I call these "Jerry's Kids"...
(Jerry Springer).

Now wait a damn minute, I NEVER said incest is ok. I can see how what I said may have been misinterpreted, but I did not say that. What I meant was......provided the people are of age in a relationship and consent to it what they are doing is fine. I'm not including incest in that however.

As for it being natural, give me a break, that's another extreme argument, it doesn't work.

Your so wrong on that statement.What countries do homosexuals have the most rights or freedoms?Atheist dominated countries or Christian dominated countries?You whine and complain about the treatment of homosexuals by Christians yet you totally ignore the fact that Christians have always held a huge majority in this country and on voting issues.It wouldn't matter if every Atheist and homosexual voted yes or no on a issue in this country.The fact is Christians dominate voting issues and decide how they are going to be treated.


Even though Christians should not be supporting homosexual issues they are.Because as said earlier if you want to live a open homosexual life with the least amount of problems you go to Christian dominated countries.

Atheist countries do not tolerate it,Muslim countries will kill you,Buddhist don't accept or tolerate it,not sure about Hinduism.

hmmm..."natural" selection...or rather "selective naturalism"...or "selected naturals"...or..."naughty by nature"...or...

I can only speak for myself. As I have posted before. As a human, I have always had ideas of right and wrong, natural and unnatural, purposeful and pointless,,etc,,,

my religious background has reinforced those feelings I already had a 'sense' about,,, and with anything else in life that may be deemed 'wrong' or 'improper' or whatever , it is a seperate issue to not support what someone DOES and to not support them

I would not be supportive if a loved one opened a brothel, even if it is completely legal, because I dont personally agree with selling ones body,, but that wouldnt make me love them less or be there for them any less often when 'needed'

I would not attend the marriage of a same sex couple, anymore than I would attend the marriage of siblings,, because I would be hypocritical to stand and smile and pretend to be happy for something I think is tragic

but I would love someone or bond with someone no better or worse for having tragedy (accidental or self imposed) in their life BECAUSE my religious base and my common sense has taught me that EVERYONE will have such things in their lifetime to deal with

I have never let anything but maybe hygiene or manners keep me from feeling comfortable making a friend, but that doesnt mean I have to be willing to be included in everything they want me to be if its not something Im comfortable with


and the death/reward angle is really not something I think about, beyond the usual consideration of actions and consequences that we all use in decision making everyday

Dragoness seriously stop replying to my posts because 98% of what you say is never backed up by any facts and is almost always BS.I rarely reply to yours and there is no reason to reply to mine since I could care less about your lies.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China


The People's Republic of China was established October 1, 1949. Its government is officially atheist, having viewed religion as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism. Religious belief or practice was banned because it was regarded as backward and superstitious by some of the communist leaders, from Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong, who had been critical of religious institutions.[29] Houses of worship, including pagodas, temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use during its early years. The Cultural Revolution led to a policy of elimination of religions; a massive number of places of worship were destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Asia


People's Republic of China, 59% of the population claim to be non-religious[46] However, this percentage may be significantly greater (up to 80%) or smaller (down to 30%) in reality, because some Chinese define religion differently.

Then by the same logic, homosexuality is "sick"...

Good thing The Supreme Court overrules the Christian vote. To claim that the US treats homosexuals more fairly because of the Christian vote is false. History clearly shows otherwise. It is despite the Christian vote that slavery was abolished, that Women's Suffrage was adopted, Prohibition repealed, etc.



This makes no sense. The fact of the matter is apparent. The opposition to gay/lesbian rights in the US is the Christian conservative right vote. To claim that they support it when they lose is downright dishonest. They vote against it, not for it.

I'd like to see this justified.



Was it ever in question? Why "prove a point" that no one denies? Common sense. We all have reasons that ground our ideas of what constitutes right and wrong. We all think that others should behave according to these reasons. That is how morality is usually discussed. It is in the close examination of what those underlying reasons actually are that points are made or lost.

There is a difference between "dictating what is right and wrong" and eloquently describing the reasons why one holds those beliefs.



If the grounds beneath the moral claims are of a religious nature, then they are religion based. Not all moral claims are grounded upon religious belief. So "screaming religious" is not marking a disagreement. It marks a disagreement which is of a religious nature. If we then actually look at the book we can clearly see where the problems are had in any attempt to use it as a form of implementing a moral code of behavior.



1. Some moral belief are based upon religion is a true statement.
2. All moral belief are based upon religion is a false statement.

One need not claim to be religious in order to know that.

OH GOODY - LET'S LOOK AT SOME NEW STUDIES: (ALL PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS)



There are many new studies and the following organization is leading the way in Longitudinal studies of gay parenting and same-sex households. Among some of their findings



They have offered a possible explanation:



As for sexuality, using the same tool of measurement that has been used for record sexuality of teens raised by heterosexual parents – there is no difference between the number who claim to be homosexual or heterosexual.

However, (at 17) both the boys and girls of lesbian parents were less likely to have experienced their first heterosexual act of intercourse than their cohorts raised by hetero parents –

WHILE girls were more likely to have experimented with an intimate same-sex relationship though they did not identify as homosexual/lesbians. Perhaps they weren't sure how strong an attraction had to be in order to consider themselves lesbians. There are not answers but their answers to the sexual identity question were the same as girls from heterosexual parents. (girls will be girls?)

There’s a lot interesting new findings, most of them tend to be GOOD news, it actually indicates children of lesbian couples are more likely to wait to have hetero sex, less likely to have been abused by (any) family member, and “scored higher on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems”.

BLAME IT ALL ON ROCK-N-ROLL - what generation started all that anyway? - What generation are you?

Do you actually remember all those songs?

Perhaps you think 'sex' is out of control but like many other people, when discussing homosexuality, you make it all about sex. The love between same-sex couples is no more about sex than between heter couples.

Unfortunately, some who think the sex part of homosexuality is disgusting, never see homosexuality as anything other than a sexal act. Sexual identity is about attraction and the natural feelings that follow - it works the same whether you are hetero, homo, or bi.

So quit making it about sex and make it about love - maybe then sex won't seem so out of control for you. And if it still seems OOC then consider the fact that the children of lesbian parents are more psychologically adjusted, and way behind their cohorts, who were raised with heterosexuals, in having heterosexual intercourse before the age of 17.

Oh goody! A study that has been conducted by NLLFS. Like you said, it's not hard to find "evidence" to support one's bias...

Read this one if you are truly interested in fairness.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/

You may also want to look up Dr Cameron's study, although his study is hard to locate after being ostracised by his peers.


All biased "evidence" aside, would you mind telling us what percentage of your children are homosexual?

Ooooh... big shocker! Gay parents are more likely to have gay children.

There is nothing wrong with that.



Doesn't that suggest that it's in the genes?

Interesting to note that the author of that study which PP posted was banned from The American Psychological Association for an ethical violation. Now he expects someone to take his opinion on ethics seriously???

From the article PP posted...



Let's all ask the KKK what they think about civil rights, and then base our reasoning and actions taken upon those peoples' opinions.

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.Courts including the Supreme court do not have the power to make laws.It is the voters of this country who make laws and to a smaller extent those people in Congress who make laws.Courts only enforce laws written by the people and the Supreme court mainly deals with Constitutional laws.


All you have to do is simple math to know that America has always been a Christian dominated country with a huge majority typically at least 80%.In the earlier years people who considered themselves Christians was over 90%.It is also a well established fact that those who our in our Congress are nearly all Christian and Atheist congress people are a rarity.

With that said if the Christians wanted what ever laws passed they have all the power to pass them regardless if every Atheist,or other religious person other than Christian votes against them.It makes no difference at all what the Atheist do concerning voting issues.They simply do not have the numbers.So saying it was Atheist,or Muslims,or Buddhists that gave the homosexuals the freedoms they have in America today is nothing but a lie.It has been and always will be the Christians who vote on laws to determine the outcome.


Your nonsense that Christians vote against gay marriage is nothing but a lie.You can check the statistics for yourself and see that gay marriage passing or failing is nearly almost 50/50.The recent ban in same sex marriage in California was only lost by around 6%.As I said before check your math.If at least 80% of this country considers themselves Christians then at best you would have only 20% of the votes if everyone non Christian voted no or yes on a issue including gay marriage.Christians should not be supporting homosexuals but if you check the numbers they are supporting them.


Finally if you check the voting records on human rights in this country you will once again see that the God honoring,God serving,and God fearing Christian REPUBLICANS were the ones responsible for the majority of the Civil rights in this country.Not the Democrats who could care less about civil rights.


http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/


October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed


March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans


May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster


June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….

You're obviously not into reading and research, are you?
1st, I already eluded to Dr Cameron's questionable ethics, you can read, can't you?
2nd, Cameron is not the publisher of the linked article.
3rd, try to be more complete when you quote something, paraphrasing is akin to intelectual dishonesty.
4th, take your Pee Pee Pathetic Pandering elsewhere, it's boring and I'm not impressed nor insulted.

Or better yet, let's take a false premise, apply a false dilema and ...

Oh wait, that's already been done...

There are parallels-- militant Christianity's 'government' is a totalitarian socialist dictatorship where dissidents are regularly threatened with eventual execution for not towing the party line.


-Kerry O.