Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If you're not going to post the quiz, can you tell us more about your relationship with your polygamist landlord?

 

[urbanhack]

If you're not going to post the quiz, can you tell us more about your relationship with your polygamist landlord?

They were also in the same disc golf league.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

 

[The Z Machine]

iss:

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Last time I asked a statistical thermodynamic question you answered it with a bizarre quantum mechanics one liner. It was way off base.

I've been looking high and low for this exchange and have found nothing. I'm assuming is was some garbage about the second law invalidating evolution?

 

[Running with scissors]

So what happened to (gold)MasterofKon(digger)Orionotay? Did he leave for the day?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

So what happened to (gold)MasterofKon(digger)Orionotay? Did he leave for the day?

I've been looking through some of those old evolution threads and have been finding some real doozies:this one is pretty entertaining

 

[tommyboy]

From what I've read, you seem to think that genetics play no role in homosexuality. Is this correct?

no. tobias claimed that homosexuality is genetic. This is false. Homosexuality is both genetic and environmental and complex. Some people choose to be gay, some people do not. Some people have both gay and hetero relationships throughout their life and go through periodic shifts in behavior. Kinsey determined that most people are somewhere 'inbetween" gay and hetero over their lifespan, 60 years ago.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

From what I've read, you seem to think that genetics play no role in homosexuality. Is this correct?

no. tobias claimed that homosexuality is genetic. This is false. Homosexuality is both genetic and environmental and complex. Some people choose to be gay, some people do not. Some people have both gay and hetero relationships throughout their life and go through periodic shifts in behavior. Kinsey determined that most people are somewhere 'inbetween" gay and hetero over their lifespan, 60 years ago.

Saying something is a genetic trait doesn't mean it's 100% influenced by genetics (since nothing is 100% dictated by the mere sequence of DNA), and that's how it was presented a couple of pages ago. I'm not sure what you're taking issue with.You made the odd semantic choice to say that you "didn't say that twin studies show a lack of biological ties. I said that sexuality isn't a genetic trait." "Biological ties" in this case is genetics. If we all can agree that your DNA sequence alone doesn't completely define who you are (on any level, including physiologically), then it's a given that sexual behavior isn't completely influenced by DNA. Rather, environment affects people after they are born, in development, and as adults. This includes the expression of genes.There is clearly a very strong link between genetics and sexual preference, and that's all that's really important. I think it's silly to cast the link as potentially small or equal to that of environment, though.

 

[tommyboy]

From what I've read, you seem to think that genetics play no role in homosexuality. Is this correct?

no. tobias claimed that homosexuality is genetic. This is false. Homosexuality is both genetic and environmental and complex. Some people choose to be gay, some people do not. Some people have both gay and hetero relationships throughout their life and go through periodic shifts in behavior. Kinsey determined that most people are somewhere 'inbetween" gay and hetero over their lifespan, 60 years ago.

Saying something is a genetic trait doesn't mean it's 100% influenced by genetics (since nothing is 100% dictated by the mere sequence of DNA), and that's how it was presented a couple of pages ago. I'm not sure what you're taking issue with.You made the odd semantic choice to say that you "didn't say that twin studies show a lack of biological ties. I said that sexuality isn't a genetic trait." "Biological ties" in this case is genetics. If we all can agree that your DNA sequence alone doesn't completely define who you are (on any level, including physiologically), then it's a given that sexual behavior isn't completely influenced by DNA. Rather, environment affects people after they are born, in development, and as adults. This includes the expression of genes.There is clearly a very strong link between genetics and sexual preference, and that's all that's really important. I think it's silly to cast the link as potentially small or equal to that of environment, though.

