logo Sign In

The Pope — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
Even though the people who posted the "can't keep her legs closed" comments will probably *say* they are merely championing personal responsibility, their words belie utter contempt for women and female sexuality.

That's why I'm so glad that the right to choose forms of reproductive healthcare such as abortion remains protected. I certainly don't want the fate of my womb decided by people who make statements like the "can't keep her legs closed" routine seen here.

I've read all sorts of people who've tried to distort the bible to cover abortion. The fact of the matter is: the bible doesn't address the issue and there are as many comments in the bible which support terminating pregnancy as there are glorifying human life at every stage. Moreover, Jesus hung out with hookers all the time ... and if you were a hooker in Christ's day, you probably had an abortion or two. Yet Christ never mentioned it. Abortion was a non-issue to the J-man himself.

As for the guy who said that homosexuality was unnatural: I've a pet male peacock that regularly mounts a male rooster. The peacock doesn't like the hens ... just the rooster. My neighbor has two male lop-eared bunnies that also engage in homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is quite common in the natural world.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
Even though the people who posted the "can't keep her legs closed" comments will probably *say* they are merely championing personal responsibility, their words belie utter contempt for women and female sexuality.

That's why I'm so glad that the right to choose forms of reproductive healthcare such as abortion remains protected. I certainly don't want the fate of my womb decided by people who make statements like the "can't keep her legs closed" routine seen here.

I've read all sorts of people who've tried to distort the bible to cover abortion. The fact of the matter is: the bible doesn't address the issue and there are as many comments in the bible which support terminating pregnancy as there are glorifying human life at every stage. Moreover, Jesus hung out with hookers all the time ... and if you were a hooker in Christ's day, you probably had an abortion or two. Yet Christ never mentioned it. Abortion was a non-issue to the J-man himself.

As for the guy who said that homosexuality was unnatural: I've a pet male peacock that regularly mounts a male rooster. The peacock doesn't like the hens ... just the rooster. My neighbor has two male lop-eared bunnies that also engage in homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is quite common in the natural world.


I agree that the quote that was stated quite distastefully about "...legs closed" should not have been said in defense of the argument. However I believe the point is still a valid one...too often abortion is used as a convenience after someone has had an unprotected "encounter". We should never confuse convenience with need. If someone can't handle the consequences, maybe they should not engage in the act?

As far as Bossk's point about rape: Two wrongs do not make a right, and something that is too often overlooked in this argument is that the unborn child is INNOCENT.

The bible addresses abortion in that it outlaws murder. Life begins at conception, therefor abortion is tantamount to murder.

With regards to the homosexuality issue, I really don't want to get into this because I was asked why the Christian faith outlawed it, which I did. However, let me ask you: Is homosexuality to be considered "natural" even though if adopted in great enough numbers it would lead to the eventual extinction of any given species?

I'm following Bossk's lead on this. I don't want any more controversy. I'll read your response but I'm done.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Quote


That's really the closest thing to a reference to abortion in the bible, and clearly, only the woman's life is considered true human life. The destruction of the fetus is only worthy of a fine, while harming the wife demands "eye for an eye" revenge. Using this example as a guide, if a fetus is "innocent" it's only because it's not a human yet.

And surely you don't actually believe that homosexuality will EVER lead to the extinction of the human species. Look around you: there's no shortage of humans. If half of the world population turned gay tomorrow, the human race would still survive.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
Quote
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Quote


That's really the closest thing to a reference to abortion in the bible, and clearly, only the woman's life is considered true human life. The destruction of the fetus is only worthy of a fine, while harming the wife demands "eye for an eye" revenge. Using this example as a guide, if a fetus is "innocent" it's only because it's not a human yet.

And surely you don't actually believe that homosexuality will EVER lead to the extinction of the human species. Look around you: there's no shortage of humans. If half of the world population turned gay tomorrow, the human race would still survive.


I'm curious to know the chapter/verse you got that from. It is interesting. Taken at face value, it still prescribes punishment in the event of a terminated pregnancy, and makes no distinction between what is "true human life" and what isn't. If a life wasn't terminated, then why prescribe a punishment?

