Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
254 Comments
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html
http://www.carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
It wouldn’t be a new day on the blog without the resident science denier-gunnut-fundamentalist “christian” price clan leader posting some total nonsense.
At least today it is just links and not the usual copy/paste.
Off to do the Memorial Day thing!
HLP,
Thanks for those links! It’s good to read some information from those other than the ‘Algore cool-aid drinkers’.
Did you notice the article in the paper this morning about how the bees are returning to Kansas in droves after the big scare they were on the decline due to whatever the hysteria was at that time.
Funny how things cycle in the world, sometimes up, sometimes down, sometimes warm, sometimes cold.
But the crazies, they just remain that way.
Bush Golfing Again! Says our Long National Nightmare is Over!
BRIT HUME: Mr. President, why did you decide to take up golf again?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, Brit, I’ve proven my solidarity with our troops and their families. I haven’t hit the links for longer than the longest tours of duty of any of our brave fighting men and women. And, quite frankly, I think this country has sacrificed enough.
BRIT HUME: A tremendous sacrifice indeed, Mr. President. I’m sure our citizens will breathe a sigh of relief knowing that our progress in the war on terror is such that their commander-in-chief can once more safely bestride golf courses across America.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Exactly, Brit. The long national nightmare is over….
Full interview here:
http://www.mediabloodhound.com/
On this day and everyday, I reflect on those lost their lives to secure the Freedom, we all take for granted. To thank them in action, I try to remember that responsibility walks hand in hand with rights. I hope on this day we reflect upon, what we each have that is secure. Some have huge houses, some nice cars, others alot of money, some the very freedom to have next to nothing. We have the right and obligation to thank these fallen heroes by making sure anyone who profits from their demise be held accountable and justify these gains. The Soldiers should not be in “Harms Way” as bank accounts for an arrogant group of insiders. We should hold all those accountable for profiting from this WAR and have the direct control of the demise of our fellow Americans. Our brothers, sisters and moms, dads, our neighbors, and those we didnt get along with here are bound together, to keep us safe. Remember the creed, “I solumnly sweer to protect my country and its people from all enemies, Foriegn and Domestic”! Domestic is here, foriegn is elsewhere. Domestic enemies would be those who recieve great profits here, while the Soldiers are in “Harms Way”, elsewhere! We hear, “Red Tape of War”, “Auspis of War”, stated and controled by those who profit, at all levels and increase their personal financial portpholio. Why is this important? How rich does the “Domestic Enemy” have to be before the Soldiers can come home? Do to the weakness of these “Domestic Enemies”, they will never admit they are doing this, nor will they decide to stop. I respect the Troops/Soldiers 100%. When you read this, please understand I am not downgrading the Greatest Military on the earth. I am just hoping that people see that the Troops/Soldiers are a “PAWN” in the eyes of our “Domestic Enemies”. This is not fair to them or to us. If we allow this to continue, who protect us when they are gone? We dont seem to want to protect eachother here. We dont seem to want to protect them over there. Why? I dont know. Lets help in proper actions, and thank our Troops/Soldiers!! Demand accountability at all levels and lets each reinstate “Resposibility with Rights”! Lets hold those accountable, “ACCOUNTABLE”!! Demand a R.I.C.O. Act Audit!! It includes “TERRORISM”. See this at http://www.wikipedia.com , type in RICO. God Bless, Herbert L. West III, Candidate for Sheriff, Miami County Kansas, Nov 2008.
Good links Hank. It shows that fundamentals of science are in dispute with the Alarmist’s view of Global Warming.
Just think, the whole GORACLE scare mongering speech that started it all, started off with a lie, the hockey stick chart.
Heck, they still use the ‘confusion tactics’ of ice core temperatures and ‘averaged temperatures’ in their squealing whines today!
‘Homosexuality Cannot Be Changed’
http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000778.cfm
Is homosexuality really fixed and immutable as some argue?
by Joe Dallas
Social justice arguments are effective because they sound so good. They demand an end to homophobia and insensitivity; who wants to say they are against such goals? But just as the question “When did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Jones?” assumes (without proof) that Mr. Jones has been beating his wife, so the pro-gay social justice arguments assume (without proof) that gays are victims, and that the conservative church is largely responsible for their victimhood.
These arguments are most effective in secular discussions (talk shows, interviews, university debates) where listeners are unlikely to judge them by Biblical standards. Instead of discerning which side is theologically correct, non-Christian audiences tend to side with whomever seems “nicest.” Usually, that means the gay spokesman asking for anti-discrimination laws or support clubs for gay teenagers. The person against these things – usually a conservative Christian – does not seem “nice,” no matter how nice he or she may truly be.
That is not to say pro-gay social justice arguments are unwinnable; answered properly and politely, non-Biblical ideas can be challenged in the secular arena. Paul proved that with the citizens at Mars Hill (Acts 17:22). But the challenger needs to be aware that often, because of his position, he will be seen as the “bad guy.” This is all the more reason to speak with an equal measure of clarity and politeness.
Social justice argument #2:
‘Homosexuality cannot be changed.’
“Sexual orientation simply cannot be changed,” a gay psychiatrist says confidently,1 warning “there may be severe emotional and social consequences in the attempt to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality.”2 This argument draws heavily from the social sciences, as it must; the Bible supports no such claim. Indeed, St. Paul makes the opposite remark, clearly stating homosexuals can change, when he asserts:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; emphasis added).
Still, the “I-tried-to-change-but-I-couldn’t” argument is quite popular among homosexuals who have accepted their orientation and insist others do the same.
Response #1:
The ‘unchangeable’ argument is misleading.
While many mental health authorities believe homosexuality is unchangeable, many others believe it can be changed.
In 1970, the Kinsey Institute reported that 84 percent of the homosexuals they studied had shifted their sexual orientation at least once; 32 percent of them reported a second shift, and 13 percent reported five changes, during their lifetime, in their sexual orientation!3
The Director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training, no doubt aware such changes occur, remarked on the “misinformation spread by certain circles that homosexuality is untreatable,” saying it did “incalculable harm to thousands.”4
Dr. Irving Bieber concluded (after treating more than a hundred homosexuals) that “a heterosexual shift is a possibility for all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change.”5
Sex researchers Masters and Johnson (hardly a pair of standard-bearers for the traditional view!) said the “homosexuality cannot be changed” concept was “certainly open to question.”6 Drs. Wood and Dietrich, writing about the effectiveness of treatment for homosexuality, confirmed “all studies which have attempted conversions from homosexuality to heterosexuality have had significant success.”7 And the New Report of the Kinsey Institute explains people do not “necessarily maintain the same sexual orientation throughout their lives,” then explained that “programs helping homosexuals change report varying degrees of success.”8
But no one says it better than Stanton Jones, Chair of Psychology at Wheaton College: “Anyone who says there is no hope (for change) is either ignorant or a liar. Every secular study of change has shown some success rate, and persons who testify to substantial healings by God are legion.” 9
“Anyone who says there is no hope (for change) is either ignorant or a liar. Every secular study of change has shown some success rate, and persons who testify to substantial healings by God are legion.”
Response #2:
This argument is illogical in that it assumes if a condition is unchangeable it is therefore desirable.
For the sake of argument, suppose it could be proven that homosexuality, as a condition, is unchangeable — that no amount of prayer, counseling or efforts of any sort could make a homosexual become attracted to the opposite sex. What then? Should that change our view of homosexual behavior as being sinful? Hardly. There’s no contingency in any Scriptural reference to any kind of sin, in the Old or New Testament, saying: “Thou shalt not do thus and so — unless, of course, you tried hard to change, went for prayer and counseling, and found you just could not stop wanting to do thus and so. If that’s the case, then thus and so is no longer a sin. It’s an inborn, immutable gift and you can indulge it!”
The Apostle Paul’s thorn in the flesh, whatever it may have been, was unchangeable; despite his prayers for deliverance, God allowed it to remain. But it certainly was not desirable (see 2 Corinthians 12:7-9). Other conditions — alcoholism, for example, or various addictions — are widely believed to be unchangeable, and have to be coped with daily. That hardly makes them desirable, natural or God-ordained.
This article was used by permission from Exodus International, North America. Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of “Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.” Since 1976, Exodus has grown to include over 100 local ministries in the USA and Canada. They are also linked with other Exodus world regions outside of North America, totaling almost 150 ministries in 17 countries. Within both the Christian and secular communities, Exodus has challenged those who respond to homosexuals with ignorance and fear, and those who uphold homosexuality as a valid orientation. These extremes fail to convey the fullness of redemption found in Jesus Christ, a gift which is available to all who commit their life and their sexuality to Him.
Joe Dallas, founder of Genesis Counseling, is the author of four books on homosexuality.
——————————————————————————–
1 Richard Isay, Ph.D., “Gays and the Church,” ABC World News Tonight, February 28, 1996.
2 Richard Isay, “Being Homosexual” (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1989), p. 112.
3 Wood and Dietrich, The AIDS Epidemic (Portland: Multnomah, 1990), p. 238.
4 Ruben Fine, Psychoanalytic Theory, Male and Female Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches (New York: Hemisphere, 1987), p. 84-86.
5 Irving Bieber, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study (New York: Basic Books, 1962), p. 318-319.
6 Masters and Johnson. Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1979), p. 402.
7 Wood and Dietrich. The AIDS Epidemic (Portland: Multnomah, 1990), p. 238.
8 June Reinisch, The New Kinsey Report (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1990), p. 138, 143.
9 Stanton Jones, “The Loving Opposition,” Christianity Today, July 19, 1993, Vol. 37, No. 8.
What would happen to a gay male astronaut sent to a planet where there are nothing but females and he was marooned on the planet for the rest of his life?
Stay tuned for our next exciting episode –
“Hey Mikie! Try it, you’ll like it!”
or
“How to spoil success with a bad attitude.”
American BS, everyone can CHANGE BEHAVIOR, but to change who they are at the core is a different matter.
So American, when was the last time you decided to just go sleep with another man for giggles?
http://www.usmemorialday.org/backgrnd.html
Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation’s service. There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women’s groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, “Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping” by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication “To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead” (Source: Duke University’s Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920). While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it’s difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860’s tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868. It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established. Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.
Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war). It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 – 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis’ birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.
In 1915, inspired by the poem “In Flanders Fields,” Moina Michael replied with her own poem:
We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.
She then conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war. She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need. Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms.Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children’s League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help. Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans’ organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their “Buddy” Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.
Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected. Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day. While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.
There are a few notable exceptions. Since the late 50’s on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3d U.S. Infantry place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing. In 1951, the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts of St. Louis began placing flags on the 150,000 graves at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery as an annual Good Turn, a practice that continues to this day. More recently, beginning in 1998, on the Saturday before the observed day for Memorial Day, the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts place a candle at each of approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye’s Heights (the Luminaria Program). And in 2004, Washington D.C. held its first Memorial Day parade in over 60 years.
To help re-educate and remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, the “National Moment of Remembrance” resolution was passed on Dec 2000 which asks that at 3 p.m. local time, for all Americans “To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to ‘Taps.”
The Moment of Remembrance is a step in the right direction to returning the meaning back to the day. What is needed is a full return to the original day of observance. Set aside one day out of the year for the nation to get together to remember, reflect and honor those who have given their all in service to their country.
But what may be needed to return the solemn, and even sacred, spirit back to Memorial Day is for a return to its traditional day of observance. Many feel that when Congress made the day into a three-day weekend in with the National Holiday Act of 1971, it made it all the easier for people to be distracted from the spirit and meaning of the day. As the VFW stated in its 2002 Memorial Day address: “Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public’s nonchalant observance of Memorial Day.”
On January 19, 1999 Senator Inouye introduced bill S 189 to the Senate which proposes to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day back to May 30th instead of “the last Monday in May”. On April 19, 1999 Representative Gibbons introduced the bill to the House (H.R. 1474). The bills were referred the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform.
Petition powered by ThePetitionSite.com
To date, there has been no further developments on the bill. Please write your Representative and your Senators, urging them to support these bills. You can also contact Mr. Inouye to let him know of your support.
Visit our Help Restore the Traditional Day of Observance page for more information on this issue, and for more ways you can help.
To see what day Memorial Day falls on for the next 10 years, visit the Memorial Day Calendar page.
Sources and related links:
Boalsburg, Pa., Birthplace of Memorial Day
[www.rootsweb.com/~pacentre/memory.htm]
DC City Pages: History of Memorial Day
[www.cnn.com/US/9805/25/memorial.day.wrap/]
General Logan Biography
[www.jal.cc.il.us/johnlogan.html]
General Logan’s General Order 11
[www.usmemorialday.org/order11.html]
Help Restore the Traditional Day of Observance of Memorial Day
[www.usmemorialday.org/act.html]
Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920 from Duke University)
[memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ncdhtml/hasmhome.html]
How to Observe Memorial Day
[www.usmemorialday.org/observe.htm]
Luminaria Program
[www.nps.gov/frsp/luminari.htm]
Memorial Day Events – Dept of Veterans Affairs
“The Office of Public Affairs provides this page of items that may be of special interest to veterans and customers.”
[www1.va.gov/opa/speceven/memday/index.asp]
The Origins of Memorial Day
[www1.va.gov/opa/speceven/memday/history.asp#hist]
Roy, Nuhn. Portfolio: To Honor The Memory of the Departed. American History Illustrated 1982 17[3]: 20-25.
S 189 and H.R. 1474, bills to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day.
[www.usmemorialday.org/act.html]
“S. Con. Res. 100″, resolution for a National Moment of Remembrance.
[www.usmemorialday.org/resolution.html]
Statement on Signing the National Moment of Remembrance Act
[www.usmemorialday.org/speeches/president/dec2800.txt]
Taps Information
[www.usmemorialday.org/taps.html]
Today in History: May 30
American Memory project, The Library of Congress
[memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/may30.html]
VFW’s “Buddy” Poppy program
Waterloo, Official Birthplace of Memorial Day
[www.rootsweb.com/~nyseneca/memorial.htm
Please also consider, President Bush was in charge of the dismissal of the U.S. Attorneys and this played a key role in the placement of some of the current ones. U.S. Attorneys are the ones who file R.I.C.O. Suits. Under R.I.C.O., there is a clause called Anti-SLAPP, {anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation}. Bascially this is used when the conspirator wants to do a “MOCK TRIAL” and deliver a “piss pore” sentence/penalty and remove the public from filing their own complaints within a R.I.C.O. filing, reduceing the probability of a “TREBLE DAMAGE” or a “QUI TAM”. They, as conspirators can be charged and the original “MOCK TRIAL” becomes evidence and shows additional probable cause to pursue actions. They will typically yell, “DOUBLE JEOPARDY”. This, when manipulated, is not founded. Kansas did the same with the removal of Morrison right in the middle of the Casino trials. He will walk and the state conspired in corruption. Casinos and gambling are listed as crimes under the jurisdiction of a R.I.C.O.. So are bribes and money laundering. Mimai County got a $30,000,000.oo C.U.P. grant, and the rest of the state footed the bill. I dont find this fair. Wyandotte County has been getting bribes and laundered money for years. “The 3rd Street Casino”, is ILLEGAL and falls under a R.I.C.O. complaint. As Sheriff, when I win in Nov 2008, I am requesting a R.I.C.O. Complaint review against any and all in Kansas and this county, {Miami}, as well as others. I will have a sworn duty to uphold the Law, and I will. I will expose the Extortion and Racketeering in this State. If needed I will file in another U.S. Attorneys Office other than Kansas. I hope to win in Nov 2008 so I can do what the current Sheriff refuses to do, that is to uphold the Law. I hope to bring the Law back to Miami County Kansas. I hope to stop allowing the State from using this county as a place to launder money. I hope to be voted in and will proudly enforce the Law. I will pursue any and all who break the Law. Noone, to include elected officals are above the law. Thanks and consider complaining about all these R.I.C.O. breechs of politics/politicians. We need eachother!! Herbert West III, Candidate for Sheriff, Miami County Kansas, Nov 2008. west.herb@yahoo.com
For the record P-mama.
Never happened.
Actions are choices.
Behavior is a choice.
People were born male or female.
Period.
Lying to them does not help their problem.
“People were born male or female…… Period.”
Largely true, except that some (about 4%) are born with a genetic disposition to be attracted to the same sex.
Medical science has determined that there is a significant variation between the physical brain of a gay person and a straight person.
As for the “gay is a choice” argument – there is absolutely no proof of that.
“How to spoil success with a bad attitude.”
Not sure for giggles, but it appears to happen a lot in prisons. :)
oops , wrong quote…
should be
So American, when was the last time you decided to just go sleep with another man for giggles?
Hey William,
Glad you could join us.
There is absolutely no credible evidence to support a genetic disposition for gays, any more then there is for alcoholics, drug adicts, pedophiles, etc., etc., etc……
Regular,
Be cool.
I am disappointed in you sometimes.
“There is absolutely no credible evidence to support a genetic disposition for gays”
There is far more evidence of a genetic disposition for homosexuality than there is for “gay is a choice.”
One clear indication is that no credible gay person would say that they “chose” to be gay.
To a person, they always say that they always knew that they were different, even before they knew what it meant to be gay.
Why are you disappointed in me American? Because I pointed out that inmates in prisons acclimate themselves to homosexual activity?
Should I have put bigger words in there to make it sound more official?
William,
““People were born male or female…… Period.”
Largely true, except that some (about 4%) are born with a genetic disposition to be attracted to the same sex.”
Please name one person who was not born either a male or a female in regard to their biological makeup.
“Please name one person who was not born either a male or a female in regard to their biological makeup.”
That would be an academic point.
It is not a matter of male or female genitalia, the issue lies much higher in the body.
Male gays are not females trapped in a man’s body. The inverse is also true to lesbians.
Transgendered people are a different story. I am not fully conversant on their physiological make-up, but I serious doubt that anyone would just choose to have surgery to rearrange their gender.
Reg,
I agree with the tendency and problematic behavior of male/female inmates for or toward homosexual activity largely due to agressive behavior by some.
I just question why you would requote P_Mama on “So American, when was the last time you decided to just go sleep with another man for giggles?”?
Never happened.
“Never happened.”
When did you choose to be heterosexual? How often do you have to make that choice?
Or did you discover when you were quite young, as I did, that you had a real interest in the opposite sex?
“WSClark
Posted May 26, 2008 at 9:46 am | Permalink
“Please name one person who was not born either a male or a female in regard to their biological makeup.”
That would be an academic point.”
Care to answer the academic question above?
Or are you accepting that there are none by your non-answer?
I didn’t choose. I was born male.
I didn’t choose my name either, or who my parents were, or where I was born.
I just question why you would requote P_Mama on “So American, when was the last time you decided to just go sleep with another man for giggles?”?
Ah! Well, I suppose I could left out the “So American” from the quote.
My apologies for any unintended effect. :)
““People were born male or female…… Period.”
Well — DUH….. No kiddin… except for those VERY few born with both genitalia in place, and functional…
But what does the biological SEX of the person to do with their sexual orientation??
THAT seems to be what you are missing American!!
I suppose you can tell us why two steers in the pasture act in “gay sex” manners every day of the week?? Are they choosing?? Can they be changed?? LOL Yet, it happens!! Oh well… a worthless point to argue…. Your mind is made up, locked solid, and you done lost the key!! So sorry!!
I didn’t choose, as a male, the natural attraction to that of the opposite sex, the female.
I did choose to pursue marriage as the best outcome of that desire.
Gays, Guns, and God.
Yawn.
Reg,
Es no problemo!
How true, American!! You did NOT choose to be heterosexual…. You were BORN that way!!
So too, the GAY male… Ask one.. he will be more than happy to share with you his struggle in sexual orientation!!
“two steers in the pasture”
Well, there’s your problem – being steer isn’t necessarily a good thing for the psyche. :D
I still remember one teacher in elementary school, who was a one person task force to convert kids from being left handed… She kept telling us that being left handed was as good as being Communist… That if left handed people were not forced to change, they would grow up to be Communists!! And she didnt want to be responsible for that!!
So, Regular, did the steers CHOOSE to be gay?? or not??
Hi Chas,
How are you this blessed Memorial Day?
“Well — DUH….. No kiddin… except for those VERY few born with both genitalia in place, and functional…
But what does the biological SEX of the person to do with their sexual orientation??
THAT seems to be what you are missing American!!”
So those you are referring to above with both genetalia are a very extreme case and is extremely rare, like the actual and real existence of conjoined twins or a six fingered man.
Unfortunately, the term, “sexual orientation” was coined to explain the existence and acceptance of homosexuals, etc.
“Or are you accepting that there are none by your non-answer?”
I did answer – it is not a matter of the genitalia that you are born with – it is what is in your head.
You do realize that a homosexual is exactly the same as a heterosexual with the exception of a small portion of the brain?
Chas
Posted May 26, 2008 at 10:08 am | Permalink
So, Regular, did the steers CHOOSE to be gay?? or not??
—————————–
I dunno Chas.
But I’m pretty sure the steers didn’t choose to be castrated either. :)
But, American, you DO admit that individuals born with BOTH genitalia, do exist, and are born that way — even though it is extremely rare??
Gays are also born that way… just not quite as rare!! And yet you cannot accept that?? Hmmmm…..
I am not going to argue that point all day on a holiday…. Have fun in your sexual delirium!!
You got that right, Regular!! Thus, they didnt choose their orientation!! LOL :-D
Chas,
How can you relate the behavior of a steer to that of a human?
Humans are not animals. They only “act” like animals sometimes.
Humans or man/woman are the image bearer’s of God and can reason and know the difference between good and evil.
Animals have no such ability.
Humans have eternal souls. Animals do not.
You might want to check Matthew 19:10-12 — I will leave you with that…
“I didn’t choose, as a male, the natural attraction to that of the opposite sex, the female.”
The attraction of homosexuals to the same sex is as natural to them as your attraction to the opposite sex.
They do not choose that attraction, any more than you chose to be heterosexual.
“Humans or man/woman are the image bearer’s of God and can reason and know the difference between good and evil.”
Are you suggesting that homosexuals are evil?
“Humans have eternal souls. Animals do not.”
You have been to “eternity”, and thus you know this for a fact?? LOL /sarcasm off
I always love the conditional statements made by WS Clark!
He says that no “credible” Homosexuals would say that they chose to be gay.
How easily you dismiss those who were gay and said they did make a choice!
LOL
So tell me WS Clark, Besides asking someone or having them tell you that they are a Homosexual how would science prove that someone is gay?
“How easily you dismiss those who were gay and said they did make a choice!”
Name them, besides Larry Craig and Ted Haggard.
There are always deviants in any cross section of society, Nathan… Those who claim to Choose to be Gay, are not often trusted by the majority of the Gay community!! Because they often times dont know the “struggle” involved…
For the doubters………….
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5023/1034
“No differences were found between the groups in the volumes of INAH 1, 2, or 4. As has been reported previously, INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.”
And for the gay-haters, why is it so important to “prove” that homosexuality is a “choice?”
What gives with that position?
What causes anti-semitism?? What causes KKK style racism?? What causes some to believe Catholics are a “whore cult”?? Clark you have hit on a serious, and seriously studied, question in the sociolgical community!! Studies are currently on-going into those questions… No definitive answers have yet been brought forward, so far as I know… but the research goes forward!!
I’ll leave the anti-gay posters to argue amongst themselves for a bit…………… life calls.
Later!
“Chas” asks –
“What causes anti-semitism?? What causes KKK style racism??”
What is the capital of North Dakota?
Some questions are simply unanswerable.
Ummm Monkey — that would be Bismark, I think… LOL
I remember that study Clark and remember there were some problems with it.
“Other problems with his findings include: (1) all 19 of the homosexual men had died of AIDS, something that many researchers believe could very well account for or contribute to the differences; (2) there was no way to know the sexual history of the “heterosexual” men; (3) there is no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause or the result of homosexuality; and (4) Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, admitted that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor.[24]“
“Chas” –
http://www.crooksandliars.com has some highlights from an essay by John Dolan, which takes down the Tory rhetoric that’s recently been imported into the American right.
Some highlights:
Tory discourse has only two topics: hatred of the new and foreign, and grief for the old and familiar. The object of its hatred changes its name from generation to generation, from Papist to Jew to Irish to German to Russian to Arab; but the methods used to vilify the currently demonized alien are remarkably stable over the generations.
[...]
British Tories are always defeatists, convinced their cause is lost, paralyzed by nostalgia for an imaginary golden age or fighting a rearguard action in defense of a doomed, yet superior culture.
[...]
Only after 9/11 and the Iraq catastrophe did right-wing America feel a doomed affinity for Tory gloom and hatred. So now Red-State America is in the mood to hear that the whole modern world is a big mistake.
[...]
Tory writers always go a little crazy when sex comes up. One of [Martin] Amis’ most distinguished predecessors in the use of sexual slander against the Left is C.S. Lewis. Lewis knew very little about the modern world — or women, or sex — except that he was against the lot. So rather than research the topic and risk learning something, he resorted to novelistic technique… Torture has always been the big sexual thrill in Tory polemical fiction.
The full thing is here:
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/86358/?page=entire
Aren’t most prejudices attributed to fear? Hasn’t education been the best way to relieve fear?
For the un-doubters. The rest of the quote is below:
“The anterior hypothalamus of the brain participates in the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior. The volumes of four cell groups in this region [interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 1, 2, 3, and 4] were measured in POSTMORTEM tissue from three subject groups: women, men who were PRESUMED to be heterosexual, and homosexual men.”
So, what this the cause or the effect of being homosexual?
What about the known heterosexual men? They were not in the study.
Only the below were in the study:
Women
Presumed hetrosexual men
Homosexual men
Yep Monkey — Uh huh — I can see that Tory thing at work here LOL :roll:
One has to ask, is the case of the larger hypothalamus, in the above reference, in women, presumed hetorosexual men and homosexual men, proof of the fact that homosexuals were born gay?
Indubitably no!
Sounds like for bush the Golf War II is over.
You are showing your prejudice here MoneyHawk and Chas!
Surely you can accept all speech and ideas.
You really need to be more progressive in your thinking and ideas and have an open mind to the truth.
Don’t you think?
Actually American, that same study on homosexual keeps getting brought up on the WE Blog and has been brought up several times since I’ve been here.
Each time the poster who brings it up keeps forgetting that that study has been brought up and questioned on its conclusions.
Not sure why there is an exclusion of both sides of the referenced study.
It is for sure, hardly conclusive as several scientists have given their reason why the study is inconclusive.
“American” –
What “truth?”
That you have spent the morning obsessing on homosexuality?
Sounds bi-curious to me.
Actually MonkeyHawk, American’s evaluation on the matter has been straight forward and academic.
It is many ways more superior than the left-handed ‘washer woman’ analogy of a ‘white rabbit Jefferson Airplane’ analogy about Tories that you brought up. :)
So which should we be more motivated by?
Freedom
Fear
I say freedom.
Today, Memorial Day, is a good example of where freedom comes from and how we obtained it as a nation.
Many gave their lives to fight for freedom for us as a nation today.
Did we as a fledgling nation have prejudice against the English Monarchy in the Revolutionary War?
Did we as a nation have prejudice against each other in the Civil War? With the right side winning the war?
Did we , as a nation, have prejudice against the German Nazis during WWI?
Did we , as a nation, have prejudice against the German Nazis, the Italian Facsists, and the Japanese Imperialists during WWII?
You bet we did and it was a good thing.
We learn increasingly that those who are most loudly anti gay…
are in fact themselves gay and Republican.
It is my belief that those loudest here gainst homosexuality are trying really hard to tell us something.
Nathan and James (in any nic) I am looking in your direction.
I hear them. But I am not qualified to help them with their self loathing.
It is my belief that those loudest here gainst homosexuality are trying really hard to tell us something
That you are an unthinking moron who hasn’t experienced a realistic brain synapse since the day you were born?
This is a dilemna.
James is gay and hates himself for it. He self medicates by hating homosexuals and wanting them punished.
And that is the LEAST of his difficulties.
“American” asks –
Did we as a fledgling nation have prejudice against the English Monarchy in the Revolutionary War?
No.
Did we as a nation have prejudice against each other in the Civil War?
No.
Did we , as a nation, have prejudice against the German Nazis during WWI?
No.
Did we , as a nation, have prejudice against the German Nazis, the Italian Facsists,[sic] and the Japanese Imperialists during WWII?
No.
‘Cause, ya see, the word “prejudice” refers to prejudgment: making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event.
Your bi-curious diatribes this morning have been decidedly prejudicial in that you chosen to cut-and-paste only evidence that serves your pre-judgment.
The colonists didn’t pre-judge the British imperialists; they reacted to real events. The combatants in the American Civil War went to war over issues that had been festering since the Constitutional Convention (and before). American involvement in World War II was most certainly a reaction to real-world events, not a pre-judgment.
You started off your morning with a clear prejudice, that you somehow think gender preference orientation is a choice. (As if all those gay “recruiters” need is a better advertising campaign and you’ll be lured into a life of musical comedies and interior decorating.)
So Junior,
Are you homophobic and feel a desire to point out that others may or may not be gay?
Just what is the point of your little entry here on the blog?
I think you might have a problem with homophobia or you wouldn’t have brought the matter up.
So who has the problem Junior?
I think we know the answer to that – Junior is homophobic and feels to need to point out his frustration of homophobia as a transferrance of inequitable and much reduced high order brain functions that allow him to participate successfully in a diverse society. :)
I’m only prejudiced against cons and other destructively stupid people there Jimbo.
I don’t care if you have a whole house full of closets. Which you MUST have.
For all your nics?
When you were “Pat Herron” and how you came on to me in that nic. I get it now.
The whole living with sis and all. It adds up.
And this may be a whole new and best way to address homophobia. Those who are loudest against gays are themselves gay. They shouldn’t be ridiculed. Only helped to deal with their self hatred.
James of course, has WAY deeper issues.
Ah, notice how duh Libs are going off with their homophobic mantra if they find posters they don’t agree with.
It appears that duh Libs have a problem with homophobia more than those on the right.
Interesting wouldn’t everyone say?:)
(notices excessive arm flailing by Junior and chortles)
No, I wouldnt say, James!! LOL
Jaybird by your own reasoning then I can assume that the loud ranting you do every day about conservatives is that you are really a closet conservative and fear being found out. What a worthless argument. When do you guys ever get to the serious stuff?
As if to buttress the age-old theory that “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is” – consider the fate that befell the Filmfan this holiday weekend.
On Friday night, I took it into my noggin to buy some vodka and have a couple drinks – in the privacy of my own home, of course. While perusing the confines of a liquor store very near my apartment building, I saw something called a “Screwdriver”, and decided I should try this delicacy for the very first time.
I’ve indulged in booze about as often as Ann Coulter mind-melds with Al Franken, so I innocently thought I had to purchase “some vodka to mix the screwdriver with.” Most of the items were too pricey for my budget, and then I came across a mid-sized bottle of “Viaka” vodka for $2.99. So I snapped up this item along with the fruity frappe and headed for home.
On Friday night, I merely mixed the Screwdriver stuff with crushed ice – and suffered no ill effects. On Saturday, however, I drank half the “Viaka” vomitus – and awoke at 2:00 a.m. sick as a Coulter.
Yes, it was that bad.
I was faced with all the classic hangover symptoms – and an additional one besides. I withstood many throbbing, intermittent, agonizing pains behind my left ear. Clearly, I was having an allergic reaction to something I’d taken in during the past several hours.
Up until the hangover hit, the mild buzz had been quite enjoyable. I took advantage of this transitory utopia by vacuuming my apartment – something that ranks right up there with 1) debating the right to life issue with Neal Horsley and 2) watching Randall Terry croon “I Want Your Sex” to his own reflection – on my list of fave-rave activities.
I had a great time – dancin’ and vacuumin’ and gambolin’ and singin’ along to Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Gold” CD. Significantly, I’ve never had a drinking problem – I know when to quit and have never been close to alcoholism.
But that nasty-ath hangover was a trip through Hades. I don’t know if the liquor store was attempting to get rid of as many of this off-brand’s items as they could. Far be it from me to be racist, but yesterday I felt like driving on over to the liquor store – shoving the half-empty “Viaka” into a naughty place – and forcing the dude to listen to Richard Pryor’s treatise about a stuttering Chinese dude into perpetuity.
I’m sure Chairman Mao didn’t really mean to hurt me (as Boy George once crooned) – but I would caution anyone against buying this particular off brand. Sometimes it’s better to pay more for the reputable brands – and avoid incidents like these.
‘Cause I darned near had a Lost Weekend – just like John Lennon did in 1974. Then again, I wouldn’t dream of wearing feminine products on me fo’head – just like John “Lennono” did……………….
heh heh FilmFan,
Another great and classic entry. Enjoyed it. :)
“Each time the poster who brings it up keeps forgetting that that study has been brought up and questioned on its conclusions.”
So?
“Presumed heterosexuals.”
And?
“American’s evaluation on the matter has been straight forward and academic”
Where is the “academic” portion of American’s argument?
He has presented no evidence nor any scientific documentation, just anti-gay rhetoric.
“It appears that duh Libs have a problem with homophobia more than those on the right.”
Really? Who was it that suggested that gays were evil?
Eh?
Where is the “academic” portion of American’s argument?
He has presented no evidence nor any scientific documentation, just anti-gay rhetoric.
———————-
No one has brought forth any non-refuted evidence. That study you referenced is flawed and has been in dispute by scientists since 91.
The jury is still out.
Try the Stanford study, that shows significant differences in chromosomal structure in gays, than in straights…
“That study you referenced is flawed and has been in dispute by scientists since 91.”
Perhaps it has been disputed, but it has not been refuted. In the absence of further evidence, it has merit.
On the other hand, American has yet to provide any evidence that being gay is a “choice.”
WSClark
Posted May 26, 2008 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
“It appears that duh Libs have a problem with homophobia more than those on the right.”
Really? Who was it that suggested that gays were evil?
Eh?
———————
You’re the one that pointed it out Clark. I didn’t see a suggestion there.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
WSClark
Posted May 26, 2008 at 10:18 am | Permalink
“Humans or man/woman are the image bearer’s of God and can reason and know the difference between good and evil.”
Are you suggesting that homosexuals are evil?
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The Big, non-scientific, elephant in the living room question, is this:
Given the attitudes toward Gay people, even as expressed (disgustingly) on this Blog….
WHY would anybody Choose to be gay???
WSClark
Posted May 26, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
“That study you referenced is flawed and has been in dispute by scientists since 91.”
Perhaps it has been disputed, but it has not been refuted. In the absence of further evidence, it has merit.
On the other hand, American has yet to provide any evidence that being gay is a “choice.”
——————–
Yes it has. It has been both disputed and refuted by Peer review. Unfortunately, I think the reference is in one of those ‘pay to get the document’ web libraries.
I’ll try to find the reference where it failed peer review.
“Humans or man/woman are the image bearer’s of God and can reason and know the difference between good and evil.”
And of course what was implied was homosexual acts are evil, therefore those that practice them are evil.
Talk about splitting hairs.
“Yes it has. It has been both disputed and refuted by Peer review.”
No it hasn’t. It has been disputed, but not refuted.
There is still validity to the study.
Some of you keep arguing that Gay people CHOOSE to be Gay… The reverse question then is in full play…. When did you choose NOT to be Gay??
But as with the case with evolution (the blog’s favorite subject after abortion) an absence of absolute proof does not validate the opposite position.
“WHY would anybody Choose to be gay???”
Why would anybody choose to tattoo their face?
Why would anybody choose to put piercings through their nose?
Oh, that’s right. They choose to.
“Why would anybody choose to tattoo their face?”
Jeez, facial tattoos – being gay – one in the same?
Talk about a leap of logic.
Thats that “Tory” thing again Clark… LOL
People make choices all the time. That is the same.
But Fleet, is there any law that says tattooed or pierced people cannot get married?? I didnt think so…. Fool!!
“People make choices all the time. That is the same.”
Yep, nose ring – being gay – same decision making process…………
SO, nobody knows when they chose NOT to be gay… most interesting….
failed peer review:
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/born-gay-hoax-studies-debunked/
Studies on Homosexuality
http://www.haworthpress.com/store/Toc_views.asp?TOCName=J082v28n03_TOC&desc=Volume%3A%2028%20Issue%3A%203%2F4
Biomedical Concepts of Homosexuality: Folk Belief in a White Coat
Page Range: 237 – 246
DOI: 10.1300/J082v28n03_03
Louis J.G. Gooren MD, PhD
Biological and medical tradition teaches that sexuality exists for the sole purpose of reproduction. Within this tradition homosexuality has no biological significance. It is conceived as a pathological condition wherein a homosexual has the internal or external characteristics of the opposite sex. The initial search for such cross-sex physical characteristics in homosexuals (e.g., wide hips in males, wide shoulders in females) failed. The search then focussed on so-called sex hormones. It was hypothesized that homosexuals had an excess of hormones of the opposite sex. The researchers are now hypothesizing that homosexuals have a cross-sex brain organization. To date, no evidence for such cross-sex differentiation has been credibly demonstrated. This paper describes the results of unsuccessful attempts to replicate studies which are based on the assumption that homosexuals have a cross-sexed brain organization due to perinatal hormonal factors.
Hormones and Sexual Orientation: A Questionable Link
Page Range: 247 – 268
DOI: 10.1300/J082v28n03_04
Amy Banks MD, Nanette K. Gartrell MD
This paper critically reviews the studies which explore a possible causal relationship between sex hormones and the development of sexual orientation. Early studies focused on hormone measurements in adult men and women. While definitive interpretations are hindered by methodological problems, the studies as a whole do not support a causal relationship between postnatal hormone levels and sexual orientation. More recently, a theory that prenatal hormone levels produce varying degrees of brain androgenization and subsequent dimorphic sex role behavior has consistently been supported by studies in lower mammals. Attempts to generalize the causes of sexual orientation from animals to human have been controversial. Efforts to measure the estrogen feedback as an indication of brain androgenization have produced inconsistent results. Studies of men and women who experienced prenatal defects in hormone metabolism (i.e., CAH and testicular feminization) have not found a concurrent increase in homosexual behavior. Overall, the data do not support a causal connection between hormones and human sexual orientation.
Brain Research, Gender and Sexual Orientation
Page Range: 283 – 301
DOI: 10.1300/J082v28n03_07
D. F. Swaab MD, PhD, L. J. G. Gooren MD, PhD, M. A. Hofman PhD
Recent brain research has revealed structural differences in the hypothalamus in relation to biological sex and sexual orientation. Differences in size and cell number of various nuclei in the hypothalamus for homosexual versus heterosexual men have recently been reported in two studies. We have found that a cluster of cells in the preoptic area of the human hypothalamus contains about twice as many cells in young men as in women. We have called this cluster the sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN). The magnitude of the difference in the SDN depends on age. In other human research, two other hypothalamic nuclei (interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus [INAH] 2 and 3) and part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BST) have been reported to be sexually dimorphic in the human. Sexual differentiation of the human brain takes place much later than originally claimed. At birth the SDN contains only some 20% of the cells found at 2 to 4 years of age. The cell number rapidly increasexs in boys and girls at the same rate until 2 to 4 years of age. After that age period, a decrease in cell number takes place in girls, but not in boys. This causes the sexual differentiation of the SDN. This postnatal period of hypothalamic differentiation indicates that, in addition to genetic factors, a multitude of environmental and psychosocial factors may have profound influence on the sexual differentiation of the brain. No difference in SDN cell number was observed between homosexual and heterosexual men. This finding refutes Dörner’s hypothesis that homosexual males have a “female” hypothalamus called the suprachiastmatic nucleus (SCN) contains twice as many cells as the SCN of a heterosexual group. A recent report by LeVay claims that another nucleus, INAH-3, is more than twice as large in heterosexuals as in homosexual men, whereas Allen and Gorski found that the anterior commissure was larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men or women. Preliminary research on male-to-female transsexuals is also discussed. The functional implications of these findings in determining adult sexual orientation are as yet from clear.
Sexuality in the Brain
Page Range: 345 – 354
DOI: 10.1300/J082v28n03_09
Ruth G. Doell PhD
Research on the biological “causes” of homosexuality focuses primarily upon the hypothesis that hormonal influences during fetal life “organize” certain parts of the brain which thus become centers for sexual orientation and behavior in later life. This paper briefly summarizes criticisms of this research that demonstrate little evidence for the operation of such centers and emphasizes alternative scenarios for the development of sexual orientation and behavior which have been slighted by the biological and medical communities. Finally, I suggest that commitment to a belief in a biological mechanism which supports the hierarchy of power by those who benefit from that power maintains the viability of the hypothesis in the face of negative evidence
Chas
Posted May 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm | Permalink
Some of you keep arguing that Gay people CHOOSE to be Gay… The reverse question then is in full play…. When did you choose NOT to be Gay??
Pope I think the point has been made that we were created by God as a helpmate to each other. It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. So it would appear that the choice was made for us to be hetro and not homo. Just thinking that you don’t really choose to be straight. You are just plumbed that way.
Thar ya be, peer-reviewed scientists and their studies.
What say ye gents?
Of course, if you don’t believe me, believe the words of the Dr. Levay who conducted the study himself.
re: Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay, who worked at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.
Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added). Simon LeVay’s hypothalamus study confused the public. Hopefully the truth will finally set the record straight.
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/born-gay-hoax-studies-debunked/
“You are just plumbed that way.”
Then why would you possibly argue against such plumbing in Gay folks??
Genesis isnt much of a biological studies text book, after all…. LOL
I don’t remember when I decided to be a Republican either, but it was after being a Democrat for a while. Sort of like the Episcopal bishop with the wife and children who decided that he was really gay. O-K…
Just wondering Chas. As a self-proclaimed Christian minister, do you believe in Satan?
And stop calling me Pope, you flaming TROLL!!!
Your question, outlander, is totally irrelevant to any discussion here so far… just more Flaming and Trolling….
And what exactly does choosing a political party affiliation have to do with sexual orientation??
As for the Episcopal Bishop, why dont you read his story?? He tells you in that story that he was merely “playing along” until he couldnt “play along” anymore!! Thus, he was saying he was always Gay, but tried to play it “straight” and couldnt do it!! Very simple actually…
The true studies needed are those dealing with chromosomal differences, not hormonal differences… Hormonal structures do not determine the SEX or sexual orientation of an individual…
IOW, those studies are barkin up the wrong tree…
Check out the Stanford chromosomal studies…
Chas
Posted May 26, 2008 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
The true studies needed are those dealing with chromosomal differences, not hormonal differences… Hormonal structures do not determine the SEX or sexual orientation of an individual…
IOW, those studies are barkin up the wrong tree…
Check out the Stanford chromosomal studies…
———————-
Already have Chas, it’s in the first link of one of my post above.
In fact, the Dr. who did the study is under review and may lose his license for altering data.
So what else you got?
“Chas” –
I think sexual orientation is such a non-issue in the grand scheme of things, it’s difficult for me to get passionate about it.
I’ve long considered it to be like -handedness. Some people are right-handed, some people are left-handed, and the real world consequences only come up in baseball games.
I don’t know if they’ve figured out that Southpaws got that way because of genes or hormones or whatever. (I kinda think they didn’t “choose” it.)
And what does it matter to me? (Except, of course, at the dinner table when we knock elbows. Now that’s an important basis for a social and political agenda!) What does it matter to anyone?!
How consenting adults like to get their jollies in bed really doesn’t matter to me unless I’m one of those people in bed.
That sexual orientation is somehow a social or political issue is simply foreign to my mindset.
It’s like those primitive cultures in which everyone eats with the right hand because they wipe their butts with the left hand (noting they have neither spoons, forks, nor toilet paper). There might have been some primitive basis for the taboo way in the past. But what is the political or social basis here and now in reality?!
I just don’t get it. I may never get it.
‘The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2
“Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community.
Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:
changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures).
Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.”
I agree TOTALLY Monkey — see my post upthread on the elementary teacher and left handed kids and communists
cosmos_originally
Posted May 26, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years,
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Interesting cosmos,
I noticed when I invoke the co2 lags behind temperature, you classify it as a lie and false.
Why is that cosmos? :)
Be sure to denounce your baby-hating mother-hating extremist enemies in the Kansas House who voted against the pro-life CARA bill this year, when they campaign for reelection in this year’s upcoming all-out political war against all such pro-abortion candidates:
Faust-Goudeau, Oletha D-HD84; Flaharty, Geraldine D-HD98 D; Flora, Vaughn, D-HD57; Garcia, Delia D-HD103; Gordon, Lana R-HD52; Goyle, Raj D-HD87; Hawk, Tom D-HD67; Henderson, Broderick D-HD35; Hill, Don R-HD60; Holland, Tom D-HD10; Huntington, Terrie R-HD25; Johnson, Dan R-HD110; Kuether, Annie D-HD55; Lane, Harold D-HD58; Loganbill, Judith D-HD86; Mah, Ann D-HD53; McCray-Miller, Melody D-HD89; McLachlan, Terry D-HD96; Menghini, Julie D-HD3; Neighbor, Cindy D-HD18; Pottorff, Jo Ann R-HD83; Quigley, Jill R-HD17; Rardin, Gene D-HD16; Roth, Charles R-HD71; Ruiz, Louis D-HD32; Sawyer, Tom D-HD95; Sloan, Tom R-HD45; Spalding, Sheryl R-HD29; Storm, Sue D-HD22; Tietze, Annie D-HD56; Treaster, Mark D-HD101; Trimmer, Ed D-HD78; Ward, Jim D-HD88; Winn, Valdenia D-HD34; Wolf, Kay R-HD21; Worley, Ron R-HD30
- – -
Be sure to denounce your baby-hating mother-hating extremist enemies in the Kansas Senate who either voted against the pro-life CARA bill this year or voted against the veto override, when they campaign for reelection in this year’s upcoming all-out political war against all such pro-abortion candidates:
Allen R-SD8 (not running for reelection but denounce her anyway); Betts, Jr. D-SD29; Brungardt R-SD24; Francisco D-SD2; Goodwin D-SD32; Haley D-SD4; Hensley D-SD19; Kelly D-SD18; Reitz R-SD22; Schmidt R-SD20; Steineger D-SD6; Teichman R-SD33; Vratil R-SD11; Wysong R-SD7; Schodorf R-SD25
- – -
There is now, as cited in nationwide news reports, substantial evidence that Bilious Sebelius has been involved in laundering blood-soaked abortion mill money for distribution to Kansas Democrats, and illegally conspiring to cover up abortion mill crimes in order to protect the money source. I’d say, it’s time for an indictment of the Kansas “governor” through federal intervention.
Let’s get to it. Maybe we can indict the Lt. Governor, too.
See news page
townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/05/26/a_vice_president_for_abortion
- – -
In a rare state inspection in 2002, Planned Parenthood’s Overland Park second-trimester abortion mill was cited for lack of control and privacy protection of abortion records, for allowing all staff access to boxes of records in an unlocked room.
- – -
“The health and safety of young girls trumps Planned Parenthood’s desire for secrecy.”
. . . ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeff Shafer
. . .
The Ohio Supreme Court will hear the case against Planned Parenthood’s Cincinnati abortion mill, that committed an illegal abortion on a 14-year-old girl brought in by her rapist, a soccer coach, without notifying authorities or the girl’s parents. The Alliance Defense Fund a friend-of-the-court brief with the Ohio Supreme Court Monday, claiming, as we already know, that Planned Parenthood abortion mills frequently fail to notify authorities when underage children have been sexually abused, adding to a widespread pattern of criminal activity. ADF is asking the Ohio court to reverse an earlier appellate court cover-up ruling preventing the girl and her parents from having access to clinic records that may indicate routine cover-up of statutory rape and other sexual abuse.
Previously, a lawsuit was filed in Warren County, OH against Planned Parenthood, alleging the abortion mill committed an illegal abortion upon a teenage girl and her baby after a father sought the procedure to cover up his sexual abuse of the teen. Planned Parenthood’s secrecy in this case allowed the incest to continue another 18 months.
When Planned Parenthood loses their $300 million in annual federal taxpayer funding, Democrats will lose their huge source of blood-soaked “contributions”, which is why they are encouraging all kinds of obstruction of justice, cover-ups, and stalling tactics in our criminal justice system in a conspiratorial attempt to prevent convictions of Planned Parenthood’s racist criminal abortionist quacks.
- – -
Baby-hating Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Sen. Obamanation stuffed taxpayer funding for industrialized abortionist Planned Parenthood into the Iraq war supplemental bill.
This is dirty, unpatriotic politics at its worst, jeopardizing our national security in order to generate more profit for the commercialized slaughter of American babies.
- – -
Mothers who are regretful victims of abortionist quacks and members of Operation Outcry are demonstrating at Obamanation rallies, and exposing Obamanation’s extremist pro-abortion policies in support of partial-birth and live-birth abortions, which have now been criminalized by federal laws that Obamanation fully expects to overturn.
- – -
Kami Sargent, 41, of Riverview, FL was arrested Thursday, and faces charges of aggravated manslaughter in the 2006 death of her newborn daughter, found dead and wrapped in garbage bags in a garbage bin. Sargent claimed that, after concealing her pregnancy, she accidentally drowned her baby while giving birth in a hotel bathtub, then tossed the tiny body in the garbage.
An autopsy did not determine the cause of the baby’s death.
- – -
Two 17-year-old girls have been charged after the body of a baby boy was found 10 kilometres northwest of Stony Plain in Canada over a month ago. Both girls are charged with concealing the body of a child, and one faces a second charge of failing to obtain medical assistance during childbirth.
- – -
Holly Ashcraft, 23, of Montana, entered a plea of no contest to child endangerment resulting in the death of an infant Tuesday, in the case of her newborn boy found dead in a Los Angeles garbage bin in 2005. Prosecutors claim the baby was proven to be alive when Ashcraft abandoned him and originally filed a murder charge – but it was dismissed four times by leftist, activist judges. Likely this baby killer will be sentenced to time served in this disgusting plea bargain.
Ashcraft was previously investigated by police, but not arrested or charged, in April 2004 after she arrived at a Los Angeles hospital having just given birth but without a baby, who was never found. Had prosecutors actually bothered to earn their pay at that time, the death of the baby boy in 2005 would have been prevented. Perhaps no one will be held accountable for the lack of justice to prevent the slaughter of the next newborn.
Ashcraft’s shyster, Mark Geragos, said that she wants to close this chapter, finish school and move on with her life. Now that kind of repeated and continuing disregard for human life and dignity would surely be a real tragedy.
- – -
An infant boy found in a garbage bin in downtown Oakland, CA Saturday morning was declared dead at Children’s Hospital Oakland. The mother was also hospitalized. Investigators were uncertain whether the baby was stillborn, but definitely certain in any case that the baby was accorded no human dignity.
220 newborns were legally abandoned in California from 2001 to 2007 under the Safely Surrendered Baby Law of 2001, while another 147 infants were found alive after being illegally abandoned. Some newborns were also found dead, like this victim.
Parkay = fake butter = half a bubble off of plastic… LOL
“Chas” says –
“I agree TOTALLY Monkey — see my post upthread on the elementary teacher and left handed kids and communists”
Yeah, I saw it. I didn’t quite LOL because it wasn’t out loud.
My Dad was a lefty. He realized it early and told me as a kid he simply turned things around when his elementary school teachers taught kid to write by turning the paper slightly to the left. Dad was one of those southpaws who didn’t learn to write with his hand crimped over. He was also a surgeon. (I guess there weren’t enough “Communists” to taint his teacher’s outlook back there in rural Missouri. ;-))
My ex- was a lefty, too, so I tend to think there might be something to all that left-brain/right-brain stuff. And, as I said, I’m not sure if it’s natal or genetic or hormonal. It simply doesn’t matter!
Unless, of course, some idiot associates it with with a political agenda. Babe Ruth was left-handed and so, was a Communist, I guess.
Regular posted May 26, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“I noticed when I invoke the co2 lags behind temperature, you classify it as a lie and false.”
Post the link where I said that.
Yea, and I suppose Da Babe chose to be left handed, too, huh?? LOL
“Thar ya be, peer-reviewed scientists and their studies.”
Determined to be inconclusive does not mean that it is false.
Furthermore, as previous stated, the absence of absolute proof does not prove the other position.
And from your own post, McCluer…..
“The functional implications of these findings in determining adult sexual orientation are as yet from clear.”
Remember, less than forty years ago, it was thought that homosexuality was a “mental illness.”
Clark — Michael Savage says that all liberals are mentally ill… not sure what he says about Gays…. :-|
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming….Guest Contributor: Jeff SeveringhausProfessor of Geosciences”
cosmos
Posted September 3, 2007 at 1:20 am
So Clark, you completely ignored this post I made earlier that shows the Doctor’s own words of which you study you referenced.
I guess it’s a Lib trait that they refuse to admit they are wrong.
Out of here for a bit.
————————————–
re: Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay, who worked at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.
Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added). Simon LeVay’s hypothalamus study confused.
cosmos posted September 3, 2007 at 1:20 am
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-92/#comment-193330
An example of troll tactics. Note the identical “[*]” sentences.
“[*]So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming….Jeff SeveringhausProfessor of Geosciences”
Posted by: the TROLL Kansas | September 03, 2007 at 12:10 AM
‘What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
“At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. …
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is NO.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also….[Many more details]
[*]So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming….Guest Contributor: Jeff SeveringhausProfessor of Geosciences”
———–
Perhaps ‘Regular‘ cannot understand a very obvious difference?
In the past, CO2 levels rose because the oceans warmed — CO2 lagged the warming.
But now, CO2 levels are rising because humans have been burning huge amounts of fossil fuels — the CO2 leads, and is causing warming.
A 14-year-old Fort Payne, AL boy arrested at Fort Payne Middle School last week faces first-degree sodomy and sexual abuse charges for raping a 5-year-old male relative.
- – -
Eddie Walker, the principal of Irmo High School in Columbia, SC, announced his intention to step down to faculty and students on Wednesday, saying he’ll end his tenure following the 2008-09 school year. The decision, outlined in a letter to Lexington-Richland School District 5 officials, said the reason was the formation of a sodomy club for students, conflicting with his professional beliefs and religious convictions.
The sodomy club was forced into the school, as usual, under threat of ACLU lawsuit, lest some schoolchildren escape the ravages of disease and degradation caused by their unrestrained sodomy.
Predictably, the homosexual agenda compared Principal Walker, one of a very few professionals with the guts to back up his convictions regarding student welfare with action without regard to his own personal benefit or loss, with a misguided, Bible-thumping, bigoted segregationist.
(2 Peter 2:6-8)
Regular posted May 26, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“I noticed when I invoke the co2 lags behind temperature, you classify it as a lie and false.”
Post the link where I said that.
Well, well, well the scientific pigeons come home to roost.
I have to say I’m not surprised. The homosexual parent studies fly in the face of nearly every other child study that shows a marked disadvantage for children raised in fatherless or motherless homes (not caused by a parents death). For some reason, homosexuals want to believe that children don’t need a mother and a father.
I’ve noticed the same thing about(the really shoddy) research done by homosexuals. Among the scientists that have produced really bad studies for the cause, you can add Dean (the Gay Gene) Hamer and Simon (cadaver studies) LeVay.
8 posted on Thursday, October 25, 2001 2:31:28 PM by Varda
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/556338/posts
Please note the following >>>>
“Among the scientists that have produced really bad studies for the cause, you can add Dean (the Gay Gene) Hamer and Simon (cadaver studies) LeVay.
“Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001″
Sigh………………………..
Inconclusive does not mean false.
Damn.
It may well be decades before a “gay gene” is found, if then. That does not mean that gays “choose” to be gay.
If this was Debate 101, you would have failed the course.
“was left-handed and so, was a Communist, I guess.”
Oh my goodness! Barack Obama is left-handed – all those stories about him being a socialistic commie terrorist MUST be true!!!!
Of course, George Bush the Smarter was left-handed, too.
He must be a right wing socialist commie.
“He must be a right wing socialist commie.”
No, I think he played first base, didn’t he?
“No, I think he played first base, didn’t he?”
Yes, he did – at Yale – rumor has it he was pretty good.
In fact, George HW Bush did play first base at Yale.
What goes into the “Ewwww File” is the thought of him getting to first base with “Bar.”
George WMD Bush, on the other hand, was a cheerleader.
‘Kansas, aka ‘Regular‘ posted September 3, 2007 at 12:10 am
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-92/#comment-193322
“… there is also the temperature and c02 lag effect. It is estimated that it takes 800 years for co2 to “catch up” where it will start to rise from the increase in temperature. That’s a very long time and is a factor that the GW alarmists continue to ignore as being too inconvenient.
Temperature drives co2 increase, not the other way around. This is basic science.”
——–
Well, technically, ‘Regular‘ is correct.
The “temperature” of burning huge amounts of coal, gasoline, diesel, nat gas, etc has helped cause Earth’s CO2 levels to rise about 100 ppm since the 1700’s.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushcheerleader.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushpictures.htm
So can anyone tell me how you can tell someone is gay without them telling you or your asking them?
“So can anyone tell me how you can tell someone is gay without them telling you or your asking them?”
A more important question would be why are you so concerned? Why is it so important to you that being gay is a “choice” and not a matter of genetic disposition?
WS Clark,
Why is it so important to you that being gay is genetic and not a choice? Why are you so concerned?
“Why is it so important to you that being gay is genetic and not a choice? Why are you so concerned?”
Because I believe that all people are created equally and deserve equal rights.
And don’t give me the “they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex” routine.
You say that marriage is not a right, it is a privilege.
I answered – now you answer, Price.
WS Clark,
I also believe that all people are created equally and deserve equal rights.
What a coincidence!
‘Weekend delegate update: Obama 6-1 ‘
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/26/1065538.aspx
“Obama picked up six delegates to Clinton’s one over the weekend.
…
Obama is 51.5 delegates away from the required 2,026, according the NBC NEWS counts.
(We are also checking to see if we will adjust Alaska’s count. NBC had a 9-4 split for Obama, but according to AP, Obama picked up both statewide PLEOs. That would give a 10-3 split there. We will update if adjusted.)”
‘Cardoza switches to Obama
Valley endorsements help put senator 49 delegates away from party’s nomination’
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080526/A_NEWS/805260322
“In a signal that the Democratic Party’s superdelegates have begun to shift firmly for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Rep. Dennis Cardoza – a former supporter of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton – has switched sides to support Obama.
Fresno Rep. Jim Costa also announced he would get off the fence and endorse Obama.”
Someone asked earlier why anyone would choose to be gay?
There could be many reasons!
-To rebel against their parents.
-They tried it once and liked it.
-They want to be the topic of discussion at school, to stick out.
-They have a victim complex and want to feel persecuted.
-They simply like a person of the same sex so much that they want to be with that person.
-Had a traumatic experience with a family member of the opposite sex and are now turned off by members of the opposite sex.
-Simply want to be different or special compared to the “Norm”
Want me to try to come up with some more?
Cosmos,
Hilary is still crossing her fingers that he could be assassinated.
“Want me to try to come up with some more?”
Do you really believe that ANYONE would choose to live a life of persecution, harassment denial of rights for THOSE reasons?
Come on. Sexual activity is an elementary part of one’s existence – not a fad.
But why is it so important to you, Price, that being gay be a “choice” and not a matter of genetic disposition?
We are all in agreement on this then and I am sure Pope will agree also because his best bud WS said it first.
WS Clark,
It is not important to me at all. This is a discussion of facts on the topic of Homosexuality being a choice or not.
Neither side can conclusively prove either way their claim.
I simply see that the evidence doesn’t show anything more than Homosexuality being a choice in my opinion.
As I said before, how do you know if someone is gay or not without them telling you or you asking them?
You can’t.
Oh, and yes, I truly believe those reasons I gave above.
Well no one asked but I will say it anyhow. I don’t care is someone is gay, sad, straight, crooked, or whatever. I do however have a problem with creating a protected class so there can be more discrimination laws put on the books. There are legal ways to protect the relationship of a gay couple without changing the definition of marriage and all of the legal ramifications of that.
What will the next protected class be. A spinster daughter married to her old dad so she can draw benefits all of her life. How about a mother marrying a no good son who won’t work but will benefit from her work history. Sounds outrageous. How can we say yes to some and not to all?
WS and Pope this doesn’t make me a homophobe just someone who has a different opinion from yours. OK
“We are all in agreement on this then and I am sure Pope will agree also because his best bud WS said it first.”
What kind of idiotic statement is that, OK?
“There are legal ways to protect the relationship of a gay couple without changing the definition of marriage and all of the legal ramifications of that.”
That is only partially true – gays would have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to gain SOME of the benefits of marriage that heterosexuals do and even then they would not be eligible for SS survivor benefits.
“How can we say yes to some and not to all?”
Sigh………………….
What part of unrelated, consenting adults did you miss?
Gays just want to be able to marry the UNRELATED, CONSENTING ADULT of their choice.
Easy, right?
Why the objection?
Nathaniel,
Excuse me for noticing, but you sure seem to show a lot of interest in homosexuality. Now I don’t give a whit what your orientation is personally, but being in the Marine Corps, you might want to watch that.
Sweetie.
“As I said before, how do you know if someone is gay or not without them telling you or you asking them?”
Honestly, what difference would that make? Really?
People are (and do) take you at your word that you are a Christian.
Why is someone’s word about being gay any different?
WS Clark,
I didn’t say I don’t believe people that say they are gay. I simply believe that they ultimately chose that and are not born that way.
Boeing just doesn’t have the business ethics of those European businesses!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080526/bs_nm/siemens_corruption_dc_1
Siemens unit bosses failed to stop bribes: defendant
Maybe that’s why they got our business.
Nano,
The only interest I show in Homosexuality is when someone else brings up the subject of forcing our government to recognize that lifestyle choice or they try to say in a discussion that homosexuality is not a choice or someone tries to say that it is not sin.
If you notice, I am not the one who brings up these discussions on the blog.
It is the liberals here.
So, why do you not look in the mirror and ask yourselves if you might be homosexual because you can’t stop talking about it?
WS Clark wrote:
“That is only partially true – gays would have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to gain SOME of the benefits of marriage that heterosexuals do and even then they would not be eligible for SS survivor benefits.”
Just curious Clark what are they spending the hundreds or thousands on. My spouse and I had a trust written up to protect our assets. I could have had the same trust set up with a child. Did cost us some money but the peace of mind is worth it. No different for a gay couple.
As for the SS benefits – that is a whole nother kettle of worms and this blog isn’t long enough to discuss them all.
WS says:
“Gays just want to be able to marry the UNRELATED, CONSENTING ADULT of their choice.”
Well Clark why should gays be the only ones who get to define marriage?
“I simply believe that they ultimately chose that and are not born that way.”
Why?
“So, why do you not look in the mirror and ask yourselves if you might be homosexual because you can’t stop talking about it?”
Leave it to Nathan to pull the “you might be gay because you support gay rights” bullshit.
Childish, at best.
As I have stated before, Price, you have all the social skills of a twelve year old.
“Well Clark why should gays be the only ones who get to define marriage?”
No one said they should – why should heterosexuals be the only ones to define marriage.
And don’t pull “the majority” yada, yada.
Minorities have rights, too, even if you don’t like it.
“No different for a gay couple.”
Other than the hundreds or thousands of dollars.
As for SS – they pay in, they should be entitled also.
……Nano, I think nathan is getting ready to proposition you.
May 9, 2008
Aikman, Berlinski, Day, and Lennox Versus Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris
by David Noebel
The Delusion of Disbelief (David Aikman)
The Devil’s Delusion (David Berlinski)
The Irrational Atheist (Vox Day)
God’s Undertaker (John C. Lennox)
http://www.summit.org/resources/pd/2008/05/aikman_berlinski_day_and_lenno.php
Our 2008 Australian Summit was conducted in Melbourne at the Deakin University campus. The college bookstore was drenched in Richard Dawkins. His picture was everywhere, promoting his book The God Delusion. But nowhere to be found were any works challenging Dawkin’s atheism, evolution, humanism (but I repeat myself). Dawkins teaches at Oxford University, but so does John C. Lennox. Alas, the bookstore had no interest in Lennox, only Dawkins! Also not to be found was Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion, “the definitive book of the new millennium,” according to George Gilder.
The evidence clearly shows that many of our institutions of higher leaning are cesspools of atheism and hotbeds of radicalism, including sexual radicalism. It’s as though we’re reliving the pre-French and pre-Bolshevik revolutionary eras.
Prior to the French Revolution, atheism was rampant throughout the nation along with the sexual radicalism of the Marquis de Sade, Mirabeau, Jean-Paul Marat and the Jacobins, Robespierre, etc.
The same was true during the years preceding the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Communism was founded on the atheism and socialism of Marx and Lenin with Darwin’s evolutionary theory thrown in for spice. Remember that it was Marx who wrote Engels saying, “During…the past four weeks I have read…Darwin’s work on Natural Selection…this is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.”
Now we are being assaulted with what is sometimes labeled “New Atheism.” Paul Kurtz’s Center for Inquiry, for example, is conducting a summer institute for young atheists entitled “The Journey From Religion to Science.” One of their course descriptions reads, “Contemporary issues in secular studies; multisecularism, desecularization and the ‘new atheism.’”
In reality, however, there are no new arguments for atheism. Unless “new atheism” means “new atheists,” it’s a misnomer. The arguments that the French and Communist atheists had in their quiver generations ago are the very same arguments Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris (DHDH) have in their quiver. It seems each generation is called upon to face the same issues, and the question of God’s existence is a perennial.
Because we, too, must face the issue of atheism head-on, let me recommend the four books listed at the top of this article by Aikman, Berlinski, Day, and Lennox (ABDL). These authors handle all the major arguments, accusations, and assertions of the new atheist crowd. Indeed, it’s as if we have two law firms bidding for the hearts and minds of this generation. And so they are because ideas have consequences. Theism and atheism have consequences.
Let’s begin with David Aikman, who summarizes the case against these famous four theologians of atheism. Analyzing their writings, he says their errors fall nicely into three major categories: (1) their assertions are too wild to be taken seriously (e.g., “religion poisons everything” or “better many worlds than one god” or “Jesus was born in 4 A.D.”); (2) they stray into unfamiliar territory (Biblical studies, theology, philosophy) and prove they are wading in way over their heads; and (3) their view that somehow science invalidates religious truth is far from historically true and certainly not scientifically true since religion birthed science (see Berlinski, p. 46). Berlinski goes so far as to state that the faith necessary to do coherent scientific work is debauched by a complacent atheism.
So let’s be blunt for a moment. For all the hype given over to the atheists’ charges, claims, pronouncements, and fairy tales, I can’t think of one thing that Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, or Harris preaches that isn’t answered in a scholarly, even “fair and balanced” manner, by Aikman, Berlinski, Day, and Lennox. No Christian need be embarrassed by the avalanche of atheistic propaganda, believing that their arguments are really too profound and powerful to challenge. ABDL challenges every one of them with reason, logic, science, common sense, and yes, a sense of humor, too.
Atheists, by the way, seem to lack a sense of humor (although Hitchens has far more than the others combined). Case in point: Harris wants to put to death those he considers truly harmful to society (Aikman, p. 32). I’ll let his words speak for him: “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live” (The End of Faith, p. 52).
And these are our modern-day tolerant atheists! Can you imagine if they were the Communist variety that slaughtered millions (see The Black Book of Communism by Courtois). Even one of their own, Theodore Dalrymple, remarks that Harris’ statement is “quite possibly the most disgraceful that I have read in a book by a man posing as a rationalist” (City Journal, Autumn 2007). Surely the “new atheists” have lost touch with reality.
Hitchens was probably not trying to be funny when he remarked, “We do not rely solely upon science and reason because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors.” Berlinski’s response is facetious, yet utterly reasonable—”If Hitchens is not prepared to ‘rely solely upon science and reason,’ why, one might ask, should anyone else?” (Berlinski, p. 5). Hitchens also reasons (in all seriousness) that his belief in the nonexistence of God is not a belief, but my belief in the existence of God is a belief. Go figure!
A question worth asking is this: What triggered such a sudden onslaught of hard-core, mean-spirited atheistic propaganda? Why now?
Some suggest that perhaps it was George Bush and his administration that riled up the godless with his evangelical Christianity clearly on display. I personally think the answer is much closer to the atheist camp itself. One of their very own (and not just one of their lightweights) decided after looking at the scientific evidence that atheism is untenable, indefensible, and yes, false! The gang of four (DHDH) decided that such a gap in their Secular Humanist worldview armor needed to be plugged, and since Antony Flew is a heavyweight, so, too, the humanists had to call their remaining heavyweights to arms. Hence, this massive flood of atheist books and TV appearances, college lectures, and radio call-in programs.
DHDH could not stand back and fail to challenge Dr. Flew’s admission that it was his study of science and philosophy that actually led him out of atheism, not theology and evangelism! In his book There Is A God (also highly recommended!), Flew begins with his early life as an atheist, explaining his reasons why God could not exist, and then moves to his later life and why he changed his mind. He now concludes that indeed there has to be a God, or there would be no universe. Sounds like Genesis 1?
Since the flurry over Flew’s conversion to deism, a bit of calm has descended and a lot of research and writing has commenced. The authors answering the four purveyors of atheism are handing them their heads on a platter! Regretfully, atheist heads on platters is not graphic enough for coverage on the evening news.
Any fair-minded reader of Aikman, Berlinski, Day, and Lennox will recognize that the atheists’ thrusts and daggers have been brilliantly and convincingly defeated.
Berlinski and Lennox, for example, take on the atheistic notion that somehow science proves the nonexistence of God. After examining the scientific method and its various ramifications, Berlinski concludes that he has yet to see how science disproves the existence of God. He notes that physicists seem “remarkably unenthusiastic about welcoming philosophers as fellow scientists” (Berlinski, p. 58). Richard Feynman observes, “The philosophers are always on the outside making stupid remarks.” Saying that science somehow proves the nonexistence of God is a stupid remark! Another stupid remark is Dawkins’ theological/philosophical claim that “Better many worlds than one god.” Equally stupid is his “many worlds” or multiverse theory of not one universe but an infinite number of parallel universes. Such “science so-called” or better, “scientism” is merely Dawkins’ atheism and materialism coming to the fore.
Berlinski’s comments about “faith” and “science” are also worth examining. He quotes Stephen Hawking to the effect that “so long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” It takes faith to accept the proposition that science has discovered a beginning to the universe. In fact, in takes faith in reason to even reason logically about it. Vox Day points out that faith is not the opposite of reason; the opposite of reason is irrationalism.
Berlinski contends (p. xii, xiii) that there have been four profound scientific theories since the great scientific revolution in the West—Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetic field theory, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanicsand none disproves the existence of God. Stated another way, none proves the atheist claim that science has buried God (note the title of Lennox’s book). Einstein said it like this, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Dawkins, who claims Einstein as one of his own, should listen to his scientific superior.
Berlinski insists that “no scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses” (p. xiv). In fact, he says science has “nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love, and meaning.” On the other hand, the religious tradition “has formed a coherent body of thought regarding these subjects” (p. xiv). Berlinski further notes, “Science does not harbor the slightest idea of how the ordered physical, moral, mental, aesthetic, social world in which we live could have ever arisen from the seething anarchy of the world of particle physics.”
Aikman, Lennox, and Day do not in any way disagree with Berlinski, but rather add to his basic arguments. Day, for example, addresses in some detail the charge that religion is an enemy of science. He proves why the charge is false and quotes from Feynman to the effect that “[s]cientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad–but does not carry instruction on how to use it” (Day, p. 52).
Both Aikman and Day cover the area of atheism’s practical outworkings in society. And their examples do not edify the atheist cause. For example, few atheists wish to discuss the relationship of Darwin to Hitler or atheism’s role in the former U.S.S.R. Day quotes Lenin and Trotsky to the effect that “atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism” and the “very essence of religion is the mortal enemy of Communism” (Day, p. 243).
Day’s chapter entitled “The Robespierre of Atheism” is an insightful look at Michel Onfray, the French atheist and hedonist and far-left Nietzschean. Nietzsche, of course, was not only an atheist and nihilist (life has no meaning), but also a warmonger. His famous statement on war: “War is an admirable remedy for peoples that are growing weak and comfortable and contemptible; it excites instincts that rot away in peace.” Not surprising, Onfray, although a historian, has nothing to say of the “fifty-two atheist mass murderers of the twentieth century” (Day, p. 202). But he has plenty of nasty things to say about the American Secular Humanists for accepting way too much of the Judeo-Christian morality (e.g., Paul Kurtz says he can accept the Golden Rule in spite of its religious connotations). Onfray, however, would banish Christian morality on the basis that “it is anti-social.” Translation: It is anti-Darwin’s natural selection/survival of the fittest. Christian morality cuddles the weak, the sick, and the helpless instead of allowing them to die (or even assisting in their death), thus enhancing the evolutionary process.
Day’s chapter entitled “The End of Sam Harris” is worth the price of the book. He especially takes Harris to the woodshed for his statement that “some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” (Day, p. 129).
John C. Lennox’s powerful defense of the Christian perspective will be hard to dismiss by any atheist. His overall thrust is to prove that theism as a worldview “sits most comfortably with science.” His argument is that the scientific evidence moves toward theism, exactly opposite the argument of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris.
In fact, Lennox points to immunologist George Klein, who “states categorically that his atheism is not based on science, but is an a priori faith commitment” (Lennox, p. 34). Statements like this are bad news for the fearsome foursome of DHDH! Lennox also points to former atheist Antony Flew, who admits that his “whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates [to] follow the evidence wherever it leads.” Following the evidence led him to remove himself from the atheist camp (Lennox, p. 38).
Much of Lennox’s book covers the issue that “the genetic material DNA carries information” (Lennox, p. 54). Read it to be fully informed on why the existence of “information” spells death to the forces of HDHD! (Hint: Information is a form of language, and language implies an author.)
I now return to David Aikman, whose chapter entitled “The Christian Worldview Is the Foundation of Liberty” is priceless! Aikman begins by quoting Michael Novak: “Can an atheist be a good citizen? That has been done, many times. Can American liberties survive if most of our nation is atheist? The most common, almost universal judgment of the founders was that it could not” (Aikman, p. 135).
Aikman moves to more fully answer the question of the survivability of freedom under the atheistic worldview. He comes to the founding fathers’ conclusion, but offers his analysis in a most interesting way. In fact, Aikman quotes Hitchens, one of the fearsome foursome, to the effect that “secular totalitarianism has actually provided us with the summa of human evil”(p. 98). However, this same Hitchens concludes the founding fathers were not “men of faith” because “almost to a man, none had a priest at his deathbed” (Aikman, p. 137). Aikman replies tongue-in-cheek, “Dying Protestants don’t make a habit of calling on priests to attend their departure from this life.”
Aikman’s comments on Thomas Paine are also worth noting. Though Paine was one of the very few true Deists (most of the founding fathers were either Christian or Unitarian), when he returned to Paris following the American Revolution he went there to “fight against atheism.” Paine fought against atheism because he held the atheists of the French Revolution era “responsible for the massacres” (Aikman, p. 141).
Aikman also quotes John Adams (a Unitarian) answer to the French atheist Condorcet who was arguing for morality without religion: “There is no such thing [as morality] without the supposition of God. There is no right and wrong in the universe without the supposition of a moral government and an intellectual and moral governor” (Aikman, p. 152).
Not one of the fearsome foursome (DHDH) comes close to challenging Aikman’s argument that the founding fathers were in no way establishing an atheistic commonwealth. All of America’s founding documents were theistic in one way or another. Thomas Jefferson said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Our founding fathers knew that atheism could not be the foundation of a free, democratic republic. Dozens of their statements prove this point.
Aikman finds it significant that after atheistic Communist regimes have historically “wrecked suffering and chaos” on a national basis, “it is the secular rationalism of the atheist worldview that is being challenged.” In China, most Chinese have lost faith in Marxism-Leninism, sensing that Marxist philosophy is chained to “the iron ball of state atheism, [which] has left it in a moral wasteland” (Aikman, p. 167).
Let me conclude by examining the observations of a former atheist—Sir Fred Hoyle (who, incidentally, was skeptical about Darwin’s theory of evolution). Hoyle understood that for life to exist on earth, lots of carbon (C and atomic number 6) is needed. He understood how carbon was formed (combining three helium nuclei or combining helium and beryllium). He also understood that for any of this to happen “the nuclear ground state energy levels have to be fine-tuned with respect to each other” (Lennox, p. 69). If the variation were more than 1 percent either way, the universe could not sustain life. Hoyle says nothing challenged his atheism more than “this scientific discovery.”
Physicist Freeman Dyson sees it nearly the same way: “The more I examine the universes and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.” Paul Davies likewise concludes, “It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.” (See also Hugh Ross, Creation as Science, p. 96[f] for additional examples of a finely tuned universe.)
Let’s hope and pray that DHDH will reach the same conclusion. Let’s pray earnestly that they cease and desist their atheistic propaganda machine that weakens Western Civilization’s attempt to survive the current onslaught of Islam in its westward march, convinced that the time is right to demolish the decadent “Christian” West. As George Gilder says, “A culture that does not aspire to the divine becomes obsessed with the fascination of evil, reveling in the frivolous, the depraved, and the bestial.” (See Gilder’s review of The Devil’s Delusion in National Review, May 5, 2008, p. 58.) Indeed, let’s pray for a revitalized and rededicated Christianity that can again be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world,” reflecting its founder and Master–Jesus Christ. Thus ends the homily!
Well clark single people pay into SS also. If they want to marry a maiden aunt so she will be taken care of why should you care.
It’s a given that black males die much younger that white men. They therefore don’t draw out much SS. Shouldn’t they then be able to assign those benefits to their old helpless mom? Only seems fair.
BTW I just told you as a hetro couple we paid legal cost to file a trust and will. Which part of that did you miss. Are you thinking that if you are gay it cost more to settle your estate?
“Well clark single people pay into SS also.”
Yep, and they don’t have a surviving spouse to collect benefits.
“Are you thinking that if you are gay it cost more to settle your estate?”
There are a multitude of benefits available to a heterosexual couple for the price of a $50 marriage license.
Just make it the same for gay couples.
“that weakens Western Civilization’s attempt to survive the current onslaught of Islam in its westward march”
Jeez, a goodly portion of fundamentalist Muslims, bent on conquering the West, still live in caves and thatch hut villages, without running water.
Somehow, I am just not worried.
Do you really want to see those pesky fundamentalist Muslims get the living shit kicked out of them?
Let them try to tell American football, basketball, baseball and NASCAR fans that they have to give up beer.
They couldn’t run back to Saudi Arabia fast enough to outrun the Bud drinkers, nonetheless the Miller Lite drinkers.
“Nathaniel” steps out of the closet and declares –
“The only interest I show in Homosexuality is when someone else brings up the subject of forcing our government to recognize that lifestyle choice or they try to say in a discussion that homosexuality is not a choice or someone tries to say that it is not sin.”
Yeah, we all know that the Prophet “Nathaniel” is here to judge others’ “sins.”
“If you notice, I am not the one who brings up these discussions on the blog.
“It is the liberals here.”
Uhm, no, Your Holiness.
This thread got started due to “American” obsessing on his obvious bi-curious feelings. Read the thread, “Nathaniel.”
Unless you were just lying to keep your hand in?
“So, why do you not look in the mirror and ask yourselves if you might be homosexual because you can’t stop talking about it?”
Take that up with “American,” Your Holiness. Certainly there’s a restroom at the airport you can meet and tap your foot.
Ummmm A Married couple, without a Will, haas no problem with who inherits… It is automatic that the surviving spouse inherits, without any Will in force…
A Gay couple does not have that right… They have to spend many $$$$ to BUY that same protection that is automatic for married couples…. That is NOT equal rights!! That nonsense WILL be defeated eventually in Courts… This kind of right wing mentality will NOT rule this nation!!
Religious beliefs will NOT determine what the nation believes for LAW…. That is a travesty against the Constitution!! And I dont CARE if the right wing doesnt like it!!
Nobody — being gay — threatens anybody’s marriage…. Nobody — being gay — threatens anybody else’s sexual orientation!! All of that flaming nonsense is totally FALSE!!
As for atheists… They dont need any arguments… All an atheist has to say is, “I do not believe in a God, and nobody can make me.” What a bunch of paper could be saved if others who disagree would just stop writing books to attempt to refute what is a belief in NO God!!
What a crazy mixed up Tory kind of world we live in!! My goodness!!
Religious beliefs will NOT determine what the nation believes for LAW…. That is a travesty against the Constitution!! And I dont CARE if the right wing doesnt like it!!
REASON: What gay people want is not an infringement on anybody else’s rights… plain and simple… It is NOT adding a new group for protection… it is include a group not now protected, to those already protected!! To claim that gays want to be a specially protected group, is a FALSE statement….
Pope you really are a little dense I’m thinking. Any real property can be held by tenants in common and both names can be on the deed. Mutual funds and life insurance policies have a line to designate the beneficiary, bank accounts belong to who evers name is on the account. You can name whoever you want as your medical decision maker. It is a simple piece of paper. I could go on but you might have it by now.
Anyone with a large amount of property would be delelict in not having a will because it would have to be probated by the state and a large part of it would go to the state.
These are all strawmen arguments. Easily refuted.
“because it would have to be probated by the state”
Not if you have a spouse.
Actually anything that is not held in common will still go through probate if the spouses name isn’t on the deed. She/He would probably get it in the end but there could be objections that would overrule this. For instance how long were they married and how long was the property owned by the deceased. Subsequent children would then have a case.
Anyone with a lick of sense would protect their assets from the state in this manner. A couple of hundred dollars will fix this. It isn’t expensive to have a simple will drawn up.
“It isn’t expensive to have a simple will drawn up.”
That still doesn’t give all the same benefits to a gay couple, especially SS survivor benefits.
As I said earlier that is another kettle of fish (SS). It would be a non-problem if SS was privatized and you could leave the money in your account to whoever you wanted.
“It would be a non-problem if SS was privatized and you could leave the money in your account to whoever you wanted.”
Since SS funds are spent as part of the general budget, and has been for decades, any privatization of SS would result in a direct negative impact on the deficit and debt.
That is something that the BushCo folks have conveniently overlooked.
But maybe it is a problem that needs to be corrected now. SS was always intended to be self supporting and if the funds had been invested it would be healthy today. Politicians have always solved problems anyway they can without looking at the long term results.
“Since SS funds are spent as part of the general budget…any privatization of SS would result in a direct negative impact on the deficit and debt.That is something that the BushCo folks have conveniently overlooked.”
Same old tired rhetoric from Clark, who denies a democrat ever stepped on a crack in the sidewalk.
Part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” program. Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue.
.
.
.
Since 1965, both democrats and republicans have enjoyed spending the hard earned money that working Americans have contributed to Social Security, to augment a variety of other programs.
As Tara once said upon reading a thread here on the topic of homosexuality: “Oh my brain”
What incredible nonsense on this thread.
First of all, let’s deal with this chestnut, which people on both sides of this discussion do not seem to understand. The dichotomy is not genetics verses choice. There are all sorts of biological features and predispositions that are acquired as well as those that are genetic. I am unaware of any smoking gun found in studies of sexual orientation. That does not mean that sexual or romantic orientation is a “choice”.
Also, did anyone actually take a look at Regular’s first link? It was not peer reviewed research, it was an extremely political review of peer reviewed research. It was very interesting how Ryan Sorba (a right wing anti-gay campus activist), within his review, chose to discount some peer reviewed studies in favor of others. Sorba is a fanatic, and should not be taken seriously.
That being said:
The second set of articles, taken apparently from journals published by Hayworth Press, were abstracts from peer reviewed journals that dealt with specific hypotheses regarding homosexuality (both causitive and correlative). They do not refute the hypothsis that sexual and romantic orientation is innate, but they do draw into question specific mechanisms. It should be noted that there is some interesting evidence of some correlative factors being predictive of homosexuality in men relating to handedness and and same gender birth order, but from what I can tell these suggest avenues for further research for causitive factors (most of these studies have been conducted by Blanchard).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18050001?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
But the fact of the matter is, no biological “smoking gun” has been found for innateness of human sexual and romantic orientation. However, in a topic as complex as this one, absence of evidence is not evidence that orientation is “chosen”, or even necessarily evidence of absence of biological factors.
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
The above was from the American Psychological Association.
“What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.”
This was from the American Pschiatric Association.
Note the caution of both entries. The probability is that orientation is caused by a confluence of biological and social factors, but there seems to be little choice in the matter.
One other thing. American (formerly American of the USA?) said this:
“People were born male or female.
“Period.”
American retreated on this point when it was pointed out that there are people who are born with both organs, or a mixture of both male and female features. He then said:
“So those you are referring to above with both genetalia are a very extreme case and is extremely rare, like the actual and real existence of conjoined twins or a six fingered man.”
First of all, when you make a categorical statement, any exception to the rule refutes it, so your statement above is simply factually incorrect. Second, it is not as rare as you might suppose.
As anyone who has gone through high school biology knows, human males are born with an XY pair of chromosomes, while females are born with XX chromosomes. However, not so fast. A human embryo will develop into a female or a sexual mosaic (a person with both male and female features) even with XY chromosomes if the relevant genes on the Y chromosome fail to function correctly. Multiple copies of X or Y chromosomes are also not all that rare, because they are not fatal. In sum, human sexual mosaics (intersex) are more common than is popularly thought. You probably know at least one person who has had gender assignment surgery.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm
Your assumption, American, that someone is simply born male or female is not accurate. More to the point on this topic, your implication that people who are born male or female are inherently supposed to be attracted to people of the opposite sex is naive. Don’t confuse your personal history with others.
The point is, human sexuality and romantic orientation is probably on a continuum. I am heterosexual to the point that I can not understand sexual or romantic orientation to someone of the same gender. I know of others, both men and women, who can be attracted sexually and romantically to people of either gender. I know of still others who have told me that they can not understand sexual or romantic orientation to people of the different gender. To tell these people that they have made a choice is as absurd, to my way of thinking, as telling me I made a “choice”. I know for a fact that I did not “choose” my sexual orientation. I have no reason to assume that people who are gay chose theirs any more than I chose mine.
Obviously, the democrats have quietly adopted the Bush proposal. But it sounds SO much better coming from the koolaid club – because it includes more FREE MONEY:
9 October, 2007: From NBC/NJ’s Athena Jones
“Clinton laid out a proposal to provide a universal 401(k) plan for everyone, at a speech Tuesday in Webster City, Iowa.
Clinton said she wants to create “American Retirement Accounts” in which each family could put up to $5,000 annually in a 401(k) plan. The federal government would provide a tax cut to match the first $1,000 for any household that brings in less than $60,000 a year and 50 percent of the first $1,000 for those that make $60,000-$100,000.
Families could get 401(k) retirement accounts and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered Tuesday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
WSClark
Posted May 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
“Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001?
Sigh………………………..
Inconclusive does not mean false.
Damn.
It may well be decades before a “gay gene” is found, if then. That does not mean that gays “choose” to be gay.
If this was Debate 101, you would have failed the course.
——————————–
You accuse me of being a liar all the time Clark, yet in a debate on a topic, you are as dishonest as they come.
Why don’t you include all of the quote I provided to you twice today?
This has been discussed numerous times on this blog and numerous times it has been proven to you that there is no gay gene, no gay chromosome and no gay anything related congenitally.
When I bring to you in the scientists own words, you paraphrase the first line out of a paragraph to gain an advantage to feed your own ignorance and agenda.
Here it is one more time and next time use the entire quote.
———————————————–
Of course, if you don’t believe me, believe the words of the Dr. Levay who conducted the study himself.
re: Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay, who worked at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.
Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find.
I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.
I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.
Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).
Simon LeVay’s hypothalamus study confused the public. Hopefully the truth will finally set the record straight.
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/born-gay-hoax-studies-debunked/
There Clark, I don’t know how many times this has been shown to you and others, but you refuse to accept the words of the scientist that did the study, yet you keep quoting him to make the meeting exactly opposite of what he has said and published.
Doesn’t sound anything like bush’s plan, didn’t see any thing mentioned of being in lieu of their SS. Just a minor point, I’m sure.
Thats all well and good AmWay — however, it has nothing whatever to do with the problems of Soc. Sec.
“That is something that the BushCo folks have conveniently overlooked.”
And not to be trumped by Hillary, in offering more give away FREE MONEY, Obama, also copied
the BushCo personal retirement account plan, but with the free money kicker:
“Expand Retirement Savings Incentives for Working Families: Barack Obama will ensure savings incentives are fair to all workers by creating a generous savings match for low and middle-income Americans. Obama will expand the existing Savers Credit to match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000, and he will make the tax credit refundable. To help ensure that this proposal actually strengthens retirement investments, the savings match will be automatically deposited into designated personal accounts by using the account information listed on IRS tax filings.”
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/
No who is really concerned with that debt and deficit?
“the problems of Soc. Sec.”
Oh NOW democrats are admitting there is a problem with SS? Amazing! Why I can cut and paste a half dozen quotes by leading democrats who, at the time of the Bush proposal stated – there IS no problem with Social Security. Have posted them before, in fact, Capn America provided links to this claim when posting here some time ago.
Yes repub.s conveniently overlook the hidden income tax that is SS. If it’s not available to be used to fund the govt.’s expenses the money would have to be made up elsewhere. Now, just where might that be? Either, you make up the lost revenue, or add it to your deficit.
Bush cuts taxes on HIGH income people… Obama proposes a tax incentive plan for low income workers… So, what’s the flippin problem??
Not to mention that Obama’s plan is only for a future savings/retirement program — The tax cuts for the RICH arent restricted to be used for savings/retirement… They are money in the pocket… major difference there…
“Doesn’t sound anything like bush’s plan..”
Phantom, you are splitting hairs. Democrats OPPOSED any proposal to change social security with links to personal savings/retirement accounts.
Now BushCo’s proposal never made it to details because DEMOCRATS cried – republicans are stealing your SS!
There is admittedly, one difference. The Bush plan relied upon personal responsibility and workers contributing their OWN money. Both the Obama and Hillary plans offer FREE MONEY!!
Let’s stop the finger pointing, I have been saying for years there is a problem with SS. I was not an advocate of the Bush Plan – because it affected workers nearing retirement (in their fifties). I argued it would be like pulling the rug out from under older workers, who have already established savings/investing goals. Anyone who manages a personal portfolio, and have been saving and investing for years knows – SS is a part of any financial retirement plan.
To change that plan midstream, would not allow older workers (those in their fifties) time to recover and reallocate resources to make up for any shortfall or change in SS entitlement.
“Either, you make up the lost revenue, or add it to your deficit.”
Interestingly, you have overlooked one other solution. But it is one that libs view as either impossible, or they are unwilling to sacrifice any other government program.
Your oversight pointedly reflects a difference in beliefs.
What you didn’t mention was: Cut spending.
“Either, you make up the lost revenue, or add it to your deficit.”
At a cost of $20 billion – $25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton’s largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance.
Obama estimates that his proposal eventually would cost $50 billion to $65 billion a year. Clinton has put an estimated price tag of $110 million on her proposal. But both candidates are vague on how the proposals would be funded other than rolling back some of tax cuts put in place during the Bush administration. AARP
.
.
Sounds like both democrats plans would increase the deficit.
The multi-nic’d ‘Regular‘ posted May 26, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“I noticed when I invoke the co2 lags behind temperature, you classify it as a lie and false.”
Post the link where I said that.
“Same old tired rhetoric from Clark, who denies a democrat ever stepped on a crack in the sidewalk.”
Republican presidents in the last 28 years are responsible for 75% of the National Debt.
“You accuse me of being a liar all the time Clark, yet in a debate on a topic, you are as dishonest as they come.”
I don’t accuse you of being a liar, McCluer, I just post your lies for everyone to see.
“Why don’t you include all of the quote I provided to you twice today?”
I don’t post the whole quote, I just post a portion to REFERENCE the quote.
Just lazy, I guess.
“yet you keep quoting him to make the meeting exactly opposite of what he has said and published.”
What meeting?
“No who is really concerned with that debt and deficit?”
Certainly not the Republicans – they spent at twice the rate of Clinton in Bush’ first six years.
“What you didn’t mention was: Cut spending.”
Give us your SPECIFIC spending cuts and the dollars that would be saved.
Any more questions?
“Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”
It is the one that is well decorated, impeccably groomed and well dressed.
Nathaniel
Posted May 26, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Nano,
The only interest I show in Homosexuality is when someone else brings up the subject of forcing our government to recognize that lifestyle choice or they try to say in a discussion that homosexuality is not a choice or someone tries to say that it is not sin.
Nathaniel, what I notice (in this thread, anyway) is that you’re the one belaboring homosexuality. I’ve been around for a long time and I know a lot about people. It’s my experience that the people who get the loudest about homosexuality are the ones that are the least confident about their own sexuality or orientation.
Now I don’t care what the Foofs do with each other, long as they call it anything but marriage. But I also don’t think you can make a decision about what your sexual orientation is. I couldn’t do that. How about you Nathaniel, could you decide to be a Foof?
By the way, Nathaniel, are you married? Do you have a steady girl? You don’t have to answer, but now you got me curious.
Why do you not call it free money when it involves the tax cuts on the wealthy, but you do call it free money, when it comes from the low income tax payer, into a retirement fund, rather than their checking account…
If its free money for the low income, and yet they never SEE it, then it is free money for the Wealthy, even though they never see it… however, they DO get to keep it in the bank!!
#
Apophis
Posted May 26, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Permalink
……Nano, I think nathan is getting ready to proposition you.
Now Apophis, that’s gonna be tough being as I don’t spend any time in airport restrooms, lol!
“Give us your SPECIFIC spending cuts and the dollars that would be saved.”
I have posted them – many times. Look it up.
But you too missed the point. Phantom posted, “Either, you make up the lost revenue, or add it to your deficit.”
And completely ignored cuts to spending. Thanks for responding for him Clark. Now I know who is the leader in speaking for other lib posters.
So let’s see some lib cuts. (Last time we played this Clark – we agreed on many cuts). But again, it’s off subject. No candidate mentions cuts.
They will ALL spend MORE.
“Why do you not call it free money when it involves the tax cuts on the wealthy?”
Chas, it is very simple.
If you have earnings – you pay in to the IRS. You are paying IN based upon your earnings.
If you have no earnings, or little income – you get paid BY the IRS. You are withdrawing based upon someone else’s earnings. Not your own.
In other words, you didn’t pay into the IRS, but you received a check back – FREE MONEY.
American Way,
This is the Lib game. You post for them proof on a topic and then they forget it is there the same day.
They’ll ignore that you it was ever posted the next time the matter is brought up.
One thing I’ve learned from the Libs on this blog is that they absolutely do not want honest discussion.
Hey, I dont know what country you live in… I paid nothing in to IRS this year… But I also got no check back… You are posting an intentional fallacy!! Want to try again??
“tax cuts on the wealthy?”
To continue, a tax cut is a reduction in the amount of tax liability, again based upon your earnings. There is no FREE MONEY involved.
There is no check coming back from the IRS in excess of the money you paid in.
Two very different things: But one which causes liberals great anguish – as you try to decide how much money to redistribute from those who earned it – to those who didn’t work and earn it.
“I paid nothing in to IRS this year… But I also got no check back… ”
I will try again Chas, because you have narrowed the discussion to just your personal situation.
:-)
There are millions drawing Earned Income Credit in excess of the money withheld on their W2. This amounts to billions of dollars in FREE MONEY.
Additionally, to be fair – we ALL received some FREE MONEY this year. The Economic Stimulus Check was FREE MONEY to everyone under $156K income.
Direct feed (are you reading this Clark?) to the
NATIONAL DEBT!
“I have posted them – many times. Look it up.”
Well, give us a refresher – one that totals $600 billion – the estimated deficit for Fiscal 2009.
As for me………………….
End the War on Iraq – $250 billion.
Close foreign military bases – $200 billion.
Means test SS benefits – $50 billion.
Eliminate redundant Federal/State departments such as Education – $50 billion.
Reduce Congressional staffing and perks – $20 billion.
Eliminate Federal pensions – require SS benefits – $20 billion.
Cut all Federal spending not noted by 10% – $25 billion.
Cut off George WMD Bush pension – $400,000.
Any questions?
“absolutely do not want honest discussion.”
Such as “who is JM and how many children does he have and did he serve in Viet Nam?”
BUSH did the economic stimulus thing… I dont think I get that either!! And, AmWay, you gotta pay IN to IRS, in order to GET an EIC check….
“At the same time, she also doesn’t get the stimulus check because she paid in no income.”
Regular, your sister is one of the few.
Please go back and read the Economic Stimulus Act.
It provides FREE MONEY to millions who had no income. One example: Social Security receipients where that was their sole income (no filing).
Another is veterans (which we both are, so no slam intended). I believe the EIC receipients, also got a bonus ES check.
Check me if I’m wrong, but millions received
Stimulus Checks – with no reported income.
“There are millions drawing Earned Income Credit in excess of the money withheld on their W2. This amounts to billions of dollars in FREE MONEY.”
So your solution is effectively an increase in tax burden for the working poor while give a tax cut for the wealthy or soon to be wealthy.
So much for “compassionate conservatism.”
“BUSH did the economic stimulus thing”
Chas do you need the links to Democrats in Congress who patted themselves on the back, falling all over each other bragging about presenting the legislation? Please don’t blame Bush when it is convenient. Blame all the parties.
“you gotta pay IN to IRS, in order to GET an EIC check”
Again splitting hairs. Look, the EIC receipients get back their taxes paid in PLUS an EIC amount. This amount EXCEEDS the taxes they paid in. We could get complicated – but if you don’t trust me do a web search on the subject. EIC receipients receive FREE MONEY.
“It provides FREE MONEY to millions who had no income. ”
Bullshit.
As for the Earned Income Credit?
Ya’ had to have EARNED income, have a qualifying dependent and be below a specific income level.
In other words – working poor.
Regular, you really should stop threatening other peoples’ family members… honestly!!
“EIC receipients receive FREE MONEY.”
No they don’t bonehead – they get back a portion of what they paid into SS – provided they have a DEPENDANT.
Damn.
This happens every time Regular starts losing an argument, because of lack of facts!!
The wealthy get money in their pocket, and all you guys can do is complain about EIC, and ES checks???
WHY can you not admit that the money in the banks of the Wealthy due to tax cuts is a whole lot MORE Free Money to them, than the low income people get from EIC, or ES checks!!
Oh, yea, you gotta FILE to get an ES check, even if you owe nothing… For some reason, I owe nothing, but still get no ES check… something to do with Schedule C….
“an increase in tax burden for the working poor”
Don’t put words in my mouth Clark. I never said that. Chas and I were discussing what I call FREE MONEY. EIC was an example. But I should add, to cut EIC payments does not increase the poors tax liability. It would reduce the refund to only the amount they actually earned, and paid into the system.
““compassionate conservatism.”
You lumped me again, into something I didn’t claim to be a member of.
“Any questions?”
Yes, do you remember posting all that before – and me replying?
You are arguing with American on the topic Chas, not me.
Questioning you military record?? No, Regular… I havent seen him question your record… He just wants to know what many others are confused about… Did you serve in Nam, as you once posted, OR Did you not serve in Nam because you were too young, as you also posted… He isnt questioning your record… So, knock off with your insane comments about Clrk’s daughter and granddaughter!!
Pope if you paid no taxes this year but had W2 wages you either a) made such a small amount of money you owed none b) the taxes were taken out of your check and you didn’t recognize them (suta, futa) c) you really don’t have a job and live on the street and therefore didn’t have to file.
Just as he uses many nics to project his self hatred for his homosexuality, he ALSO uses many nics to rail against entitlement programs or tax breaks for the poor.
While he himself is on welfare.
It’s really quite an easily observed pattern once you think about it.
There’s probably a big name for it in phsycological work.
“No they don’t bonehead – they get back a portion of what they paid into SS – provided they have a DEPENDANT.”
Clark, as a VITA, I assisted many people with their income taxes. I’ll give you one example, very broad and not exact, but to illustrate.
Single Mom and two kids W2 withholding:
$900
Refund $900 plus $2,500 EIC..
The check (direct deposit) came back from the IRS. Not the SS administration. The idea that the payment is a reflection of the workers SS is in the law – but it is another LIE, to justify the program. A joke, really, to redistribute wealth.
Remember? The SS is broke. IOU’s……..
Just another shell game by congress and prez…
No BS: Receipients get MORE back than 2007 income.
“EIC was an example.”
EIC is NOT free money – it is a return on monies contributed to SS.
In effect, however, an elimination of the EIC would be in effect a tax increase on the working poor.
Tell me how it is not…….
Time to go. Amature name calling hour has began.
Have fun.
Pope did you have to apply to be the blog monitor? What do you do when you can’t calm down the natives? When Clark and Regular are having a conversation it becomes your problem? Do you get paid well for this? I’m looking for a part time job and could handle it when you are off duty.
received combat zone pay twice in two separate wars – edit
Ummmm AmWay — the $900 is NOT a refund of government money… it is the amount she over paid in W2 witholding… That is HER money… She paid in what she OWED…
I would have to see the chart on the EIC check for that amount ($2500)
AmWay — It sounds to me like her employer was witholding too much!! That can be fixed by simple paper work…
Geez it’s literally true.
From early this morning all through all hours of the day, in one nic or another, he’s here.
Your tax dollars at work ladies and gentleman.
October 17, 2006
http://www.summit.org/resources/pd/2006/10/will_the_real_sodomy_party_ple.php
Will the Real Sodomy Party Please Stand Up?
by David Noebel
One has to shake the head violently to see if the neurons are still connected to believe that all of a sudden the Republican Party is the party of Sodom and Gomorrah. Can the pro-homosexual mass media make this stick? We’ll see in a few weeks!
Everyone with an ounce of grey matter knows that the Democratic Party is the Sodomy Party in America. There hasn’t been a homosexual issue that the Democrats haven’t either backed or initiated since the ACLU determined that homosexuality would make a great stick to poke in the eyes of conservatives, traditionalists, and all natural law advocates. There hasn’t been a gay pride parade which hasn’t been led by a Democratic politician! There hasn’t been a gay pride book for first graders not endorsed by Democrats.
Why not openly admit that only the morally-challenged can seriously come to the conclusion that homosexual practices (sodomy, et. al.) are normal, healthy and moral! And while we are at it why not also openly admit that homosexual practices also strike at the heart of God’s creative order of male and female. Using the male arse as female practice is a direct insult to the Creator!
The Democrats gave away their innocence on this matter when their Massachusetts congressman (Gerry Studds) was found with child (a 16 year old Congressional page) and censored by the House for his pedophilia acts. However, once he was re-elected by the morally-challenged of Massachusetts the Democrats looked upon this as the up and coming issue to win elections. And so for at least 25 years the Democratic Party has paved the way for the homosexual agenda – an agenda to place homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality and hence gay marriage, gay adoption, gay rights, gay everything! As Don Feder says, “‘Gay rights’ has become as much a part of Democratic orthodoxy as abortion-on-demand.” Both are part and parcel of the culture of death. Gay marriage, even on Kant’s categorical imperative standard of ethical behavior, is a dead end.
Wasn’t it just yesterday when the Boy Scouts of America were made to appear like the Hitler Youth Organization by the pedophiles and their Democratic friends for censoring all gay scout masters from having access to the boys themselves. I may be wrong but I can’t remember one member of the Republican Party that publicly advocated gay scout masters for the boys! But it was, according to Ann Coulter, the New York Times’ “ethicist” who advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was “the ethical thing to do.” The ethicist said, “Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals.”
The truth is that homosexuals crawl about, around and in the Democratic Party like ants crawl around one’s food in the kitchen cupboard. But that doesn’t mean that the homosexuals are resting on their laurels. They want to crawl amongst, around and in the Republican Party too, and with their Log Cabin crowd are making quite a show of it. The truth is that every Log Cabin member knew of Republican Mark Foley’s homosexuality, and I would be surprised if the Log Cabin didn’t know of his hitting on the pages for years. Homosexuals keep close tabs on these things and are really good at defining exactly who is and who is not “hitting on the boys.”
As the Foley episode was unfolding I remember back a good while when one of our Summit students (God rest his soul!) found himself a target of man/boy “love.” This teenager told me how he was seduced in a Methodist church in Tulsa, Oklahoma by the pastor and that he wasn’t the only one involved. The church, being “courageous” and not wanting to cause a public scandal, removed the pastor from the pulpit and kicked him upstairs by making him a Methodist bishop. He was removed to Houston where he openly attended gay events, gay bars, etc. To make a long and disgusting story short both our Summit graduate and this Methodist Bishop died of AIDS! This Methodist Bishop also made the pages of The Weekly Standard and The Texas Monthly (See article by Emily Yoffe, October 1987) which determined, by secular standards, that he wasn’t fit to be a Christian Bishop! I happen to second that conclusion!
Through this experience and a number of others also involving Tulsa, Oklahoma I have come to the personal conclusion that pedophilia and gayness go together like Mary and Mary’s little lamb. I may be wrong, but every “chicken hawk” that I have known has been on the hunt for “chickens.” Congress and church are just the playgrounds where the hunt occurs.
I find it interesting that God tells Israel He did not want to see any “unclean thing amongst them” including no daughter of Israel was to be a harlot or prostitute and no son of Israel was to be a sodomite! (Deuteronomy 23: 14–17)
Of course, since we have relegated God to the woodshed, it is not politically correct to mention God in the public square, but with the Foley scandal growing perhaps we should take a peak at what God says about the practice of homosexuality being unnatural (Romans 1) and an abomination (Leviticus 18). Just a suggestion for the morally-challenged who maintain they “love” children and don’t want to see any of them left behind!
Reg,
Chill out brother!
You too William.
Please be civil!
Most everybody I know who was around during the Boy Scout issue, said that since the Boy Scouts is not a government program, they have every right to BAN gay scoutmasters… Dont know where you been hanging out, American… But I doubt it was in the same places I hang out… So, maybe your crowd is a little over zealous… Maybe your crowd is the same bunch who would just as soon see all gay people thrown into concentration camps…
Oh, and BTW, FEMALES cannot perform sodomy on other FEMALES, unless they use some kind of perverted “tools” There are perverts in the heterosexual ball park as well… Just remember that!!
“Boy Scouts of America’s refusal to bend its rules to permit gay scouts will cost the organization’s local chapter $200,000 a year if it wishes to keep its headquarters in a city-owned building on Logan Square.”
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3352
Pope don’t know where you been hanging out. Must be in that bubble. There is more than one way to make the Boy Scouts tow the line.
Good Article American. WS and Regular just chill. It isn’t worth what you guys bring to this blog. It is just an exchange of ideas and opinions. You are both better than this.
Landlords can evict any tennant for any reason… Boy Scouts have no reason to allow gay scoutmasters, if they do not wish to do so…
There is no Pope posting here — observer must be talking to itself again… LOL
Observer needs to understand that Chas does not talk to flaming Trolls who cannot read.
Pope last night you told me as if introducing yourself that if I was a newcomer you were Pope Benedict.
Later you said I could call you whatever I liked. I like Pope.
Were you just putting me on and your real name is something else?
Pope what you didn’t see obviously was that the landlord was the city GOVERNMENT.
We’re together on that one. I don’t talk to any trolls that can’t read either. It’s hard to communicate with them on a blog.
“Later you said I could call you whatever I liked. I like Pope.” [okobserver]
LYING TROLL!! I didnt say that
Chas
Posted May 26, 2008 at 2:45 am | Permalink
Observer — do try to keep context… I was simply stating that I do not believe you are NEW to the blog… Get it??
Thus — IF you are new to the Blog, then I am Pope Benedict (or insert any other name you choose) Geez!! TROLL!!!
———————————-
Since I am new to the blog then I can indeed call you whatever name I want to insert. I choose Pope.
Stop calling others names when you don’t even remember what you said yesterday.
Gotta go. New week starting.
Hope you dont come back TROLL!!!
Oh Pope this is too much fun to pass up. I will be back. Count on it.
I hope your hard drive fries, TROLL!!
The multi-nic’d ‘Regular‘ posted May 26, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“One thing I’ve learned from the Libs on this blog is that they absolutely do not want honest discussion.”
The multi-nic’d ‘Regular‘ posted May 26, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“I noticed when I invoke the co2 lags behind temperature, you classify it as a lie and false.”
Okay, let’s have a “honest discussion” — post the link where I said that.
Or admit that you lied.
And post your non-existent Justice Dept. and Congressional links re the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
What’s all this relilgious bull shit I read on here about these fundamentalist arguments against atheism? Being an atheist, I can tell you there is no argument against it. If somebody is an atheist, they dont believe in God — any God!
As an atheist, I dont give a damn if somebody else believes in a God – as long as they arent trying to force me to believe in their fetish. If they do, I will fire back. But most likely not the way they would expect.
Now, I hope there wont be any further arguments about being atheist here. It is a ridiculous argument to try to prove God to an atheist. Why? Because for the most part, we just dont care! Hope that makes it clear enough!
Well, hope you all had a reasonably good holiday!!
Good night; Good luck; God Bless –
Whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings ALL!!
Blessed be all of our Veterans
And all who have gone before us!!
axis of evil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzxvi4v1Kxw&feature=related
American, it’s one thing to link to nasty right wing Christian rants (atheists tearing down western civilization, Democrats as the “pro-sodomy” party) but it is quite another to post a link and then run the entire damn article anyway.
You’re spamming the board. Please stop.
what would you do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgnG2G-Itxs
Clark,
This man {sic} is beneath your scorn. I’m telling ya, and I know, all too well.
Happy Holidays to you and yours.
Steven
Some people crave attention, even if it is negative attention.
Yummmy RIBS!!! Hey, you can send some over to my wife!! She loves them!! And it probably isnt all that far!! :-)
Clark,
You’re a better person than McCluer. I suspect he knows that, as well. Thus, the reason he will not be showing. Heck, maybe the sorry jerk is able to experience shame. In front of your family, the poor pathetic asswipe should.
[Think I may get a "your comment is awaiting moderation" message - oh well]
‘Regular‘ posted May 23, 2008 at 10:55 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/mccain%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98respectful-disagreement%e2%80%99-on-same-sex-marriage/#comment-355702
“I’ll tear this blog a new one and make it like times of old if they don’t stop harassing me. Brownlee doesn’t care, he thinks its funny.
The moment one of the Lib hoodlums start up, I’ll going to rip a new asshole out of someone or someone(s). It’s really that simple.
This is why I came on the blog in the first place, to rid the blog of the likes of Clark, Junior, CapnAmerica and MonkeyHawk.”
——–
You are not doing a very good job at that, are you ‘Regular‘, aka ‘JM’, ‘Republikhan’, (stolen) ‘JM Walker’, ‘blank’, ‘** K H A N **’, ‘Republican’, ‘Kansas’, et al… ?
However, ‘Regular’s‘ posts are doing an excellent job of proving that he is a liar and an obnoxious troll, and/or dumb, with a bad memory.
Hey Sammy Wilson cosmos, time to tuck the GORACLE in to bed. You sleep with rubber doll of GORACLE every night there Sammy?
‘Regular‘,
Do you sleep every night with a rubber doll of Martin Hertzburg?
http://www.explosionexpert.com/pages/1/index.htm
That’s one of Hank Price’s climate(sic) scientists, who you praised.
‘Regular posted May 26, 2008 at 7:37 am
“Good links Hank. It shows that fundamentals of science are in dispute with the Alarmist’s view of Global Warming.”
BlueJay, you’re one of the worst offenders. There’s not 10 cents worth of difference between you and this Regular person. Neither one of you bring anything intelligent to the blog. If you and Regular were banned, nobody would miss you and the blog would be better for your absence.
You both act like a couple of retarded children.