Do you believe the rights of an immoral person are jeopardized by the rights of

1. 59

   taburkettposted 11 years ago

   Do you believe the rights of an immoral person are jeopardized by the rights of a moral majority?
   
   With the latest court rulings involving same-sex marriage and abortion, the court has sided with the immoral minority when the moral majority has spoken.  Will these rulings bring grave damage upon the moral nation?  If so, how should the moral majority repair or offset this damage?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 75

   junksellerposted 11 years ago

   Don't know where you've been, but I'd say the majority moral position is for equality and for a society which is free from the dictates of religious mumbo-jumbo dogmatic nonsense. Any time Justice Scalia is venting steam from his ears I think it is a good sign that today was a good day for human decency and righteousness.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I have been living in the real world where the voters in California passed a law that was ultimately overturned by those who believe the immoral actions of the few outweigh the moral majority.  Human decency was just sidelined.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No plurality via poll that I have seen agrees with you, and  in most polls the majority doesn't agree with you either, and all of those trendlines are increasingly in the direction away from you.

      replyreport
   3. 37

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      People do not have the right to vote on the equal rights of others which is why slavery no longer exists and women can vote. Human progress is often fought by those with narrow minds.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @ junseller, From an earlier post...Yes I did wish for my kids to be born heterosexual. I can't imagine anybody wishing to see their kids denied the opportunity to experience the amazing joy of producing a child with the one they love.

      replyreport
   5. 72

      stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There is nothing decent OR "HOLY" about exclusionism, elitism and discrimination.  *NOTHING*.

      replyreport
   6. 75

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Than you wished for your child to have a specific joy. Fine. I'd wish for nothing but for my child to have a life full of joy (whatever that joy for them was). And same-sex couples can and do bear/raise children with the one they love.

      replyreport
   7. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Biology doesn't permit Same sex couples to produce their own offspring without a 3rd party.  And for many of us, its not the same to adopt, which is a noble endeavor, as it is to hold your own child that you created with your wife.

      replyreport
   8. 75

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Even were we to accept that one is less joyful than another, which is arrogant presumption, it still doesn't give anyone the right to try and prevent one or the other. More importantly, why would you WANT to deny any pursuit of joy?

      replyreport
   9. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I outlined the reasons in my comment.The only other issue I have is I don't agree with children intentionally placed in non-traditional families,including straight single people adopting.I believe the counterbalance of mother/father is important.

      replyreport
   10. 77

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       LandmarkWealth - if the parents are not bothered that one of them if not both (in adoption) does not share the biological DNA of the child, why are you? If biology is the case - what of adoption? No relation of anyone's yet still family

       replyreport
   11. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I was referring to why I wished my kids be born hetero and not denied an opp.  But I personally believe it is important for kids to have the counterbalance of a father and mother.I don't believe straight single people should be able to adopt either

       replyreport
3. 71

   dashingscorpioposted 11 years ago

   In a land that prides itself as being one of "separation of church and state" the morals are determined by the majority and not the religious beliefs of any particular group. Needless to say for those who believe in the bible also know that "judgment day" is handled on an (individual) basis. Therefore what the rest of the world does has no effect on (your) salvation.
   Once this issue was presented as a (civil rights) issue it was simply a matter of time before "Marriage Equality" became the law of the land.
   A nation who supports laws that forbid discrimination based upon religion, gender, race, nationality, and sexual orientation in (every other situation) will have a difficult time proving it's constitutionally acceptable to keep two adults from having a legal marriage because of their sexual orientation. It's not against the law to be gay or lesbian.
   
   (Separation of church and state) makes the religious argument against same sex marriage a non factor.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No church imposed - no religion portrayed.
      This is simply a matter of moral and immoral.
      So - please explain when the rights of the immoral are discriminated by the moral.  And if they are, then reversal has provided reverse-discrimination.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The definition of immoral is corrupt or depraved. Is allowing equal rights for single adults to marry the person they love immoral or discrimination? There was a time people considered "living together" to be immoral. Marriage is NOT an immoral act.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Leviticus 18:22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
      Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions...women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature...
      Truth above all

      replyreport
   4. 72

      stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The Bible may be YOUR truth (for who knows what reason!) but it sure isn't THE truth.  I believe Euclid, Newton, Einstein and Hawking - not so convinced by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

      replyreport
   5. 77

      jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Taburkett - in your first comment you speak of no church, no religion. Yet your ONLY reasoning why it may be immoral is religious. Contradiction? Your religion doesn't make the law for all. In fact your constitution is designed to PREVENT it being so

      replyreport
   6. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      jlpark- your premise is hypothetical due to assumption.  Truth is truth and lie is lie.  Immoral acceptance of same-sex marriage is not truth.  Truth is found in the normal reproduction of normal - not abnormal.

      replyreport
   7. 77

      jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yet it is 'normal' reproduction that results in homosexuals. It's the straights having the gay babies. If u seek 2 tell me it's a choice, pls enlighten me as 2 when and how u made the choice of yr sexuality - if 1 is a choice, so is the other.

      replyreport
   8. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      homosexuality is an emotional abnormality - not a physical trait.  That is why the immoral individuals must continually press for society acceptance as they do.  therefore, homosexuality is a decision, not a physical impairment.

      replyreport
   9. 72

      stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      FIrst of all, your implication that mental disorders are less serious and less real than physical impairments is disgusting and flat out WRONG.  Second, homosexuality is not a choice.  You are one sorry, harmful individual if you argue otherwise!

      replyreport
   10. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       my question is not based on any religious sector but the moral society that is being destroyed.  The federal government is supposed to protect the nation but has recently been focused on destroying it.  This is just one of the destructive actions.

       replyreport
   11. 72

       stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The cowardly removal of appropriate comments that comply with hp tos - now THAT is immoral!

       replyreport
   12. 77

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Does homosexual marriage cause the economy to slide? The $$ with the gays is likely to HELP. Does it cause buildings to erode from under us? Does it cause anarchy and lawlessness in the streets? Is is contagious? No. Hatred is more destructive.

       replyreport
4. 72

   stanwshuraposted 11 years ago

   If that were so, then this life as we know it would itself be immoral, as it would be immoral to create such a circumstance in which the absolute rights of the individual and the "rights" of the supposed majority would be mutually exclusive.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The rights of each individual are mutually exclusive-until the government decides to modify the definitions of that exclusivity.  With the ruling by the supreme court my marriage license means nothing-maybe we should eliminate the license. barbaricly

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How does your license change in the slightest?

      replyreport
   3. 72

      stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So you ask this broad and over-reaching question all because what's really irking you is equal rights for all sexual orientations.  Sorry (not really) but gays can now eat at "your" lunch counter, too.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      the definition of the license changes through the addition of immoral acceptance through it.  due to this, the license then does not depict a moral activity but an immoral one.  license elimination then removes the demanded immoral acceptance

      replyreport
   5. 72

      stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You mean immoral as hatefully portrayed in your Book, and as so blindly obeyed by those of your ilk?  Blind and unexamined faith is not faith at all, but fear.  Fear of what though?  This is hardly more than "just in case" ritualism.

      replyreport
   6. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      if normal, it would reproduce.  but, nature does not allow such because God made sure it took a man and woman to provide the newborn. It is the truthful way that the immoral cannot accept.  Truth is where morality breeds-immoral comes from lies.

      replyreport
   7. 77

      jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So taburkett - if I reproduce its normal? What abt infertile couples - they immoral too? Older people no longer capable of reproductive sex but still having it - immoral? Any non timed 4 conception sex is merely pleasure + there4 immoral? Judge all

      replyreport
   8. 72

      stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "Normalcy" and morality have nothing to do with each other.

      replyreport
   9. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      physical impairment to reproduce is not an immoral mental affliction.  therefore, the moral couple that are infertile are not immoral as you would like to classify them.  once again, you elude the truth.  when truth is accepted immoral support dies.

      replyreport
   10. 72

       stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I think you are quite deliberately playing "Mickey the dunce" wrt my application of "normal".  I don't give a hoot about infertility.  I'm saying that being "abnormal" in some way is not immoral.  Doctor, heal thyself!

       replyreport
   11. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       stanwshura - you continue to attempt an apples and oranges dissertation regarding my question. this is the same expansive impractical spread that supporters of immoral acts portray to spread confusion within the moral community.

       replyreport
   12. 77

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       SMH the fixation of the anti on the sex lives of those whom they despise is beyond me. You seem more worried about what it going on behind our closed doors than what is going on behind yours. Is it moral to be judging another whom you've never met?

       replyreport
5. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   Morality is a matter of perspective.  But in General, while I don't believe in changing the definition of the institution of marriage, I am not against the concept of civil unions that would otherwise grant all the same tax and legal benefits to avoid discrimination.  But ultimately, I think the Supreme Court made the right decision in that I believe this is an issue that is best decided by the states.  If you read the 10th amendment, 90% of what the congress legislates, they have no business involving themselves in.  In that sense, I don't see why conservatives should be overly upset.  There are more conservative states than liberal ones.  And most likely, they will legislate with more conservative values.  Those that find homosexual marriage offensive probably won't want to raise their kids in a place like San Francisco.  The court overturning the will of the people is questionable.  But the people of California voted for the elected officials who appoint people to judicial positions.  So in the end they get the gov't they ask for, right or wrong. 
   
   Frankly, the only thing to concern yourself with is the fiscal impact.  Next it will be the polygamist who's claims he is being discriminated against. And with the precedent that has been set today, they'd be correct.  The precedent is that we cannot define marriage as between a man and a women. So who's has the moral authority to decide it is only between two people at all.  If there is no immorality in it, then why should it be illegal.  So with that understanding we need to award Social Security survivor benefits to not just a spouse, but multiple spouses.  A man with 10 wives will have 10 people who receive SS spousal/survivor benefits even if they never worked a day in their life.  The same will go for Medicare.  If they are a polygamist who is further on in years, and has multiple kids with multiple women, once he hits 66...we all get to pay SS benefits to all his kids that are minors as well.  Ofcourse each spouse will be a dependent and a tax deduction as well. 
   
   People often don't think these things through in terms of the long term implications.  I would equate this to the women serving in combat issue.  Since this is now an acceptable practice, we'll see how many people are OK with women being drafted in the event that god forbid we were ever forced to reinstate the draft.  We'll see how quick the equality is honored.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      you are so correct.  the precedence will provide openings for all the radical immoral society members.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Back in 07 SCOTUS declined to hear a polygamy case. With the new standard set, I don't know how they can deny them the same right. You can't defend this new civil liberty by denying it to others. Immigrants from polygamist nations might be offended.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I welcome the legalization of polygamy too, I am so sick of all these "small government" conservatives who favor legislating their morality, the hypocrisy stinks. Thankfully they have lost the public and will soon be just an unpleasant memory.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes...and now we can add on more social entitlement benefits for multiple spouses and their offspring, and eventually send us off the economic cliff the way the Europeans have destroyed themselves with their entitlement state.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      #1 the average European debt is less than third of ours compared to gdp and lower in nations with bigger welfare states.
      #2 the numbers will be utterly insignificant.
      #3  the law can be adapted to account for the factors you raise.

      replyreport
   6. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Europeans productivity in terms of GDP per capita, and GDP per hours worked is horrific when compared to the US.  They have become an unproductive society based on their entitlement culture with perpetually high unemployment.  But were catching up.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Nope several European nations have higher productivity per hour, they do work less hours a week on average because they have better workers rights and quality of life and hence happiness.

      replyreport
   8. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah like some of the Scandinavian nations that went insolvent in the early 90's and were forced to reduce entitlements, lower tax rates, reduce reg's and float their currency. I am in agreement 100% with that approach.  Europe as a whole is doomed.

      replyreport
   9. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I don't actually think I need to explain to you how incredibly weak an argument that is.
      BTW No Scandinavian nations has been insolvent since the 30s only one nation reduced entitlements in the 90s, they are now higher than they were before that.

      replyreport
   10. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       No, I must have imagined the disaster they created in the early 1990's and that Sweden subsequently cut gov't spending's share of GDP about 18% since then.  And that they now allow private companies to run public hospitals.  Corp tax cut to 22%

       replyreport
   11. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       much has been discussed, but little really explains the damage to society as the morals erode.  The immoral would never want to allow a complete vote, because they are unwilling to follow the law created by states like California.  Society destroyed.

       replyreport
   12. 61

       Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       We just had votes on the issue in several states in the last election, several states legalized same sex marriage by vote, some will legalize it through elected officials instead.

       replyreport
   13. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       And some states won't legalize it.  Which is why I ultimately agree with the SCOTUS. I believe this to be a 10th amendment issue.  And the states should decide this.  If only they'd recognize states rights more often.

       replyreport
   14. 72

       d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       So, L.W. if every state but Texas stops attacking women's rights and legalizes same sex marriage - that is OK with you? Then we must change our name to the "divided state of America"

       replyreport
   15. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I believe in the 10th amendment, states have rights to decide what is not explicit in the constitution. I don't believe they are attacking women's rights.  But if they legalize same sex marriage, so be it.  The states are already divided culturally.

       replyreport
   16. 72

       d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       LW: what kind of country is this without uniformity in equality? = rights R the issue, no state should have the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs. the concept of "religious morality" has no bearing on equality or laws governing crimes

       replyreport
   17. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I don't see it as discrimination. They want the same federal benefits, many of which I don't believe should exist to begin with for anyone. Which civil unions can accomplish. The concept of Federalism is to not have total uniformity.

       replyreport
   18. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       the issue is based on a corruptive government that chooses to support immoral activity to destroy the nation.  equality has already been shown through court cases where civil unions resulted in the same benefits for the immoral individuals.

       replyreport
6. 61

   Josakposted 11 years ago

   The moral majority won, equal rights is moral and supporters of same sex marriage are now the majority by all major polls (and getting ever bigger).

   replyreport
   1. 71

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      True. Gallup has revealed the results of a recent poll showing support for marriage equality at 53 percent. It's even higher among the younger generation or "our future". http://tinyurl.com/bhlwwdy

      replyreport
   2. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      well - some poles are shady - while others simply provide a hole questionable as a fissure.
      You wish it to be, so you state it is so.
      degradation of society is orchestrated by the immoral
      soon the society will be gone -
      as the incapable destroy it.

      replyreport
   3. 75

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What will be gone soon, taburkett, is people like you. Just a footnote in the history of bigotry. The sooner the better.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      obviously the majority voted in California but the minority has overturned it through immoral wrangling.  The bigotry portrayed by the immoral factions and their immoral lawyers is immense.  The judges should be removed for failing to retain morals.

      replyreport
7. 90

   crankaliciousposted 11 years ago

   You're right! Totally immoral. You know what else is immoral? When black people marry white people. When Protestants marry Catholics and Jews marry Christians. When a woman marries but is not a virgin and when a man gets married and is not a virgin. We should legislate all of this immorality out of existence.

   replyreport
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      you're so right - I'm sure that will work as well as it always has!

      replyreport
   2. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Your radical statement is the same one used by many of the immoral factions in an attempt to justify their immoral activities.  Such thinking and broadcasting is why the society is being destroyed.

      replyreport
8. 89

   Billie Kelpinposted 11 years ago

   hmmm.. one wonders about the morality of someone who is so confident he or she understands morality

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      When you live through truth, you can be confident beyond all those who do not.  The moral majority do not waiver under the immoral banter regardless of the corrupt level of those who spew it.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah it's *such* a majority look at the answers on this question
      Or you know a poll.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      People who live morally know the challenges presented by praising and broadcasting the righteousness of God.  The individual who has accepted God as their guide will be stronger and do good in their life.  Those who deny will never recognize the way.

      replyreport
9. 72

   d.williamposted 11 years ago

   I believe that those who judge others and deem them to be immoral, are actually the immoral persons themselves.  Morality is subjective and what one considers immoral for themselves,  others may not. 
   There is quite a difference between one judging someone else based on their personal beliefs versus what is considered equality for everyone.   
   Morality and equal rights have little in common except in the minds of those who tend to judge others by their own beliefs.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      SO - you believe that all judges and juries are immoral?  How about teachers or professors that grade students work?  Your subjective does not secure objectives of true moral society.  Abnormal is abnormal no matter how you dice it.

      replyreport
   2. 72

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      no sir. I am talking about Ur irrational judgmentalism based on erroneous religious teachings. Ur beliefs belong 2 U & cannot B imposed on others. U R entitled 2 Ur beliefs, but can't condemn others 4 theirs. So Ur overreach of my comments is fal

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      your objection is based on your personal feelings concerning this matter.  I have stated nothing other than the truth, while you continue to spew the same rhetoric as those who work to destroy the moral society.

      replyreport
   4. 77

      jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You have stated nothing other than what YOU believe is the truth, Tab, just as d.william has. Not all truths are in fact truths for everyone. Teachers, judges, etc judge objectively - not on race, sex etc. This is a subjective matter of what u dislik

      replyreport
   5. 59

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      once again truth is not being used in the discussion.  the question is based on destruction of the moral society, not the subjective definition of objective pursuit.  the objective is nothing more than saving the society.

      replyreport
10. 80

    Attikosposted 11 years ago

    Since everyone thinks he's in the right, a moral majority by definition occurs whenever most people agree with the speaker. It's a tautology. Since there is such a thing as genuine disagreement, it is impossible for everyone to be right, and we must conclude therefore that anyone who claims a moral majority is on his side is full of ... err ... hubris.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The majority live under principles and rules of correct actions founded on fundamental truth of right conduct rather than an immoral culture deemed legal through custom modification.  Though I walk through an immoral valley, I shall remain clean.

       replyreport
    2. 80

       Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Assuming you're a human being, good luck with that.

       replyreport
    3. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Taburkett, The argument on a moral basis is subjective and can't be absolute.  I approach it from the standpoint of biology, and the laws of human reproduction that mother nature has laid down for us that tell us what is or isn't a normal behavior.

       replyreport
    4. 75

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Funny how it is only Christian non-biologists who make a biological argument against homosexuality, isn't it? Your notion of natural would be laughed out of a biology class.

       replyreport
    5. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The triumph of immoral has continually shown to be temporary through the ages.  That is because truth cannot be defeated.  The truthful lip shall be established forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment. Proverbs 12:19

       replyreport
    6. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Actually my cousin is a Professor of biology at the university of Stony Brook, and made the same point.  And he is an atheist.  Find me one person who ever wished their kid would be born gay before birth, and that tells you how normal it is.

       replyreport
    7. 75

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, well, "my Cousin said so," would also get laughed out of a science class, and I've never seen a parent wish for any particular sexual orientation (dear Lord, please give me a heterosexual child, amen). Maybe you would, I don't know.

       replyreport
    8. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Many scientist don't hold with your ideals and views,and are people of religious and spiritual faith,despite your attempts to portray the scientific community differently.Actually about 75% of Drs and 50% of Scientist are faith based.

       replyreport
    9. 75

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Religion isn't science. Scientists can be religious and they can via faith believe homosexuality is wrong, they still can not scientifically say it is unnatural. It's been observed in many animals and has always been present in humans.

       replyreport
    10. 59

        taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Junkseller brings up a standard point in the animal community.  But like all others fails to identify that in the animal world, the immoral beast is cast out of the clan and is sometimes eradicated by its own kind.  They seem to know how to handle it

        replyreport
    11. 61

        Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah Tarburkett that is not true at all, no animal displays homophobia, only humans, over 95% of mammals have homosexual members..

        replyreport
    12. 59

        taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Josak always explains away the immoral activity as a brotherhood venture with the standard malaise of crony biased commentary rather than the truth.  No scientist has ever discovered a clan of reproducing homophobes.  None ever will.

        replyreport
    13. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        That wasn't my point, only that people of faith are not inherently ignorant to science as you have portrayed them.  And there are scientific theories around intelligent design as well, such as irreducible complexity. regardless of whether you agree.

        replyreport
    14. 61

        Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Taburkett: reproducing homophobes? what are you on about, other animals don't punish homosexuality, you were wrong, it's very simple.
        
        Landmark: irreducible complexity is not a scientific theory at all, biologists laugh at it in general.

        replyreport
    15. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        It is a theory as it is proposed by a Biochemist, and there are others in the field who agree.  Just because it is not a majority opinion doesn't mean it's not a theory. Nor is evolution a fact, but a theory which is still unproven.

        replyreport
    16. 72

        d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        LW: U certainly live in a world of ur own.(right there with burkett).The evolution is a proven theory. Creationism is not.

        replyreport
    17. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Some might argue that Irred. Comp. is on the edge of the science tent (not me), but no one would argue it is mainstream or central. Same is true of homosexuality being unnatural. You're not going to find any primary scientific support for it.

        replyreport
    18. 80

        Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Theories, by definition, have no proof. They have ever evolving (so to speak) support in the known evidence, but never proof.

        replyreport
    19. 72

        d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Attikos: Ur very comment is true of ur beliefs of creationism, but evolution has archeological evidence 2 support their theory. U have only superstition & unsubstantiated religious decrees. (I believe is is true so it must be) this is not a theor

        replyreport
    20. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        It is not a fact, and there are scientist who dispute it, there just a small minority.  And many believe that ID and evolution can coexist demonstrated by their commitment to faith and religion. Scientific truth itself evolves and is never final.

        replyreport
    21. 72

        d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        LW. Ur correct & the ideal would B to accept that evolution is the result of a creative process.  2 continuously try 2 individualize them is illogical.  God did create the evolutionary process without the magic that religion insists on believing.

        replyreport
    22. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        You say that with certainty as though you spoke to God yourself.  My problem is the way many comments here portray the faithful, many of which are respected scientist & Dr's as medieval ignorant people, which in itself is a form of bigotry.

        replyreport
    23. 80

        Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        To d.william: Just a question here. In real life, do you kneejerk your way to the fatuous assumptions you keep posting, or do you just play a reactionary bigot on Hub Pages?

        replyreport
    24. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        lol...Attikos...Don't you know that only the non-religious understand God and all his actions...Not the religious. So much for d.william believing in only that which is a proven fact.

        replyreport
    25. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        My only point is that the Bible is not an acceptable scientific reference. That's not intended as an insult to the Bible. It is what it is. And without the Bible the support for homosexuality being unnatural becomes almost non-existent.

        replyreport
    26. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Many people,including some atheist I know disagree. Not all opposition to same sex marriage is rooted in religious belief. In a few cases even gays opposed it  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french … x-marriage

        replyreport
    27. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        "Not all opposition to same sex marriage is rooted in religious belief" (Here, for example, is an article from the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute)...That's pretty funny. At least you have a sense of humor.

        replyreport
    28. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        If you read the article, the people cited who were homosexual & atheist  themselves were not citing their non-existent faith as their reason.  They were concerned about the family unit & children. You're fee to disagree, but don't make up stu

        replyreport
    29. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        They weren't citing anything for their reasoning. Generally, that's what we call belief. The only 'reasoning' given was a 'study' done by CFAM. Article was also written by CFAM.

        replyreport
    30. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Yes they did, They cited their own personal experience as a rationale.You can disagree with him,but they are still gay atheists.I am simply explaining that not all opposition is based on religious faith,whether you agree with the view is a diff issue

        replyreport
    31. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Well, I did say almost non-existent, not completely. Even so, the ONLY identified atheist in that article specifically cited a junk 'study' which traces back (as most on this topic do) to a religious organization.

        replyreport
    32. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Actually the study was done by the Univ of Texas...Only reported by them.  It's findings contradict other studies. But it was done at the University level.
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 9X12000610

        replyreport
    33. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Study was done AT the university, not BY them. If they could, they'd erase their name from it. Study was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and is widely considered to be rubbish. The short version of the Journal's own audit was: "It's bulls**t."

        replyreport
    34. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The study was done by a Phd from the university, and backed by another from Unv of Penn. The funding is irrelevant. Lib prof's get funding from congress with an agenda of pol correctness. As usual, any scientist who disagrees is not credible.

        replyreport
    35. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Poor science is poor science. It really isn't very subjective. You can go in yourself and see his flawed methodology.

        replyreport
    36. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I have read it and know the critiques already, I don't view it as poor as it was portrayed.  And a number of other Phd's in the field agreed. Just because someone with your view agrees doesn't mean its more valid. As usual only your science is sciene

        replyreport
    37. 59

        taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        as usual, many individuals deny the truth based on personal feelings rather than accurate information.  the selling of falsehoods by the government and media in this situation is what is destroying the society by classifying immoral as moral.

        replyreport
    38. 80

        Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        ta, the Internet attracts little poo flinging monkeys like road kill draws flies. Its virtual nature makes it safe for them. You can't have a dialogue with bullies who make up their facts as they go along, though, so most just quit the threads.

        replyreport
    39. 59

        taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        when the weak follow the immoral - the society and nation perishes.  the current immoral support is destroying the USA and as a patriot I will never stop protecting it.  others chide and hide but I deliver the truth.

        replyreport
    40. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        It isn't my view. It's the view of the publishing journal which called the article "bulls**t," the American Sociological Association who filed in amicus brief in the recent DOMA case and denounced the study, along with several other major med. orgs.

        replyreport
    41. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        And received some positive feedback by Dr. Paul R. Amato (Chair of the Family section of the American Sociological Association)  Dr. David J. Eggebeen, & Dr. Cynthia Osborne.  None of their Phd's count in your world.

        replyreport
    42. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        So I'm getting attacked for allegedly ignoring 3 PhDs (which I'm not by the way), but you see nothing wrong in ignoring the mass of collected PhDs of the major med. orgs. Do you even realize how completely stupid that is?

        replyreport
    43. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Mass collection...The overall body of work in this area is extremely limited to begin with.Academia in general is dominated by left leaning thinkers. But you assume only the few conservative professors produce biased work. Lib's would never do that

        replyreport
    44. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        A good chunk of this country's medical organizations denounced that study. That's true whether you change the subject or not. You are the only one who has introduced partisanship so it's silly to accuse me of it. My interest is for the science.

        replyreport
    45. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I am the only one who introduced partisanship...You went out of your way to cite who funded the study and implied that they were inherently biased.  Otherwise the source of the funds is no more biased than the lib professors and their govt grants.

        replyreport
    46. 75

        junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I said it traced back to a religious org. (which it does). That isn't partisanship. And I never said it was "inherently biased". It is, however, a conflict of interest which is worth being concerned about by anyone interested in objective science.

        replyreport
    47. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        No,meant to say it traced back to a religious org,because it had no impact.For the record I think all Univ studies are prone to some bias.Thats why Krugman is only held in esteem in academia.In the investment world results count,an he's a non entity

        replyreport
11. 77

    jlparkposted 11 years ago

    Denying other human beings the same rights, treating others as lesser is the truely immoral act.
    
    Putting oneself and one's people above another is to be figuratively placing yourself  in the position of a God - as something, or someone better than another. Which, if one was to look at this is in a religious sense would be an affront to God, would it not?
    
    We realize now just how stupid and wrong it was to have segregation and the illegality of interracial marriage - on morality grounds.  We look back now and shudder that the thought of how awfully wrong it was, how awfully immoral of people it was to be placing one's race above anothers - merely due to difference. I know that in 50yrs, our children/grandchildren will be doing the shuddering for us at how this all was protested (in MUCH the SAME way as interacial marriage, segregation, and the owning of slaves was...)
    
    Abortion I understand the issue with it, and whilst it is not my place to judge either side of this arguement, I will not get into it. However, I do have an issue with a group of MEN voting on the right of WOMEN. Which again is placing one above another.
    
    As humans we are all equal. No christian is better than a muslim, or vice versa. No colour skin is better than another, no religion is better than another, no gender or gender expression is better than another. No sexual orientation is better than another.
    
    The sooner we realise that we are ALL equal the SOONER the Damage caused by division will be repaired.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       with the support given to these immoral activities, the human race will be eradicated just as Sodom and Gomorrah. Such mental impulses for immoral institutions have shown to destroy society as moral people stand and watch.  many chose this trend.

       replyreport
    2. 77

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Sodom's sin was inhospitality, haughtiness, greed and unwillingness to help the needy, (as per Jesus - in Ezekiel). So, you could be right re demise. Due to all those same reasons. Unless you are going to tell me Jesus was wrong + the sin was gayness

       replyreport
    3. 89

       Billie Kelpinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       jlpark, Very well-put! You also support your thesis well in your comment. It's interesting that those who would put on the mantle of the "moral majority" don't realize some of us actually view their prejudices as immoral and un-Christian!

       replyreport
    4. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       government prejudices supporting immoral acts continue to degrade the society.  Those who demand such support fail to accept truth that abnormal is not normal.  Those of us who are normal will never be equal to the abnormal and vice-versa.

       replyreport
    5. 77

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       So, you agree that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality? Or are you ignoring the point? Normality is a societal concept. If you look at it - prejudice and bias against another for being different (race, sex, orientation etc) is NOT normal.

       replyreport
    6. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       when the government promotes immoral activity, it targets destruction of the nation.  history has shown that promoting such destruction results in the Sodom and Gomorrah effect.

       replyreport
12. 59

    taburkettposted 11 years ago

    as usual, when truth about moral actions is attempted, the immoral community attack begins.  nothing is further from equality than stating that abnormal is normal.  However, no matter how an individual personally twists the abnormal description, it remains abnormal.  No individual can change the fact that it takes a man and a woman to conceive and populate the species.  This defines the normal - it provides the truth.  But the immoral will never accept the truth, because they continue to lie to themselves.  Humans may be notionally rated at the top of the food chain, but those who rely on lies as an existence have not achieved that elevation.  No matter the level of hero worship shown for the depraved abnormal, immoral is still not truth that supports normal under natures law.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Just a question - where is the attack? Disagreeing is not an attack, it is part of a conversation. I'm merely curious.

       replyreport
    2. 75

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I think the problem with your type is the unnatural belief that sex is only about procreation. You completely ignore the social bonding aspects of it, the pleasure of it,  and the useful practice one can get by slimjimming your buddy's smokestack

       replyreport
    3. 89

       Billie Kelpinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I consider myself a very moral person. My Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and Atheist friends (and I DO have them) consider me extremely moral, highly ethical in my dealings, compassionate, loving, and kind. . I'm just saying -- over and out

       replyreport
    4. 72

       d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       BK. i find most gay people are way more moral than those who defile them in the name of their religions. Hatred and intolerance is what is truly immoral.

       replyreport
    5. 89

       Billie Kelpinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       d.William.  Exactly!   That's what I'm trying to say.

       replyreport
    6. 59

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       people who live by the truth do not represent an acorn tree as a redwood.  they also do not represent abnormal as normal.  homosexuality is an emotional choice not a physical deformity.  Due to the emotional abnormality immoral activity occurs.

       replyreport