For Bob re: Gay Marriage
rogue
'NYT' SUNDAY PREVIEW: Suze Orman Reveals She is the '55-year-old
Virgin'
By E&P Staff
Published: February 23, 2007 2:20 PM ET
NEW YORK In an interview for The New York Times Magazine this coming
Sunday, financial guru and TV host Suze Orman gets on Deborah
Solomon's case for not looking out for her own money, partly because
"you are a woman." This inspires Solomon to ask Orman if she is
married.
Orman says she "has a relationship with life," so Solomon presses her,
and Suze then reveals that her "life partner" is Kathy Travis and,
"We're going on seven years. I have never been with a man in my whole
life. I'm still a 55-year-old virgin."
*Orman says they'd like to get married,* (Jerry's note: point about
gays wanting marriage and not civil unions) and both "have millions
of dollars in our name. It's *killing me that upon my death, K.T. is
going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice
versa."*(Jerry's note: point about civil unions not being the same as
marriage. In other words, "separate but equal" never is. Why not ask
your wife how she felt about "separate but equal" accommodations based
upon race?)
Pressed again, she says that estimates that she is worth $25 million
are "pretty close."
She says she has about a million dollars in the stock exchange,
because if she loses it all "I don't personally care."
***
Legendary war reporter, and Bronze Star winner, Joe Galloway calls
scandal for vets at Walter Reed Army Hospital "the last straw."
Click here.
Bible Bob
Jerry,
Thanks.
I haven't forgotten about the other thread. My writer's block seems
to have departed for a season so I am working on one of my books
before my brain goes dead again.
As I have been trying to get you to understand, marriage is a
privilege; not a right. It is a States rights issue. Each of the
separate States need to ammend, rescind, supersede, or replace
existing laws with laws that provide "identical" (not similar)
benefits for "marriage" and "civil unions" which I prefer to call
"Coupleages."
As long as whining progressives raise a stink about the issue; as long
as whing progressives are unwilling to compromise, and as long as
whining progressives do nothing more than jaw jack - the laws won't be
changed. It is time that the whining "it ain't fair" mob put aside
its phoney "look at me I love gays" propaganda speeches; set aside its
deliberate attempts to block civil unions (which is what they are
really doing under the pretense of helping); and get off their lazy
asses and motivate their elected representatives to change the laws.
Again, those of us who would like to see and who would act to bring
about civil unions and marriages with identifical benefits are blocked
by whining "it ain't fair" progressive liberals who are more concerned
with showing off than getting anything done. As I said before, I live
in North Carolina which has a large gay population that is outnumbered
by religious fundamentalists who are brainwashed by their leaders to
believe that civil unions are a threat to the sanctity of marriage.
It would not be a difficult thing to inspire the average
fundamentalist to vote for civil unions if the stupid progressives
would stop poisoning the well with hate speech.
That's where I stand on the issue. How about you stop your whining
and posturing and work to get your state laws changed.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
AC
> On 25 Feb 2007 03:09:12 -0800, "rogue" <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >from: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_...
Yeah, how dare those blacks want to share the same part of the bus.
They should want to compromise, let separate but equal stand.
Oops, you were talking about homosexuals. Funny how the same old
arguments get recycled.
--
Aaron Clausen
Bible Bob
Aaron,
I see your point; but think it a mute one and not relevant to the
situation.
First, "marriage" is not a right. It is a privilege. Second
homosexuality is not a right. Third homosexuality (despite the
propaganda to the contrary) is not genetic. Race is genetic and
gender is genetic. One can not change race or gender; but may change
behavior. Following your logic murders should have equal rights with
non-murders. Until recent years homosexuality was a criminal act and
may still be a criminal act according to the laws of soem states.
The Constitution does not provide for equal rights for homosexuals;
but does provide for equal rights based on race or gender. You are
confusing apples and army tanks.
Marriage is a States rights issue; not a Federal issue. The Federal
Government does not make laws about marriage. States make the laws
concerning marriage. The Federal Government does make laws concerning
"benefits" as in the case of tax exemptions; but the States make the
laws that deal with insurance, medical benefits (some), wills,
contracts, etc.
I may be wrong; but you may be posting from one of the Socialist
countries and may not understand our Superior system. If that is the
case, then you may look at things entitely different than an American
would. We are a nation of laws; some good and some bad. We are
obligated to obey the laws until they are changed. In countries where
chaos rules such as the Socialist ones; laws may not be important. In
America we seek justice; not what is fair because what is fair for one
person may not be fair for another while justice is just for all.
As a Christian, I recognize that homosexual behavior is just another
form of fornication - no different than an unmarried couple engaging
in out of wedlock sexual relationships. As an American I recognize
that our laws are not based on religion but on what elected
representatives enacted into law for the common good.
At one time those reprentatives felt that it was for the common good
that women and blacks were not equal. The laws were changed. It may
be that in the course of time that there will be an amendment to the
Constitution that says that fornicators have equal rights with
non-fornicators. It hasn't happened yet and probably won't for a
while.
The practical solution to the problem is to petition the States to
change their laws and that requires politics including the art of
compromise. People running around like wild animals pissing people
off is not conducive to getting civil unions legalized.
K&L are a mixed race lesbian couple that have been together for over
twenty years. Both are disabled veterans that met in the service.
They have to jump through hurdles to make sure that their wills,
insurance, house, etc, is in accordance with laws so that if one dies
the natural familes can not take the survivors benefits. We live in
North Carolina where there is a large population of gays and a larger
population of church goers. K&L need the church goer votes to get the
law changed to allow civil unions. When the wild animals from up
North and out West show their asses; it makes it more difficult for
K&L to get the laws changed.
The war will not be won overnight. But battles can be won one at a
time if people will work together towards a common goal. A change of
law in one of the Southern states could make it easier for other
states to change their laws.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
AC
It's a legal contract.
> Second
> homosexuality is not a right.
Yes it is.
>Third homosexuality (despite the
> propaganda to the contrary) is not genetic.
Care to explain precisely how genetic studies on this matter are
propaganda?
> Race is genetic and
> gender is genetic.
And there may very well be a genetic component to homosexuality. There
is at least a growing body of evidence that it is physiological.
> One can not change race or gender; but may change
> behavior. Following your logic murders should have equal rights with
> non-murders. Until recent years homosexuality was a criminal act and
> may still be a criminal act according to the laws of soem states.
>
Homosexual relations between consenting adults does no harm. As usual,
this pathetic analogy collapses under the weight of its own irrelevancy.
> The Constitution does not provide for equal rights for homosexuals;
> but does provide for equal rights based on race or gender. You are
> confusing apples and army tanks.
It provides for equal protection under the law. Why do you think the
keen desire to amend the Constitution? Even the more rabid homophobic
bigots out there realize what that means.
>
> Marriage is a States rights issue; not a Federal issue. The Federal
> Government does not make laws about marriage. States make the laws
> concerning marriage. The Federal Government does make laws concerning
> "benefits" as in the case of tax exemptions; but the States make the
> laws that deal with insurance, medical benefits (some), wills,
> contracts, etc.
>
There is the issue of states recognizing the marriages of other states.
> I may be wrong; but you may be posting from one of the Socialist
> countries and may not understand our Superior system.
Do you intend to be that insulting, or is just natural? The US is nearly
as socialistic as any other nation, my friend.
>If that is the
> case, then you may look at things entitely different than an American
> would.
I know of plenty of Americans who have no problem with gay marriage. You
are not the official spokesman for 300 million people.
> We are a nation of laws; some good and some bad.
I come from a country of laws too.
>We are
> obligated to obey the laws until they are changed. In countries where
> chaos rules such as the Socialist ones; laws may not be important. In
> America we seek justice; not what is fair because what is fair for one
> person may not be fair for another while justice is just for all.
>
You really don't have the foggiest idea how the rest of the world works,
do you Bob?
> As a Christian, I recognize that homosexual behavior is just another
> form of fornication -
What does Christianity have to do with the laws of a secular state, Bob?
>no different than an unmarried couple engaging
> in out of wedlock sexual relationships. As an American I recognize
> that our laws are not based on religion but on what elected
> representatives enacted into law for the common good.
>
Or with supporting the prejudices of certain groups.
> At one time those reprentatives felt that it was for the common good
> that women and blacks were not equal. The laws were changed. It may
> be that in the course of time that there will be an amendment to the
> Constitution that says that fornicators have equal rights with
> non-fornicators. It hasn't happened yet and probably won't for a
> while.
The laws were changed because people realized that the existing laws
were not in keeping with a nation founded on liberty and justice for
all.
>
> The practical solution to the problem is to petition the States to
> change their laws and that requires politics including the art of
> compromise. People running around like wild animals pissing people
> off is not conducive to getting civil unions legalized.
>
That didn't work for Black Americans. It wasn't until they stood up
to the system, pissed people off and made a helluva lot of noise that
the system was changed.
> K&L are a mixed race lesbian couple that have been together for over
> twenty years. Both are disabled veterans that met in the service.
> They have to jump through hurdles to make sure that their wills,
> insurance, house, etc, is in accordance with laws so that if one dies
> the natural familes can not take the survivors benefits. We live in
> North Carolina where there is a large population of gays and a larger
> population of church goers. K&L need the church goer votes to get the
> law changed to allow civil unions. When the wild animals from up
> North and out West show their asses; it makes it more difficult for
> K&L to get the laws changed.
>
Why should a nation of free people require that Christian asses be kissed?
> The war will not be won overnight. But battles can be won one at a
> time if people will work together towards a common goal. A change of
> law in one of the Southern states could make it easier for other
> states to change their laws.
>
Or the Supreme Court forcing the states, which is exactly what got the
civil rights ball rolling.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
rogue
<snipped the article as it's no longer relevant. We've moved on>
>
> Jerry,
>
> Thanks.
>
> I haven't forgotten about the other thread. My writer's block seems
> to have departed for a season so I am working on one of my books
> before my brain goes dead again.
>
> As I have been trying to get you to understand, marriage is a
> privilege; not a right.
JERRY
Prove it. You keep saying that but as I've pointed out, the fact that
States allow common law marriages where you are married just by saying
you are and can get a certificate attesting to that fact proves you
wrong. Colorado puts no requirements on someone to get married other
than they be a heterosexual couple. Marriage is not a privilege, it's
a right, but it's a right being withheld from a minority of this
country based upon bigotry and religious zealotry.
Some states have requirements, like a blood test and a certificate
saying you aren't marrying your sister or brother or parent. However,
a blood test is for proof of sexually transmitted diseases and there
is no law on the books that you can't marry your honey if he has
syphilis.There are laws preventing incest, so questions regarding
family ties between the spouses fall into that area.
Regardless of your claims to the contrary, there is not a shred of
evidence that marriage is a privilege granted by the state just
because you say so. Marriage is a right regulated by the state for
income, nothing more. They make money giving you the license, they
make money making copies of it. They have no more interest in
marriage unless its something out of the ordinary, like two women
wanting to tie the knot in a non-bondage way. ;-)
> BB
> It is a States rights issue. Each of the
> separate States need to ammend, rescind, supersede, or replace
> existing laws with laws that provide "identical" (not similar)
> benefits for "marriage" and "civil unions" which I prefer to call
> "Coupleages."
JERRY
Or do like Massachusetts did and point out that their state
Constitution doesn't call for "separate but equal" and therefore gays
can get married there.
> BB
> As long as whining progressives raise a stink about the issue; as long
> as whing progressives are unwilling to compromise, and as long as
> whining progressives do nothing more than jaw jack - the laws won't be
> changed.
JERRY
You mean like how those whining blacks were unwilling to compromise,
and as long as those whining blacks did nothing more than jaw jack the
laws regarding equal rights wouldn't be changed? Johnson didn't
agree, though the Do-Nothing Republican clown Eisenhower was content
to do nothing on civil rights at all, even as it exploded in the
southern states.
> BB
> It is time that the whining "it ain't fair" mob put aside
> its phoney "look at me I love gays" propaganda speeches; set aside its
> deliberate attempts to block civil unions (which is what they are
> really doing under the pretense of helping); and get off their lazy
> asses and motivate their elected representatives to change the laws.
JERRY
That's what they are doing, Bob. Squeaky wheels get the grease and
representatives are hearing more and more. BTW, why don't you put
aside your phone "Look at me, I love gays" speeches and lose your
bigotry and I'm sure more people will speak honestly with you.
> BB
> Again, those of us who would like to see and who would act to bring
> about civil unions and marriages with identifical benefits are blocked
> by whining "it ain't fair" progressive liberals who are more concerned
> with showing off than getting anything done.
JERRY
Nonsense. All the push against civil unions, which gay groups would
consider a start in the right direction, is being opposed not by
liberals or gays but by conservative Christians. Try getting your
news from somewhere other than Faux Noise for a change.
> BB
> As I said before, I live
> in North Carolina which has a large gay population that is outnumbered
> by religious fundamentalists who are brainwashed by their leaders to
> believe that civil unions are a threat to the sanctity of marriage.
> It would not be a difficult thing to inspire the average
> fundamentalist to vote for civil unions if the stupid progressives
> would stop poisoning the well with hate speech.
JERRY
Of course it would. The average brain dead fundy gets their
viewpoints from their braindead pastors whose interpretation of the
bible tends to be literal and hateful. They get their back up about
liberals as instruments of satan and see the entire issue as a values
issue.
> BB
> That's where I stand on the issue. How about you stop your whining
> and posturing and work to get your state laws changed.
JERRY
LOL. Have been, Bob. Always working on changing or removing
braindead religious obstructionists like yourself from the arena.
Bible Bob
That must be approved by the state; hence a privilege.
>
>> Second
>> homosexuality is not a right.
>
>
>Yes it is.
Care to quote a Federal or State Consititution or Law that says it is
a right. Bluff won't work here AC.
>
>>Third homosexuality (despite the
>> propaganda to the contrary) is not genetic.
>
>Care to explain precisely how genetic studies on this matter are
>propaganda?
Suffice to say that there is no unbiased evidence that homosexuality
is genetic. The gay gene hasn't been found yet. It's still black
box.
>
>> Race is genetic and
>> gender is genetic.
>
>And there may very well be a genetic component to homosexuality. There
>is at least a growing body of evidence that it is physiological.
A growing body of evidence? In other words there is no evidence. As
I said it is still black box.
>
>> One can not change race or gender; but may change
>> behavior. Following your logic murders should have equal rights with
>> non-murders. Until recent years homosexuality was a criminal act and
>> may still be a criminal act according to the laws of soem states.
>>
>
>Homosexual relations between consenting adults does no harm. As usual,
>this pathetic analogy collapses under the weight of its own irrelevancy.
That's your opinion. My near thirty years of experience with gays
says that there is harm. On the oher hand in many there is no
apparent harm. People are people. What you consider a poor analogy
may be consided rich by someone else. Your opinion is only your
opinion; just as mine is mine.
Of course mine is the right and important one. Your opinion doesn't
matter because whiners whine and accomplish nothing. I am more likely
to get something done than you because I do what's right and proper to
accomplish goals.
>
>> The Constitution does not provide for equal rights for homosexuals;
>> but does provide for equal rights based on race or gender. You are
>> confusing apples and army tanks.
>
>It provides for equal protection under the law. Why do you think the
>keen desire to amend the Constitution? Even the more rabid homophobic
>bigots out there realize what that means.
>
Has the Constitution been ammended yet? No. Why not? Whiners get
nothing done. Trouble makers make trouble and get things set back.
If you are worth your salt, stop whining and get the laws changed.
>>
>> Marriage is a States rights issue; not a Federal issue. The Federal
>> Government does not make laws about marriage. States make the laws
>> concerning marriage. The Federal Government does make laws concerning
>> "benefits" as in the case of tax exemptions; but the States make the
>> laws that deal with insurance, medical benefits (some), wills,
>> contracts, etc.
>>
>
>There is the issue of states recognizing the marriages of other states.
That's not important right now. First, we need states that permit
civil unions. Then we can work on recognition.
>
>> I may be wrong; but you may be posting from one of the Socialist
>> countries and may not understand our Superior system.
>
>Do you intend to be that insulting, or is just natural? The US is nearly
>as socialistic as any other nation, my friend.
No, not insulting. If you are from one of the Socialist countries
your lack of mind set on American issues does more harm than good.
The fact is that we need large voting blocks of people and they need
to include people with "Christian" values who claim to be
"Christians." We don't need atheists and socialists pissing them off.
>
>>If that is the
>> case, then you may look at things entitely different than an American
>> would.
>
>I know of plenty of Americans who have no problem with gay marriage. You
>are not the official spokesman for 300 million people.
>
I didn't think you were American. I know lots of Americans, too. I
don't need to speak for 300 million Americans. I just need to be able
to speak for one. That one is perfectly capable of working with other
ones to get things done.
>
>> We are a nation of laws; some good and some bad.
>
>I come from a country of laws too.
Good
>
>>We are
>> obligated to obey the laws until they are changed. In countries where
>> chaos rules such as the Socialist ones; laws may not be important. In
>> America we seek justice; not what is fair because what is fair for one
>> person may not be fair for another while justice is just for all.
>>
>
>You really don't have the foggiest idea how the rest of the world works,
>do you Bob?
I've been there (Europe, Asia) and saw and like most Americans that
visit foreign countries, developed an appreciation for the good ole US
of A.
>
>> As a Christian, I recognize that homosexual behavior is just another
>> form of fornication -
>
>What does Christianity have to do with the laws of a secular state, Bob?
Read the rest of the sentences.
>
>>no different than an unmarried couple engaging
>> in out of wedlock sexual relationships. As an American I recognize
>> that our laws are not based on religion but on what elected
>> representatives enacted into law for the common good.
>>
>
>Or with supporting the prejudices of certain groups.
Whatever. Until the law is changed it stands and all the whining in
the world doesn't change anything. It may be important for you to get
on your soap box and try to impress people with "I have a gay friend"
or "I have a black friend." I live in the interracial and homosexual
communites and have for many many years. They are my friends and
family and are worth more than what I'd get out of standing on a soap
box talking crap about what I know nothing about.
>
>> At one time those reprentatives felt that it was for the common good
>> that women and blacks were not equal. The laws were changed. It may
>> be that in the course of time that there will be an amendment to the
>> Constitution that says that fornicators have equal rights with
>> non-fornicators. It hasn't happened yet and probably won't for a
>> while.
>
>The laws were changed because people realized that the existing laws
>were not in keeping with a nation founded on liberty and justice for
>all.
But it hasn't happened yet. You got to stop worshipping your fairy
gods of pseudo politics and pseudo philosophy and get into the real
world. You atheists and yoiur sky fairies really eed to get a life.
>
>>
>> The practical solution to the problem is to petition the States to
>> change their laws and that requires politics including the art of
>> compromise. People running around like wild animals pissing people
>> off is not conducive to getting civil unions legalized.
>>
>
>That didn't work for Black Americans. It wasn't until they stood up
>to the system, pissed people off and made a helluva lot of noise that
>the system was changed.
That's not wholly true. Who are the respected men and women from
those days? The radicals are dead and gone; its the peacemakers that
are remembered. Then too you are trying to compare apples and
battleships. Race is genetic while fornication is not.
>
>> K&L are a mixed race lesbian couple that have been together for over
>> twenty years. Both are disabled veterans that met in the service.
>> They have to jump through hurdles to make sure that their wills,
>> insurance, house, etc, is in accordance with laws so that if one dies
>> the natural familes can not take the survivors benefits. We live in
>> North Carolina where there is a large population of gays and a larger
>> population of church goers. K&L need the church goer votes to get the
>> law changed to allow civil unions. When the wild animals from up
>> North and out West show their asses; it makes it more difficult for
>> K&L to get the laws changed.
>>
>
>Why should a nation of free people require that Christian asses be kissed?
Depends on the reason why their asses need kissed. Of course a big
time righteous person like yourself would allow his child to die
rather than kiss a Christians ass so that you could brag to your
fellow fundamentalist religionists that you were the big man that
allowed his kid to die rather than kiss a Christians ass.
If I have to go kiss a few Christian asses or atheist asses to help my
friends to gain the same privileges as others; then I'll be an ass
kissing fool.
>
>> The war will not be won overnight. But battles can be won one at a
>> time if people will work together towards a common goal. A change of
>> law in one of the Southern states could make it easier for other
>> states to change their laws.
>>
>
>Or the Supreme Court forcing the states, which is exactly what got the
>civil rights ball rolling.
It's not the Supreme Courts job to make laws. That is the job of
Congress. Obviously you have no sense of justice because it is
evident that you think that the few should rule the majority. That's
socialism for you. I prefer that our country worked the way it was
set up to work.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible Bob
>On Feb 25, 7:40 pm, Bible Bob <bible...@saintly.com> wrote:
>
><snipped the article as it's no longer relevant. We've moved on>
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I haven't forgotten about the other thread. My writer's block seems
>> to have departed for a season so I am working on one of my books
>> before my brain goes dead again.
>>
>> As I have been trying to get you to understand, marriage is a
>> privilege; not a right.
>
>JERRY
>Prove it. You keep saying that but as I've pointed out, the fact that
>States allow common law marriages where you are married just by saying
>you are and can get a certificate attesting to that fact proves you
>wrong. Colorado puts no requirements on someone to get married other
>than they be a heterosexual couple. Marriage is not a privilege, it's
>a right, but it's a right being withheld from a minority of this
>country based upon bigotry and religious zealotry.
Don't need to prove it Jerry. You should be smart enough to figure
out that there are 50 states with different laws. Scew Colorado. I
live in North Carolina. Did you know that Colorado law does not
supercede North Carolina law in North Carolina? Have you ever heard
of a thing called "jurisdiction?" Each state has their own
jurisdiction and their own las applicable to those jurisdictions.
Mariage is not a right in every state. It is a privilege. One must
meet the requirements of the state law to qualify for it. Why are you
even arguing this. You know that rights and privileges are not the
same thing.
