DescentBB

Going to have to disagree with you on that one, Spidey. Most stats specifically point to how Obama is not engaging in partisan politics in lying going directly to the people while demonizing a Republican-influenced congress.

Hang 'em all high and hire some part-timers...

You're a joke of a moderator Foil, why don't you look at the post right beneath mine where I'm referred to as an absolute moron.

bigot:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

This is Thorne when it comes to marriage equality. It's not a cheapshot, it's not a pot-shot, it's what he says in every single topic that gets reverted to that issue. Maybe I expect too much from a moderator, if that's true then my sincerest apologies for using a word within the English language in the proper context. My bad.

CUDA wrote: California $34.4 $24.4 $58.7
New York $9.8 $17.6 $27.4
Pennsylvania $8.2 $5.2 $13.4
Illinois $9.6 $3.0 $12.6
...

Looks like this data is coming from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Interesting site. Most of the data appears to be pulled from http://gpo.gov/.

CobGobbler wrote:You're a joke of a moderator Foil, why don't you look at the post right beneath mine...

I'm sorry you think my warning post was directed solely to you.

-------

Back on topic:

Spidey wrote:Stats are mostly raw data, without any real value…unless someone wants’ to use them for some kind of…shall I say…propaganda. (centrist or otherwise)

Obviously we've all seen agenda-driven "stats" (cherry-picked, skewed ranges, relevant factors ignored, etc.). Are you saying that every satistical inference has some level of bias/agenda, or just that raw data has no value unless seen through some statistical interpretation?

Foil wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:You're a joke of a moderator Foil, why don't you look at the post right beneath mine...

I'm sorry you think my warning post was directed solely to you.

Don't apologize for doing your job. I got it.

Foil wrote:Obviously we've all seen agenda-driven "stats" (cherry-picked, skewed ranges, relevant factors ignored, etc.). Are you saying that every satistical inference has some level of bias/agenda, or just that raw data has no value unless seen through some statistical interpretation?

The latter.

My post was the only one you felt the need to edit. Not that I expected much else, the piss poor moderating started with Lothar and extends to you, perhaps you could at least try to play the part.

Cob, I think that the problem arose when you made statements like "bigots like....." and named names. That much, I've figured out on here, is the line one cannot cross.

If George Wallace or David Duke posted on this forum and they were referred to as a racist, would that not in fact be a correct word to describe them? Bigot has an actual definition, as I posted earlier. The person in question has displayed, on more than several occasions, the exact definition of that word so I don't know why there should be any offense. Slick, you will realize as I have, that moderators like Foil (and Lothar before him) will only edit and remind those they disagree with not to disparage other users that they do agree with. Hence why my post was edited but Cuda's was not. It's not a big deal to me, this is a silly internet forum but I'm not going to apologize for using a descriptive word that is indeed correct. Notice that you can be called anti-American, communist, marxist, hippy, etc and it doesn't so much get a slap on the wrist. I'm pretty sure you're not a Communist Slick, but that verbal assault is somehow allowed by our 'unbiased' moderator.

Cob, if you have an issue with the moderating style here in E&C, feel free to start a discussion in the appropriate forum, where your complaints can be considered by those with higher authority than my own.

CobGobbler wrote: Hence why my post was edited but Cuda's was not. It's not a big deal to me,

apparently it is. because your making it a big deal

Cob, you damn bigot, stop being so intolerant! A man has a right to take a conscience-based ideological stand without being labeled a "bigot" with no just cause simply because someone across the web gets their panties in a twist. As an aside, you've been suckered into buying this "marriage equality" (relatively new term noted) BS.

Cob's an interesting fellow.. hehehehe.

Yeah, what a jerk I am for believing equality should be for all. Here I am drinking that stupid American kool-aid about freedom for all.

where's the no-talent ash-clown moderator? he should be editing that post! Thorne made a personal snipe at me and I can't handle it!! Waaah

Inequality isn't coming from "bigots" like me. But you wouldn't know that because you're just a name on the web. I believe I should be considered equal in my right to believe (and contend) that homosexuality is very unhealthy, morally, psychologically, and spiritually. So this generation's minds have been changed by a media and information campaign. That's all it is. I haven't seen some new influx of understanding (look at what you're doing), just a breakdown of resistance to the idea of someone going to bed with a person of the same sex (on the heels of a breakdown in resistance to the idea of someone going to bed with whoever whenever, regardless of commitment). So you've been suckered.

