i thought this article was very interesting and seems to indicate that homosexuality is something inherent.. i tend to agree with this, but also believe that people can be introduced to the lifestyle either through curiosity or environment.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060222/hl_hsn/momsgeneticsmighthelpproducegaysons.
moms' genetics might help produce gay sons.
by randy dotinga.
joel
I can only speak for men, but I think;
gay lifestyle means you dance well, dress fashionably, can cook and not kill your dinner guests know the names of at least five living authors, and have a nicely decorated home.
straight lifestyle means you can't dance, can't cook, can name the presenters of five sports programs, and have no taste in clothing or interior design.
I love stereotypes, they're crunchy...
can you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??
this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.
makes me sick!
Buster
I thought that thread had died, thanks for ytaking an interest...
- Seems like you made a leap to the conclusion that some peoples' freedoms are restricted. As a matter of fact, they have every right, and seemingly enough incentive, to speak up and refute this moron's beliefs.
No leaping. Check out the real ultra-right groups he's had connections with. This is fact.
Do you think the existenece of violent racist and anti-semetic gangs infringes the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the people those gangs attack?
This goes way beyond those attacked by Irving's speech defending themselves verbally; of course they have the right to do that - I never implied otherwise. I'm
This is about the infringement of their liberty by Irving's speech directly increasing the risk of attack by those groups who use scumbags like Irving for their justifications and propoganda.
- The test for 'restrictable speech' must be very strict. I don't think the speech in question has immediate dangerous affect on anyone.
The speech in question boils down to 'Jews had what they got coming to them as they were trying to take over the world and they are at it again'. This is essentially the message Irving and his ilk try to deliver. The Holocaust denial and Nazi apologisms are just part of the package he's trying to sell.
It is a call to arms, just as the pre-genocide propoganda in Rwanda was a call to arms to trigger genocide.
Are the dead at the end of a long deliberate campaign to dehumanise a group of people so that they can be turned against (such as happened in Nazi Germany, such as nazi-apologists engage in, such as the Hutu enaged in against the Tutsi) any less dead than those at the end of a pointed finger and a screamed command to open fire?
Irving doesn't give names and addresses of those to be attacked and other direct orders. Hitler never gassed a Jew, there's not one trace of a direct order... but his writings and speeches? Oh boy... I doubt if General Bizimungu ever machetted a Tutsi to death, but he helped make the policy. Just as with those two dogs abortions, with Irving - despite the 'distance' he ensures between him and the beating, the murder, and the petrol bomb - violence is still the logical end-result of what he says.
If someone deliberately incites violence but argues there was no immediate danger, is that's okay? Is that protected free speech?
- I think you would find that most free speech advocates decry the limits we are building in the U.S. as well. (Nice try at deflecting, though)
Given knee-jerk patriotism and an obsession with 'freedom' even when it costs others that some might have, I just wanted to avoid a dumb argument where someone would be supporting Guantanamo Bay AND arguing that Irving was hard done by. It seems to have worked.
Freedom of speech is not for nice, agreeable, pleasant, middle-of-the-road, non-controversial stuff. Freedom of Speech is to protect assertive, non-compliant, abrasive, and offensive speech.
With respect I have even given examples where this fact you state is bourne out. Freedom of speech is NOT to protect the deliberate incitement of racial hatred that has in the past and is now giving rise to inter-racial violence.
six months after becoming the largest christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage, the united church of christ (ucc) reported that less than 1 percent of its churches have separated from the denomination.
the ucc report, issued thursday, noted that 49 churches -- out of 5,725 churches total -- have voted to disaffiliate, and nearly all of those cited disagreement with the ucc marriage equality resolution, adopted in early july.
"the number of departing churches is far fewer than some had earlier expected," said john h. thomas, president and general minister of the ucc.
rwagoner
No matter what one was discussing, one has a complete right to react to the quotation used by the person you're conversing with.
Quotes attributed to Newt G, Cicero M or Jesus C all have to bear the same standards of provability to be accepted as relaible representations of the mind of the person they're attributed to.
If you don't want to get into a discussion about Biblical accuracy, that's fine. I can understand not wanting to go there. You have a complete right not to respond in a meaningful fashion... but, this is a DISCUSION BOARD. You're free to air your opinions and not discuss them, but it rather defeats the purpose of a discussion board.
Never mind
six months after becoming the largest christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage, the united church of christ (ucc) reported that less than 1 percent of its churches have separated from the denomination.
the ucc report, issued thursday, noted that 49 churches -- out of 5,725 churches total -- have voted to disaffiliate, and nearly all of those cited disagreement with the ucc marriage equality resolution, adopted in early july.
"the number of departing churches is far fewer than some had earlier expected," said john h. thomas, president and general minister of the ucc.
rwa goner
No offence, but here's a few observations comin' back at ya.
You quote scripture to prove a point. What certainty do you have that any particular passage is an inspired thought from god?
Believing in Jesus, God, the Christian message, and trying to share those beliefs with other is a SEPERATE activity from beliving the Bible is a book that is the literal, accurate and inspired word of god.
There's a lot of evidence that the Bible is not accurate, and that it wasn't even written by those that are traditonally claimed to be the authors - let alone inspired of god.
It would seem that one can have certainty of a relationship with God and Jesus, and a belief in the overwhelming importance of the Christian message BUT NOT TAKE THE BIBLE UNQUESTIONINGLY AS THE FINAL SAY IN WHETHER SOMETHING IS CHRISTIAN OR NOT.
If we KNOW the Bible is inaccurate in places, how can we insist that a bit (that tickles our ears) is accurate?
How can we be certain that we are not reflecting the human and flawed nature of those that wrote it? Did God really order wholesale slaughter of entire towns in the Promised Land, with the exception of virgin girls who would become sexual chattel? That's what the Bible SAYS happened. Doesn't mean it is true, or that (if the event occured) it was God's will.
Are the 'Orthodox' teachings just a traditional set of beliefs that were unquestioningly accepted as being inspired and without fault? Are 'liberal' teachings those that try to express the SPIRIT of the Christian message, the over-abiding importance of love between each other, actually more likely to be 'what Jesus would do' if he were here now as a man of the 21st Century?
Would Jesus argue he didn't care what the argument over DNA was, that homosexuals were bad and evil, even if they were largely genetically predetermined to be that way? Or would a modern Jesus ridicule those opposed to homosexuals in the Christian Congregation as being removed from the spirit of the Christian message in their ritualistic adherence to man-made teaching, just as he ridiculed the Pharasees of his day?
No offence, just observations...
how do you feel about tv shows & movies at present?.
do you think it is appropriate for children to be viewing comedies with cursing and sexual encounters?.
don't you think movies have more cursing even though they are rated "g"?.
More censorial "I know better than you" nonsence from the neo-Puritan unintelligencia...
Anyone who lies about Tom and Jerry whilst complaining about swearing on television has an irredeemably screwed up moral compass...
Here in Holland we have soft-porn on some of the normal TV channels late at night, and (believe it or not) you might even see a nipple in a commercial for shampoo.
Somehow society has survived...
Of course, if we returned to the MYTHICAL traditional values of the fifties we would also welcome back;
I think a few nipples on TV and some swear words are a small price to pay to get rid of the nastiness and bigotry our politer, more bigotted grand-parents had to endure in their nipple and cuss-free lives... some people really need to get some fucking perspective... ooo, I said a bad word...
never heard of it until today.
this is very interesting in its pages to talks about the great flood in which many people survived.
also talks about how the great plagues of egypt were caused not by god but was caused by a comet or heavenly body called the destroyer that is seen from earth as a red heavenly body.
What gets me is skyman just doesnt get it.
I do not claim anything.No? But you IMPLY lots, and then one someone points out the material you are drawing those implications from is fake, you get defensive. If you want people to go "Oooo skyman, what a wonderful point'', then try using decent reliable material. You also totally fail to see the point. Unless you know the book is genuine, you may as well read the Hobbit and post what you have found and think.
I could do the same as you and put all sorts of quotes down then comment on the quotes, making myself look like an expert on the subject like you do, on so many threads here on JWD. I am sure the 15 minutes of research you did using Google makes you an expert with all your wisdom. How could I think other wise? Anyone that says anything different has to be a fool because you so are so knowledgeable on everything. I am just a mere human in your shadow.This turns you from a seemingly gullible person into an apparently unpleasent, envious person. There's not one word out of place in what she wrote. I know I can be blunt and abrasive and accept responses in the same spirit as being fair. But the hate you express in a few lines to someone who pleasently and knowledgably showed this fetid little scrap you're currently obsessing over is a fake shows you basically will turn on anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how they do it. Pat yourself on the back skyman, you did that all by yourself, well done.
http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewthread&entryid=12847623&groupid=100447990&adtopicid=27&mytoken=12c38c25-9e72-a8cb-56b5bfe4c5162bce37515265
funny, there whole reason for living is being affected by the 'postates.
they really need to get a life!
Hehe... try searching JW's on MySpace... hours of fun;
http://www.myspace.com/zantimisfit
This chick lists seducing JW's as an interest. Why'd I never meet HER door-to-door?
thankyou all.... it needed to be eddited badly and god used you folks to help that to happen.
if you wish to see what you helped happen check out the results at..... http://216.6.192.131/tribpub.nb.ca/tribune/pdf/ct0215c07.pdf [http://tribpub.nb.ca][ page c 7]
Block caps and no paragraphs.
It's St. John the Divine all over again.
Mushrooms BAD!
never heard of it until today.
this is very interesting in its pages to talks about the great flood in which many people survived.
also talks about how the great plagues of egypt were caused not by god but was caused by a comet or heavenly body called the destroyer that is seen from earth as a red heavenly body.
skyman
You jumped to a conclusion because your brain is stuck in negativity land putting down a person you don't even know.
Íf you don't like having data you present criticised or ridiculed, here's an idea. Use better data. As for knowing you. I've read enough of your posts to know that this post was fairly representative of the way you look at things.
I do not believe for a second that the earth is going to end in 2012.
No? Good. However, you do immediately start drawing comparisons as though you think the information is credible;
The Kolbrin Bible gives the time of the destroys return and guess what it due to reapear in 2012.
Remember the mayans say a Red comet is coming in Dec. 2012 that signifies the end of this great age of man.
If you don't want people to think you are credulous and blindly accepting of whatever you turn up (this is what it sounds like), present the data in a different fashion that doesn't make it look like you're leaping to conclusions.
It has not ended yet because of some Asteroid the collection of books that compile the Kolbrin says this asteroid comes around every 3800 years and if the book is correct the Earth sure looks fine to me, so if it is right we have nothing to sorry about.
Why would it be right? Why do you make this assumption? Can you see how even when rebutting you phrase things in a way which makes it look like you give them credence?
As regards a reading of the Kolbrin Bible I will read it. I think it is interesting how closely the Kolbrin Bible mimics the Mayan, how could you not be curious?
Unless it has a provenance, i.e. is a really old book and not something made up in the past ciouple of centuries, why should I be interested in it. If it is only a few hundred years old, then it is a fake.
You'd get as much insight into the past from reading it as you'd get into Hiler by reading Hiler's fake diaries.
How with an ocean apart could two worlds be so close with their legends and future prophecies?
Because it is a fake? Occams razor!
Also of interest is the different account of the legend of the flood.
Why is a fake Flood legend of any interest?
If you have ever looked at my previous posts you would know that I do not believe the flood ever happened, only a damn fool could believe that.
Maybe it's the way you communicate, and I need to learn your credulity is not actual, only apparent, and that you just like talking about this shit. I have a very dear friend who goes that whacky wobbily step further...
Recently their has been proof found in Egypt that shows the Exodus is true.
Now that I WOULD be interested to see! As far as I am aware there is as much physical evidence for a 40 year wander in the Wilderness as there is for Line Dancing lessons on the moon.
What I want to read is what the Kolbrin Bible has to say about what caused the plagues because the Kolbrin it says the comet caused the plagues not GOD.
Yes, but if it is a fake...? And please explain your theories of how a comet would duplicate the Plauges. And why do you believe the plauges are true?
never heard of it until today.
this is very interesting in its pages to talks about the great flood in which many people survived.
also talks about how the great plagues of egypt were caused not by god but was caused by a comet or heavenly body called the destroyer that is seen from earth as a red heavenly body.
Oh sweet baby Jesus nailed to a cross...!
Astronomy is a science. Show me astronomical evidence for a red comet that's going to destroy the Earth 1n 2012.
If you can't, I can occupy the rest of your entire life showing you books which give dates for the world ending that failed to come true.
IF SUCH 'PROPHECIES' WERE UNTRUE IN THE PAST WHAT IS THE CHANCE OF SIMILAR PROPHECIES BEING TRUE IN THE FUTURE?
Bugger all, that's what.
skyman, 'open minded' ceases to be useful when the top of your head falls off. Come back with some real evidence.
