Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:

Which facts are those? Oh, you mean those misinterpretations of fact? Yeah. Actually, myself and others have pointed out just how valid the “facts”, as purported by ZEB and co., are.

You did not refute even one fact posted on this thread!

However, since you keep showing up on the thread with a great deal of bluster and not much more, I will give you yet another opportunity to actually refute only a few of the many statistics which do not show up very well for your pals:

  1. “A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reported having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.”

2.“(1999, January 29). Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). p. 48.
Male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates.”

  1. "Bailey, J.M. (1999, October). Homosexuality and Mental Illness. Archives of General Psychiatry. 56: 883-884.

Homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder. Gay, lesbian, or bisexual people were at an increased lifetime risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence."

  1. New Orleans (5-9-01) – In a report released today at the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) convention, psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer announced the results of a new study on homosexuality. Efforts to change sexual orientation can – in some men and women – apparently produce significant success.

Dr. Spitzer’s personal involvement in this particular study is historically significant: He was the leading figure in the 1973 APA decision which removed homosexuality from the official diagnostic manual of mental disorders. Today, he is Chief of Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City.

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation,” said Spitzer.

“Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could only be resisted, and that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that to be false. Some people can and do change,” said Spitzer.

Dr. Spitzer interviewed 200 men and women who have experienced a significant shift from homosexual to heterosexual attraction, and have sustained this shift for at least five years. Many of the subjects had sought change because of disillusionment with a promiscuous lifestyle and unstable, stormy relationships. Many reported a conflict with their religious values, and many had desired to be (or to stay) heterosexually married. By the time of the study interview, three-quarters of the men and half of the women had become married.

One surprising discovery was that 67% of the men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change effort, now report significant heterosexual attraction. Even those whose orientation did not change – but who gave up homosexual behavior – experienced a significant improvement in emotional health. "

  1. “Bieber, I., Bieber, T. (1979) Male homosexuality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 24, 5:409-421.
    ?We have followed some patients for as long as 20 years who have remained exclusively heterosexual. Reversal estimates now range from 30% to an optimistic 50%.”

  2. "Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”[70]

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”[71]

Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]"

  1. “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”

I’ll stop right here with the above seven statistics. Obviously, I have only scratched the surface.

Instead of name calling and falling back on faulty liberal logic I challenge you to refute each of the above seven one by one.

Show us all statistics which demonstrate that homosexuals are indeed healthier, happier and live longer than the average population, if you can find them. Give us all reasons to embrace gay marriage.

I can refute all of the above facts by saying that they don’t have any relevance when it comes to deciding whether or not we give gays the right to marry. No relevance whatsoever.
[/quote]

Why am I not surprised by this weak answer.

Tango joins the list of those social liberals and homosexuals who cannot respond when presented with facts!

That you don’t think it matters that certain studies have indicated that homosexuals can change into heterosexuals is closed minded.

That you don’t think it matters that there is a higher degree of domestic violence in gay and lesbian relationships is closed minded.

That you don’t think it matters that homosexuals have a higher incidnence of anxiety, depression, suicide, AIDS, STD’s and a shorter ife span is again closed minded!

There you have it folks. The answer from the social liberals and gay community is,

“we don’t care about facts or how much pain and disease we cause each other. Furthermore, we don’t care how much we negatively impact the rest of the world from a health, social, or fiscal standpoint. We simply want the right to marry regardless of all of the valid reasons why we shouldn’t. Let the rest of the world be dammed.”

What a myopic, dangerous and very selfish view!

One good thing has come from the release of all of the facts, including the selfish attitude of those who are gay and support gay marriage:

While we have gone some 40 pages on this thread it has not been in vain. People (who have vistited this thread) are at least aware of the truth. And when the truth is told and people have a firm grasp of the facts gay marriage will never become a reality.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

Dude, you’re still retarded. [/quote]

Wow - what an inteligent response. Look who’s spreading “love”.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
I think you need to understand evolution a little better. Let’s start with an easy question.

Assuming evolution is true, we all formed from single cell organisms into what we are today. Tell me then. How did our eyeball form?

Go study and come back when you have the answer, slim.

LOL I was skimming earlier, and now I just saw this post by one of my soon-to-be-favorite debate opponents. I will warn you one time:

You are very far out of your league, mini-ivan. Let’s not get OT with evolution because this thread is enough of a headache for the poor mods already, but just… what am I trying to say here?

Stop while you’re ahead, or just not so far behind maybe… a little friendly advice.

Figures that you can’t answer the quesiton, so you aviod it. Typical of liberals.

This question has been asked and answered a billion times. I found it by entering “eyeball” and e"evolution" on google.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep99/936884377.Ev.r.html

Real tough.

[/quote]

Yeah dude. My eye came from a worm. And people thing the virgin birth sounds impossible.

FYI - just because my dog has four limbs and I have four limbs doesn’t mean my four limbs came from the dog.

Try again.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, you at least, surely must realize that there is a fairly signficant danger to unprotected heterosexual sex, however else you might feel about AIDS and the whole gay issue beyond. The fact that anal sex is more dangerous doesn’t change this stark, cold fact, obviously.

For the sake of being fair, I just want everyone to know that I would condemn promiscuos heterosexuals in the same way. The behavior is destructive and worthless. I don’t hate the people, but I do hate the act.

Does that make me little?

Maybe. Why hate the act? It’s their choice. They assume they risk. Unprotected promiscuity is just plain stupid. Using protection greatly reduces the risk but doesn’t eliminate it. It’s not worthless because it’s enjoyable. But nobody in this day and age goes in with blinders on.[/quote]

You’re going to have to explain to me how that makes me little. The way I see it, the actions of other people in this country affect me. And when things affect me, I have a say in it.

Someone may choose to break into my home. True, it is their choice, but it affects my rights and happiness. Therefore, I am inclined to do something about it.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:

Dude, you’re still retarded.

Wow - what an inteligent response. Look who’s spreading “love”.[/quote]

That’s all you’ve got? Man, it’s so easy to keep owning you! It’s like I’ve made you my prison-bitch!

I entered your name, terrible, and guess what came out? “The Rear Queer”.

Enter my name, and you get, “Donkey Schlong”.

If that doesn’t settle it, I don’t know what does.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

Are you kidding? A ten year old boy? Yeah, someone who hasn’t even hit puberty has enough life experience to decide how things should be for the remainder of their existence?

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

You’re a joke. Where does Science state that? Um, people can make choices at any point in their life, but that doesn’t mean that they are capable of making decisions in their best interest. Perhaps a few rare cases exist where ten year olds can display that they have the proper mental faculties to make such a mature choice. But in today’s society, ten year olds just don’t have that degree of maturity. The reason why 18/19 is used is because the onset of puberty has taken place, the person has most probably finished maturing physically, and measurements of mental capabilities show that generally people are capable of making logical, informed decisions about their own life. Science backs up what society has perceived.

Ask any psychologist what they think, idiot.

The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

We do not prevent convicted felons from getting married–John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez being a few ‘notable’ cases. We do not prevent drug addicts from getting married. We do not prevent those with terminal diseases from getting married. We do not prevent any demographic which exhibits any sign of increased mortality from getting married based on that alone.

Destructive lifestyles don’t count against homosexuals in terms of barring marriage rights and priviledges.

Do better, Lori.[/quote]

Oh, OK. First, you are an expert in child development, and your word on the age in which a child can make decisions is gospel. Give me a break.

Second - you become beligerant because you can’t defend yourself verbally.

You should look at yourself in the mirror. Look closely and the sight will make you sick. You have already made me sick here.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Total US population = 800 million
Gay population = 5% (I think this is high, but will use for example) = about 4 million

440,877 AIDS cases in Gay population = 11% AIDS
149,989 AIDS cases in Hetero population = 0.187% AIDS

(Looks like my first calulation forgot to move the decimal point)

Looks like you need a 'Rithmetic lesson:

.05 * 800,000,000 = 40,000,000

440,877 / 40,000,000 = approx. 1.1%

So, because 1 out of 100 gay people have AIDS, we don’t let the other 99 marry?