>
>Some states have requirements, like a blood test and a certificate
>saying you aren't marrying your sister or brother or parent. However,
>a blood test is for proof of sexually transmitted diseases and there
>is no law on the books that you can't marry your honey if he has
>syphilis.There are laws preventing incest, so questions regarding
>family ties between the spouses fall into that area.
That makes it a privilege Jerry. Don't you know the diference between
a right and a privilege. You have a right to exercise free speech but
not a right to drive a car because driving a car is a privilege.
>
>Regardless of your claims to the contrary, there is not a shred of
>evidence that marriage is a privilege granted by the state just
>because you say so. Marriage is a right regulated by the state for
>income, nothing more. They make money giving you the license, they
>make money making copies of it. They have no more interest in
>marriage unless its something out of the ordinary, like two women
>wanting to tie the knot in a non-bondage way. ;-)
That is so silly. Anything you have to apply for is a privilege.
What you do not have to apply for is a right. You do not have to fill
out an application to exercise free speech but you do to get married.
Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. Ask your wife.
>
>
>> BB
>> It is a States rights issue. Each of the
>> separate States need to ammend, rescind, supersede, or replace
>> existing laws with laws that provide "identical" (not similar)
>> benefits for "marriage" and "civil unions" which I prefer to call
>> "Coupleages."
>
>JERRY
>Or do like Massachusetts did and point out that their state
>Constitution doesn't call for "separate but equal" and therefore gays
>can get married there.
Socialists like to do things that way. From your point of view the
Constitution is toilet paper. From my point of view it is the Law of
the land and it says Congress makes the laws; not the courts. Mass
has some commie pinko socialist judges' Other states don't; so your
plan won't work in all states. You do realize that there is more than
one state don't you?
>
>> BB
>> As long as whining progressives raise a stink about the issue; as long
>> as whing progressives are unwilling to compromise, and as long as
>> whining progressives do nothing more than jaw jack - the laws won't be
>> changed.
>
>JERRY
>You mean like how those whining blacks were unwilling to compromise,
>and as long as those whining blacks did nothing more than jaw jack the
>laws regarding equal rights wouldn't be changed? Johnson didn't
>agree, though the Do-Nothing Republican clown Eisenhower was content
>to do nothing on civil rights at all, even as it exploded in the
>southern states.
No not blacks. Don't play that race game with me Jerry. It won't
work. We are not talking about race, we are talking about behavior.
>
>> BB
>> It is time that the whining "it ain't fair" mob put aside
>> its phoney "look at me I love gays" propaganda speeches; set aside its
>> deliberate attempts to block civil unions (which is what they are
>> really doing under the pretense of helping); and get off their lazy
>> asses and motivate their elected representatives to change the laws.
>
>JERRY
>That's what they are doing, Bob. Squeaky wheels get the grease and
>representatives are hearing more and more. BTW, why don't you put
>aside your phone "Look at me, I love gays" speeches and lose your
>bigotry and I'm sure more people will speak honestly with you.
No reason to put it aside Jerry. It's not phoney. Its the way
progressives and socialists are. All show and no substance.
(I saw Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter on TV tonight. He was president
and she was vice president. It was a comedy skit)
>
>> BB
>> Again, those of us who would like to see and who would act to bring
>> about civil unions and marriages with identifical benefits are blocked
>> by whining "it ain't fair" progressive liberals who are more concerned
>> with showing off than getting anything done.
>
>JERRY
>Nonsense. All the push against civil unions, which gay groups would
>consider a start in the right direction, is being opposed not by
>liberals or gays but by conservative Christians. Try getting your
>news from somewhere other than Faux Noise for a change.
I get my news from you - Faux Dude.
Then stop being mean to Christians. You may not realize this; but
most Christians are not anti-civil union. It's the political trouble
making ones that are. Most Christians have a gay family member of
friend.
If you would stop attacking the religious big shots because they are
Christians and attack their doctrines and prove them to be the
opposite of what they say they are; then the "peons" would be more
likely to lean towards the center. But all you people know is
character assassination. You can't think strategically; only
emotionally. If Falwell is the problem then defeat his doctrines. If
Robertson is the problem defeat his doctrines. Their followers will
defend them if they think you are attacking their preachers. But if
you prove what they teach to be false; then the people will turn away
from the false teachers and go somewhere else.
For example, all you have to do is prove that tithing is wrong. That
invalidates half the money making preachers. In this state where
there are a lot of fundies; if they find out that they have been
giving away ten percent of their gross income for twenty years for
unscriptural reasons, then they will go down the street to an
Episcopalian or Methodist or some other less fundy church where the
preacher is more likely to be sensitive to the needs of gays.
>
>> BB
>> As I said before, I live
>> in North Carolina which has a large gay population that is outnumbered
>> by religious fundamentalists who are brainwashed by their leaders to
>> believe that civil unions are a threat to the sanctity of marriage.
>> It would not be a difficult thing to inspire the average
>> fundamentalist to vote for civil unions if the stupid progressives
>> would stop poisoning the well with hate speech.
>
>JERRY
>Of course it would. The average brain dead fundy gets their
>viewpoints from their braindead pastors whose interpretation of the
>bible tends to be literal and hateful. They get their back up about
>liberals as instruments of satan and see the entire issue as a values
>issue.
Then maybe liberals shouldn't give them fuel. What's more important
"pride" or "change".
>
>> BB
>> That's where I stand on the issue. How about you stop your whining
>> and posturing and work to get your state laws changed.
>
>JERRY
>LOL. Have been, Bob. Always working on changing or removing
>braindead religious obstructionists like yourself from the arena.
Okay. But did you know that the laws are made by elected
representatives? Did you ever think about writing one or maybe
offering to help with a campaign so he will help your cause?
Your progressive take take take mentality needs to be hidden if you
expect a minority to overcome a majority.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
AC
Contract law is a right, Bob.
>>
>>> Second
>>> homosexuality is not a right.
>>
>>
>>Yes it is.
>
> Care to quote a Federal or State Consititution or Law that says it is
> a right. Bluff won't work here AC.
Care to come up with a Federal or State Constitution which recognizes the
right to own a popup toaster, Bob?
>>
>>>Third homosexuality (despite the
>>> propaganda to the contrary) is not genetic.
>>
>>Care to explain precisely how genetic studies on this matter are
>>propaganda?
>
> Suffice to say that there is no unbiased evidence that homosexuality
> is genetic. The gay gene hasn't been found yet. It's still black
> box.
Now why would you think there would be a bias to the research, Bob?
Do you have some evidence of a bias?
>>
>>> Race is genetic and
>>> gender is genetic.
>>
>>And there may very well be a genetic component to homosexuality. There
>>is at least a growing body of evidence that it is physiological.
>
> A growing body of evidence? In other words there is no evidence. As
> I said it is still black box.
There is physiological evidence that demonstrates different brain structure
in homosexuals.
>>
>>> One can not change race or gender; but may change
>>> behavior. Following your logic murders should have equal rights with
>>> non-murders. Until recent years homosexuality was a criminal act and
>>> may still be a criminal act according to the laws of soem states.
>>>
>>
>>Homosexual relations between consenting adults does no harm. As usual,
>>this pathetic analogy collapses under the weight of its own irrelevancy.
>
> That's your opinion. My near thirty years of experience with gays
> says that there is harm. On the oher hand in many there is no
> apparent harm. People are people. What you consider a poor analogy
> may be consided rich by someone else. Your opinion is only your
> opinion; just as mine is mine.
>
Precisely what harm does two adults of the same sex entering a sexual
and/or cohabitation relationship do to society, Bob?
> Of course mine is the right and important one. Your opinion doesn't
> matter because whiners whine and accomplish nothing. I am more likely
> to get something done than you because I do what's right and proper to
> accomplish goals.
Now you're just being silly. People who see injustice and point it out
are not whiners, Bob.
>>
>>> The Constitution does not provide for equal rights for homosexuals;
>>> but does provide for equal rights based on race or gender. You are
>>> confusing apples and army tanks.
>>
>>It provides for equal protection under the law. Why do you think the
>>keen desire to amend the Constitution? Even the more rabid homophobic
>>bigots out there realize what that means.
>>
> Has the Constitution been ammended yet? No. Why not? Whiners get
> nothing done. Trouble makers make trouble and get things set back.
> If you are worth your salt, stop whining and get the laws changed.
>
It hasn't been amended because the Founding Fathers made it very
difficult to do so. And who said I was whining? You're the one
babbling on about biases in studies on homosexuals and hinting
at damage by consenting adults. In fact, you're the one who is
whining.
>>>
>>> Marriage is a States rights issue; not a Federal issue. The Federal
>>> Government does not make laws about marriage. States make the laws
>>> concerning marriage. The Federal Government does make laws concerning
>>> "benefits" as in the case of tax exemptions; but the States make the
>>> laws that deal with insurance, medical benefits (some), wills,
>>> contracts, etc.
>>>
>>
>>There is the issue of states recognizing the marriages of other states.
>
> That's not important right now. First, we need states that permit
> civil unions. Then we can work on recognition.
The problem is that at least one state has already recognized it, creating
a rather large problem for others. Why do you think the bigots want
to amend the Constitution?
>>
>>> I may be wrong; but you may be posting from one of the Socialist
>>> countries and may not understand our Superior system.
>>
>>Do you intend to be that insulting, or is just natural? The US is nearly
>>as socialistic as any other nation, my friend.
>
> No, not insulting. If you are from one of the Socialist countries
> your lack of mind set on American issues does more harm than good.
I'm well aware of the American issues. I'm also aware that not everyone
in the US is against gay marriage.
> The fact is that we need large voting blocks of people and they need
> to include people with "Christian" values who claim to be
> "Christians." We don't need atheists and socialists pissing them off.
That you think a rights issue is about atheists and socialists speaks
volumes about you.
>>
>>>If that is the
>>> case, then you may look at things entitely different than an American
>>> would.
>>
>>I know of plenty of Americans who have no problem with gay marriage. You
>>are not the official spokesman for 300 million people.
>>
> I didn't think you were American. I know lots of Americans, too. I
> don't need to speak for 300 million Americans.
You were apparently suggesting you were.
> I just need to be able
> to speak for one. That one is perfectly capable of working with other
> ones to get things done.
You know what gets things done. People with the guts to call out bigots.
That's what the civil rights movement was about, not about trying to find
accomodations with bigots.
>>
>>> We are a nation of laws; some good and some bad.
>>
>>I come from a country of laws too.
>
> Good
>>
>>>We are
>>> obligated to obey the laws until they are changed. In countries where
>>> chaos rules such as the Socialist ones; laws may not be important. In
>>> America we seek justice; not what is fair because what is fair for one
>>> person may not be fair for another while justice is just for all.
>>>
>>
>>You really don't have the foggiest idea how the rest of the world works,
>>do you Bob?
>
> I've been there (Europe, Asia) and saw and like most Americans that
> visit foreign countries, developed an appreciation for the good ole US
> of A.
Most countries have constitutions, Bob. You made claims about the law
abiding nature of other countries. I don't give a damn about your
jingoism.
Just what do you classify as socialist countries, Bob?
>>
>>> As a Christian, I recognize that homosexual behavior is just another
>>> form of fornication -
>>
>>What does Christianity have to do with the laws of a secular state, Bob?
>
> Read the rest of the sentences.
I still don't understand why a secular state has to give consideration to
purely religious beliefs.
>>
>>>no different than an unmarried couple engaging
>>> in out of wedlock sexual relationships. As an American I recognize
>>> that our laws are not based on religion but on what elected
>>> representatives enacted into law for the common good.
>>>
>>
>>Or with supporting the prejudices of certain groups.
>
> Whatever. Until the law is changed it stands and all the whining in
> the world doesn't change anything. It may be important for you to get
> on your soap box and try to impress people with "I have a gay friend"
> or "I have a black friend." I live in the interracial and homosexual
> communites and have for many many years. They are my friends and
> family and are worth more than what I'd get out of standing on a soap
> box talking crap about what I know nothing about.
It's not about friends, Bob, it's about justice and dignity. If you
truly appreciated these people, you wouldn't be asking them to
knuckle under to foul little bigots.
>>> At one time those reprentatives felt that it was for the common good
>>> that women and blacks were not equal. The laws were changed. It may
>>> be that in the course of time that there will be an amendment to the
>>> Constitution that says that fornicators have equal rights with
>>> non-fornicators. It hasn't happened yet and probably won't for a
>>> while.
>>
>>The laws were changed because people realized that the existing laws
>>were not in keeping with a nation founded on liberty and justice for
>>all.
>
> But it hasn't happened yet. You got to stop worshipping your fairy
> gods of pseudo politics and pseudo philosophy and get into the real
> world. You atheists and yoiur sky fairies really eed to get a life.
>>
>>>
>>> The practical solution to the problem is to petition the States to
>>> change their laws and that requires politics including the art of
>>> compromise. People running around like wild animals pissing people
>>> off is not conducive to getting civil unions legalized.
>>>
>>
>>That didn't work for Black Americans. It wasn't until they stood up
>>to the system, pissed people off and made a helluva lot of noise that
>>the system was changed.
>
> That's not wholly true. Who are the respected men and women from
> those days? The radicals are dead and gone; its the peacemakers that
> are remembered. Then too you are trying to compare apples and
> battleships. Race is genetic while fornication is not.
People remember Rosa Parks, who stood up to mean-sprited hateful
bastards. It was a woman who didn't live with the pathetic
accomodations of a racist society who is best remembered, not those
who tried to get along.
Oh, and sex is genetic.
>>
>>> K&L are a mixed race lesbian couple that have been together for over
>>> twenty years. Both are disabled veterans that met in the service.
>>> They have to jump through hurdles to make sure that their wills,
>>> insurance, house, etc, is in accordance with laws so that if one dies
>>> the natural familes can not take the survivors benefits. We live in
>>> North Carolina where there is a large population of gays and a larger
>>> population of church goers. K&L need the church goer votes to get the
>>> law changed to allow civil unions. When the wild animals from up
>>> North and out West show their asses; it makes it more difficult for
>>> K&L to get the laws changed.
>>>
>>
>>Why should a nation of free people require that Christian asses be kissed?
>
> Depends on the reason why their asses need kissed. Of course a big
> time righteous person like yourself would allow his child to die
> rather than kiss a Christians ass so that you could brag to your
> fellow fundamentalist religionists that you were the big man that
> allowed his kid to die rather than kiss a Christians ass.
You don't know me, Bob. Don't make statements about me like that.
>
> If I have to go kiss a few Christian asses or atheist asses to help my
> friends to gain the same privileges as others; then I'll be an ass
> kissing fool.
I think what's needed is a few Christian asses being kicked, not kissed.
>>
>>> The war will not be won overnight. But battles can be won one at a
>>> time if people will work together towards a common goal. A change of
>>> law in one of the Southern states could make it easier for other
>>> states to change their laws.
>>>
>>
>>Or the Supreme Court forcing the states, which is exactly what got the
>>civil rights ball rolling.
>
> It's not the Supreme Courts job to make laws.
It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, and to address
those who petition it.
> That is the job of
> Congress.
And when Congress passes unconstitutional laws, they will be overturned.
> Obviously you have no sense of justice because it is
> evident that you think that the few should rule the majority. That's
> socialism for you.
Uh, no. Socialism, strictly speaking, is an economic model. Sweden,
for instance, is a fully functioning democracy, with free elections,
multiple parties (far more than two bloated entities in the US),
universal suffrage and freedom of expression, and yet is what you
would call a socialist state.
You'll note that the US has most of the same socialistic programs that
countries like sweden does. I doubt you really even know what you
mean by socialist. It appears to be something you feel unAmerican,
for reasons I can't imagine.
> I prefer that our country worked the way it was
> set up to work.
There's nothing in the Constitution about socialism, Bob.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Bible Bob
You said it is, the burden is on you.
>
>>>
>>>>Third homosexuality (despite the
>>>> propaganda to the contrary) is not genetic.
>>>
>>>Care to explain precisely how genetic studies on this matter are
>>>propaganda?
>>
>> Suffice to say that there is no unbiased evidence that homosexuality
>> is genetic. The gay gene hasn't been found yet. It's still black
>> box.
>
>Now why would you think there would be a bias to the research, Bob?
>Do you have some evidence of a bias?
Because people are involved.
>
>>>
>>>> Race is genetic and
>>>> gender is genetic.
>>>
>>>And there may very well be a genetic component to homosexuality. There
>>>is at least a growing body of evidence that it is physiological.
>>
>> A growing body of evidence? In other words there is no evidence. As
>> I said it is still black box.
>
>There is physiological evidence that demonstrates different brain structure
>in homosexuals.
Not. The hypothalamus is larger study was done by gays with an
agenda. Rather unscientific, too, seeing that one would have to know
the size of the hypothalamus at onset and at death. Oher factors
besides being gay could affect size. Gay pee smellers doesn't prove
anything because smell can be an aquired taste. The burden of proof
is on you; not me. And the lesbian annd sex hormone study was
misinterpreted.
As long as you have gay researchers trying to justify and rationalize
behavior; their results will be suspect. Besides, most of the studies
seem to come out of Socialist Sweden - where little boys have to sit
down to pee so as not to be superior to little girls. As long as nut
cases are doing the research - whose going to really beleive it.
And if there is a different brain structure in homosexuals what does
that prove? Brain physiology can be affected by chemical imbalances
caused by behavior and things taken into the body.
Here is what you need. You need a specific gene that causes
honosexuality. There hasn't been one found and I doubt there will be.
However, in the case of some transgendered there may be a defective
gene. I don't understand this yet. But a transgendered girl that I
have been working with for many years has been undergoing some genetic
tests. It has something to do with her body build and a defect in one
of the sex genes. Her and I are waiting for her doctors to get to her
on it. She is like a duighter to my wife and I and because she has
mental disabilities I am her representative payee for her check; go
with her to doctor appointments, etc.
Does a defective gene excuse behavior? In the case of a transgendered
female that likes little girls; should she be required to control her
behavior or have her way with minors? Should transgendered males be
allowed to have their way with little boys if genetics is involved?
>
>>>
>>>> One can not change race or gender; but may change
>>>> behavior. Following your logic murders should have equal rights with
>>>> non-murders. Until recent years homosexuality was a criminal act and
>>>> may still be a criminal act according to the laws of soem states.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Homosexual relations between consenting adults does no harm. As usual,
>>>this pathetic analogy collapses under the weight of its own irrelevancy.
>>
>> That's your opinion. My near thirty years of experience with gays
>> says that there is harm. On the oher hand in many there is no
>> apparent harm. People are people. What you consider a poor analogy
>> may be consided rich by someone else. Your opinion is only your
>> opinion; just as mine is mine.
>>
>
>Precisely what harm does two adults of the same sex entering a sexual
>and/or cohabitation relationship do to society, Bob?
That would depend on the two adults. But suffice to say similar to
the harm that could be done by two heterosexual adults. Gay couples
or straight couples cause similar problems - fornication is
fornication.
>
>> Of course mine is the right and important one. Your opinion doesn't
>> matter because whiners whine and accomplish nothing. I am more likely
>> to get something done than you because I do what's right and proper to
>> accomplish goals.
>
>Now you're just being silly. People who see injustice and point it out
>are not whiners, Bob.
>
When there is injustice. "Just" and "fair" mean different things.
What you don't understand is that "just" has to do with justice which
is based on laws while "fair" is an emmotional issue that may have
nothing to do with justice.
The murder who says, it isn't fair that you going to execute me or
make me stay in prison for the rest of his life can whine all he wants
about what is fair or not fair. What's just is what counts and just
has to do with laws not emotions.
>>>
>>>> The Constitution does not provide for equal rights for homosexuals;
>>>> but does provide for equal rights based on race or gender. You are
>>>> confusing apples and army tanks.
>>>
>>>It provides for equal protection under the law. Why do you think the
>>>keen desire to amend the Constitution? Even the more rabid homophobic
>>>bigots out there realize what that means.
You mean this?
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The problem is that there is no privilege or immunity for homosexual
behavior.
Here is the legal definition for:
right. n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like
justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest
in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms;
protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property;
civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the
courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights
to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric
practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor;
and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of
speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.
privilege n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity
from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of
people.
immunity n. exemption from penalties, payments or legal requirements,
granted by authorities or statutes. Generally there are three types of
immunity at law: a) a promise not to prosecute for a crime in exchange
for information or testimony in a criminal matter, granted by the
prosecutors, a judge, a grand jury or an investigating legislative
committee; b) public officials' protection from liability for their
decisions (like a city manager or member of a public hospital board);
c) governmental (or sovereign) immunity, which protects government
agencies from lawsuits unless the government agreed to be sued; d)
diplomatic immunity which excuses foreign ambassadors from most U.S.
criminal laws
Equal protection under the law has to do with equal protection under
the law. It has to do with rights and privileges and immunities.
There are no rights or privileges or immunities for homosexual
behavior
>>>
>> Has the Constitution been ammended yet? No. Why not? Whiners get
>> nothing done. Trouble makers make trouble and get things set back.
>> If you are worth your salt, stop whining and get the laws changed.
>>
>
>It hasn't been amended because the Founding Fathers made it very
>difficult to do so. And who said I was whining? You're the one
>babbling on about biases in studies on homosexuals and hinting
>at damage by consenting adults. In fact, you're the one who is
>whining.
And that's a good thing. Else everytime the liberals get in power;
the people would be paying more taxes and sacrificing mor rights.
Just think how much it would cost remove urinals from restrooms so
that boys could be equal with girls. Then consider the cost of the
potty police to enforce the no boy standing rule
I said you was whining. Didn't you just read what I wrote? But if it
makes you happy I will withdraw its applicability towards you. That
would be the "fair" thing to do. I didn't babble on about biases.
You are the one that is doing that. I said the word "unbiased" and
did not say whether there was or wasn't. You ae the one babb damage
by consenting adults. I didn't bring it.
You know, I once was an atheist and I do know what an atheist is.
