In his defense, I have to say I don't think he's lying. He's been misleading before, but usually with a '' to let everyone know.
I wouldn't call it misleading. I prefer to call it opening the curtain a little.
On both sides of politics there are words, phrases and speeches given that the middle ground would find terrifying if they were in the mainstream. One of the most humorous things on this board for me is watching Shawn post things of this nature as "gotchas" thinking the other side doesn't do it. I think he honestly believes that the DNC, FAIR, and other groups don't send out daily press releases with talking points. I think he believes that if he were to show up at a rally for Hillary Clinton, there won't be a box of hand painted signs and printed signs outside the rally just waiting for him to pick one up. Youth is nice in that way sometimes.
Often a political position will be partially spoken but also intentionally partially obscured because they know it is unpalatable to the mainstream. Do I honestly doubt the GWB is going to nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? Of course I don't but when asked on the issue he obscures it.
Likewise do I doubt that any Democratic candidate is going to put a pro-choice judge in the Supreme Court. I mean sure they are but they will do just as GWB does most of the time. A few on both sides will speak their clear views but most will say, "well I'm not going to use a litmus test, I'm going to look at the whole person and their judicial history," yadda yadda yadda.
Often I will probe a view with limits to expose an argument. The easiest example of this is to ask someone when affirmative action will end. Most won't admit they are for quotas until we have statistical represenation, but there really isn't another answer for when it should end but to say those things. Me, I don't like the mushy middle and will use my smileys, and get people to state their full position.
Nick
P.S. Bunge, don't go giving away all my secrets darn it and BTW no one is intolerant anymore according to BRussell, we are just all genetically programmed with the views we have, so it's just nature.
The dig was because I find it humerous about how you claim to be tolerant yet have obvious issues with certain sex acts involving consenting adults. You said they had issues and I just gave it back to you.
Nick
Nonsense argument, easily demolished.
Your theory that pheremones keep family members apart has no scientific basis in fact. It's your theory, it's nonsense, and don't present it as fact. Off the top of my head:
-Siblings have met as strangers and started relationships.
-Gay men and women buy gay porn mags and find them exciting. I don't believe gay porn has scratch-and-sniff pheremone sachets so those that buy them can get off.
You also say that homosexuality is a choice. This from a man who has gay people in his family. GO AND TALK TO THEM AND ASK THEM.
Go on. Ask them if they can change.
And gay people are not "cured." It's not a disease. It's another way of being a sexual human being. I don't understand it any more than you do, but it's not an "issue."
Sex is sex. If you and your sister fancy each other and you want to sleep with each other in the face of societal opprobium and general revulsion? Good luck to you, I guess. FANCYING YOUR SISTER DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE PREPROGRAMMED TO FIND ONLY YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY ATTRACTIVE.
Your theory that pheremones keep family members apart has no scientific basis in fact. It's your theory, it's nonsense, and don't present it as fact. Off the top of my head:
-Siblings have met as strangers and started relationships.
-Gay men and women buy gay porn mags and find them exciting. I don't believe gay porn has scratch-and-sniff pheremone sachets so those that buy them can get off.
You also say that homosexuality is a choice. This from a man who has gay people in his family. GO AND TALK TO THEM AND ASK THEM.
Go on. Ask them if they can change.
And gay people are not "cured." It's not a disease. It's another way of being a sexual human being. I don't understand it any more than you do, but it's not an "issue."
Sex is sex. If you and your sister fancy each other and you want to sleep with each other in the face of societal opprobium and general revulsion? Good luck to you, I guess. FANCYING YOUR SISTER DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE PREPROGRAMMED TO FIND ONLY YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY ATTRACTIVE.
Just use your brain, Nick, damn.
To put it politely I have no idea what you are talking about. Pheromone repulsion to prevent incest is not an idea I made up in my head. It is a fully realized scientific theory with much more backing than even the theory that homosexuality is genetic. Do a Google search on pheromones and human behavior and there is plenty out there to read.
The scientific basis for it is that incestual breeding allows for basically asexual type reproduction and doesn't insure genetic diversity. Thus nature would have an interest in insuring that you find people who are more biologically different DNA-wise from yourself more attractive.
Likewise I did not say gay men were attracted to other gay men because of pheromones, but that could be true. I haven't read any research in that area. However your example using magazines is again a false analogy. It isn't as if heterosexual people have to sniff pheromones in addition to looking at pictures to become aroused sexually. I really don't get your point.
As for your "gay" credentials of having a "member in the family," I have both a gay aunt and uncle on my mothers side. Likewise I studied music for my degree (the arts have a disportionate number of homosexuals) and lived in Long Beach for 10 years, which is almost as gay percentage-wise as San Francisco. Again none of this really matters because I am not claiming some authority from experience, but rather from science. As for asking them if they can change, I never have asked them because I never sought to change them. I was happy with them just as they were.
As for gays being "cured" I never claimed that they could be cured, only that some homosexuals have claimed that they were cured. I did not seek to cure them, nor anything else of that nature.
The research I have read involving homosexual genes and heridity however involved identical twins recruited through ads in gay advocacy magazines. I do consider recruitment through these magazines to be a bit of a bias in the sample however even then the coefficient of both twins being gay was .4.
I do believe some are born gay, however I do believe that others just choose the lifestyle. I have meet people and known from early on myself (I'm not gay, but do have a pretty accurate gay-dar) that they would be gay. I'm talking from like 6-7 years old on.
Likewise I have met people who have changed dramatically over the course of their life and it would appear orientation was a change they choose to make. I have not read any science that contradicts these two views.
Lastly you read my posting on incest entirely backwards. I did not say that pheromones would make a person find ONLY their family attractive. Rather I said the lack of pheromone inhibitor would cause them to view their family as no different than the rest of the population. Thus if they were a 17 year old boy, they would view, say their 16 year old sister just like they would any other female.
It would be like being color blind. How can you be repelled if you have no chemical, biological aspect repelling you? I never said they would exclusively want to date their family, much more the opposite.
I wouldn't call it misleading. I prefer to call it opening the curtain a little.
On both sides of politics there are words, phrases and speeches given that the middle ground would find terrifying if they were in the mainstream. One of the most humorous things on this board for me is watching Shawn post things of this nature as "gotchas" thinking the other side doesn't do it. I think he honestly believes that the DNC, FAIR, and other groups don't send out daily press releases with talking points. I think he believes that if he were to show up at a rally for Hillary Clinton, there won't be a box of hand painted signs and printed signs outside the rally just waiting for him to pick one up. Youth is nice in that way sometimes.
Often a political position will be partially spoken but also intentionally partially obscured because they know it is unpalatable to the mainstream. Do I honestly doubt the GWB is going to nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? Of course I don't but when asked on the issue he obscures it.
The recent furor over comments by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) about homosexuality and anti-sodomy laws has been fueled in part by misrepresentations of what he said by some journalists and critics.
In an interview with the Associated Press taped on April 7, Santorum said this with reference to the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the constitutionality of Texas's anti-sodomy law:
Quote:
We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion.
Santorum is clearly stating his opposition to constitutional protection for what he calls "homosexual acts" earlier in the interview. In mentioning polygamy, bigamy, incest, and adultery, however, he did not state that they are morally equivalent to homosexual acts. Instead, he made the legal argument that if the Supreme Court overturns Texas's sodomy laws prohibiting anal and oral sex amongst homosexuals, those other acts would have to be legalized by the same principle of a constitutional right to privacy.
Unfortunately, several media outlets have misrepresented Santorum's quote to imply that the senator explicitly compared homosexuality to polygamy, incest and adultery. The problem can be found in several reports such as the lead of an Associated Press article: "Gay-rights groups, fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, yesterday urged Republican leaders to consider removing the Pennsylvania lawmaker from the GOP Senate leadership." Maureen Dowd made the same allegation in her New York Times op-ed column, stating, "Rick Santorum, the obnoxious Pennsylvania senator who is No. 3 in the G.O.P., equated homosexuality with incest, bigamy and polygamy." A Washington Post piece also stated that, "The leading Democratic presidential contenders and congressional leaders condemned [Santorum] for comparing gay sex to incest, bigamy and polygamy in an interview published Monday by the Associated Press."
Some critics were more fair, picking on actual controversial comparisons that Santorum did make. Later in the interview, for instance, he makes an apparent comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality: " In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."
Critics have every right to object to Santorum's beliefs and to his legal arguments. But they are obligated to accurately depict the substantive points he made in a real legal debate about how far the constitutional right to privacy would extend if the Supreme Court overturns Texas's anti-sodomy law.
Correction (4/26): This piece has been corrected to make clear that Texas's sodomy law, like those in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, applies only to homosexuals. It previously incorrectly indicated that the law applied to all people, but "essentially outlawed homosexual sex." Thanks to a watchful reader for pointing out this error.
I'm not flaming you Shawn, I assure you that it wouldn't be so subtle if I decided to do so.
I'm calling you what you are which is what I would say is a "true believer." This isn't a bad thing, it is just less likely when you get older.
Like when you go to the Hillary Clinton Rally and grab your sign, that is cool and all. When you want five minutes of her time and they ask for your info so they can send you mailers advertising $1500 a plate fund raising dinners, well that just takes some of the shine off the process. Likewise when you realize you likely won't be able to get your five minutes until you go to that dinner, well.... there ya go.
I am of course talking about the main, national political figures. You could get anybody at the state government level to show up at just about anything. They are fairly easy to reach. I went to high school with my local assemblymen and we played on the same football team. I can still get him on the phone fairly easily. Our national congressional rep is Mary Bono but she has like 4 offices so good luck.
Tell me Shawn, if I don't know you in this regard what is your understanding on these matters. You made it quite clear that you think organizations like FAIR, don't actually have an agenda. I mean sure the have a link on their site called Activism, but hey that doesn't mean anything. Likewise you mention that the politicians you admire couldn't be part of any grand party scheme. Do you honestly think they don't sit there are find a way to spin the same bulleted talking points that everyone else in the party receives?
You know I happen to work during the hours when Rush Limbaugh is on but every once in a while when I am off work on a holiday I will tune to my normal radio station where they are playing some sort of best of show of his. I can't take him in large doses because he is a bit too aggrandizing for me, but he will do a bit I always seem to catch. (or maybe they just repeat it alot, I honestly wouldn't know) He will play the Democratic folks literally repeating the same word or talking point over and over on different days, different shows, but all hammering the same point. The last one I heard was before the 2000 election and had to do with "gravitas" with regard to Dick Cheney. He must have had 30+ people all using that talking point phrase.
Do I not believe that the Republicans do this? Of course I do. I know they do because I went to the 1996 Republican Convention and saw the talking point sheets myself. I also saw how hugely out of whack the size of the media is compared with the actual process of politics. (There were 3 media people there for each delegate)
So keep believing at your age, it is a good thing. Go volunteer and make some phone calls. Maybe you could even run the campaign for someone who has no chance of being elected like I got to do. Then spend some time with that girlfriend and get some sun.8)
As far as I know there's no-one gay in my family. I was talking about you.
Regardless, I showed how incest has a natural foundation and how percentage-wise it is comparable to homosexuality. Also you now understand that pheromones are not something I made up, but a valid scientific theory.
Regardless, I showed how incest has a natural foundation
No. You didn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
and how percentage-wise it is comparable to homosexuality.
Totally irrelevant. The comparison is still foolish. Comparing a cultural behaviour to a natural predisposition. Stupid.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Also you now understand that pheromones are not something I made up, but a valid scientific theory.
I've never heard or read a single thing about pheremones and incest and I can't find anything relevant on the web either. I'm going to the British Library today and I'll have a look through back-issues of Nature and Nature Genetics to see if pheremones are, as I suspect, junk science of the ESP / telekenisis kind or if you aren't actually talking out of your arse.
The latter is by far the most probable. In the meantime, you're welcome to post a link from any reputable on-line science journal to back up your claim that siblings are put off each other by pheremones.
I can quite confidently say you're talking bullshit.
edit: just found some stuff on the web about pheromones and incest. It's been researched. But I STILL kind find anything about people who are lacking pheromone sensitivity being prone to incest.
So you're still talking bullshit.
Bull
shit.
You have some weird 'moral' axe to grind and its more important to you than tolerance or reason. And then you have the nerve to accuse others of having "issues."
Totally irrelevant. The comparison is still foolish. Comparing a cultural behaviour to a natural predisposition. Stupid.
I've never heard or read a single thing about pheremones and incest and I can't find anything relevant on the web either. I'm going to the British Library today and I'll have a look through back-issues of Nature and Nature Genetics to see if pheremones are, as I suspect, junk science of the ESP / telekenisis kind or if you aren't actually talking out of your arse.
The latter is by far the most probable. In the meantime, you're welcome to post a link from any reputable on-line science journal to back up your claim that siblings are put off each other by pheremones.
I can quite confidently say you're talking bullshit.
edit: just found some stuff on the web about pheromones and incest. It's been researched. But I STILL kind find anything about people who are lacking pheromone sensitivity being prone to incest.
So you're still talking bullshit.
Bull
shit.
You have some weird 'moral' axe to grind and its more important to you than tolerance or reason. And then you have the nerve to accuse others of having "issues."
I doubt you will credit all these and will likely find a way to dismiss everything that doesn't match your biases, but oh well I tried. I assure you as I said from the beginning that the science behind pheromones is better than the science behind homosexuality. That doesn't mean I am bashing homosexuality, I am saying that you are showing a bias if you would dismiss one, but not the other.
As a sociologist its in my genes to deny anything but the enviroment as a determine for what you are.
BUT
Why is this such a strong matter? What does it really change if its in our genes, enviroment, choice or coinsidenes? For me it has nothing to do with the question of homosexuality being wrong or right.
The argument doesn´t change for that reason: There is nothing wrong with being homosexual because like being straight it doesn´t hurt anyone. To discuss what "causes" homosexuality is to let the argument slide. Then you say "Homosexuality is not wrong becuase it isn´t a choice" even if you don´t want to say it.
Always keep your arguments clear and to the point of you view.
(yeah my ability to express myself is very reduced these days. But I think you all get the point)
I doubt you will credit all these and will likely find a way to dismiss everything that doesn't match your biases, but oh well I tried. I assure you as I said from the beginning that the science behind pheromones is better than the science behind homosexuality. That doesn't mean I am bashing homosexuality, I am saying that you are showing a bias if you would dismiss one, but not the other.
Nick
As far as anyone has been able to prove, humans don't even have pheromones. So I'm not sure what to say about all those links.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
In his defense, I have to say I don't think he's lying. He's been misleading before, but usually with a '
I wouldn't call it misleading. I prefer to call it opening the curtain a little.
On both sides of politics there are words, phrases and speeches given that the middle ground would find terrifying if they were in the mainstream. One of the most humorous things on this board for me is watching Shawn post things of this nature as "gotchas" thinking the other side doesn't do it. I think he honestly believes that the DNC, FAIR, and other groups don't send out daily press releases with talking points. I think he believes that if he were to show up at a rally for Hillary Clinton, there won't be a box of hand painted signs and printed signs outside the rally just waiting for him to pick one up. Youth is nice in that way sometimes.
Often a political position will be partially spoken but also intentionally partially obscured because they know it is unpalatable to the mainstream. Do I honestly doubt the GWB is going to nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? Of course I don't but when asked on the issue he obscures it.
Likewise do I doubt that any Democratic candidate is going to put a pro-choice judge in the Supreme Court. I mean sure they are but they will do just as GWB does most of the time. A few on both sides will speak their clear views but most will say, "well I'm not going to use a litmus test, I'm going to look at the whole person and their judicial history," yadda yadda yadda.
Often I will probe a view with limits to expose an argument. The easiest example of this is to ask someone when affirmative action will end. Most won't admit they are for quotas until we have statistical represenation, but there really isn't another answer for when it should end but to say those things. Me, I don't like the mushy middle and will use my smileys, and get people to state their full position.
Nick
P.S. Bunge, don't go giving away all my secrets darn it and BTW no one is intolerant anymore according to BRussell, we are just all genetically programmed with the views we have, so it's just nature.
Originally posted by trumptman
The dig was because I find it humerous about how you claim to be tolerant yet have obvious issues with certain sex acts involving consenting adults. You said they had issues and I just gave it back to you.
Nick
Nonsense argument, easily demolished.
Your theory that pheremones keep family members apart has no scientific basis in fact. It's your theory, it's nonsense, and don't present it as fact. Off the top of my head:
-Siblings have met as strangers and started relationships.
-Gay men and women buy gay porn mags and find them exciting. I don't believe gay porn has scratch-and-sniff pheremone sachets so those that buy them can get off.
You also say that homosexuality is a choice. This from a man who has gay people in his family. GO AND TALK TO THEM AND ASK THEM.
Go on. Ask them if they can change.
And gay people are not "cured." It's not a disease. It's another way of being a sexual human being. I don't understand it any more than you do, but it's not an "issue."
Sex is sex. If you and your sister fancy each other and you want to sleep with each other in the face of societal opprobium and general revulsion? Good luck to you, I guess. FANCYING YOUR SISTER DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE PREPROGRAMMED TO FIND ONLY YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY ATTRACTIVE.
Just use your brain, Nick, damn.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Nonsense argument, easily demolished.
Your theory that pheremones keep family members apart has no scientific basis in fact. It's your theory, it's nonsense, and don't present it as fact. Off the top of my head:
-Siblings have met as strangers and started relationships.
-Gay men and women buy gay porn mags and find them exciting. I don't believe gay porn has scratch-and-sniff pheremone sachets so those that buy them can get off.
You also say that homosexuality is a choice. This from a man who has gay people in his family. GO AND TALK TO THEM AND ASK THEM.
Go on. Ask them if they can change.
And gay people are not "cured." It's not a disease. It's another way of being a sexual human being. I don't understand it any more than you do, but it's not an "issue."
Sex is sex. If you and your sister fancy each other and you want to sleep with each other in the face of societal opprobium and general revulsion? Good luck to you, I guess. FANCYING YOUR SISTER DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE PREPROGRAMMED TO FIND ONLY YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY ATTRACTIVE.
Just use your brain, Nick, damn.
To put it politely I have no idea what you are talking about. Pheromone repulsion to prevent incest is not an idea I made up in my head. It is a fully realized scientific theory with much more backing than even the theory that homosexuality is genetic. Do a Google search on pheromones and human behavior and there is plenty out there to read.
The scientific basis for it is that incestual breeding allows for basically asexual type reproduction and doesn't insure genetic diversity. Thus nature would have an interest in insuring that you find people who are more biologically different DNA-wise from yourself more attractive.
Likewise I did not say gay men were attracted to other gay men because of pheromones, but that could be true. I haven't read any research in that area. However your example using magazines is again a false analogy. It isn't as if heterosexual people have to sniff pheromones in addition to looking at pictures to become aroused sexually. I really don't get your point.
As for your "gay" credentials of having a "member in the family," I have both a gay aunt and uncle on my mothers side. Likewise I studied music for my degree (the arts have a disportionate number of homosexuals) and lived in Long Beach for 10 years, which is almost as gay percentage-wise as San Francisco. Again none of this really matters because I am not claiming some authority from experience, but rather from science. As for asking them if they can change, I never have asked them because I never sought to change them. I was happy with them just as they were.
As for gays being "cured" I never claimed that they could be cured, only that some homosexuals have claimed that they were cured. I did not seek to cure them, nor anything else of that nature.
The research I have read involving homosexual genes and heridity however involved identical twins recruited through ads in gay advocacy magazines. I do consider recruitment through these magazines to be a bit of a bias in the sample however even then the coefficient of both twins being gay was .4.
I do believe some are born gay, however I do believe that others just choose the lifestyle. I have meet people and known from early on myself (I'm not gay, but do have a pretty accurate gay-dar) that they would be gay. I'm talking from like 6-7 years old on.
Likewise I have met people who have changed dramatically over the course of their life and it would appear orientation was a change they choose to make. I have not read any science that contradicts these two views.
Lastly you read my posting on incest entirely backwards. I did not say that pheromones would make a person find ONLY their family attractive. Rather I said the lack of pheromone inhibitor would cause them to view their family as no different than the rest of the population. Thus if they were a 17 year old boy, they would view, say their 16 year old sister just like they would any other female.
It would be like being color blind. How can you be repelled if you have no chemical, biological aspect repelling you? I never said they would exclusively want to date their family, much more the opposite.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I wouldn't call it misleading. I prefer to call it opening the curtain a little.
On both sides of politics there are words, phrases and speeches given that the middle ground would find terrifying if they were in the mainstream. One of the most humorous things on this board for me is watching Shawn post things of this nature as "gotchas" thinking the other side doesn't do it. I think he honestly believes that the DNC, FAIR, and other groups don't send out daily press releases with talking points. I think he believes that if he were to show up at a rally for Hillary Clinton, there won't be a box of hand painted signs and printed signs outside the rally just waiting for him to pick one up. Youth is nice in that way sometimes.
Often a political position will be partially spoken but also intentionally partially obscured because they know it is unpalatable to the mainstream. Do I honestly doubt the GWB is going to nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? Of course I don't but when asked on the issue he obscures it.
Misrepresentations in the Santorum debate (4/25)
By Ben Fritz
The recent furor over comments by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) about homosexuality and anti-sodomy laws has been fueled in part by misrepresentations of what he said by some journalists and critics.
In an interview with the Associated Press taped on April 7, Santorum said this with reference to the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the constitutionality of Texas's anti-sodomy law:
We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion.
Santorum is clearly stating his opposition to constitutional protection for what he calls "homosexual acts" earlier in the interview. In mentioning polygamy, bigamy, incest, and adultery, however, he did not state that they are morally equivalent to homosexual acts. Instead, he made the legal argument that if the Supreme Court overturns Texas's sodomy laws prohibiting anal and oral sex amongst homosexuals, those other acts would have to be legalized by the same principle of a constitutional right to privacy.
Unfortunately, several media outlets have misrepresented Santorum's quote to imply that the senator explicitly compared homosexuality to polygamy, incest and adultery. The problem can be found in several reports such as the lead of an Associated Press article: "Gay-rights groups, fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, yesterday urged Republican leaders to consider removing the Pennsylvania lawmaker from the GOP Senate leadership." Maureen Dowd made the same allegation in her New York Times op-ed column, stating, "Rick Santorum, the obnoxious Pennsylvania senator who is No. 3 in the G.O.P., equated homosexuality with incest, bigamy and polygamy." A Washington Post piece also stated that, "The leading Democratic presidential contenders and congressional leaders condemned [Santorum] for comparing gay sex to incest, bigamy and polygamy in an interview published Monday by the Associated Press."
Some critics were more fair, picking on actual controversial comparisons that Santorum did make. Later in the interview, for instance, he makes an apparent comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality: " In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."
Critics have every right to object to Santorum's beliefs and to his legal arguments. But they are obligated to accurately depict the substantive points he made in a real legal debate about how far the constitutional right to privacy would extend if the Supreme Court overturns Texas's anti-sodomy law.
Correction (4/26): This piece has been corrected to make clear that Texas's sodomy law, like those in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, applies only to homosexuals. It previously incorrectly indicated that the law applied to all people, but "essentially outlawed homosexual sex." Thanks to a watchful reader for pointing out this error.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I'm not flaming you Shawn, I assure you that it wouldn't be so subtle if I decided to do so.
I'm calling you what you are which is what I would say is a "true believer." This isn't a bad thing, it is just less likely when you get older.
Like when you go to the Hillary Clinton Rally and grab your sign, that is cool and all. When you want five minutes of her time and they ask for your info so they can send you mailers advertising $1500 a plate fund raising dinners, well that just takes some of the shine off the process. Likewise when you realize you likely won't be able to get your five minutes until you go to that dinner, well.... there ya go.
I am of course talking about the main, national political figures. You could get anybody at the state government level to show up at just about anything. They are fairly easy to reach. I went to high school with my local assemblymen and we played on the same football team. I can still get him on the phone fairly easily. Our national congressional rep is Mary Bono but she has like 4 offices so good luck.
Tell me Shawn, if I don't know you in this regard what is your understanding on these matters. You made it quite clear that you think organizations like FAIR, don't actually have an agenda. I mean sure the have a link on their site called Activism, but hey that doesn't mean anything. Likewise you mention that the politicians you admire couldn't be part of any grand party scheme. Do you honestly think they don't sit there are find a way to spin the same bulleted talking points that everyone else in the party receives?
You know I happen to work during the hours when Rush Limbaugh is on but every once in a while when I am off work on a holiday I will tune to my normal radio station where they are playing some sort of best of show of his. I can't take him in large doses because he is a bit too aggrandizing for me, but he will do a bit I always seem to catch. (or maybe they just repeat it alot, I honestly wouldn't know) He will play the Democratic folks literally repeating the same word or talking point over and over on different days, different shows, but all hammering the same point. The last one I heard was before the 2000 election and had to do with "gravitas" with regard to Dick Cheney. He must have had 30+ people all using that talking point phrase.
Do I not believe that the Republicans do this? Of course I do. I know they do because I went to the 1996 Republican Convention and saw the talking point sheets myself. I also saw how hugely out of whack the size of the media is compared with the actual process of politics. (There were 3 media people there for each delegate)
So keep believing at your age, it is a good thing. Go volunteer and make some phone calls. Maybe you could even run the campaign for someone who has no chance of being elected like I got to do. Then spend some time with that girlfriend and get some sun.8)
Nick
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
As far as I know there's no-one gay in my family. I was talking about you.
Regardless, I showed how incest has a natural foundation and how percentage-wise it is comparable to homosexuality. Also you now understand that pheromones are not something I made up, but a valid scientific theory.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Regardless, I showed how incest has a natural foundation
No. You didn't.
Originally posted by trumptman
and how percentage-wise it is comparable to homosexuality.
Totally irrelevant. The comparison is still foolish. Comparing a cultural behaviour to a natural predisposition. Stupid.
Originally posted by trumptman
Also you now understand that pheromones are not something I made up, but a valid scientific theory.
I've never heard or read a single thing about pheremones and incest and I can't find anything relevant on the web either. I'm going to the British Library today and I'll have a look through back-issues of Nature and Nature Genetics to see if pheremones are, as I suspect, junk science of the ESP / telekenisis kind or if you aren't actually talking out of your arse.
The latter is by far the most probable. In the meantime, you're welcome to post a link from any reputable on-line science journal to back up your claim that siblings are put off each other by pheremones.
I can quite confidently say you're talking bullshit.
edit: just found some stuff on the web about pheromones and incest. It's been researched. But I STILL kind find anything about people who are lacking pheromone sensitivity being prone to incest.
So you're still talking bullshit.
Bull
shit.
You have some weird 'moral' axe to grind and its more important to you than tolerance or reason. And then you have the nerve to accuse others of having "issues."
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. You didn't.
Totally irrelevant. The comparison is still foolish. Comparing a cultural behaviour to a natural predisposition. Stupid.
I've never heard or read a single thing about pheremones and incest and I can't find anything relevant on the web either. I'm going to the British Library today and I'll have a look through back-issues of Nature and Nature Genetics to see if pheremones are, as I suspect, junk science of the ESP / telekenisis kind or if you aren't actually talking out of your arse.
The latter is by far the most probable. In the meantime, you're welcome to post a link from any reputable on-line science journal to back up your claim that siblings are put off each other by pheremones.
I can quite confidently say you're talking bullshit.
edit: just found some stuff on the web about pheromones and incest. It's been researched. But I STILL kind find anything about people who are lacking pheromone sensitivity being prone to incest.
So you're still talking bullshit.
Bull
shit.
You have some weird 'moral' axe to grind and its more important to you than tolerance or reason. And then you have the nerve to accuse others of having "issues."
Why go to the library when you can do it online.
pheromone gene
Some more
Just the brief not access to the full article
Another
Hormones can affect brain development, even in adults
Neuroimaging - Summary article can be ordered or found in libary
Nose knows
A student page that references a few dozen articles to look up
Odor and incest
Father-daughter and menstration
I doubt you will credit all these and will likely find a way to dismiss everything that doesn't match your biases, but oh well I tried. I assure you as I said from the beginning that the science behind pheromones is better than the science behind homosexuality. That doesn't mean I am bashing homosexuality, I am saying that you are showing a bias if you would dismiss one, but not the other.
Nick
BUT
Why is this such a strong matter? What does it really change if its in our genes, enviroment, choice or coinsidenes? For me it has nothing to do with the question of homosexuality being wrong or right.
The argument doesn´t change for that reason: There is nothing wrong with being homosexual because like being straight it doesn´t hurt anyone. To discuss what "causes" homosexuality is to let the argument slide. Then you say "Homosexuality is not wrong becuase it isn´t a choice" even if you don´t want to say it.
Always keep your arguments clear and to the point of you view.
(yeah my ability to express myself is very reduced these days. But I think you all get the point)
Originally posted by trumptman
Why go to the library when you can do it online.
pheromone gene
Some more
Just the brief not access to the full article
Another
Hormones can affect brain development, even in adults
Neuroimaging - Summary article can be ordered or found in libary
Nose knows
A student page that references a few dozen articles to look up
Odor and incest
Father-daughter and menstration
I doubt you will credit all these and will likely find a way to dismiss everything that doesn't match your biases, but oh well I tried. I assure you as I said from the beginning that the science behind pheromones is better than the science behind homosexuality. That doesn't mean I am bashing homosexuality, I am saying that you are showing a bias if you would dismiss one, but not the other.
Nick
As far as anyone has been able to prove, humans don't even have pheromones. So I'm not sure what to say about all those links.