Brilliant.

My apologies for not quite understanding how this Republic works. I should've known that it is the people who make laws first and foremost, and congress secondly. How dumb of me. I should've also known that the Supreme Court only enforces the laws that the people pass. Again, how dumb of me.

Are we going to start making sense anytime soon?



This assumes that everyone who claims to be Christian on some poll really is. I'll grant that the numbers are true for the sake of making a point here(pay attention here PP, this is how ya do it). We can arrive at some clear conclusions. If the Christians support and vote for same sex marraige, as you claim - then tell me please...

Why is it that it has still not passed?



The reality supports the fact that at least some vote against it. See above.



Ok. Let's do the math right here. I'll grant the numbers you've provided concerning the percentage of population which are Christian and for argument's sake we'll assume that everyone votes.

Case 1. If all 'other' voted for and all Christians voted against, the vote would be...

80% against 20% for. That is not the case at hand.

Case 2. If all 'other' voted against and all Christians voted for, the vote would be...

80% for 20% against. That is also not the case at hand.


So, it is clearly not a matter of all or nothing. The vote actually is nearly 50/50. So, what can we conclude from this? Not having a one to one comparison avaliable, we can only put forth hypotheticals based upon what is known. The vote was nearly 50/50 so we could postulate the following scenarios...

a. That all who voted for were Christians. That would make 3/5 that voted against also Christian and the remaining 2/5 not.

If this is the case, then 60% of those who voted against were Christian while 40% of the votes against were not.

b. That 2/5 of those who voted for were not Christian. That would leave the other 3/5 that voted for as being Christian. That would make all of those who voted against as Christian.

If this is the case, then 100% of those who voted against were Christian.

It's probably somewhere between those two extremes. But the best case scenario, if by "best case" I mean the highest percentage of support for the gay/lesbian community, is that 60% of the vote against were Christian voters.

So much for your logical argument.

The endless spewing of uncited resources at the end of that post does not deserve any attention. I would be more than willing to engage in reviewing some other peer-reviewed documents - should they be posted in support of your position. As it stands, I have nor reason to believe that that lengthy list has any veracity whatsoever.

Yeah, it's called Christianity.



China is not an atheistic country. However, that's beside the point.

All that's being shown here is that human bigotry is fairly common in all human cultures. That shouldn't be the least bit surprising.

Moreover, at least the Chinese are honest about being bigots, they don't try to hide behind the skirt of a God.

People always fear what they don't understand. That's a common thread throughout all of human history.

Hopefully someday we'll rise above our petty fears and actually evolved to become something more than just technological monkeys.

I'll address this following the above...

1st. I was wondering the same. If his ethics are questionable, then surely his ethical opinion is as well? If one's ethical judgment has been rightfully called into question, it naturally places his ethical opinion on shaky ground.

2nd. Irrelevent.

3rd. What was quoted was sufficient.

4th. Good thing I'm not looking nor do I need your approval in order to make the case that you've provided the opinion of an unreliable witness.

Justify this claim.

isnt everything these days? except no definitive proof that peoples behaviors and tastes are CAUSED by their genes yet, just correlations which are just as often made between their ENVIRONMENT and their behaviors/tastes

why does homosexual support always become the litmus test for religion or faith or goodness?


shrugs

Not always ms. There is just little to no rational basis for disciminating against gays.

As far as the first post. It is both nature and nuture that help to determine who we become.

I think the reason it becomes a religious issue is because the Abrahamic religions claim that God considers this to be a 'sin'.

Well, the problem is that rational people look at the issue and realize that it makes no sense that such a action would be considered to be a 'sin' by a creator.

There's nothing inherently 'evil' about it. There's no intent to harm another. On the contrary, if we accept that perfectly decent people can potentially be attracted to their own gender in an expression of true love, then it makes absolutely no sense that a God who supposedly supports love would condemn same-gender love.

So that's where it crosses swords with these religions.

A person must believe that all homosexual people are somehow attracted to homosexually with "evil intent". And many people simply aren't prepared to buy into that idea. There are simply too many examples of gay people who clearly don't have an evil intent in their entire being.

So this flies in the face of the idea that homosexuals are choosing to be "evil" or participate in "evil" activities in knowing awareness that they are defying their creator.

It's just makes no sense. Thus it brings into question the rationality of any religions that claim that God objects to this sort of relationship.

I also think that a lot of people have extreme difficulties in believing that God frowns on having sex for pleasure in the first place. Especially if it is being done with full responsiblity toward any offspring that may be produced via the act.

In fact, homosexuality cannot even produce offspring, thus there is no danger of creating life by accident via homosexual activity. Therefore, God shouldn't even car about homosexual activity at all.

The only real danger of having sex outside of marriage or via adultery is the possibility that a child may be produced who then won't have a stable parental family to raise the child properly.

That's really the only practical reason for it.

In fact, if humans had a surefire method of birth control then sex wouldn't even be an issue at all because they would only create a baby if that was their intent.

In fact, that very issue brings in to question that if we were actually DESIGNED by a creator, why were we not designed with this ability? Make the act of procreation something that is sure and can only be done with absolute purpose and intent.

Just having sex doesn't guarantee that pregnancy will result.

In fact, if we define "Sex" as only those activities that can produce offspring, then it's even meaningless to speak of "Homosexual" behavior, because the very term is nonsensical.

Why should anyone care if two people want to get physically intimate with each other if they can't even produce a child?

Who cares? Surely a god wouldn't care.

That's the whole objection to religions that claim that god would see this as a "sin".

It makes no sense at all if you stop and think about it.

So it brings into question the merit of any religions that claim that God would care. Why should God care about such petty stuff?

That was a pretty weak rebuttal.You like to speak of assumptions,hypothetical s,and probabilities.This is not what we are talking about here.What we are talking about here is facts and reality.This is the reality....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Main religious preferences of Americans

Christianity: (76%[4] to 82.3%[12])
Unaffiliated, including atheist or agnostic (11.6%[12] to 15% [4])
Judaism (1.2%[4] to 2.2%[12])
Islam (0.6%[12][4][6][5] to 1.6%[citation needed])
Buddhism (0.5%[4] to 0.9%[13])
Hinduism (0.4%)
Other (1.4%)


I totally understand that none of the Christians are going to vote the same way every time.But I also understand that they all believe in the same teachings in various degrees.You and others keep claiming it is always the Christians who are the bad people,who are degrading people,and who are treating people bad.

But yet as history as shown,Christians could determine the outcome of ever voting issue right or wrong.It was Christian voters who passed laws in regards to hate crimes,civil marriages with homosexuals,benefits to homosexuals and other issues.No other group(Atheist,Islam,Buddhism,etc)had the power to change the outcome regardless of what they voted on.


So to say "it is the Christians that are the problem" is total and complete BS.Right or wrong on their decisions on these issues you simply can not deny that.If we have more votes on gay marriage(which we will)and if gay marriage passes then you will simply have to accept the fact that it was Christian voters who made that happen.You can act stupid,lie about numbers,facts,and statistics but that doesn't make it fact.I do not support homosexual marriage in any way and will always vote against it,and I think it is wrong for any Christians to be supporting it and often wonder why they are voting for it.


That time old,weak,boring,idiotic,statement that the polls are wrong because Christians really don't know if they are Christians and are just saying it because they don't know any better is just dumb.If people are claiming to be Christians there is a reason for it.Furthermore you can look at the polls every year for the last 100 years and see a pattern.Even if the polls are wrong you would still need at least 35% of the population to suddenly become Atheist just to break even with the Christians.


I didn't think you would respond to my list of Republican civil rights issues or did I think you would bother re-posting them again.I know the truth hurts like salt in a open wound and of course I know you would deny them.That still doesn't change the facts or the history of this country.Both of which you seem to have a problem accepting.I know it is facts you can deny it of course but since you want a few websites here you go.I am not going to do all of them because you are just going to deny it anyways.




http://ourwhitehouse.org/prespgs/ddeisenhower.html


Civil rights became a critical concern during Eisenhower’s administration. In 1954 the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, but the decision was not universally accepted. The people of the South resisted, and racial tensions mounted. In 1957 the governor of Arkansas ordered National Guard troops to prevent a group of African-American students from enrolling at an all-white high school in Little Rock. Eisenhower was forced to send federal troops to escort the new students to school. Eisenhower also proposed and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was intended to guarantee the voting rights of all African Americans. This was the first civil rights legislation to pass since Reconstruction. It was followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which was an attempt to further strengthen voting rights by mandating federal inspection of local voter registration polls.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_De_Priest


During his three consecutive terms (1929–1935) as the only black representative in Congress, De Priest introduced several anti-discrimination bills. His 1933 amendment barring discrimination in the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Constitutional_Convention_Virginia_1901-1902

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%


http://www.ask.com/questions-about/13th-Amendment


January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

Im sure you have figured out I am a HUGE proponent of a balance so I totally agree with your second statement. I also agree that it isnt ALWAYS about that one topic( I was exaggerating for affect,,lol).

There is as much basis for discriminating against HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, something much different(in my opinion) for discriminating against GAYS( something I also dont agree with).

but sin has alot more complexities than direct harm to another,

many would argue lying doesnt actually HARM anyone, but many throughout history(even before the bible) I would suspect consider it to be wrongful behavior

nor does not 'honoring' a parent, or 'worshipping a false idol', DIRECTLy cause harm to anyone

there are those that agree coveting doesnt HARM anyone, but many, Im sure(even before the bible ) have probably felt somewhere in their conscience that it was a wrongful attitude

similarly, many sexual consentual behaviors, however little HARM they seem to do on the surface to anyone indirectly, have still(im supposing) been thought of in the conscience of many as wrongful behaviors

as far as the evil and non evil, I will leave that interpretation up to each individual as its not a term I choose to indulge in

just like most junk foods TASTE better than the healthy foods, most poor and wrongful (emotionally speaking)behaviors FEEL better than the healthier behaviors

if 'evil' or wrong were simply a matter of something feeling bad or hurting someone, why would anyone EVER do wrong or evil things,, there would be little reward in it

temptation works because the lines get grayed, our feelings overrule our conscious, what feels good becomes more important than what 'IS ' good, because what 'IS' good often takes a bit more effort and work and what is'bad' is usually the thing disguised with the most immediate and empty rewards,,,

You are SO right about this! I was talking to god last night and She expressed how totally pissed off She is that people ignore what She has to say and keep chasing after those silly male poseur gods.

But MsHarmony, you seem to be assuming that all these other things are necessarily "sins" as well.

I'm not convinced of that either.

For example, consider the following:



I disagree. I don't personally feel that lying is necessarily harmful. That entirely depends on what's being lied about. In fact, I can think of many times when lying is actually the best thing a person can possibly do. Especially if lying is going to protect someone from being harmed.

So you're assuming that just because your religion (or the Bible) makes the claim that lying is wrong in general, that this is necessarily an absolute truth.

I'm personally not convinced of that at all. Not in the least.

I can think of tons of scenarios where lying can actually be a very positive thing. Some people simply don't deserve to be told the truth because thy would abuse that knowledge anyway, so why offer it to them on a silver platter?



As far as I'm concerned honoring a parent depends entirely on whether or not that parent is honorable. If your parent is a sick demented psycho it would be foolish to honor them. Especially if to "honor" them means to do as they say.

I also personally feel that the whole concept of "worshiping a false idol", is utter nonsense. No one would ever do such a thing.

In other words, if they truly believed that the "idol" they were worshiping was "false" they'd have to be mentally ill to worship it.
On the other hand if they believe that the so-called "idol" represent a genuine deity, then how can they be said to be worshiping a "false idol". It's clearly not "false" to them.

In fact, this is a major objection I have with some of the biblical stories. If the Egyptians were worshiping "Gods" then they were indeed under the belief that they were worshiping their "Creator(s)".

Therefore if God is the "Creator" then they were worshiping God. It would be entirely up to God to be sure that he is fully communicating with the objects of his creation.

Same thing holds true of the Canaanites. They didn't "reject" God. Not at all. On the contrary the biblical story has them sacrificing babies to God. Well, if they were sacrificing babies to God, then they were certainly attempting to worship God. If there was a miss-communication there it was God's problem, not the Canaanites.

You can't have people trying to worship God and having it all wrong. Clearly they are attempting to do what's right and they are just unclear about how to go about it.

So the whole "False Gods", or "False Idols" thing is total nonsense anyway. That's just the built-in religious bigotry that the authors of these stories put in in an effort to make out like other people were "heathens".



Well, that very issue is wide-open to interpretation. What is meant by 'coveting' is a highly controversial topic that even theologians can't agree on.

So that whole concept can mean just about anything depending on precisely what a person means by "covet".



Probably due to social conventions. We know for a fact that many primitive human tribes were naturally engaged in various sexual behaviors that made many a missionary's jaw drop to the floor.

Just how much is cultural expectations, and how much is innate to humanity is again open to a wide variety of opinions.



Yes, but eating junk foods isn't truly considered to be a 'sin' is it? I don't think the people who wrote the Bible ever knew about McDonald's Restaurants. I also don't think that Christians necessarily steer away from them on religious grounds either.



Well, that's a very interesting question indeed because most people would never dream of doing truly despicable things. Yet there are people who do those things with calculated purpose and intentional malice.

Why should we as a society assume that we're "just as bad" as those people, when clearly we're not anywhere near that bad. And fortunately the vast majority of people on planet Earth are actually quite GOOD, contrary to what some religious fanatics would have us believe.



Well, I think even secular atheists recognize these kinds of basic concepts. I mean, do we really need to imagine a judgmental God who will be angry with us if we live a life guided by laziness and lust over one that is guided by common sense and constructive productivity?

We just don't need religion to recognize the wisdom in those kinds of concepts.

Shouldn't we accept some responsibility for being half-way intelligent beings who should be capable of recognizing some of these concepts on our own?

Do we really need a religion to point some of these obvious things out to us?

It seems to me that there are quite a few very productive atheists in the world who are obviously not leading lust-driven lives in total oblivion to the consequences of that.

Got to allow some room for human intelligence and common sense.

Do we really need religion to tell us these basic things?

To suggest that we do implies that we have no common sense at all.

But I can't help but wonder if a lack of common sense should be equated to 'sin'.

If we were created to be that stupid, then why are we being "judged" for being stupid?

All the creator would have needed to so was give us a tad more common sense and he would have saved himself a ton of headaches.

~~~~

In fact when viewed this way, it seems to me to support evolution. A lot of people are simply still acting like monkeys. So we're just moving up an evolutionary ladder and evidently we're still near the bottom rung. Maybe in time will climb up a bit.

She never seems pissed off to me. I guess She already knows that I'm fully sympathetic to Her dilemma. She drops by here to play music. So I guess my place is just a retreat for Her.

She leaves Her problems at work.

there you have it 'COMMON' sense, often depends upon "COMMON' and "CURRENT' culture, which often 'evolves' towards those things that make people HAPPIEST instead of HEALTHIEST


similarly it is with spiritual health as it is with physical or emotional health, it doesnt have to be so clear cut as EVIL or BAD to be unhealthy or destructive to a greater good

many prescriptions cure one ill but manage to create a whole slew of new ones, so that on the surface what appeared to be 'good' actually sets ones physical health back even further

such is the case with many decisions we make which seem to only affect us and noone else, we are not here alone but as a SPECIES, and as a SPECIES with a consciousness to feel responsbility not just individually but as part of the whole,, and these considerations are expected of us for the gift of eternal life (as far as I believe)


to say one sins is a given because , for me , it says one has flaws

to say one KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY indulges sin is a given, just as much as we indulge in unhealthy snacks knowingly and willingly

to say that certain paths will more likely lead to eternal life than others is as certain as saying that living a healthy life is more likely to lead to a longer PHYSICAL life than not

I guess it just boils down to where the CENTER of ones thinking is, as I said before

IF the center is that we are here to serve a higher power/purpose but none of us is perfect
than the idea of sin is not equal to a condemnation of 'evil' so much as it is equal to the choice of an unhealthy and possibly detrimental path

If the center is that we are here to be served by a greater power, and we should all be equally reaching the same destination regardless of our choices,,,,than the idea of sin is probably equal to a condemnation of inequality or a determination of 'worthiness and unworthiness', 'good and evil',,,etc

my center of 'knowledge' lies in the former philosophy, so that with or without religion or a religious title, I would believe certain choices(even those which are seemingly so personal and 'only about me') will have better consequences than others, will be healthier than others, will carry less 'negative' or 'stress' with them than oters,,, and that those choices, just like paths, will certainly lead people to DIFFERENT places

cs, you should really know better than to challenge me with bigotry, bias and dishonesty.
But since you did challenge me, I'll show you the errors of your dishonest and biased "rebuttal".




Rightfully called into question? He was ostracised for "failure to cooperate", which was deemed an "ethical" violation by an institution that finacially suports the authors of Red's "many studies" (which was actually just one study)).
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Cameron_apaletter.html (letter from APA)

http://www.nllfs.org/about/funders/ Funders for NLLFS





Hardly irrelevant, you said:
""Interesting to note that the author of that study which PP posted was banned from The American Psychological Association for an ethical violation.""

The study I posted a link to was written by Walter Schumm, not Dr. Cameron. Get your facts straight.





Not even close to being sufficient, except to perpertrate intellectual dishonesty and bias.

"The gay press, as far back as the 1980s, labeled Cameron "the most dangerous anti-gay voice in America." Though Cameron was the first to publish papers on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the scientific community has abandoned him. The American Psychological Association long since dropped him from its membership for an "ethical" violation."

To take someone with history of research that has been proven to be beneficial and correct and ostracise him for not being politically correct is biased, plain and simple...





You haven't made a case yet, so keep trying...
The opinion I provided was from Walter Schumm.
I mearly suggested that one look up the paper by Cameron.


But since you bring up the subject of "an unreliable witness", let's address Red's source.

First, she makes the claim: "LET'S LOOK AT SOME NEW STUDIES: (ALL PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS)"
Well, those "many" studies were just one.

Then she says: "However, (at 17) both the boys and girls of lesbian parents were less likely to have experienced their first heterosexual act of intercourse than their cohorts raised by hetero parents"
What, no mention of homosexual acts of intercourse?


Also ommited from her post was a few key factors about the research conducted.

1. The control group for the "normative samples were from 1991 and 2001.

2. The lesbian couples involved in the study had voluteered before conception, bringing into question bias issues or more accurately "agenda" issues.

3. The questionaires used for the data were answered by one of the children's PARENTS, also bringing into question the accuracy of the results.


Now let's see what the study she referenced actually says...

1. This study has several limitations. First, it has a nonrandom sample.

2. A second limitation is that the data did not include the Achenbach Youth Self-Report or Teacher's Report Form.39 A more comprehensive assessment would have included reports from all 3 sources.

3. A final limitation is that although the NLLFS and the normative samples are similar in socioeconomic status, they are neither matched nor controlled for race/ethnicity or region of residence.



And I'll finish with actually referencing Dr. Cameron, as he has a more complete rebutal of those so-called "studies".
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2010/07/frr-jul-2010-are-fathers-irrelevant/

False premise - that the study I posted was written by Dr. Cameron.
False dilema - "Let's all ask the KKK what they think about civil rights,"

Already been done - By you...


Justification, COMPLETE!

I wouldn't say teens raised by gay parents are just as happy as straight parents considering the high suicide rate of gay teens.I don't care what website you use for statistics you will find that gays commit suicide more than any other straight teenagers.I think the majority of teen suicides either straight or gay nearly always ends up with family problems being the root cause for their misery.




http://www.livescience.com/culture/gay-teen-suicide-epidemic-101008.html

For example, Ciara Thomas, a writer for the website HealthyPlace.com ("America's Mental Health Channel") states that, "For a number of years, researchers have known that one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. In one sense, this statistic is incredibly shocking...This means that they are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth."

Thomas,

I'm daunted by the sheer intelligence, logical content, and pure amount of brute facts presented in your posts...

You win.


PP,

After all of that, you still offer up - as an ethical witness - somone banned from one of the largest accredited psychological institutions in America for ethical violations. I trust their judgment better than yours. I trust that if the charges were untrue then they would have been fought against.

The author of the study is insignificant to the point. I was mistaken about the author. Mistaken does not equate to being bigoted nor dishonest.

The author was banned for questionable ethics. He is not a reliable witness. His ethical testimony is irrelevent.