Retarded![/quote]

You just reproved the point. The gay population is much more likely to spread AIDS.

You aren’t helping your case much, slim.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:

Dude, you’re still retarded.

Wow - what an inteligent response. Look who’s spreading “love”.

That’s all you’ve got? Man, it’s so easy to keep owning you! It’s like I’ve made you my prison-bitch!

I entered your name, terrible, and guess what came out? “The Rear Queer”.

Enter my name, and you get, “Donkey Schlong”.

If that doesn’t settle it, I don’t know what does.

[/quote]

Personal attacks don’t make you the winner, slim. You are no different than the little loud-mouth punks I used to slap around in high school. That why you talk tough on-line. Because it’s the only place you can.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Total US population = 800 million
Gay population = 5% (I think this is high, but will use for example) = about 4 million

440,877 AIDS cases in Gay population = 11% AIDS
149,989 AIDS cases in Hetero population = 0.187% AIDS

(Looks like my first calulation forgot to move the decimal point)

[/quote]

Please. Why not consider the heterosexual population having promiscuous sex. Much higher percentage. Then consider the heterosexual having unprotected, promisucous sex Exponentially higher percentage. Gays = more unsafe behavior (partly because anal sex is incapable of being made that safe even with condoms). Civil unions = encouraging monogamy = potentially less spread of AIDS. If not, they’re only hurting their ‘spouses.’ At the least, the situation’s no worse than it is now. Potentially better. There are better and more legitimate reasons for civil unions and perhaps some legitimate ones against. But since this is what you chose to tackle, barring civil unions because it’s a high AIDS population does not follow. At all.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
I think you need to understand evolution a little better. Let’s start with an easy question.

Assuming evolution is true, we all formed from single cell organisms into what we are today. Tell me then. How did our eyeball form?

Go study and come back when you have the answer, slim.

LOL I was skimming earlier, and now I just saw this post by one of my soon-to-be-favorite debate opponents. I will warn you one time:

You are very far out of your league, mini-ivan. Let’s not get OT with evolution because this thread is enough of a headache for the poor mods already, but just… what am I trying to say here?

Stop while you’re ahead, or just not so far behind maybe… a little friendly advice.

Figures that you can’t answer the quesiton, so you aviod it. Typical of liberals.

This question has been asked and answered a billion times. I found it by entering “eyeball” and e"evolution" on google.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep99/936884377.Ev.r.html

Real tough.

Yeah dude. My eye came from a worm. And people thing the virgin birth sounds impossible.

FYI - just because my dog has four limbs and I have four limbs doesn’t mean my four limbs came from the dog.

Try again.

[/quote]

What a great fool! No one is saying that your eye came from a worm. No one is saying that your limbs came from a dog.

It’s so funny how such stupid people can’t connect even the most basic concepts.

No one is here to teach about evolution–pay someone to sit down and spell it out. It’s not a hard thing to accept or grasp.

You gotta wonder why evolution is so widely accepted and supported amongst the scientific community. Dudes with Ph.D’s in biology and medical sciences seem to understand and accept and continually make great strides in advancing knowledge based on the theory of evolution. It’s one of the most solid theories in all of science. Sure, it has it’s problems, like all scientific theories do, but nothing comes close to disproving it.

This Creationism Theory crap that has risen to challenge it is not based on Science. Sure, maybe an omnipotent being created the universe and human life–but why couldn’t the Creator didn’t use evolution to achieve those same ends? The Theory of Evolution doesn’t state “Evolution created the universe and everything in it.” Evolution is a name given to the patterns of change displayed by the expression of traits in species populations. Evolution can explain how the ability to sense light was advantageous for survival and how the continual advantage gained by refining that trait can turn into (evolve) a structure such as evidence in the human eye (a glorified light sensor).

We’re usually talking about a process that takes hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years here. But there are contemporary examples of evolution as well:

Evolution explains why humans have an appendix. Evolution explains why humans have a tailbone. Evolution explains why things like sickle-cell anemia can arise. But you need to understand the basic concept first. They eye is a profound example–maybe it’s too drastic a leap to try and make at first. Look at something easier and smaller in it’s implications (like the traits I have given examples of) and then apply that same logic to structures infinitely more complex.

Evolution is a elegant way of accounting for much of what we see in living creatures. It is not some form of intelligence… it’s more like a tool a sculptor might use to create art with. Of course, that sculptor would need to have infinite patience and time to work with, but hey–what else do omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent entities have to do with their spare time? Sculpting is a labour of love, after all.

Damn, I’ve already told you too much. I’ll PM you my address so you can mail a cheque for a small sum payable to me for the tutorial.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

Dude, you’re still retarded.[/quote]

I present facts and reason, they supply hate and name calling.

This is the first concesion. If you were to be honest there will be several more.

[quote] However, I dispute how people interpret and apply those facts as they are reported. The logical jumps you make with those figures and polls are astounding, ZEB. You don’t even stop to consider what the numbers really mean or how relevant the information is in the first place[/quote}

Oh but I do!

I do know that committed relationships for many (if not most gays) means having sexual relations outside of that committment!

"n his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[12]

Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage."

You must have forgotten about the above huh?

I do know that the gay population carries more disease than the general population. And that by promoting such behavior it not only destroys them, but effects the rest of the population as well!

I do know that there have been studies which demonstrate that those with same sex attraction (even after many years) can change if they want to!

I give facts and figures and social liberals continue to name call.

[quote] You’re like Phil Hartman’s Dr. Frankenstein’s monster character, but
instead of saying “Fire bad!” you jump out and say “Homo bad!” [/quote]

No actually I don’t think homosexuals are bad. And furthermore I never stated that even once in my many posts. That makes you either a liar or very confused.

What I do think is that the typical homosexual is being fed a line of crap from the gay lobbies and the social liberals. And I also think that if we really want to help them we will stop telling them that they cannot change.

Think about that last statement. I simply present the facts. If they are negative then that means that the behavior of homosexuality is negative.

Do you always attack the presenter of information that you don’t like? I would not want to be the weatherman in your area! :slight_smile:

You are claiming that if they only had benefits they would then stop being promiscuious and contracting STD’s and AIDS at a higher rate than the general population?

That somehow rings hollow to me-Especially in light of the fact that you have ZERO evidence to back up such an outrageous statement.

No actually violence between two lesbians is quite a bit higher than between women in a traditional relationship.

You really don’t pay attention do you?

I posted this at least twice. The most recent time I posted it,it was directed at you as one of the seven questions that you could not respond to. Top half of number six:

  1. "Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”[70]

Wow slightly more than half of lesbians were abused according to one survey! That sure blows a hole in your “two lesbians will never harm each other” theory huh?

Darn those pesky facts-They keep getting in the way of that liberal logic of yours…lol

And by your logic we should encourage destructive behavior? Behavior that spreads disease higher than the national average? A behavior that kills people? A behavior that causes emotional trauma and a higher suicide rate?

Yea…you really want to help homosexuals. Just like someone wants to help an alcoholic by giving them another drink!

No actually, you focused on men. I have given stats for both gay men and lesbians. It’s you who did not pay attention and missed it- Remember to look at number 6 above. There are other stats that speak to the higher rate of STD’s among lesbians and all the other negative things which go hand in hand with same sex activity.

Please show me where you obtained that above conclusion. I sort of doubt that, but either way it is insignificant because lesbians have a higher rate of diesease, emotional instability and social problems than their heterosexual counterparts. And we do want to compare apples to apples don’t we?

[quote] Men suffer higher rates of disease. Men die younger. Men live higher risk lifestyles (well, the T-men at least). Men are disgusting, lascivious, physically dominant creatures. What do you expect?

No wonder gay men get such a bad rap–they’re just men to begin with.[/quote]

Again, and hopefully for the final time. It’s not about MEN. It’s about same sex activity regardless of which gender has it!

I know how you hate facts as they help prove my conclusion and not yours. However, let me educate you on the problems that lesbians are having. Now I know that the following do not pertain to WMD. I’m sure you know her :slight_smile:

But they do apply non the less:

"Bradford, J. (2002, July 10). Lesbian and bisexual health: an overview for healthcare providers. Journal Watch Women?s Health [On-line], Available: womens-health.jwatch.org.

Lesbian and bisexual women have higher reported rates of risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease as well as obesity and High rates of human papilloma virus infection."

And this:

Cochran, S.D. et al. (2001 April). Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (4); 178-81.

Increased prevalence rates were found in lesbian/bisexual women for obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use."

And this:

"Fethers, K. et al. (2000, July). Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women. Sexually Transmitted Infections. p. 345.

Women who have sexual relations with women are at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: ?BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls."

And this:

" Frieberg, P. (2001, January 12). Study: Alcohol Use More Prevalent for Lesbians. The Washington Blade. p. 21.
Lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than heterosexual women.

Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)."

And this:

"Aaron, D.J., Markovic, N., Danielson, M.E., et al. (2001). Behavioral risk factors for disease and preventive health practices among lesbians. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (6): 972-975.

Lesbians were more likely to report cigarette use, alcohol use, and heavy alcohol use."

And this:

Bradford, J. et al. (1994). National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62: 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

More than half of lesbians had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed."

And this:

"Diamant, A.L., Wold, C., Sritzer, K., Gelberg, L. (2000, November-December). Health Behaviors, Health Status, and Access to and Use of Health Care. Archives of Family Medicine. 9: 1043-1051.

Lesbians and bisexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to use tobacco products and to report any alcohol consumption, but only lesbians were significantly more likely than heterosexual women to drink heavily."

As you may have already guessed there are plenty more statistics (beyond these few) to back up the fact that lesbians don’t have it much better than homosexual men.

By the way, where are your facts and figures which demonstrate that being a gay or lesbian is actually a healthier happier life? If the activity is positive then there must be some evidence to demonstrate this. Please post it.

Otherise, I thank you once again for the opportunity to post further evidense as to why the gay and lesbian lifestyle is unhealthy physically, emotionally and socially!

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Total US population = 800 million
Gay population = 5% (I think this is high, but will use for example) = about 4 million

440,877 AIDS cases in Gay population = 11% AIDS
149,989 AIDS cases in Hetero population = 0.187% AIDS

(Looks like my first calulation forgot to move the decimal point)

Looks like you need a 'Rithmetic lesson:

.05 * 800,000,000 = 40,000,000

440,877 / 40,000,000 = approx. 1.1%

So, because 1 out of 100 gay people have AIDS, we don’t let the other 99 marry?

Retarded!

You just reproved the point. The gay population is much more likely to spread AIDS.

You aren’t helping your case much, slim.[/quote]

Actually, my case is that you can’t bar the rights of 99% of a population based on the status of 1% of a population.

I proved your point because gays are approximately six times more likely to be carrying a virus than straights?

Whatever point that is, is pretty weak. Especially considering that it would harder to spread that virus when gay couples had to observe marriage vows or face possible legal action.

My case is intact. Your case needs some 'xplaining to do.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
I think you need to understand evolution a little better. Let’s start with an easy question.

Assuming evolution is true, we all formed from single cell organisms into what we are today. Tell me then. How did our eyeball form?

Go study and come back when you have the answer, slim.

LOL I was skimming earlier, and now I just saw this post by one of my soon-to-be-favorite debate opponents. I will warn you one time:

You are very far out of your league, mini-ivan. Let’s not get OT with evolution because this thread is enough of a headache for the poor mods already, but just… what am I trying to say here?

Stop while you’re ahead, or just not so far behind maybe… a little friendly advice.

Figures that you can’t answer the quesiton, so you aviod it. Typical of liberals.

This question has been asked and answered a billion times. I found it by entering “eyeball” and e"evolution" on google.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep99/936884377.Ev.r.html

Real tough.

Yeah dude. My eye came from a worm. And people thing the virgin birth sounds impossible.

FYI - just because my dog has four limbs and I have four limbs doesn’t mean my four limbs came from the dog.

Try again.

What a great fool! No one is saying that your eye came from a worm. No one is saying that your limbs came from a dog.

It’s so funny how such stupid people can’t connect even the most basic concepts.

No one is here to teach about evolution–pay someone to sit down and spell it out. It’s not a hard thing to accept or grasp.

You gotta wonder why evolution is so widely accepted and supported amongst the scientific community. Dudes with Ph.D’s in biology and medical sciences seem to understand and accept and continually make great strides in advancing knowledge based on the theory of evolution. It’s one of the most solid theories in all of science. Sure, it has it’s problems, like all scientific theories do, but nothing comes close to disproving it.

This Creationism Theory crap that has risen to challenge it is not based on Science. Sure, maybe an omnipotent being created the universe and human life–but why couldn’t the Creator didn’t use evolution to achieve those same ends? The Theory of Evolution doesn’t state “Evolution created the universe and everything in it.” Evolution is a name given to the patterns of change displayed by the expression of traits in species populations. Evolution can explain how the ability to sense light was advantageous for survival and how the continual advantage gained by refining that trait can turn into (evolve) a structure such as evidence in the human eye (a glorified light sensor).

We’re usually talking about a process that takes hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years here. But there are contemporary examples of evolution as well:

Evolution explains why humans have an appendix. Evolution explains why humans have a tailbone. Evolution explains why things like sickle-cell anemia can arise. But you need to understand the basic concept first. They eye is a profound example–maybe it’s too drastic a leap to try and make at first. Look at something easier and smaller in it’s implications (like the traits I have given examples of) and then apply that same logic to structures infinitely more complex.

Evolution is a elegant way of accounting for much of what we see in living creatures. It is not some form of intelligence… it’s more like a tool a sculptor might use to create art with. Of course, that sculptor would need to have infinite patience and time to work with, but hey–what else do omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent entities have to do with their spare time? Sculpting is a labour of love, after all.

Damn, I’ve already told you too much. I’ll PM you my address so you can mail a cheque for a small sum payable to me for the tutorial.
[/quote]

Can you feel the ironic idiocy here?! “Billions of year pass and here I am.” And you call me dumb.

You take any crap someone wants to spoon feed you and you suck it right down. You are blinded by arrogance and ignorance. You are in need of more help than I can provide.

FYI - a lot of brilliant men teach creationism, and I have yet to see any credible evidence come from evolution - unless you count the big bang (LOL what a joke)!

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:

What about their higher rate of domestic violence (both gay and lesbian)?

I have given facts and figures to back up all of the above. Now I want you to actually look up facts that can refute the above if you think you can find them.

The American Bar Association disagrees with you, ZEB:

"SAME-SEX BATTERING

Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships with the same statistical frequency as in heterosexual relationships."

They even put it in bold type for you.
[/quote]

Here you go read it again:

"Violence in Lesbian Relationships:

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”

I do give you credit for at least trying. I think I will wonder over to the Justice Department crime stats and see if I can find a few more facts for you on same sex domestic abuse.

Want to bet on what it will say?

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, you at least, surely must realize that there is a fairly signficant danger to unprotected heterosexual sex, however else you might feel about AIDS and the whole gay issue beyond. The fact that anal sex is more dangerous doesn’t change this stark, cold fact, obviously.

For the sake of being fair, I just want everyone to know that I would condemn promiscuos heterosexuals in the same way. The behavior is destructive and worthless. I don’t hate the people, but I do hate the act.