There are some who profess to be atheists who are really anti-theists;
or hatemongers, who will take a pot shot at anyone they perceive to be
a religious person. They us the same techniques that you use. You
assert that I say what I do not say. You assert that I believe what I
do ot believe. You use the bigoted stereotypes used by anti-theists.
You hate religion and transfer your hate to the practitioners.
Depite what my friend Jerry says; I am not a fundamentalist
religionist. I do have a very strong belief system but at the heart
of that belief system is the principle of free will and the
willingness to separate the "sinner" from the "sin." A fundy isn't
able to do that. That's why antitheists are fundies. They are not
mature or intelligent enough to separate a person from his religion.
In my case, I have no religious affiliation at all to any group. I
stand under and report to Jesus Christ; and no one else except in
those cases where I might seek the counsel of a fellow peer Christian.
>>>
>>>> Marriage is a States rights issue; not a Federal issue. The Federal
>>>> Government does not make laws about marriage. States make the laws
>>>> concerning marriage. The Federal Government does make laws concerning
>>>> "benefits" as in the case of tax exemptions; but the States make the
>>>> laws that deal with insurance, medical benefits (some), wills,
>>>> contracts, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is the issue of states recognizing the marriages of other states.
>>
>> That's not important right now. First, we need states that permit
>> civil unions. Then we can work on recognition.
>
>The problem is that at least one state has already recognized it, creating
>a rather large problem for others. Why do you think the bigots want
>to amend the Constitution?
>
What's a bigot? Someone that disagrees with you? There are
homophobes and there are heterophobes and both are probably neither;
just labels applied by people to other people who find it easier to
call names than solve problems. A bigot is a person devoted to one
group. If I am pro-heterosexual does that make me a bigot? No.
You are bigoted towards Christianity; how about Islam?
In my case, I believe that homosexuality is wrong because it is
contrary to the goal of nature which is to continue the species. I
also believe it is wrong for the same reason that heterosexual
promiscuity is wrong. What matters is how I treat those who practice
homosexuality. Do I refuse to hire people that are otherwise
qualified because they are gay? No. Would I deny a person fellowship
at church based on sexual preference? No. Would I refuse to allow
members of Nambla to babysit my little boys? Yes. Would I deny food
stamps to a person because they are gay? No. Would I allow my dogs
to go for a walk with a man or woman who practices beastiality? No.
Would I question classifying people as disabled because they are
homosexual, drug addicts or alcoholics. Yes, because I don't want my
tax dollars wasted.
>>>
>>>> I may be wrong; but you may be posting from one of the Socialist
>>>> countries and may not understand our Superior system.
>>>
>>>Do you intend to be that insulting, or is just natural? The US is nearly
>>>as socialistic as any other nation, my friend.
>>
>> No, not insulting. If you are from one of the Socialist countries
>> your lack of mind set on American issues does more harm than good.
>
>I'm well aware of the American issues. I'm also aware that not everyone
>in the US is against gay marriage.
Not everyone is how many people?
>
>> The fact is that we need large voting blocks of people and they need
>> to include people with "Christian" values who claim to be
>> "Christians." We don't need atheists and socialists pissing them off.
>
>That you think a rights issue is about atheists and socialists speaks
>volumes about you.
As a recovering atheist, let me say that what I said was we don't need
atheists and socialists pissing people off. Anti-theists would be a
better word than atheist. We need people to work together to
understand each other. Hatemongers are hatemongers regardless of
their stripes.
>
>>>
>>>>If that is the
>>>> case, then you may look at things entitely different than an American
>>>> would.
>>>
>>>I know of plenty of Americans who have no problem with gay marriage. You
>>>are not the official spokesman for 300 million people.
>>>
>> I didn't think you were American. I know lots of Americans, too. I
>> don't need to speak for 300 million Americans.
>
>You were apparently suggesting you were.
Nope, just for me.
>
>> I just need to be able
>> to speak for one. That one is perfectly capable of working with other
>> ones to get things done.
>
>You know what gets things done. People with the guts to call out bigots.
>That's what the civil rights movement was about, not about trying to find
>accomodations with bigots.
>
Depends on what a bigot is. Some people call names while claiming to
call out bigots. You confuse civil rights with sexual preference.
There is no civil right for homosexuality; or beastiality, or rape, or
child molesting, or stealing or lying, or killing, etc. You confuse
behavior with genetics.
>>>
>>>> We are a nation of laws; some good and some bad.
>>>
>>>I come from a country of laws too.
>>
>> Good
>>>
>>>>We are
>>>> obligated to obey the laws until they are changed. In countries where
>>>> chaos rules such as the Socialist ones; laws may not be important. In
>>>> America we seek justice; not what is fair because what is fair for one
>>>> person may not be fair for another while justice is just for all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You really don't have the foggiest idea how the rest of the world works,
>>>do you Bob?
>>
>> I've been there (Europe, Asia) and saw and like most Americans that
>> visit foreign countries, developed an appreciation for the good ole US
>> of A.
>
>Most countries have constitutions, Bob. You made claims about the law
>abiding nature of other countries. I don't give a damn about your
>jingoism.
Nice word. May I use it?
>
>Just what do you classify as socialist countries, Bob?
Me? I'd say Canada, England, Sweden, France, Germany and countries
that are socialistic.
>
>>>
>>>> As a Christian, I recognize that homosexual behavior is just another
>>>> form of fornication -
>>>
>>>What does Christianity have to do with the laws of a secular state, Bob?
>>
>> Read the rest of the sentences.
>
>I still don't understand why a secular state has to give consideration to
>purely religious beliefs.
You probably don't and probably won't until you get rid of the last
threads of bigotry that affect your thinking and behavior patterns.
>
>>>
>>>>no different than an unmarried couple engaging
>>>> in out of wedlock sexual relationships. As an American I recognize
>>>> that our laws are not based on religion but on what elected
>>>> representatives enacted into law for the common good.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or with supporting the prejudices of certain groups.
>>
>> Whatever. Until the law is changed it stands and all the whining in
>> the world doesn't change anything. It may be important for you to get
>> on your soap box and try to impress people with "I have a gay friend"
>> or "I have a black friend." I live in the interracial and homosexual
>> communites and have for many many years. They are my friends and
>> family and are worth more than what I'd get out of standing on a soap
>> box talking crap about what I know nothing about.
>
>It's not about friends, Bob, it's about justice and dignity. If you
>truly appreciated these people, you wouldn't be asking them to
>knuckle under to foul little bigots.
Isn't it? I think it is. Justice and fairness are two diferent
things. Friends help friends. Friends defend friends. I can
convince more friends to vote; than enemies to vote.
I remember her, too. Do you remember my brother that was a radical
with the Black Panthyers? Do you remember any of the real radicals/
You might if you worship wrong behavior. But most people remember the
good people; and not so much the bas people unless they were really
really bad.
>
>Oh, and sex is genetic.
It makes genes.
>
>>>
>>>> K&L are a mixed race lesbian couple that have been together for over
>>>> twenty years. Both are disabled veterans that met in the service.
>>>> They have to jump through hurdles to make sure that their wills,
>>>> insurance, house, etc, is in accordance with laws so that if one dies
>>>> the natural familes can not take the survivors benefits. We live in
>>>> North Carolina where there is a large population of gays and a larger
>>>> population of church goers. K&L need the church goer votes to get the
>>>> law changed to allow civil unions. When the wild animals from up
>>>> North and out West show their asses; it makes it more difficult for
>>>> K&L to get the laws changed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why should a nation of free people require that Christian asses be kissed?
>>
>> Depends on the reason why their asses need kissed. Of course a big
>> time righteous person like yourself would allow his child to die
>> rather than kiss a Christians ass so that you could brag to your
>> fellow fundamentalist religionists that you were the big man that
>> allowed his kid to die rather than kiss a Christians ass.
>
>You don't know me, Bob. Don't make statements about me like that.
I used a Simile; hence the word "like." A figure of speech to
emphasize a point. A figure of speech is never literally true to
fact. BUt I apologize if I hurt your feelings.
>
>>
>> If I have to go kiss a few Christian asses or atheist asses to help my
>> friends to gain the same privileges as others; then I'll be an ass
>> kissing fool.
>
>I think what's needed is a few Christian asses being kicked, not kissed.
And some Christians probably think that some anti-theists need their
asses kicked. Buit I am of neither camp. I let the two fundy groups
war it out. Eventually they will die out or get tired of being
stupid.
>
>>>
>>>> The war will not be won overnight. But battles can be won one at a
>>>> time if people will work together towards a common goal. A change of
>>>> law in one of the Southern states could make it easier for other
>>>> states to change their laws.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or the Supreme Court forcing the states, which is exactly what got the
>>>civil rights ball rolling.
>>
>> It's not the Supreme Courts job to make laws.
>
>It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, and to address
>those who petition it.
It sure is. But Congres also has the authority to restrict the
Supreme Court; which sure wouldn't be a bad idea.
>
>> That is the job of
>> Congress.
>
>And when Congress passes unconstitutional laws, they will be overturned.
That depends on whether it is a liberal or conservative law and who
the politicians (judges) are
>
>> Obviously you have no sense of justice because it is
>> evident that you think that the few should rule the majority. That's
>> socialism for you.
>
>Uh, no. Socialism, strictly speaking, is an economic model. Sweden,
>for instance, is a fully functioning democracy, with free elections,
>multiple parties (far more than two bloated entities in the US),
>universal suffrage and freedom of expression, and yet is what you
>would call a socialist state.
Well, unstrictly speaking, Sweden is socialist in the liberal sense.
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements
that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the
distribution of wealth are subject to social control. This control may
be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as
workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the
state (Wikipedia).
The problem is that the money nazis aka progressive liberals want to
steal what is mine and give it somone that doesn't deserve it as much
as me (while they pocket a good portion of it for themselves).
>
>You'll note that the US has most of the same socialistic programs that
>countries like sweden does. I doubt you really even know what you
>mean by socialist. It appears to be something you feel unAmerican,
>for reasons I can't imagine.
I'll clarify it for you. Thieves.
>
>> I prefer that our country worked the way it was
>> set up to work.
>
>There's nothing in the Constitution about socialism, Bob.
I know
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
AC
I don't know too many contracts which actually get bumped into the
states' corner, unless of course someone breaks one.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Second
>>>>> homosexuality is not a right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is.
>>>
>>> Care to quote a Federal or State Consititution or Law that says it is
>>> a right. Bluff won't work here AC.
>>
>>Care to come up with a Federal or State Constitution which recognizes the
>>right to own a popup toaster, Bob?
>
> You said it is, the burden is on you.
I take it rhetorical questions aren't your strong suit.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>Third homosexuality (despite the
>>>>> propaganda to the contrary) is not genetic.
>>>>
>>>>Care to explain precisely how genetic studies on this matter are
>>>>propaganda?
>>>
>>> Suffice to say that there is no unbiased evidence that homosexuality
>>> is genetic. The gay gene hasn't been found yet. It's still black
>>> box.
>>
>>Now why would you think there would be a bias to the research, Bob?
>>Do you have some evidence of a bias?
>
> Because people are involved.
I'm sorry. I was asking for evidence, Bob. You know, evidence, where
you actually provide something concrete, and not some nebulous statement.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Race is genetic and
>>>>> gender is genetic.
>>>>
>>>>And there may very well be a genetic component to homosexuality. There
>>>>is at least a growing body of evidence that it is physiological.
>>>
>>> A growing body of evidence? In other words there is no evidence. As
>>> I said it is still black box.
>>
>>There is physiological evidence that demonstrates different brain structure
>>in homosexuals.
>
> Not. The hypothalamus is larger study was done by gays with an
> agenda.
Really? Care to provide the citation, BOb?
> Rather unscientific, too, seeing that one would have to know
> the size of the hypothalamus at onset and at death. Oher factors
> besides being gay could affect size. Gay pee smellers doesn't prove
> anything because smell can be an aquired taste. The burden of proof
> is on you; not me. And the lesbian annd sex hormone study was
> misinterpreted.
First you better provide the actual evidence that the studies' veracity
was questioned. And by questioned, I mean by the scientific community.
>
> As long as you have gay researchers trying to justify and rationalize
> behavior; their results will be suspect. Besides, most of the studies
> seem to come out of Socialist Sweden - where little boys have to sit
> down to pee so as not to be superior to little girls. As long as nut
> cases are doing the research - whose going to really beleive it.
You are a troubled man. But regardless of that, I want evidence.
>
> And if there is a different brain structure in homosexuals what does
> that prove? Brain physiology can be affected by chemical imbalances
> caused by behavior and things taken into the body.
It demonstrates a physiological difference, meaning all this bunk about
choice is, well, bunk.
>
> Here is what you need. You need a specific gene that causes
> honosexuality.
A physiological difference suggests a developmental difference.
> There hasn't been one found and I doubt there will be.
It seems to me more that you hope there won't be.
> However, in the case of some transgendered there may be a defective
> gene. I don't understand this yet. But a transgendered girl that I
> have been working with for many years has been undergoing some genetic
> tests. It has something to do with her body build and a defect in one
> of the sex genes. Her and I are waiting for her doctors to get to her
> on it. She is like a duighter to my wife and I and because she has
> mental disabilities I am her representative payee for her check; go
> with her to doctor appointments, etc.
And you just finished condemning me for trying to look like a good guy
for defending homosexuals/.
>
> Does a defective gene excuse behavior? In the case of a transgendered
> female that likes little girls; should she be required to control her
> behavior or have her way with minors? Should transgendered males be
> allowed to have their way with little boys if genetics is involved?
What does pedophilia have to do with any of this, Bob?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> One can not change race or gender; but may change
>>>>> behavior. Following your logic murders should have equal rights with
>>>>> non-murders. Until recent years homosexuality was a criminal act and
>>>>> may still be a criminal act according to the laws of soem states.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Homosexual relations between consenting adults does no harm. As usual,
>>>>this pathetic analogy collapses under the weight of its own irrelevancy.
>>>
>>> That's your opinion. My near thirty years of experience with gays
>>> says that there is harm. On the oher hand in many there is no
>>> apparent harm. People are people. What you consider a poor analogy
>>> may be consided rich by someone else. Your opinion is only your
>>> opinion; just as mine is mine.
>>>
>>
>>Precisely what harm does two adults of the same sex entering a sexual
>>and/or cohabitation relationship do to society, Bob?
>
> That would depend on the two adults. But suffice to say similar to
> the harm that could be done by two heterosexual adults. Gay couples
> or straight couples cause similar problems - fornication is
> fornication.
So, in other words, they're violating your religious tenets. Explain why
I, for instance, should give a damn about your religious tenets.
>>
>>> Of course mine is the right and important one. Your opinion doesn't
>>> matter because whiners whine and accomplish nothing. I am more likely
>>> to get something done than you because I do what's right and proper to
>>> accomplish goals.
>>
>>Now you're just being silly. People who see injustice and point it out
>>are not whiners, Bob.
>>
> When there is injustice. "Just" and "fair" mean different things.
> What you don't understand is that "just" has to do with justice which
> is based on laws while "fair" is an emmotional issue that may have
> nothing to do with justice.
There were laws forbidding mixed race marriages in most of the US states
up until four decades ago. Just because they were laws did not make
them jsut.
>
> The murder who says, it isn't fair that you going to execute me or
> make me stay in prison for the rest of his life can whine all he wants
> about what is fair or not fair. What's just is what counts and just
> has to do with laws not emotions.
I fail to see how having a statute makes that statute just.
>>>>
>>>>> The Constitution does not provide for equal rights for homosexuals;
>>>>> but does provide for equal rights based on race or gender. You are
>>>>> confusing apples and army tanks.
>>>>
>>>>It provides for equal protection under the law. Why do you think the
>>>>keen desire to amend the Constitution? Even the more rabid homophobic
>>>>bigots out there realize what that means.
>
> You mean this?
>
> Amendment XIV
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
> and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
> any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
> of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>
> The problem is that there is no privilege or immunity for homosexual
> behavior.
There is equal protection before the law.
There are no explicit rights set forward. Then again, there are no
explicit rights to privacy in the United States, and yet that right
has been seen as a consequence of the Constitution.
>>>>
>>> Has the Constitution been ammended yet? No. Why not? Whiners get
>>> nothing done. Trouble makers make trouble and get things set back.
>>> If you are worth your salt, stop whining and get the laws changed.
>>>
>>
>>It hasn't been amended because the Founding Fathers made it very
>>difficult to do so. And who said I was whining? You're the one
>>babbling on about biases in studies on homosexuals and hinting
>>at damage by consenting adults. In fact, you're the one who is
>>whining.
>
> And that's a good thing. Else everytime the liberals get in power;
What does this have tod o with liberals?
> the people would be paying more taxes and sacrificing mor rights.
Under the BUsh administration, spending has skyrocketed and rights
infringed. But that's besides the point, rights aren't about left
vs. right, but about rights vs. injustice.
> Just think how much it would cost remove urinals from restrooms so
> that boys could be equal with girls. Then consider the cost of the
> potty police to enforce the no boy standing rule
And who is suggesting this? I'm afraid that your attempt to divert
by outrageous hyperbole doesn't impress me, BOb.
>
> I said you was whining. Didn't you just read what I wrote?
Yes, and I came to the conclusion that you were the one that was
whining.
> But if it
> makes you happy I will withdraw its applicability towards you. That
> would be the "fair" thing to do. I didn't babble on about biases.
> You are the one that is doing that. I said the word "unbiased" and
> did not say whether there was or wasn't. You ae the one babb damage
> by consenting adults. I didn't bring it.
>
> You know, I once was an atheist and I do know what an atheist is.
This has nothing to do with atheism, Bob.
> There are some who profess to be atheists who are really anti-theists;
> or hatemongers, who will take a pot shot at anyone they perceive to be
> a religious person. They us the same techniques that you use. You
> assert that I say what I do not say. You assert that I believe what I
> do ot believe. You use the bigoted stereotypes used by anti-theists.
> You hate religion and transfer your hate to the practitioners.
This is completely besides the point, BOb.
>
> Depite what my friend Jerry says; I am not a fundamentalist
> religionist. I do have a very strong belief system but at the heart
> of that belief system is the principle of free will and the
> willingness to separate the "sinner" from the "sin." A fundy isn't
> able to do that. That's why antitheists are fundies. They are not
> mature or intelligent enough to separate a person from his religion.
> In my case, I have no religious affiliation at all to any group. I
> stand under and report to Jesus Christ; and no one else except in
> those cases where I might seek the counsel of a fellow peer Christian.
Again, this is all besides the point. It isn't about Jesus, atheism,
Stalin, or the price of tea.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>> Marriage is a States rights issue; not a Federal issue. The Federal
>>>>> Government does not make laws about marriage. States make the laws
>>>>> concerning marriage. The Federal Government does make laws concerning
>>>>> "benefits" as in the case of tax exemptions; but the States make the
>>>>> laws that deal with insurance, medical benefits (some), wills,
>>>>> contracts, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is the issue of states recognizing the marriages of other states.
>>>
>>> That's not important right now. First, we need states that permit
>>> civil unions. Then we can work on recognition.
>>
>>The problem is that at least one state has already recognized it, creating
>>a rather large problem for others. Why do you think the bigots want
>>to amend the Constitution?
>>
> What's a bigot? Someone that disagrees with you? There are
> homophobes and there are heterophobes and both are probably neither;
> just labels applied by people to other people who find it easier to
> call names than solve problems. A bigot is a person devoted to one
> group. If I am pro-heterosexual does that make me a bigot? No.
A bigot is a person unreasonably prejudiced against another. Quit
trying to foist your private definitions on to me.
>
> You are bigoted towards Christianity; how about Islam?
I have no problem with Christianity, just with certain kinds of Christians.
I have no problem with Islam, just with certain kinds of Muslims.
>
> In my case, I believe that homosexuality is wrong because it is
> contrary to the goal of nature which is to continue the species.
So is having sex with a condom.
> I
> also believe it is wrong for the same reason that heterosexual
> promiscuity is wrong. What matters is how I treat those who practice
> homosexuality. Do I refuse to hire people that are otherwise
> qualified because they are gay? No. Would I deny a person fellowship
> at church based on sexual preference? No. Would I refuse to allow
> members of Nambla to babysit my little boys? Yes. Would I deny food
> stamps to a person because they are gay? No. Would I allow my dogs
> to go for a walk with a man or woman who practices beastiality? No.
Good for you, Bob.
>
> Would I question classifying people as disabled because they are
> homosexual, drug addicts or alcoholics. Yes, because I don't want my
> tax dollars wasted.
How are homosexuals wasting your tax dollars, Bob? And when the hell
did this become a tax thing?
>
>
>>>>
>>>>> I may be wrong; but you may be posting from one of the Socialist
>>>>> countries and may not understand our Superior system.
>>>>
>>>>Do you intend to be that insulting, or is just natural? The US is nearly
>>>>as socialistic as any other nation, my friend.
>>>
>>> No, not insulting. If you are from one of the Socialist countries
>>> your lack of mind set on American issues does more harm than good.
>>
>>I'm well aware of the American issues. I'm also aware that not everyone
>>in the US is against gay marriage.
>
> Not everyone is how many people?
At last count, I believe it was somewhere around the high 30s. That's
a pretty significant portion of the population.
>>
>>> The fact is that we need large voting blocks of people and they need
>>> to include people with "Christian" values who claim to be
>>> "Christians." We don't need atheists and socialists pissing them off.
>>
>>That you think a rights issue is about atheists and socialists speaks
>>volumes about you.
>
> As a recovering atheist, let me say that what I said was we don't need
> atheists and socialists pissing people off.
It's America. Atheists and socialists have every right to piss people off.
But this isn't about atheists or socialists.
> Anti-theists would be a
> better word than atheist.
Call it what you like, but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> We need people to work together to
> understand each other. Hatemongers are hatemongers regardless of
> their stripes.
