Parents Protest Gay Fairytale for 2nd Graders...

Tha'ts just down right funny!
a 10 page fairy tale vs a religious guide that tell us we are going to hell? LOL

 

So, if we all came from A & E, we're all imbread? I thought family isn't supposed to breed with family? Otherwise major health complications develope!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(remaxmanager @ Apr 26 2006, 04:34 PM) [snapback]245707[/snapback]</div>

Doh, there you go. I guess you end up with all of us that have replied here on this thread oh pot to kettle.. :blink: :huh: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 26 2006, 04:20 PM) [snapback]245694[/snapback]</div>

oh, you're funny. (dripping sarcasm)

yeah there's this thing called separation of church and state.

to date i have not heard of a law dictating separation of minority groups and state.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 26 2006, 11:30 AM) [snapback]245631[/snapback]</div>

Ouch!.. it almost sounds like the Bible a threat to your beliefs?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 26 2006, 12:26 PM) [snapback]245657[/snapback]</div>

As a Dr. you have studied what occurs.. not what made them occur or who made them.
Do you really think there is not an intelligence behind all of the creative genetics that mutates to adjust to its environment? Where is the intelligence is all of that?

There is a scripture where Pauls says: (1 Cor 3:6 KJV) I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

you can manipulate and water and plant and fertilize and medicate and remove, but there is absolutely not healing without life?.. just where does life come from?
Take life out of the body as in a code 99 and the body is a mere lump of molecules getting more and more acidic with each moment?
Where does the life come from? and maybe more importantly... where does it go?

Don't let your knowledge blind you to the obvious.... you are nothing without life in you... your very next breath is not guaranteed.... yet you imply its all about some "force" that you will not label as God.. but its some force, that controls and keep it all in order?...

Surely being an intelligent man, you do not think chance controls events, the formation of organisms and the keeping of them in homeostasis?

Who engineered the amazing bodies we and all other living organisms have?...

Surely you are not suggesting that we just are and when we die we are just gone.

If you don't believe in the afterlife, then this life does not exist either.

When I took A&P years ago, I remember as the professor was explaining how the cells unite together and form a team to fight against invaders and they recognize the invader by the antigen etc etc... and I kept asking "why do they do that".. how do they know to do it and who taught them?
Did they go to school? What is the source of their intelligence?.. Finally he had to say "it sounds like a philisophical question"

 

Well, I've got to hand it to Mystery Squid... he was able to stay away from this for more than 12 hours and here I am diving in again after just four.

But, oh, what spectacular crap to dive into!

First, from Windstrings:

Being gay is not a "race".

Gay people, as you have mentioned, do not directly reproduce. As has been shown by efusco (and all of modern biology), human traits may be passed on for generations before manifesting. Thus, straight couples will always continue to produce a few gay offspring here and there over time.

I don't know how many "little voices" you have in your head, but I have only one, and it sounds like my voice. I believe the technical term is "inner monologue". If you have a bunch of monologues going from voices other than your own, you might want to seek professional help.

And frankly, as tolerant as I am of various religious backgrounds, I don't take kindly for someone who claims to participate in exorcisms, that people are possessed by spirits, that all gay people have "dark hearts", and that he hears "little voices" going around advocating laws that discriminate against me.

On to Mystery Squid's remarks:

Not particularly. Depends on the book and the circumstances. Know of any?

I don't know many transgender people. I'd have to reserve judgement until I heard about an actual book, what it was being used for, and what all parties involved thought about it. You know that bit about not prejudging? Well, it applies here.

From the few transgender people that I do know, it seems to me that they want to just blend in and get on with life. The ones that I know are very successful at this, a book for kids on the topic may not be necessary. But again, I'd like to hear from more transgender folk.

Only if you have the legs for it.

Funny standard our society has though: Women get to wear men's clothes without too much hassle, at least in informal settings (jeans and a t-shirt for example), but you don't see too many men in skirts.

A common misconception is that there is absolute "law" in Science. The highest level for a system of explanations in science is called a "Theory". A scientific theory is never "proven", it only remains as the best explanation for available evidence until new evidence comes forward that does not fit the theory. At that point, after the evidence is confirmed and verified, the theory is either modified so that all available evidence continues to fit, or it is tossed out in favor of a new competing theory that better explains all additional evidence.

The point is that scientific theories are always testable, and a theory must also be disprovable. Religion exists outside this sphere of evidence and is not testable or disprovable, which is why it is called "faith". One can choose to believe via faith in things that science does not or should not explain, but to ignore science altogether is to ignore evidence.

"Logically speaking", your finger would pass through an infinite number of subdividable spaces on its way to the key, but it would press it. No conflict. Perhaps you should enroll in a Logic 101 course.

Nope. I've never discriminated against or advocated discriminating against straight people and/or Christian believers and I've never advocated banning children's books about their families.

I've never used it once in this forum.

Now, on to Priusguy04:

I think a more appropriate analogy is that one could read a book about a Christian family and families of other religions all getting along with respect. I wouldn't be surprised if such books were already being read in school, and I would have absolutely no objection to such a book being read to 2nd graders.

As for the Bible in particular, I would have no objection to it being presented in detail in a class on world religions, once the kids were old enough to deal with the graphic violence and death present within the book.

It should be noted, however, that every single public school library in the entire USA has at least one copy of the Bible available. There has never been an organized attempt to ban the bible from public schools. There have, however, been multiple attempts to ban books such as "Heather has two mommies" from school libraries.

That's real nice, priusguy04... The guy posted a deeply personal story about his life and that of his friend, and you dismiss it as organized propaganda.

What a massive conspiracy us gays have managed to pull off!

Finally, back to Windstrings:

I know you weren't addressing that line directly to me, but I'll answer from my POV.

No, the Bible is not a threat to my beliefs. I actually have had many fascinating discussions about the Bible and scripture with my Christian friends. Christians do not threaten me. What does threaten me is a particular subset of the population which uses the Bible to justify passing laws against me and my family. That does threaten me. Not only does it threaten the security, health and well-being of my family, but working around these laws (to the small extent possible) has cost our family thousands of dollars.

Believe I am possessed and controlled by spirit voices if you want, that is not the issue.

- Bob R.

 

Galaxee has a good point:

Seperation of church and state,

So we would wrap the story of jesus in to christmas time along with kuwanza, muslim & jewish stories to celebrate the season.!. This could also happen at easter..

And NO reference Galaxees statement of sepration of church and state, there are no bibles in the public school libraries, If this teacher would have read this storie here in this state he would have found himself infront of a professional reveiw board then suspended or even fired this would not be taken lightly same goes for reading a bible in class.


Taken from the web:

History of the Gay rights movment:
1924
The Society for Human Rights in Chicago becomes the country's earliest known gay rights organization.
1948
Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, revealing to the public that homosexuality is far more widespread than was commonly believed.
1951
The Mattachine Society, the first national gay rights organization, is formed by Harry Hay, considered by many to be the founder of the gay rights movement.
1956
The Daughters of Bilitis, a pioneering national lesbian organization, is founded.
1962
Illinois becomes the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.
1969
The Stonewall riots transform the gay rights movement from one limited to a small number of activists into a widespread protest for equal rights and acceptance. Patrons of a gay bar in New York's Greenwich Village, the Stonewall Inn, fight back during a police raid on June 27, sparking three days of riots.
1973
The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.
1982
Wisconsin becomes the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
1993
The “Don't Ask, Don't Tell†policy is instituted for the U.S. military, permitting gays to serve in the military but banning homosexual activity. President Clinton's original intention to revoke the prohibition against gays in the military was met with stiff opposition; this compromise, which has led to the discharge of thousands of men and women in the armed forces, was the result.
1996
In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court strikes down Colorado's Amendment 2, which denied gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, calling them “special rights.†According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These protections . . . constitute ordinary civil life in a free society.â€
2000
Vermont becomes the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unions between gay or lesbian couples. The law states that these “couples would be entitled to the same benefits, privileges, and responsibilities as spouses.†It stops short of referring to same-sex unions as marriage, which the state defines as heterosexual.1
2003
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.â€

In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage†to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals†and made them “second-class citizens.†Strong opposition followed the ruling.
2004
On May 17, same-sex marriages become legal in Massachusetts.
2005
Civil unions become legal in Connecticut in Oct. 2005.
1. Internationally, Denmark became the first country to legalize same-sex partnerships in 1989. Within two years, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and France followed suit. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country legalizing same-sex marriages; Belgium followed in 2003, and Spain in 2005. The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, numerous other provinces followed suit in 2004, and on June 29, 2005, the Canadian parliament passed a bill legalizing gay marriage throughout the country. Countries that offer a legal status, sometimes known as registered partnership, that confers most or all spousal rights to same-sex couples: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Sweden. Countries that offer a legal status, sometimes known as unregistered cohabitation, that confers certain spousal rights to same-sex couples (and, in some of these countries, unmarried opposite-sex couples): Brazil, Canada, Croatia, France, Hungary, Israel, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland.

This was taken from the web:

Civil rights or special rights

Gay rights activists say it’s a matter of equality: They suggest that homosexuals should have the same rights and protections as heterosexuals, including:

Protection against discrimination in employment, housing and immigration.
An expansion of hate crime laws to specifically include sexual orientation.
Domestic partner benefits similar to those granted to married couples.
The right to marry or have their relationships recognized in “civil unions.â€
The ability to serve in the military without hiding their sexuality.
Others, though, say special rights shouldn’t be granted on the basis of behavior -- particularly one that many Americans find offensive. And some say that current laws are adequate to protect all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.

For many Americans, the issue hinges on the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or an innate characteristic with which people are born.

Advocates of gay rights say sexual orientation, like race or disability, can’t be changed, and therefore homosexuals should be protected like any other minority group. Opponents argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that shouldn’t be rewarded. Many objections to gay rights have religious roots. Most major religions oppose homosexuality as a violation of the law of God, and point to human anatomy and reproduction as proof that same-sex intercourse is unnatural. But even within denominations, there are many who call for tolerance.

Many opponents of gay rights also worry that children who interact with openly gay adults -- teachers or Boy Scout leaders, for example -- will view those adults as role models and make that same sexual choice, thus undermining the course of society. For schools and parents, this presents myriad problems, not least of which is how homosexuality is explained and taught to children, if at all.

In a landmark 2003 decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians have a right to sexual privacy and are "entitled to respect for their private lives." That may undercut the basis for many laws that limit the rights of gays in adoption, child custody and workplace discrimination. But that will only become clear as the decision is applied in new lawsuits around the country.

Partner and benefits


The issue of marriage and civil unions is particularly volatile. European nations have led the way on this issue. In 1989, Denmark became the first nation to grant legal rights to gay couples, calling such unions “domestic partnerships†that grant many of the same legal rights as marriage. The Netherlands went even further in 1999, allowing full-fledged same-sex marriages. An Ontario court struck down the Canadian province's same-sex marriage ban in 2003.

Many Americans, including prominent religious and political leaders like President Bush, oppose granting legal recognition to same-sex couples, saying it would mark a fundamental shift in the definition of marriage. They say marriage between and man and a woman sanctifies the creation of new life and establishes the cohesive family unit necessary for any stable society. Supporters say marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution and denying its benefits to homosexuals is discriminatory.

In the U.S., the pattern has been for state courts to question why same-sex couples can’t get married, forcing state officials to come up with a plan to accommodate them. Since the rulings have been based on state constitutions, different states have tried different responses. Hawaii, California, Maine and New Jersey have all enacted domestic partnership laws, granting gay and lesbian couples many but not all of the legal rights of marriage. Vermont, after a bitter legislative fight, authorized civil unions that provide all the state benefits of marriage. In Massachusetts, the state's high court ruled that nothing short of full same-sex marriage would be acceptable, and the first ceremonies were performed in May 2004.

But at this point, the Vermont unions and Massachusetts marriages may not be legally binding anywhere else in the country. Under the U.S. Constitution, states are required to offer “full faith and credit†to legal actions in other states, including marriages. But some legal experts argue there is an exception if states believe an out-of-state decision violates their own public policy. For example, if some state or foreign country allowed bigamy or underage marriages, other states could refuse to recognize it. After a Hawaii court struck down a same-sex marriage ban in 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act specifically allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. So far, 40 states have such laws.

Opponents of same-sex marriage want to settle the question with a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, but Congress rejected the first attempt in 2004. So what will probably happen is a series of state-by-state fights as same-sex couples either seek to have local marriage bans overturned or force states to recognize out-of-state unions. In at least 11 states, voters will have the chance to vote on state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage this year. Even in Massachusetts, voters may have the chance to vote on a same-sex marriage amendment in 2006.

Of course, hand-in-hand with the issue of marriage comes the issue of children. Gay couples -- or for that matter, gay individuals -- hoping to adopt can face legal and societal hurdles from those who say homosexuality presents a clear danger to a child’s development and a healthy sexual identity. The vast majority of states no longer routinely deny custody or visitation based on sexual orientation, but two states -- Utah and Mississippi -- bar same-sex couples from adopting. And a federal judge in Florida ruled in August 2001 that no homosexual individual could adopt a child.

The public's viewpoint

Even though public acceptance of homosexuality has increased dramatically in the past 20 years, there is still tension between wanting to be fair to people and unease about same-sex relationships.

Surveys show the extent to which Americans are conflicted. Most say the government should treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. Yet most Americans say the government should not get involved in the issue of homosexuality, and more than half oppose gay marriage. The vast majority of Americans say gays should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities, yet support declines when elementary school teachers are clergy are mentioned.

More than half say gay partners should receive domestic partner benefits like inheritance rights, health insurance and Social Security, yet the public generally tends to favor extending those benefits to all Americans. Support for gay rights measures can also vary depending on survey wording.

Americans also have a tradition of wanting to be inclusive. For many, it’s a matter of live and let live. But, despite the change in attitudes, Americans clearly struggle with how much they want to incorporate into public policy.

THE 1972 GAY RIGHTS PLATFORM
(Formulated in Chicago, Illinois.)

FEDERAL:

1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to
prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public
services. (1972 Federal-1)
2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding
for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance
into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for
homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously
issued, with retroactive benefits. (1972 Federal-2)
3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal
civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting
discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances. (1972 Federal-3)
4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples. (1972
Federal-4)
5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens.
(1972 Federal-5)
6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by
Gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and
lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. (1972 Federal-6)
7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling,
maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual's sexual preferences,
behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks. (1972 Federal-7)
8. Federal funding of aid programs of gay men's and women's organizations designed to
alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an
oppressive sexist society. (1972 Federal-8)
9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers,
prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless
crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical
and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration
be immediately expunged. (1972 Federal-9)

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).


Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)


Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)


Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)


Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)


Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)


1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…" [Emphasis added.]


The Libera Agenda

The liberal agenda is a proposed programme for American liberals based on the principle of personal freedom.


The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it.

John Stuart Mill

1. Personal freedom

The principle of personal freedom is the liberal touchstone: every person should be free to live as they choose, provided they do not infringe on this same right in others.

2. Limited government

The proper role of government is to protect the personal freedom of its citizens and its powers and functions should be limited to that role and subject to the rule of law.

3. Free and open society

A liberal society is a free and open society, where all interaction is based on mutual consent, and where government does not promote, or persecute any individual, group, or lifestyle, but protects all equally.

4. Civil society

A liberal society embraces a diverse civil society with a variety of values, lifestyles, and circumstances where government does not attempt to limit that diversity through the social engineering of outcomes.

5. Free-market economy

A liberal economy is based on the free market and property rights where the role of the government is limited to the protection of trade based on mutual consent.

6. Security

The purpose of the legal system is to enforce the legal rights and responsibilities of its citizens: to protect their lives, freedoms, property, and contracts; however, government shares responsibility for its citizens' safety, but citizens retain the right to personal and collective self-defence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Apr 26 2006, 03:05 PM) [snapback]245752[/snapback]</div>

Lets reason together... Ha Ha!...

Either you are a Race or a perversion of the original Race if you cannot procreate? Which is it?

Why do you want your lifestyle to be accepted as normal when nature itself does not accept that union?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 26 2006, 05:27 PM) [snapback]245768[/snapback]</div>

I'll repeat myself -- ever see 2 male dogs humping? They do it all the time. I guess it's in their NATURE!

Peace --

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 26 2006, 03:27 PM) [snapback]245768[/snapback]</div>

Better start watching the National Geo and other Nature programs because sexuality is very different in the animal/human world for a number of reasons. Anyone can procreate gay or straight.

Religion is about dominance and power. Everyone says their religion is the right one. I went to Catholic Church as a youngster. I saw the same mean spirited and less than law abiding citizens in church every Sunday. Then I saw them go out, cheat their business partners, be mean to animals or kids, cheat on their husband or wife.

Those without organised religion just want to live a good life. I would trust Doc Fusco because he seems like an educated, tolerant and open individual. There is some mean spiritedness here that totally belies godliness.

Religion should not be the determining factor in evaluating an individuals worth...let his/her actions speak for themselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 26 2006, 06:27 PM) [snapback]245768[/snapback]</div>

Would 'the deciple' explain androgenesis?

Oh, not only canidae hump, but many other species including some primates.



BTW, windstrings, squeeze this for a quick read over the weekend and come back for more chat.

For YOU, windstrings...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Apr 26 2006, 06:40 PM) [snapback]245771[/snapback]</div>

Not really it is and it isnt. It is in the effect that someone doesnt know better they would think the dog is gay Per my vet its a sign of dominance that bot the male and female exibit to show the other its the Alpha male/female of the group...

Animals dont have sex because it feels good, they do it because of the instinc to procreate..

 

I said:

and Mystery Squid replied:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 26 2006, 03:55 PM) [snapback]245781[/snapback]</div>

Bullshit. To repeat: "I've never discriminated against or advocated discriminating against straight people and/or Christian believers and I've never advocated banning children's books about their families."

Prove I've done otherwise or apologize for your libel.

- Bob R.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 26 2006, 03:55 PM) [snapback]245781[/snapback]</div>

You should have done more reading from more pages on that web site before quoting the link. For example, from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

"A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on the confirmation of hypotheses through repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. However, there are no strict guidelines as to how or when a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific law."

"The production of a summary description of nature in the form of such laws is the fundamental aim of science. Laws of nature are distinct from the law, either religious or civil, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law."

and:

"Others (laws) which reflect symmetries found in Nature (say, identity of electrons or homogenuity of space and time) are constantly being checked experimentally to higher and higher degree of accuracy. The fact that they have never been seen repeatably violated does not preclude testing them at increased accuracy which is one of main goals of science. It is always possible for them to be invalidated by repeatable, contradictory experimental evidence, should any be seen."

and:

"Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies can be said to generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals. That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close approximations (see above examples), to which other terms or factors must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g., very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or masses, etc. Thus, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are actually better viewed as a series of improving generalisations."

See?

Science is open (by definition) to changing its explanations and assumptions based on testable evidence.

- Bob R.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 26 2006, 03:27 PM) [snapback]245768[/snapback]</div>

Why is a genetic trait necessarily a "race"? What on earth are you using for your definition of "race"? And why do you insist on capitalizing the word "Race"? Are you as hung up on race as you are on women's roles and gay people?

Your refusal to listen is as amusing as it is tiresome. As has been stated, what, dozens of times by now in this thread, homosexuality occurs in most species.

In colonies of penguins, for example, a percentage of bonded pairs will be same-gender, often for life. Sometimes these pairs have been observed watching over the offspring of missing/dead mothers and abandoned nests.

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(remaxmanager @ Apr 26 2006, 01:34 PM) [snapback]245707[/snapback]</div>

Geez, that explains LOTS of imperfections and quirks, doesn't it?

Lessee...pimples...genocide...smiley faces...lotteries...inability to appreciate Goethe...the congregation of Jim Jones...Tiny Tim and his voice...


Thanks for coming out to us, remax. You've got class.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 26 2006, 03:27 PM) [snapback]245768[/snapback]</div>

I withdraw my request that w. change his avatar. I now realize it is his portrait.

[sic] [sic] [sic]

 

Nice job, priusguy04, you posted 19,169 bytes. Your ability to copy/paste large chunks of text is undisputed.

However, selected quotes (perhaps with your own commentary) and links will suffice.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 26 2006, 03:07 PM) [snapback]245755[/snapback]</div>

How about one single reference to the Bible being banned from a school library?

How about one single reference to a child successfully being prohibited from private bible study during free time at school?

How about one single reference to a child successfully being prohibited from private individual prayer at lunchtime at school?

How about one single reference of a teacher being disciplined simply for mentioning or reading from a book that mentions that there are Christian families and Jewish families and Muslim families (etc.) and that we can all get along together?

"Separation of church and state" does not mean banning the Bible from school. It means that the school cannot take actions which appear to endorse any particular religion, such as daily prayer over the loudspeaker or opening assemblies and sporting events with a prayer. The individual students are free to do their own individual religious studies (and observe other traditions such as diet, call-to-prayer, days off for religious holidays, etc.) without interference.

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Apr 26 2006, 07:47 PM) [snapback]245801[/snapback]</div>

In my other posts I have not edited your posted replies, how ever you continue to twist what I and others post to suit your needs in regards to your cause....

You made your choice of your lifestyle, in a society where the majority does not agree, there are always conciquences for all choices that are made by everyone every day..

I dont feel sorry for you, it was your choice and you have to live with it.

I think most of cut and paste has been informative:

Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)


Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)


Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)


Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)


Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)