"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.....

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

LOL. Gives a new meaning to "aural" sex.

That was awful. Go sit in the corner. :-)

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.

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.
:-)

"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".

"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.