I don't think cob realizes his own hypocrisy. He screams about bigotry when his post that started this path was pure bigotry. But in typical liberal fashion it's ok for them to be bigots an intolerant but not others

what has changed, Thorne, over the past couple of generations, is the general acceptance of the idea that homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE, but a way people are from birth. That changes the whole thing, and is the reason why most of your fellow citizens now feel that homosexuals should have the same rights and priviliges to security in relationships as the rest of their heterosexual fellow citizens.

Not to go into the moral side of homosexuality
But you said "the general acceptance" not proven scientific fact. There is a difference

CUDA wrote:Not to go into the moral side of homosexuality

dude.

the only people making that into a moral issue are the vocal fringe groups banging on the bible. they can try and justify it all they want, but it's all bull★■◆● and hate-speech.

CUDA wrote:Not to go into the moral side of homosexuality
But you said "the general acceptance" not proven scientific fact. There is a difference

you're kidding, right?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Not to go into the moral side of homosexuality
But you said "the general acceptance" not proven scientific fact. There is a difference

you're kidding, right?

show me where there is scientific fact/proof/evidence the being homosexual is either genetic or hereditary.

I find it extremely hard to believe that homosexuals are gay by choice. I've known quite a few that have told me how bad it was growing up gay and dealing with societies backlash etc.
The suicide rates and other mental health issues they face tell the story pretty well.
There just isn't any reason to believe they do this by choice.

Sure there are the voluntarily bisexual adventurous types that chose to play around with same sex partners but that is most likely a tiny percentage and they probably wouldn't really qualify as being gay.

I had a gay guy tell me about his experience with a female partner when he tried to have 'straight sex' and the revulsion he expressed at the female anatomy mirrored what I imagine I'd experience if I tried to hook up with a guy.

It is abnormal in the sense that it is atypical and counter to natures procreation system but it is totally natural in my mind.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Not to go into the moral side of homosexuality
But you said "the general acceptance" not proven scientific fact. There is a difference

you're kidding, right?

show me where there is scientific fact/proof/evidence the being homosexual is either genetic or hereditary.

actually, the science suggests neither(actually you use interchangeable terms). All the evidence/facts/studies seem to be pointing very, very conclusively toward epigenetic origins. Trying to put that in simple terms, this refers to gene expression which is imprinted in the womb, during the processes called differentiation and later, development. Now, if you want, CUDA, I'd be glad to go out and dig up either layman level synopses, or call up the more heavy scientific work extant. Proof? Not that you'd find final, incontrovertable proof, because science is sort of an ongoing continuum. Still, far too much data, coupled with examples of personal stories such as Will cited for you, overwhelmingly put the lie to the stupidity that folks 'choose' to be homosexuals. Why am I so harsh in my use of words? Because, at this point in our knowledge, any person who knows anything about what homosexuals face as a daily challenge, and a developmental horror story, would be a stone-cold moron to think that many people choose to put themselves through that. Especially puzzling would be what potential gain would drive the choice? And further, the fact that a steady 10 percent or so of any human population is homosexual would indicate, for anyone clinging to the choice model, that massive numbers of people routinely choose that painful and challenging route for no obvious upside.

I think if the desire were simply a choice, the Bible would not speak of it as judgment. I do think people make a jump if they say it is never a choice. I believe there is evidence that it is something that a person may not have ingrained in them, so to speak, and they can get into it. That specifically is why all this talk of "it's not a choice" troubles me. Young, impressionable kids don't need to be hearing that and wondering, "am I gay?" There are chemicals in various things that we are exposed to or consume that effect sexuality in negative ways, and very likely that is yet another complication of the issue as well.

