It's confirmed....Bush is intentionally running the US into the ground

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: alchemize
You, sir, are a complete moron. What exactly does the bible have to do with Bonobos? Where exactly (other than the opinion of the AG Appointee) did religion enter the discussion, until you trollishly dragged it out from under a rock?

Thank you for your kind words. Now, kindly point to where I made a single comment about bonobos.

Don't let your arogance get in the way of the topic. The entire thread is about religion as it relates to homosexuality and the arguement that homosexuality is either immoral or unnatural.

I wasn't responding to your post in the slightest and for you to think that I was shows a real lack of comprehension on your part. You go on to call someone else a moron also and accuse them of not being able to follow along......how ironic.

Well I see I missed out on ANOTHER idiotic reply by you. Let me walk you through this...real...slow...and....simple.

Post 1: I posted a discussion on gay animals
Post 2: XZeroII posted a response
Post 3: Zinfamous post referencing Bonobos
Post 4: I replied to post #3
Post 5: You replied to post #4 with something absurd about the bible and women being property of men
Post 6: I replied w/ "WTF are you talking about?"
Post 7: You replied with this post with even more idiotic statements like "I wasn't responding to your post in the slightest". You even have the balls to try and chide ME for not following along when it's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

So if you weren't responding to me, were you responding to zinfamous? XZeroII? Because nobody else was quoted!

This is Post #8. You have 10 fingers, you should be able to follow along.

Take a deep breath, and try to follow along. Go back and re-read it. I have 3 times, and if you can't see it, then you're just continuing to willfully be a moron and a troll.

this is where your reading comprehension totally fails. His response was in light of your claim towards me "that if yoiu want to take one, then you have to take all." (paraphrased) meaning, if I have to accept homosexuality as being natural (in bonobos), then I must accept that cannabilism and incest are also natural. (according to you, these are the "rules of science.") Of course, these are all natural, and completely irrelevent, making your point, uh...pointless. RiW is responding to that comment, which has nothing to do wtih Bonobos.

Since you are of the belief that a system of belief/argument/empirical study, whatever, is beholden to an all-inclusive set of rules (as you propose in your comment), then you should accept every word of the bible as literal truth. IE, you can't have one without the other, as you so eloquently argued about Bonobos. Bonobos have nothing to do with RiW's statement, he is just curious if you believe it's fine to rape women, take slaves, etc...b/c it says it's OK in the Bible. Remember now...you got to take it all at once!
Either:

1)Jesus is the son of God and it's OK to rape women,
or
2)neither is true

So which is it? Your carefully conceived logic grants only 2 choices in this situation...

Ya know.....

I thought about clarifying my statements for you Alchie after reading your neurotic reply, but after seeing your "logic" in the proceeding posts after, it would take way too much time to attempt to show you the err of your ways.

Thanks for attempting to clear things up and restoring my faith in most of the population to understand simple concepts Zin.....to bad it was wasted on someone that doesn't fit into the "most of the population" statement.

 

[alchemize]

I think this thread is done. You started it as a troll and ended it as one.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think this thread is done. You started it as a troll and ended it as one.

every post you have made has been trollish. try to disprove this.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think this thread is done. You started it as a troll and ended it as one.

I started it as a troll thread? You do realize that the OT was perfectly within the guidelines of the forum don't you?

There was a POLITICS and/or NEWS topic that was commented on by me in it.

I'm really, really sorry that you started trolling by bringing in incest and cannibalism into it and then throwing insult after insult around after you were repeatedly pwned for doing so.

Hey....wait a second....isn't what you did the very definition of trolling? Huh, go figure. Once again the irony is very thick in one of your replies.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think this thread is done. You started it as a troll and ended it as one.

I started it as a troll thread? You do realize that the OT was perfectly within the guidelines of the forum don't you?

There was a POLITICS and/or NEWS topic that was commented on by me in it.

I'm really, really sorry that you started trolling by bringing in incest and cannibalism into it and then throwing insult after insult around after you were repeatedly pwned for doing so.

Hey....wait a second....isn't what you did the very definition of trolling? Huh, go figure. Once again the irony is very thick in one of your replies.

It was a good thread; right up until we asked you to provide a specific example where the nominee denied or provided inadequate health care to a homosexual. You can scroll back a few pages and see where I asked you repeatedly for some examples and you have failed to provide them.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think this thread is done. You started it as a troll and ended it as one.

I started it as a troll thread? You do realize that the OT was perfectly within the guidelines of the forum don't you?

There was a POLITICS and/or NEWS topic that was commented on by me in it.

I'm really, really sorry that you started trolling by bringing in incest and cannibalism into it and then throwing insult after insult around after you were repeatedly pwned for doing so.

Hey....wait a second....isn't what you did the very definition of trolling? Huh, go figure. Once again the irony is very thick in one of your replies.

It was a good thread; right up until we asked you to provide a specific example where the nominee denied or provided inadequate health care to a homosexual. You can scroll back a few pages and see where I asked you repeatedly for some examples and you have failed to provide them.

I never claimed that he denied health benefits. But I don't really want to take a chance on someone that thinks that "the gayness" can be cured by closing your eyes and opening your wallet to jebus either.

We have all witnessed what those that have been picked by this buffoon have tried when their ideological beliefs were greater than their commitment to their job.

John Ashcroft anyone? Cover up those bronze boobies!!
Alberto Gonzalez? Where to even begin with this one?
How about Brownie? You're doing a heck of a job!!
Dr. Lester M. Crawford? We can't have the morning after pill....all the women and girls will turn to slutdom if we do!!
John Bolton...lol!! We need to disband the UN...what? Sure, I'll take a job there.
Paul Wolfowicz (sp)....Why, sure I can run a bank that's main focus if poverty. After all, my experience promoting war....who else has has more experience causing as many around the world to end up impoverished?

Yeah....this is a guy who's opinion and choices in personnal decisions should just be taken at face value.

I do feel compelled to give him high marks for Bernanke though. But I think that was more based on the length of term that he could serve and the fact that his decisions directly effect the Bush family fortunes. That is one spot that he couldn't afford to just put any old partisan hack.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think this thread is done. You started it as a troll and ended it as one.

I started it as a troll thread? You do realize that the OT was perfectly within the guidelines of the forum don't you?

There was a POLITICS and/or NEWS topic that was commented on by me in it.

I'm really, really sorry that you started trolling by bringing in incest and cannibalism into it and then throwing insult after insult around after you were repeatedly pwned for doing so.

Hey....wait a second....isn't what you did the very definition of trolling? Huh, go figure. Once again the irony is very thick in one of your replies.

It was a good thread; right up until we asked you to provide a specific example where the nominee denied or provided inadequate health care to a homosexual. You can scroll back a few pages and see where I asked you repeatedly for some examples and you have failed to provide them.

I never claimed that he denied health benefits. But I don't really want to take a chance on someone that thinks that "the gayness" can be cured by closing your eyes and opening your wallet to jebus either.

We have all witnessed what those that have been picked by this buffoon have tried when their ideological beliefs were greater than their commitment to their job.

John Ashcroft anyone? Cover up those bronze boobies!!
Alberto Gonzalez? Where to even begin with this one?
How about Brownie? You're doing a heck of a job!!
Dr. Lester M. Crawford? We can't have the morning after pill....all the women and girls will turn to slutdom if we do!!
John Bolton...lol!! We need to disband the UN...what? Sure, I'll take a job there.
Paul Wolfowicz (sp)....Why, sure I can run a bank that's main focus if poverty. After all, my experience promoting war....who else has has more experience causing as many around the world to end up impoverished?

Yeah....this is a guy who's opinion and choices in personnal decisions should just be taken at face value.

I do feel compelled to give him high marks for Bernanke though. But I think that was more based on the length of term that he could serve and the fact that his decisions directly effect the Bush family fortunes. That is one spot that he couldn't afford to just put any old partisan hack.

Ok; so in effect is what you are saying is that you simply don't want anyone appointed by Bush. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Would of made this thread much shorter.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: santer

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: wetech
From Wiki:

Education:
Holsinger has a doctorate in anatomy and physiology and a medical degree from Duke University. He also holds a master?s degree in hospital financial management from the University of South Carolina and a bachelor's degree from the University of Kentucky in human studies as well as a master's degree in biblical studies from Asbury Theological Seminary.