Does that make me little?

Maybe. Why hate the act? It’s their choice. They assume they risk. Unprotected promiscuity is just plain stupid. Using protection greatly reduces the risk but doesn’t eliminate it. It’s not worthless because it’s enjoyable. But nobody in this day and age goes in with blinders on.

You’re going to have to explain to me how that makes me little. The way I see it, the actions of other people in this country affect me. And when things affect me, I have a say in it.

Someone may choose to break into my home. True, it is their choice, but it affects my rights and happiness. Therefore, I am inclined to do something about it.

[/quote]

What a pompous idiot!

You don’t have a say in whether I get to fart or not, do you? Hell, if I’m standing next to where you’re sitting on a bus and I fart (one of my patented ‘rotten egg w/silencer’ variety) right in your face, there’s nothing to say I can’t do that. You might have a horrible bus trip after that, but boo hoo! What are you going to do? Say that my bus-riding rights should be revoked?

Be more specific about determining what is your right and what is not. Just because something affects you, doesn’t mean you have a say in it. You can’t be protected from reality at the cost of everyone else. Be more specific by what you mean when you say “things that affect me”.

As far as I can tell, homosexuals with AIDS haven’t affected your rights at all. And won’t if they get the right to marry. Your right to marry is intact.

And screw your happiness. You don’t have the right to happiness–no one is going to protect your emotions except yourself. If you go before a judge and say, “But I’m not happy!” do you think you’ve got a case for anything but being thrown out of court on your ass?

Grow up.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Not so fast Lori.

A 10yr old boy can give consent. It is a moral judgment by society that they cannot give consent, or drink, or whatever until 18 or 21yrs of age. So why can society make a moral judgment about when a child can consent and not make a moral judgment about whether two same sex people can marry? Science supports the fact that kids cannot make these kids of decisions until they are older, right? Science also shows that a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and destructive.

So what is the difference between making a moral judgment about children or about gay marriage based on the currently available scientific and sociological information?

Are you kidding? A ten year old boy? Yeah, someone who hasn’t even hit puberty has enough life experience to decide how things should be for the remainder of their existence?

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

You’re a joke. Where does Science state that? Um, people can make choices at any point in their life, but that doesn’t mean that they are capable of making decisions in their best interest. Perhaps a few rare cases exist where ten year olds can display that they have the proper mental faculties to make such a mature choice. But in today’s society, ten year olds just don’t have that degree of maturity. The reason why 18/19 is used is because the onset of puberty has taken place, the person has most probably finished maturing physically, and measurements of mental capabilities show that generally people are capable of making logical, informed decisions about their own life. Science backs up what society has perceived.

Ask any psychologist what they think, idiot.

The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

We do not prevent convicted felons from getting married–John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez being a few ‘notable’ cases. We do not prevent drug addicts from getting married. We do not prevent those with terminal diseases from getting married. We do not prevent any demographic which exhibits any sign of increased mortality from getting married based on that alone.

Destructive lifestyles don’t count against homosexuals in terms of barring marriage rights and priviledges.

Do better, Lori.[/quote]

You have unwittingly just proven my point for me. Since you don’t appear to know what that is I will try and break it down for you, again.

Society has taken what limited evidence it has regarding when a person is able to make choices or be responsible for ones actions and chosen 18 or 21yrs (depending on the State). That was a judgmental or moral decision society made based on the premise that it would cause a child harm to let him make those kind of decisions.

Now we look at homosexuals and their lifestyle or the consequences of that lifestyle. All available info today demonstrates that it is self-destructive and unhealthy. But since these are adults they don’t fit under the already established age of consent parameter. However, there are a lot of things that are illegal that relate to adults. AND, anal sex and oral sex are some of them.

Society has made many moral judgments and decisions based on the available info for adults as well.

So the issue is one of degree, where do you draw the line between different types of self-destructive behavior?

Drug use is illegal. But you say, “why it’s a consenting adult who can make their own decisions”. And yet, society has determined that it is self-destructive and therefore should not be allowed.

Homosexual behavior is also shown to be self-destructive, so why is this not illegal as well? (Well, in many States it actualy is)

So going back to the issue of marriage; why would society, knowing that the homosexual sex acts are already illegal in most States, and that the lifestyle is proven to be self-destructive (just like drug use), allow homosexual marriage? That would be encouraging what is already illegal and already proven self-destructive.

So if you want society to allow homosexual marriage, you need to be consistent and also say that it needs to allow drug use, prostitution, etc… All these things are shown to be self-destructive, so all should be treated the same under the law.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

Can you feel the ironic idiocy here?! “Billions of year pass and here I am.” And you call me dumb.

[/quote]

You misquoted me. Shame on you!

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

You take any crap someone wants to spoon feed you and you suck it right down. You are blinded by arrogance and ignorance. You are in need of more help than I can provide.

[/quote]

I don’t know where you draw that conclusion from, except if it was from a desperate sense of wanting to be right.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

FYI - a lot of brilliant men teach creationism, and I have yet to see any credible evidence come from evolution - unless you count the big bang (LOL what a joke)!

[/quote]

Creationism and Evolution can co-exist. If you look at my post I believe I said that there was no scientific basis for Creationism. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying that it can’t be presented as Science. I also said that Evolution doesn’t say anywhere that it is responsible for creating the universe and everything in it.

I’m sure there are brilliant people who believe in Creationism. Science can still thrive in a universe created by a higher being. Science might be viewed as a way of trying to discover and understand the rules that a rational God used when creating the universe. Science doesn’t have an agenda of its own. Why couldn’t have God used the Big Bang? Our limited capacity of understanding and sorely lacking ability to perceive might not be able to comprehend the Big Bang if God had presented us with such a vision.

Hell, it’s beyond the limits of humans to experience or understand a thousand years… so how can we possibly know what impact such a vision would have on the minds of the writers in the biblical tradition?

terribleivan, I gave you evidence, if only chose to look at it, in my previous post. The example of the moths hilights the concept of evolution quite nicely–it IS evidence (not proof–scientific theories cannot be proven, only supported). It’s not difficult to grasp.

Your answer suggests that you do not take even the minimal respect of reading my posts in their entirety. And yet you wonder why I’m arrogant and ignorant?

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

And screw your happiness. You don’t have the right to happiness–no one is going to protect your emotions except yourself.
[/quote]

That’s right. Right now I am protecting my happiness, and the happiness of MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA.

By the way - I am sure you smell when you fart. You obviously lack class in this thread, so it is only natural to assume you lack class elsewhere in your life.

Go evolve for a while. Come back when your done, slim.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:

What about their higher rate of domestic violence (both gay and lesbian)?

I have given facts and figures to back up all of the above. Now I want you to actually look up facts that can refute the above if you think you can find them.

The American Bar Association disagrees with you, ZEB:

"SAME-SEX BATTERING

Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships with the same statistical frequency as in heterosexual relationships."

They even put it in bold type for you.

Here you go read it again:

"Violence in Lesbian Relationships:

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”

I do give you credit for at least trying. I think I will wonder over to the Justice Department crime stats and see if I can find a few more facts for you on same sex domestic abuse.

Want to bet on what it will say?[/quote]

That 31% for the year matches the same rates for heterosexuals. Great. And the reporting 90% of “verbal aggression”? That matches heterosexuals. And the over half experiencing some form of abuse? Hey. Same thing with the heterosexual women.

Show me the stats for heterosexuals, ZEB. They fall within the same statistical ranges. The ABA doesn’t make as many mistakes as you do in interpreting statistics.

And sure, wander over and find what you can on the same sex relationships.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

Your answer suggests that you do not take even the minimal respect of reading my posts in their entirety. And yet you wonder why I’m arrogant and ignorant?[/quote]

Rest assured tango-boy. I give you all the respect you deserve.