Things you have to believe to vote Republican

Hunter Rose commented: " You might want to LEARN a bit about the bloody subject before spouting off..."

Pervert sex deviants spread their perversion by raping children. That's a fact jack,

The problem remains, the Govenment refuses to release statistics.

My stats, based on counting the reports in the Cleveland Plain Dealer during the Catholic church scandal, was 99% homosexual assault, 1% heterosexual.

Let's see the Boy Scouts, after the Johnson case, banned homosexuals from positions of authority. Since then, they have been viciously attacked and efforts have been made to ban the Boy Scouts.

Meanwhile, NAMBLA marches in all the "Gay Day" parades, to much applause.

Geoff
Who is not fond of child rapers.
 
[sweet, reasonable voice]
Geof... read the link in my sig that reads "No Child...". Then THINK about what you're saying. Your line "Who is not fond of child rapers" kinda suggests that I (and anyone who disagrees with you) IS fond of them (or at least condones it).
[/sweet, reasonable voice]

Are the preists who assualt children mostly homosexual? Yes. But most homosexuals don't rape kids. By the same token, most of the gangbangers that shoot people are gun owners. Do the math...
 
That depends on when one defines a human life. Religious people tend to believe that human life starts at conception. An agnostic like me, who doesn't believe in a soul until provided evidence as to the existence of one, prefers to view human life at the start of the first undeniable evidence of brain activity. The thing is that even then, until birth I believe that the person inside is still part of the woman's body and I nor anyone else has any right to tell her what to do with it. The only person with any input on the matter is the father. It's their genetic material and no government should be allowed to step in. At the same time, no government should ever, ever, ever pay for an abortion. Those that believe abortion is murder should not have to fund it with their tax dollars.
Click to expand...

So what happens when teh father wants the child, and the mother wants an abortion? Or worse, teh mother wants the child, and teh father wants her to have an abortion? Will dad be absolved of all child support, because he doesn't want the kid, and the mom won't get an abortion? Or if he is the one that wants it, should the mother be allowed the abortion? Or, should she have to give it to him?

That's not true; I think that opposition to same sex marriages is akin to blatant insults and a pretty strong sign of either a hatred or fear of homosexuals. The problem is that people tend to think that marriage was invented by religion. It simply wasn't.
Click to expand...

No? Who was it invented by then? Because until the gov't decided to get involved, where did you go to get married? That would be the church.

That's not what's supposed to be taught, though. You're right, it's beyond science for any teacher to tell her students why things happened the way they did. Science has never and will never be devoted to answering the question of why, that's what philosophy and, to many, religion are for. Science tells us how and the evidence has shown us the most likely scenarios. But there is zero evidence to support creationism and thus it should not be included in any study of science.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how you can consider the concept that we all somehow formed from dust (which magically appears, yet wasn't created) to have any more credibility than the theory that we were all created.

The only people that have any right to decide whether or not my friends Tim and Dave can get married are Tim and Dave. That's it. Remove all tax benefits for married couples and you remove the only logical reason for controversy because bringing religion and supposed "moral values" is a spitting in the face of them who decided that freedom of religion belonged in the very first ammendment.
Click to expand...

Again, I'll point out that marraige is a religious institution, removing gov't is one thing. removing the church is another. Ideally, the world would work that if you can find a religious place to bond you and whoever (and how many ever, and even whatever), it would be allowed.
 
YYYYaaaawwwwwnnnn Man some of you guys are long winded. By the time I read through it all I fall asleep.
Guess that is what happens as you get old and have heard the same things for your whole life:D

25
 
So what happens when teh father wants the child, and the mother wants an abortion? Or worse, teh mother wants the child, and teh father wants her to have an abortion? Will dad be absolved of all child support, because he doesn't want the kid, and the mom won't get an abortion? Or if he is the one that wants it, should the mother be allowed the abortion? Or, should she have to give it to him?
Click to expand...

