Great Picture Alexjohnc3! That man is nuts. First he jumps around, then he
fights with Anderson Cooper and Matt Lauer( CNN and NBC New Hosts) about
psycology, and then he says weve all been tricked by psycoilogists.
Quote by DevildudeThe holland party
that strives to legalize marriage and sex at 12, as well as against slaughtering
of animals (even for food).
go read it up in wikipedia. Bunch of pedophile fags.
wtf? kids nowadays aren't even capable of taking care of themselves or
sth & they are going have the right to get married? Marriage at 12? Only at
medieval times.... zomg... & btw the ppl who suggested the law aren't
propably parents right? ... it's like they make children to lose all their
rights as children... I mean...*_*
they'll be even able to do anything they want with them & not being
accused... of doing sth illegal...
~freaked out~
The holland party that strives to legalize marriage and sex at 12, as well as
against slaughtering of animals (even for food).
go read it up in wikipedia. Bunch of pedophile fags.
So people on the Vote on the Gay marriage ban in the senate of the United
States, i should have the results posted here by thursday okay.
Hello again well the Ban on gay marriage has been defeated( because of the
democrats and a few liberal republican)
Oh and i have a request if some of you have the time could you stop by and go on
some of my threads because it seems most of the people who do are religous!
Quote by HitsuOri
There are NO LIVING ape intermediaries/transitional creatures. Human
evolution theory hypothesizes a few stages or form of an ape-man before going
into human modern stage. If it is such that one type human-ape species were to
extinct due to unseen enviromental changes.....it would be understandable. But
for that several intermediaries species of human-apes to be totally wiped off
from this world?
Not surprising if you have competition among species.
If there were say at the same time when there are several intermediaries species
of human-apes in existence, they would have fought for superior dominance am I
not correct? Survival of the fittest that is. Dunno if this applies. If
anything, a successful chain of sub-human (ape-men like/almost human like) with
particularly strong developments, say a better species that produces faster, has
better arms, strength, different muscle development, agility etc. Would that
have not guaranteed they could dominate others?
Quote:
Plus, for a 'successive upgrade to another species.', you need to have a very,
very big size of population of the former, to create another new set of species
which differs slightly from the former.
I am not too sure if that is right, you said a big size, as I know, a small
community of 200 is more than enough to foster a species, provided they know how
to adapt to nature and their surroundings, and then reproduce eventually, during
these small reproductions.
Quote: Nature is in such that you
need a very, very, very big size of a population to survive and multiply and
perhaps breed out a new species type to withstand the
natureââ¬â¢s selection and
elimination.
Scientists recently found out that humans and apes cross-bred in the early times
where the two species weren't fully separated.
Humans (if evolution applies, evolved from a common ancestor) would not be
considered a new species, rather a separate of the original species, a deviated
version if anything closer.
Nature's selection, most of the humanoids and ape-like creatures did survive
does it not? Even monkeys and baboons and many other types of sapiens-type
species. If anything, I say they even if weak, did survive natural selection,
humans however, coming from a line of common ancestry and smarter, killed off
the others (unnatural causes, more like self preservation) to self preserve
their own. Say a tribe or a their own community.
I hope that you know it took millions of years of evolution you think this
happend in succession. evolution is a slow process. We have fossil records of
man's ancestors as apes. We have found different species of man on different
strata of the same patch of earth.In fossil records we see the increase in brain
cavity and the gradual change from walking on fours to upright postition due to
spinal chords found. In fact we have found Homo Sapiens Sapiens with the remains
or Cromagnon Man. So at one point the two species did live with each other. They
competed for food and territory, the reason Cromagnon and most other human
ancestors died out was due to lack of intelligence and rapid changes in the
environment. Cromagnon died out since he was unable to create tools and compete
with Homo Sapiens in the Ice Age, so he died out.
Quote:
The fact that every single beings of ape-man intermediaries has been 'wiped
out'......it shows:: very unlikely for humans to derived progressive
evolutionarily from an ape.
Men in general and bacterial cells / or a load of simple multicell organisms are
two different matters. The small primitive organisms are too
ââ¬Ësimpleââ¬â¢
while other high-class creatures are in general very complex. The reason why
some cells can
ââ¬Ëmutateââ¬â¢
and
ââ¬Ëevolveââ¬â¢
required a very few amount of genes mutation and has a very high reproduction
rate, compared to humans who do not only reproduce fast like other cells, it
requires very high, high amount genes to be mutated. Unless the primate-man ancestors are
continuously fed with radiation or chemical substances/medicine that promote
increased mutation and also high
birthrateââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦the
evolution from a hairy man, with structures to walk like an
apeââ¬Â¦.to a man with little hair, and
with structures to walk with two legs and a perfectly shaped hand to write with
a pencilââ¬Â¦..would be impossible.
Have you ever heard of mitochondria? they use electron transport pumps on there
membranes to generate more ATP and energy with a smaller amount of chemical
resources, they also use fermentation. Since mitochondria are present in all
cells that is how they utilize small amounts of energy to aid in evolvolution.
Also the Krebs cycle helps in building up energy.
Also, the law of entropy only applies to closed systems.
the earth is NOT a closed system; it's energy is derived from numerous sources,
both from within (geo-thermal, water etc.) and from outside (the sun, cosmic
radiation, gravitational pull from other celestial bodies etc.)
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that
already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary
history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands,
bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone
structure despite their different functions.
Also, evolution isn't even about going from simple to more complex. There are
amoebas with more complex geneology than ours. Today's amoebas could eat the
amoebas from a few million year's ago for breakfast.
{Quoted} and from some help of a friend who is also atheist. Many thanks to Alx.
Quote: You have a very low amount
of energy to want to grow out or create extra bones or organs to grow and evolve
(using Larmackââ¬â¢s Theory) or just to have
several mutations of genes to create a totally different species (using
Darwinââ¬â¢s theory).
It didn't happened overnight even if you have superior changing powers and the
enery needed to boom the mutation right?
Quote:
I said:: one to infinity. Did I
put a specific number? Nope.....in fact, infinity means any BIG NUMBER. it can mean trillion,
gazzillion, tetramillion, etc.....any numbers that any scientists would put in
any journals when refering to the possible chances of a mutation(or mutations;
plural) to happen to occur.
How is the rate of a mutation of one gene in a procaryotic cell? One to ten to
the power of seven or eight? So....what would be than the mutation rate of an
eucaryotic cell like a human cell.....would it be the same or different? Of
course it differs.....the mutation rate in a human cell is certainly different
in an eucaryotic cell. What is the possibility for a mutagenic gene carrying the
specific modern human characteristic to be formed? Scientists say the humans
have almost 3 BILLION DNA base pairs. That is like one to 3 billion changes for
a DNA BASE to change......let's also not forget....the chances for that mutation
to be carried in the right organ.....if it mutates in the liver or the mammary
gland....it's not going to be inherited by the next generation.....but if it
mutates in the ovary / testis.....the chances of it being inherited by the
progeny is still there, though is very, very small because due to the fact that
not all the genes which were divided and differentiate would become the fertile
egg......a majority of them would just deteriorate. That good mutagenic gene in
a female ape-human creature would face the tale of obstructive and destructive
tale up there. As for the male ape-human creatures.....the fact that only one
out of indefinate numbers of sperms(millions?) get to fertilize the egg,
decreses the possibility that humans come from ape. There is also a high
possibility that the special child/progeny is unable to be born, because it
defys the nature's laws.....ie natural abortion, and even if it was born, what
are the chances of it to survive in this harsh enviroment alone, supposedly if you say this
child is our ancestor? What are the other chances for the same child/progeny to
be reproduced in the same manner by using other male and female couple? So that
this two new creatures can mate and reproduce another set of progeny? Nature
demands that only two creatures of the same genomic species or number
chromosomes be allowed to mate and reproduce the same / different child.
Well, there was the successful breed of Liger, albeit they
are still flawed, and may have life and health difficulties.
See those with traits that allow one to survive in different conditions will
attract more mates. Those with weaker traits that cannot help them in the
environment die off early allowing those with stronger traits to mate and thus
propegate the species. Also all forms of mutation are resultant of either an
external stimuli (doesnt even have to be chemicals it can just be lack of food
or climate change) some individuals inherently have genes that will protect and
aid in surviving these changes and it is these specimins that will father the
birth of a new species while the old one dies out.
I am not too sure if what I said was relevant, but have a look at it.
Quote:
In another word......human evolution is just a myth, coined and exaggerated by
some humans for an ulterior motives.
and the irony would be if we look at the bible. we see Eve came from Adam and
god. but they had kids and their kids had to mate to produce the worlds
population. So incest is better than fossils eh?
Just because we doesn't know how something works doesn't mean that it's done by
God.
Difference between between religon and science:
Religon: We know everything, it's all God, lol
Science: We know plenty, and the rest we plan to find out. <quoted from sources>
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of
transitional forms in the fossil record.The fossils appear in a chronological
order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions
of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or
wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present
in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only
see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the
historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales
and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
I thought I will just give another try, and see how goes with my limited
knowledge and some help from outside sources.
and thanks to you HitsuOri, I did bother to look for something interesting, I
guess standing for evolution can be right, also wrong.
However, I still refuse to believe in creationism.
Neither is fully compatible, neither is fully correct. If anything I thought
being human was actually too complicated, which is why I hate science class. I
dun even know why I am here, but heck, I am.
Here is something interesting: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie028.html
I prolly won't come back for more bashing, but well, just one last try. :sad:
So I wrote this instead, anything flawed for you all to see?
Quote by Shinsengumi89Snowwhite
just ignore the bigot part, your entitled to your opinion. even though i
disagree with your opinion.
Homosexxual marriage is normal in the sense that it is mosl likely a natrual
reaction,
do you think people choose to be homosexual and even if they did it really
shouldn't matter right?
For one scientistis have fopund out that penguins and other animals can be
homosexual. Theres even a couple of penguins in a zoo that are gay ( both
male).
Shinsengumi89
I know that, basically I'm not against the gay part! I know it's natural of
course even though so many ppl take it as an abnormality. What can I say, it's
just personal taste or sth. As a matter of fact, we live in a democratic sociaty
or that's what I want to believe so & if I'd said sth like gays are abnormal
or strange or sth, I may have found myself bein accussed as a racist, thing that
I totally dislike being, cause me & other girls have become victims of
racistic behaviour ourselves cause we 've bein born with the current sex.
Anyway that was an opinion though... it's not like earth would become better if
there weren't any homosexuals, or if they couldn't be married even if there
were. Maybe worse I can say, cause we couldn't have the opportunity to discuss
over this kind of matter.
Snowwhite just ignore the bigot part, your entitled to your opinion. even though
i disagree with your opinion.
Homosexxual marriage is normal in the sense that it is mosl likely a natrual
reaction,
do you think people choose to be homosexual and even if they did it really
shouldn't matter right?
For one scientistis have fopund out that penguins and other animals can be
homosexual. Theres even a couple of penguins in a zoo that are gay ( both
male).
It's not like I actually live in a so modern like environment, I also said that
this is my opinion & I agree with homosexuals having a relationship...
Anyway I'm against marriage generally... I just thought I could say my opinion
about this kind of matter. Plus the christianic god is against the marriage of
homosexuals... Marriage is a way for 2 ppl of different sex to be completed or
sth! Bible says so, so for the gay marriage there is actually ~no need for that~
cause the couple is of the same sex:x
It's not like I'm influenced by the religion here or sth just my opinion
though
I don't like marriage in the first place>o<, kills loves, kills lots of
other rights plus if there are childern and the relationship is not so great
among the couple there are lots of problems:x
What can I say? Sorry for being so narrowminded & traditional....
ps. Bigot? LOL now I saw it...
It's not like every view or opinion of mine is influenced by being a believer or
not... Doesn't concern u though, even if it was like that.
As for the topic is I'm for or against the gay marriage I don't actually believe
that this is a topic which concern religion alone... religion too but that it's
a social matter:x
Quote by Devildudeactually I must
agree, there is absolute no reason for the banning of gay marriage, unless you
include God into the talk, which is not the idea here.
Actually, I can't imagine why God would be against homosexuality if it existed.
Especially since it would have designed some humans to be homosexual.
Quote by DevildudeI do not concur tho
that gay marriage is NOT abnormal tho, after all, it is against nature, however
vague that reason be. So indeed, in the end, only religion proves to be the only
problem with having gay marriages/
Actually it's a part of nature, since it's a natural occurance.
Hello, bigot. It's been proven that children having same-sex parents have
perfectly normal social and personal lives. Your argument is thererfore invalid,
and tainted by your opinion that such a union is "abnormal".
At least you concede that if these unions don't involve others, they are
permissible, which redeems you somewhat.
There is no logical reason for banning
gay marriage: there's only moronic traditions enforced by an even more moronic
religion.
actually I must agree, there is absolute no reason for the banning of gay
marriage, unless you include God into the talk, which is not the idea
here.
As long as they do what they do as couples, and have the child grow up as a
normal person, as a member of society and community, it will be fine.
I do not concur tho that gay marriage is NOT abnormal tho, after all, it is
against nature, however vague that reason be. So indeed, in the end, only
religion proves to be the only problem with having gay marriages/
snowhite, the only reasons I can see for you being against gay marriage
(although I'm not sure if they apply to you) are that you don't like the idea of
homosexuals and that your surroundings have influenced your opinion.
First of all, you make the argument that the kids would have social problems.
Well that's because of how stupid society is. People with heterosexual parents
have social problems too for things other than sexual orientation, depending on
where they live.
Second, as tobiast sad, there are no psychological problems that occur solely
due to homosexual parents. There are sometimes, in both homosexual and
heterosexual couples, problems that can damage a child.
Third, marriage is a way to bind two people together legally. A homosexual
family would probably work out a lot better if the two people were married
because then they would be legally bound to one another, thus creating a more
stable family.
Fourth, regardless of whether you like the idea of homosexuals or not, they're
going to still be homosexuals if they're married or not. The only difference is
that this way some of them are happier. It's not like it's going to hurt you or
anyone else simply because they're able to be treated fairly.
Quote by tobiast88]
Hello, bigot. It's been proven that children having same-sex parents have
perfectly normal social and personal lives. Your argument is thererfore invalid,
and tainted by your opinion that such a union is "abnormal".
At least you concede that if these unions don't involve others, they are
permissible, which redeems you somewhat.
There is no logical reason for banning
gay marriage: there's only moronic traditions enforced by an even more moronic
religion.
Actually I'm not banning gay marriage, but personally I don't approve it! I mean
yeah kids living with gay parents or so may have a normal life but if I lived in
a family with gay parents I would propably have problems myself, I think so now
of course by living in a normal family. Look I maybe have a little not too
modern views & conceptions but I'm what I am:x
& it's not like I've gay friends or sth to say that I know them well &
can judge them right... My opinion is sth influnced by my environment:x So this
may change if I actually meet such ppl in the future, but right now this kind of
opinion comes from my current experience^^
Every & each different views & points are welcome
Quote by snowhiteAnywayyy as for the
marriage of gay couples... I mean this kind of topic is sooo familiar...
Personally I do approve gay ppl having an affair or so, like a straight couple
has, but actually I'm against the marriage thing>o<
My poing of view is that ppl marry cause they want to have a family u know, with
kids ect. and that's the main difference between an un-married & a married
couple ~childern~
So I can't believe that a kid can grow up normally in an environment with two
mothers or two farthers so sth. It's totally abnormal! Not only the child is
going to have lots of problems with his/her social life but with the personal
life too!
But if a gay couple rly want to get married for the title ~married~ what can I
say, go ahead, as long as it doesn't envovle in it other ppl
lives
Hello, bigot. It's been proven that children having same-sex parents have
perfectly normal social and personal lives. Your argument is thererfore invalid,
and tainted by your opinion that such a union is "abnormal".
At least you concede that if these unions don't involve others, they are
permissible, which redeems you somewhat.
There is no logical reason for banning
gay marriage: there's only moronic traditions enforced by an even more moronic
religion.
Quote by Devildudemerged: 06-04-2006 ~ 07:08pm
ok... after reading the links and all that, for a short period of time I was
gonna sum something up...
and then this:
I'm barely able to catch up with your discussion! Am I dumb or
sth? I find it rly rly hard to... I don't knowXD I mean it's
levels above my level & in english omg ;_; Now I feel sad for not
being from England or America *_*
Anywayyy as for the marriage of gay couples... I mean this kind of topic is sooo
familiar... Personally I do approve gay ppl having an affair or so, like a
straight couple has, but actually I'm against the marriage thing>o<
My poing of view is that ppl marry cause they want to have a family u know, with
kids ect. and that's the main difference between an un-married & a married
couple ~childern~
So I can't believe that a kid can grow up normally in an environment with two
mothers or two farthers so sth. It's totally abnormal! Not only the child is
going to have lots of problems with his/her social life but with the personal
life too!
But if a gay couple rly want to get married for the title ~married~ what can I
say, go ahead, as long as it doesn't envovle in it other ppl lives
Great Picture Alexjohnc3! That man is nuts. First he jumps around, then he fights with Anderson Cooper and Matt Lauer( CNN and NBC New Hosts) about psycology, and then he says weve all been tricked by psycoilogists.
Don't insult my hero.
yeah propably
" especially if they end up divorcing or sth! anywayz 
Yea some people just have far out ways of thinking( TOM CRUISE COUGH COUGH).
Shinsengumi89
Neither can most adults. Maybe they shouldn't be able to get married.
i am more concerned with the fact there is actually a problem with their thinking, legalizing child porn for personal use.
Man tese people sound like the polyigimists of the mormon church( in the sense of marrying children). NVD is nuts.
I don't think there is any hope for the future of humaity does anyone agree with me ?
Shinsen89
wtf?
kids nowadays aren't even capable of taking care of themselves or
sth & they are going have the right to get married? Marriage at 12? Only at
medieval times.... zomg... & btw the ppl who suggested the law aren't
propably parents right? ... it's like they make children to lose all their
rights as children... I mean...*_*
they'll be even able to do anything they want with them & not being accused... of doing sth illegal...
~freaked out~
The holland party that strives to legalize marriage and sex at 12, as well as against slaughtering of animals (even for food).
go read it up in wikipedia. Bunch of pedophile fags.
NVD? what all man i'm slow what is NVD?( i'm dumb)
if NVD successes....
we may have a problem.
So people on the Vote on the Gay marriage ban in the senate of the United States, i should have the results posted here by thursday okay.
Hello again well the Ban on gay marriage has been defeated( because of the democrats and a few liberal republican)
Oh and i have a request if some of you have the time could you stop by and go on some of my threads because it seems most of the people who do are religous!
Not surprising if you have competition among species.
If there were say at the same time when there are several intermediaries species of human-apes in existence, they would have fought for superior dominance am I not correct? Survival of the fittest that is. Dunno if this applies. If anything, a successful chain of sub-human (ape-men like/almost human like) with particularly strong developments, say a better species that produces faster, has better arms, strength, different muscle development, agility etc. Would that have not guaranteed they could dominate others?
I am not too sure if that is right, you said a big size, as I know, a small community of 200 is more than enough to foster a species, provided they know how to adapt to nature and their surroundings, and then reproduce eventually, during these small reproductions.
Scientists recently found out that humans and apes cross-bred in the early times where the two species weren't fully separated.
Humans (if evolution applies, evolved from a common ancestor) would not be considered a new species, rather a separate of the original species, a deviated version if anything closer.
Nature's selection, most of the humanoids and ape-like creatures did survive does it not? Even monkeys and baboons and many other types of sapiens-type species. If anything, I say they even if weak, did survive natural selection, humans however, coming from a line of common ancestry and smarter, killed off the others (unnatural causes, more like self preservation) to self preserve their own. Say a tribe or a their own community.
I hope that you know it took millions of years of evolution you think this happend in succession. evolution is a slow process. We have fossil records of man's ancestors as apes. We have found different species of man on different strata of the same patch of earth.In fossil records we see the increase in brain cavity and the gradual change from walking on fours to upright postition due to spinal chords found. In fact we have found Homo Sapiens Sapiens with the remains or Cromagnon Man. So at one point the two species did live with each other. They competed for food and territory, the reason Cromagnon and most other human ancestors died out was due to lack of intelligence and rapid changes in the environment. Cromagnon died out since he was unable to create tools and compete with Homo Sapiens in the Ice Age, so he died out.
Have you ever heard of mitochondria? they use electron transport pumps on there membranes to generate more ATP and energy with a smaller amount of chemical resources, they also use fermentation. Since mitochondria are present in all cells that is how they utilize small amounts of energy to aid in evolvolution. Also the Krebs cycle helps in building up energy.
Also, the law of entropy only applies to closed systems.
the earth is NOT a closed system; it's energy is derived from numerous sources, both from within (geo-thermal, water etc.) and from outside (the sun, cosmic radiation, gravitational pull from other celestial bodies etc.)
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
Also, evolution isn't even about going from simple to more complex. There are amoebas with more complex geneology than ours. Today's amoebas could eat the amoebas from a few million year's ago for breakfast.
{Quoted} and from some help of a friend who is also atheist. Many thanks to Alx.
It didn't happened overnight even if you have superior changing powers and the enery needed to boom the mutation right?
Well, there was the successful breed of Liger, albeit they are still flawed, and may have life and health difficulties.
See those with traits that allow one to survive in different conditions will attract more mates. Those with weaker traits that cannot help them in the environment die off early allowing those with stronger traits to mate and thus propegate the species. Also all forms of mutation are resultant of either an external stimuli (doesnt even have to be chemicals it can just be lack of food or climate change) some individuals inherently have genes that will protect and aid in surviving these changes and it is these specimins that will father the birth of a new species while the old one dies out.
I am not too sure if what I said was relevant, but have a look at it.
and the irony would be if we look at the bible. we see Eve came from Adam and god. but they had kids and their kids had to mate to produce the worlds population. So incest is better than fossils eh?
Just because we doesn't know how something works doesn't mean that it's done by God.
Difference between between religon and science:
Religon: We know everything, it's all God, lol
Science: We know plenty, and the rest we plan to find out.
<quoted from sources>
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
I thought I will just give another try, and see how goes with my limited knowledge and some help from outside sources.
and thanks to you HitsuOri, I did bother to look for something interesting, I guess standing for evolution can be right, also wrong.
However, I still refuse to believe in creationism.
Neither is fully compatible, neither is fully correct. If anything I thought being human was actually too complicated, which is why I hate science class. I dun even know why I am here, but heck, I am.
Here is something interesting: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie028.html
I prolly won't come back for more bashing, but well, just one last try. :sad:
So I wrote this instead, anything flawed for you all to see?
I know that, basically I'm not against the gay part! I know it's natural of course even though so many ppl take it as an abnormality. What can I say, it's just personal taste or sth. As a matter of fact, we live in a democratic sociaty or that's what I want to believe so & if I'd said sth like gays are abnormal or strange or sth, I may have found myself bein accussed as a racist, thing that I totally dislike being, cause me & other girls have become victims of racistic behaviour ourselves cause we 've bein born with the current sex.
Anyway that was an opinion though... it's not like earth would become better if there weren't any homosexuals, or if they couldn't be married even if there were. Maybe worse I can say, cause we couldn't have the opportunity to discuss over this kind of matter.
Snowwhite just ignore the bigot part, your entitled to your opinion. even though i disagree with your opinion.
Homosexxual marriage is normal in the sense that it is mosl likely a natrual reaction,
do you think people choose to be homosexual and even if they did it really shouldn't matter right?
For one scientistis have fopund out that penguins and other animals can be homosexual. Theres even a couple of penguins in a zoo that are gay ( both male).
Shinsengumi89
It's not like I actually live in a so modern like environment, I also said that this is my opinion & I agree with homosexuals having a relationship... Anyway I'm against marriage generally... I just thought I could say my opinion about this kind of matter. Plus the christianic god is against the marriage of homosexuals... Marriage is a way for 2 ppl of different sex to be completed or sth! Bible says so, so for the gay marriage there is actually ~no need for that~ cause the couple is of the same sex:x
It's not like I'm influenced by the religion here or sth just my opinion though
I don't like marriage in the first place>o<, kills loves, kills lots of other rights plus if there are childern and the relationship is not so great among the couple there are lots of problems:x
What can I say? Sorry for being so narrowminded & traditional....
ps. Bigot? LOL now I saw it...
It's not like every view or opinion of mine is influenced by being a believer or not... Doesn't concern u though, even if it was like that.
As for the topic is I'm for or against the gay marriage I don't actually believe that this is a topic which concern religion alone... religion too but that it's a social matter:x
Actually, I can't imagine why God would be against homosexuality if it existed. Especially since it would have designed some humans to be homosexual.
Actually it's a part of nature, since it's a natural occurance.
Here's an article on one of my favorite religious oriented sites, ReligiousTolerance.org:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
Not sure how accurate this is, but it seems to make sense: http://www.tobyjohnson.com/cause.html
actually I must agree, there is absolute no reason for the banning of gay marriage, unless you include God into the talk, which is not the idea here.
As long as they do what they do as couples, and have the child grow up as a normal person, as a member of society and community, it will be fine.
I do not concur tho that gay marriage is NOT abnormal tho, after all, it is against nature, however vague that reason be. So indeed, in the end, only religion proves to be the only problem with having gay marriages/
I concure with your thought DR. AlexJohnc3!
snowhite, the only reasons I can see for you being against gay marriage (although I'm not sure if they apply to you) are that you don't like the idea of homosexuals and that your surroundings have influenced your opinion.
First of all, you make the argument that the kids would have social problems. Well that's because of how stupid society is. People with heterosexual parents have social problems too for things other than sexual orientation, depending on where they live.
Second, as tobiast sad, there are no psychological problems that occur solely due to homosexual parents. There are sometimes, in both homosexual and heterosexual couples, problems that can damage a child.
Third, marriage is a way to bind two people together legally. A homosexual family would probably work out a lot better if the two people were married because then they would be legally bound to one another, thus creating a more stable family.
Fourth, regardless of whether you like the idea of homosexuals or not, they're going to still be homosexuals if they're married or not. The only difference is that this way some of them are happier. It's not like it's going to hurt you or anyone else simply because they're able to be treated fairly.
tobiast88 lets try to respect everyones opinion snowhite is a member of the group so please don't call her a bigot.
I might not be a real moderator but in here i am one. I do agree with you tobiast88 that there is no rational reason to ban gay marriage.
Shinsengumi89 MT-Athiest Moderator
Actually I'm not banning gay marriage, but personally I don't approve it! I mean yeah kids living with gay parents or so may have a normal life but if I lived in a family with gay parents I would propably have problems myself, I think so now of course by living in a normal family. Look I maybe have a little not too modern views & conceptions but I'm what I am:x
& it's not like I've gay friends or sth to say that I know them well & can judge them right... My opinion is sth influnced by my environment:x So this may change if I actually meet such ppl in the future, but right now this kind of opinion comes from my current experience^^
Every & each different views & points are welcome
Hello, bigot. It's been proven that children having same-sex parents have perfectly normal social and personal lives. Your argument is thererfore invalid, and tainted by your opinion that such a union is "abnormal".
At least you concede that if these unions don't involve others, they are permissible, which redeems you somewhat.
There is no logical reason for banning gay marriage: there's only moronic traditions enforced by an even more moronic religion.
levels above my level & in english omg ;_; Now I feel sad for not
being from England or America *_*
Anywayyy as for the marriage of gay couples... I mean this kind of topic is sooo familiar... Personally I do approve gay ppl having an affair or so, like a straight couple has, but actually I'm against the marriage thing>o<
My poing of view is that ppl marry cause they want to have a family u know, with kids ect. and that's the main difference between an un-married & a married couple ~childern~
So I can't believe that a kid can grow up normally in an environment with two mothers or two farthers so sth. It's totally abnormal! Not only the child is going to have lots of problems with his/her social life but with the personal life too!
But if a gay couple rly want to get married for the title ~married~ what can I say, go ahead, as long as it doesn't envovle in it other ppl lives