 |
Your views on Marriage (foreigners select elsewhere answers only please)
This poll is closed. |
| I live in USA: Heterosexual Marriage Only |
   |
13 |
7.22% |
| I live in USA: Homosexual Civil Unions Only |
   |
9 |
5.00% |
| I live in USA: Full Homosexual Marriage Rights |
   |
45 |
25.00% |
| I live in USA: #3 + Further Extend Rights to Polygamy |
   |
17 |
9.44% |
| I live in USA: #1 only and extending rights to Polygamy |
   |
0 |
0% |
| I live in USA: Extend Marriage to Bannanas |
   |
4 |
2.22% |
| Elsewhere: Heterosexual Marriage Only |
   |
16 |
8.89% |
| Elsewhere: Homosexual Civil Unions Only |
   |
11 |
6.11% |
| Elsewhere: Full Homosexual Marriage Rights |
   |
46 |
25.56% |
| Elsewhere: #9 + Further Extend Rights to Polygamy |
   |
13 |
7.22% |
| Elsewhere: #7 only and extending rights to Polygamy |
   |
1 |
0.56% |
| Elsewhere: Extend Marriage to Bannanas |
   |
5 |
2.78% |
| Total: |
180 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
Ned:
I have critiques for each study. I am refraining from clicking on the link that says critiques, as a test of my own reasoning.
quote:
Each index case and his cotwin were given a Kinsey rating from 0 (exclusive heterosexuality) to 6 (exclusive homosexuality), although the precise method by which these ratings were obtained is, again, unclear.
|
Again, this is problematic, because you may say two twins are 'homosexual', but the meaning is unclear of what precisely makes one homosexual.
Now for the second example:
quote:
12 index cases were obtained.
|
That is too small a sample to derive any meaningful data.
Now from the third study:
quote:
Recruitment was through advertisements placed in homophile publications in several cities in the Midwest and Southwest of the United States.
|
Which, of course, is going to unduly bias your sample.
The third study, even with the biases, does not show a 1:1 correlation as found in the second study, but rather,
29/56 (52%) 12/54 (22%)
The fact that not all of the monozygotic twins showed a similar affinity, demonstrates that homosexuality is not genetic, but is rather influenced by environment.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
There were many more Christians among the population back when Christians were fed to the lions, in comparison with when Christianty was enforced.
And we all know Christianty is much more persecuted in the US than in Europe, which is the obvious reason why so many people are flocking to it
|
First of all, that is not my claim. Anyone can point and say that there were many more Christians in the 9th Century than in the First or Second. However, that was not my claim. My claim is that the church grew fastest when persecuted.
Now, let us suppose we have a function. If we start at 0 Christians, and jump to a million or so, that is a huge jump in proportion. Let us suppose we have y representing time, and z representing the number of Christians, for a graph of the number of Christians over time.
The number that pertains to my argument is going to be d'd(y) or the first derivative of the function of y, or time.
Again, I would argue that under the persecution of the Roman Empire, you would have the most rapid growth in Christians.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I provided one source that directly refuted your claim that people were forced to become Christians in England, that rather they were inspired to become Christians along with their liege. This implies voluntary and not coercive action.
|
The fear of being put to death could be a great source of Inspiration
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
The best description if you want to get historical is slavery of a woman to a man.
|
Let us take this argument, and go along these lines. Why should a gay man have a right to another man's pension, just because they are married? Surely the one man is merely the property of the other.
quote:
Therefore I abandon that and say that marriage is what it is to the beholders, in other words, the would-be weds.
|
Whaleboy:
Do you believe that the state should be involved in marriage? If not, why should they accord benefits to married people?
quote:
As far as the state is concerned therefore, it is nothing more than a contract, and that surely comes under freedom of association.
|
Again, if you go down this line, why should the state provide benefits to a private association? Marriage is not a private association, because it requires witnesses in order to confirm that a marriage has taken place. No witnesses, no state recognition, hence no private association.
quote:
I can find no logical barrier to gay marriage, nor would I want to.
|
Why don't you want to? What is so frightening about considering the opposite side?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002 time: 05:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Theodosius had a very hard time even convincing the Romans to abandon paganism. He was largely unsuccessful. There was no question as to executing anyone. |
Islam didnot appeal to the rich or powerful in Mecca expect in afew case. It appeal more to the down trobbing and poor. That why Islam never allow force convertion and there where many time when too many people in a area where converting they held up the membership in Islam untril they determ that no force was use.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002 time: 05:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Charles, are you suggesting that Arab conquests from the borders of China to the borders of France had nothing to do with the spread of Islam? |
They where one of the few conquestor who didnot try to tell what belief the people who they conquent to have. In the Holy land Christian and Jew where free to workship freely their God. The Viking who trade in Badgath where allow to built temple to their God's and Goddress as the Viking allow Muslim that trade in Swenden to built than Mosque to pray in.
Only one Moslim ruler ever harm than place of workship of than other religion and he was replace by both the Caph and Sultain for burning down the Holyest Church of Christian in the Holy City. The Caph and Sultain gave manpower, money and material to rebuilt it. The Christian use this exception to prove the rule that Muslim where intolance while in fact Muslim where very tolance of other belief.
The Crusader from Europe kill Christian, Jew and Muslim in the Holy Land without reason, childern, old man, and woman. There where case they burn down Christian Churches also.
Last edited by CharlesBHoff on 03-03-2004 at 00:54
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Elok
I think what MrFun meant was, "not only are you rude to religious people, you won't even hear them out?"
As to why you should respect us, communism is pretty stupid in my book, but I've never tried to shoot you down with sniping sideways comments, have I? Even if you have no respect, you could at least make an initial attempt to have manners. |
I'm almost 37. It is unreasonable to think that I have not heard most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of religion. There are no new arguments, only the same old ones repeated endlessly. It's very arrogant to assume that where Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, etc. have all failed, you are going to succeed. I believe pride is one of the seven deadly sins.
Be that as it may, I doubt very strongly that Fun meant what you wrote. Fun was offended that I don't believe religion to be a legitimate belief. He seems to think that the mere fact that one holds a belief ought to shield it from criticism, though he's been quite happy in the past to troll me for my belief in communism.
I don't expect people to respect my beliefs. I have to fight for that, and I'm sure, even if I can swamp them with historical fact and logic, I don't get any respect. If religious people want me to respect their beliefs, they'll have to get it the old fashioned way. They'll have to earn it.
I have yet to see one legitmate reason to respect a belief in the supernatural. There is a great deal of difference in believe that real human beings can make a system of voluntary cooperation work, and believing in an invisible, intangible, unknowable being which created everything, is omnipresent, omnicient, and omnipotent. I've seen people cooperate. I have yet to see evidence of any diety.
God is a mass delusion. People who delude themselves are not respected. Why should I then respect an irrational belief?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Seriously, what are you objecting to? |
Um, a blatant slur? If I went around referring to heterosexuals as "pussymongers," it would be insulting (and crass), now wouldn't it? Is it any different from someone referring to Christians as "jesus freaks?"
quote: These guys come on here and insult Christianity at every turn (not just this post either). They call Christians all manner of names, all of which are bigotted generalisations and slurs against many good people. Never, ever is there any talk of a ban. When I make a perfectly true statement about gay people, WHOAH, nasty man (how dare I make a true statement). |
First, the statement isn't "perfectly" true, as you've ignored in my previous post. Gay people aren't defined solely by their sexual activities any more than straight people are.
Second, who are "these guys" mthat are here insulting Christianity at every turn? I certainly don't, and MrFun, a Christian, certainly doesn't. Broad, sweeping generalizations are unbecoming, in addition to being fallacious.
quote: The problem is that Boris et al are so incredibly offensive and miltant that it is impossible to discuss these things in a 'civil' manner. No matter what one says, if you are not bowing down to the great phalic symbol, they just don't want to know. |
Come to think of it, I can't think of a time in any debate I've seen you where you haven't been anything but insulting to people with whom you disagree. I'm wondering where all this rage and bitterness come from in you. It's a shame, someone who is seemingly intelligent having so much bile in him.
But what have I said that's so offensive? Surely me stating my opinions about the issue of gay marriage is within my rights as are yours, so what gives offensive? My opinions?
quote: They are genuinely not interested in what people think - merely in getting what they want. And that is the bizarre thing, because none of this is anything to do with discrimination - it is about them trying to force the rest of us to hold the same opinions as they do. |
Oh lord, not this canard again. Nobody's trying to force you to think anything. If you're so fragile in your beliefs that changing a law is going to change your beliefs, well then I'm sorry. You're free to continue to believe whatever you want. But your freedom of beliefs stops at my front door, and what we're challenging is you forcing YOUR opinion on us. Gay marriage forces nothing on you except that you'll have to see something you don't like. Big deal, there's no right not to be offended by something.
quote: Facists in disguise.... |
Hello, Mr. Godwin. Table for two? 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
*SNIP*
Big deal, there's no right not to be offended by something.
|
Agree with the overwhelming majority of the post, although I'd say technically, what we think couldn't be subject to "rights", because laws and morality are abstract external social constructs...
Acting on or expressing a view could certainly be thought of necessitating a right, however.
Although if an "orwellian society" ever came to be, and ones thoughts were able to be externally perceieved... then perhaps you could have "thought police" and "thought laws". I wonder if those would naturally follow, however, or if we'd choose to keep personal thoughts, personal.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|