And Biblically speaking, if a person gives place to a spirit of sexual uncleanness or homosexuality, maybe they've gotten to the point where it really isn't a "choice" anymore. I've been involved in things where a propensity could be said to have been a choice, but it was a non-stop battle to make the choice. In the New Testament Jesus had to deliver people from various things by explicitly casting a spiritual entity out of their lives. This last part is primarily for CUDA's consideration. You can go chase yourself if you don't like it (Ferno).

frankly, this is one area where the Bible is completely irrelevant, and evidentiary of the fact it was written over 2000 years ago, in large part. All people knew is that homosexual behavior was 'unnatural' to them, and left it at that. I don't believe in a God who is either so mean-spirited or ignorant as to punish people for the way they were born, but others may differ.

Equality is equality. There are no two sides to this issue. Either you believe in equality for all, or you don't believe in it. Equality for some (the ones that you agree with) is NOT equality. I understand where your position is Thorne and I'm not intolerant of your beliefs. You have the right to believe what you want, but you're the one that's on the wrong side of history here, not me.

Like Will said, who would choose to live a life of ridicule or perhaps even worse?

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Not to go into the moral side of homosexuality
But you said "the general acceptance" not proven scientific fact. There is a difference

you're kidding, right?

show me where there is scientific fact/proof/evidence the being homosexual is either genetic or hereditary.

Actually, there's quite a bit of research out there that's starting to support that. You just have to know where to look, and when to accept what you've read. But you also have to understand and accept that both sexual orientation AND gender are not rigid set points, ie., black and white, but part of a broad spectrum in which the main concentration of humans, I'll call the"norms", are located at either ends. But there is that sprinkling of other people who are spread in between those 2 "norms" that most people seem to have trouble with.

BogCoggler wrote:Equality is equality. There are no two sides to this issue. ...

You say that like I somehow stripped homosexuals of their equality. This isn't actually an argument of individual equality or freedoms, you just haven't gotten around to admitting it yet. And individual equality on the level of humanity is a far cry from wanting equality of homosexual "marriage" with real marriage. Sorry. Go chase yourselves. It is not equal.

I also don't care for your disregard of the scriptures, slick. You can believe whatever you want--if the God of the Bible is God as he claims, and the scriptures are his word--his judgments on everything touching us, then the scriptures will never "not apply". I think you will have opportunity to regret your priorities in life if you never prove this one way or the other, and your honesty if you disregard what is always right in front of you because you don't want to believe it. Logic will damn a lot of ignorant people who wield it to keep from having to believe what they desire not to accept. I speak from experience (not being damned... obviously).

CUDA wrote:show me where there is scientific fact/proof/evidence the being homosexual is either genetic or hereditary.

Here ya go


To Will: exactly. I always found those kind of arguments questionable because who in their right mind would choose to face expulsion/ostracization/discrimination from society? I know it would be pretty masochistic to do so, but that's just stretching it.

You say that like I somehow stripped homosexuals of their equality. This isn't actually an argument of individual equality or freedoms, you just haven't gotten around to admitting it yet. And individual equality on the level of humanity is a far cry from wanting equality of homosexual "marriage" with real marriage. Sorry. Go chase yourselves. It is not equal.

There IS no difference. Marriage is marriage, no matter who gets married. You seriously want to deny some people the same access as others? Just because they're different than the norm? It's been done against blacks, against the chinese, against women. And every time, it's been struck down. And everytime it does get struck down, that group that pushes discrimination against (insert group here) gets smaller and smaller.

That's a crock of ★■◆●, Ferno. There's a fundamental difference that only disappears from view when you use very general, vague terminology, as you have there. When you wake up one day and choose to believe there isn't, nothing has changed but you.

is it now...

without referring to the bible, what is this "fundamental difference" you speak of? Any historical precedences? I'll tell you right now Thorne, you'd better bring an absolutely airtight argument to this...

When talking about gay marriage, I always find it fun to replace "gay" with "interracial." Makes it easier for some bigots to see the error in their thinking, not that it really changes their minds though, haha. One of the downsides of having a brain is it tends to hold on to garbage thoughts.

