Post Election Collective Thread - DPChallenge Forums

11/08/2004 05:00:42 PM · #251

Originally posted by paganini:

Which statements i have made is not true? If gays are genetic, they're not the norm. They dont' follow any laws of nature and thus, they're basically 'mistakes' in the genetic process. if thye're not genetic, then it's a choice, a lifestyle choice. You can also compare genetic traits of gays to say parkinson disease (genetic disease). so at best it's a disease, an anomaly. That alone should not change the definition of marriage for the last 5000 years.

originally posted by GeneralE
this is not true at all ... the vast majority of male bees serve no purpose on either procreation or ongoing survival of the hive, and are discarded. Many male (and all but one female) ant or bee in each colony serve no role in procreation or perpetuation of the species.

Male wolfpack members which are not the alpha male may hunt and babysit the pups, but are not fathers.

Actually, most scientific evidence seems to show that homosexual behavior often appears when Malthusian population pressures threaten the species with survival; in this case homosexuals help ensure the survival of the species by limiting population increase so that it does not outstrip the available resources. This behaviour has been observed in many species, most of which are presumably incapable of rational thought and free-will decisions such as that

here's a little bit of trivia - do these creatures follow any laws of nature? or are they just genetic freaks?

BTW- if it is a choice, does it really mean they need psycological help? they have some sort of mental disorder? so, do I need psychological help, because I am a gay rights activist?

Message edited by author 2004-11-08 17:07:13.

11/08/2004 05:03:32 PM · #252

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by paganini:
It's a LIBERAL publication. Enough said, it's more of an opinion piece than actual news.

"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

"There are three types of people. Damn liberals. Damn conservatives. and damn, what am I saying? There are billions of types of people and they can't be categorized by a list of attributes." -Me

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2004 05:06:01 PM · #253

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

The same things that bother you, bother me (most likely). We're not worlds apart.

Most likely : )

I just looked at the heading, and this is the thread for whining about the election. I believe the winners of this election have misappropriated Christian rhetoric to use it in support of un-Christian practices.

I find the hypocrisy and fraud nauseatingly dishonest. Although if required to bear a label I'd choose agnostic, it doesn't mean that I can't choose to try and uphold and live by what are commonly called "Christian values."

I was walking to the bus one day, and a guy asked if I "believed in Jesus Christ."

I replied that, if you thought the way He said to do things made sense, it was then entirely irrelevant whether Jesus was the Son of God or just a carpenter who'd smoked too much sawdust.

I refuse to allow the robber-barons to base their claim to the mantle of blessedness merely on their endorsement of Leviticus 18:22.

Message edited by author 2004-11-08 17:11:00.

Gay wedding photography by Eric Limon!!! click here :P

11/08/2004 05:09:35 PM · #254

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2004 05:10:38 PM · #255

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by paganini:
It's a LIBERAL publication. Enough said, it's more of an opinion piece than actual news.

"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

"There are three types of people. Damn liberals. Damn conservatives. and damn, what am I saying? There are billions of types of people and they can't be categorized by a list of attributes." -Me

Hey, that's damned good. Maybe you should slap a copyright or trademark notice on it and print up some bumper stickers or T-shirts : )

11/08/2004 05:16:07 PM · #256

Thanks for the honest (and gracious) post...

I just looked at the heading, and this [i]is[/u] the thread for whining about the election. I believe the winners of this election have misappropriated Christian rhetoric to use it in support of un-Christian practices.

Perhaps a fair assessment...many Christians I know agree.

Although if required to bear a label I'd choose agnostic, it doesn't mean that I can't choose to try and uphold and live by what are commonly called "Christian values."

Makes sense...by the way, I hate jokes about agnostics almost as much as I hate sneers at Christians. It's almost as if others want to group "you guys" all together, since it makes for an easier to hit target. Stupid people...

I replied that, if you thought the way He said to do things made sense, it was then entirely irrelevant whether Jesus was the Son of God or just a carpenter who'd smoked too much sawdust.

I really disagree with this...only because Jesus didn't just teach morals, but he made some pretty dramatic claims and promises. If those claims and promises are untrue, he must have been nuts or an incredibly mean-spirited, heartbreaking, manipulative liar who had no good purposes. Again, I only say this because his promises and claims outweighed his teachings in how much time he devoted to trying to get people to understand and believe them.

I refuse to allow the robber-barons to base their claim to the mantle of blessedness merely on their endorsement of Leviticus 18:22.

Sure, it's a touchy subject. While Jimmy Swaggart is calling homosexuals 'stupid men', he's blatantly lacking in the love required to preach against any sin. And here I am, badmouthing him, showing my passionate imperfections...

