[quote=“Abadd”] Married couples have tax INCREASES (I should know… I just got engaged and have been looking into it).
[/quote]
Congrats!
I bet the sight of two women kissing has quite the opposite effect for you. And if not for you, it does for most men. So, apparently, lesbians are fine cos they can turn men on while gay men should be outcast because they turn people off… Nice.
Beauty is subjective. Do you CHOSE to find certain women beautiful and others ugly? No, it just comes naturaly. For homosexual people it happens to come naturaly to be attracted to the beauty of the same sex. Contrary to many id…people’s belief, homosexuality is not a choice.
Thanks 
And back to my original point of left-wing vs. right-wing (liberal vs. conservative), the differences aren’t really all that great. I’m a left-winger myself (what do you expect? I’m born and raised with an international family in California, and partially in Hong Kong, Japan, etc…), but agree with a lot of the points that Arcie makes. Yet, he claims it’s a right-wing rant 
And, well, while the sight of two men kissing doesn’t seem to bother me as much as Arcie, it’s not something I’m particularly fond of watching, either. Then again, watching a man and a woman play tonsil hockey in person ain’t the most comfortable thing, either. I just think people need to keep it private, regardless of their preference.
The contradictions between the Old and New testaments have generated a lot of debate among Christians, too (some people have even “retranslated” the Bible to find no condemnation of homosexuality contained within its passages whatsoever). Jesus was quite clear concerning marriage and sexual unions in Mark 10: 6-9; depending on how you look at it, only heterosexual unions/marriages were permitted.
Leviticus… let’s put it this way: Leviticus doesn’t answer today’s question as to whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. The laws of Leviticus only applied to the people of the time when they were written, and anyone who insists on using Leviticus to condemn homosexuality should consider themself bound to the same codes of conduct. People tend to pick and choose what’s still relevent from the Old Testament and what’s not (and also interpret passages literally rather than figuratively to suit their own agenda), though we have to bear in mind that Paul condemns homosexuality in the New Testament as well (in Romans 1:26 and Corinthians 6:9-10). Now, people can argue about Biblical inconsistencies until the end of time, but that won’t change people’s beliefs, which are truly at the heart of the matter.
As for ancient Greece, all I’m saying is that through socialisation almost anything is possible. Even in this age of tolerance you won’t see homosexuality among men on the same scale (especially when a man’s worth today is measured by how many women they sleep with). That’s known as conforming to expectations. Teaching impressionable children tolerance is one thing. Teaching them that some of them will be gay is quite another.
Married couples only receive TAX benefits if they have children? Wouldn’t that play a small role in promoting heterosexual marriages which lead to offspring? Isn’t that the kind of lifestyle governments want to promote for the sake of their country’s future? Having two mothers/two fathers by means of artificial insemination/adoption or surrogate mothers is a whole other can of worms…
And btw, I’ll gladly respect your beliefs, Abadd, if you are kind enough to return the favor. Peace be with you.
How can you murder a clump of cells, right? Even at 12 weeks a fetus has already taken a vaguely human shape; it would unfair to describe a fetus as a mere clump of cells at that stage. A fetus is still technically a human being in the earliest stages of development no matter how anyone tries to sugar coat it. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this subject. Dehumanizing a fetus only serves one purpose as far as I’m concerned. It’s almost as if some people don’t want to admit that a fetus is alive to maintain a clear conscience.
They are entitled to their beliefs. I know from friends who are devout Catholics that they don’t even consider abortion to be an option (one of the smartest women I know is Catholic and happily married). Personally, I don’t agree with everything Catholism teaches (what non-Catholic Christian does?). While the Anglican church won’t budge on certain key issues, its stance on others is a little more leniant and forgiving.
I’ve raised the issue of contraception before elsewhere. If teaching people to practice safe sex by using contraception in Africa where AIDs is running rampant meant saving lives, then I don’t see the harm in it (neither does the Anglican church). At the moment, people are being taught that contraception is against God’s will, and it’s literally killing people. The problem is, if someone is already having sex outside of marriage, which is already a sin, then why not go one step further?