Also, when did you choose to become heterosexual? Sexuality is a choice, right?

just like the color of our skin. because you know.. I just chose yellow. no wait, I chose black. nah scratch that, brown. so many choices...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's a crock of ****, Ferno. There's a fundamental difference that only disappears from view when you use very general, vague terminology, as you have there. When you wake up one day and choose to believe there isn't, nothing has changed but you.

actually, he laid out the whole legal issue in a very succinct way. If the state is going to be involved in sanctioning, and giving certain priviliges to marriage, then no two humans should be excluded, just because they are 'outliers' from some 'norm'. I am not suggesting that Church sanctions stretch to that definition, but government should....

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's a crock of ****, Ferno. There's a fundamental difference that only disappears from view when you use very general, vague terminology, as you have there. When you wake up one day and choose to believe there isn't, nothing has changed but you.

actually, he laid out the whole legal issue in a very succinct way. If the state is going to be involved in sanctioning, and giving certain priviliges to marriage, then no two humans should be excluded, just because they are 'outliers' from some 'norm'. I am not suggesting that Church sanctions stretch to that definition, but government should....

Government shouldn't put it's nose in the marriage business.
They did it as a convenience to government for qualifying people for services etc
They need to create new criteria that doesn't depend on a church's sanction of marriage.

It may require everyone who is married to also get a civil union or simply allow citizens to declare a partner and be done with it

There IS no difference. Marriage is marriage, no matter who gets married. You seriously want to deny some people the same access as others? Just because they're different than the norm? It's been done against blacks, against the chinese, against women. And every time, it's been struck down. And everytime it does get struck down, that group that pushes discrimination against (insert group here) gets smaller and smaller.

I actually have no problem giving equal rights to all Americans and keeping a definite separation between church and state. That being said, it is physically impossible for homosexuals to marry per biblical definition. Call it whatever you like, but marriage implies procreation.

Will.... All they have to do is amend the marriage license.

Call it whatever you like, but marriage implies procreation.

procreation isn't a requisite for marriage. people procreate all the time, even when they're not married. Some married couples already have children, some adopt. Others go with artificial insemination or surrogates. There's already 1-5 million lesbian mothers and 1-3 million gay fathers.

per biblical definition

well if you're referring to Leviticus 18:22, then what about shellfish, pork, mixed cloth, bathing in birds' blood, etc?



NEXT!

I was speaking towards the biblical definition of marriage Ferno, not the cultural one.
When the Bible speaks of marriage, it is talking about combining 2 people to create another, actual physical marriage.

Shellfish? The Law of Moses was a law given to condemn all men to sin. No one could keep it, so that since all were condemned under sin, God could sacrifice His son, so that all could be given grace. I guess this keeps God from having to show partiality. Condemn them all so then you can save them all. There are definitely better men than others, but none are perfect .

flip wrote:I was speaking towards the biblical definition of marriage Ferno, not the cultural one.
When the Bible speaks of marriage, it is talking about combining 2 people to create another, actual physical marriage.

Already addressed. And as you already know, people of different faiths can marry. No one's screaming that doing that is a sin

Shellfish? The Law of Moses was a law given to condemn all men to sin. No one could keep it, so that since all were condemned under sin, God could sacrifice His son, so that all could be given grace. I guess this keeps God from having to show partiality. Condemn them all so then you can save them all. There are definitely better men than others, but none are perfect .

So you're saying being gay is already forgiven? And yet, he never said anything about homosexuality either.


Marriage is not naturally, normally, or even traditionally heterosexual in nature. Gay unions have been sanctioned in various historical eras and cultures from ancient Greece to 17th Century China to pre-colonial America. Indeed, a 1951 survey of sexual practices around the world drew the following conclusions:


In 49 (64 percent) of the 76 societies other than our own for which information is available, homosexual activities of one sort or another are considered normal and socially acceptable for certain members of the community…. In many cases this [same-sex] behavior occurs within the framework of courtship and marriage, the man who takes the part of the female being recognized as a “berdache” and treated as a woman. In other words, a genuine mateship is involved. as found in William Eskridge, The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, pg. 19-20