Again, thanks for your post.

:0)

11/08/2004 05:16:35 PM · #257

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Gay wedding photography by Eric Limon!!! click here :P

hehe...that's funny...

11/08/2004 05:28:10 PM · #258

Okay, I'm taking a one week sabbatical from TV and the internet (other than to check e-mail, so feel free to PM me...I love a healthy discussion!) starting in five minutes...so talk to you pagans later!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2004 05:29:25 PM · #259

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Thanks for the honest (and gracious) post...

I really disagree with this...only because Jesus didn't just teach morals, but he made some pretty dramatic claims and promises. If those claims and promises are untrue, he must have been nuts or an incredibly mean-spirited, heartbreaking, manipulative liar who had no good purposes. Again, I only say this because his promises and claims outweighed his teachings in how much time he devoted to trying to get people to understand and believe them.

Good points ... I myself never paid that much attention to the "promises" part of the equation -- I was more concerned with the shalt/shalt not parts which made sense in a post-agrarian society.

Having heard songs like "There'll be Pie in the Sky When You Die (That's a Lie!)" in my childhood, I concluded that moral/ethical behavior was worthwhile practicing on its own merits and regardless of the threats of divine retribution for straying the course ... in fact one of the only bright spots I see in the current situation is the slight possibility that I could be dead wrong about all this, in which case I expect to see quite a few "Born-Agains" baptized in brimstone ...

11/08/2004 06:37:05 PM · #260

Humans are not a collective species :) To compare humans with bees is ludicruous. Let's try and stay with the MAMMALS, ok?

Besides, whether gays are "useful" for reducing human population is moot point. The whole point for the gay marriage debate is whether marriage should be extended to include homosexuals. Marriage has been and always will be between a man and a woman. To change this is to destroy entire cultural and societal structure. What's next, marriage between a human and a dog? (interspecies marriage?)

If you want to allow gay marriages in Massachussetts or California, go right ahead but don't make it universal for every state. That's why the conservatives came out in droves to vote for Bush, because Kerry will nominate some extreme-left judge who will use the judiciary to make it universal. Bush is quite right to push for a constitutional amendment, because currently the definition of marriage is done at the state level (10th amendment)

Originally posted by ericlimon:

11/08/2004 06:45:16 PM · #261

BTW, it's definitely true that conservatives are much more energized on gay marriage issues than on abortion, because gay marraiges affects the society as a whole, everywhere. Abortion, to some extent, do not have same effect.

This is why I believe that if all the states came out with a gay marriage ban at the state level, it will pass EVERY state, including Massachusetts and California.

Eric -- you know as well as I do that gay rights activist will never admit that gays are "chooosing" their lifestyle, because if they do, then the argument that gays should enjoy the same rights as other people is lessen a lot. They know they can't do it through the legislature, so they hav eto do it with someone willing to violate the lawin the judiciary or in the executive branch.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2004 06:49:52 PM · #262

The right to marriage under discussion has nothing to do with any religion or its values.

It has to do with rights and priviledges which the government has chosen to selectively confer on certain citizens who enter into a mutually consenual legal contract, while denying theose same rights and priviledges to other citizens likewise willing to contract with each other, but are prohibited from doing so, merely on the basis of their biological/anatomical gender.

No one says any church has to bless any gay union. Some of us do say if you are going to confer advantages on two people who agree to meet certain contractual criteria, to do so discriminatorily on the basis of their gender is wrong.

The US government, while respecting the right of all citizens to freely practice their religion, may not confer special consideration to the views or values of any one religion to the detriment of any other, or to those who subscribe to none of them.

This has to do with Civil Rights -- not religion. We have a secular government here in the US -- regardless of political persuasion it's one thing the Framers stated rather clearly; if you want to try a theocracy, try living Iran or Saudi Arabia for a while and let me know how it goes ...

Message edited by author 2004-11-08 18:50:50.

11/08/2004 07:14:31 PM · #263

Originally posted by GeneralE:

This has to do with Civil Rights -- not religion. We have a secular government here in the US -- regardless of political persuasion it's one thing the Framers stated rather clearly; if you want to try a theocracy, try living Iran or Saudi Arabia for a while and let me know how it goes ...

and about marriage promoting "Moral Family Values" -With a 49% divorce rate, I would say that argument it isn't working.

11/08/2004 07:24:49 PM · #264

paganini,
both of your arguments are wrong
here they are AGAIN
paganini "At best, they're people with genetic diseases, at worst, they're people in need of psychological help"

"gay rights activist will never admit that gays are "chooosing" their lifestyle,"

If gay people, as you put it are "people in need of psychological help" do you think a mentaly disturbed person is choosing to be that way?

NO

so EVEN IF you could ever prove that "gay people" are choosing that lifestyle, your telling me that they have some sort of psychological deficiency, and need mental help.

It's about CIVIL LIBERTIES ever heard of those?

Message edited by author 2004-11-08 19:27:38.

MadMordegon

11/08/2004 07:29:56 PM · #265

Reminder:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights.
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.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

11/08/2004 08:03:49 PM · #266

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

To get back to the original subject..

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

View graphs and data here to go along with the article here and here.

They must have long checkout lines at your supermarket!

11/08/2004 11:07:38 PM · #267

Originally posted by paganini:

.... gay rights activist will never admit that gays are "chooosing" their lifestyle, because if they do, then the argument that gays should enjoy the same rights as other people is lessen a lot.

This statement explains why YOU CHOOSE to believe homosexuality is a choice, because it allows you to act on your bigotry with less guilt. Do you have a choice with respect to your heterosexuality?

Why would anyone choose to be reviled and discriminated against?

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/09/2004 12:18:42 AM · #268

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by paganini:
.... gay rights activist will never admit that gays are "chooosing" their lifestyle, because if they do, then the argument that gays should enjoy the same rights as other people is lessen a lot.

This statement explains why YOU CHOOSE to believe homosexuality is a choice, because it allows you to act on your bigotry with less guilt. Do you have a choice with respect to your heterosexuality?

Why would anyone choose to be reviled and discriminated against?

Though I'm not defending paganini ( he can do that for himself), I just wanted to point out the problems inherent in your rebuttal.
1) Do I have a choice with respect to my heterosexuality? Absolutely. I may not have a choice in my heterosexual feelings and desires, but I most certainly exercise choice in the actions I undertake in response to those them - namely I choose to not approach that beautiful woman in the supermarket aisle with a view to seducing her, even though I may imagine such in my mind - why? Because, to me, it would be immoral. The thoughts are difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate; but the actions are a choice I get to make each time such thoughts appear.

2) Unfortunately, we're back to Pedophiles - why, indeed, would anyone choose to be a pedophile - reviled and discriminated against much more than are gays. If you can tell me why a pedophile would do what he does ( choice, genetics, or a bit of both ), then you have your answer. If you cannot tell me why, then you still have an answer. Either way, it may not be the answer you seek.

11/09/2004 01:28:10 AM · #269

So your answer, RonB, is that you probably do not have a choice in the matter of your heterosexual orientation, or as you put it your "feelings and desires." I'm not talking about behavior now. You seem to be confusing feelings/desires/orientation with behavior. Of course, we know that someone can be homosexual in their orientation but behave as if they were heterosexual. I can choose to abstain from sex altogether (just as you can choose not to approach the beautiful woman), but that doesn't have any bearing on the question of my orientation, homosexual or heterosexual.

So I agree with you that we do have a choice as to how we behave and do not have a choice in the matter of our sexual orientation.

Message edited by author 2004-11-09 01:35:28.

11/09/2004 01:30:34 AM · #270

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

To get back to the original subject..

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

View graphs and data here to go along with the article here and here.

Thanks for posting those links, MadMordegon. The charts were especially informative.

11/09/2004 02:50:39 AM · #271

Excerpts from an interesting article by Ruy Teixeira, a Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress:

George W. Bush's victory shows that the political strategy that conservative Republicans developed in the late 1970s is still viable. Bush won a large swath of states and voters that were once dependably Democratic by identifying Republicans as the party of social conservatism and national security. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry rallied a powerful coalition of minorities and college-educated professionals based in postindustrial metropolitan areas like Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles. In the future, this coalition may triumph on its own. But, in this election, Democratic successes in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West could not make up for Republican successes in the South, the border states, the Southwest, and the Great Plains. Fittingly, the election was decided in Ohio--a state that combines the metropolitan North and the small-town South.

...Bush recreated the Reagan-era coalition by combining Brooks Brothers and Wal-Mart, the upper class and the lower middle class. He won wealthy voters--those who make over $200,000--by 63 to 35 percent. But he also won voters who had not completed college by 53 to 47 percent. If minorities, who voted predominately for Kerry, are excluded, Bush's margin among working voters was even higher. He reached these voters, who made up the bulk of his support, through opposition to gay marriage and abortion and through patriotic appeal as the commander-in-chief in a war against terrorism that seamlessly unites Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. According to the Los Angeles Times, Bush's voters accorded the most importance to "moral/ethical values" and "terrorism/homeland security" in deciding their vote.

Kerry's Democratic coalition, by contrast, was composed of low-income minorities and upscale, college-educated professionals--two groups that, not coincidentally, were the least likely to accept the president's contention that the Iraq war was part of the war on terrorism. In national exit polls, Kerry got about 70 percent of the nonwhite vote. He tied Bush among voters with college degrees and bested him by 55 to 44 percent among voters who had engaged in postgraduate study. Kerry's voters, as one might expect, cared most about jobs and the war in Iraq. Luckily for Bush, however, voters without degrees still outnumber those with them. In Colorado, Kerry won voters with college degrees by 50 to 48 percent and those with postgraduate study by 55 to 43 percent. But Bush, by winning voters without degrees by 58 to 41 percent, was able to carry the state fairly easily.

....Kerry won not just big cities, but most of the large metropolitan areas dominated by professionals and immigrants. Kerry did very well in the West, Northeast, and parts of the Midwest because of the growth of high-tech metro areas. Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, and New Hampshire are now solidly in the Democratic fold. Illinois, New York, and California have become as thoroughly Democratic as Massachusetts. But, outside these states, Kerry's support among urban voters failed to carry the day. In North Carolina, Kerry actually did better than Al Gore in the state's key metro areas--Gore lost Charlotte's Mecklenburg County in 2000, but Kerry won it 52 to 48 percent. Nevertheless, Bush again won the state by about 13 percent, because he slaughtered Kerry outside Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham, winning 64 percent in the Greensboro area, 60 percent in the rural, small-town east, and 59 percent in the mountain west.

...Bush was also fortunate in his opponent. John Kerry was an able debater, and his experience in Vietnam and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee partially neutralized arguments that would have been made against other Democrats like former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. But Kerry, an aloof New Englander, operated at a distinct disadvantage among white, working-class voters. Unlike Bill Clinton, he had trouble convincing voters that he "felt their pain." In interviews conducted on the eve of the election, we asked white, working-class Bush supporters in Martinsburg, West Virginia, what they thought of Clinton. Even those who praised Bush for his "family values" said they had voted for Clinton and thought he was an "excellent president." But it wasn't Clinton's politics they preferred; it was Clinton himself, despite the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Gore had exactly the same problem with these voters in 2000. The Democrats need to find a candidate that can talk to both PhDs and tractor-trailer drivers.

If they do this, the Democrats will be able to win presidential elections. Kerry, after all, came very close to winning this time despite his inadequacy as a candidate. Democrats showed that they can hold their own in states like Colorado (where Democrat Ken Salazar was elected to the Senate), Arizona, Nevada, and Virginia. In many of these states, demography is on the Democrats' side. Colorado is going to become more like California and less like Utah or Montana, and Virginia is going to become more like New Jersey and less like South Carolina. The future of Ohio is Franklin County, not Butler County. Democrats also showed that they can compete in raising money without relying on corporate contributions and that the Internet is an important vehicle for organizing.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/09/2004 10:14:46 AM · #272

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I'm not confusing them at all. I have consistently separated feelings from actions in my discussion, even to the extent of defining which of the two I was referring to in my postings. That being said, the majority of heterosexuals do not say "I am a fornicator" or "I am an adulterer" because that's how they feel or those are their desires. Rather they define themselves as heterosexuals, because that is how they act. Neither do I see homosexuals defining themselves based on their feelings or desires. For example, New Jersey Governor James McGreevey did not define himself as a homosexual because of his feelings or desires until very recently, though one would assume that those feelings and desires were predominant for much of his adult life. It was only when threatened with exposure that he admitted that he was gay, and it would be difficult to expose someone for having feelings and desires if no action ensued.

Hence, the attribute of homosexuality is almost always defined by society as the way one acts, not the way one feels - though the dictionary defines homosexuality as being either or both.

11/09/2004 02:49:09 PM · #273

Judith,

PROVE to me that gays are genetic with FACTS. Is there a gay "gene?" have they isolate it yet?

No, because you can't, so instead you'll call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, etc. because that's only thing the left can do.

Tony

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

11/09/2004 02:51:58 PM · #274

Hey, i think people are free to f--k what they want. What we object to is to re-define MARRIAGE for their own choices. MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that they're delusional and need psychological help. That's my opinion. I do however, agree that they can choose to live that unhealthy lifestyle all they want, so long as they don't affect MY RIGHTS. By letting gays marry and have the same priviledge as heterosexuals is an abomination in both religious definitions and legal definitions. If Texas doesn't allow gay marriages, why should it accept gay marriage from another state? By law, 10th amendment guarantees each state the way they should govern. So if California wants gay marriages, go for it, just don't expect it to translate equally into Texas. After all, it's United "STATES", not United America.

Originally posted by ericlimon: