Refusal to recognize anothers argument as valid does not make the argument invalid. It does not mean you’ve won the debate, it just means you are stonewalling in hopes your opponent will go away.
I think that sums it up.[/quote]
No that does not “sum it up” one bit!
These are legitimate questions that need to be answered. Why would anyone want to rush to make such dramatic change to our society without these questions answered?
How do people become gay? There is no conclusive proof that it is genetic.
If it is even partially genetic then why has “reparitive therapy” helped to change almost 200 people from homosexual to heterosexual, in one study alone? Could it be something regarding how they are raised which make them gay? There are many credible reports of this (but no proof). This would mean that it is not a conscous choice, or genetic!
What is the effect on children who are raised with gay parents. There have been no long term studies done as yet.
Why encourage even more people to become gay? (if it is not genetic and there is no conclusive proof that it is) by sanctioning gay marriage? Since many gays have stated that they would not have “consciously” chosen to be gay. And they are not totally satisfied with that lifestyle
[quote]most likely, Zeb deep inside concedes, but that thing called personal bias [or is it awkwardness] won’t allow him to openly agree.
[/quote]
Actually, I do not have such a feeling “deep inside.” I have already posted where I may have changed some thinking regarding certain things (certain rights for unmarried folks living together etc) (scroll back).
My question is where have you changed your thinking on “certain things?”
Are you open minded enough to actually accept the fact that not only do we not have ALL the answers on this complicated topic, but we might not have ANY answers as yet!
Wow! I left this post for a while, and now that I come back, I see that the pro gay marriage side has become much more emotional and the anti gay marriage side has become much more logic.
Get rid of the emotion. For a debate to exist, you must pit logic against logic. When emotion is involved, it becomes an arguement - a fight to make sure you win.
By the way, true Christians are typically aginast gay marriage just like me. They just have too may other obligations (ie, job, family, church, etc…) to spend their time posting all day.
Hats off to you Zeb! Great logical defense of the truth. You are not alone on this side, and on behalf of all the conservatives who are appalled by the idea of gay marriage, I applaud you.
Hi, hate to join in so late in the debate but just thought I would point out one thing.
It is a given that children are already living with gay parents. How are we helping these children by forcing them to live with unwed parents. Or should they be taken away and only allow control groups of twins being separated to accompish these long term studies.(I am just kidding about that)
By allowing marriages of the same sex you are not changing the amount children that are being born to same sex couples.
Obviously Lesbians can have children now due to sperm banks and gay men have limited production capacities to say the least. Adoption should be handled as a completely different issue.
If we are so worried about the children as one of the main logical debates. We are not worrying for the children of today.
[quote]waterskiin wrote:
Hi, hate to join in so late in the debate but just thought I would point out one thing.
It is a given that children are already living with gay parents. How are we helping these children by forcing them to live with unwed parents. Or should they be taken away and only allow control groups of twins being separated to accompish these long term studies.(I am just kidding about that)
By allowing marriages of the same sex you are not changing the amount children that are being born to same sex couples.
Obviously Lesbians can have children now due to sperm banks and gay men have limited production capacities to say the least. Adoption should be handled as a completely different issue.
If we are so worried about the children as one of the main logical debates. We are not worrying for the children of today.[/quote]
And yet another poster on T-Nation who has decided to make this this particular thread his/her very first post!
Amazing how many first time posters that this subject has brought out
[quote]ZEB wrote:
waterskiin wrote:
Hi, hate to join in so late in the debate but just thought I would point out one thing.
It is a given that children are already living with gay parents. How are we helping these children by forcing them to live with unwed parents. Or should they be taken away and only allow control groups of twins being separated to accompish these long term studies.(I am just kidding about that)
By allowing marriages of the same sex you are not changing the amount children that are being born to same sex couples.
Obviously Lesbians can have children now due to sperm banks and gay men have limited production capacities to say the least. Adoption should be handled as a completely different issue.
If we are so worried about the children as one of the main logical debates. We are not worrying for the children of today.
And yet another poster on T-Nation who has decided to make this this particular thread his/her very first post!
Amazing how many first time posters that this subject has brought out
Welcome…welcome :)[/quote]
Thanks for the welcome. I have been reading/lurking for a while and have really enjoyed the site.
What do think should be done for the children that are in this situation right now. Is there a better solution for these children to have a stable household. Where one parent can support the family, provide health insurance, or care for their child in the case of a death.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Well, I don’t think some one trying to improve their life is “hoki”, but here is a text that talks about thoughts and behavior. Is this what you are looking for?
Romans 1:26-28
“26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Yup. Better. I’m only interested in the source. And it seems to me that if I were arguing against something largely based on the Bible, I would want to know exactly what it says and where it addresses the issue. But most people on this issue don’t. They simply regurgitate what they’ve heard religious figures spout.
[/quote]
I agree. It is amazing to me how many people also state Gay Marriage is ok just based on public opinion in their small circle of friends or what they hear media pundits say and don’t really think about the implications and issues for themselves. Being PC is going to at least 20 points.
[quote]Vegilles wrote:
Zeb you mistakenly believe Christians as a whole are being bashed in this thread when in fact the only ones being slighted are the ‘bible-thumpers’ that corrupt that tradition of fellowship. Furthermore you guessed wrong- I didn’t vote for Kerry. I’m not a U.S citizen. Your neo-con chums are globally reknowned as backtrackers when the going gets rough.
WMD wrote:
Refusal to recognize anothers argument as valid does not make the argument invalid. It does not mean you’ve won the debate, it just means you are stonewalling in hopes your opponent will go away.
I think that sums it up.
All the [more-than] reasonable dialogue/ personal experiences/ links have been presented and most likely, Zeb deep inside concedes, but that thing called personal bias [or is it awkwardness] won’t allow him to openly agree.
[/quote]
Bible thumbing aside, it doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to figure out that something that goes against nature, natural selection, evolutionary theory, creation theory, and nearly all organized institutions of faith might not be something we want to normalize in our modern “enlightened” society just because a few people want others to accept their deviance.
All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Vegilles wrote:
Zeb you mistakenly believe Christians as a whole are being bashed in this thread when in fact the only ones being slighted are the ‘bible-thumpers’ that corrupt that tradition of fellowship. Furthermore you guessed wrong- I didn’t vote for Kerry. I’m not a U.S citizen. Your neo-con chums are globally reknowned as backtrackers when the going gets rough.
WMD wrote:
Refusal to recognize anothers argument as valid does not make the argument invalid. It does not mean you’ve won the debate, it just means you are stonewalling in hopes your opponent will go away.
I think that sums it up.
All the [more-than] reasonable dialogue/ personal experiences/ links have been presented and most likely, Zeb deep inside concedes, but that thing called personal bias [or is it awkwardness] won’t allow him to openly agree.
Bible thumbing aside, it doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to figure out that something that goes against nature, natural selection, evolutionary theory, creation theory, and nearly all organized institutions of faith might not be something we want to normalize in our modern “enlightened” society just because a few people want others to accept their deviance.
All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
[/quote]
One reason to normalize it would be the fact that it has been around as long as all of these institutions and persecuted at times, but still exists. Maybe there will be a vacine someday.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Well, I don’t think some one trying to improve their life is “hoki”, but here is a text that talks about thoughts and behavior. Is this what you are looking for?
Romans 1:26-28
“26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Yup. Better. I’m only interested in the source. And it seems to me that if I were arguing against something largely based on the Bible, I would want to know exactly what it says and where it addresses the issue. But most people on this issue don’t. They simply regurgitate what they’ve heard religious figures spout.
I agree. It is amazing to me how many people also state Gay Marriage is ok just based on public opinion in their small circle of friends or what they hear media pundits say and don’t really think about the implications and issues for themselves. Being PC is going to at least 20 points.
[/quote]
Well, yes. There are those people too. They don’t really use their own brain either and consider the issues of liberty and equality or engage in a cost-benefit analysis of pros and cons to both indivduals and society. However I do think they are marginally better than the other side. They may regurgitate arguments, but I’ve never heard anyone say 'Rosie O’Donnel says gay marriage is ok, so it’s ok." Even if they did, they probably would’ve heard her speak on the issue. But plenty of people will say, “Gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so” without actually ever having read the bible or having any idea where it’s addressed. If you ask them why or why the bible says, they’ll say, “I dunno, but the bible says so. It’s against God’s plan”
It is really insulting, patronizing and infuriating to be told over and over that I don’t know anything about how I came to be gay. It is rather a lot like being told I wasn’t having extremely painful menstrual cramps, that it was all in my mind. I did know and I do know. I’ve been this way since I can remember. It is not a phase. I came out when I was sixteen. I am in my forties. My mother knew I was gay when I was a kid.
What is your theory of what could turn an otherwise straight person gay? Solar flares? Demonic possession? Voodoo? What? Seriously, I think it would be interesting to hear some theories on this.
Please stop taking things I say out of context when you quote and respond. This practice in particular misrepresents my position. For instance, my comment about children being raised by multiple men and women. The context was commentary on the extended family arrangement of the majority of human history. If you wanted I suppose you could call that communal living. The point I was making is that children can thrive in a variety of environments, as long as stability and love are present. If we want to talk about Biblical tradition, polygamy is a big one.
I do not have the same rights as you. If I did, I could marry my girlfriend. I think you missed my point regarding my status as a citizen. I pointed out voting, military service, paying taxes, etc. to show that if I am expected to take care of these responsibilities, then I expect to have the same rights as other citizens. We are not talking about polygamy, incest or criminal behavior. Those are not the issues. If you want gay marriage considered on it’s own merits, quit bringing this other stuff up. Legal recognition of gay relationships would add stability and protection to those relationships and any children in the households. Seems to me you’d want that for the children. I mean children are already being adopted, fostered and born to gay couples, so legal protections seem in order.
Children of gay families are growing up and telling their stories. There is research on the subject (do a google search, it’s what i did). There is data. It is pretty uniform in it’s conclusions. Do more research, acquire more data. Do as much as you like. Balance your search of Christian biased sites with liberal biased sites. Find some neutral sites. Encourage social researchers to do more work on it. I am all for it.
Religious faith is the most anecdotal thing there is. You cannot emprically prove that you have faith. It cannot be proven that there is a God. It cannot be proven that one version of a faith is the right one. It cannot be proven that the Bible is the word of God. It is all a matter of personal, anecdotal, subjective experience. And that’s a fact. ;p
Please don’t make me point out that most people are stupid, lazy, ignorant, etc. There is already another thread on the subject. So as dismaying as those 70 percent figures are, I have to take it with a grain of salt. Most people are as misinformed about homosexuality as they are steroids. I wonder what Zogby would find if they did a poll about steroids? As far as emotionality and hope goes, what is wrong with either one? Are those of us directly affected by these polls and votes to be impassive? Should we have no feelings about being treated as lesser citizens? BTW, I am from Texas so I know what the vote was here. I also know that Prop 2 not only took gay marriage away, but also civil unions for gay and straight people, as well as nullifying a long tradition recognizing common law marriages in the state. Again with the lazy, misinformed people voting based upon their visceral reactions, rather than actually reading the wording of the prop and getting the facts. So yes, that many people can be misinformed and wrong.
Bottom line is that there is data on children from gay homes. I would like to see lots more of it. That would take some of the steam out of the anti-gay folks. I would love to see as big a study as could be conducted on the matter. I think the findings would show gay homes are as safe as healthy, stable straight homes. So I am all for more research.
I agree that people on both sides have gone to extremes. I agree there should be more cooperation. However, I am not going to agree to be treated as a lesser being by any one just because I am gay. I am afraid i will have to insist that those with religious prejudices treat me with dignity even so. Otherwise, there is going to be a fight. I would imagine that if you were to be treated differently because you are a Christian or heterosexual, you would fight back, too. You might get a little emotional as well. In fact I think I’ve seen you get pretty feisty when you feel your relgious faith has been attacked.
ZEB and WMD have a lengthy, though less vitiolic exchange than usual.
ZEB,
It is really insulting, patronizing and infuriating to be told over and over that I don’t know anything about how I came to be gay. It is rather a lot like being told I wasn’t having extremely painful menstrual cramps, that it was all in my mind. I did know and I do know. I’ve been this way since I can remember. It is not a phase. I came out when I was sixteen. I am in my forties. My mother knew I was gay when I was a kid.[/quote]
I’m not trying to offend you. Please try separate “knowing” you are gay, from “understanding” how you got that way. I recognize and fully believe that you were cognizant of the fact that you were gay. However, YOU don’t know why or how you got that way. Again, no one does, not even the experts. Not yet anyway, and that’s one reason we need more research into this area before we rush off and sanction gay marriage!
I am not in the field of “gay research.” From what I have read however, “reparative therapy” has worked for many gays. In one study almost every one of the 200 participants reverted to heterosexuality. How does this happen if it is genetic?
This leads me to believe that it might just be something happening in the childhood of the gay person which is different from what is occurring to the straight child. I honestly do not know for sure, and no one does at this point. But, I will say that an insistence by the gay community that you are all “born that way” without any solid proof just might be doing more harm than good, at least until all the facts are in.
Um…you just chastised me for implying that you were referencing Polygamy and communal living in a prior post. Then, in the second part of your paragraph (above) you state: “If you wanted I suppose you could call that communal living.” And further state: “If we want to talk about Biblical tradition, polygamy is a big one.”
Can you see how a reader would be confused by your position?
Why don’t you simply clear it up right now and respond directly to the following:
Do you think that Polygamists should have the right to marry multiple partners. And that marriage be sanctioned by the government?
Do you think that adult incestuous marriage should be sanctioned by the government (under any conditions)?
Please explain why the rights of these two groups are any less important than the rights of homosexuals to marry (if you are against either).
I’m sure once you clear this up there will be no more confusion. And I thank you!
You do have the same rights as me. I canot marry a man and you cannot marry a woman. See how that works? What you want are special rights.
For the umpteenth (I know that’s not a number) time, you do have the same rights as other citizens. What you want are “speical rights.”
Oh but they are still important issues! Nothing occurrs in a vacume. Homosexuality was in fact "criminal behavior in most states up to about 1973! As social mores change the law follows. As I have already reported there has not been a prosecution for Polygamy in the US since the mid 1950’s.
When you suggest that homosexuals should have the right to marry you are suggesting yet another social change. See how it all fits?
Take a look at Professor Martha Ertmans view. Ertman happens to be on your side:
"Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether.
Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and “polyamory” (group marriage) “morally neutral.”
(note to readers: “morally neutral” is what the social liberals want for our entire country. Then anything and everything is acceptable. Use your imagination.)
She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy).
University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be “more receptive to [marital] units of three or more” (1996 Michigan Law Review).
I want the readers to understand that gay marriage on it’s face is a bad idea (as no legitimate reason has been given to make such a dramatic change). However, people on WMD’s side are already talking about the boundaries of marriage being extended beyond even that!
I’m not yet sure that children will grow up to be productive members of society if raised by two homosexuals. Then again, I’m not sure that they won’t be even better and more productive members of society if raised by two homosexuals. The long term studies needed to establish this, one way or the other, have not been done. Until then there should be no gay marriage! Why gamble with our childrens lives? Don’t we owe them more than this?
Yes, there are anecdotal reports. And quite honestly I have read reports that lean both ways. Some children are fine, others are not as fine (I won’t go into the details but it’s not pretty).
If you are “all for” more research then you should not be pushing the gay marriage issue until the long term studies are complete. As we both know that if gay marriage is allowed there will be even more children placed into that environment. Which at this time is, as I stated a gamble!
I think you know by now (or should) that I am not basing my anti-gay marriage position solely on my religious beliefs. And in fact usually do not even debate the topic on that level unless someone brings it up.
Wow, that’s a pretty harsh world you live in…
Some people are lazy and stupid. Some people are not. I do know that this country was founded by individuals who showed a great deal of intestinal fortitude and intelligence. Is that all lost on the majority in your view because every one of the pro gay marriage ballots have gone down in miserable defeat?
Was the majority also stupid when they voted for Bill Clinton to become President twice! (Then again he never did get the majority of the vote ha).
On every post you always seem to write
one thing that makes me chuckle. This is that moment! The liberal media (80% registered democrats) has done nothing but give homosexuality a free ride. Don’t think so?
How many movies or television programs have depicted homosexuality in a negative light? Now think of how many have shown it in a positive light.
How many articles are written by major Newspapers and magazines which depict homosexuality in a negative light? Barely any at all. But how many show it in a positive light? In fact, Time Magazine just did a fluff piece on “Teen Gays.”
How many news reports do you see which involve violence to gays? Many! How many times do you ever read or see news reports about violence perpetrated on straights from gays? This does happen, why isn’t it reported? After all violence is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator is, right?
You are correct in staing that “most are misinformed.” However, they are misinformed because the media is pro gay! As the public learns more about homosexuality they are less likely to accept it. I honestly think that between more honest nformation being given to the public, and the militant stance that the pro gay marriage folks demonstrate the numbers against gay marriage will rise! I wouldn’t be surprised if they rose to 80% to 85% against gay marriage over the next five years!
You cannot win this debate nationally!
In the case of steroids the media has always been very much “con.” Just the opposite with homosexuality. And the public still rejects it! I find that amazing at times. I attribute this to the fact that even with all the pro gay news reported by a biased media the general public has still not been given any valid reasons to change the institution of marriage (not unlike this thread).
You have the exact same rights as I do! However, special rights for marriage have not been granted.
Texas grows more conservative. Do you think that this is an anomaly? Once again (for our readers) look at the state of Massachusetts. Liberal Judges passed gay marriage and the people are now going to over turn it:
BOSTON, November 28, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) ? A family advocacy coalition has submitted double the required number of signatures necessary to ensure voters have an opportunity to overturn a 2003 activist court decision by voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex “marriage” during the 2008 general election.
A Zogby International poll conducted in 2004 found that 69% of likely voters in Massachusetts want to vote on a constitutional amendment to keep Massachusetts a traditional marriage state."
There is that 70% figure popping up again! I think that 70% figure will grow as the general public gets even more accurate information.
You have it backwards! When the people knew less about homosexuality they were more in favor of gay marriage. Polls showed that people objected to gay marriage by about 59% 5 to 10 years ago. As the militant homosexual lobby has pursued the right to marry and people have seen even more information regarding this hot topic they have grown to object it at a higher rate!
We can agree that we need more long term studies!
You are once again projecting what you would like the findings to show. And you might be correct. But then again you might be completely wrong. Either way, we should not risk placing children in any situation that even has a chance of harming them until we find out.
This is where we also agree. I think there needs to be love shown on both sides. The homosexual lobby’s need to stop the militant hate speech. Anyone who is against gay marriage is evil and denounced as “hateful” by these people. How do you think that makes my side feel? Do you think that it wins them over? NO! It may silence some who oppose gay marriage, (just as it has done on this thread). No one wants to be called “homophobic.”
Hoewever, as we see by the polls and the ballot measures across the country. The “silent” majority is making your side pay for this militant position.
On the other hand, I am disgusted by any employer who would discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference. And I do think that this happens.
I am also distressed at those on my side calling gay folks various nasty names. It only makes debate more difficult, and those words cause pain to people who do not deserve it!
Anyone who treats you with less than respect deserves to face a fight. And to be quite honest I would take your side in such a circumstance, as I have done in the past with others. (I know this is hard to believe but I don’t like bully’s… I never have).
[quote]I would imagine that if you were to be treated differently because you are a Christian or heterosexual, you would fight back, too. You might get a little emotional as well. In fact I think I’ve seen you get pretty feisty when you feel your relgious faith has been attacked.
Back to you…[/quote]
You are correct once again WMD.
I am for civil debate. Everyone bring your points to the surface and let’s kick them around.
However, leave the vicious attacks on someone’s belief’s out of it.
I don’t like having my belief equated with believing in the fairy god mother any more than gays should be called fairies.
Do you think that Polygamists should have the right to marry multiple partners. And that marriage be sanctioned by the government?
Do you think that adult incestuous marriage should be sanctioned by the government (under any conditions)?
[/quote]
I know you weren’t asking me, but I just wanted to throw my oppinion out there about these 2 questions.
For the first one, I believe that goes against any kind of equality that should come out of marriage. Multiple partners for one person, they are not all eachother’s partners (this was also well refuted by a previous post but I forgot who posted it).
For number 2, I believe it isn’t allowed because of the strong chance of producing severely deformed children, though one guy had this to say about that:
"We should, however, be wary of damning incest on these grounds alone. To prohibit two people from having sex because their offspring may be “defective” or “inferior” is to adopt the standpoint of a eugenicist. Indeed, Dr Sean Gabb has clearly shown that the impetus behind the 1908 Punishment of Incest Act was just that: the proponents of the act were exactly the same figures who advocated the “sterilisation” of the “feeble-minded”. If we prohibit incest on the grounds that it risks producing “defective” children, we must also prohibit reproduction by haemophiliacs and the carriers of a host of other “defects”.
Found from this site after doing a quick search on the subject:
They might have some point about their pro-incest views, but I don’t think I’ll ever give into the idea of a father and daughter, brother and sister, mother and son…sleeping together.
Your last reply to WMD was well thought out and very clear on your stances and why. But what I am not seeing is that you keep saying that this will put more children in these unknown circumstances. Your replied to my first post but with no actual rebuttal. Without adoption, where are all of these extra children coming from.
Well, Zeb-we might never know for sure and it’s difficult for me to see why it would matter. We do have significant reason to believe that there is a HEAVY gentic basis. Brain differences have been observed, and biopsych and neuroscience have discovered significant neruological organic underpinnings.
Yet, there are identical twins, one will self-identify as homosexual and the other as heterosexual. The only possible conclusion is that pre-natal and early childhood environment somehow cause gene expression. But it’s not like someone sees two dudes kissing and boom, they’re gay. The exact environmental triggers are unclear, but they seem to occur early in life and perhaps pre-natally and uncontrollable by us.
I haven’t seen any evidence that a kid raised by gay parents has a greater chance of becoming gay. Maybe more likely to be openly gay. But not become gay in the first place. I agree that reseaarch should continue to get a better grasp on causes. But it may always remain a mystery. That shouldn’t matter, however, if we stop stigmatiing it as a society just accept it. Easier said than done, of course. And I’m not completely free of my own prejudices. But I try.
I am not in the field of “gay research.” From what I have read however, “reparative therapy” has worked for many gays. In one study almost every one of the 200 participants reverted to heterosexuality. How does this happen if it is genetic?
[/quote]
I don’t know. I don’t think those are very reliable. My professors cast significant doubt on them. There’s a lot of evidence that those people still get sexually aroused by men (if male) or women (if female) and not the opposite sex. Sometimes they can accomplish arousal with opposite sex partners through fantasy.
I think some of the therapy that’s been used is ‘shock treatment’ in earlier years. Mild electrical shock delivered to people looking at nude images of the same sex. And other (more humane) negative reinforcement in more recent years. In effect, conditioning is superimposed on natural desire that we still haven’t figured out how to ‘correct’. But it really doesn’t completely go away.
Here’s one question I have. And it will probably highlight my own predujices, but maybe some gay people on this site can answer without getting too offended. I really don’t care about people’s sexual orientations, but I find those really flamboyant people-like that blond guy from Queer Eye-really annoying. I can understand how there are probably many big genetic issues underlying sexual orientation. But is there really a gentic profile that makes you act like a jackass? Why do they act like that?
[quote]waterskiin wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Vegilles wrote:
Zeb you mistakenly believe Christians as a whole are being bashed in this thread when in fact the only ones being slighted are the ‘bible-thumpers’ that corrupt that tradition of fellowship. Furthermore you guessed wrong- I didn’t vote for Kerry. I’m not a U.S citizen. Your neo-con chums are globally reknowned as backtrackers when the going gets rough.
WMD wrote:
Refusal to recognize anothers argument as valid does not make the argument invalid. It does not mean you’ve won the debate, it just means you are stonewalling in hopes your opponent will go away.
I think that sums it up.
All the [more-than] reasonable dialogue/ personal experiences/ links have been presented and most likely, Zeb deep inside concedes, but that thing called personal bias [or is it awkwardness] won’t allow him to openly agree.
Bible thumbing aside, it doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to figure out that something that goes against nature, natural selection, evolutionary theory, creation theory, and nearly all organized institutions of faith might not be something we want to normalize in our modern “enlightened” society just because a few people want others to accept their deviance.
All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
One reason to normalize it would be the fact that it has been around as long as all of these institutions and persecuted at times, but still exists. Maybe there will be a vacine someday.[/quote]
So has child molesting, murder, rape, beastiality, etc. So since these things have been around for a long time should we also normalize them as well?
