flies turn away from females. What does that say about the origins of homosexuality?

 

BY LARRY THOMPSON/BETHESDA

 

Fruit flies are among the most sexually proficient creatures on earth. Their ability to produce a new generation in two weeks has made them the darlings of genetics researchers for nearly a century. Put a male fruit fly into a bottle with a female, and he doesn't waste any time before getting down to business.

 

So it's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves.

 

With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line.

 

What's going on?

 

Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.

 

A report of Odenwald and Zhang's findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the mounting evidence that homosexuality has genetic origins, and is sure to produce new fireworks in the contentious debate over what it means to be gay. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation."

 

 

 

Of course, I'm sure NIH/Bethesda has some agenda to undermine American morals....

[Alaska Darin]

No study has yet to prove anything conclusively. However, I will avoid referencing a spurious study which is currently being investigated by the scientific community. Neither will I link anything from an anti-gay site which appears intent on interpreting the results with no other intention than to further it's own narrow-minded agenda.

 

Here's a little something from the National Institute of Health in Bethesda:

 

"A DNA transplant made these male fruit flies turn away from females. What does that say about the origins of homosexuality?

 

BY LARRY THOMPSON/BETHESDA

 

Fruit flies are among the most sexually proficient creatures on earth. Their ability to produce a new generation in two weeks has made them the darlings of genetics researchers for nearly a century. Put a male fruit fly into a bottle with a female, and he doesn't waste any time before getting down to business.

 

So it's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves.

 

With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line.

 

What's going on?

 

Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.

 

A report of Odenwald and Zhang's findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the mounting evidence that homosexuality has genetic origins, and is sure to produce new fireworks in the contentious debate over what it means to be gay. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation."

Of course, I'm sure NIH/Bethesda has some agenda to undermine American morals....   

124076[/snapback]

Those doctors are surely flaming pillowbiters.

[Simon]

And here I was waiting for the "fruit" fly joke

 

[Alaska Darin]

And here I was waiting for the "fruit" fly joke

 

124092[/snapback]

I was saving it.

[GG]

And here I was waiting for the "fruit" fly joke

 

124092[/snapback]

 

So, a fruit fly walks into a bar...

[ofiba]

No study has yet to prove anything conclusively. However, I will avoid referencing a spurious study which is currently being investigated by the scientific community. Neither will I link anything from an anti-gay site which appears intent on interpreting the results with no other intention than to further it's own narrow-minded agenda.

 

Here's a little something from the National Institute of Health in Bethesda:

 

"A DNA transplant made these male fruit flies turn away from females. What does that say about the origins of homosexuality?

 

BY LARRY THOMPSON/BETHESDA

 

Fruit flies are among the most sexually proficient creatures on earth. Their ability to produce a new generation in two weeks has made them the darlings of genetics researchers for nearly a century. Put a male fruit fly into a bottle with a female, and he doesn't waste any time before getting down to business.

 

So it's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves.

 

With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line.

 

What's going on?

 

Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.

 

A report of Odenwald and Zhang's findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the mounting evidence that homosexuality has genetic origins, and is sure to produce new fireworks in the contentious debate over what it means to be gay. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation."

Of course, I'm sure NIH/Bethesda has some agenda to undermine American morals....   

124076[/snapback]

 

I also read about a study where scientists altered a part of a rat's brain and made it very aggressive. If that rat killed another rat, would that prove that people can be natural born murderers? Just because you can manipulate an animal, that does not give evidence to say humans are born gay.

[Arondale]

Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.

 

A report of Odenwald and Zhang's findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the mounting evidence that homosexuality has genetic origins, and is sure to produce new fireworks in the contentious debate over what it means to be gay. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation."

Of course, I'm sure NIH/Bethesda has some agenda to undermine American morals....   

124076[/snapback]

 

So basically, they have no evidence this behavior can be translated to humans. They also can't claim that a single gene makes a person homosexual. They believe homosexuality has genetic origins, but it only influences sexual orientation.

 

I'm sure you can find a lot more of these studies but they prove nothing about homosexuality being genetically pre-determined. They prove nothing that would equate homosexuality with genetics that determine whether we are male, female, black, white, short, tall, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc. These are genetic traits that cannot be changed. You can't be born white and then choose to become black. You can't be born 5'-6" and choose to change your height to 6'-2".

 

You can be born heterosexual and choose to be homosexual and there is no scientific study that supports anything but that. Anger has genetic origins, but you can choose to control it and change it. Just because some gene may predispose someone to display more anger, does that excuse him from any consequences of that anger? A person may be born with a gene giving them homosexual tendencies, but just as in anger management they have the choice of whether to follow that tendency or to work to control it and eliminate its effect.

[ExiledInIllinois]

So basically, they have no evidence this behavior can be translated to humans.  They also can't claim that a single gene makes a person homosexual.  They believe homosexuality has genetic origins, but it only influences sexual orientation.

 

I'm sure you can find a lot more of these studies but they prove nothing about homosexuality being genetically pre-determined.  They prove nothing that would equate homosexuality with genetics that determine whether we are male, female, black, white, short, tall, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc.  These are genetic traits that cannot be changed.  You can't be born white and then choose to become black.  You can't be born 5'-6" and choose to change your height to 6'-2".

 

You can be born heterosexual and choose to be homosexual and there is no scientific study that supports anything but that.  Anger has genetic origins, but you can choose to control it and change it.  Just because some gene may predispose someone to display more anger, does that excuse him from any consequences of that anger?  A person may be born with a gene giving them homosexual tendencies, but just as in anger management they have the choice of whether to follow that tendency or to work to control it and eliminate its effect.

124340[/snapback]

 

Arondale... On another note... What do you think of the notion that all humans are conceived female?

 

??

[Simon]

If that rat killed another rat, would that prove that people can be natural born murderers?

Now you're comparing homosexuals to murderous rats?

Quit hiding behind the science and just admit there is hate in your heart. Maybe your God will grant you the compassion you seek.

 

You can be born heterosexual and choose to be homosexual and there is no scientific study that supports anything but that.

Nice try, but no matter how much you wish it was true there is no scientific evidence to support that either. Since genetics is such a relatively young science there is really no definitive evidence to support any particular theory although its becoming clearer that there is some sort of link between genetics and homosexuality. My guess is that at some point in the not-too-distant future somebody will discover that definitive link and at that point you will have 3 choices: admit that God creates homosexuals, recognize that God is not infallible, find a different reason to discriminate against somebody because they're different from you.

Geee, I wonder which you'll choose.....

[ofiba]

Now you're comparing homosexuals to murderous rats? 

Quit hiding behind the science and just admit there is hate in your heart. Maybe your God will grant you the compassion you seek.

124384[/snapback]

 

You compared homosexuals to fruit flies. I was simply making the point that trying to control an animal doesn't prove anything about homosexual humans.

 

Also, why is it that whevever there is a homosexuality debate, the people that support homosexuality always make claims that the people that don't support it HATE homosexuals, and then maybe make a quick little jab about "our" God. You can disapprove of something and still not hate it. If your son was cheating on his wife, you probably would not support that action. Does that mean you would hate him? No. You would just rather them not do thatl. It is quite ironic that a person telling me be compassionate thinks it's kind to mock my faith simply because they do not believe the same thing.

 

You showed a study that basically showed nothing. The people made a HUGE leap from fruit flies to homosexuals and even admitted that their study didn't prove anything.

[MichFan]

Also, why is it that whevever there is a homosexuality debate, the people that support homosexuality always make claims that the people that don't support it HATE homosexuals

Libs have a hard time arguing the case for gay marriage, therefore they just make an emotional argument and part of that process is callling anyone who disagrees with them haters, bigots, and religious zealots on par with those who disagreed with equal rights for African Americans and women. Gays are not systematically being deprived freedoms and equal rights in our society the way that African Americans and women were. They have in fact only two niche issues -- civil unions and marriage. Morality is the key barrier to success in these issues, and in the libs' desperation they have sunken to the level of attempting to make people feel bad about their morals and values. As the past election shows, this is pissing a lot of people off and causing normally silent people to particpate in the democratic process to ensure morality is an issue that the libs can't conveniently bury.

[GG]

They have in fact only two niche issues -- civil unions and marriage.  Morality is the key barrier to success in these issues, and in the libs' desperation they have sunken to the level of attempting to make people feel bad about their morals and values.  As the past election shows, this is pissing a lot of people off and causing normally silent people to particpate in the democratic process to ensure morality is an issue that the libs can't conveniently bury.