So blacks should just have accepted separate but equal, right?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>If that is the
>>>>> case, then you may look at things entitely different than an American
>>>>> would.
>>>>
>>>>I know of plenty of Americans who have no problem with gay marriage. You
>>>>are not the official spokesman for 300 million people.
>>>>
>>> I didn't think you were American. I know lots of Americans, too. I
>>> don't need to speak for 300 million Americans.
>>
>>You were apparently suggesting you were.
>
> Nope, just for me.
So we can toss out "you may look at things entirely different than an
American would", which had the connotation that America is some homogenous
lump that thinks the same.
>>
>>> I just need to be able
>>> to speak for one. That one is perfectly capable of working with other
>>> ones to get things done.
>>
>>You know what gets things done. People with the guts to call out bigots.
>>That's what the civil rights movement was about, not about trying to find
>>accomodations with bigots.
>>
> Depends on what a bigot is. Some people call names while claiming to
> call out bigots. You confuse civil rights with sexual preference.
> There is no civil right for homosexuality; or beastiality, or rape, or
> child molesting, or stealing or lying, or killing, etc. You confuse
> behavior with genetics.
A good many people, including a lot of folks that despise homosexuals,
will disagree. That's the point behind constitutional amendments. Of
course, it's always about some liberal SCOTUS forcing the government's
hand, and still seems to be a fear even after an attempting stacking of
SCOTUS.
>>>>
>>>>> We are a nation of laws; some good and some bad.
>>>>
>>>>I come from a country of laws too.
>>>
>>> Good
>>>>
>>>>>We are
>>>>> obligated to obey the laws until they are changed. In countries where
>>>>> chaos rules such as the Socialist ones; laws may not be important. In
>>>>> America we seek justice; not what is fair because what is fair for one
>>>>> person may not be fair for another while justice is just for all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You really don't have the foggiest idea how the rest of the world works,
>>>>do you Bob?
>>>
>>> I've been there (Europe, Asia) and saw and like most Americans that
>>> visit foreign countries, developed an appreciation for the good ole US
>>> of A.
>>
>>Most countries have constitutions, Bob. You made claims about the law
>>abiding nature of other countries. I don't give a damn about your
>>jingoism.
>
> Nice word. May I use it?
>>
>>Just what do you classify as socialist countries, Bob?
>
> Me? I'd say Canada, England, Sweden, France, Germany and countries
> that are socialistic.
Other than England, you are aware, I trust, that every single country
on that list has a written constitution, right? England's a wee bit
different, but still has long been a country of laws, longer than the
US has even been around.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> As a Christian, I recognize that homosexual behavior is just another
>>>>> form of fornication -
>>>>
>>>>What does Christianity have to do with the laws of a secular state, Bob?
>>>
>>> Read the rest of the sentences.
>>
>>I still don't understand why a secular state has to give consideration to
>>purely religious beliefs.
>
> You probably don't and probably won't until you get rid of the last
> threads of bigotry that affect your thinking and behavior patterns.
I have no argument with religous people, BOb, until they start forcing
their beliefs down others throats, especially when they attempt to use
the state to do it.
This is completely irrelevant. Why are you trying to drag this down to
some sort of God-vs.non-god debate?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The practical solution to the problem is to petition the States to
>>>>> change their laws and that requires politics including the art of
>>>>> compromise. People running around like wild animals pissing people
>>>>> off is not conducive to getting civil unions legalized.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That didn't work for Black Americans. It wasn't until they stood up
>>>>to the system, pissed people off and made a helluva lot of noise that
>>>>the system was changed.
>>>
>>> That's not wholly true. Who are the respected men and women from
>>> those days? The radicals are dead and gone; its the peacemakers that
>>> are remembered. Then too you are trying to compare apples and
>>> battleships. Race is genetic while fornication is not.
>>
>>People remember Rosa Parks, who stood up to mean-sprited hateful
>>bastards. It was a woman who didn't live with the pathetic
>>accomodations of a racist society who is best remembered, not those
>>who tried to get along.
>
> I remember her, too. Do you remember my brother that was a radical
> with the Black Panthyers? Do you remember any of the real radicals/
> You might if you worship wrong behavior. But most people remember the
> good people; and not so much the bas people unless they were really
> really bad.
There are bad people everywhere, Bob. I'm talking about people who raise
their voices and demand justice, who didn't bend over, who don't give up,
and who force an unwilling society to change for the better.
Atheism has nothing to do with this Bob.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The war will not be won overnight. But battles can be won one at a
>>>>> time if people will work together towards a common goal. A change of
>>>>> law in one of the Southern states could make it easier for other
>>>>> states to change their laws.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Or the Supreme Court forcing the states, which is exactly what got the
>>>>civil rights ball rolling.
>>>
>>> It's not the Supreme Courts job to make laws.
>>
>>It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, and to address
>>those who petition it.
>
> It sure is. But Congres also has the authority to restrict the
> Supreme Court; which sure wouldn't be a bad idea.
>>
>>> That is the job of
>>> Congress.
>>
>>And when Congress passes unconstitutional laws, they will be overturned.
>
> That depends on whether it is a liberal or conservative law and who
> the politicians (judges) are
No, it depends upon SCOTUS. You are aware, I trust, that laws of both
liberals and conservatives have been tossed out.
>>
>>> Obviously you have no sense of justice because it is
>>> evident that you think that the few should rule the majority. That's
>>> socialism for you.
>>
>>Uh, no. Socialism, strictly speaking, is an economic model. Sweden,
>>for instance, is a fully functioning democracy, with free elections,
>>multiple parties (far more than two bloated entities in the US),
>>universal suffrage and freedom of expression, and yet is what you
>>would call a socialist state.
>
> Well, unstrictly speaking, Sweden is socialist in the liberal sense.
>
> Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements
> that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the
> distribution of wealth are subject to social control. This control may
> be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as
> workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the
> state (Wikipedia).
And the United States doesn't have the state involving itself in the
economic system, BOb?
>
> The problem is that the money nazis aka progressive liberals want to
> steal what is mine and give it somone that doesn't deserve it as much
> as me (while they pocket a good portion of it for themselves).
Comparing liberals to Nazis demonstrates just how morally corrupt you
are, Bob. Just about every goddamn socialist in Europe, from flaming
Russian Commies to the nice polite English kind fought the Nazis.
>
>>
>>You'll note that the US has most of the same socialistic programs that
>>countries like sweden does. I doubt you really even know what you
>>mean by socialist. It appears to be something you feel unAmerican,
>>for reasons I can't imagine.
>
> I'll clarify it for you. Thieves.
So medicare is thievery? Unemployment insurance is thievery? Workers
rights is thievery?
>>
>>> I prefer that our country worked the way it was
>>> set up to work.
>>
>>There's nothing in the Constitution about socialism, Bob.
>
> I know
So I trust you can shut up about socialism, which has nothing at all
to do with gay marriage. I'll wager there are plenty of high income
bracket homosexual couples who feel the same about socialism as you do,
it's besides the point and appears to be nothing more than a bit of
a cheat on your part, like the liberal and atheist nonsense. Rather
than dealing with the issues, you simply begin tossing labels around.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Bible Bob
Basic contract law requires that contracts be legal when they are
written. So, if marriage is a contract and the law requires people be
of a certain gae, gender, requires a blood test, a filing fee, etc,
then that is law and that is what is needed.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Second
>>>>>> homosexuality is not a right.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it is.
>>>>
>>>> Care to quote a Federal or State Consititution or Law that says it is
>>>> a right. Bluff won't work here AC.
>>>
>>>Care to come up with a Federal or State Constitution which recognizes the
>>>right to own a popup toaster, Bob?
>>
>> You said it is, the burden is on you.
>
>I take it rhetorical questions aren't your strong suit.
And rhetorical answers to rhetorical questions aren't yours.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Third homosexuality (despite the
>>>>>> propaganda to the contrary) is not genetic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Care to explain precisely how genetic studies on this matter are
>>>>>propaganda?
>>>>
>>>> Suffice to say that there is no unbiased evidence that homosexuality
>>>> is genetic. The gay gene hasn't been found yet. It's still black
>>>> box.
>>>
>>>Now why would you think there would be a bias to the research, Bob?
>>>Do you have some evidence of a bias?
>>
>> Because people are involved.
>
>I'm sorry. I was asking for evidence, Bob. You know, evidence, where
>you actually provide something concrete, and not some nebulous statement.
>
I know what evidence is; it is the stuff you would ignore. You can
lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. You can give someone
the opportunity to learn or to do something, but you can never force
him to accept that opportunity. As a good cowboy I have to do what is
best for all the horses in the herd. Why lead you to the water when I
know you would pee in in at contaminate it for others?
Speaking of leading a horse to water, I heard a comeback to that
proverb and was google to try and find it but couldn't, but found
these:
Recorded in 1175 as "Who can give water to the horse that will not
drink of its own accord?" Heywood recorded it in his 1546 collection
of English proverbs. The older form used 'take' rather than 'lead'.
Clem and Lem were setting in their local pub being served copious
amounts
of suds.
Clem sez "Lem, you've heard of the old saying You can lead a horse to
water, but you cant make him drink haven't you?"
Lem sez "I sure have, and I don't believe it!"
Clem sez "You're wrong, and tomorrow we are going out to prove that
you can
lead a horse to water AND make him drink."
The next day Clem and Lem head for the country. They come upon a
pasture with some horses in it and head out to catch one. Finally,
after hours of chasing they get their hands on one and lead the horse
to a pond in the pasture. Clem gets the horses head in the water and
holds it there but the horse will not drink. After several frustrating
tries, Clem sez
"Lem, when I gets the horses head in the water, you run around and
suck on his asshole for all your might."
Clem finally succeeds in getting the horses head back down into the
water and he yells "Start Sucking!"
Clem sez "Lem, are ye a havin' any luck yet?"
Lem sez "Nope, you got his head too deep and all I'm a gettin' is
mud!"
What it boils down to is this. If I lead you to a pool of clean fresh
water; you would suck mud from the bottom rather than drink the cool
refreshing water in the pond. A man convinced against his will is of
the same opinion still. It is apparent that you are not interested in
truth or facts. Figuratively speaking, "It would be stupid for me to
give my bars of gold to a crack head."
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Race is genetic and
>>>>>> gender is genetic.
>>>>>
>>>>>And there may very well be a genetic component to homosexuality. There
>>>>>is at least a growing body of evidence that it is physiological.
>>>>
>>>> A growing body of evidence? In other words there is no evidence. As
>>>> I said it is still black box.
>>>
>>>There is physiological evidence that demonstrates different brain structure
>>>in homosexuals.
>>
>> Not. The hypothalamus is larger study was done by gays with an
>> agenda.
>
>Really? Care to provide the citation, BOb?
You are smart enough to do a google search. I am stingy with my gold
bars.
>
>> Rather unscientific, too, seeing that one would have to know
>> the size of the hypothalamus at onset and at death. Oher factors
>> besides being gay could affect size. Gay pee smellers doesn't prove
>> anything because smell can be an aquired taste. The burden of proof
>> is on you; not me. And the lesbian annd sex hormone study was
>> misinterpreted.
>
>First you better provide the actual evidence that the studies' veracity
>was questioned. And by questioned, I mean by the scientific community.
No. I don't want to. You can look it up.
>
>>
>> As long as you have gay researchers trying to justify and rationalize
>> behavior; their results will be suspect. Besides, most of the studies
>> seem to come out of Socialist Sweden - where little boys have to sit
>> down to pee so as not to be superior to little girls. As long as nut
>> cases are doing the research - whose going to really beleive it.
>
>You are a troubled man. But regardless of that, I want evidence.
Look it up yourself. You really ought to use some common sense once
in a while. Smart people don't put foxes in their hen houses. A true
researcher who wants the product accepted will not use people or data
that defeats his goals.
I am troubled by people who use people for their own profit or
agendas. Real men are like that because they have core beliefs. Real
men do not like it when children are used for political purposes.
Real men are troubled when homosexuals are used for political or
religious gain.
It may be that children and homosexuals are just pawns to be used as
sacrifices to support your vain philosophies. To me they are people
of the same worh as myself.
>
>>
>> And if there is a different brain structure in homosexuals what does
>> that prove? Brain physiology can be affected by chemical imbalances
>> caused by behavior and things taken into the body.
>
>It demonstrates a physiological difference, meaning all this bunk about
>choice is, well, bunk.
No it does not. You are grasping at straws and reading into it.
Brain physiology may be affected by behavior as in the case of those
who use alcohol, drugs, or medications.
Here let me provide you with a definition of physiology because it is
apparent that you lack an understanding of what it means:
1. a branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of
life or of living matter (as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the
physical and chemical phenomena involved -- compare ANATOMY
2 : the organic processes and phenomena of an organism or any of its
parts or of a particular bodily process
>
A friend of mine who died last year was doing research on the affect
of chemicals and behavior on dopamine a form of dopa and that occurs
especially as a neurotransmitter in the brain ). His research dealt
with behavior and how it affects the brain. "If it feels good, do it"
affects brain chemistry. Before you can prove that homosexuality is
genetic; you have to prove that the chemical changes in the brain
brought about by behavior are not its cause.
>>
>> Here is what you need. You need a specific gene that causes
>> honosexuality.
>
>A physiological difference suggests a developmental difference.
Not entirely true to fact. A physiological different "MAY" suggest a
developmental diference. What caused the developmental difference?
Was it genetic or environmental?
>
>> There hasn't been one found and I doubt there will be.
>
>It seems to me more that you hope there won't be.
Cute; but phoney. I am a realist and deal with what is real and true.
You seem to be more of a sky pixie fan that lives in a superstituous
world where truth and fact are manipulated to support your own
philosophies.
From my point of view, it is unlikely that evolution would chose a
path that works against its own goals. Evolution would not produce
dominant genes that prevent continutation of the species.
But since you are a religionist; let me put it another way. If the
god you hate created life; he would not create it to do the opposite
of what he wanted it to do.
>
>> However, in the case of some transgendered there may be a defective
>> gene. I don't understand this yet. But a transgendered girl that I
>> have been working with for many years has been undergoing some genetic
>> tests. It has something to do with her body build and a defect in one
>> of the sex genes. Her and I are waiting for her doctors to get to her
>> on it. She is like a duighter to my wife and I and because she has
>> mental disabilities I am her representative payee for her check; go
>> with her to doctor appointments, etc.
>
>And you just finished condemning me for trying to look like a good guy
>for defending homosexuals/.
You are not defending homosexuals. You are using them for personal
gain to prove your fundamentalist religious superstitions and
personal philosophies. I am not defending homosexual behavior; but I
will defend living breathing human beings that happen to behave as
homosexuals.
Take for example, the girl I was talking about. She came over a few
minutes ago to get a couple cans pop because she was out and because
she wanted me to report job information for her to the Social Security
Administration. When she came to the door, I did not say good monring
homosexual how are you dong? I greeted her with my usual "How you
doing honey?"
I am not into using people; I leave that behavior to you religious
types.
>
>>
>> Does a defective gene excuse behavior? In the case of a transgendered
>> female that likes little girls; should she be required to control her
>> behavior or have her way with minors? Should transgendered males be
>> allowed to have their way with little boys if genetics is involved?
>
>What does pedophilia have to do with any of this, Bob?
Pedophlia is just a word used to label men who desire sex with little
boys or women that desire sex with little girls. It is a word used to
divert attention away from one of the more vile behaviors of
fornicators. Remember, to me a homosexual is nothing more than a
fornicator. People came up with the words homosexual and heterosexual
so that they could label people. I prefer to label behavior rather
than people. If sex is for the continuation of the species; then that
which gets in the way of that goal is wrong regardless of the form.
If society thinks that some forms of behavior are wrong and makes laws
in a legal way to protect society from wrong behavior; then that is
the way it is. If society thinks that adults having sex with children
is wrong and you try to justify it by qualifying it; then I will call
you on it.
One of the common tricks of antitheists is to redefine words; to
change horses in midstream. A homosexual is one who engages in sexual
behavior with a person of the same sex. A heterosexual is one who
engages in sexual behavior with the opposite sex. A person who
engages is sexual behavior with a child is a pedophile who is either
homosexual, heterosexual, or bi-sexual. A person that engages in
sexual behavior with animals is a zoophilic and may be heterosexual,
homosexual, or bi-sexual. It's all about behavior and behavior
rationalization.
Let's look at one of your behavior rationalization techniques which we
will call the consulting adult hypothesis.
Sex between consenting adults is okay. Well that is a nice philosophy
but is it right and lawful?
Steve and Mary are consenting adults. Steve says, let's have sex
Mary. Mary says, you have my consent. A few months later Mary
becomes upset when she finds out she has herpes, aids, clap, or some
other disease. When she approaches Steve; he says "you consented" and
I didn't think it was smart for me to tell you I had diseases else you
would not have had sex with me.
You may not like laws that would require adults to tell other adults
they have a disease because you would call it a privacy issue. I on
the other hand don't mid laws like that.
Herman does the down low. He has sex with men and women and has
already infected several young girls with HIV. You might think it is
a privacy issue. I think there should be laws to protext people from
predators.
Louie is a homosexual and has a homosexual wife. Louie also likes to
have sex with little boys and dogs. Does his "wife" have a right to
know about his extra-marital affairs?
I live in the real world Aaron; not a philosophical hyper religious
world where everything thing is based on philosophy and superstition.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> One can not change race or gender; but may change
>>>>>> behavior. Following your logic murders should have equal rights with
>>>>>> non-murders. Until recent years homosexuality was a criminal act and
>>>>>> may still be a criminal act according to the laws of soem states.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Homosexual relations between consenting adults does no harm. As usual,
>>>>>this pathetic analogy collapses under the weight of its own irrelevancy.
>>>>
>>>> That's your opinion. My near thirty years of experience with gays
>>>> says that there is harm. On the oher hand in many there is no
>>>> apparent harm. People are people. What you consider a poor analogy
>>>> may be consided rich by someone else. Your opinion is only your
>>>> opinion; just as mine is mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Precisely what harm does two adults of the same sex entering a sexual
>>>and/or cohabitation relationship do to society, Bob?
>>
>> That would depend on the two adults. But suffice to say similar to
>> the harm that could be done by two heterosexual adults. Gay couples
>> or straight couples cause similar problems - fornication is
>> fornication.
>
>So, in other words, they're violating your religious tenets. Explain why
>I, for instance, should give a damn about your religious tenets.
Silly try Aaron. Play your antitheist games with someone else. Your
fudamentalist superstitious religious views disguised as philosophy
and science do not fool me. I did not speak of religion. Your
attempt to be deceptive illustrates your true nature.
>
>>>
>>>> Of course mine is the right and important one. Your opinion doesn't
>>>> matter because whiners whine and accomplish nothing. I am more likely
>>>> to get something done than you because I do what's right and proper to
>>>> accomplish goals.
>>>
>>>Now you're just being silly. People who see injustice and point it out
>>>are not whiners, Bob.
>>>
>> When there is injustice. "Just" and "fair" mean different things.
>> What you don't understand is that "just" has to do with justice which
>> is based on laws while "fair" is an emmotional issue that may have
>> nothing to do with justice.
>
>There were laws forbidding mixed race marriages in most of the US states
>up until four decades ago. Just because they were laws did not make
>them jsut.
>
And that has what to do with what? Laws are laws and enforcable until
they are changed or rescinded. I just happen to be one of the victims
of those interracial marriage laws. I didn't whine about it; I got
married where it was legal.
>>
>> The murder who says, it isn't fair that you going to execute me or
>> make me stay in prison for the rest of his life can whine all he wants
>> about what is fair or not fair. What's just is what counts and just
>> has to do with laws not emotions.
>
>I fail to see how having a statute makes that statute just.
That's because you do not seem to understand what justice is. Justice
has to do with laws. As long as the laws are enforced in accordance
with the law justice exists. It doesn't matter whther you agree with
the law; becaus ethe law won't change to accomodate you. If you don't
like a law; get it changed.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Constitution does not provide for equal rights for homosexuals;
>>>>>> but does provide for equal rights based on race or gender. You are
>>>>>> confusing apples and army tanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>It provides for equal protection under the law. Why do you think the
>>>>>keen desire to amend the Constitution? Even the more rabid homophobic
>>>>>bigots out there realize what that means.
>>
>> You mean this?
>>
>> Amendment XIV
>> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
>> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
>> and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
>> any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
>> of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
>> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
>> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>>
>> The problem is that there is no privilege or immunity for homosexual
>> behavior.
>
>There is equal protection before the law.
That's not what it says. Try reading "equal protection of the laws."
Different prepositions mean different things. "Of" shows the genitive
of origin while under indicates position beneath. Equal protection
comes from within the law. Equal protection is not under the foot of
So what. Until the laws are changed or a court rules things remain
the way they are.
>
>>>>>
>>>> Has the Constitution been ammended yet? No. Why not? Whiners get
>>>> nothing done. Trouble makers make trouble and get things set back.
>>>> If you are worth your salt, stop whining and get the laws changed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It hasn't been amended because the Founding Fathers made it very
>>>difficult to do so. And who said I was whining? You're the one
>>>babbling on about biases in studies on homosexuals and hinting
>>>at damage by consenting adults. In fact, you're the one who is
>>>whining.
>>
>> And that's a good thing. Else everytime the liberals get in power;
>
>What does this have tod o with liberals?
read the rest of the sentence
>
>> the people would be paying more taxes and sacrificing mor rights.
>
>Under the BUsh administration, spending has skyrocketed and rights
>infringed. But that's besides the point, rights aren't about left
>vs. right, but about rights vs. injustice.
Not relevant
>
>> Just think how much it would cost remove urinals from restrooms so
>> that boys could be equal with girls. Then consider the cost of the
>> potty police to enforce the no boy standing rule
>
>And who is suggesting this? I'm afraid that your attempt to divert
>by outrageous hyperbole doesn't impress me, BOb.
>
>>
>> I said you was whining. Didn't you just read what I wrote?