And yet, almost a quarter of all abortions wordwide are carried out in developed nations where families are much smaller in size on average. Population growth has actually dropped substantially in some parts of Europe. The only way to offset that is to open the floodgates to immigration, which presents its own unique set of problems. In Britain, the ratio of young to old people is still reasonable enough for us to support pensioners; it’s a totally different story in some parts of Europe where old(er) people outnumber the young to the point where pensions will simply become unsustainable.
On the issue of Church reform, speaking as a practising Catholic (hence why I raised this thread 
):
What many of these reformists seem to have forgotten to reckon into their calculations is a critical question of its utility - would anyone pay attention to radicalism?
For one, all U-turns tend to make the executor of the change in policy look hypocritical, panicky or foolish - just ask Edward Heath (UK Prime Minister 1970-4). After zealously maintaining a stance against them very much continuously for centuries, for the Catholic Church to suddenly sanction artificial contraception, female ordination and the like would make it the laughing stock of the chattering classes, who’d rapidly caricature the faith as in terminal decline and just attempting to stave off the inevitable. Look at the recent debates over liberalisation in the Anglican communion - all everyone did was smirk at their wrangling over homosexual canons.
Also, there are certain lines that Roman Catholic Christianity simply is unable cross if it’s to actually be Roman Catholic - for instance, homosexuality can’t be sanctioned because St. Paul explicitly rejects it in Romans 1:26-27. I thus have a suspicion that however much the Church reforms, it’ll never be far enough for the Class of the '60s.
Also, even supposing the Church did enact reforms, I return back to the start of the post - would anyone care? The fact remains that libertarians (Europeans especially) are much more confortable in the cloying atmosphere of secularism, which has all the “modern” and “progressive” buzzwords, isn’t “old”, means that you don’t have to get up early in the morning on a Sunday, and if anyone feels spiritually malnourished then there’s like, y’know, New Age tripe, man. Liberals already have a ‘faith’ system in this, and I don’t think that they’ll abandon its convenience and go back to Church just because it’ll endorse abortion clinics. If the Church is to reclaim lost ground, the only way it can do so effectively (noting that reformist agendas are even more harmful because they’d disaffect the two main areas of Catholic growth, South America and Africa, which are both deeply traditionalist) is to find some way to persuade Europe that yes, the old ways are the best. That’s one reason why I prefer Benedict XVI.
In the homily he delivered at the Mass preceding the election, Benedict XVI raised some very valid points about the “dictatorship of relativism”:
*"How many winds of doctrine have we known over the last few decades? How many ideological currents? How many schools of thought?
"The little ship bearing the thoughts of many Christians has frequently been shaken by these waves, thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertarianism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so on.
"Every day new sects arise, and St Paul’s words concerning the deception of men and the cunning that leads into error come true. Having a clear faith, according to the Creed of the Church, is often labelled as fundamentalism.
"While relativism, in other words allowing oneself to be ‘tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine,’ appears as the only attitude appropriate to modern times, a dictatorship of relativism is being formed, one that recognises nothing as definitive and that has as its measure only the self and its desires.
“An ‘adult’ faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelties; an adult and mature faith is profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ.”*
As much as the assorted pinkos might like to deny it, religion isn’t a vector for social repression it’s a faith. The definition of faith is critical in its permanence - it is belief, and emphatically not fashion - that is another reason why I object to Church reform. You can’t hold a belief if you’re continually shifting it and altering it to suit the latest fads and fashions - not only is that transparently cynical, it’s also farcical and makes a mockery of conviction. Benedict XVI’s majesty is derived in part from his dauntless refusal to be intimidated by the Righteous Indignation ™ of this generation’s self-appointed Arbitrators of morality (funny how liberals think that everyone’s entitled to their own opinion until someone disagrees with them 
). Whether you agree with him or not, you have to applaud the Holy Father for having a spine.
). Whether you agree with him or not, you have to applaud the Holy Father for having a spine.To move onto more the more practical politics of the Vatican. Although of course I’d prefer a Pope whose views I hold concord with enjoying a lengthy reign, regrettably from what I can see and have read about concerning the realpolitik of the Catholic Church it seems that Benedict XVI has been elected as a ‘stopgap’ Pope, one who will maintain the status quo (Benedict XVI is also a quiet academic and scholar, so we can’t expect the prominent globetrotting that John Paul II invigorated the Church with) whilst negotiations over matters of doctrine continue between the Cardinals in the background. Let’s hope that God grants another extension to Benedict XVI’s three-score and ten so we can maintain proper doctrine for a good while yet, eh? 
I need to get up early tomorrow so I don’t have the time to involve myself in the other debates that have been raised on this thread, but to make a remark about pro-abortionists claiming that the woman can dispense with her body as she pleases: would you have liked to have been aborted? Thought not. Even supposing for the sake of argument that a foetus doesn’t become living until it passes an arbitrary boundary, a foetus at any stage in development will mature into a full infant. It’s incorrect to represent embryos as having all the moral influence of bananas because bananas will be nothing more than fruit, and can’t be anything other than that. embryos, on the other hand, are us. They aren’t a non-moral animal that we can dispense with without any qualms - they’re simply a few steps behind on the raod to becoming fully human.
THANK YOU, Geoffrey. Finally a nicely put together response to the burning question
And like you said, it simply points out that the people relying on one or two passages for their reasonings, yet ignore others in the same Book, need to revisit their faith pracitices
However, counterpoint to your “teaching about gays” comment… Legalizing gay marriage wouldn’t necessarily be teaching kids that some of them will be gay, but rather, that if they are gay, they have the same rights as non-gays. There’s a difference, like you pointed out.
As for taxes/marriage/etc, these gay couples wanting to get married despite the increase in taxes aren’t hindering heterosexual couples’ ability to have children in any way. In fact, they’d be providing more money to the government. How is that not beneficial? Also, yeah… the same-sex parenting thing is a whole 'nother can of worms
Cheers to you! Wow… satisfying discourse on the internet! With Geoffrey Duke, nonetheless!!! This world never ceases to amaze me
Edit: In response to Robert, my venting above is not directed at reforming the Church, just so you know. What the Church wishes to do is the Church’s bid’nes. Plain and simple. However, it’s legislation that I’m speaking of… the mixing of church and state in the US. That’s where the religious’ dogma runs over my karma, as the popular bumper sticker says. But, the one thing that is a bit of a stickler is the fact that the Catholic Church is spreading in poorer regions, and is against any form of protection…
Oh, and I do have an honest question: why must the Church continue to expand, anyway?
The Church can’t really be expected to change it’s stance on gay marriage, which is why I thought you idea on another topic, Abadd, about the goverment creating “civil unions” was a good one. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the concept of marriage originate from religion? “To bring a man and woman together through God”.
People should be given the freedom of living a gay or straight lifestyle, but at the same time the Church also shouldn’t be forced to condone these unions themselves. Both parties need to be repected here, I think. If the civil unions are completely seperate from the Church, I fail to see why there should be a need for anyone to be upset. If two gay people are united, it really isn’t going to affect the rest of us.
About the abortion issue, one has to question why these babies need to be aborted in the first place. Unless the woman was raped, all it takes is a little willpower and common sense to avoid the problem entirely. There are alternative options to abortion… the mother could give the baby up for adoption, for example, if she was unable to look after it. That seems a much better option, than dening an unborn baby a future. As Robert Frazer brilliantly put it: “a foetus at any stage in development will mature into a full infant”. No one knows what a child’s future will be like… supposing that aborted baby went on discover a cure for cancer or something (however unlikely that may sound). We just don’t know, and honestly if people just stopped sleeping around as much this wouldn’t be such a major issue.
The Church expands because they believe, as I do, they’re saving these people. Though I’m not a Catholic, I don’t mind anyone being one or gaining new members. And how does the Church infringe on your protection? This is one can of beef I have with a lot of liberals I talk to. Religions in general, mainly christians, have no rights in the U.S. anymore unless it is inside the church or on the property of the church. We can teach children in schools about the theory of evolution but not about intelligent design. Why is that? They are both just as valid theories as far as the government is concerned, so what is wrong with that? There is an onslaught of all forms of christianity in the U.S. and when we fight back, it always seems to offend someone who can’t take into consideration that someone else has a view that differs from thiers.
I don’t agree that gays shouldn’t have the right to marry, it really doesn’t effect me in any way, but what I do object is same sex parenting. This can confuse the child and cause some emotional disturbances.
And for abortions, these foetus, as Robert said, are nonetheless human. They are living beings, sure you can compare them to something like that of a plant but that doesn’t make them any less human. They will grow, they will live, they will feel emotions, they will have senses. I tried what Robert said about you, yourself, being aborted and I think that isn’t the best way to put it. Main reason being that everyone would just say that they wouldn’t have known so it wouldn’t have made a difference, but a better thing to ask is, “Aren’t you happy, that instead of being killed and rejected as a human for the selfishness of your parents, glad that they let you live and develop?”
Confused and emotionally disturbed children can come from heterosexual parents as well. A homosexual can be just as good a parent as anyone if he/she is serious about it imo. There’s potential for different disturbances than there can be in ‘normal’ families but who are we to condemn the parenting ability of people we don’t even know based solely on their sexual preferences and nothing more? Isn’t that more or less racistic (sp)?
I never said that none came from hetero families either. But the child is subject more to confusion with homosexual parents, yes they may be good parents but as what I’ve learned in the E.C. class I was forced into, the child can’t tell the difference between anything for a while. Until the age of five, they can’t even tell that there is a difference between fantasy and reality. When they see thier rolemodels as both the same sex and kissing infront of them or hugging, there will most likely be some disturbance issues later in life, especially after they see hetero families.
Edit-You can’t be racist towards a group that isn’t a race, and what I said isn’t anti-gay because I wasn’t rating thier abilities to parent.
Solo: To answer, yeah… I believe in switching to civil unions. I was only using the term “marriage” because that’s what it’s called in the lawbooks right now =\
As for abortion, what about people who do take precautions (condoms/birth control pills/etc), but are part of that lucky percentage that still manage to get pregnant? Adoption may be an option, but it’s once that baby is born, no matter how “unwanted” it may have been, you are never likely to see a mother give up her child easily. And always knowing he/she is out there…
And frankly, you can’t really make exceptions of “if she’s raped…” Where do you draw the line? What about spousal rape? How do you prove it was rape? Does a woman then have to prove she was raped in order to get the abortion?
That implies a sense of superiority over other cultures. Why do Buddhists need to be “saved”? Why do Muslims? Why does anyone? Are those people that never encounter the Church doomed to Purgatory?
The existence of the Church itself, I have no problem with. Like I said earlier, it’s when the line between Church and State begins to blur that I start having issues. Remember, the moral code of the Church is not necessarily the same moral code of every culture on this Earth, and therefore should not be used as legislation in a so-called “free” nation.
Don’t get me wrong. My grandmother is Christian. I have no problem with that. When I’m in Japan, I go to Church with her, sit through the sermon, sing the hymns (in Japanese, no less…). But, that’s my personal choice. Do I want the, for instance, anti-gay sentiments of the Church forced upon me? No. I’m very, VERY fine with leaving the Church completely alone. Don’t care one bit about what it does, who it elects as Pope, etc. But, I would like the same courtesy.
I had the displeasure, once, of walking across campus while in college. I was with my girlfriend at the time, who was devout Buddhist. A few young Christian men walked up to us and politely asked if we wished to join them in Bible study. I politely responded, “That’s alright. We’re not interested.” They asked again, so I informed them that my gf was Buddhist. They responded, “Well, then perhaps you should come, so we can show you the truth.” I nearly flipped my lid.
The reason why Christians feel “attacked” is because they’re the only religion that tries to enforce itself upon the rest of the nation. Religion has NO entitlement. If you teach intelligent design, then you have to teach all the religious theories of how the world began. Shinto, Buddhist, etc. Would you like Buddhism to be taught to your children? When was the last time you had to worry about that?
And how is intelligent design “just as valid” a theory by the government’s standards? I thought that public schools were government institutions, therefore should not favor any specific religion (it says so in the Constitution).
Christianity is not under attack. It is the rest of the people that are finally standing up and saying, “Hey… We see things differently, thank you very much.” I guarantee that the so-called attacks on Christianity would subside the moment Christians in the US stopped trying to put religious legislature into action. It’s not because they’re Christian… It’s because not everyone else is.
Prove it.
And, again, I ask the question, “Where does the mother end, and the fetus begin?”
Edit: And in response to your second post, it may not be racist, but yes, it is homophobic. You are saying that the simple act of seeing people of the same sex kiss will somehow warp their little minds. Where is the proof of this?
Yes, it may be a sense of superiority but it is thier beliefes. Yes, there is a line between church and state but organizations such as the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation or whatever it is, are attacking them to where religions can’t be openly expressed in public. Yes, the anti-gay feelings by the church aren’t exactly something that should be forced upon people. I don’t have a problem with someone being gay, but I don’t believe they’re doing the right thing and I also believe that the church should do the same as I and not force that beliefe. And those Christians on your campus were pretty offensive, and I’m sorry that happend to you but they aren’t an example of what I’m standing for.
And to deny that Christianity is being attacked is a little ignorant on your side. The last time christians tried to enforce thier beliefes on the nation was decades ago (unless you coun’t the gay mariage thing). There are countless attacks on christianity with every year, especially during the holiday season. This last season, I watched a segment on the news about a PUBLIC SCHOOL that allowed Chanukah and Kwanza symbols in thier holiday play but, without any reason besides some may view it offensive, took the Christian symbols out of it. There was another case of anti-christian doings when a group of athiests were trying to have a nativity scene removed from a park. This nativity scene was extreemly small and erected by a family, so it was private property, on public property that anyone is allowed to use. Luckily, they didn’t win. How is showing a baby jesus offensive to anyone? When I see a menorah or a crescent, it doesn’t offend me or any Christian, Athiest, etc that I know.
Intelligent design is just as valid a theory as evolution because there is still no sure proof of either. I also wouldn’t mind if other religions’ teachings of the begginning were taught in school. The best solution to this is to not teach any of it, including evolution, or if needed, teach that there are also other beliefes as well and stress that it is still just a theory. Also, teaching athiestic beliefes (i.e. evolution) is putting one group before another which is what you argued before but about christians.
There is no one standing up and saying, “We see things differently thank you very much.” There are people who have been standing up for a while and are still screaming, “There shouldn’t be any religion shown in society, moral relativism is good enough. Who are they to promote what they believe in if what we promote clashes with it?” The seperation of church and state cluase has been warped by activist Judges, which aren’t too uncommon where all these things are happening, to fit thier own beliefes. That clause was to only make sure that the U.S. government wouldn’t establish a national religion. Allowing the teaching of beliefes of any religion in schools doesn’t establish a religion.
About me proving that having same sex parents can cause confusion and emotional disturbances is something you should know allready. These children have impressionable minds. They also have no sense of how things should be interpereted. If they see thier parents who are the same sex and are kissing or hugging, the child isn’t going to understand that it isn’t the same emotions the child should feel about that sex. When they see other families that are hetero, they aren’t going to understand why there is a mom and a dad. Thier view of reality and mind set are fragile things, as I said before, no child can even tell the difference between reality and fantasy until after the age of four, in addition to this, thier mindset is also directly influenced by thier parents. When questions arise from the child, he or she isn’t able to handle the information that thier parents are going to tell them very easily. It is very hard on a child to realise that his or her parent’s aren’t what is to be normal and might be considered sick by some.
For the abortion, the mother ends where the fetus starts to grow. As soon as that sperm gets into that egg, the child starts. This is the thought of Catholics, yes, but it is true. That is the point when the fetus starts to develop and then to a child. It is always human and always a child. Even Encarta states under the definition of child-
an unborn baby
Encarta ? World English Dictionary ? & § 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
- that was under the definition for child among other things.
[quote=“Abadd”]As for abortion, what about people who do take precautions (condoms/birth control pills/etc), but are part of that lucky percentage that still manage to get pregnant? Adoption may be an option, but it’s once that baby is born, no matter how “unwanted” it may have been, you are never likely to see a mother give up her child easily. And always knowing he/she is out there…
And frankly, you can’t really make exceptions of “if she’s raped…” Where do you draw the line? What about spousal rape? How do you prove it was rape? Does a woman then have to prove she was raped in order to get the abortion?[/quote]
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear on the whole rape issue. I meant that if the majority of people took the right precautions, there would be a significantly less number of cases where an unwanted pregnancy would occur, with rape being one of the main causes. In the case of rape, or where the contraception didn’t work, why couldn’t the mother give up the baby for adoption instead of aborting it? You say that the mother would be unlikely to want to give up her child easily, but is not aborting her child giving it up as well, except instead of passing its future into the hands of another parent, the child wouldn’t be given a future at all? I sure think that giving a child a future is better than consciously denying it a future.
Heh, maybe all the to-be-aborted children should be given to the gay/lesbian couples who actually want children?
well said except for the last part…
Any parent is better than no parent at all/no life at all.
I guess that is true, there are always exceptions though…like those people who have children and then abuse them…and marilyn manson…lol
I know people who believe that separation of church and state = freedom from religion, but I don’t believe so. In government-related institutions, yes… I believe that is the only way to keep it fair, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t go to a local park and stand on a pulpit and preach, if you want to. By all means
And I respect your aversion to homosexuals. You can’t control the way a person thinks… The most we as a society can ask of each other is that if we don’t like each other, at least be civil. I wish those of your type of faith were the more vocal ones in society… I think we’d all be much better off for it, on both sides of the fence.
I don’t agree with that instance, either. Chanukah and Kwanza don’t belong in the schools, either. (I think I remember reading about that case in the news a while back.) However, how often do you also hear about people pushing for prayer in school? I’m not saying that Christians are never attacked… I’m just saying that the door swings both ways… It’s just that there are a lot more Christians out there who are used to being the majority, and when the door swings backwards, it’s a lot more noticeable.
Again, see my comments above. I’m glad they won as well. If the person had a problem with it, they should have simply erected a display of their own next to it.
This is debatable. There is no 100% proof of evolution (there rarely ever iss 100% of anything), but there is much evidence in support of evolution. Micro-evolution is proven fact. Macro-evolution is an extrapolation of that theory. The reason I believe it should be taught in school is because it survives the test of the scientific method, and therefore deserves to be taught in school. Intelligent design relies completely on faith, which can neither be proven nor disproven.
And yes… I think we should teach a little bit about all the major religions of the world. We’d all have a much better understanding of each other. Which is why many of my friend (granted, I don’t believe my friends are the norm) have taken the time to read the Bible, the Quran, and even study Buddhist scriptures. Been a while, though, so I hardly remember any of it 
Actually, I think this is the media’s fault, and that goes both ways. With the exception of those arses I mentioned earlier on campus, most religious people I have met are upstanding people who are pious, caring, and moral. Most liberals I know are open-minded, accepting, and free-spirited. However, just watching the news makes you think that all Christians are foaming-at-the-mouth-zealots, and all liberals are weed-smoking commies.
I agree with your statements in a free, public forum. I think where the message gets blurred (at least in the liberal talks I’ve been in) is that the media makes it sound more exaggerated than it is. Most liberals simply want religion out of the government (i.e. law, school, government establishments, etc).
Very true. However, what defines a religion? Here’s a question for you: what’s the difference between a cult and a religion? The cynical answer is: public accpetance. If you start to teach one religion, where do you draw the line? What if I have my own form of religion that I truly believe in… according to the letter of the law, my religion has just as much right to be taught as Christianity. The only clean way out of it is to simply remove religion from schools, etc.
While it was meant to prevent the forming of a national religion, the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people in the US are Christian of some form or another, and up until recently, most others did not have a voice in anything. That is why when the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (I believe), nobody said anything. Or the fact that you have to swear on the Bible in court? Nobody said anything. So, are they wrong in saying something now? Not really. I mean, if you’re in court, and you’re not Christian, what’s the point of swearing on the Bible???
I can turn that argument right back around. Perhaps the reason why we have such a generally anti-gay society is because kids aren’t exposed to it? Perhaps they would be more accepting of gays if gays were allowed to be more open. Children do have impressionable minds. Children aren’t born hateful… they learn that. We as a society teach our children to fear gays, to distrust foreigners, etc. This exact argument was also used during the time when people were fighting for the right for interracial marriage. Look how far we’ve come?
[quote=“Der Metzgermeister”]For the abortion, the mother ends where the fetus starts to grow. As soon as that sperm gets into that egg, the child starts. This is the thought of Catholics, yes, but it is true. That is the point when the fetus starts to develop and then to a child. It is always human and always a child. Even Encarta states under the definition of child-
an unborn baby[/quote]
I hardly think we can turn to a dictionary for the definiton of life. Not even the world’s most reknowned biologists have determined that yet. So, if a pregnant women stays submerged in ice cold water for a prolonged period of time, and has a miscarriage, is that murder? Or how about miscarriages in general? Or can the fetus survive without the mother’s body? These questions blur the line a little more.
DAMNIT! I wrote a really long response but i didn’t sign in first…so it’s deleted… But i’ll summarize it, I agree with you on somethings but still disagree with others.
I’m a catholic but I believe everyone is intitled to believe in what they want.I myself don’t agree with all that is in the Bible and I personally think people who do are the ones who need to revisit thei faith practices.
It’s impossible for anyone to belive in everything in the Bible.Simply because it was written by different people.
I don’t believe in Adam and Eve for example.I know the guy who wrote that passage wouldn’t know how the world had been created.
Of course faith is believing in what you can’t be sure it’s true, but faith without reasoning is either a product of strict education or dumbness (or both).
[quote=“Al3xand3r”]
I bet the sight of two women kissing has quite the opposite effect for you. And if not for you, it does for most men. So, apparently, lesbians are fine cos they can turn men on while gay men should be outcast because they turn people off… Nice.
Beauty is subjective. Do you CHOSE to find certain women beautiful and others ugly? No, it just comes naturaly. For homosexual people it happens to come naturaly to be attracted to the beauty of the same sex. Contrary to many id…people’s belief, homosexuality is not a choice.[/quote]
Yes, you’re exactly right here. I, however, have this rather unfortunate, low opinion of men, which just adds weight to my comment. I don’t want to know about how many “birds” they “pulled” last night or how ****ing amazing that ****ing goal was by their ****ing awesome team. I don’t care how big they are in that way. And yet, this is what they talk, brag, exaggerate about. The vast majority of guys my age, anyway. Do you know how hard it is to find a decent ****ing conversation it is with a guy my age these days? No wonder 80% of my friends are female. When I see a guy choose another guy over a girl, I just can’t help but wonder…what the ****?
I agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but you surely must have been the incredible amount of magazine articles in the last couple of years: “Bicuriousity, the new trend”, “How would you like to sleep with your best friend?” etc.
And incidentally, what’s wrong with Marilyn Manson? I’ve been to one of his concerts and he seems sane to me.