124707[/snapback]

 

But that is the key issue, you cannot make a persuasive argument for morality in banning civil unions, without introducing the Church into the State.

[OnTheRocks]

No study has yet to prove anything conclusively. However, I will avoid referencing a spurious study which is currently being investigated by the scientific community. Neither will I link anything from an anti-gay site which appears intent on interpreting the results with no other intention than to further it's own narrow-minded agenda.

 

Here's a little something from the National Institute of Health in Bethesda:

 

"A DNA transplant made these male fruit flies turn away from females. What does that say about the origins of homosexuality?

 

BY LARRY THOMPSON/BETHESDA

 

Fruit flies are among the most sexually proficient creatures on earth. Their ability to produce a new generation in two weeks has made them the darlings of genetics researchers for nearly a century. Put a male fruit fly into a bottle with a female, and he doesn't waste any time before getting down to business.

 

So it's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves.

 

With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line.

 

What's going on?

 

Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.

 

A report of Odenwald and Zhang's findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the mounting evidence that homosexuality has genetic origins, and is sure to produce new fireworks in the contentious debate over what it means to be gay. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation."

Of course, I'm sure NIH/Bethesda has some agenda to undermine American morals....   

124076[/snapback]

 

 

 

just who is paying for all this research ??

[MichFan]

But that is the key issue, you cannot make a persuasive argument for morality in banning civil unions, without introducing the Church into the State.

 

How about:

- society for at least the last couple of thousand years has defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman

- a man and a woman are the only two that can come together naturally and make a family

- approx. 70% of those given the opportunity to vote on gay marriage have voted against it

- the act of anal sex is unnatural, unhealthy, and in many cases both physically and psychologically abusive to those who succumb to it

- homosexuality (followed by bisexuality) ignited the spread of one of the largest public health disasters of our time (HIV/AIDS)

 

Huh, I guess I can.

[Simon]

You compared homosexuals to fruit flies.

No, I simply posted info from a famous scientific study. You created your very own hypothetical which compared homosexuality to killer rats.

 

 

Also, why is it that whevever there is a homosexuality debate, the people that support homosexuality always make claims that the people that don't support it HATE homosexuals, and then maybe make a quick little jab about "our" God.

I don't support homosexuality, I support equality for all people, not just those whom I identify with. You know, that whole American thingie........

And you are the one who brought god into the issue when you posted the link to that "church".

 

It is quite ironic that a person telling me be compassionate thinks it's kind to mock my faith simply because they do not believe the same thing.

I have no intention of mocking your faith; quite to the contrary. I find the tenets of compassion and understanding in your faith to be intriguing and admirable. What I do not find admirable and will continue to mock is those who ignore those basic tenets of their very own faith and instead choose to hide behind that faith while using it as a shield to bash those with whom they differ.

 

 

 

 

But that is the key issue, you cannot make a persuasive argument for morality in banning civil unions, without introducing the Church into the State.

And here we come to, what for me, is the entire crux of this whole ridicuous debate. No matter how many times I turn it over in my head, I simply cannot figure out what in the hell our state and/or federal government has to do with church sanctioned activities. Every time I see this issue raised, it is totally ignored just like it will be this time. That tells me that nobody has an answer, and the reason for that is that there isn't one.

If gay marriage is to be debated, the debate should take place in churches, not statehouses.

[JoeFerguson]

- the act of anal sex is unnatural, unhealthy, and in many cases both physically and psychologically abusive to those who succumb to it

125112[/snapback]

 

Can you provide a scientific study to prove that it is physically and psychologically abusive? Don't people volunteer to do it? Have you ever engaged in anal sex?

[ofiba]

I don't support homosexuality, I support equality for all people, not just those whom I identify with. You know, that whole American thingie........

And you are the one who brought god into the issue when you posted the link to that "church".

 

125125[/snapback]

 

I didn't post a link to a church. I posted a link to a study that happened to be done by a religous group. I didn't say there was no bias. I was simply showing a study that showed that it is not fact that homosexuality is in born.

[MichFan]

Can you provide a scientific study to prove that it is physically and psychologically abusive? Don't people volunteer to do it? Have you ever engaged in anal sex?

I'm glad you can only refute this one point, it goes to show that I was dead on with my previous post. I'm not going to provide links to that information. A master debater like you surely knows how to use google or yahoo. There are plenty of sites that discuss the damage that can be done by anal sex. As for the attack on me, it goes to show that you are threatened by a rational argument against gay marriage. It's probably because you have yet to be able to do anything but challenge what I'm saying. I have no personal experience with the subject matter other than having been frequently woken up by the violent sound of gay "love" between neighbors at a prior residence.

 

JF's master debating skills = Waaah! MichFan called me a lib. Waah! MichFan said anal sex is abusive. Waah! Where's the study? Waah, waah, waah!

[JoeFerguson]

I'm glad you can only refute this one point, it goes to show that I was dead on with my previous post.  I'm not going to provide links to that information.  A master debater like you surely knows how to use google or yahoo.  There are plenty of sites that discuss the damage that can be done by anal sex.  As for the attack on me, it goes to show that you are threatened by a rational argument against gay marriage.  It's probably because you have yet to be able to do anything but challenge what I'm saying.  I have no personal experience with the subject matter other than having been frequently woken up by the violent sound of gay "love" between neighbors at a prior residence.

 

JF's master debating skills = Waaah!  MichFan called me a lib.  Waah!  MichFan said anal sex is abusive.  Waah!  Where's the study?  Waah, waah, waah!

125762[/snapback]

 

You're right. You beat me. I am such an idiot.

 

The attack on you was based on responses I've read from you on this entire board, not just this one thread. You're obnoxious and it has nothing to do with your stance on any issue, it's the way you present yourself.

[MichFan]

You're right. You beat me. I am such an idiot.

 

The attack on you was based on responses I've read from you on this entire board, not just this one thread. You're obnoxious and it has nothing to do with your stance on any issue, it's the way you present yourself.

JF - based on the quality of your posts I can tell you're not an idiot. With regards to my posts being obnoxious -- some in this topic have been to make a point. Most everyone around here uses sarcasm and extremist positions at times in that manner. Tennyboy makes/made a living out of it. Many of my posts have presented the case against gay marriage from my perspective in a mature manner. We've been baiting each other back and forth with our posts and I didn't know if you were doing it for fun or because you were personally bothered. Obviously it was the latter. Sorry that my comments regarding you have pissed you off so much.

 

At the same time, I stand by my positions on gay marriage and will agressively debate based on my obviously strong opinions on the issue. I don't think anything I've said in the most extreme form is outside the realm of typical PPP banter. I also believe I have thrown out plenty of red meat for debate on the issue which can't be said of everyone taking shots at this topic.

[GG]

How about:

- society for at least the last couple of thousand years has defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman

- a man and a woman are the only two that can come together naturally and make a family

- approx. 70% of those given the opportunity to vote on gay marriage have voted against it

- the act of anal sex is unnatural, unhealthy, and in many cases both physically and psychologically abusive to those who succumb to it

- homosexuality (followed by bisexuality) ignited the spread of one of the largest public health disasters of our time (HIV/AIDS)

 

Huh, I guess I can.

125112[/snapback]

 

Note that I mentioned civil unions, not marriage, and your answers again were from a moral standpoint, which has a religious foundation. Thus, my original question still stands.

[MichFan]

Note that I mentioned civil unions, not marriage, and your answers again were from a moral standpoint, which has a religious foundation. Thus, my original question still stands.

Some differentiate between the two (civil unions and marriage), others don't. My points apply to both.

 

With regards to a religious foundation:

 

- society for at least the last couple of thousand years has defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman

Society over this timeframe has also included atheists, the definition precedes Christianity, and it is practiced among most every society on the planet regardless of religion.

 

- a man and a woman are the only two that can come together naturally and make a family

Are you suggesting religion is behind why it takes a sperm and an egg to create life, only men have sperm, and only women have eggs?

 

- approx. 70% of those given the opportunity to vote on gay marriage have voted against it

And now religion is the basis of our voting system? Missed the memo on voting at my local church instead of my library. Hope they still counted it...

 

- the act of anal sex is unnatural, unhealthy, and in many cases both physically and psychologically abusive to those who succumb to it

I have described in previous posts the physiological basis which this comment was based upon with no need to reference any world religion.

 

- homosexuality (followed by bisexuality) ignited the spread of one of the largest public health disasters of our time (HIV/AIDS)

So now you are buying into the thought that God placed HIV/AIDS on the earth to punish gays? I thought only religious freaks felt that way. I thought you disagreed with the religious freaks.

 

GG, there is not even a hint of morality or religion in these points. Try to avoid the kneejerk liberal reaction of taking wehatever conservative points you can't debate on gay marriage and accusing those making them of violating the separation of church and state. I have intentionally stayed away from that in this topic.

[GG]

Some differentiate between the two (civil unions and marriage), others don't.  My points apply to both.

 

With regards to a religious foundation:

Society over this timeframe has also included atheists, the definition precedes Christianity, and it is practiced among most every society on the planet regardless of religion.

 

Societies have been all over the place as to a monogomous union between a man a woman. My understanding is that sanctioned marriage was largely a religious institution, and most folk in Western society simply lived together and that's why common law was the rule of the land for administering property and transfers. As to other religions, why aren't you bringing up the rampant polygamy in other cultures defending the monogomous marriage?

 

Are you suggesting religion is behind why it takes a sperm and an egg to create life, only men have sperm, and only women have eggs?

 

To me this is a moral POV that is influenced by the Judeo Christian ethos of being fruitful & multiplying invoked during the wedding ceremonies.

 

Last I checked, you don't need to be married to create life. Thus, why do you need to procreate to be in a civil union? Should infertile couples be denied benefits of civil unions?

 

And now religion is the basis of our voting system?  Missed the memo on voting at my local church instead of my library.  Hope they still counted it...

 

Care to do a survey what the rationale behind those votes is? Judging by the small sampling of the responses to this thread, I'd bet that moral reasons would be at the top.

 

I have described in previous posts the physiological basis which this comment (in re unnatural acts) was based upon with no need to reference any world religion.

 

Are you saying every gay relationship is based on abuse? is every straight relationship based on rape?

 

 

So now you are buying into the thought that God placed HIV/AIDS on the earth to punish gays?  I thought only religious freaks felt that way.  I thought you disagreed with the religious freaks.

 

And heterosexually transmitted diseases have been the cause of various health epidemics throughout our lifetime, while heterosexually transmitted AIDS in Africa is the proverbial white elephant in the world right now.

 

BTW, wouldn't allowing civil unions among gays actually slow down the promiscuity prevalent in the gay community?

 

GG, there is not even a hint of morality or religion in these points.  Try to avoid the kneejerk liberal reaction of taking wehatever conservative points you can't debate on gay marriage and accusing those making them of violating the separation of church and state.  I have intentionally stayed away from that in this topic.

126154[/snapback]

 

Again, I spoke about civil unions, not marriage, and asked for a reason other than morality why they shouldn't be allowed?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Many of the laws of the Old Testament dealt with the old covenant with God and his people. Many of those laws became not applicable when Jesus came along with the new covenant.

 

 

Sounds like God flipflopped.......

126619[/snapback]

 

 

I knew Jesus wore sandels, NOW flip-flops!? Sure he didn't where "rooster-roach killers?"

 

On a still lighter note. I always like the saying for something that is real far away:

 

"From here to where Jesus left his shoes!"

 

[SJ Bills backer]

What you are missing is that B.S. like this is designed to divert your attention from issues that REALLY affect YOU,and I.

I really don't give a rat's ass if gay people want to exchange bodily fluids by brute force by whatever means.It has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever.I've been happily married for almost 15 years,No f**king b.s. legislation is going to change that one way,or the other...... Mind your own Goddamn business.

Like the 'burning of the flag' issue,(It's my constitutional free speech to kick flag burner's asses)it's a ruse designed to piss you off and make you think that these pink ass,scum,do nothing rat bastards (both parties) who run our government are actually doing something meaningful when in fact they are just pulling a rhetorical cluster f*u*c*k on you,and I.

Think about it folks.Think about it long,and hard........

125795[/snapback]

 

exactamundo - you are a bright man...

may the rays of enlightenment continue to shine upon you, BfloBart