TracerBullet
New member
embrace: accept or support (a belief, theory, or change) willingly and enthusiastically.
homosexuality is not a belief a theory or a change.
Do we still have to worry about conquest by Roman legions?
embrace: accept or support (a belief, theory, or change) willingly and enthusiastically.
homosexuality is not a belief a theory or a change.
Do we still have to worry about conquest by Roman legions?
homosexuality is not a belief a theory or a change.
Do we still have to worry about conquest by Roman legions?
There are no accidents. It was a clear Freudian slip :AMR1:
Was that all Freud was? I don't think so....... :think:Because nothing's more reliable than the speculation of a coke fiend.:chuckle:
@kmoney: Well, not breaking up couples, but encouraging divorce, YES.
Here is one, which got me started on the issue:
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, c 2004, Kolasinski:
Since this piece, there have been numerous articles echoing his same arguments: Some secular, some religious:
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
I see what you're saying; you raise good points and ask good questions-:idunno: Not sure how I feel about this. You can think about marriage as more than a baby making venture and still put the baby first if you get pregnant. And couples who have children should do their best to stay together for them regardless of the marital status.
If a couple had no intentions on having children, would you tell them to skip marriage?
Since I already see marriage and procreation as being separate I don't think I'm persuaded that gay marriage is going to cause any harm in this respect.
There may be an increased selfishness or a decrease in desire/concern for having children, but I'm struggling to see the connection between that and how marriage is defined or what purpose it is given. People are going to want children and be committed to their children or not, regardless of how the gov't defines marriage. Let's say the gov't suddenly defined marriage as only for relationships where procreation is possible and desired. Do you think that would increase the number of couples who stay together after having children?
It seems like what you'd really be after is for them to make it more difficult to get a divorce if children are involved. :idunno:
:idunno: Not sure how I feel about this. You can think about marriage as more than a baby making venture and still put the baby first if you get pregnant. And couples who have children should do their best to stay together for them regardless of the marital status.
If a couple had no intentions on having children, would you tell them to skip marriage?
Since I already see marriage and procreation as being separate I don't think I'm persuaded that gay marriage is going to cause any harm in this respect.
There may be an increased selfishness or a decrease in desire/concern for having children, but I'm struggling to see the connection between that and how marriage is defined or what purpose it is given. People are going to want children and be committed to their children or not, regardless of how the gov't defines marriage. Let's say the gov't suddenly defined marriage as only for relationships where procreation is possible and desired. Do you think that would increase the number of couples who stay together after having children?
It seems like what you'd really be after is for them to make it more difficult to get a divorce if children are involved. :idunno:
Well, yes: Pluralism itself is a problem. I would like to see divorce rates lower; even so, gay marriage is a step FURTHER into pluralism, so this does bring me full circle. :idunno: Same sex marriage does nothing to reverse (and does much to further) our latest "revolution":There is really no need to struggle with choosing the wrong solution because God always has had the solution.
The problem is current illogic states that is something is going to occur it must be legalized. That is why the West is failing. Rather, we should promote the Christian model, that sets an ideal to be held to, even if not everyone can attain it.
Also, as if there was any doubt the social indicators of the countries that have embraced anti family values have shown there are in a steep decline and will either most generally implode because of:
1. pluralism causes increasing costs to manage society or corrupt over reaching law enforcement
2. replacement of citizens by immigrants willing to procreate at sufficient levels.
This cycle has been repeated throughout history.
The problem is current illogic states that is something is going to occur it must be legalized.
It is not science it is therefore a belief. For example, you can't post one reputable scientific source that can prove that homosexuality is biological.
I can't post one reputable scientific source that can prove that illness and disease are caused by bacteria and viruses.
What i can do is post an awful lot of evidence regarding germ theory.
As a biology professor all I can say is your understanding of biology is lacking.
one would think a biology professor would know that germ theory is just that - a theory. Again you cannot "prove" bacteria/viruses cause illness you can only show overwhelming evidence in support of that.
In the same way no one can"prove" that sexual orientation is inborn but that is what the overwhelming evidence shows.
one would think a biology professor would know that germ theory is just that - a theory. Again you cannot "prove" bacteria/viruses cause illness you can only show overwhelming evidence in support of that.
In the same way no one can"prove" that sexual orientation is inborn but that is what the overwhelming evidence shows.
which has nothing to do with the topic.History is a form of evidence is it not?
From time immemorial a male and a female are necessary for procreation, at least in the higher echelons of creatures.
A male and a female together keep a species in the game.
that is your opinionAll other unions are non productive and aberrant.
thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject say otherwise.There is no overwhelming evidence of homosexuality being biological
Any evidence that the same standards are not applied or is that just baseless bluster on your partand furthermore if they applied the same standards of scientific rigor and peer review to studies of homosexuality that they do "germ theory" NO ONE would dare make a claim that homosexuality COULD BE biological.
No they are real. the fact that your personal prejudice is not supported by the overwhelming evidence does not invalidate the evidenceAgain, COULD BE, MIGHT BE, POSSIBLY BE are the operative words for every homosexual study done to date and this is why they aren't real science.
More baseless bluster?The problem is public money drives research either through the government or publicly traded companies who will not go against the general public perception. I know this because I did research in a graduate program for a doctor who had to obtain sponsors.
BTW, please explain your science background.
thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject say otherwise.
At the same time you can't post one reputable scientific source that can prove that homosexuality is a choice or the result of how one was raised
Any evidence that the same standards are not applied or is that just baseless bluster on your part
No they are real. the fact that your personal prejudice is not supported by the overwhelming evidence does not invalidate the evidence
More baseless bluster?
You have no references.
You've already clearly stated that you reject any reference that contradicts what you want to believe.