Disappointment
"Gould 0738" wrote in message Most Liberal: The most liberal view, Typically followed by religious liberals, gays, lesbians, mental health professionals and human sexuality researchers. Chicken or egg? Did these people become mental health professionals and human sexuality researchers as a result of their liberal leanings? Is this the vast left-wing conspiracy? Inquiring minds..... |
Disappointment
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... LOL Check this site: http://religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm You are trying to substantiate your argument with an anti-"Christian Conservative" website? You're right! I did LOL. |
Disappointment
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Molestations by homosexual foster parents: newspaper accounts vs official records. Not so fast, Doc. You're shifting gears from a cite war over whether or not a genetic basis for homosexuality is BS to reports of anti-social behavior by some homosexuals. Let me help you get back on track: Published: Thursday, April 2, 1998 Research links inner ear and sexual preference LOL. Gives a new meaning to "aural" sex. |
Disappointment
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... LOL Check this site: http://religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm You are trying to substantiate your argument with an anti-"Christian Conservative" website? You're right! I did LOL. Chistian Conservatives are to Jesus as the Taliban are to Mohammed. |
Disappointment
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... LOL Check this site: http://religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm You are trying to substantiate your argument with an anti-"Christian Conservative" website? You're right! I did LOL. Chistian Conservatives are to Jesus as the Taliban are to Mohammed. Conservative people who also happen to be Christian don't want to roll back the hands of time several centuries like the Taliban. We would just like the current status quo to be maintained, without any *further* erosion of our country's moral fabric. |
Disappointment
LOL. Gives a new meaning to "aural" sex.
That was awful. Go sit in the corner. :-) |
Disappointment
You are trying to substantiate your argument with an anti-"Christian
Conservative" website? You're right! I did LOL. Pssst. Hey, NOYB, just between you and I, I think that website is trying to explore the entire assortment of Christian perspectives on issues. (Tough concept for a lot of folks who sincerely believe their only private understanding is the only one that could possibly be valid, or Christian.) Does the introduction of ideas not in lock-step with your own perceptions somehow threaten conservative Christianity? Why? If you're so absolutely right, you have nothing to fear. Plus, we're talking a matter of constitutional law, not religion. I only used the graph from that website because it seemed to illustrate our opposite positions so clearly. ******** MIssion statement from your "anti- conservative Christian" website: Points of concern: It is our policy to compare and contrast the beliefs and practices of very conservative with very liberal Christians. Most North American Christians belong to either a mainline denomination or the Roman Catholic Church. Their own faith group may teach some beliefs similar to the conservative wing of Christianity. Some beliefs are similar to that of the liberal wing. Some beliefs are intermediate between the two. We feel that it is important for persons of all faith groups (Christian and non-Christian) to understand the great diversity of Christian beliefs -- both among denominations today and throughout history. Many Christians are aware of their own denomination's current beliefs, but are unfamiliar with the history of those beliefs, or of the teachings of other denominations. ************** Doesn't sound anti-conservative to me. Sounds like a group of folks more interested in finding the truth than following a dogma. |
Disappointment
Oh please! AFFLICT ME....
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Does that mean that homosexual women will actually listen to a guy? :-) Good one! Did you know that one of the mercies of nature is that older men begin developing an auditory nerve deafness that just happens to correspond with the pitch range of the average female voice? Hee haw! 'Course, the reverse is true as well, and women actually lose some hearing in the lower registers more typically associated with male speech. :-) |
Disappointment
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Gaquin wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay marriage? Not specifically. I think (no data) it results from the perceived general devaluation of marriage as a solid, stable societal institution. About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I suspect The "whatever" attitude that results in a 50% divorce rate is, imo, part of the same cultural ambivalence. I wonder how many couples actually read and think about the marriage vows they speak. I don't see it as redefinition as much as inclusion. It's a redefinition to effect an inclusion, and the question is "Why?" The central nut of public policy management is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Why discommode 97% of the population to the benefit of 3%? It does no harm. The fact that marriage ain't what it used to be isn't the result of homosexuality or gay marriage. It's the result of moral decay in our society. It's the result of Americans changing the social "norm" to suit their desires, rather than allowing their desires to be guided by social norms. Nonsense, tooth-boy. Assuming 97% of the population is straight, are their desires going to change because of a new definition of "couple-ness" for gays who are on the verge of spending their lives together as a household? As far as I'm concerned, if the gay couple next door wants to make their union legal, it has absolutely no effect on me. In fact, I've just made an inaccurate statement. In reality, if the gay couple wants to pay more taxes like other married people, that's their business. When my son has friends over, there's a rule here. If they're going to go into deep television vegetable mode, I reserve the right to interject one entire news program. When Bush's legislation was whacked last week, I asked 3 kids what they thought of it. Unanimous answer: A waste of time and effort when there are more important things to do in Washington. Better watch out. In three years, these intelligent kids will be ready to vote. My son: "The dickhead's trying to distract us from the fact that he wants me to get shot at when I'm 18". |
Disappointment
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... My son: "The dickhead's trying to distract us from the fact that he wants me to get shot So it's ok that your son has a foul mouth as long as he's anti-Republican? If your son has drawn the conclusion that Bush is sending kids over to the Middle East solely because he wants them to get shot at, then perhaps you should have tuned him into the news programs 34 months ago. Oh yeah...and turn off that damned NPR. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com