The brightest minds in psychology and social science haven't figured this one out yet, i doubt Tobias, or you, or me can make claims of certainty here. If tobias wants to argue that people are bigots because they don't approve of homosexuality, further that homosexuality is genetic which means by inferrence gay people have no choice, he should be called out on it because thats not a true statement. Sexuality is not a purely genetic endeavor, and people may or may not be bigots for approving of your or my sexuality. He's making absolute statements on multiple levels, which are all inaccurate. I've not once stated that genetics plays a smaller roll than environment. I don't know what the magic mix is and neither do PhD's in this field. It doesn't really matter, the point was that people like Tobias that claim that homosexuality is genetic are making a claim that isn't supported by research. If he had said that homosexuality is both genetic and environmental, he'd have been spot on. If he had said that some people are bigots he'd have been spot on. He did neither.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

It doesn't really matter, the point was that people like Tobias that claim that homosexuality is genetic are making a claim that isn't supported by research. If he had said that homosexuality is both genetic and environmental, he'd have been spot on. If he had said that some people are bigots he'd have been spot on. He did neither.

He clarified what he meant. I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

 

[jon_mx]

If tobias wants to argue that people are bigots because they don't approve of homosexuality, further that homosexuality is genetic which means by inferrence gay people have no choice, he should be called out on it because thats not a true statement.

You are a textbook flat earther.

His statement is 100% accurate. Being influenced does not mean no choice.

 

[tonydead]

If tobias wants to argue that people are bigots because they don't approve of homosexuality, further that homosexuality is genetic which means by inferrence gay people have no choice, he should be called out on it because thats not a true statement.

You are a textbook flat earther.

His statement is 100% accurate. Being influenced does not mean no choice.

The evidence is suggesting otherwise. Biology and Sexual Orientation And if you are going to provide some contrary opinion please stick with academic sources and not religious ones. TIA.

 

[tonydead]

If tobias wants to argue that people are bigots because they don't approve of homosexuality, further that homosexuality is genetic which means by inferrence gay people have no choice, he should be called out on it because thats not a true statement.

You are a textbook flat earther.

His statement is 100% accurate. Being influenced does not mean no choice.

The evidence is suggesting otherwise. Biology and Sexual Orientation And if you are going to provide some contrary opinion please stick with academic sources and not religious ones. TIA.

A recent study. Gay mice. And please don't tell me the mice had a choice.Pop Sci

 

[tommyboy]

It doesn't really matter, the point was that people like Tobias that claim that homosexuality is genetic are making a claim that isn't supported by research. If he had said that homosexuality is both genetic and environmental, he'd have been spot on. If he had said that some people are bigots he'd have been spot on. He did neither.

He clarified what he meant. I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

people that claim sexuality is genetic and leave it at that. That is like claiming the American flag is blue. Generally that argument is proof that someone wants you to know only what they want you to know, even if there is more to the story.Look, i don't claim that homosexuality is environmental, do i? But using Tobias logic, I could do that. Its as if people feel the need to fluff up one part of the facts to prove their point, they don't. And his point was stupid to begin with. Tossing around insults like bigotry because you cant make a compelling and honest argument is weak.

 

[tommyboy]

If tobias wants to argue that people are bigots because they don't approve of homosexuality, further that homosexuality is genetic which means by inferrence gay people have no choice, he should be called out on it because thats not a true statement.

You are a textbook flat earther.

His statement is 100% accurate. Being influenced does not mean no choice.

They dont have a choice on what they are. Thats the way nature made 'em.

My god its like talking to bricks.

 

[tonydead]

If tobias wants to argue that people are bigots because they don't approve of homosexuality, further that homosexuality is genetic which means by inferrence gay people have no choice, he should be called out on it because thats not a true statement.

You are a textbook flat earther.

His statement is 100% accurate. Being influenced does not mean no choice.

The evidence is suggesting otherwise. Biology and Sexual Orientation And if you are going to provide some contrary opinion please stick with academic sources and not religious ones. TIA.

A recent study. Gay mice. And please don't tell me the mice had a choice.Pop Sci

From the article:"The fact that he is in South Korea, where bioethics are notoriously bendable may prove important as he goes forward. Research that gets anywhere close to searching for a gay gene -- even with animals -- has been highly controversial in the U.S., where opposition cuts across the political spectrum. Some still remember a 1995 study where scientists from the National Institutes of Health performed a similar procedure on male fruit flies, yielding what one journalist called "all-male conga lines."

This is exactly why religion and politics in the U.S. is such B.S.

