Miss California's answer

[dsmoot]

Originally Posted by sortudo7

The reason evolution is taught because it's been proven by science.

The scientific method says that:

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Maybe I missed the breaking news alert about the scientist that observed a chimpanzee give birth to a human! Evolution takes much more faith than it does to believe in God.

[TSX_WS]

Yep, evolution has NEVER been proven. Scientists just take facts and try to stick them into a puzzle, but it doesnt work.

[dsmoot]

Originally Posted by dedeman

Wow, I can't believe this slipped under my nose. I didn't think there would be many comments about a beauty pagent, but I think that everyone who has an opinion has obviously missed this thread:

http://tsxclub.com/forums/politics-r...arriage-5.html

I'll repost my last comment on that thread, where I saw the same "arguments" against gay marriage:

Similar argument made by someone in this thread:

Hey, that was my post! And I still stand by it.

Just to show you how far we've come in just one short year, HR 1913 which was passed in the House just a few months ago, added sexual orientation to the list of federal "hate crimes" (as opposed to those special "love crimes" ). This bill does not define "sexual orientation" and according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV there are over 30 different types of sexual orientation (including pedophilia). The House even rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically exclude pedophilia. So now, pedophiles would be protected from "hate crimes". A mother could be charged with assault and have a "hate crime" enhancement for hitting a pedophile with her purse for starring at her children. The slippery slope just got more slippery!

Heres an article describing the bill:
Pedophiles to be protected by federal hate crimes legislation > Hawaii Free Press > Articles Main

[DarkFireProdigy]

So, wheres the proof that her speech is covered under freedom of speech or freedom of religion?

Obviously the laws of this country have a different opinion.
(not just Massachusetts, the judge threw out the federal part of their case because it was )

[TSX_WS]

^ haha I love it how people go off topic when they are cornered.

[DarkFireProdigy]

Originally Posted by TSX_WS

^ haha I love it how people go off topic when they are cornered.

I love how people bumble about when they have no real answer...

[TSX_WS]

Originally Posted by DarkFireProdigy

I love how people bumble about when they have no real answer...

Amen! The topic kinda went in the following direction, but u go a few pages back.

Originally Posted by dsmoot

Hey, that was my post! And I still stand by it.

Just to show you how far we've come in just one short year, HR 1913 which was passed in the House just a few months ago, added sexual orientation to the list of federal "hate crimes" (as opposed to those special "love crimes" ). This bill does not define "sexual orientation" and according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV there are over 30 different types of sexual orientation (including pedophilia). The House even rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically exclude pedophilia. So now, pedophiles would be protected from "hate crimes". A mother could be charged with assault and have a "hate crime" enhancement for hitting a pedophile with her purse for starring at her children. The slippery slope just got more slippery!

Heres an article describing the bill:
Pedophiles to be protected by federal hate crimes legislation > Hawaii Free Press > Articles Main

[DarkFireProdigy]

Originally Posted by TSX_WS

^ haha I love it how people go off topic when they are cornered.

You never had me "Cornered". I never said I believed in either evolution nor intelligent design (go look).

I simply made the comparison between the argument to have intelligent design in schools, and educate about homosexual couples in schools. A comparison spurred by your introduction of the king and king book to the topic.

Originally Posted by TSX_WS

Amen! The topic kinda went in the following direction, but u go a few pages back.

He's .
As much as you want to get bogged down in a separate debate of evolution vs. Darwin.

I'm still waiting for some sort of hard evidence or proof of what you've claimed over, and over, again. That her speech was somehow protected under the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Which coincidentally, is on topic.

So, is it going to be all sidestep and no proof?

Proof, as in, more than a gut feeling?

[sortudo7]

Originally Posted by dsmoot

The scientific method says that:
Maybe I missed the breaking news alert about the scientist that observed a chimpanzee give birth to a human! Evolution takes much more faith than it does to believe in God.

You're right. I misspoke. What I was meaning to point out is that there is more scientific proof of evolution of species in needing to adapt to their environment over just being randomly created. The theory of evolution isn't guaranteed or proven 100% as you know, hence it is a theory. But given the overall idea and evidence we have it's more conclusive than the idea of just randomly appearing and knowing what we know. Animals don't stay dumb, they learn to adapt and those that don't die out. If humans didn't learn how to hunt, build shelter, learn in general then we wouldn't be where we are today.

The argument about the Cambrian Explosion which, in theory, is absolutely no different than human beings just randomly appearing on Earth. I read through it and the idea behind it is a good one and I recall hearing something about this before. There is an issue within the argument though. It argues that this couldn't of happened because of certain things that it doesn't fully take into account. As stated regarding the theory, "the long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals." This is a great point but as also stated, "interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks." In other words, it argues there isn't enough proof to show this could have happened but explains why there might not be proof. Also ignoring the fact that the world is constantly shifting and moving and each time it happens it destroys possibly preserved fossils. Not to mention the fact that fossils themselves are hard to come by as bodies just whither away, the fossils found are because of very fast preservation due to mud or sand or something of the sort to protect from the elements. Look at the way we bury ourselves. In a few hundred years our bodies will be significantly decayed away...think about in hundreds of thousands of years. There may be nothing left. If another species evolves or is created by God, who knows if they will find anything of our existence besides possible structures. The only real lasting effect we will have on this world will be our carbon footprint. Does this mean we never existed? Obviously not.

As far as taking more faith, I fail to see how. You're attempting to believe in something no one has seen or has proof of besides a book that is compiled of stories written, on avg, 40 yrs+ after they allegedly took place. You're listening to people talk about things that no one has any actual proof of happening besides hearsay. Also considering the fact that these books were selectively chosen over other stories which seem to contradict many stories that are now commonly accepted. If anything, the theory of evolution and religion/faith take the exact same amount of faith. I am speaking in reference to the Bible here and not other books like the Koran or Torah as I am not sure on their time frame of creation. Also notice, I said religion/faith and not just God.

Believing in a higher being is simple if you just believe there is one. I also find it funny how people who argue their idea of being created by God as we are with no proof besides what someone said they were told by another guy who heard it from this guy argue the same points AGAINST evolution being possible since there is no proof of it. The argument is a stalemate though. Both sides have valid points and it's all opinionated. Even if we had all the pieces and rock solid evidence of evolution there will still be those against it since their religion teaches that they were simply created by the supreme being.

Back to the argument at hand. We did go off topic, but TSX_WS, you've never said how giving them the right would impede on YOUR rights and LIMIT your freedoms. I am wondering how you came to this conclusion. We asked you this a while ago and never got a reason to it from what I recall.

[Gallic Gun]

Donald Trump fired Santina Marella on Raw last night just like Miss California. FLUCK!

[TSX_WS]

Yep. Gays and their friends are total haters towards anybody who disagrees with them once they are given any power. Yet they all cry out for tolerance. This is just a bit illogical IMO

[HondaMan]

Originally Posted by TSX_WS

Yep. Gays and their friends are total haters towards anybody who disagrees with them once they are given any power. Yet they all cry out for tolerance. This is just a bit illogical IMO

Did y'all notice Perez Hilton was acting like a jerk and got bitch slapped recently in Toronto? Poetic justice? LOL

Perez Hilton says he was punched by Peas' manager

[sortudo7]

Originally Posted by TSX_WS

Yep. Gays and their friends are total haters towards anybody who disagrees with them once they are given any power. Yet they all cry out for tolerance. This is just a bit illogical IMO

You're basing this off of a very small population (like Paris Hilton) while you're hating on gays yourself. They just want equality and you don't want them to have it since it impedes on YOUR rights (still waiting for a reason behind this). There are plenty of other gay ppl in power who don't abuse it. You can use the same argument you're saying about ppl like Gordon Liddy and Don Limus who openly hates on minorities and the rights for gay people. Doesn't mean that all heterosexuals and their friends hate on gays, but that is what you're implying with that logic. Pot calling the kettle black imo.

Originally Posted by HondaMan

Did y'all notice Perez Hilton was acting like a jerk and got bitch slapped recently in Toronto? Poetic justice? LOL

Perez Hilton says he was punched by Peas' manager

LOL, Good. I can't stand him anymore. He deserved it, he instigated it and was warned and didn't back off. I woulda stuck the hell outta him too. What I wonder is if he was hit from behind how does he know who did and how does he have a black eye lol. Black Eyed Peas gave him a black eye...that is poetic justice haha.

[TSX_WS]

Originally Posted by sortudo7

You're basing this off of a very small population (like Paris Hilton) while you're hating on gays yourself. They just want equality and you don't want them to have it since it impedes on YOUR rights (still waiting for a reason behind this). There are plenty of other gay ppl in power who don't abuse it. You can use the same argument you're saying about ppl like Gordon Liddy and Don Limus who openly hates on minorities and the rights for gay people. Doesn't mean that all heterosexuals and their friends hate on gays, but that is what you're implying with that logic. Pot calling the kettle black imo.

I dono if u are blind or ignorant or simply pretend to be dumb, but I repeated exactly how their equality is there thru the civil unions and how legalizing gay marriages will affect the rights of others. I don't hate on anybody and I am pretty tired of people assuming that once someone disagrees that gay marriages should be legal. Neither do I support open haters who express their hate.

I still stand by my view tho. Gay rights activists are all friendly and nice and cry out for tolerance, but once they are given ANY power over those who disagree with them, they show NO tolerance. Yes, there was the lawsuit in Massachusetts when children had to be taught something that isn't a part of the curriculum. Something that gays want the children to grow up with and force them to think that its normal. There is Hilton and many many other cases which I wont be listing.

[sortudo7]

Before you name call go back and read through the points that you listed as defending it. Since page 3, I made sure to go back and read before responding. Your points have been addressed and answered. Separation of church and state etc. Term it union if the word "marriage" is such an issue. It needs to be federally recognize in order to be considered equal.

The word "marriage" is a hot button so change it to union and it's solved. If it is termed union then it has no affliation to the word marriage with church. As stated not being federally recognized does take away the rights of a gay couple (go back and read as the sources have been listed as well).

I'll be honest, I don't give a crap about the church's view on homosexuals, I have my own as does everyone else. Will I be locked up for saying this? No. Will they be locked up for saying that being gay is wrong? No. Already proven through cases. Unless they prove to be a menace to society the government will let them be just like KKK meetings. They can hate all they want but as long as they don't cause danger to other's they are protected. It doesn't impede on the 1st ammendment or freedom of religion. Religions are open to be joined if you choose or choose not to. Most if not all gay ppl I know don't want the church to marry them, they just want to be federally recognized. The church is out of the equation besides the fact that they think being gay is wrong, as stated.

I understand you feel it's wrong and that's your belief and opinion which you're entitled to. Solid facts as stated prove that legalizing will not cause any real legal issues. It's really a huge moral debate and tear within this country that is causing all the heat. I don't think you should be forcing anything upon children. Teach them tolerance, not force anything down their throat. Parent's will also teach their kids what they want so it doesn't really matter. Every point has been touched upon and answered if you re-read everything. Let's not belittle the debate with name calling either, thanks. I almost feel this thread should be closed since it's so far off topic now.