>
>Yes, and I came to the conclusion that you were the one that was
>whining.
You have a habit of making wrong choices
>
>> But if it
>> makes you happy I will withdraw its applicability towards you. That
>> would be the "fair" thing to do. I didn't babble on about biases.
>> You are the one that is doing that. I said the word "unbiased" and
>> did not say whether there was or wasn't. You ae the one babb damage
>> by consenting adults. I didn't bring it.
>>
>> You know, I once was an atheist and I do know what an atheist is.
>
>This has nothing to do with atheism, Bob.
read on
>
>> There are some who profess to be atheists who are really anti-theists;
>> or hatemongers, who will take a pot shot at anyone they perceive to be
>> a religious person. They us the same techniques that you use. You
>> assert that I say what I do not say. You assert that I believe what I
>> do not believe. You use the bigoted stereotypes used by anti-theists.
>> You hate religion and transfer your hate to the practitioners.
>
>This is completely besides the point, BOb.
Nope. SInce I am in this conversation I get to decide what is
relevant for me.
>
>>
>> Depite what my friend Jerry says; I am not a fundamentalist
>> religionist. I do have a very strong belief system but at the heart
>> of that belief system is the principle of free will and the
>> willingness to separate the "sinner" from the "sin." A fundy isn't
>> able to do that. That's why antitheists are fundies. They are not
>> mature or intelligent enough to separate a person from his religion.
>> In my case, I have no religious affiliation at all to any group. I
>> stand under and report to Jesus Christ; and no one else except in
>> those cases where I might seek the counsel of a fellow peer Christian.
>
>Again, this is all besides the point. It isn't about Jesus, atheism,
>Stalin, or the price of tea.
Your opinion; not mine.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Marriage is a States rights issue; not a Federal issue. The Federal
>>>>>> Government does not make laws about marriage. States make the laws
>>>>>> concerning marriage. The Federal Government does make laws concerning
>>>>>> "benefits" as in the case of tax exemptions; but the States make the
>>>>>> laws that deal with insurance, medical benefits (some), wills,
>>>>>> contracts, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There is the issue of states recognizing the marriages of other states.
>>>>
>>>> That's not important right now. First, we need states that permit
>>>> civil unions. Then we can work on recognition.
>>>
>>>The problem is that at least one state has already recognized it, creating
>>>a rather large problem for others. Why do you think the bigots want
>>>to amend the Constitution?
>>>
>> What's a bigot? Someone that disagrees with you? There are
>> homophobes and there are heterophobes and both are probably neither;
>> just labels applied by people to other people who find it easier to
>> call names than solve problems. A bigot is a person devoted to one
>> group. If I am pro-heterosexual does that make me a bigot? No.
>
>A bigot is a person unreasonably prejudiced against another. Quit
>trying to foist your private definitions on to me.
A bigot is a person devoted to one group. That is the dictionary
definition. Check m-w com.
>
>>
>> You are bigoted towards Christianity; how about Islam?
>
>I have no problem with Christianity, just with certain kinds of Christians.
>I have no problem with Islam, just with certain kinds of Muslims.
>
>>
>> In my case, I believe that homosexuality is wrong because it is
>> contrary to the goal of nature which is to continue the species.
>
>So is having sex with a condom.
The difference is that the couple that use a condom can stop using it
and produce an offspring when they chose. Homosexuals cannot produce
offspring with or without a condom.
>
>> I
>> also believe it is wrong for the same reason that heterosexual
>> promiscuity is wrong. What matters is how I treat those who practice
>> homosexuality. Do I refuse to hire people that are otherwise
>> qualified because they are gay? No. Would I deny a person fellowship
>> at church based on sexual preference? No. Would I refuse to allow
>> members of Nambla to babysit my little boys? Yes. Would I deny food
>> stamps to a person because they are gay? No. Would I allow my dogs
>> to go for a walk with a man or woman who practices beastiality? No.
>
>Good for you, Bob.
>
>>
>> Would I question classifying people as disabled because they are
>> homosexual, drug addicts or alcoholics. Yes, because I don't want my
>> tax dollars wasted.
>
>How are homosexuals wasting your tax dollars, Bob? And when the hell
>did this become a tax thing?
>
It would take too long to explain. Suffice to say, the people are
classified as disabled and draw medical and financial benefits as a
result of wrong behavior is who I am talking about. Whether it be
hetersexual or homosexual isn't really all that important other than
that sexual desires led to behavior which affected their health and
then their ability to perform in normal society. It's a tax thing
because tax dollars fund it. It is a money aking racket, too but
explaining that to you would take to long.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I may be wrong; but you may be posting from one of the Socialist
>>>>>> countries and may not understand our Superior system.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you intend to be that insulting, or is just natural? The US is nearly
>>>>>as socialistic as any other nation, my friend.
>>>>
>>>> No, not insulting. If you are from one of the Socialist countries
>>>> your lack of mind set on American issues does more harm than good.
>>>
>>>I'm well aware of the American issues. I'm also aware that not everyone
>>>in the US is against gay marriage.
>>
>> Not everyone is how many people?
>
>At last count, I believe it was somewhere around the high 30s. That's
>a pretty significant portion of the population.
Age or percent?
>
>>>
>>>> The fact is that we need large voting blocks of people and they need
>>>> to include people with "Christian" values who claim to be
>>>> "Christians." We don't need atheists and socialists pissing them off.
>>>
>>>That you think a rights issue is about atheists and socialists speaks
>>>volumes about you.
>>
>> As a recovering atheist, let me say that what I said was we don't need
>> atheists and socialists pissing people off.
>
>It's America. Atheists and socialists have every right to piss people off.
>But this isn't about atheists or socialists.
If you say so
>
>> Anti-theists would be a
>> better word than atheist.
>
>Call it what you like, but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
It's relevant in view of your tactics.
>
>> We need people to work together to
>> understand each other. Hatemongers are hatemongers regardless of
>> their stripes.
>
>So blacks should just have accepted separate but equal, right?
If that's your opinion.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If that is the
>>>>>> case, then you may look at things entitely different than an American
>>>>>> would.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know of plenty of Americans who have no problem with gay marriage. You
>>>>>are not the official spokesman for 300 million people.
>>>>>
>>>> I didn't think you were American. I know lots of Americans, too. I
>>>> don't need to speak for 300 million Americans.
>>>
>>>You were apparently suggesting you were.
>>
>> Nope, just for me.
>
>So we can toss out "you may look at things entirely different than an
>American would", which had the connotation that America is some homogenous
>lump that thinks the same.
Nope
If it walks and quacks like a duck
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As a Christian, I recognize that homosexual behavior is just another
>>>>>> form of fornication -
>>>>>
>>>>>What does Christianity have to do with the laws of a secular state, Bob?
>>>>
>>>> Read the rest of the sentences.
>>>
>>>I still don't understand why a secular state has to give consideration to
>>>purely religious beliefs.
>>
>> You probably don't and probably won't until you get rid of the last
>> threads of bigotry that affect your thinking and behavior patterns.
>
>I have no argument with religous people, BOb, until they start forcing
>their beliefs down others throats, especially when they attempt to use
>the state to do it.
Yea, you guys shouldn't do that stuff. It isn't nice.
Just bringing you back to the reality of what you are really up to
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The practical solution to the problem is to petition the States to
>>>>>> change their laws and that requires politics including the art of
>>>>>> compromise. People running around like wild animals pissing people
>>>>>> off is not conducive to getting civil unions legalized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That didn't work for Black Americans. It wasn't until they stood up
>>>>>to the system, pissed people off and made a helluva lot of noise that
>>>>>the system was changed.
>>>>
>>>> That's not wholly true. Who are the respected men and women from
>>>> those days? The radicals are dead and gone; its the peacemakers that
>>>> are remembered. Then too you are trying to compare apples and
>>>> battleships. Race is genetic while fornication is not.
>>>
>>>People remember Rosa Parks, who stood up to mean-sprited hateful
>>>bastards. It was a woman who didn't live with the pathetic
>>>accomodations of a racist society who is best remembered, not those
>>>who tried to get along.
>>
>> I remember her, too. Do you remember my brother that was a radical
>> with the Black Panthyers? Do you remember any of the real radicals/
>> You might if you worship wrong behavior. But most people remember the
>> good people; and not so much the bas people unless they were really
>> really bad.
>
>There are bad people everywhere, Bob. I'm talking about people who raise
>their voices and demand justice, who didn't bend over, who don't give up,
>and who force an unwilling society to change for the better.
Good people, too
Antitheism and theism does
No. I get to fingertap till my hearts content cause I'm and American.
You don't like your own medicine do you?
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>>>> It's a legal contract.
>>>>
>>>> That must be approved by the state; hence a privilege.
>>>
>>> Contract law is a right, Bob.
>>
>> That must be approved by the state; hence a privilege.
>
> I don't know too many contracts which actually get bumped into the
> states' corner, unless of course someone breaks one.
>
AC is right and BB, as usual, has his own idea of the truth.
An offer and acceptance is all that is required but usually some
consideration is involved.
"I'll give you a dollar if you give me part of your sandwich"
As soon as the person with the sandwich says yes, a legal contract has been
formed and no one has to ask the state to approve it.
The state becomes involved IFF only if there is a disagreement. The state
does not have to approve of you following the law. (Obvious to all but
people with BB's for brains.)
I'd post the legal definition of a contract which does not and never has
required the approval of the state but BB brain would accuse me of
referring to others for help, something he does not approve of unless he
does it.
AC
The issue here is that same-sex couples can enter a contractual
relationship, but that they are discriminated against by tax and
probate laws. Since common law marriages, where the state has no
direct involvement at all, are permitted, and engender protections,
it's clearly a violation of the equal protection clause to not
afford gay couples that same privilege.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second
>>>>>>> homosexuality is not a right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to quote a Federal or State Consititution or Law that says it is
>>>>> a right. Bluff won't work here AC.
>>>>
>>>>Care to come up with a Federal or State Constitution which recognizes the
>>>>right to own a popup toaster, Bob?
>>>
>>> You said it is, the burden is on you.
>>
>>I take it rhetorical questions aren't your strong suit.
>
> And rhetorical answers to rhetorical questions aren't yours.
Look, you made a claim about Federal and state constitutions. I pointed
out that these constitutions do not directly deal with many things, and
your response was something about burden of proof.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Third homosexuality (despite the
>>>>>>> propaganda to the contrary) is not genetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Care to explain precisely how genetic studies on this matter are
>>>>>>propaganda?
>>>>>
>>>>> Suffice to say that there is no unbiased evidence that homosexuality
>>>>> is genetic. The gay gene hasn't been found yet. It's still black
>>>>> box.
>>>>
>>>>Now why would you think there would be a bias to the research, Bob?
>>>>Do you have some evidence of a bias?
>>>
>>> Because people are involved.
>>
>>I'm sorry. I was asking for evidence, Bob. You know, evidence, where
>>you actually provide something concrete, and not some nebulous statement.
>>
>
> I know what evidence is; it is the stuff you would ignore.
Show me some evidence and I'll pay attention. We both know you're just
playing games here Bob.
> You can
> lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. You can give someone
> the opportunity to learn or to do something, but you can never force
> him to accept that opportunity. As a good cowboy I have to do what is
> best for all the horses in the herd. Why lead you to the water when I
> know you would pee in in at contaminate it for others?
Just show me the evidence, Bob, and discard the nonsense.
<snip>
>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Race is genetic and
>>>>>>> gender is genetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And there may very well be a genetic component to homosexuality. There
>>>>>>is at least a growing body of evidence that it is physiological.
>>>>>
>>>>> A growing body of evidence? In other words there is no evidence. As
>>>>> I said it is still black box.
>>>>
>>>>There is physiological evidence that demonstrates different brain structure
>>>>in homosexuals.
>>>
>>> Not. The hypothalamus is larger study was done by gays with an
>>> agenda.
>>
>>Really? Care to provide the citation, BOb?
>
> You are smart enough to do a google search. I am stingy with my gold
> bars.
Translation: I don't have any citations, so I'll try to shift the burden.
>>
>>> Rather unscientific, too, seeing that one would have to know
>>> the size of the hypothalamus at onset and at death. Oher factors
>>> besides being gay could affect size. Gay pee smellers doesn't prove
>>> anything because smell can be an aquired taste. The burden of proof
>>> is on you; not me. And the lesbian annd sex hormone study was
>>> misinterpreted.
>>
>>First you better provide the actual evidence that the studies' veracity
>>was questioned. And by questioned, I mean by the scientific community.
>
> No. I don't want to. You can look it up.
Translation: I don't have any citations, so I'll try to shift the burden.
>>
>>>
>>> As long as you have gay researchers trying to justify and rationalize
>>> behavior; their results will be suspect. Besides, most of the studies
>>> seem to come out of Socialist Sweden - where little boys have to sit
>>> down to pee so as not to be superior to little girls. As long as nut
>>> cases are doing the research - whose going to really beleive it.
>>
>>You are a troubled man. But regardless of that, I want evidence.
>
> Look it up yourself. You really ought to use some common sense once
> in a while. Smart people don't put foxes in their hen houses. A true
> researcher who wants the product accepted will not use people or data
> that defeats his goals.
Translation: I don't have any citations, so I'll try to shift the burden.
>
> I am troubled by people who use people for their own profit or
> agendas. Real men are like that because they have core beliefs. Real
> men do not like it when children are used for political purposes.
> Real men are troubled when homosexuals are used for political or
> religious gain.
>
> It may be that children and homosexuals are just pawns to be used as
> sacrifices to support your vain philosophies. To me they are people
> of the same worh as myself.
Translation: I don't have any citations, so I'll just talk a lot.
>>
>>>
>>> And if there is a different brain structure in homosexuals what does
>>> that prove? Brain physiology can be affected by chemical imbalances
>>> caused by behavior and things taken into the body.
>>
>>It demonstrates a physiological difference, meaning all this bunk about
>>choice is, well, bunk.
>
> No it does not. You are grasping at straws and reading into it.
> Brain physiology may be affected by behavior as in the case of those
> who use alcohol, drugs, or medications.
>
> Here let me provide you with a definition of physiology because it is
> apparent that you lack an understanding of what it means:
>
> 1. a branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of
> life or of living matter (as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the
> physical and chemical phenomena involved -- compare ANATOMY
> 2 : the organic processes and phenomena of an organism or any of its
> parts or of a particular bodily process
All I'm telling you is that there are physiological differences, which
suggest developmental differences. So far as I know, no study has
indicated precisely what might cause those differences. All that matters
in this context is that the individual's behavior is not consciously
created.
>>
>
> A friend of mine who died last year was doing research on the affect
> of chemicals and behavior on dopamine a form of dopa and that occurs
> especially as a neurotransmitter in the brain ). His research dealt
> with behavior and how it affects the brain. "If it feels good, do it"
> affects brain chemistry. Before you can prove that homosexuality is
> genetic; you have to prove that the chemical changes in the brain
> brought about by behavior are not its cause.
Perhaps you could provide some citations.
>
>>>
>>> Here is what you need. You need a specific gene that causes
>>> honosexuality.
>>
>>A physiological difference suggests a developmental difference.
>
> Not entirely true to fact. A physiological different "MAY" suggest a
> developmental diference. What caused the developmental difference?
> Was it genetic or environmental?
It's irrelevant to the issue.
>>
>>> There hasn't been one found and I doubt there will be.
>>
>>It seems to me more that you hope there won't be.
>
> Cute; but phoney. I am a realist and deal with what is real and true.
> You seem to be more of a sky pixie fan that lives in a superstituous
> world where truth and fact are manipulated to support your own
> philosophies.
You're hardly a realist, Bob.
>
> From my point of view, it is unlikely that evolution would chose a
> path that works against its own goals. Evolution would not produce
> dominant genes that prevent continutation of the species.
There's nothing stopping homosexuals from having heterosexual relations,
Bob. I think you better go back to Genetics 101.
>
> But since you are a religionist; let me put it another way. If the
> god you hate created life; he would not create it to do the opposite
> of what he wanted it to do.
I don't hate your god, BOb. I don't accept his existence. Quit trying
to play this card with me. It's demonstrating your dishonesty.
>>
>>> However, in the case of some transgendered there may be a defective
>>> gene. I don't understand this yet. But a transgendered girl that I
>>> have been working with for many years has been undergoing some genetic
>>> tests. It has something to do with her body build and a defect in one
>>> of the sex genes. Her and I are waiting for her doctors to get to her
>>> on it. She is like a duighter to my wife and I and because she has
>>> mental disabilities I am her representative payee for her check; go
>>> with her to doctor appointments, etc.
>>
>>And you just finished condemning me for trying to look like a good guy
>>for defending homosexuals/.
>
> You are not defending homosexuals. You are using them for personal
> gain to prove your fundamentalist religious superstitions and
> personal philosophies. I am not defending homosexual behavior; but I
> will defend living breathing human beings that happen to behave as
> homosexuals.
I don't have a religious belief Bob. I refuse to accept your private
definitions for the word "religion". Quit trying to spew your
propaganda on to me.
>
> Take for example, the girl I was talking about. She came over a few
> minutes ago to get a couple cans pop because she was out and because
> she wanted me to report job information for her to the Social Security
> Administration. When she came to the door, I did not say good monring
> homosexual how are you dong? I greeted her with my usual "How you
> doing honey?"
How awfully big of youj.
>
> I am not into using people; I leave that behavior to you religious
> types.
I'm not religious Bob.
>>
>>>
>>> Does a defective gene excuse behavior? In the case of a transgendered
>>> female that likes little girls; should she be required to control her
>>> behavior or have her way with minors? Should transgendered males be
>>> allowed to have their way with little boys if genetics is involved?
>>
>>What does pedophilia have to do with any of this, Bob?
>
> Pedophlia is just a word used to label men who desire sex with little
> boys or women that desire sex with little girls.
It's about sexual attraction by adults (men and women) to children.
> It is a word used to
> divert attention away from one of the more vile behaviors of
> fornicators.
It's a word to describe a particular psychological phenomona.
> Remember, to me a homosexual is nothing more than a
> fornicator. People came up with the words homosexual and heterosexual
> so that they could label people. I prefer to label behavior rather
> than people. If sex is for the continuation of the species; then that
> which gets in the way of that goal is wrong regardless of the form.
Oral sex gets in the way of reproduction, BOb.
>
> If society thinks that some forms of behavior are wrong and makes laws
> in a legal way to protect society from wrong behavior; then that is
> the way it is. If society thinks that adults having sex with children
> is wrong and you try to justify it by qualifying it; then I will call
> you on it.
If a society thinks that blacks and whites marrying is wrong, that's okay
with you?
>
> One of the common tricks of antitheists is to redefine words; to
> change horses in midstream.
You mean like inventing words like "antitheist" and trying to redefine
the word "religion"? It sounds more like your tactic, Bob.
>A homosexual is one who engages in sexual
> behavior with a person of the same sex. A heterosexual is one who
> engages in sexual behavior with the opposite sex. A person who
> engages is sexual behavior with a child is a pedophile who is either
> homosexual, heterosexual, or bi-sexual. A person that engages in
> sexual behavior with animals is a zoophilic and may be heterosexual,
> homosexual, or bi-sexual. It's all about behavior and behavior
> rationalization.
It's about categorizing sexual behaviors, Bob.
>
> Let's look at one of your behavior rationalization techniques which we
> will call the consulting adult hypothesis.
>
> Sex between consenting adults is okay. Well that is a nice philosophy
> but is it right and lawful?
It isn't yours to say whether it's right or not, and the courts long
ago removed any justification for laws abridging that freedom.
>
> Steve and Mary are consenting adults. Steve says, let's have sex
> Mary. Mary says, you have my consent. A few months later Mary
> becomes upset when she finds out she has herpes, aids, clap, or some
> other disease. When she approaches Steve; he says "you consented" and
> I didn't think it was smart for me to tell you I had diseases else you
> would not have had sex with me.
>
> You may not like laws that would require adults to tell other adults
> they have a disease because you would call it a privacy issue. I on
> the other hand don't mid laws like that.
And you talk about others changing horses in midstream. Either you are
attempting a rather inept form of redirection, or you have a hard time
keeping to the topic at hand.
>
> Herman does the down low. He has sex with men and women and has
> already infected several young girls with HIV. You might think it is
> a privacy issue. I think there should be laws to protext people from
> predators.
>
> Louie is a homosexual and has a homosexual wife. Louie also likes to
> have sex with little boys and dogs. Does his "wife" have a right to
> know about his extra-marital affairs?
>
> I live in the real world Aaron; not a philosophical hyper religious
> world where everything thing is based on philosophy and superstition.
This is completely irrelevant Bob.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One can not change race or gender; but may change
>>>>>>> behavior. Following your logic murders should have equal rights with
>>>>>>> non-murders. Until recent years homosexuality was a criminal act and
>>>>>>> may still be a criminal act according to the laws of soem states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Homosexual relations between consenting adults does no harm. As usual,
>>>>>>this pathetic analogy collapses under the weight of its own irrelevancy.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's your opinion. My near thirty years of experience with gays
>>>>> says that there is harm. On the oher hand in many there is no
>>>>> apparent harm. People are people. What you consider a poor analogy
>>>>> may be consided rich by someone else. Your opinion is only your
>>>>> opinion; just as mine is mine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Precisely what harm does two adults of the same sex entering a sexual
>>>>and/or cohabitation relationship do to society, Bob?
>>>
>>> That would depend on the two adults. But suffice to say similar to
>>> the harm that could be done by two heterosexual adults. Gay couples
>>> or straight couples cause similar problems - fornication is
>>> fornication.
>>
>>So, in other words, they're violating your religious tenets. Explain why
>>I, for instance, should give a damn about your religious tenets.
>
> Silly try Aaron. Play your antitheist games with someone else. Your
> fudamentalist superstitious religious views disguised as philosophy
> and science do not fool me. I did not speak of religion. Your
> attempt to be deceptive illustrates your true nature.
And here we have you trying to redefine words. Bob, that's dishonest.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course mine is the right and important one. Your opinion doesn't
>>>>> matter because whiners whine and accomplish nothing. I am more likely
>>>>> to get something done than you because I do what's right and proper to
>>>>> accomplish goals.
>>>>
>>>>Now you're just being silly. People who see injustice and point it out
>>>>are not whiners, Bob.
>>>>
>>> When there is injustice. "Just" and "fair" mean different things.
>>> What you don't understand is that "just" has to do with justice which
>>> is based on laws while "fair" is an emmotional issue that may have
>>> nothing to do with justice.
>>
>>There were laws forbidding mixed race marriages in most of the US states
>>up until four decades ago. Just because they were laws did not make
>>them jsut.
>>
> And that has what to do with what?
It demonstrates that laws can be unjust.
> Laws are laws and enforcable until
> they are changed or rescinded. I just happen to be one of the victims
> of those interracial marriage laws. I didn't whine about it; I got
> married where it was legal.
Which is pretty goddamn cowardly, BOb.
>>>
>>> The murder who says, it isn't fair that you going to execute me or
>>> make me stay in prison for the rest of his life can whine all he wants
>>> about what is fair or not fair. What's just is what counts and just
>>> has to do with laws not emotions.
>>
>>I fail to see how having a statute makes that statute just.
>
> That's because you do not seem to understand what justice is. Justice
> has to do with laws. As long as the laws are enforced in accordance
> with the law justice exists. It doesn't matter whther you agree with
> the law; becaus ethe law won't change to accomodate you. If you don't
> like a law; get it changed.
Justice has to do with right and wrong, Bob. The reason that instruments
like the Supreme Court were established was to insure that *unjust* laws
were overturned. Merely having a legislature vote a statute into law
does not make that law right or just. That was, after all, the
fundemental issue of the civil rights movement, Bob.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Constitution does not provide for equal rights for homosexuals;
>>>>>>> but does provide for equal rights based on race or gender. You are
>>>>>>> confusing apples and army tanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It provides for equal protection under the law. Why do you think the
>>>>>>keen desire to amend the Constitution? Even the more rabid homophobic
>>>>>>bigots out there realize what that means.
>>>
>>> You mean this?
>>>
>>> Amendment XIV
>>> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
>>> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
>>> and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
>>> any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
>>> of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
>>> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
>>> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>>>
>>> The problem is that there is no privilege or immunity for homosexual
>>> behavior.
>>
>>There is equal protection before the law.
>
> That's not what it says. Try reading "equal protection of the laws."
> Different prepositions mean different things. "Of" shows the genitive
> of origin while under indicates position beneath. Equal protection
> comes from within the law. Equal protection is not under the foot of
> the law.
Most scholars will agree, even the homophobes, that not affording one
group the same rights as another is a violation of the Equal Protection
clause. That, again, is why they want a Constitutional amendment passed.
I'm demonstrating that a right does not necessarily have to be
explicitely mentioned, Bob.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Has the Constitution been ammended yet? No. Why not? Whiners get
>>>>> nothing done. Trouble makers make trouble and get things set back.
>>>>> If you are worth your salt, stop whining and get the laws changed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It hasn't been amended because the Founding Fathers made it very
>>>>difficult to do so. And who said I was whining? You're the one
>>>>babbling on about biases in studies on homosexuals and hinting
>>>>at damage by consenting adults. In fact, you're the one who is
>>>>whining.
>>>
>>> And that's a good thing. Else everytime the liberals get in power;
>>
>>What does this have tod o with liberals?
>
> read the rest of the sentence
I did. It still doesn't demonstrate a link.
>>
>>> the people would be paying more taxes and sacrificing mor rights.
>>
>>Under the BUsh administration, spending has skyrocketed and rights
>>infringed. But that's besides the point, rights aren't about left
>>vs. right, but about rights vs. injustice.
>
> Not relevant
Of course it isn't. But neither was your attempt to make this into
a left vs. right, issue.
Now you're just getting petulant.
>>
>>>
>>> Depite what my friend Jerry says; I am not a fundamentalist
>>> religionist. I do have a very strong belief system but at the heart
>>> of that belief system is the principle of free will and the
>>> willingness to separate the "sinner" from the "sin." A fundy isn't
>>> able to do that. That's why antitheists are fundies. They are not
>>> mature or intelligent enough to separate a person from his religion.
>>> In my case, I have no religious affiliation at all to any group. I
>>> stand under and report to Jesus Christ; and no one else except in
>>> those cases where I might seek the counsel of a fellow peer Christian.
>>
>>Again, this is all besides the point. It isn't about Jesus, atheism,
>>Stalin, or the price of tea.
>
> Your opinion; not mine.
Since I know people, Liberal, Conservative, religious and atheist who
support gay rights, it's clear that it is besides the point.
By trying to evoke these spectres, you're just trying to cheat by
trying to get an emotional rise out of me.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marriage is a States rights issue; not a Federal issue. The Federal
>>>>>>> Government does not make laws about marriage. States make the laws
>>>>>>> concerning marriage. The Federal Government does make laws concerning
>>>>>>> "benefits" as in the case of tax exemptions; but the States make the
>>>>>>> laws that deal with insurance, medical benefits (some), wills,
>>>>>>> contracts, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is the issue of states recognizing the marriages of other states.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not important right now. First, we need states that permit
>>>>> civil unions. Then we can work on recognition.
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that at least one state has already recognized it, creating
>>>>a rather large problem for others. Why do you think the bigots want
>>>>to amend the Constitution?
>>>>
>>> What's a bigot? Someone that disagrees with you? There are
>>> homophobes and there are heterophobes and both are probably neither;
>>> just labels applied by people to other people who find it easier to
>>> call names than solve problems. A bigot is a person devoted to one
>>> group. If I am pro-heterosexual does that make me a bigot? No.
>>
>>A bigot is a person unreasonably prejudiced against another. Quit
>>trying to foist your private definitions on to me.
>
> A bigot is a person devoted to one group. That is the dictionary
> definition. Check m-w com.
Which I'll note you didn't provide.
>>
>>>
>>> You are bigoted towards Christianity; how about Islam?
>>
>>I have no problem with Christianity, just with certain kinds of Christians.
>>I have no problem with Islam, just with certain kinds of Muslims.
>>
>>>
>>> In my case, I believe that homosexuality is wrong because it is
>>> contrary to the goal of nature which is to continue the species.
>>
>>So is having sex with a condom.
>
> The difference is that the couple that use a condom can stop using it
> and produce an offspring when they chose. Homosexuals cannot produce
> offspring with or without a condom.
How about the elderly, Bob? How about a woman who has her fallopian
tubes removed?
>>
>>> I
>>> also believe it is wrong for the same reason that heterosexual
>>> promiscuity is wrong. What matters is how I treat those who practice
>>> homosexuality. Do I refuse to hire people that are otherwise
>>> qualified because they are gay? No. Would I deny a person fellowship
>>> at church based on sexual preference? No. Would I refuse to allow
>>> members of Nambla to babysit my little boys? Yes. Would I deny food
>>> stamps to a person because they are gay? No. Would I allow my dogs
>>> to go for a walk with a man or woman who practices beastiality? No.
>>
>>Good for you, Bob.
>>
>>>
>>> Would I question classifying people as disabled because they are
>>> homosexual, drug addicts or alcoholics. Yes, because I don't want my
>>> tax dollars wasted.
>>
>>How are homosexuals wasting your tax dollars, Bob? And when the hell
>>did this become a tax thing?
>>
> It would take too long to explain.
Try me.
>Suffice to say, the people are
> classified as disabled and draw medical and financial benefits as a
> result of wrong behavior is who I am talking about. Whether it be
> hetersexual or homosexual isn't really all that important other than
> that sexual desires led to behavior which affected their health and
> then their ability to perform in normal society. It's a tax thing
> because tax dollars fund it. It is a money aking racket, too but
> explaining that to you would take to long.
I have my doubts you can actually defend it, Bob. But I am curious
as to why, for a Christian, it comes down to money.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I may be wrong; but you may be posting from one of the Socialist
>>>>>>> countries and may not understand our Superior system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you intend to be that insulting, or is just natural? The US is nearly
>>>>>>as socialistic as any other nation, my friend.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, not insulting. If you are from one of the Socialist countries
>>>>> your lack of mind set on American issues does more harm than good.
>>>>
>>>>I'm well aware of the American issues. I'm also aware that not everyone
>>>>in the US is against gay marriage.
>>>
>>> Not everyone is how many people?
>>
>>At last count, I believe it was somewhere around the high 30s. That's
>>a pretty significant portion of the population.
>
> Age or percent?
Percent, Bob.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The fact is that we need large voting blocks of people and they need
>>>>> to include people with "Christian" values who claim to be
>>>>> "Christians." We don't need atheists and socialists pissing them off.
>>>>
>>>>That you think a rights issue is about atheists and socialists speaks
>>>>volumes about you.
>>>
>>> As a recovering atheist, let me say that what I said was we don't need
>>> atheists and socialists pissing people off.
>>
>>It's America. Atheists and socialists have every right to piss people off.
>>But this isn't about atheists or socialists.
>
> If you say so
>>
>>> Anti-theists would be a
>>> better word than atheist.
>>
>>Call it what you like, but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>
> It's relevant in view of your tactics.
I have only said that a secular state cannot base its laws on religious
tenets. That's to protect you as much as me, Bob.
>>
>>> We need people to work together to
>>> understand each other. Hatemongers are hatemongers regardless of
>>> their stripes.
>>
>>So blacks should just have accepted separate but equal, right?
>
> If that's your opinion.
I'm asking your opinion Bob. You're the one that saws laws are just
until overturned or changed. I'm asking you if forbidding blacks and
whites to marry was just, Bob.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If that is the
>>>>>>> case, then you may look at things entitely different than an American
>>>>>>> would.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I know of plenty of Americans who have no problem with gay marriage. You
>>>>>>are not the official spokesman for 300 million people.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't think you were American. I know lots of Americans, too. I
>>>>> don't need to speak for 300 million Americans.
>>>>
>>>>You were apparently suggesting you were.
>>>
>>> Nope, just for me.
>>
>>So we can toss out "you may look at things entirely different than an
>>American would", which had the connotation that America is some homogenous
>>lump that thinks the same.
>
> Nope
We can't toss out that notion? What are you trying to say, BOb?
All these countries are places where the rule of law is upheld. The
laws in question may not be identical to the United States, but how
does that matter?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a Christian, I recognize that homosexual behavior is just another
>>>>>>> form of fornication -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What does Christianity have to do with the laws of a secular state, Bob?
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the rest of the sentences.
>>>>
>>>>I still don't understand why a secular state has to give consideration to
>>>>purely religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> You probably don't and probably won't until you get rid of the last
>>> threads of bigotry that affect your thinking and behavior patterns.
>>
>>I have no argument with religous people, BOb, until they start forcing
>>their beliefs down others throats, especially when they attempt to use
>>the state to do it.
>
> Yea, you guys shouldn't do that stuff. It isn't nice.
When did I force any religious view down your throat, BOb?
Looks more to me like you are inventing an agenda for me.
Since I have no idea what antitheism is, it's not relevant to my point of
view.
No comment on this one, eh Bob?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You'll note that the US has most of the same socialistic programs that
>>>>countries like sweden does. I doubt you really even know what you
>>>>mean by socialist. It appears to be something you feel unAmerican,
>>>>for reasons I can't imagine.
>>>
>>> I'll clarify it for you. Thieves.
>>
>>So medicare is thievery? Unemployment insurance is thievery? Workers
>>rights is thievery?
Or this?
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I prefer that our country worked the way it was
>>>>> set up to work.
>>>>
>>>>There's nothing in the Constitution about socialism, Bob.
>>>
>>> I know
>>
>>So I trust you can shut up about socialism, which has nothing at all
>>to do with gay marriage. I'll wager there are plenty of high income
>>bracket homosexual couples who feel the same about socialism as you do,
>>it's besides the point and appears to be nothing more than a bit of
>>a cheat on your part, like the liberal and atheist nonsense. Rather
>>than dealing with the issues, you simply begin tossing labels around.
>
> No. I get to fingertap till my hearts content cause I'm and American.
> You don't like your own medicine do you?
What medicine, Bob? Your inventing lines of argument out of thin air.
You have no interest in justifying them, and get pissed off when I
demand either support, or don't accept them right off the bat.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Bible Bob
Not true.
Not tonight, I have a headache.
>> You can
>> lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. You can give someone
>> the opportunity to learn or to do something, but you can never force
>> him to accept that opportunity. As a good cowboy I have to do what is
>> best for all the horses in the herd. Why lead you to the water when I
>> know you would pee in in at contaminate it for others?
>
>Just show me the evidence, Bob, and discard the nonsense.
Nonsense?
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Race is genetic and
>>>>>>>> gender is genetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And there may very well be a genetic component to homosexuality. There
>>>>>>>is at least a growing body of evidence that it is physiological.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A growing body of evidence? In other words there is no evidence. As
>>>>>> I said it is still black box.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is physiological evidence that demonstrates different brain structure
>>>>>in homosexuals.
>>>>
>>>> Not. The hypothalamus is larger study was done by gays with an
>>>> agenda.
>>>
>>>Really? Care to provide the citation, BOb?
>>
>> You are smart enough to do a google search. I am stingy with my gold
>> bars.
>
>Translation: I don't have any citations, so I'll try to shift the burden.
You got more time than me to waste.
>
>>>
>>>> Rather unscientific, too, seeing that one would have to know
>>>> the size of the hypothalamus at onset and at death. Oher factors
>>>> besides being gay could affect size. Gay pee smellers doesn't prove
>>>> anything because smell can be an aquired taste. The burden of proof
>>>> is on you; not me. And the lesbian annd sex hormone study was
>>>> misinterpreted.
>>>
>>>First you better provide the actual evidence that the studies' veracity
>>>was questioned. And by questioned, I mean by the scientific community.
>>
>> No. I don't want to. You can look it up.
>
>Translation: I don't have any citations, so I'll try to shift the burden.
You are not a good translator
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As long as you have gay researchers trying to justify and rationalize
>>>> behavior; their results will be suspect. Besides, most of the studies
>>>> seem to come out of Socialist Sweden - where little boys have to sit
>>>> down to pee so as not to be superior to little girls. As long as nut
>>>> cases are doing the research - whose going to really beleive it.
>>>
>>>You are a troubled man. But regardless of that, I want evidence.
>>
>> Look it up yourself. You really ought to use some common sense once
>> in a while. Smart people don't put foxes in their hen houses. A true
>> researcher who wants the product accepted will not use people or data
>> that defeats his goals.
>
>Translation: I don't have any citations, so I'll try to shift the burden.
>
You are not a good translator
>
>>
>> I am troubled by people who use people for their own profit or
>> agendas. Real men are like that because they have core beliefs. Real
>> men do not like it when children are used for political purposes.
>> Real men are troubled when homosexuals are used for political or
>> religious gain.
>>
>> It may be that children and homosexuals are just pawns to be used as
>> sacrifices to support your vain philosophies. To me they are people
>> of the same worh as myself.
>
>Translation: I don't have any citations, so I'll just talk a lot.
>
>
You are not a good translator
>>
>>>>
>>>> And if there is a different brain structure in homosexuals what does
>>>> that prove? Brain physiology can be affected by chemical imbalances
>>>> caused by behavior and things taken into the body.
>>>
>>>It demonstrates a physiological difference, meaning all this bunk about
>>>choice is, well, bunk.
>>
>> No it does not. You are grasping at straws and reading into it.
>> Brain physiology may be affected by behavior as in the case of those
>> who use alcohol, drugs, or medications.
>>
>> Here let me provide you with a definition of physiology because it is
>> apparent that you lack an understanding of what it means:
>>
>> 1. a branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of
>> life or of living matter (as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the
>> physical and chemical phenomena involved -- compare ANATOMY
>> 2 : the organic processes and phenomena of an organism or any of its
>> parts or of a particular bodily process
>
>All I'm telling you is that there are physiological differences, which
>suggest developmental differences. So far as I know, no study has
>indicated precisely what might cause those differences. All that matters
>in this context is that the individual's behavior is not consciously
>created.
>
Then what caused the developmental differences? Environment? Oh.
thats silly. I choose to use LSD or some other drug that has the
potential to mess up my head; I shoud expect consequences. All
behavior is consciously created. Behavior is what the body does after
the brain tellls it to do it. Now if you mean a behavior that is
called by mental illness, that might be but what caused the person to
go nuts? Are you saying the homosexuals are mentally ill and cannot
control their brains or behavior?
>>>
>>
>> A friend of mine who died last year was doing research on the affect
>> of chemicals and behavior on dopamine a form of dopa and that occurs
>> especially as a neurotransmitter in the brain ). His research dealt
>> with behavior and how it affects the brain. "If it feels good, do it"
>> affects brain chemistry. Before you can prove that homosexuality is
>> genetic; you have to prove that the chemical changes in the brain
>> brought about by behavior are not its cause.
>
>Perhaps you could provide some citations.
Citations for what? Speeding? Jay walking?
I just got through telling you that the friend that was doing the
research was dead. Nothing was published that I am aware of.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is what you need. You need a specific gene that causes
>>>> honosexuality.
>>>
>>>A physiological difference suggests a developmental difference.
>>
>> Not entirely true to fact. A physiological different "MAY" suggest a
>> developmental diference. What caused the developmental difference?
>> Was it genetic or environmental?
>
>It's irrelevant to the issue.
Baloney. You are saying that homosexuality is genetic. I say it is
not. I say that it is probably caused by environment or an
individuals exercise of free will. You say genetics. Prove that it is
genetics. Here I'll prove it is environment. Herman walks in to a
bar and sees Walter. He likes Walter and wants Walter and gets
Walter. Nothing genetic about it.
>
>>>
>>>> There hasn't been one found and I doubt there will be.
>>>
>>>It seems to me more that you hope there won't be.
>>
>> Cute; but phoney. I am a realist and deal with what is real and true.
>> You seem to be more of a sky pixie fan that lives in a superstituous
>> world where truth and fact are manipulated to support your own
>> philosophies.
>
>You're hardly a realist, Bob.
Oh, yes I a am.
>
>>
>> From my point of view, it is unlikely that evolution would chose a
>> path that works against its own goals. Evolution would not produce
>> dominant genes that prevent continutation of the species.
>
>There's nothing stopping homosexuals from having heterosexual relations,
>Bob. I think you better go back to Genetics 101.
>
Nothing but themselves. I am aware of how it works. Many young
lesbians revert to heterosexual when they start wanting babies and
don't return to it. I know many of them myself. More evidence that
homosexuality isn't genetic.
>>
>> But since you are a religionist; let me put it another way. If the
>> god you hate created life; he would not create it to do the opposite
>> of what he wanted it to do.
>
>I don't hate your god, BOb. I don't accept his existence. Quit trying
>to play this card with me. It's demonstrating your dishonesty.
If you did not believe he existed you would not be against him. You
being against him is proof that you think he exists.
>
>>>
>>>> However, in the case of some transgendered there may be a defective
>>>> gene. I don't understand this yet. But a transgendered girl that I
>>>> have been working with for many years has been undergoing some genetic
>>>> tests. It has something to do with her body build and a defect in one
>>>> of the sex genes. Her and I are waiting for her doctors to get to her
>>>> on it. She is like a duighter to my wife and I and because she has
>>>> mental disabilities I am her representative payee for her check; go
>>>> with her to doctor appointments, etc.
>>>
>>>And you just finished condemning me for trying to look like a good guy
>>>for defending homosexuals/.
>>
>> You are not defending homosexuals. You are using them for personal
>> gain to prove your fundamentalist religious superstitions and
>> personal philosophies. I am not defending homosexual behavior; but I
>> will defend living breathing human beings that happen to behave as
>> homosexuals.
>
>I don't have a religious belief Bob. I refuse to accept your private
>definitions for the word "religion". Quit trying to spew your
>propaganda on to me.
Yes you do Aaron. You are far more religious than I. Of course you
refuse to accept acurate definitions of religion. Its against your
religion.
>
>>
>> Take for example, the girl I was talking about. She came over a few
>> minutes ago to get a couple cans pop because she was out and because
>> she wanted me to report job information for her to the Social Security
>> Administration. When she came to the door, I did not say good monring
>> homosexual how are you dong? I greeted her with my usual "How you
>> doing honey?"
>
>How awfully big of youj.
Not at all. She is my friend and I greet her like I would any other
friend. You may think it polite to answer your door and say Hello
black man or hello homosexual or hello Jew or hello Catholic; I don't.
>
>>
>> I am not into using people; I leave that behavior to you religious
>> types.
>
>I'm not religious Bob.
Oh yes you are. Come on Aaron. I've been studying religious people
for many years. You are very religious. Want proof. Read this
thread.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does a defective gene excuse behavior? In the case of a transgendered
>>>> female that likes little girls; should she be required to control her
>>>> behavior or have her way with minors? Should transgendered males be
>>>> allowed to have their way with little boys if genetics is involved?
>>>
>>>What does pedophilia have to do with any of this, Bob?
>>
>> Pedophlia is just a word used to label men who desire sex with little
>> boys or women that desire sex with little girls.
>
>It's about sexual attraction by adults (men and women) to children.
>
>> It is a word used to
>> divert attention away from one of the more vile behaviors of
>> fornicators.
>
>It's a word to describe a particular psychological phenomona.
So you are saying that honosexuals are psychological phenomona? Hmm.
You think homosexuals are nuts?
>
>> Remember, to me a homosexual is nothing more than a
>> fornicator. People came up with the words homosexual and heterosexual
>> so that they could label people. I prefer to label behavior rather
>> than people. If sex is for the continuation of the species; then that
>> which gets in the way of that goal is wrong regardless of the form.
>
>Oral sex gets in the way of reproduction, BOb.
Or, helps it if its a guy and a girl
>
>>
>> If society thinks that some forms of behavior are wrong and makes laws
>> in a legal way to protect society from wrong behavior; then that is
>> the way it is. If society thinks that adults having sex with children
>> is wrong and you try to justify it by qualifying it; then I will call
>> you on it.
>
>If a society thinks that blacks and whites marrying is wrong, that's okay
>with you?
No, but we are not talking about genetics we are talking about choice.
You can scheme all you want, homosexuality is not the same as race or
gender. Homopsexuality is a mater of choice; not genetics.
>
>>
>> One of the common tricks of antitheists is to redefine words; to
>> change horses in midstream.
>
>You mean like inventing words like "antitheist" and trying to redefine
>the word "religion"? It sounds more like your tactic, Bob.
I didn't invent the word. And I have never redefined religion.
That's just another of your antitheist tricks that won't work on me
cause I know how you play your games.
>
>>A homosexual is one who engages in sexual
>> behavior with a person of the same sex. A heterosexual is one who
>> engages in sexual behavior with the opposite sex. A person who
>> engages is sexual behavior with a child is a pedophile who is either
>> homosexual, heterosexual, or bi-sexual. A person that engages in
>> sexual behavior with animals is a zoophilic and may be heterosexual,
>> homosexual, or bi-sexual. It's all about behavior and behavior
>> rationalization.
>
>It's about categorizing sexual behaviors, Bob.
No. It is all about behavior. Behavior is what people do.
>
>>
>> Let's look at one of your behavior rationalization techniques which we
>> will call the consulting adult hypothesis.
>>
>> Sex between consenting adults is okay. Well that is a nice philosophy
>> but is it right and lawful?
>
>It isn't yours to say whether it's right or not, and the courts long
>ago removed any justification for laws abridging that freedom.
Oh yeah, prove it. What court decision was it that affected "all" the
states? It is not lawful in some states for consenting adults to do
certain things in the privacy of their own home. "Abridging the
freedom!." Where is that freedom named in the Constitution? You must
really think that people are stupid.
>
>>
>> Steve and Mary are consenting adults. Steve says, let's have sex
>> Mary. Mary says, you have my consent. A few months later Mary
>> becomes upset when she finds out she has herpes, aids, clap, or some
>> other disease. When she approaches Steve; he says "you consented" and
>> I didn't think it was smart for me to tell you I had diseases else you
>> would not have had sex with me.
>>
>> You may not like laws that would require adults to tell other adults
>> they have a disease because you would call it a privacy issue. I on
>> the other hand don't mid laws like that.
>
>And you talk about others changing horses in midstream. Either you are
>attempting a rather inept form of redirection, or you have a hard time
>keeping to the topic at hand.
You are splitting paragraphs as usual. Typical antitheist deceptive
behavior. Then accuse me of redirection. Nice try at deception,
won't work.
>
>>
>> Herman does the down low. He has sex with men and women and has
>> already infected several young girls with HIV. You might think it is
>> a privacy issue. I think there should be laws to protext people from
>> predators.
>>
>> Louie is a homosexual and has a homosexual wife. Louie also likes to
>> have sex with little boys and dogs. Does his "wife" have a right to
>> know about his extra-marital affairs?
>>
>> I live in the real world Aaron; not a philosophical hyper religious
>> world where everything thing is based on philosophy and superstition.
>
>This is completely irrelevant Bob.
>
No it is not Aaron. You are trying to justify "if it feels good do
it" "concenting adults do what they want" etc. No, Aaron that is
your religion - antitheist is a religion whether you want to admit to
the truth or not. You can't be anti what you don't believe in. If
youi are anto something you believe it is.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can not change race or gender; but may change
>>>>>>>> behavior. Following your logic murders should have equal rights with
>>>>>>>> non-murders. Until recent years homosexuality was a criminal act and
>>>>>>>> may still be a criminal act according to the laws of soem states.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Homosexual relations between consenting adults does no harm. As usual,
>>>>>>>this pathetic analogy collapses under the weight of its own irrelevancy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's your opinion. My near thirty years of experience with gays
>>>>>> says that there is harm. On the oher hand in many there is no
>>>>>> apparent harm. People are people. What you consider a poor analogy
>>>>>> may be consided rich by someone else. Your opinion is only your
>>>>>> opinion; just as mine is mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Precisely what harm does two adults of the same sex entering a sexual
>>>>>and/or cohabitation relationship do to society, Bob?
>>>>
>>>> That would depend on the two adults. But suffice to say similar to
>>>> the harm that could be done by two heterosexual adults. Gay couples
>>>> or straight couples cause similar problems - fornication is
>>>> fornication.
>>>
>>>So, in other words, they're violating your religious tenets. Explain why
>>>I, for instance, should give a damn about your religious tenets.
>>
>> Silly try Aaron. Play your antitheist games with someone else. Your
>> fudamentalist superstitious religious views disguised as philosophy
>> and science do not fool me. I did not speak of religion. Your
>> attempt to be deceptive illustrates your true nature.
>
>And here we have you trying to redefine words. Bob, that's dishonest.
No, not dishonest. Just called you on another of your deceptive
tricks.
Aaron, I'm outa here. I got better things to do than talk to a person
that is incapable of open and honest communication. Besides, your
religion won't let you change your mind.
Maybe we can discus something else some other time.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
rogue
> > > BB
> >> As I have been trying to get you to understand, marriage is a
> >> privilege; not a right.
>
> >JERRY
> >Prove it. You keep saying that but as I've pointed out, the fact that
> >States allow common law marriages where you are married just by saying
> >you are and can get a certificate attesting to that fact proves you
> >wrong. Colorado puts no requirements on someone to get married other
> >than they be a heterosexual couple. Marriage is not a privilege, it's
> >a right, but it's a right being withheld from a minority of this
> >country based upon bigotry and religious zealotry.
> BB
> Don't need to prove it Jerry. You should be smart enough to figure
> out that there are 50 states with different laws. Scew Colorado. I
> live in North Carolina. Did you know that Colorado law does not
> supercede North Carolina law in North Carolina? Have you ever heard
> of a thing called "jurisdiction?" Each state has their own
> jurisdiction and their own las applicable to those jurisdictions.
>
> Mariage is not a right in every state. It is a privilege. One must
> meet the requirements of the state law to qualify for it. Why are you
> even arguing this. You know that rights and privileges are not the
> same thing.
JERRY
Actually, MO used to require a blood test for marriage (they don't
anymore) but the only thing they did with it was make it known to both
parties, so that if one person had a sexually transmitted disease it
was known to both parties before marriage.
The only time that the law intervenes in marriage is if OTHER laws are
broken by the act of sex, such as someone trying to marry a child
(below the age of consent - pedophilia), marriage between two people
too closely related (incest - because of birth defects) and
homosexuality, which used to be illegal and banned by sodomy laws.
Sodomy laws have been struck down. Homosexuality is legal. There is
no longer a reason for intervention in marriage for that reason. Laws
preventing gay marriage or in some cases, Constitutional amendments
banning gay marriage are bigotry only.
Marriage is a right. Regulation of a marriage that violates other
laws does not make marriage a privilege.
> >Some states have requirements, like a blood test and a certificate
> >saying you aren't marrying your sister or brother or parent. However,
> >a blood test is for proof of sexually transmitted diseases and there
> >is no law on the books that you can't marry your honey if he has
> >syphilis.There are laws preventing incest, so questions regarding
> >family ties between the spouses fall into that area.
> BB
> That makes it a privilege Jerry. Don't you know the diference between
> a right and a privilege. You have a right to exercise free speech but
> not a right to drive a car because driving a car is a privilege.
JERRY
Invalid metaphor. You are comparing something that has certain
requirements, like vision and training in handling a guided missile
that can hurt others to two people sharing their lives in love and
devotion. Sharing your life has no such requirement.
>
>
> BB
> >Regardless of your claims to the contrary, there is not a shred of
> >evidence that marriage is a privilege granted by the state just
> >because you say so. Marriage is a right regulated by the state for
> >income, nothing more. They make money giving you the license, they
> >make money making copies of it. They have no more interest in
> >marriage unless its something out of the ordinary, like two women
> >wanting to tie the knot in a non-bondage way. ;-)
> BB
> That is so silly. Anything you have to apply for is a privilege.
> What you do not have to apply for is a right. You do not have to fill
> out an application to exercise free speech but you do to get married.
> Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. Ask your wife.
JERRY
So, being gay is a right?
Then why does the State think it should refuse two people from sharing
their lives together like they share their bed and not give them the
same status as any heterosexual couple that marries?
> >> BB
> >> It is a States rights issue. Each of the
> >> separate States need to ammend, rescind, supersede, or replace
> >> existing laws with laws that provide "identical" (not similar)
> >> benefits for "marriage" and "civil unions" which I prefer to call
> >> "Coupleages."
>
> >JERRY
> >Or do like Massachusetts did and point out that their state
> >Constitution doesn't call for "separate but equal" and therefore gays
> >can get married there.
> BB
> Socialists like to do things that way.
JERRY
No, Bob, "people" like to do things that way. Not all people of
course, which gets us back to the concept that religious zealots are
nothing more than thoughtless, ignorant bigots.
> BB
> From your point of view the Constitution is toilet paper. From my point of view it is the Law of
> the land and it says Congress makes the laws; not the courts.
JERRY
No, Bob, you support a President who has admitted violating FISA and
the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. From
where I sit, you seem to think the Constitution is toilet paper,
because you support Bush treating it like it is.
> BB
> Mass has some commie pinko socialist judges' Other states don't; so your
> plan won't work in all states. You do realize that there is more than
> one state don't you?
JERRY
Logical fallacy of attacking the messenger. since you are not
prepared to address the points the judge made in his ruling or my
point about Massachusetts, you instead make ridiculous, unsupported
allegations about Massachusetts in general.
>
> >> BB
> >> As long as whining progressives raise a stink about the issue; as long
> >> as whing progressives are unwilling to compromise, and as long as
> >> whining progressives do nothing more than jaw jack - the laws won't be
> >> changed.
>
> >JERRY
> >You mean like how those whining blacks were unwilling to compromise,
> >and as long as those whining blacks did nothing more than jaw jack the
> >laws regarding equal rights wouldn't be changed? Johnson didn't
> >agree, though the Do-Nothing Republican clown Eisenhower was content
> >to do nothing on civil rights at all, even as it exploded in the
> >southern states.
>
> No not blacks. Don't play that race game with me Jerry. It won't
> work. We are not talking about race, we are talking about behavior.
JERRY
Already addressed, remember? Sexual orientation is not about who you
sleep with (behavior) but who you are attracted to. If you refuse to
have sex with your wife, does that make you not heterosexual anymore?
Of course not, because you are still attracted to her. That would
simply make you crazy. The same applies to gay people. Not having
sex with someone else they are attracted to doesn't make them not
homosexual, but makes them crazy. They are gay because of how their
minds work, of who they find attractive.
So, sexual orientation is as much about being reviled for who you find
attractive, which you can't help, just like being reviled for your
skin color is something you can't help.
If you weren't an ignorant bigot, you would understand that.
> >> BB
> >> It is time that the whining "it ain't fair" mob put aside
> >> its phoney "look at me I love gays" propaganda speeches; set aside its
> >> deliberate attempts to block civil unions (which is what they are
> >> really doing under the pretense of helping); and get off their lazy
> >> asses and motivate their elected representatives to change the laws.
JERRY
Um, actually it's as much religious zealots blocking civil unions as
anyone else. They really, really hate the idea of people not being
like they think a person should be.
Kinda like you.
>
> >JERRY
> >That's what they are doing, Bob. Squeaky wheels get the grease and
> >representatives are hearing more and more. BTW, why don't you put
> >aside your phone "Look at me, I love gays" speeches and lose your
> >bigotry and I'm sure more people will speak honestly with you.
>
> No reason to put it aside Jerry. It's not phoney. Its the way
> progressives and socialists are. All show and no substance.
>
> (I saw Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter on TV tonight. He was president
> and she was vice president. It was a comedy skit)
JERRY
Interesting, because I've yet to see anything done by conservatives
that was humorous. Mean-spirited, yes. Hateful, yes. Bigoted, yes.
>
>
>
> >> BB
> >> Again, those of us who would like to see and who would act to bring
> >> about civil unions and marriages with identifical benefits are blocked
> >> by whining "it ain't fair" progressive liberals who are more concerned
> >> with showing off than getting anything done.
>
> >JERRY
> >Nonsense. All the push against civil unions, which gay groups would
> >consider a start in the right direction, is being opposed not by
> >liberals or gays but by conservative Christians. Try getting your
> >news from somewhere other than Faux Noise for a change.
> BB
> I get my news from you - Faux Dude.
JERRY
Nah, if you did, you wouldn't be such an obvious bigot.
> BB
> Then stop being mean to Christians. You may not realize this; but
> most Christians are not anti-civil union. It's the political trouble
> making ones that are. Most Christians have a gay family member of
> friend.
JERRY
I'm only mean to the conservative ones, Bob. They are the ones
opposing marriage for gays, and showing their ignorance and prejudice
when they post or speak.
> BB
> If you would stop attacking the religious big shots because they are
> Christians and attack their doctrines and prove them to be the
> opposite of what they say they are; then the "peons" would be more
> likely to lean towards the center.
JERRY
I attack their doctrines as hateful, Bob, like I attack yours. And,
I've shown you to be a biblical literalist even though you claim you
aren't, because you attempt to redefine what "biblical literalist" is
just the way your hero in the White House claims "we don't torture,"
simply because he gets the do-nothing 109th Republican Congress to
redefine what they believe "torture" is.
The only people who support them tend to be as hateful and ignorant
themselves.
> BB
> But all you people know is character assassination. You can't think strategically; only
> emotionally. If Falwell is the problem then defeat his doctrines. If
> Robertson is the problem defeat his doctrines. Their followers will
> defend them if they think you are attacking their preachers. But if
> you prove what they teach to be false; then the people will turn away
> from the false teachers and go somewhere else.
JERRY
Like you have, BB? You've made lots of headway, right?
Let's face it, people will choose to believe what they want to
believe, and showing Falwell and Robertson and Oral Roberts and Bible
Bob to be quacks won't change anyone's minds if they have already
decided that these people agree with their own prejudices.
> BB
> For example, all you have to do is prove that tithing is wrong. That
> invalidates half the money making preachers. In this state where
> there are a lot of fundies; if they find out that they have been
> giving away ten percent of their gross income for twenty years for
> unscriptural reasons, then they will go down the street to an
> Episcopalian or Methodist or some other less fundy church where the
> preacher is more likely to be sensitive to the needs of gays.
JERRY
Oh, you want me to engage in "invisible friend" debates, where you
simply argue that your interpretation of the text is superior to the
other persons? Where you simply argue that your invisible friend is
better than Stevie's or John's?
Sorry, since the bible is really nothing more than a 2000 year old
book of goatherder mythology, there isn't a lot of reason for me to
argue interpretations of the text when the text itself is so clearly
untrue.
> >> BB
> >> As I said before, I live
> >> in North Carolina which has a large gay population that is outnumbered
> >> by religious fundamentalists who are brainwashed by their leaders to
> >> believe that civil unions are a threat to the sanctity of marriage.
> >> It would not be a difficult thing to inspire the average
> >> fundamentalist to vote for civil unions if the stupid progressives
> >> would stop poisoning the well with hate speech.
>
> >JERRY
> >Of course it would. The average brain dead fundy gets their
> >viewpoints from their brain-dead pastors whose interpretation of the
> >bible tends to be literal and hateful. They get their back up about
> >liberals as instruments of satan and see the entire issue as a values
> >issue.
>
> BB
> Then maybe liberals shouldn't give them fuel. What's more important
> "pride" or "change".
JERRY
LOL! Bob, read your history. religious zealots don't need "fuel,"
when they have their own imaginations and prejudices.
> >> BB
> >> That's where I stand on the issue. How about you stop your whining
> >> and posturing and work to get your state laws changed.
>
> >JERRY
> >LOL. Have been, Bob. Always working on changing or removing
> >brain-dead religious obstructionists like yourself from the arena.
> BB
> Okay. But did you know that the laws are made by elected
> representatives? Did you ever think about writing one or maybe
> offering to help with a campaign so he will help your cause?
JERRY
What makes you think I am not involved in politics? Why would you
think I am not familiar with the local elected representatives? ;-)
I live in a red state much like North Carolina, full of brain-dead
fundies and conservatives. Since the politicians are are put in
office by brain dead fundies and conservatives, that's who they play
to and respond to.
> BB
> Your progressive take take take mentality needs to be hidden if you
> expect a minority to overcome a majority.
JERRY
And your attitude seems to indicate a "might makes right" viewpoint as
long as the brain-dead bigots who agree with you hold the majority
viewpoint. I wonder if you would instead be singing about how the
Constitution didn't intend a majority to force its views down the
throats of the minority if you were in a state where the majority of
the population voted against your beliefs?
Bible Bob
Can you come up with one Federal law that says that marriage is a
right in all 50 states? No. Marriage is not a right. A right is
something you do without permission. Free exercise of speech is a
right. Marriage is a privilege because it is regulated.
I don't know why you keep arguing about sodomy and mariage laws.
Twenty one states still have sodomy laws on their books. Here is a
list of those that do and don't.
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/sodomy.html
Until the states repeal the laws, they stay in effect - even if not
enforced they are still in effect. So what if the courts ruled against
it. Courts don't make laws. State legislatures do.
Here is stuff about the Supreme Court ruling. Since the courts have a
tendency to flip flop, next week the courts could reverse their
decision.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
I stand on what I have been saying. The laws of the States need to be
changed.
Jerry, it is real simple. You just need to learn and remember BB rule
of philosophy number 1.
"Crazies adjust to the real world, the real world don't adjust to
crazies."
This is one of my better philosophies because "crazies" is
interchangable with other words. So, that while "crazies" may not
refer to an actual mental illness - the principle works. Here are
some words that you can substitute for "crazies."
Bipolar, manic depressive, paranoid schitzophrenmia, alcoholics, drug
addicts, homosexuals, thieves, liars, child molesters, Jerry's,
Rogues, BB's, etc.
>
>
>> >Some states have requirements, like a blood test and a certificate
>> >saying you aren't marrying your sister or brother or parent. However,
>> >a blood test is for proof of sexually transmitted diseases and there
>> >is no law on the books that you can't marry your honey if he has
>> >syphilis.There are laws preventing incest, so questions regarding
>> >family ties between the spouses fall into that area.
>
>> BB
>> That makes it a privilege Jerry. Don't you know the diference between
>> a right and a privilege. You have a right to exercise free speech but
>> not a right to drive a car because driving a car is a privilege.
>
>JERRY
>Invalid metaphor. You are comparing something that has certain
>requirements, like vision and training in handling a guided missile
>that can hurt others to two people sharing their lives in love and
>devotion. Sharing your life has no such requirement.
No. Valid metaphor. A metaphor is a comparison by representation;
not resemblance (simile) or implication (hypocatastasis). Do I have
to teach you everything:):):)
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The problem is that there is no privilege or immunity for homosexual
behavior.
Here is the legal definition for:
behavior under the law. The supreme ruled against Texas and their
ruling affected other states; but until the states repeal the law
there is always the possibility that some smart sheriff or DA
somewhere can find a loophole and charge someone with a violation of
the law. The laws need to be repealed so that they can not be used.
I don't know why this is so complicated for you. What is wrong with
bringing the laws up to date?
>>
>>
>> BB
>> >Regardless of your claims to the contrary, there is not a shred of
>> >evidence that marriage is a privilege granted by the state just
>> >because you say so. Marriage is a right regulated by the state for
>> >income, nothing more. They make money giving you the license, they
>> >make money making copies of it. They have no more interest in
>> >marriage unless its something out of the ordinary, like two women
>> >wanting to tie the knot in a non-bondage way. ;-)
>
>> BB
>> That is so silly. Anything you have to apply for is a privilege.
>> What you do not have to apply for is a right. You do not have to fill
>> out an application to exercise free speech but you do to get married.
>> Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. Ask your wife.
>
>JERRY
>So, being gay is a right?
>
>Then why does the State think it should refuse two people from sharing
>their lives together like they share their bed and not give them the
>same status as any heterosexual couple that marries?
Not according to the Law. Being gay is no more a right than being
married is a right. Being gay is a behavior thing; not a genetic
thing.
>
>
>
>> >> BB
>> >> It is a States rights issue. Each of the
>> >> separate States need to ammend, rescind, supersede, or replace
>> >> existing laws with laws that provide "identical" (not similar)
>> >> benefits for "marriage" and "civil unions" which I prefer to call
>> >> "Coupleages."
>>
>> >JERRY
>> >Or do like Massachusetts did and point out that their state
>> >Constitution doesn't call for "separate but equal" and therefore gays
>> >can get married there.
>
>> BB
>> Socialists like to do things that way.
>
>JERRY
>No, Bob, "people" like to do things that way. Not all people of
>course, which gets us back to the concept that religious zealots are
>nothing more than thoughtless, ignorant bigots.
Ain't they though; especially those antitheist fundies and theist
fundies. They are sure naughty. They should change.
>
>> BB
>> From your point of view the Constitution is toilet paper. From my point of view it is the Law of
>> the land and it says Congress makes the laws; not the courts.
>
>JERRY
>No, Bob, you support a President who has admitted violating FISA and
>the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. From
>where I sit, you seem to think the Constitution is toilet paper,
>because you support Bush treating it like it is.
As usual you are making things up. Care to quote where I said that?
You can't because I didn't. You made it up. Jerry, why do you make
up lies and present them as truth?
>
>> BB
>> Mass has some commie pinko socialist judges' Other states don't; so your
>> plan won't work in all states. You do realize that there is more than
>> one state don't you?
>
>JERRY
>Logical fallacy of attacking the messenger. since you are not
>prepared to address the points the judge made in his ruling or my
>point about Massachusetts, you instead make ridiculous, unsupported
>allegations about Massachusetts in general.