 

[timschochet]

Social conservatives: doesn't it bother you in the slightest that you keep ending up on the wrong side of the science? On this issue, on global warming, on evolution- you are always on the side denying science. This would make me really nervous; it would cause me to reconsider my entire philosophy.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Social conservatives: doesn't it bother you in the slightest that you keep ending up on the wrong side of the science? On this issue, on global warming, on evolution- you are always on the side denying science. This would make me really nervous; it would cause me to reconsider my entire philosophy.

This reminds me of the recent article that was linked here that said that when faced with evidence that contradicted the way people felt about issues it only hardened their misbegotten opinions further against reality. I think that is probably a big part of it. Stubbornness.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Social conservatives: doesn't it bother you in the slightest that you keep ending up on the wrong side of the science? On this issue, on global warming, on evolution- you are always on the side denying science. This would make me really nervous; it would cause me to reconsider my entire philosophy.

Suck it, Einstein

 

[tommyboy]

"The fact that he is in South Korea, where bioethics are notoriously bendable may prove important as he goes forward. Research that gets anywhere close to searching for a gay gene -- even with animals -- has been highly controversial in the U.S., where opposition cuts across the political spectrum. Some still remember a 1995 study where scientists from the National Institutes of Health performed a similar procedure on male fruit flies, yielding what one journalist called "all-male conga lines."This is exactly why religion and politics in the U.S. is such B.S.

from the study itself

ConclusionsThe study demonstrates that ***M-/- female mouse exhibits a phenotypic similarity to a wild-type male in terms of its sexual behavior. We speculate that this behavioural change is likely to be related to the neurodevelopmental change in preoptic area of mutant brain that became similar to that of wild-type male. Since the level of AFP, playing a role in titrating estradiol, is known to affect development of female brain associated with sexual preference, we speculate that the lower level of AFP, presumably resulting from the reduced ***osylation, in the mutant embryo causes abnormal brain development. Our studies on the ***M-/- mouse may provide an animal model for understanding sexual preference of animal at genetic as well as epigenetic levels.

this doesn't mean what the author of the article thinks it means.

 

[FatMax]

I expect after the last little beatdown and snit, that you probably won't hear from him until he fires up a new alias.

I think people think the notebook is a joke.It's no joke, people.

Hey, I've been interacting with him since the golddigger days too.

We should schedule some sort of reunion.

 

[FatMax]

So what happened to (gold)MasterofKon(digger)Orionotay? Did he leave for the day?

I've been looking through some of those old evolution threads and have been finding some real doozies:this one is pretty entertaining

RIP shiny.

 

[TRIP_THE_LIGHT_FANTASTIC]

Would it help if I admitted to being Mr. Ham and OrionDigger?

I'm Joe Bryant's black friend.

Are you alone or are there many?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So what happened to (gold)MasterofKon(digger)Orionotay? Did he leave for the day?

I've been looking through some of those old evolution threads and have been finding some real doozies:this one is pretty entertaining

Thanks for posting that link. Threads with generous helpings of shiny bring back good memories.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

So what happened to (gold)MasterofKon(digger)Orionotay? Did he leave for the day?

I've been looking through some of those old evolution threads and have been finding some real doozies:this one is pretty entertaining

Thanks for posting that link. Threads with generous helpings of shiny bring back good memories.

Exactly my feeling when I was reading it. He did some terrific work in these threads.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

You'll probably enjoy this one too: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=360117

The golddigger persecution complex is a well-honed shtick.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I think I'm finding the stat thermo talk Konotay brought up. I was kind of cheeky here.

 

[jon_mx]

Social conservatives: doesn't it bother you in the slightest that you keep ending up on the wrong side of the science? On this issue, on global warming, on evolution- you are always on the side denying science. This would make me really nervous; it would cause me to reconsider my entire philosophy.

Social conservatives are batting at least 500 in those examples....

 

[Claydon]

I think I'm finding the stat thermo talk Konotay brought up. I was kind of cheeky here.

Lol, did we ever figure out which unaccredited institution gave him his Chem E degree?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I think I'm finding the stat thermo talk Konotay brought up. I was kind of cheeky here.

Lol, did we ever figure out which unaccredited institution gave him his Chem E degree?

I have literally poured through eight or so threads searching for this claim that I somehow brought up "quantum mechanics" in response to some question about statistical mechanics. I searched for every term I could think of that would be relevant (and expanded my search for posts by golddigger): entropy, second (law), thermodynamics, etc. I found a lot of good stuff in there, but not the alleged exchange which doesn't surprise me.I did, however, find a lot of links to the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and all of the other greats which Konotay denied ever posting. I guess he's making a clean break from what he did in that past life even though it's all out there and very searchable.

I never did find anything about his credentials. He made that one post about being a chemical engineer some years ago, but I haven't seen anything since.

Some of our old discussions on statistics and probability were really fun to re-read. I used just about every analogy I could think of to explain why he was wrong about the probability of DNA forming: card games, lottery, etc. I am remembering now I why I was so frustrated then, and have been now. There was a great Scoobygang post that said something about golddigger leaving and how he was happy because he was sad to see Maurile and shiny wasting their talents in those posts. Ugh.. agreed.. and I'm guilty of it too. What a lot of work for nothing. If the person you're addressing doesn't want to learn, there's just no point. Sad thing is, there were some tremendous posts in there, and it would have almost been worth charging tuition for the education golddigger could have had in these threads.

golddigger's old nemesis was apparently RudiStein (forgot this), and I found that old post where golddigger thought "Chico's Bail Bonds" (his avatar) was Rudi's employer. Some good stuff there.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It doesn't really matter, the point was that people like Tobias that claim that homosexuality is genetic are making a claim that isn't supported by research. If he had said that homosexuality is both genetic and environmental, he'd have been spot on. If he had said that some people are bigots he'd have been spot on. He did neither.

He clarified what he meant. I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

people that claim sexuality is genetic and leave it at that. That is like claiming the American flag is blue. Generally that argument is proof that someone wants you to know only what they want you to know, even if there is more to the story.Look, i don't claim that homosexuality is environmental, do i? But using Tobias logic, I could do that. Its as if people feel the need to fluff up one part of the facts to prove their point, they don't. And his point was stupid to begin with. Tossing around insults like bigotry because you cant make a compelling and honest argument is weak.

Seriously? Did you not read the last seven pages of this thread?The argument I've made is that the people claiming the judge's decision was based on his sexuality are wrong and that their wrongness is likely based in bigotry, since they've failed to offer any other reasoning for their conclusion. Are you saying I'm incorrect? That one can assume that a gay judge is worse at performing the duties of his job impartially than, say, a straight judge deciding a marriage case, or a judge who owns a gun (or who doesn't) ruling on a Second Amendment case, or one with media friends ruling on a First Amendment case, or one who has friends who are elected officials or is considering running for election himself ruling in an election law case, or one who is white or black ruling in an affirmative action case, and that this assumption that the gay judge is inferior to these by virtue of his gayness is not rooted in bigotry?

Come on, I expect oneohh and mongol3 to miss the obvious inconsistency and inherent bigotry of their argument, but I'd think you would see it pretty clearly.

Also, I've clarified repeatedly what I meant about genetics. I wasn't claiming it was solely genetic/biological, rather that genetics/biology a play a role- that much is 100% certain. I also said that from what I've read, my interpretation of the scientific consensus seems to be that sexuality is far more a product of genetics and biology than environment, and that some of what we call "environment" are neonatal or involuntary post-birth factors, such that sexuality is really not in any sense a "choice." The latter sentence is my semi-educated opinion, but the former is true without question. So why do you keep harping on the one sentence that I've since clarified/corrected repeatedly?

 

[MongoL3]

It doesn't really matter, the point was that people like Tobias that claim that homosexuality is genetic are making a claim that isn't supported by research. If he had said that homosexuality is both genetic and environmental, he'd have been spot on. If he had said that some people are bigots he'd have been spot on. He did neither.

He clarified what he meant. I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

people that claim sexuality is genetic and leave it at that. That is like claiming the American flag is blue. Generally that argument is proof that someone wants you to know only what they want you to know, even if there is more to the story.Look, i don't claim that homosexuality is environmental, do i? But using Tobias logic, I could do that. Its as if people feel the need to fluff up one part of the facts to prove their point, they don't. And his point was stupid to begin with. Tossing around insults like bigotry because you cant make a compelling and honest argument is weak.

Seriously? Did you not read the last seven pages of this thread?The argument I've made is that the people claiming the judge's decision was based on his sexuality are wrong and that their wrongness is likely based in bigotry, since they've failed to offer any other reasoning for their conclusion. Are you saying I'm incorrect? That one can assume that a gay judge is worse at performing the duties of his job impartially than, say, a straight judge deciding a marriage case, or a judge who owns a gun (or who doesn't) ruling on a Second Amendment case, or one with media friends ruling on a First Amendment case, or one who has friends who are elected officials or is considering running for election himself ruling in an election law case, or one who is white or black ruling in an affirmative action case, and that this assumption that the gay judge is inferior to these by virtue of his gayness is not rooted in bigotry?

Come on, I expect oneohh and mongol3 to miss the obvious inconsistency and inherent bigotry of their argument, but I'd think you would see it pretty clearly.

Sorry, to say a gay judge isnt influenced on his decision to rule on gay marriage by his sexuality and his lifestyle isnt going out that far on a limb imo.

 

[flufhed]

You'll probably enjoy this one too: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=360117

The golddigger persecution complex is a well-honed shtick.

But no one does martyr schtick better than cross-eyed, as some of the linked articles demonstrate.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It doesn't really matter, the point was that people like Tobias that claim that homosexuality is genetic are making a claim that isn't supported by research. If he had said that homosexuality is both genetic and environmental, he'd have been spot on. If he had said that some people are bigots he'd have been spot on. He did neither.

He clarified what he meant. I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

people that claim sexuality is genetic and leave it at that. That is like claiming the American flag is blue. Generally that argument is proof that someone wants you to know only what they want you to know, even if there is more to the story.Look, i don't claim that homosexuality is environmental, do i? But using Tobias logic, I could do that. Its as if people feel the need to fluff up one part of the facts to prove their point, they don't. And his point was stupid to begin with. Tossing around insults like bigotry because you cant make a compelling and honest argument is weak.

Seriously? Did you not read the last seven pages of this thread?The argument I've made is that the people claiming the judge's decision was based on his sexuality are wrong and that their wrongness is likely based in bigotry, since they've failed to offer any other reasoning for their conclusion. Are you saying I'm incorrect? That one can assume that a gay judge is worse at performing the duties of his job impartially than, say, a straight judge deciding a marriage case, or a judge who owns a gun (or who doesn't) ruling on a Second Amendment case, or one with media friends ruling on a First Amendment case, or one who has friends who are elected officials or is considering running for election himself ruling in an election law case, or one who is white or black ruling in an affirmative action case, and that this assumption that the gay judge is inferior to these by virtue of his gayness is not rooted in bigotry?

Come on, I expect oneohh and mongol3 to miss the obvious inconsistency and inherent bigotry of their argument, but I'd think you would see it pretty clearly.

Sorry, to say a gay judge isnt influenced on his decision to rule on gay marriage by his sexuality and his lifestyle isnt going out that far on a limb imo.

More so than any of the other examples I listed would be influenced? if so, why? Where do you see the bias appearing in the carefully crafted, well-reasoned 135 page ruling?

 

[flufhed]

Sorry, to say a gay judge isnt influenced on his decision to rule on gay marriage by his sexuality and his lifestyle isnt going out that far on a limb imo.

Whoever drew a parallel between the arguments in the case and the arguments in this thread was spot on.Q: "Do you have any proof for your position?"A: "Well, of course I do. It's just so obvious! Duh!"

 

[kface]

Its coming...you can't stop the train. The US will be one of the last first world holdouts and eventually it will be forced down alabama's throat but you can't stop it.

 

[MongoL3]

Sorry, to say a gay judge isnt influenced on his decision to rule on gay marriage by his sexuality and his lifestyle isnt going out that far on a limb imo.

Whoever drew a parallel between the arguments in the case and the arguments in this thread was spot on.Q: "Do you have any proof for your position?"A: "Well, of course I do. It's just so obvious! Duh!"

If you cant see how a gay judge would be influenced by his sexuality and his lifestyle then i really cant help you....

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The golddigger persecution complex is a well-honed shtick.

An honest debate takes work and a willingness to listen and research the other side. It appears the pro gay argument is to call those who disagree with them ###ers and an ###holes. Your own language sink your arguments.I am leaving, so go on and emonize me- that is the only argument you have. I will not reply back.

 

[dparker713]

The argument I've made is that the people claiming the judge's decision was based on his sexuality are wrong and that their wrongness is likely based in bigotry, since they've failed to offer any other reasoning for their conclusion. Are you saying I'm incorrect? That one can assume that a gay judge is worse at performing the duties of his job impartially than, say, a straight judge deciding a marriage case, or a judge who owns a gun (or who doesn't) ruling on a Second Amendment case, or one with media friends ruling on a First Amendment case, or one who has friends who are elected officials or is considering running for election himself ruling in an election law case, or one who is white or black ruling in an affirmative action case, and that this assumption that the gay judge is inferior to these by virtue of his gayness is not rooted in bigotry?

The standard for a judge to recuse himself isn't actual bias, its based on the appearance of bias. The rule realizes that judges aren't special - they're just like other people and often act in their own interests even when trying to remain neutral. Therefore, the system needs to protect its impartiality through avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. So no, saying a judge is acting in their own interests isn't necessarily bigotry - it could merely be an acknowledgement of a certain viewpoint on human nature. Then again, it could very well be bigotry.All of this is fairly moot though, as far as I know there was never a motion made to have the judge recuse himself and this potential conflict did not rise to the level where the judge was required to recuse himself.

 

[tonydead]

"The fact that he is in South Korea, where bioethics are notoriously bendable may prove important as he goes forward. Research that gets anywhere close to searching for a gay gene -- even with animals -- has been highly controversial in the U.S., where opposition cuts across the political spectrum. Some still remember a 1995 study where scientists from the National Institutes of Health performed a similar procedure on male fruit flies, yielding what one journalist called "all-male conga lines."This is exactly why religion and politics in the U.S. is such B.S.

from the study itself

ConclusionsThe study demonstrates that ***M-/- female mouse exhibits a phenotypic similarity to a wild-type male in terms of its sexual behavior. We speculate that this behavioural change is likely to be related to the neurodevelopmental change in preoptic area of mutant brain that became similar to that of wild-type male. Since the level of AFP, playing a role in titrating estradiol, is known to affect development of female brain associated with sexual preference, we speculate that the lower level of AFP, presumably resulting from the reduced ***osylation, in the mutant embryo causes abnormal brain development. Our studies on the ***M-/- mouse may provide an animal model for understanding sexual preference of animal at genetic as well as epigenetic levels.

this doesn't mean what the author of the article thinks it means.

Please tell me your interpretation. Please, please tell us how 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. Tell us how mickey mouse wasn't really effected by the gene altering at all. How mickey was really just abused as a small mouse, pressured by all his mouse peers, until one day mickey made the choice to become mini mouse. Tell us how it's too bad that mickey didn't have any sort of mouse religion or he might have been saved from all the mouse back door secks.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

"The fact that he is in South Korea, where bioethics are notoriously bendable may prove important as he goes forward. Research that gets anywhere close to searching for a gay gene -- even with animals -- has been highly controversial in the U.S., where opposition cuts across the political spectrum. Some still remember a 1995 study where scientists from the National Institutes of Health performed a similar procedure on male fruit flies, yielding what one journalist called "all-male conga lines."This is exactly why religion and politics in the U.S. is such B.S.

from the study itself

ConclusionsThe study demonstrates that ***M-/- female mouse exhibits a phenotypic similarity to a wild-type male in terms of its sexual behavior. We speculate that this behavioural change is likely to be related to the neurodevelopmental change in preoptic area of mutant brain that became similar to that of wild-type male. Since the level of AFP, playing a role in titrating estradiol, is known to affect development of female brain associated with sexual preference, we speculate that the lower level of AFP, presumably resulting from the reduced ***osylation, in the mutant embryo causes abnormal brain development. Our studies on the ***M-/- mouse may provide an animal model for understanding sexual preference of animal at genetic as well as epigenetic levels.

this doesn't mean what the author of the article thinks it means.