I believe that remains the business of the two parties involved. I have no say in those matters and neither should you or anyone else. The only two people who have any right to decide are the people who's genetic material is involved; even then, I still believe that until birth a fetus is part of a woman's body. Not the most savory idea for many, and to be honest I'd feel horrible if I were ever in that position to make the choice or to try to convince a girl I knocked up to not get an abortion, but I think the concept of ownership over one's own body supercedes anything else.

But that's just me. Either way, I vehemently disagree to any state sponsored abortions. I may not feel that I should be allowed to tell a woman she can't have one but damned if I'm going to pay for it.

No? Who was it invented by then? Because until the gov't decided to get involved, where did you go to get married? That would be the church.
Click to expand...
I've been advised not to broach this subject for the time being. While certainly political in nature it also brings forth religious arguments which may be a bit too controversial for this forum. I don't want to step on any toes, y'know.

I will send you a private message with my thoughts and views on the subject. :)

I don't really see how you can consider the concept that we all somehow formed from dust (which magically appears, yet wasn't created) to have any more credibility than the theory that we were all created.
Click to expand...

No magic involved, it's science. The thing is science does not say that it wasn't created by an intelligent creator. But since there is zero evidence to support that belief it cannot be considered a theory. Since tells us how, not why. Science tells us that we are all essentially star dust and that the universe is roughly 12-18 billion years old. It does not tell us if it was a random sequence of events or if there is some higher power deciding how it all goes because there is no evidence to support either position.

The only thing that bothers me is when students are taught scientific fallicies by their religion. When a child vehemently denies the plain and simple truth that men and women have an equal number of ribs because his church taught him otherwise, then it's a problem.

Again, I'll point out that marraige is a religious institution, removing gov't is one thing. removing the church is another. Ideally, the world would work that if you can find a religious place to bond you and whoever (and how many ever, and even whatever), it would be allowed.
Click to expand...

If it's all about religion then there are quite a number of secular churches that allow it. But I'll go into the religious aspect in more detail in a PM where I won't inadvertently ruffle too many feathers.
 
So what happens when the father wants the child, and the mother wants an abortion? Or worse, the mother wants the child, and the father wants her to have an abortion?
Click to expand...
I think Heinlein's child-based marriage contracts solve this. If there's no contract to have children, and the father or mother is unwilling to support it, the options are abortion, or (if the mother wants it) adoption or single parenting. If the mother doesn't want it and there's no contract, the father is screwed. In that situation, maybe he should have taken child creation more seriously and planned for it with the woman, rather than trying to trap the woman into having a baby when he didn't know ahead of time that she even wanted one.

I don't really see how you can consider the concept that we all somehow formed from dust (which magically appears, yet wasn't created) to have any more credibility than the theory that we were all created.
Click to expand...
The magic you refer to is a placeholder for our inability to understand. The difference is that scientists look back and see that scientific understanding -- from sickness to the weather to astronomy -- was incorrectly explained by religion, and they don't see any reason why the creation of the universe might not be similarly mis-explained by religion.

Geoff, just because the clergy who abuse children seem to be homosexual doesn't mean homosexuals disproportionately abuse children. Have you considered that perhaps the abusers abuse children because they're religious, along with being sexually frustrated and having screwed-up morals? They can't have a relationship with an adult without risking their careers, so they go after children who they think they can convince not to tell anyone. As for why most don't abuse girls, maybe their religion causes them to see females as a more protected class. (Why, I have no idea. The problems in this world all came from Eve. Adam was merely entrapped.)
 
As for why most don't abuse girls, maybe their religion causes them to see females as a more protected class.
Click to expand...

Actually it's all about convenience. Priests in the Catholic church are always men and altar boys are always boys.
 
Zealots for either party - :barf:

Dudes who get excited that people are having sex - they aren't having it themselves. :D

There are countries that control premartial sex, gays and keep women in their place - aren't we fighting them?
 
Can someone please explain to me why a woman's "freedom to choose" to have an abortion is the Demosocialist holy grail, yet a woman's "freedom to choose" to be armed to defend herself against violence is an outrage and a crime against humanity???

Why does "freedom to choose" not apply to all things?
 
Can someone please explain to me why a woman's "freedom to choose" to have an abortion is the Demosocialist holy grail, yet a woman's "freedom to choose" to be armed to defend herself against violence is an outrage and a crime against humanity???

Why does "freedom to choose" not apply to all things?
Click to expand...

Oh how I wish I could drill this concept into the heads of my liberal friends. That is as strong an example of hypocrisy as anything else.
 
Hunter Rose commented: "[sweet, reasonable voice]
Geof... read the link in my sig that reads "No Child...". Then THINK about what you're saying. Your line "Who is not fond of child rapers" kinda suggests that I (and anyone who disagrees with you) IS fond of them (or at least condones it). [/sweet, reasonable voice] "

It doesn't SUGGEST anything at all. It's a flat statement of fact. Or do the guilty flee where no man pursue?

Geoff
Who remembers Jessie Dirkensing.
 
I think I'm going to drop this discussion, since the above statement made to my face would have resulted in my spending time in jail for assualt at the minimum...
 
The magic you refer to is a placeholder for our inability to understand. The difference is that scientists look back and see that scientific understanding -- from sickness to the weather to astronomy -- was incorrectly explained by religion, and they don't see any reason why the creation of the universe might not be similarly mis-explained by religion.
Click to expand...

Yet, at this point, they cannot disprove that creationism is wrong, any more than they can prove evolution to be right. Is there a problem with teaching both as potentially plausible? Right now, I see the fight to be two groups trying to force their beliefs on another. Teach the kids both, until one can be proven.

For those about to yell 'seperation of church and state', it is possible to write lesson plans that don't go into teaching specifics of any religion when dealing with creationism.
 
Yet, at this point, they cannot disprove that creationism is wrong, any more than they can prove evolution to be right. Is there a problem with teaching both as potentially plausible?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. Teaching science is about teaching the scientific method: make empirical observations, formulate hypotheses, test them, make conclusions, repeat that process and constantly correct it. Creationism is NOT scientific. You can't do a test for God, but you can test evolution.

Saying that evolution can't be proven is like saying you can't prove Atomic Theory or the Germ Theory of Disease or Gravitational Theory. It's simply factually incorrect to say that. In the scientific community, all the evidence points to it being correct. 99.999% of scientists have confirmed the empirical observations that support it. You can't say that for creationism. You can have your religion, just keep it outta my science class.
 
It's simply factually incorrect to say that. In the scientific community, all the evidence points to it being correct. 99.999% of scientists have confirmed the empirical observations that support it. You can't say that for creationism. You can have your religion, just keep it outta my science class.

So are you a scientist?

25
 
Yet, at this point, they cannot disprove that creationism is wrong, any more than they can prove evolution to be right. Is there a problem with teaching both as potentially plausible? Right now, I see the fight to be two groups trying to force their beliefs on another. Teach the kids both, until one can be proven.

For those about to yell 'seperation of church and state', it is possible to write lesson plans that don't go into teaching specifics of any religion when dealing with creationism.
Click to expand...

In science there is nothing that is said to be proven right. It's impossible to truly prove anything but it's possible to disprove anything. The law of gravity could still be proven wrong. Highly unlikely but considering the advances in quantum physics there's no telling what we'll learn.

The point is that science does not need to disprove the idea of creationism because there is zero evidence to support it in the first place. It's a belief, not a theory. Given that one would have to understand the very fabric of reality to truly be able to disprove the idea of a higher power it's doubtful anyone will be able to do so thus, not a theory. The only argument for creationism is that supporters believe the universe is too complex to happen randomly. Lack of information and understanding should never be put forth as evidence. There is as much evidence to support creationism as there is to support the idea that you are all just characters in a dream I'm having.

I have no problem with teachers explaining their own views on the subject and anwering the questions posed by students but it should not be taught as a scientific theory because it simply doesn't quality. It's not science.

*for the record, I am not in any way declaring or claiming that creationism is wrong. science does not try to tell us why or in the eyes of some, who. science just tries to tell us how
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top