Yes, but if it went to 51% it might be a different story. The race would survive however it would need to resort to measures outside the true natural order of procreation, ie: Cloning, in-vitro fertilization, etc;
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
The line is from Exodus ... I'm on my way out the door, or else I'd drudge up the exact verse #. The line has the potential to relate to the definition of human life in that the termination of the pregnancy does not demand a "life for a life." I say "potential" because, like most of the good book, you can find lines in the bible that will provide a flimsy pretext to support just about everything. Although I'm afraid nothing in the bible is quite as flimsy as using speculative science fiction as a way of framing a discussion on homosexuality.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
The line is from Exodus ... I'm on my way out the door, or else I'd drudge up the exact verse #. The line has the potential to relate to the definition of human life in that the termination of the pregnancy does not demand a "life for a life." I say "potential" because, like most of the good book, you can find lines in the bible that will provide a flimsy pretext to support just about everything. Although I'm afraid nothing in the bible is quite as flimsy as using speculative science fiction as a way of framing a discussion on homosexuality.


Who's using SF to frame the discussion?


Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
The line is from Exodus ... I'm on my way out the door, or else I'd drudge up the exact verse #. The line has the potential to relate to the definition of human life in that the termination of the pregnancy does not demand a "life for a life." I say "potential" because, like most of the good book, you can find lines in the bible that will provide a flimsy pretext to support just about everything. Although I'm afraid nothing in the bible is quite as flimsy as using speculative science fiction as a way of framing a discussion on homosexuality.


*sigh*...I've gone back on what I said earlier. I'm outta here.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
The line is from Exodus ... I'm on my way out the door, or else I'd drudge up the exact verse #. The line has the potential to relate to the definition of human life in that the termination of the pregnancy does not demand a "life for a life." I say "potential" because, like most of the good book, you can find lines in the bible that will provide a flimsy pretext to support just about everything. Although I'm afraid nothing in the bible is quite as flimsy as using speculative science fiction as a way of framing a discussion on homosexuality.


Who's using SF to frame the discussion?


no one is, she (not sure) is mearly refering to the fact that if someone where to use SF as an arguement they would be, and should be grilled for it.

but i not getting involved in this ill say now that i am on the side of abortion and as for gay rights, personally i dont care either way. it would really show what kind of society we are if they had fewer rights then everyone else though.

On the side Asha are you indian, cus that sounds like an indian name.
Author
Time
Post link
it is unfortunate that we can't discuss these kinds of topics without getting upset at one another.

JediSage: I just read Titus Chapter 1 verses 5 through 7 from the Kings James Version of the Bible. There did not seem to be anything there that would prohibit female clergy.

As for Abortion, wheither someone its somone who had unprotected sex or rape, the real question is when does life begin? If it begins at birth, than abortion is not murder. If life begins at conception, then abortion is the taking of human life and (imho) would be wrong wheither or not the conception was rape. When does life begin?...I can't answer that one. But that is the question that needs to be answered.
Author
Time
Post link
In my opinion life begins once an organium can begin to preform all of its internal opertation independantly, that is if it were to be left alone and no one aided it life by getting food or would starve to death. that is why i consider a baby life and a fetus a fetus. if you were to leave a fetus alone it would not be able to function properly with out the aid of a mothers womb. to grow a fetus needs already digested food, to function a fetus needs a blood supply that is not its own. that is why i dont consider contraception the begining of life. the birth is, thats why we celebrate birthdays not contraception days, cus your birthday it is the anniversary of your life begining. your only commiting murder if you forcefully take a life of something that would have been able to survive by itself had you not acted upon it. thats jsut the way i see it.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
it is unfortunate that we can't discuss these kinds of topics without getting upset at one another.

JediSage: I just read Titus Chapter 1 verses 5 through 7 from the Kings James Version of the Bible. There did not seem to be anything there that would prohibit female clergy.

As for Abortion, wheither someone its somone who had unprotected sex or rape, the real question is when does life begin? If it begins at birth, than abortion is not murder. If life begins at conception, then abortion is the taking of human life and (imho) would be wrong wheither or not the conception was rape. When does life begin?...I can't answer that one. But that is the question that needs to be answered.


"....and ORDAIN elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the HUSBAND of ONE WIFE, having children..." emphasis mine.

I had really hoped to withdraw from this, because I don't want us to be upset with eachother. However, even if there were uncertainty about when life begins (which there's not), should we not choose to protect life? For example, if you're driving on a dark road one night, and see a shape in the road that may or may not be a person, should you speed up? Or try to avoid hitting it?
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
In my opinion life begins once an organium can begin to preform all of its internal opertation independantly, that is if it were to be left alone and no one aided it life by getting food or would starve to death. that is why i consider a baby life and a fetus a fetus. if you were to leave a fetus alone it would not be able to function properly with out the aid of a mothers womb. to grow a fetus needs already digested food, to function a fetus needs a blood supply that is not its own. that is why i dont consider contraception the begining of life. the birth is, thats why we celebrate birthdays not contraception days, cus your birthday it is the anniversary of your life begining. your only commiting murder if you forcefully take a life of something that would have been able to survive by itself had you not acted upon it. thats jsut the way i see it.


Can a newborn baby survive on it's own if left on the street? While it is true the unborn child depends on the mother for food and blood, it is a completely different life, possessing from the moment of conception every organ it will ever need, and a completely distinct genetic code from the mother. It possesses a measureable heartbeat and brainwave pattern."Personhood is defined by membership in the human species, not a stage of development within that species" - Alcorn.

Celebrating birthdays is a tradition that goes back thousands of years, before any real knowledge of when a child is conceived was known. Your statement about celebrating birthdays instead of conception days is misleading. Taking this stance a bit further, and using your statement about an entity that cannot survive on its own, would a person just waking from a coma have a new birthday? I mean, they could not survive on their own previously, did they become more of a person now that they've woken up?
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
As far as I'm concerned, speculating about a scenario in which homosexuality is so commonplace that humans can only reproduce through artificial means to avoid extinction ... that's pure science fiction. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you believe most men would PREFER to be gay were it not for social pressures. Last I checked there were ample heterosexuals to keep this planet overpopulated.

And by the way, the 'fetus' is a blobby cluster of cells for a good long while before birth ... no heartbeat; no brainwaves. Ever know a woman who miscarried in the first month or two of pregnancy? I have -- there's no loss of human life involved. A lot of women would notice a broken nail before they'd notice they miscarried.

And enough with the "why can't we all get along" stuff ... this "discussion" went on for pages without only a scant few people willing to disagree, and with no opposing opinions the conversation devolved into comments like the "spread her legs" crap. I'm sure some people find tha enjoyable, but it's not at all pretty to look at from an outsider's perspective.
Author
Time
Post link
About my "can't keep her legs closed for 5 minutes" commentary: I know I overreacted and generalized about that subject. I know i'ts more complicated than that. I was just talking about people who have inconsequential sex without thinking about it, without taking the necessary precautions, and when a pregnancy happens, they just kill the baby like it's the baby's fault...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
As far as I'm concerned, speculating about a scenario in which homosexuality is so commonplace that humans can only reproduce through artificial means to avoid extinction ... that's pure science fiction. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you believe most men would PREFER to be gay were it not for social pressures. Last I checked there were ample heterosexuals to keep this planet overpopulated.


You were the one who attempted to prove the "naturality" of the situation by observing farm animals. However, let's take it out of the realm of "science fiction", and I guess posing a hypothetical question qualifies as science fiction, let me risk another that hopefully will be less offensive: Which sexual orientation is best prepared to propogate the species? Going to another debate I've had recently, using the part of Darwin's theory that many choose to ignore (ie: Survival of the Fittest), if homosexuality were naturual, would not Darwin's theory dictate that it must be the dominant orientation in order to survive?

Quote
And by the way, the 'fetus' is a blobby cluster of cells for a good long while before birth ... no heartbeat; no brainwaves. Ever know a woman who miscarried in the first month or two of pregnancy? I have -- there's no loss of human life involved. A lot of women would notice a broken nail before they'd notice they miscarried.


There's a big difference between a miscarriage and an abortion, and again, personhood should not be measured with a scale, or with an iq test, or by a court.

Quote
And enough with the "why can't we all get along" stuff ... this "discussion" went on for pages without only a scant few people willing to disagree, and with no opposing opinions the conversation devolved into comments like the "spread her legs" crap. I'm sure some people find tha enjoyable, but it's not at all pretty to look at from an outsider's perspective.


Debate is a good thing, however there comes a point for everyone, whether on a BBS or in person, when it becomes uncomfortable. A person can choose to withdraw when they wish to (I know I said I would, but you've inspired me to stick around for a while) or plead for everyone to make nice nice.

Love and Kisses


Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
As far as I'm concerned, speculating about a scenario in which homosexuality is so commonplace that humans can only reproduce through artificial means to avoid extinction ... that's pure science fiction. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you believe most men would PREFER to be gay were it not for social pressures. Last I checked there were ample heterosexuals to keep this planet overpopulated.


You were the one who attempted to prove the "naturality" of the situation by observing farm animals. However, let's take it out of the realm of "science fiction", and I guess posing a hypothetical question qualifies as science fiction, let me risk another that hopefully will be less offensive: Which sexual orientation is best prepared to propogate the species? Going to another debate I've had recently, using the part of Darwin's theory that many choose to ignore (ie: Survival of the Fittest), if homosexuality were naturual, would not Darwin's theory dictate that it must be the dominant orientation in order to survive?


I think you are qualifing "homosexuality" as a genetic distinction, like color of the skin. If so, there would be no homosexuals, as their parents obviously had sex with the opposite sex. It's not like that, it's not apt to the netural selection as it's almost "random". If 5% of the birds ramdomly lose their abilities to reproduce, would birds vanish from the Earth after some generations? I think not.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
As far as I'm concerned, speculating about a scenario in which homosexuality is so commonplace that humans can only reproduce through artificial means to avoid extinction ... that's pure science fiction. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you believe most men would PREFER to be gay were it not for social pressures. Last I checked there were ample heterosexuals to keep this planet overpopulated.


You were the one who attempted to prove the "naturality" of the situation by observing farm animals. However, let's take it out of the realm of "science fiction", and I guess posing a hypothetical question qualifies as science fiction, let me risk another that hopefully will be less offensive: Which sexual orientation is best prepared to propogate the species? Going to another debate I've had recently, using the part of Darwin's theory that many choose to ignore (ie: Survival of the Fittest), if homosexuality were naturual, would not Darwin's theory dictate that it must be the dominant orientation in order to survive?


I think you are qualifing "homosexuality" as a genetic distinction, like color of the skin. If so, there would be no homosexuals, as their parents obviously had sex with the opposite sex. It's not like that, it's not apt to the netural selection as it's almost "random". If 5% of the birds ramdomly lose their abilities to reproduce, would birds vanish from the Earth after some generations? I think not.


That's exactly my point. It can't be considered genetic or "natural", or it wouldn't exist. Anyone who's taken Behavioral Psych 101 will tell you it's a learned behavior that can and has been changed in the past.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I apologize in advance for anyone I may offend below:

Quote
And by the way, the 'fetus' is a blobby cluster of cells for a good long while before birth


And by the way, what has that got to do with the question of whether it's alive or not? But don't let me stop you if you'd like to justify this slaughter with the argument that it doesn't LOOK human yet.

Quote
Why should a woman be forced to deliver a baby when she was raped?


Because KILLING it would make her guilty of murder.

Quote
THINK about if it actually happened to you. She didn't ask for it, she wasn't ready for it; but it happened. Will you welcome the new baby as your own or as your nephew/niece, grandchild, etc., knowing that s/he was the result of rape, one of the worst things that can happen to a woman?


Not neccessarily. I might put the baby up for adoption.

Quote
That's why I'm so glad that the right to choose forms of reproductive healthcare such as abortion remains protected. I certainly don't want the fate of my womb decided by people who make statements like the "can't keep her legs closed" routine seen here.


The "right to choose" to kill. The only thing we want to decide is that there IS a fate for the baby.

Quote
As for the guy who said that homosexuality was unnatural: I've a pet male peacock that regularly mounts a male rooster. The peacock doesn't like the hens ... just the rooster. My neighbor has two male lop-eared bunnies that also engage in homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is quite common in the natural world.


Well thanks for letting me know; that makes everything all right. If there are enough people doing something, that makes it natural. So my dog runs naked in our backyard and runs around on all fours. Heck, that makes it NATURAL for humans, too!

I think it shows how desperate you're getting if your opinions on the natural behavior of humans are based upon the behavior of your pet PEACOCK.

Quote

I've read all sorts of people who've tried to distort the bible to cover abortion. The fact of the matter is: the bible doesn't address the issue


MURDER is wrong. The Bible DOES say that, it's one of the commandments. That's hardly a distortion.

Quote
and there are as many comments in the bible which support terminating pregnancy as there are glorifying human life at every stage


The Bible does not support killing the unborn out of convenience. I can guarantee that.

Quote
Even though the people who posted the "can't keep her legs closed" comments will probably *say* they are merely championing personal responsibility, their words belie utter contempt for women and female sexuality.


Heck, you know, I really have to think about that. Because after all, it's your God-given right as a woman to be able to murder someone because it is CONVENIENT. Which is why most abortions take place, not because of rape. And it's not "personal responsibility" so much as the right for all human beings to live.

Quote
Ever know a woman who miscarried in the first month or two of pregnancy? I have -- there's no loss of human life involved.


There sure as heck is. Only in this case, it's a tragedy and the woman is obviously not to blame.

Quote
In my opinion life begins once an organium can begin to preform all of its internal opertation independantly, that is if it were to be left alone and no one aided it life by getting food or would starve to death. that is why i consider a baby life and a fetus a fetus. if you were to leave a fetus alone it would not be able to function properly with out the aid of a mothers womb. to grow a fetus needs already digested food, to function a fetus needs a blood supply that is not its own. that is why i dont consider contraception the begining of life. the birth is, thats why we celebrate birthdays not contraception days, cus your birthday it is the anniversary of your life begining. your only commiting murder if you forcefully take a life of something that would have been able to survive by itself had you not acted upon it. thats jsut the way i see it.


What about old people in the hospital on temporary life-support? Are they NO LONGER ALIVE because they are not living independently? Are they NO LONGER HUMAN? If I walked to their bed and shot them to death, would I be innocent of murder because they were unable to function independently?

Quote
When does life begin?...I can't answer that one

I can. It begins at conception, when the sperm meets the egg and completely different DNA is created. That's scientific fact.

From the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION, that baby has completely different DNA from the mother. It's another person.

It's alive, correct? Yes, the fetus has life. Plant life? No. Animal life? No. Guess what? It's HUMAN life.

And when you "abort" or end this human life, and it was INNOCENT human life, that constitutes MURDER, whether you like the sound of the word or not.

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

Emperor Jar-Jar
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
As far as I'm concerned, speculating about a scenario in which homosexuality is so commonplace that humans can only reproduce through artificial means to avoid extinction ... that's pure science fiction. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you believe most men would PREFER to be gay were it not for social pressures. Last I checked there were ample heterosexuals to keep this planet overpopulated.


You were the one who attempted to prove the "naturality" of the situation by observing farm animals. However, let's take it out of the realm of "science fiction", and I guess posing a hypothetical question qualifies as science fiction, let me risk another that hopefully will be less offensive: Which sexual orientation is best prepared to propogate the species? Going to another debate I've had recently, using the part of Darwin's theory that many choose to ignore (ie: Survival of the Fittest), if homosexuality were naturual, would not Darwin's theory dictate that it must be the dominant orientation in order to survive?


I think you are qualifing "homosexuality" as a genetic distinction, like color of the skin. If so, there would be no homosexuals, as their parents obviously had sex with the opposite sex. It's not like that, it's not apt to the netural selection as it's almost "random". If 5% of the birds ramdomly lose their abilities to reproduce, would birds vanish from the Earth after some generations? I think not.


That's exactly my point. It can't be considered genetic or "natural", or it wouldn't exist. Anyone who's taken Behavioral Psych 101 will tell you it's a learned behavior that can and has been changed in the past.


I agree. I agree. But calling that an "abnormality" and treating homosexuals as their were not humans is WRONG. I have homosexual friends, and I like them as much as my heterosexual friends. They are normal people. If I hear someone badmouthing homosexuals, saying they should all die or something, I get on my feet and say "Sieg HEIL! Sieg HEIL! Sieg HEIL!"
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
As far as I'm concerned, speculating about a scenario in which homosexuality is so commonplace that humans can only reproduce through artificial means to avoid extinction ... that's pure science fiction. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you believe most men would PREFER to be gay were it not for social pressures. Last I checked there were ample heterosexuals to keep this planet overpopulated.


You were the one who attempted to prove the "naturality" of the situation by observing farm animals. However, let's take it out of the realm of "science fiction", and I guess posing a hypothetical question qualifies as science fiction, let me risk another that hopefully will be less offensive: Which sexual orientation is best prepared to propogate the species? Going to another debate I've had recently, using the part of Darwin's theory that many choose to ignore (ie: Survival of the Fittest), if homosexuality were naturual, would not Darwin's theory dictate that it must be the dominant orientation in order to survive?


I think you are qualifing "homosexuality" as a genetic distinction, like color of the skin. If so, there would be no homosexuals, as their parents obviously had sex with the opposite sex. It's not like that, it's not apt to the netural selection as it's almost "random". If 5% of the birds ramdomly lose their abilities to reproduce, would birds vanish from the Earth after some generations? I think not.


That's exactly my point. It can't be considered genetic or "natural", or it wouldn't exist. Anyone who's taken Behavioral Psych 101 will tell you it's a learned behavior that can and has been changed in the past.


I agree. I agree. But calling that an "abnormality" and treating homosexuals as their were not humans is WRONG. I have homosexual friends, and I like them as much as my heterosexual friends. They are normal people. If I hear someone badmouthing homosexuals, saying they should all die or something, I get on my feet and say "Sieg HEIL! Sieg HEIL! Sieg HEIL!"



I haven't heard anyone call for their deaths. I have no trouble with homosexuals. I won't treat their orientation as being normal, either.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I agree, JediSage; of all the research done trying to prove that homosexuality is somehow hard-wired, genetic, or in the brain, NOT ONE study has been able to be duplicated. And the psychological community is loath to admit it, but the only reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM was political pressure.

Get one thing straight (pun unintentional): I do not hate homosexuals; they are human beings and deserve the same respect as all other human beings. It is when they try to justify their sexual orientation and seek rights as a "persecuted minority" that I get annoyed.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage

"....and ORDAIN elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the HUSBAND of ONE WIFE, having children..." emphasis mine.


Well it would seem to say it, but not very clearly. It would also seem to indicate that is ok for the clergy to marry. So tell me if this verse had instead said "... be blameless, the
WHITE Husband of of one wife..." would that mean only white men would be allowed to be priests? All because of this one verse?

Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman

Quote
When does life begin?...I can't answer that one

I can. It begins at conception, when the sperm meets the egg and completely different DNA is created. That's scientific fact.

From the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION, that baby has completely different DNA from the mother. It's another person.

It's alive, correct? Yes, the fetus has life. Plant life? No. Animal life? No. Guess what? It's HUMAN life.



Well, not everyone agrees with your OPINION of when HUMAN life begins. I grant you that the fetus at point of conception is alive, but is it HUMAN? That is the question. And remember the sperm and eggs cell are technically alive BEFORE conception, yet no one treats the egg and sperm cells BEFORE conception as HUMAN life. The Bible clearly says murder is wrong, but where does it say that HUMAN life and HUMAN rights begin at conception? (and I'm not saying it doesn't say it somewhere, I'm not an expert on the bible)

Shim:
I think one of the reasons we celebrate birthdays instead conception days is because in most cases we know when a person was born , but many times we do not know the exact day that one was conceived.


On homosexuals: Do I think it is normal? no. Do I think homosexuals are somehow subhuman and should die? no. Are homosexuals intitled to the same rights as heterosexuals? yes Should homosexuals be allowed to be married by judges and religions that accept homosexually? yes. Should religions be able to consider homosexuallity sinfull , and ban it under their own rules(ie not allow homosexuals to be members of the church, and not allow the clergy of that church to conduct homosexual weddings)? yes.
Should you hate someone just because of their sexual preference? no, that is no way to judge a person.
Author
Time
Post link
A poster claimed that homosexuality was unnatural. I mentioned the prevalence of homosexuality in animals to show that it is indeed natural. Not all male and female animals produce offspring, and many primate species are built on the notion that only one male out of like every five mates. Therefore, homosexuality has no bearing on the survival of the species.

As for being “hard-wired” into a genetic makeup, well, I doubt my peacock has a homosexual gene. It simply likes roosters. I don’t know why, but the peacock’s happy and the rooster doesn’t seem to mind, so who does it harm?

Bottom line: calling homosexuality "abnormal" is not a judgement based on any reality ... you're basing it on taste. You might also be basing it on an interpretation of the bible, but I think such interpretations are sketchy at best (re: was Sodom really destroyed because of homosexuality, or the fact that the townspeople wanted to rape an angel?). Now, if you're the sort of person who can't see behavioral similarities between mankind and the animal world ... have fun living in your oblivion.

Back to abortion, I don't believe a fetus is a baby, so all of the hysterical comments about murder here bounce right off me. Bringing miscarriages into this discussion is relevant to the abortion topic because *most* anyone who has miscarried early will tell you that the cell cluster was not a human baby ... regardless of whether it died or was removed. A cell cluster might be "alive" in terms of cell growth, but I don't believe it's a conscious human life. You have hair and skin tissue which are "alive” ... yet you're not 'murdering' anything if you pull out a strand of hair or scrape your finger. As such, a human fetus has roughly the same consciousness as the sperm cells and egg cells that exist in the human body.

Being pro-choice means that I believe every woman can make up her own mind if the cells in her body are conscious. After all, the cells will essentially be a parasite consuming the woman's resources for nine months if she so chooses. If the woman chooses not to provide the resources, the cells can not grow into a human being. If a woman chooses not to provide nourishment to her newborn child, the child can still live if someone else provides the nourishment.

Not all women think as I do, either. People are different... kinda like how some mothers believe her baby is smiling and other think the babe's just passing gas. It’s still good to have choices.

Personally, I think the most responsible route to choose is that of birth control if one wants to experience sex without reproducing. I’ll also admit that late-term abortions when the mother’s life is not at stake leave me uneasy. Yet I don't believe abortion is especially irresponsible .... it's more responsible than bearing a baby you will not love and are not willing to provide care for. "Better off is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."

I’ve said what I wanted to say here … y’all think abortion is murder. I don’t.

To address the topic at hand, I performed for the pope when I was a teenager … at a mass that was dedicated to the hopeful end of abortion. I was a pretty die-hard Catholic at the time. I now cringe when I think of “pro-life” articles I wrote for my school newspaper that purported many of the same ideas some of you are putting forth. Because I had no idea what I was talking about due to a lack of real-life experience. I scarcely understood how my own body worked, and I certainly didn’t grasp the complexities of truly bringing life into this world. Many circumstances have changed my mind since then which have made me place value on the ability to choose your own path ... that applies to birth control and sexual orientation.
Author
Time
Post link
Pretty interesting article with more information about the Pope's history as a youth and the whole Nazi party thing...

Quote
Pope's family saw Hitler as enemy

After 81 years, Rev. Georg Ratzinger thought he had lived through as much as a man could in a lifetime. He never imagined a turn of wonder: his brother, Joseph, becoming pope.

"More than 450 years, there's never been a German pope. And to think it is someone from our family," the older of the two Ratzinger brothers said Friday as he bustled about his apartment in this medieval city preparing for a trip to Rome for the inauguration mass.

For much of last week, Georg Ratzinger was at the center of a storm in Germany. First he maneuvered a media frenzy. Then he did his part to keep the record straight on the life and times of Pope Benedict XVI--and to prevent the tabloid press from dredging up World War II.

The new pope, a conservative theologian and former dean of cardinals at the Vatican, was described as "God's Rottweiler" so often in print that Georg Ratzinger felt a tug of protectiveness.

And when the Sun newspaper in Britain, the country's most popular tabloid, raised questions about the future pope's war years with a screaming headline: "From Hitler Youth to . . . Papa Ratzi," Georg Ratzinger patiently opened his doors to recount their lives as a lesson in understanding.

In a half-hour conversation, the courtly one-time choir director blurted out a one-word criticism of certain media accounts.

"Rubbish," Ratzinger said, rubbing his forehead.

Family despised Hitler

Joseph Ratzinger, 78, has written about his childhood during the rise of Adolf Hitler. He always acknowledged that in 1941, when the Nazis demanded membership, he joined a Hitler Youth group. Georg Ratzinger explained that he and Joseph, who realized early on that they wanted "a life at the altar," were raised in a home where Hitler was despised, in the pine-covered hills of Bavaria.

"My parents viewed him intensely as an enemy," Ratzinger said. "From the beginning, they saw him as an enemy. They thought he was anti-Catholic and anti-Christian, anti-religion." Their father was a police officer whose dislike of the policies of National Socialism spurred the family to move from village to village in southeast Germany. The family eventually settled in Traunstein, a Catholic stronghold near Munich.

On Nov. 9, 1938--Kristallnacht--Jews in Traunstein were attacked and driven from town. Anyone who challenged Nazi authority was intimidated and threatened. Dachau, a concentration camp, was a few miles outside Munich.

In the world that changed before their eyes, young people were drawn to Nazi youth groups, which were often the only source of recreation in rural Bavaria, Georg Ratzinger said. Many children were attracted by sports and music into joining the organizations.

That social element never appealed to his brother, Georg said. Joseph Ratzinger was a bookish boy who shied away from sports.

Later, both were taken into military service, first as youth guards, then soldiers. Neither of them, Ratzinger said, could see how to escape the times.

"He had no choice. You had to join or you were shot. It was a brutal regime. It was an inhuman dictatorship," Ratzinger said. "There was nothing good in it."

Neither Ratzinger fired a shot in the war, Georg said.

"I was a radio operator," he said, and young Joseph "didn't fight at all." His brother went from one unit to another as a guard known as a luftwaffenhelfer, "a helper to the air force." He maintained cannons, bullets, guns and other supplies.

`It was tough times'

The younger Ratzinger was drafted into a forced labor unit and then the army in 1944. He deserted the army within months and then, like his brother, was held for weeks by victorious American troops as a prisoner of war.

"It was tough times," Ratzinger said.

The flurry of interest in the new pope's war history has touched a nerve in Germany, particularly in a year that marks the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. Franz Haselbeck, a longtime archivist for Traunstein, said some news stories seemed to ignore the reality of what a 14-year-old boy faced in Nazi Germany.

"Traunstein was like all other cities here at the time, not more and not less involved with the Nazi party," Haselbeck said. "You had such repression that you couldn't lead a normal life. No one could. I don't see how any normal boy could stand against it.

"To make something of this now--when [Joseph Ratzinger] wrote about it himself years ago--really, it seems ridiculous," he added.

Pope defended as a survivor

Abraham Foxman, U.S. director of the Anti-Defamation League, said he is, in one sense, heartened to see that questions are being raised about "the terrible memories of the Nazi era." But Pope Benedict XVI is a survivor of tyranny, Foxman said, and he should be valued as a man who saw the worst of humankind and spent the rest of his life pursuing something much better.

"The fact is he grew up in those times, and then this is how he chose to spend the rest of his life," Foxman said. "I think each one of us ponders: What if we grew up then? What would we have done? . . . Measure those years against the other 50 or 60 years of his life and make the judgment."

Georg Ratzinger has allowed himself a few judgments this past news-filled week.

"Anybody who writes such a thing must need something to write," Ratzinger said, sighing about the most sensational headlines. "And anyone who writes that . . . doesn't understand the times as they were."
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
I've read this week on a very trustable local magazine with credibility that there has been some contradictions about Ratzinger ever firing a shot during the war. Aparently he did get weapon training and got into a "combat" situation, but did not fire any shots because he had an "infection" on his index finger, that prevented him from firing. This supposedly "infection" was never fully explained by Ratzinger or any biopgrapher...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering