littlebillie

just as the major parties are blending more and more ("my blender is broken" - Dr Dolittle), so I think more and more we as individual tend to pick and choose from those parties' planks. And indeed, that's the way it should be - how can 2 parties totally and definitively represent the hundreds of millions of us in this country? I'm all for welfare - but only for those who are citizens or here legally. I am not entirely opposed to the death penalty - but anyone convicted who requests DNA analyses should be able to get it. I am strongly opposed to NAMBLA, but I would support gay unions. And so it goes. liberal? conservative? I guess I'm a coniberal.

"If you would like to use this line of thinking, feel free to do so. But please do not limit it to one issue." ahhh - I begin to understand why your posts seem to remind me of core dumps! Apparently you don't recognize the validity of a single topic in a thread or conversation, and additionally feel a need to apply ANY comment to EVERY topic... a strange kind of dialogic Turrette's? USE LIMITS! FREE YOURSELF! You have nothing to gain but time!

"Packsaddle, not sure what all that meant. Whatever it was, it certainly didnt appear to unequivocally prove anything." and "I understand your point, but if misinformation was used to gain peoples hearts and minds, one has to wonder how many might change their opinion. Or if the misinformation wasnt disseminated in the first place, one has to wonder how many would currently be supportive of homosexuality." I DID understand packsaddle. And if I understand the comments above, aren't they tantamount to saying that one doesn't understand something, it's gotta be wrong? Or at kindest, if one doesn't understand, it MUST be misinformation? I'm not trting to step on toes, but that's really what seems to have been said...?

Rooster - here's what you said about me: "You claim that its the mothers risk to take." And here's what I actually said: '...here's where I intellectually take the PC cop-out of individual choice"' Frankly, I thought my entire post was full of references to my indecision, still weighing all sides, and so on. Moving right along... "Or, how about this amoral premise the day you can rape a man, you get the chance to decide whether or not a rapist goes to jail." Technically, Bobbitt (sp?) was raped. Statutory stories of female teachers and underage boys abound these days, as well. If you care to make some searches, you'll come up with others, much more alarming. I'll assume that if you have a firm and unequivical stand on abortion, that you yourself have asked God these questions. What did you two come with? I'm seriously interested.

malpractice insurance on the one hand, amortizing office technology on the other... in the local news regularly, there are stories of this hospital or that clinic closing their doors. always in the more disadvantaged neighborhoods, of course. above and beyond cost, then, there are issues of simple access (and not just to HMO facilities). I sometimes wonder if there's anyway for the government to partner with such places to avoid shutting them down, diverting some Medicare dollars to salaries, maint., etc, and providing good free care for the needy... sorta semi-social? and just out of curiosity, does socialized medicine really differ that much from HMOs and Blue Cross? isn't it just a public versus private point of view?

Wow - I am VERY impressed by what seems to be a LOT of folks who wouldn't engage in bonding or recreational sex, and who recognize sex as a procreative act only. Big families, or long periods of abstinence? 'k, ', I'm kidding. IF WE OUTLAW ABORTION in this country, of course, we will simply be sending a lot of folks across the border or down the alley. I think that a responsible clinic - one that offers counseling and asks iteratively "are you sure?" is a better and safer way to go. But that doesn't really address the morality of abortion, though, does it? As a parent, I believe all children are precious and the thought of deliberately ending and one of those precious lives.... ugh. But as a male, I also recognize that I can never fully understand a woman's point of view - and here's where I intellectually take the PC cop-out of "individual choice". See, it's not just a question of "well, if you're pro-life, why don't you adopt?". That should also say, "If you're so pro-life, why don't you sponsor a single mother and help her and her baby out so the kid won't drop out of school and she can finish hers and get a decent job and give'em day care too while yer at it, yadda-yadda-yadda." Many of the same folks who decry abortion also decry welfare, and that seems to be a vicious circle just waiting to start spinning. Bringing kids into the world when you know they will only suffer doesn't seem right, does it? okay. here's another aspect that confuses me. when sperm hits egg, boom - does it have a soul? or does it take splitting to get that sould? at what point, and by what mechanism does a soul happen? this is a key question, obviously. is there a soul before there are brain cells? does the soul co-exist with the body, and grow as the embryo, fetus and child grows? or is it somewhere else, and associated remotely with the body? if the soul is associated with just the first cell, what does that imply about clipping my fingernails? very confusing this - spiritually, I have to think well, on the one hand, just to be safe, no abortion or even prevention should be allowed, but on the other hand, you have to have tolerance for others' beliefs. and - are there ethical atheist objections to abortion, or is that one of those things atheists ALL agree on? for those of you who are rock-solid certain of your positions - well, my hat's off to you, and indeed, I envy you, whatever side of the fence you fall on. and now, all THAT said - what about test-tube babies carried in host mothers? right? wrong? when does the soul happen? in the test tube, or after being placed in the host-womb, or...?

"Why would mother nature intend this?" Well, as population control with reduction of sexually induced stress, for one reason. Rat studies have demonstrated that in a limited space, with unlimited food, rats will breed to a point of overpopulation; one of the results of that is an increased incident of observed homosexual contact. The bonobo also displays a wide range of non-procreative behvior.

Ed, a good, reasonable response. we disagree on this, I know, but I'm proud to have someone like you to disagree with! you are a principled man of conscience - there's no point talking this kind of thing with any other kind of person...

"There is no proof that one is born gay. Therefore it is a learned behavior. Therefore it is a lifestyle. Until there is absolute proof that one is born gay, I will not change my opinion." There is no proof that one is NOT born gay. (or, There is no proof yet, although there are certainly some suggestions, that one is born gay - take your pick.) Therefore it may or may not be a learned (or acquired or imparted) behavior. Therefore, it may be a genetic predisposition or a lifestyle choice, or both... apparently the concept of "innocent until proven otherwise" extends so far, and no farther. this kind of absolutist rhetoric - while providing no truly logical argument - IS proof that prejudice can be self-blinding.

Every time a gay couple adopts an older child that has been bypassed over and over by straight families, I think society and the adoptee have been helped. Now I know there are those that say kids without families are better off being institutionalized until the age of 18 and then being placed on their own, than to be placed with a gay couple - but I disagree. Strongly. When folks argue that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn't lead to procreation, yet counter all the examples of homosexuality among animals with the further argument that MAN has a moral sense, I really wonder if man doesn't have a practical sense? WE ARE OVERPOPULATED to the point where MAN with his moral sense is destroying the soulless natural world - species gone to extinction, thousands of acres of rain forest burned and levelled every week, the soil that grows our food daily leaching out to sea... yes, you're right - breeding is a certainly good and moral thing to do. Every time someone says, it hasn't been shown that gays are borns so, they leave out that corollarily it hasn't been - oh, you go ahead and finish that one. Man is the only animal with a conscience? I think that statement can only be made by someone who's never kept a dog... Isn't it odd that a religion becomes myth after all its adherents have died? there are more Moslems than Christians across the world - if we reach a point where there are NO Christians, does Christianity become a myth, I wonder? And every time I hear that the Bible is the Last and Final Word, I refelct that I have yet to hear of any version that has been definitively proven to be an exact and Final translation. Does "...no other gods before Me" really equate to "There are no other gods"? As far as the 100-gays-on-an-island-for-50-years reality show goes, it's probably a good thing there's no procreation, or everyone would die a lot sooner as the island was stripped of all things edible. Sure we'll take tax money from gays - and then get upset when Merlyn fights to make sure that the tax money gets allocated by the rules that the Scouts themselves fought to have applied! Y'all folks is crazy! By the way, is it ok to put camp and jamboree patches on the back of the merit badge sash? I'm starting to see this more and more, and my son wants to start doing it - I tend to be a purist when it comes to this, but I'm not sure what's evolving generally...?

NIAGARA FALLS? slo-o-o-o-wly I turn. step by step, inch by inch....

Is it religiously significant when a THREAD is resurrected? This one seems to have risen from the recycle bin... :-)

"Would I dare say that it might even be a moral absolute?" Probably not while the wedding of a 12 year old Gypsy princess is in the news... "for an adult to have sexual relations with a minor at the age of thirteen, then we should allow homosexuals in the Scouting program in New Mexico?" well, since you pose it as a question, the answer is currently no - the BSA has rejected the local standards premise, maintaining their OWN absolute. btw, the gays I know - family folk from school - are all repulsed by the idea of pedophilia.

"Nature did not design men to share sexual intimacy with one another. Nature did not design women to share sexual intimacy with one another." yet nature has made allowances among other species for exactly this kind of activity - esp. during times of overpopulation! rats, bonobos, fish, dogs, sheep... it can be seen as a part of a system of population checks and balances.

"The only additional concept one must accept is that the 16-year-old has the ability to make the decision on his own. And I believe that our court system has established that they do by waving them into adult court and trying them as adults." if the age of consent is 16, then the act is not pedophilia in the eyes of that state. to some extent the line may be seen as arbitrary - there are different ages. but there is a huge difference between mutually consenting ADULTS and the picture you are drawing. Arguably, even if the CHILD *seems* willing, the law does not recognize that CHILD'S ability or right to make such a call - I have, all along, excluded the emancipated minor - which is also why the kid can't sign a contract, either. and any act that takes criminal advantage of a child - EVEN IF THE CHILD IS WILLING - cannot be be called harmless.