Obviously, someone with 2 masters, a doctorate, and a medical degree cannot possibly be qualified to be the SG. Since one of the degrees is in biblical studies, he must certainly value religion over science, there couldn't possibly be a balance.😕

There was also this quote:

While Holsinger was Chancellor of the University of Kentucky Medical Center, The Women's Health Center held a session on lesbian health during the fifth Women's Health in Kentucky conference. University of Kentucky officials said that a session on lesbian health issues was requested on evaluations. Although two state senators had harsh criticism for the break out session, Dr. Holsinger stated, "I appreciate the concern of individuals, but I think it's important to educate health-care professionals on the issues that surround lesbians. It's important professionals have the knowledge base to care for these patients in a quality manner (Blackford 2002)."

Phyllis Nash, vice chancellor of the medical center said, "His reaction in support could not have been any stronger. He said, as health care providers, we have to be prepared to meet the health needs of anyone who walks into the door

Really sounds like he's putting his religious beliefs before doing his job as an MD.

Why should Religion be put on equal footing with Science? It's RELIGION; you know that thing that says there's an invisible man in the sky who watches you while you pee.

It depends on what aspects of life you're talking about. No one is talking about putting religion on par with science when it comes to medical care. I don't think you'll see him saying someone should pray to cure a heart problem instead of getting surgery. What most people in this thread (including the OP) are saying is that BECAUSE someone has strong religious/moral beliefs, they cannot at the same time adhere to scientific principals. Guess what, the two are not mutually exclusive. I think the quote I mentioned above proves that he can, in fact, have a balanced view when it comes to medicine. Personally, he has his opinion on homosexuality, but professionally, he says it's his responsibility to treat anyone that he can. Like I said... balance.

Let me ask you something... is your doctor an athiest? Would you switch doctors if he wasn't?

Try substituting gay with black or jew in Holsinger's stated outlook. What kind of SG would he make then?

Alright:

"Because of my religious beliefs, I don't want Jews in the clergy in my church."
Makes sense.

"Because of my religious beliefs, I don't want blacks in the clergy in my church."
Doesn't sound so good.

However, I think my point still stands. As long as personal beliefs don't negatively affect the care provided to patients, it shouldn't matter.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: santer

Try substituting gay with black or jew in Holsinger's stated outlook. What kind of SG would he make then?

Alright:

"Because of my religious beliefs, I don't want Jews in the clergy in my church."
Makes sense.

"Because of my religious beliefs, I don't want blacks in the clergy in my church."
Doesn't sound so good.

However, I think my point still stands. As long as personal beliefs don't negatively affect the care provided to patients, it shouldn't matter.

You forgot the most important of his actions so that you could frame your argument a little better:

Because if my religious beliefs, I think that being black is a disease and I want to help cure it. Maybe I can start some kind of treatment program that will help turn them white.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: santer

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: wetech
From Wiki:

Education:
Holsinger has a doctorate in anatomy and physiology and a medical degree from Duke University. He also holds a master?s degree in hospital financial management from the University of South Carolina and a bachelor's degree from the University of Kentucky in human studies as well as a master's degree in biblical studies from Asbury Theological Seminary.

Obviously, someone with 2 masters, a doctorate, and a medical degree cannot possibly be qualified to be the SG. Since one of the degrees is in biblical studies, he must certainly value religion over science, there couldn't possibly be a balance.😕

There was also this quote:

While Holsinger was Chancellor of the University of Kentucky Medical Center, The Women's Health Center held a session on lesbian health during the fifth Women's Health in Kentucky conference. University of Kentucky officials said that a session on lesbian health issues was requested on evaluations. Although two state senators had harsh criticism for the break out session, Dr. Holsinger stated, "I appreciate the concern of individuals, but I think it's important to educate health-care professionals on the issues that surround lesbians. It's important professionals have the knowledge base to care for these patients in a quality manner (Blackford 2002)."

Phyllis Nash, vice chancellor of the medical center said, "His reaction in support could not have been any stronger. He said, as health care providers, we have to be prepared to meet the health needs of anyone who walks into the door

Really sounds like he's putting his religious beliefs before doing his job as an MD.

Why should Religion be put on equal footing with Science? It's RELIGION; you know that thing that says there's an invisible man in the sky who watches you while you pee.

It depends on what aspects of life you're talking about. No one is talking about putting religion on par with science when it comes to medical care. I don't think you'll see him saying someone should pray to cure a heart problem instead of getting surgery. What most people in this thread (including the OP) are saying is that BECAUSE someone has strong religious/moral beliefs, they cannot at the same time adhere to scientific principals. Guess what, the two are not mutually exclusive. I think the quote I mentioned above proves that he can, in fact, have a balanced view when it comes to medicine. Personally, he has his opinion on homosexuality, but professionally, he says it's his responsibility to treat anyone that he can. Like I said... balance.

Let me ask you something... is your doctor an athiest? Would you switch doctors if he wasn't?

Try substituting gay with black or jew in Holsinger's stated outlook. What kind of SG would he make then?

Alright:

"Because of my religious beliefs, I don't want Jews in the clergy in my church."
Makes sense.

"Because of my religious beliefs, I don't want blacks in the clergy in my church."
Doesn't sound so good.

However, I think my point still stands. As long as personal beliefs don't negatively affect the care provided to patients, it shouldn't matter.

You missed the point. How do these statements sound to your ear? "Jews are unnatural and unhealthy." "Blacks are unnatural and unhealthy." That's what holsinger is saying about gays. I repeat, what kind of SG would he make?

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Not that I care much for Bush these days, or know much about the professional qualifications of the candidate, but are you saying he's unqualified because he doesnt pass your PC test? Other than the choice part, nothing he has said can really be refuted on factual grounds. Gay sex is unnatural, and likely unhealthy. Gays do have much higher rates of STD's, and they do risk injury engaging in gay sex. If it was natural, they wouldnt need lube. Just because a person isnt willing to kiss the ass of the gay special interests, doesnt mean he should be barred from any government office.

To be "unnatural", it would have to occur in our behavior and no where else in nature. Do you really need to see the list of animals that "naturally" delve into homosexual acts?

Edit: The fact that he is so ideologically driven so as to defy science should be the very reason why he should be barred from any government office that dictates scientific policies.

I love this argument! Since animals do it it's natural and normal for people to do it.
Well, some animals kill there young, it's common for male lions to kill the young of other males, should we try that? What about sniffing behinds when we meet on the street? Eating terds? It happens all through nature, so it must be OK. Those things might work for you, but I'll stick with man made morals and codes of behavior thank you very much.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Not that I care much for Bush these days, or know much about the professional qualifications of the candidate, but are you saying he's unqualified because he doesnt pass your PC test? Other than the choice part, nothing he has said can really be refuted on factual grounds. Gay sex is unnatural, and likely unhealthy. Gays do have much higher rates of STD's, and they do risk injury engaging in gay sex. If it was natural, they wouldnt need lube. Just because a person isnt willing to kiss the ass of the gay special interests, doesnt mean he should be barred from any government office.

To be "unnatural", it would have to occur in our behavior and no where else in nature. Do you really need to see the list of animals that "naturally" delve into homosexual acts?

Edit: The fact that he is so ideologically driven so as to defy science should be the very reason why he should be barred from any government office that dictates scientific policies.

I love this argument! Since animals do it it's natural and normal for people to do it.
Well, some animals kill there young, it's common for male lions to kill the young of other males, should we try that? What about sniffing behinds when we meet on the street? Eating terds? It happens all through nature, so it must be OK. Those things might work for you, but I'll stick with man made morals and codes of behavior thank you very much.

Well Sir, Kindly explain your reason for thinking homosexuality is unnatural? And why is it immoral?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: santer

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Not that I care much for Bush these days, or know much about the professional qualifications of the candidate, but are you saying he's unqualified because he doesnt pass your PC test? Other than the choice part, nothing he has said can really be refuted on factual grounds. Gay sex is unnatural, and likely unhealthy. Gays do have much higher rates of STD's, and they do risk injury engaging in gay sex. If it was natural, they wouldnt need lube. Just because a person isnt willing to kiss the ass of the gay special interests, doesnt mean he should be barred from any government office.