There is more than one State Jerry. No attack of messenger; attack
was against the false gods that send out messengers.
Another of your false theologies. Sexual orientation is a fantasy
until it becomes real. "Crazies adjust to the real world, the real
world does not adjust to crazies." Bruce wants to have sex with an
elephant. That is a fantasy. When Bruce has sex with an elephant
then it is a behavior. Carzies adjust to the real world, the real
world does not adjust to crazies.
You know, Jerry, I am beginning to think that you live in a fantasy
world where everyone who does not think the same fantasies that you
think are bigots.
Here is your wake up call. Fantasy is the responsibility of the
fantasizer. Fantacies come and go. Laws are not made based on
fantasy. Fantasy is what pseudo scientists use to make money off
people who fantasize.
>
>> >> BB
>> >> It is time that the whining "it ain't fair" mob put aside
>> >> its phoney "look at me I love gays" propaganda speeches; set aside its
>> >> deliberate attempts to block civil unions (which is what they are
>> >> really doing under the pretense of helping); and get off their lazy
>> >> asses and motivate their elected representatives to change the laws.
>
>JERRY
>Um, actually it's as much religious zealots blocking civil unions as
>anyone else. They really, really hate the idea of people not being
>like they think a person should be.
>
>Kinda like you.
Yea, those religious zealots like the fundamentalist antitheists and
their brothers fundamentalist theists. They sure are naughty.
>>
>> >JERRY
>> >That's what they are doing, Bob. Squeaky wheels get the grease and
>> >representatives are hearing more and more. BTW, why don't you put
>> >aside your phone "Look at me, I love gays" speeches and lose your
>> >bigotry and I'm sure more people will speak honestly with you.
>>
>> No reason to put it aside Jerry. It's not phoney. Its the way
>> progressives and socialists are. All show and no substance.
>>
>> (I saw Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter on TV tonight. He was president
>> and she was vice president. It was a comedy skit)
>
>JERRY
>Interesting, because I've yet to see anything done by conservatives
>that was humorous. Mean-spirited, yes. Hateful, yes. Bigoted, yes.
What's the skinny guy on HBO Bill somebody? Rush and Ann did a toned
down version of something that that guiy would do.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> BB
>> >> Again, those of us who would like to see and who would act to bring
>> >> about civil unions and marriages with identifical benefits are blocked
>> >> by whining "it ain't fair" progressive liberals who are more concerned
>> >> with showing off than getting anything done.
>>
>> >JERRY
>> >Nonsense. All the push against civil unions, which gay groups would
>> >consider a start in the right direction, is being opposed not by
>> >liberals or gays but by conservative Christians. Try getting your
>> >news from somewhere other than Faux Noise for a change.
Well, then the smart thing to do is convince "conservative Christians"
that they need to change their mind. Who can do that best? Those
that want to live the gay lifestyle. It is those people speaking from
the heart that are going to have the greatest affect.
What society needs is a heart operation and the surgeons need to be
those who desire the change. You fundamentalist Islamic types who
want to cause change by killing those who do not believe the way you
want them to is not going to work. Hatred and bigotry is not the
solution Jerry. You can't change people but people do react to
change.
>
>> BB
>> I get my news from you - Faux Dude.
>
>JERRY
>Nah, if you did, you wouldn't be such an obvious bigot.
You are the bigot Jerry. I hate no one. I like everyone, even bigots
like you. Just because I do not like your bogotry does not mean that
I do not likie you.
>
>> BB
>> Then stop being mean to Christians. You may not realize this; but
>> most Christians are not anti-civil union. It's the political trouble
>> making ones that are. Most Christians have a gay family member of
>> friend.
>
>JERRY
>I'm only mean to the conservative ones, Bob. They are the ones
>opposing marriage for gays, and showing their ignorance and prejudice
>when they post or speak.
Jerry, to you all Christians are conservatives. That's your mind set.
Crazies adjust to the real world, the real world does not adjust to
crazies. You use Christian in its weakest and vilest sense.
Technically, a Chistian is a disciple of Christ and their actions
prove that; not their words. Remember the woman caught in adultry and
the cast the first stone response by Jesus? A true disciple of Christ
would know to speak againt the behavior but not judge the person.
Religious people whether they be antitheist or theist lack the ability
to separate the person from the problem. Your "they are the ones"
statement is proof that you are one of those who is not mature enough
to separate a person from the problem.
>
>> BB
>> If you would stop attacking the religious big shots because they are
>> Christians and attack their doctrines and prove them to be the
>> opposite of what they say they are; then the "peons" would be more
>> likely to lean towards the center.
>
>JERRY
>I attack their doctrines as hateful, Bob, like I attack yours. And,
>I've shown you to be a biblical literalist even though you claim you
>aren't, because you attempt to redefine what "biblical literalist" is
>just the way your hero in the White House claims "we don't torture,"
>simply because he gets the do-nothing 109th Republican Congress to
>redefine what they believe "torture" is.
No Jerry, you are lying again. You have not shown me to be a
"Biblical" literalist. That is a lie. The Bible is not inerrant as I
have said many times. You live in a fantasy world where you think
something and then it is in your mind. You are petty Jerry. You
don't know what I think about the man in the White House. Quote me
Jerry. Put up or shut up. I call your bluff.
>
>The only people who support them tend to be as hateful and ignorant
>themselves.
>
>> BB
>> But all you people know is character assassination. You can't think strategically; only
>> emotionally. If Falwell is the problem then defeat his doctrines. If
>> Robertson is the problem defeat his doctrines. Their followers will
>> defend them if they think you are attacking their preachers. But if
>> you prove what they teach to be false; then the people will turn away
>> from the false teachers and go somewhere else.
>
>JERRY
>Like you have, BB? You've made lots of headway, right?
Of course. And only I can measure how much headway I have made. You
may fantasize thaqt you know all; but you know nothing. Stop living
in the fantasy world Jerry and live in the real world where normal
people live.
>
>Let's face it, people will choose to believe what they want to
>believe, and showing Falwell and Robertson and Oral Roberts and Bible
>Bob to be quacks won't change anyone's minds if they have already
>decided that these people agree with their own prejudices.
True, people will beleive what they want to believe; so, help them to
believe the right way. That takes one on one face to face contact.
You can't hide behind a computer screen and legislate your version of
morality. You think you are god and that all you have to do is will
soemthing into existence and it will be. Create me a frogbird. You
can't do it. Your opinion is just the opinion of anyone else. Until
you have the guts to share your life and thoughts one on one face to
face; you are a fake.
Have I been able over the years to help people to see alternatives to
bigotry? Yes. Many many times. Will I prove it to you? No. You
aren't my judge and I don't report to you. You are apparantly content
in your own fantasy world of bigotry and won't change until someone
like me is able to sit down with you and show you how to think
non-fantasy thoughts.
>
>> BB
>> For example, all you have to do is prove that tithing is wrong. That
>> invalidates half the money making preachers. In this state where
>> there are a lot of fundies; if they find out that they have been
>> giving away ten percent of their gross income for twenty years for
>> unscriptural reasons, then they will go down the street to an
>> Episcopalian or Methodist or some other less fundy church where the
>> preacher is more likely to be sensitive to the needs of gays.
>
>JERRY
>Oh, you want me to engage in "invisible friend" debates, where you
>simply argue that your interpretation of the text is superior to the
>other persons? Where you simply argue that your invisible friend is
>better than Stevie's or John's?
>
>Sorry, since the bible is really nothing more than a 2000 year old
>book of goatherder mythology, there isn't a lot of reason for me to
>argue interpretations of the text when the text itself is so clearly
>untrue.
No, Jerry. You are a good writer. I've been working on a book on
tithing for years; but can't get it done because I get too emotionally
involved. Maybe somebody like you that is not bound to a loyalty to
brothers and sisters in Christ could succeed where I have not been
able to. I "know" the evil of the doctrine and I "detest" the methods
of the religious zealots who use it. Even thinking about it to write
this pisses me off because it brings to mind people who have been
screwed by that doctrine. Have you got any idea how many marriages
have been affected by it? How much money has been wasted by couples
who fell for the doctrine? How many people that could have but don't
have because they have been trickedf?
Might don't make right. Truth makes right. Your apparent hatred for
what you are unable to understand won't change anything. You failed
at being a theist and are failing at being an antitheist. It's time
you moved to the middle like Clinton did.
>
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Mike Painter
>> Marriage is a right. Regulation of a marriage that violates other
>> laws does not make marriage a privilege.
>
> Can you come up with one Federal law that says that marriage is a
> right in all 50 states? No. Marriage is not a right. A right is
> something you do without permission. Free exercise of speech is a
> right. Marriage is a privilege because it is regulated.
>
Do I have to take a test of any sort?
Under what conditions can the state refuse permission?
Under what condition can the state dissolve a marriage?
Do I have to obtain a license to get married?
If not, why not and what does this mean to the state?
Uncle Davey
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you are insulting blacks by comparing them to homosexuals.
Being black is not a disease, disorder or effect of living in a sinful
world.
But since you are an atheist, these arguments will not be valid for
you. let me couch it in terms which should be valid for you, namely
evolutionary ones...
When a black man and a black woman - or an opposite sex partner to the
black person of any other human race, have sex, then they can, barring
problems of infertility, produce offspring which are fertile in the F1
and every subsequent generation.
When homosexuals practice their specific forms of sex, they cannot.
They are evolutionary dead ends. You are a traitor to evolution if you
try to help them survive. Therefore you don't really believe in
evolution objectively, you only take the aspects of it that suit your
purpose.
Best to you and Canada. I'm planning to go there in the Autumn.
Uncle Davey
Bible Bob
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Davey,
Where in Canada? Haven't been there since I was a kid (back before it
was taken over by the you know who's) when Canadians were real men and
real women. I was raised in the Detroit area which is across the
river from some town in Canada that I can't think of the name of.
I sure wouldn't mind flying up there to have a beverage with you and
chat about things in general. I haven't been to Michigan for over
twenty years. I could stop in and see some of my relatives while up
there. Drop me an email when you have a firm itinerary.
Have you ever been to the States?
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Mike Painter
> I think you are insulting blacks by comparing them to homosexuals.
> Being black is not a disease, disorder or effect of living in a sinful
> world.
>
> But since you are an atheist, these arguments will not be valid for
> you. let me couch it in terms which should be valid for you, namely
> evolutionary ones...
>
> When a black man and a black woman - or an opposite sex partner to the
> black person of any other human race, have sex, then they can, barring
> problems of infertility, produce offspring which are fertile in the F1
> and every subsequent generation.
>
> When homosexuals practice their specific forms of sex, they cannot.
> They are evolutionary dead ends. You are a traitor to evolution if you
> try to help them survive. Therefore you don't really believe in
> evolution objectively, you only take the aspects of it that suit your
> purpose.
Which shows how ignorant you are of evolution. Do you hold that all
creatures which can't reproduce are "evolutionary dead ends"?
How about animals which behave in a way that guarentees they will be caught
by other animals?
If these are such dead ends, why do they continue to appear?
Uncle Davey
We have this meeting in Vancouver, and I was gonna stay for a week
after and travel across the country, maybe hire a car or something,
and go back from one of the cities on the Atlantic side. Or get there
earlier, hire a car and go across on the 17 and the 1 and maybe come
back either over further north like the 16 instead of the 1 or else go
through the states maybe following route 90.
I don't know if it's even possible to travel through both countries on
a car hired in one of the two countries.
> Haven't been there since I was a kid (back before it
> was taken over by the you know who's)
Actually the French have been there for some time. We did our best to
stop them, and that's all anyone can ever ask of anyone, to do their
best.
> when Canadians were real men and
> real women. I was raised in the Detroit area which is across the
> river from some town in Canada that I can't think of the name of.
>
Put your hands up, put your hands up for Detroit!
Across the river they say "put your hands up for Windsor", but that
sounds a bit like something Prince Charles might say in an unguarded
moment.
> I sure wouldn't mind flying up there to have a beverage with you and
> chat about things in general. I haven't been to Michigan for over
> twenty years. I could stop in and see some of my relatives while up
> there. Drop me an email when you have a firm itinerary.
>
OK.
> Have you ever been to the States?
>
No. If I do do this, it'll be my first visit.
But I already drive an American car, so I expect it'll be allright.
Uncle Davey
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think you are insulting blacks by comparing them to homosexuals.
> > Being black is not a disease, disorder or effect of living in a sinful
> > world.
>
> > But since you are an atheist, these arguments will not be valid for
> > you. let me couch it in terms which should be valid for you, namely
> > evolutionary ones...
>
> > When a black man and a black woman - or an opposite sex partner to the
> > black person of any other human race, have sex, then they can, barring
> > problems of infertility, produce offspring which are fertile in the F1
> > and every subsequent generation.
>
> > When homosexuals practice their specific forms of sex, they cannot.
> > They are evolutionary dead ends. You are a traitor to evolution if you
> > try to help them survive. Therefore you don't really believe in
> > evolution objectively, you only take the aspects of it that suit your
> > purpose.
>
> Which shows how ignorant you are of evolution.
Ha hah. Joke.
> Do you hold that all
> creatures which can't reproduce are "evolutionary dead ends"?
Well, duh, Mikey. Obviously they are. Or do you think that lack of
capacity to reproduce is some great survival skill or something?
> How about animals which behave in a way that guarentees they will be caught
> by other animals?
> If these are such dead ends, why do they continue to appear?- Hide quoted text -
>
They continue to appear because the world is degrading, and that
includes the genomes of species. It is a process akin to entropy, used
in the sense in which that word can apply to broader systems than its
strict definition in thermodynamics, but equally valid and
observable. You get regular degradations, variations that are going
absolutely nowhere, and they impact on one or other aspect of life in
a negative way that impedes the organism's ability to compete for its
niche.
Sometimes, according to evolutionists, you can get variations which
improve the organism's competitive advantage, and then gradually the
organisms that carry that feature start to dominate in the population,
and the species has changed. It has changed and added new features,
and it is intrinsic to the theory of evolution that these features
result in new and fresh, useful info arriving by process of sheer
chance mutation, which is obviously a great rarity in comparison with
the mutations and other variations which simply make a creature an
evolutionary dead end. Evolutionary dead ends greatly outnumber
evolutionary success stories, according to evolutionists (for me the
whole thing is at best notional and more likely riddled with nonsense
and implausibility) and obviously any animal which queers up is going
to be one of that crowd on the way out of natural history, unless they
can quickly devise some way of reproducing asexually to make up for
it.
I sometimes think that the cheerleaders for the homos and their
putative rights are actually ecologists, who are happy that at least
these people will not be reproducing and filling the planet with any
more detestable human beings. If that is your idea, then you could say
that the incidence of homosexuality is a survival trait for humanity
as a whole, as it reduces our number in the way that suicide runs do
for lemmings, but for those who take part in it, it is not exactly
good news for their individual genetic history.
A good evolutionist, if you'll pardon the contradiction in terms,
would indeed encourage homosexuality as a viable option in the hope of
making other adults de facto infertile, and having more of the space
available in coming generations set aside for one's own offspring.
If you look at the Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins you can tell
that he subscribes to this 100% in practice - he looks and talks like
a bona fide lifter of shirts and probably was even responsible for
queering up that disgraced minister he interviewed if we did but know
it, and yet he has had three lovely women as wives, and is in fact
also the father of at least one child.
At least the man is consistent, and behaves like a true evolution
believing atheist should.
<-Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysIAmAWhosoeverToo!->
> If that is your idea, then you could say
> that the incidence of homosexuality is a survival trait for humanity
> as a whole, as it reduces our number
Or you could say that homosexuality is a way for God to help us
survive as it reduces our numbers...
> If you look at the Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins you can tell
> that he subscribes to this 100% in practice - he looks and talks like
> a bona fide lifter of shirts
"Lifter of shirts"? What is that supposed to be - a cutesy way of
saying the Dawkins is probably gay because "he looks and talks" like
it?
> and probably was even responsible for
> queering up that disgraced minister he interviewed if we did but know
> it,
You've got to be kidding with this, right? You're just kidding....?
> and yet he has had three lovely women as wives, and is in fact
> also the father of at least one child.
Even if Dawkins were gay (which I don't think there's any evidence
supporting that except your off-handed comments), he could still have
"had three lovely women as wives" and fathered children. Acting
straight doesn't make one non-homosexual...
I mean, it hasn't worked for you so far, has it?
;-)
Bible Bob
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is America; are you able to aim a car?
Vancouver is Stargate and Stargate Atlantis country. I'd like to go
there but would prefer to meet with you on the eastern side close to
Michigan so that I could see my relatives during the same trip.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible Bob
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
Davey,
Speaking of evolution, there are two kinds. God's kind of evolution
and man's kind of evolution. In the case of God's evolution a daddy
pig and a mommy pig that are heterosexual produce baby pigs; not full
grown horses or baby cows. In the case of God's evolution a boy mouse
and a human woman can not produce a mousey man. Evolution can occur
within species but not between (as in the case of cockroaches and
elephants)
The other kind of evolution which I call Steinbeck evolution is
advocated by readers of such books as "Of Mice and Men" from where
mixed with some hallucinegetic drug they get the idea that man evolved
from a mouse. How a man got a mouse pregnant or how a mouse got a
woman pregnant is never explained:)
According to National Geographic the other day there is less variation
in the human genes of the whole world than one band of chimps in
Africa and yet Steinbecker's would have us believe that man evolved
from an ape or a mouse or a cockroach ore something. All guesswork
based on rigged science. Maybe not all guesswork; but a lot of
fiction mixed in with a few facts.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
AC
Neither is homosexuality.
>
> But since you are an atheist, these arguments will not be valid for
> you.
You mean arguments based upon your religious views.
>let me couch it in terms which should be valid for you, namely
> evolutionary ones...
>
> When a black man and a black woman - or an opposite sex partner to the
> black person of any other human race, have sex, then they can, barring
> problems of infertility, produce offspring which are fertile in the F1
> and every subsequent generation.
There are plenty of couples that have fertility issues.
>
> When homosexuals practice their specific forms of sex, they cannot.
> They are evolutionary dead ends. You are a traitor to evolution if you
> try to help them survive. Therefore you don't really believe in
> evolution objectively, you only take the aspects of it that suit your
> purpose.
There's no such thing as a "traitor to evolution", but if there were,
couples where the woman is post-menopausal or the man's sperm no longer
work would also be "traitors to evolution".
But, in reality, homosexuals can have heterosexual relations, and thus
even a gay gene would not disappear from the gene pool.
>
> Best to you and Canada. I'm planning to go there in the Autumn.
All those Polish anti-Semites getting you down?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Uncle Davey
> On 4 Mar 2007 07:43:46 -0800, "Uncle Davey"
>
> >> >I think you are insulting blacks by comparing them to homosexuals.
OK. It now transpires that I've got to go to South Bend, Indiana in
the middle of May. Would that work for you?
I could take a couple of extra days prior or after the course and do
some tourism.
How far is Indiana away from Michigan? What place in Michigan do you
want to go to?
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
<ontheska...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:07 am, "Uncle Davey" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If that is your idea, then you could say
> > that the incidence of homosexuality is a survival trait for humanity
> > as a whole, as it reduces our number
>
> Or you could say that homosexuality is a way for God to help us
> survive as it reduces our numbers...
He has a number of ways of doing that which don't involve sexual
perversions. Hth.
>
> > If you look at the Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins you can tell
> > that he subscribes to this 100% in practice - he looks and talks like
> > a bona fide lifter of shirts
>
> "Lifter of shirts"? What is that supposed to be - a cutesy way of
> saying the Dawkins is probably gay because "he looks and talks" like
> it?
>
Nope. I do wish you'd pay attention. I said I didn't think he was gay
even though " "he looks and talks" like it".
> > and probably was even responsible for
> > queering up that disgraced minister he interviewed if we did but know
> > it,
>
> You've got to be kidding with this, right? You're just kidding....?
Not at all. I was perfectly serious.
((;-D)
>
> > and yet he has had three lovely women as wives, and is in fact
> > also the father of at least one child.
>
> Even if Dawkins were gay (which I don't think there's any evidence
> supporting that except your off-handed comments), he could still have
> "had three lovely women as wives" and fathered children. Acting
> straight doesn't make one non-homosexual...
>
> I mean, it hasn't worked for you so far, has it?
>
> ;-)
That's right, Kelly. My two wives and five kids are nothing but a
front. I cannot abide cavorting with women really.
Sheesh!
UD.
Bible Bob
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
Davey,
Sorry for the late response; but I have been trying to figure out my
schedule. May is not a good month for me (nor June - August).
Besides, work, relatives from my wife's side of the family will be
here the weekend beginning on May 19th which means the honey do list
my wife will come up with will be humongous. We haven't seen my
mother-in-law for almost five years so I know her visit is going to
cost me a lot of time and money. Since her origins are here in North
Carolina I will have to rent a van and take her to visit family
members around the state.
Indiana is one of the states bordering Michigan. My family lives on
the east side of the state south of Detroit. South Bend is on the
West side I think South Bend is on the Michigan Indiana state line
or close to it about center south of Michigan. It's only about 200
miles (4 hours) from where my family lives to South Bend. I'd love to
go see my Aunt (she is getting old) and my cousins. Of course, I'd
like to see you, too. I'm not giving up on this yet.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Uncle Davey
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm still going to South Bend in May, Bob.
I'll be there for about a week, in the middle of May.
Bible Bob
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
Davey,
I'm not giving up on it yet.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Uncle Davey
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >I'm still going to South Bend in May, Bob.
>
> >I'll be there for about a week, in the middle of May.
>
> Davey,
>
> I'm not giving up on it yet.
>
> .....
> BBhttp://www.biblebob.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. In addition to being in South Bend, Indiana, I'm also gonna be
in Cleveland, Ohio.
Bible Bob
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
We gotta change you name to Globtrotter Davey.
I used to live there back in the sixties when I was stationed at a
missile base near there.