Please tell me your interpretation. Please, please tell us how 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. Tell us how mickey mouse wasn't really effected by the gene altering at all. How mickey was really just abused as a small mouse, pressured by all his mouse peers, until one day mickey made the choice to become mini mouse. Tell us how it's too bad that mickey didn't have any sort of mouse religion or he might have been saved from all the mouse back door secks.

Is this a daddyissues alias?

 

[timschochet]

I am remembering now I why I was so frustrated then, and have been now. There was a great Scoobygang post that said something about golddigger leaving and how he was happy because he was sad to see Maurile and shiny wasting their talents in those posts. Ugh.. agreed.. and I'm guilty of it too. What a lot of work for nothing. If the person you're addressing doesn't want to learn, there's just no point.

In all seriousness, I have to disagree with you here, Mr. Pickles. Just because Golddigger didn't choose to learn anything doesn't mean others didn't. The ID/evolution debate was not something that I had been following in the past, and I learned an awful lot from these threads. It made me interested in the science and I actually started reading more about the subject. So personally I am grateful to you, Shining Path, RWS et al for taking Golddigger on. You did not waste your talents, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, to say a gay judge isnt influenced on his decision to rule on gay marriage by his sexuality and his lifestyle isnt going out that far on a limb imo.

Whoever drew a parallel between the arguments in the case and the arguments in this thread was spot on.Q: "Do you have any proof for your position?"A: "Well, of course I do. It's just so obvious! Duh!"

If you cant see how a gay judge would be influenced by his sexuality and his lifestyle then i really cant help you....

You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

 

[Running with scissors]

Sorry, to say a gay judge isnt influenced on his decision to rule on gay marriage by his sexuality and his lifestyle isnt going out that far on a limb imo.

Whoever drew a parallel between the arguments in the case and the arguments in this thread was spot on.Q: "Do you have any proof for your position?"

A: "Well, of course I do. It's just so obvious! Duh!"

If you cant see how a gay judge would be influenced by his sexuality and his lifestyle then i really cant help you....

You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

You're assuming Peens is self aware enough to be embarrassed.La la la la...

 

[MongoL3]

Sorry, to say a gay judge isnt influenced on his decision to rule on gay marriage by his sexuality and his lifestyle isnt going out that far on a limb imo.

Whoever drew a parallel between the arguments in the case and the arguments in this thread was spot on.Q: "Do you have any proof for your position?"

A: "Well, of course I do. It's just so obvious! Duh!"

If you cant see how a gay judge would be influenced by his sexuality and his lifestyle then i really cant help you....

You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

You're assuming Peens is self aware enough to be embarrassed.La la la la...

You guys will never have to worry about my opinions changing just to be accepted on a football message board..

 

[Running with scissors]

You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

You're assuming Peens is self aware enough to be embarrassed.La la la la...

You guys will never have to worry about my opinions changing just to be accepted on a football message board..

You're assuming Peens is self aware enough to reevaluate an opinion.

 

[huthut]

Is the only unbiased judge a white christian male heterosexual then? There is a 136 page publically viewable document with citations why prop 8 was unconstitutional, either quote something from there showing the judge is biased or shut up about it.

 

[timschochet]

Is the only unbiased judge a white christian male heterosexual then? There is a 136 page publically viewable document with citations why prop 8 was unconstitutional, either quote something from there showing the judge is biased or shut up about it.

But isn't it obvious?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Is the only unbiased judge a white christian male heterosexual then? There is a 136 page publically viewable document with citations why prop 8 was unconstitutional, either quote something from there showing the judge is biased or shut up about it.

But isn't it obvious?

Based on the stellar logic presented here by oneohh and mongol, I propose that only gay judges be permitted to oversee divorce proceedings. A heterosexual judge would obviously be biased towards the party that is the same gender as him or herself. If you can't see how a heterosexual male or female judge would be influenced by their sexuality and their lifestyle, then I really can't help you.