To be "unnatural", it would have to occur in our behavior and no where else in nature. Do you really need to see the list of animals that "naturally" delve into homosexual acts?

Edit: The fact that he is so ideologically driven so as to defy science should be the very reason why he should be barred from any government office that dictates scientific policies.

I love this argument! Since animals do it it's natural and normal for people to do it.
Well, some animals kill there young, it's common for male lions to kill the young of other males, should we try that? What about sniffing behinds when we meet on the street? Eating terds? It happens all through nature, so it must be OK. Those things might work for you, but I'll stick with man made morals and codes of behavior thank you very much.

Well Sir, Kindly explain your reason for thinking homosexuality is unnatural? And why is it immoral?

or better yet, kindly read the previous 3 pages of this thread where this sad argument was addressed, ad nauseum, and repeatedly thrashed. (This comment directed at Greenman, bty 😉)

 

[palehorse]

In all fairness, Greenman wasn't the one proposing that "homosexuality is OK because it's natural." He was simply pointing out the ridiculousness of that argument.

Remember, I personally have no problem with homosexuals. I'm just clarifying Greenman's point...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: wiin

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: blackllotus
The belief that homosexuality is a choice is totally unfounded.

not proven one way or another.


where's the gay gene? Huh? I think we would know if they could prove it, why? Because parents would abort children who had it

Where's the autism, Alzheimer or epileptic genes? I guess since they can't definitively prove that they exist by location either it's simply a choice that people make when they are born to inherit them.

So you think it's a treatable medical condition, that needs a cure, eh?

It is a choice. You can choose to stop or continue and spread GRID - Gay Related Immunodeficiency Diseases.

Wow... just wow :roll:

Yup, it just goes to show that being a good homosexual is just as hard as being a good Christian.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: Greenman

I love this argument! Since animals do it it's natural and normal for people to do it.
Well, some animals kill there young, it's common for male lions to kill the young of other males, should we try that? What about sniffing behinds when we meet on the street? Eating terds? It happens all through nature, so it must be OK. Those things might work for you, but I'll stick with man made morals and codes of behavior thank you very much.

You still haven't substaniated the claim that homosexuality is unnatural or immoral.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Not that I care much for Bush these days, or know much about the professional qualifications of the candidate, but are you saying he's unqualified because he doesnt pass your PC test? Other than the choice part, nothing he has said can really be refuted on factual grounds. Gay sex is unnatural, and likely unhealthy. Gays do have much higher rates of STD's, and they do risk injury engaging in gay sex. If it was natural, they wouldnt need lube. Just because a person isnt willing to kiss the ass of the gay special interests, doesnt mean he should be barred from any government office.

Sir, because of vaginal dryness my girlfriend uses ky jelly. Is our sex unnatural?

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Homosexuality is neither normal nor genetic. Links between homosexuality and sexual abuse/trauma/family dysfunction are well established anecdotally and clinically. I posted some studies here once before:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

There is not a single study conclusively provong anything different - just mere specualtion (wishinful thinking) that's non sensical even on the face of it.

The truth is the family and society is crumbling and the gender dysphoria/homosexuality is one result. Identity and bonding are not just electro chemical reactions.

The FDA just banned homosexuals for life from donating blood because they clearly have more diseases. I mean even their spincter muscles collpase over time and their poo empties into their pants. Its clearly a dysfunctional deathstyle to any one not hypnotised to see otherwise (and intellectuals are the easiset to hypnotise) .

I have sympathy for the kids who been abused and acuired a false identity via the traumtic rupture with their core identity. Many will act out compulsivley as a result of that. Unfortunately many others will compulsively rationalise such behaviour as "normal" and see real normality as the enemy that needs to be assailed. Which is what the ACLU and hom groups do. Their psychopathology dicates that if they are at odds with reality than reality must be wrong and they act to turn things upside down, backwards to forwards.

Aren't there any links between heterosexuality and sexual abuse/trauma/family dysfunction? Also, not a single study you point to has been peer reviewed.

 

[sothsegger]

The only argument against homosexuality is a purely religious one and a highly sectarian one at that. To a non-bible-ist, all arguments against homosexuality are simply irrelevant.