Spexvet:
It has, it's called abortion.
Chip
Spexvet:
It has, it's called abortion.
Chip
That's a religious rite? Well, I'll be....Originally Posted by chip anderson
...Just ask me...
It is choice behavior, not genetics. I say that because of the huge increase in recent years of this practice. If it had been as prevalent in times past, it could not be concealed, as it can't now. If it is choice, why does the rest of the world have to "accept" it? Do we accept the person who enjoys sex with children? Even if there is "mutual love"? Or the person who likes to do it with corpses? There are many kinky desires that come into the heart. Sorry folks, but this "ultra conservative" thinks it belongs in the closet. Keep it to yourself and don't flaunt it at me. It's hard to watch society deteriorate in so many many ways. I long for "the good old days" but know they are lost forever.
When did you "decide" to be heterosexual?:hammer:Originally Posted by Shutterbug
Ever wonder why it's called "Greek"? Because it was prevalent in ancient Greece.Originally Posted by Shutterbug
You don't have to "accept" it. You should "tolerate" it and give our homosexual citzen the same rights and privelages that our heterosexual citizens get.Originally Posted by Shutterbug
There is a line drawn for everything. We allow nicotine and alcohol, but not marijuana, cocaine or herion. I think we can successfully draw the line for this issue, too.Originally Posted by Shutterbug
I don't hear anybody complaining, so to speak.;)Originally Posted by Shutterbug
You devil, you!Originally Posted by Shutterbug
Then you shouldn't flaunt your heterosexuality at homosexuals.:pOriginally Posted by Shutterbug
"The good old days" when we lived and let live? :idea:Originally Posted by Shutterbug
...Just ask me...
Also very common in Rome, Egypt and several other popular spotsOriginally Posted by Spexvet
It is not choice (who would choose this???? Read this thread and see what sort of attitudes prevail re homosexuals. You think people want this????). The "huge increase" is due to people being more open. Of course it was concealed in the past. Read about Oscar Wilde--his openness was a huge scandal and cost him his career and health, not to mention time in jail. All to say there was a great incentive to stay in the closet.Originally Posted by Shutterbug
Well, my previous post certainly got response :0)
The original question asked for opinion, and I gave mine honestly. Morality is ours to decide only if there is no higher law. I just happen to think that there is, and nature in itself seems to show what the parts are for, and how they should be used by their owners. Anything apart from that is a deviation away from natural law. I guess I do choose to obey that law. And you have the choice too.
:idea:
chm 2023 said:It is not choice (who would choose this???? Read this thread and see what sort of attitudes prevail re homosexuals. You think people want this????). The "huge increase" is due to people being more open. Of course it was concealed in the past. Read about Oscar Wilde--his openness was a huge scandal and cost him his career and health, not to mention time in jail. All to say there was a great incentive to stay in the closet.
I don't care about Oscar Wilde, maybe as you said he should have stayed in the closet.
Shutterbug said:Well, my previous post certainly got response :0)
The original question asked for opinion, and I gave mine honestly. Morality is ours to decide only if there is no higher law. I just happen to think that there is, and nature in itself seems to show what the parts are for, and how they should be used by their owners. Anything apart from that is a deviation away from natural law. I guess I do choose to obey that law. And you have the choice too.
Parts are there for a purpose. There is an entrance and an exit for very good reasons. And I agree, deviation away from the God given law is not right because there is no higher law than GODS!
Last edited by jediron1; 12-16-2004 at 07:27 PM.
But you are not God. Let God pass his/her judgment and take care of it himself. Additionally, the last time I checked the United States of America had a seperation of church and State.Originally Posted by jediron1
Sometimes when I come to this place I feel like I am watching an episode of All in the Family.
U.S. does not have separation of church and state. The constitution says the government cannot establish a state religion. Does not prohibit church and church people from interfering with the government. There have been some courts who have attempted to write laws (not within thier legal limits) that furthered the concept, but they were outside thier bounds attempting to do so.
Chip
Remember the Supreme Court is not located in Washington.
This is an interesting point, mostly because there are a number of common examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. The most striking is in bonobos, a sub species of chimp with the DNA that most closely matches that of humans. There are many others including species of lizard, fish, rodents as well as man's best friend the canine.Originally Posted by Shutterbug
My understanding of current generally accepted Christian theology is that only humans have free will (in the theological sense). Therefor, at least among bonobos and a variety of other species, homosexuallity is in line with 'natural law'. I wonder how this is reconciled.
I agree. :)Originally Posted by For-Life
For-Life said:Sometimes when I come to this place I feel like I am watching an episode of All in the Family.
The only reason you feel like your watching an episode of "All in The Family" is because your writing is more like the character of Archie Bunker, and that is more than you want to admit.
Coda said:This is an interesting point, mostly because there are a number of common examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. The most striking is in bonobos, a sub species of chimp with the DNA that most closely matches that of humans. There are many others including species of lizard, fish, rodents as well as man's best friend the canine.
This is the same inane argument that people have been trying to make since Darwin. Come on I thought you guys had more brains then to think a monkey fell out of a tree, broke his tail off from the fall, stood upright and started walking on his evolutionary tail. Oh I forgot, then once there tail was broken off they figured out how to talk and write. Come on even the village idiot would not believe that tale. Even with the best computer knowledge today taking a monkey and teaching him at most 300 words which he translates back by computer usage and flash cards, that is only accomplished with the best training in monkeyology and not the evolutionary hog wash that most people want to believe !:hammer:
Yep, because you know me and everything.Originally Posted by jediron1
Haven't we been over this earlier in the thread? Again, the Constitution does NOT say: “Government cannot establish a state religion”. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Everyone has their own opinion on what that means but for all intents and purposes the only opinion that really counts in the United States is the one defined in Article III of the Constitution... that of the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court has said is this: “[T]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”Originally Posted by chip anderson
People typically say the Supreme Court is “overstepping their bounds” or “attempting to write law” in situations in which they disagree with the Court's decisions. Well, tough. Those people should take it up with the framers of the Constitution if they don’t like it because the framers are the ones that gave the power to interpret and make rulings on laws (i.e. “judicial power”) to the Supreme Court (see Article III of the Constitution).Originally Posted by chip anderson
The Supreme Court Building is not located in the State of Washington, but it is certainly located in Washington DC... about one or two blocks east of the Capitol Building last I checked. More important than the physical location of the Court, the powers granted by the Constitution to the Judicial Branch are as vital to our system of government as are those granted to the Executive and Legislative Branches.Originally Posted by chip anderson
1968 said:People typically say the Supreme Court is “overstepping their bounds” or “attempting to write law” in situations in which they disagree with the Court's decisions. Well, tough. Those people should take it up with the framers of the Constitution if they don’t like it because the framers are the ones that gave the power to interpret and make rulings on laws (i.e. “judicial power”) to the Supreme Court (see Article III of the Constitution).
"Well Tough" The problem with YOUR little scenario is that you think everybody agrees with you. Come on get a grip. The problem the Supreme Court and other branches have is they are trying to interpert what the framers said through there minds instead of gathering documents from people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin ect.ect. and comparing those papers and see exactly what the framers intent were, not someone's interpertation of what the framers thought or were thinking.
1968:
You missed the point, the Supreme Court of the United States is not Supreme. There are two higher courts with one of them being supreme.
The court of public opinion is higher if it makes its wishes heard loud enough.
The next court is the judgement of the Almighty and it is Supreme and it is not in Washington, D.C.
Yes, there is evidence of this bahavior in animals (although in fewer numbers than humans);) But as you said, we have free will and intellect. While animals are driven by in inherent instinct which drives their need to reproduce, we humans have the ability to contemplate, decide and control our behaviors. Surely we don't want to use the "animals do it, so it must be OK" argument.This is an interesting point, mostly because there are a number of common examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. The most striking is in bonobos, a sub species of chimp with the DNA that most closely matches that of humans. There are many others including species of lizard, fish, rodents as well as man's best friend the canine.
My understanding of current generally accepted Christian theology is that only humans have free will (in the theological sense). Therefor, at least among bonobos and a variety of other species, homosexuallity is in line with 'natural law'. I wonder how this is reconciled.
The traditional family arrangement is under attack, and we are doing little to preserve it. Yes, this is a moral issue. Animals are amoral. Humans can be immoral or can choose to be moral. Some of you younger ones have not witnessed the moral decline, and what you see around you seems normal to you because you have no comparisons. But what I've seen tells me the human family is morally bankrupt and digressing to lower and lower standards of conduct all the time. It's dangerous and depressing at the same time.
What we are seeing in this thread underscores how easily we condone what is dangerous to us in the name of tolerance.
Originally Posted by chip andersonSorry, Chip. I did indeed miss the point you were making. I plead guilty to missing the equivocation and relying on the correct usage of proper nouns (i.e. Supreme Court vs. supreme court). *wink*Originally Posted by chip anderson
Regarding "the court of public opinion": As part of the "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", I would agree that the Judicial Branch is ultimately a tool of the people.
Regarding "the court of the Almighty": Fortunately we don't live in a theocracy, nor were the framers of the Constitution referring to the Almighty when they wrote: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."
You bet I’ll “condone what is dangerous to us in the name of tolerance.” Consider the alternative... although, I rather doubt you can. Your comments reveal a willingness to promote the legal suppression of the activities of persons, of whose choices you do not approve. I understand that you would say your disapproval is mandated by the disapproval of Almighty God, for whom you presume to speak.Originally Posted by Shutterbug
Unfortunately, you’re wrong. God speaks only to me, and the people who agree with me. He has told us that we must smite you - you, and your fellow evil-doers.
Sorry, it’s nothing personal.
So you only have sex in order to procreate? Never just for enjoyment or to show love to your partner?;)Originally Posted by Shutterbug
BTW, has a dog ever mistaken your leg for a sex partner? Is that consistent with natural law, or against it????
...Just ask me...
Hmm, you seem to have missed my point and gotten caught up in your own misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Of course for someone who believes the planet is only about 10,000 years old, evolution would have to happen on the time scale you posit (a little word of the day just for you). You're right that only the 'village idiot' would believe your 'tale' but of course the majority (as you admit in your own post) of Americans do, in fact, believe in evolutionary theory. I wonder if that makes you the only smart one? No, based on your ability to make a cogent argument supporting your opinion probably not.Originally Posted by jediron1
Is it less any inane, or more reasonable or logical, to say that an omnipotent being created everything we know in the blink of and eye, out of nothing? How do you explain that there are fossils of living things older than humans, when God created Adam first, then later in the week created his animal companions?Originally Posted by jediron1
It's really a matter of belief and faith - and don't impose your beliefs and faith on others - you wouldn't want others' beleifs imposed on you, I'll bet.
...Just ask me...
I'm still laughing!:D :bbg: :)Originally Posted by shanbaum
...Just ask me...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks