Hahaha...that's pretty idiotic, but then again, lots of people subscribe to the notion that many chain e-mails contain truth, esp when tagged with a "Snopes Approved" statement (like that one going around about the guy who made money running a parking lot at some British zoo for 30 years and simply banked the money...apparently he made 10 mil tax free!). I blame the internets. All of them.

That and they read Dawkins' books

This chick is the biggest waste of space since cancer

Never woulda guessed you were a chick.

You said that 51 million Americans live in "rural" areas. So, that actually would mean that they are a massive minority, since it leaves about 249 million Americans living in cities and urban areas.


EDIT: This has already been covered.

First of all I don't think that's even true. Many states have legalized gay marriage, including Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, and maybe others. Vermont may have reversed it, I dunno. New York state now recognizes gay marriages performed in other states.


Regardless, I don't see why you guys seem to think that, because more than half the country is against it, it shouldn't happen. What % of the population do you think favored interracial marriage 60 years ago? Just because more than half of the country is ass-backwards as far as accepting homosexuals into society doesn't mean they're correct, or that we should always do what the majority thinks. That would be horrendous. We elect people to make these decisions for us.

I actually just did a little quick research on this, and basically confirmed my suspicions that Buddhism in general strongly disapproves of abortion. As one author puts it though, "[Buddhism] also discourages imposing rigid moral absolutes."

According to another author, "Those sources most often cited that prohibit abortion are Theravaadin and ancient." In other words, Theravada Buddhism is just one sect or form of Buddhism, as Catholocism is to Christianity.

I was hoping I was not going to get called on that one. Oh well.

Also, Jon Stewart just completely de-constructed the myth of Palin being a "rogue" on his show last week. It was amazing. If I can find a link, I will post it.

Is it this one, with the guy at the end saying that liberals don't allow Down syndrome kids to exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marr...e_United_States

Five states have legalized same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire.^[1] In all five cases this has been through legislation or court ruling.^[1] As of November 2009, when legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine was defeated by referendum, same-sex marriage had been defeated in all 31 states in which it had been directly put to a popular vote.^[1] Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage.^[1]

Fair enough, but my real point came in my next paragraph, as I made clear.

Who is more apt to bring to term a baby with down syndrome? a conservatve pro life woman or a liberal pro choice woman?

Like most things, I think the people of the states should decide... and it this point they have

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk

.

it really all comes back to my basic theory re: people.



they're idiots.

pretty simple question, you may not like the question...but it is valid...

a very high percentage of fetuses who are discovered to have down syndrome are aborted...

It is a very tough decision for families...

92% in fact.

.

kinda like this?

S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."

Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.

Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.

"Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don't think it helped him," she said.

Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."

.

Edit:
Just realized that I don't want to have an abortion debate.

.

I BET AN ABORTED FETUS WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT.

.

Do you think states should also be able to decide/ban things like interracial marriage?

race is by birth and dictated by genetics. Until proven otherwise definitiely by science, homosexuality is a choice.

The erection I get everytime I see a hot chick in something slutty is never a choice...just sayin

Easily the stupidest argument ever. What the heck does the reason for being homosexual have to do with anything?

wow, I can't believe I agree with Yorke.

He's off his normal leftist elitist game because he's all giddy that the CERN thingy is shooting protons and might accidentally destroy the world by creating a black hole.

I think he thinks he gets to be there in heaven when all those uppidity scientist who ran the place and fired him will stand before God while God is shaking His head and saying: "Dude, you suspected that this is what created the Big Band and you thought reproducing it on your planet would be a good idea?"

I am assuming you are joking. Or is today Ignorance Day?

I don't know, did you get your cake yet?

That made me laugh. Nice one.

But you are aware that microscopic black holes are no danger to the earth, even if we do create one? These kinds of collisions happen all the time in space and matter eating black holes are not a result. Microscopic, rapidly evaporating black holes are.

I did not know that, but I have a long term joke with LLY about them creating a black hole that destroys the earth as a weapon to use against Russia based on the movie Real Men that goes back to the days when he was at CERN so this was a joke for him.

I am not sure he remembers, but I do.

Oh, don't worry, we'll blow up the Earth, that's certain enough. We're working on a March/April 2010 schedule for world destruction right now, but things keep getting in the way and it keeps getting pushed back.

This is one of your more naive statements ever.

I am probably in the minority in thinking that sexual orientation is not genetically determined, but why should the burden of proof be on one side of this issue or the other? Also, the alternative to genetic determination is not "choice".

Anything to save the democrats from the destruction they are going to face in the midterm elections huh?

So you agree with him about the homo thing, but just think he is nave for wanting the people who want to radically change our society to bear the burden of proof?

Wow, I can't believe I agree with SAM.

I told you..he's got a Dr. Evil side to him. Best to be wary of him in general

.

I don't see why either "it's a choice" or "it's genetically determined" should be the default position that has to be "disproven."

I also don't think those are really the two options or that either one of them is correct.

Nor do I think we should radically change our society based on the lobbying of a wealthy special interest group in the absence of the answers to the many questions surrounding this issue.

But now we're kind of going rogue.

If it is a choice, and science has shown that the best home for children is a mom and a dad, then what basis can they bring for adoption?
If it is a choice, and science shows that aids is a behaviorally passed disease, then what basis do they have for wanting special rights for infected people?
If it is a choice, and science shows that it is a deviant sexual behavior, what right do they have for demanding the same rights to marry as normal folk?
If it is a choice, and science shows that most atheist are in fact repressed homo loving democrats, then what right do they have to be allowed to procreate?

I'm pretty sure that having 2 stable, loving, adult parents, or even just one, would be a huge step up for a lot of kids.

Which is better: growing up with a mom and a dad, the latter of whom is physically abusive to both you and your mom, OR growing up with 2 dads who love you and treat you as a parent should?

Considering how many kids grow up with NO parents who care about them, or a mom and dad who mistreat them, or shuffled from foster home to foster home, etc etc, I feel like gay adoption probably isn't going to bring down the level of child development in this country.



Can you explain what you mean here? I am completely confused. In what way is "science" going to show that "aids (sic) is a behaviorally passed disease?" I mean, "science" already knows how AIDS is spread. But I don't know what you mean by "behaviorally passed."

I also don't know what "special rights for infected people" you are alluding to. I'm not trying to be facetious - I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.




Labeling a thing as "deviant" or "non-deviant" is a matter of opinion, morality, ethics, etc etc. "Science" cannot prove a thing to be distasteful or deviant. It literally isn't possible.




You know that old adage about how a guy wearing a pink shirt is secure in his masculinity but a guy calling him a queer for wearing a pink shirt isn't secure in his? That.

Well I know where Timmy Wakefield is trying to go with this.

The comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex “marriage” has been argued in state supreme courts and refuted.

I mean, I think I know what you are trying to get at with this, but I think your statement as it stands is wrong.

It's interesting that we use the word "distasteful" because that's more accurate than we know. Turns out that the same brain systems which process disgust (literally bad taste) process social disgust as well. The gut feeling of distaste that people have for certain things (e.g. homosexual sex) drives a lot of their moral decision-making.

Not saying people's reactions couldn't ever change, but it is actually a scientific question whether or not homosexuality is distasteful to people.

Yeah but there is no way of defining what is "deviant," because it changes from person to person. Many people would consider buttsex between a man and a woman to be deviant. Others wouldn't. "Science" is never going to know who is "right," because it's not a matter of correct or incorrect, it's a matter of opinion.

I mean, are you trying to say that if a majority of a population looks at an action as being "deviant," that means it is such? That can't be true. How big of a majority? What about crazy-ass Muslims who would consider it deviant for their wives faces or hair to be seen? Are they "correct" that showing your face is distasteful, deviant behavior just because 90% (made-up statistic) of their countrymen agree?

No, but I don't think it's simply a matter of opinion either. However, we already have a whole thread on this issue going in the religion forum.

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=137205