Ashamed to be Texan - DPChallenge Forums

11/16/2005 06:48:33 PM · #1001

With some people it does not matter how much information or facts you give them, they think their own way. Look at the O.J. trial.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/16/2005 07:01:22 PM · #1002

1) Relativity was proposed in this context as an explanation for a much longer period of time than we would expect for a day. The plants are on earth in this case (in our timeframe). If we are moving so slow relative to God, then the plants are experiencing an even longer period without sunlight.

2) Genesis doesn't mention seaweed. It specifically refers to grass and fruit trees. Can you offer a single example of either that would survive an extended period of time in total darkness at a temperature approximating absolute zero (without the sun, there is no heat either)?

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

11/16/2005 07:12:33 PM · #1003

Originally posted by RonB:

Funny you should ask.

Massachusetts law ( Part IV, Title 1, Chapter 272, Section 34 ( ref: here ) currently reads:

"Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years."

A Bill ( Senate Bill 938 ( ref: here ) has been introduced proposing to reword the statute so that
a) there is no reference to mankind, and
b) to provide for REDUCED penalties for having sex with animals

to wit:

"Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 Â½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

Under the proposed change, instead of being sentenced to a term in the state prison, the judge can opt for a lesser sentence in a "house of correction" ( County Jail ) or just a fine, with no sentence at all. And the fine could be as little as $10.00, since the proposed law doesn't specify a minimum.

Today a stay in the state penitentiary.
Tomorrow, if this legislation passes, a small fine.
35 years from now? We'll see.

And some of you argued that I was not just wrong in my assumptions about the future, but outrageously wrong.

Still think so?

Ron,
I agree bestiality is disgusting (that's my personal opinon). I would like to suggest that stopping homosexual marriage (or even homosexual activity, altogether) would have no effect on the fact that this practice is becoming increasingly acceptable.

Assuming that someone with your moral fortitude does not look at pornography, let me assure you that an overwhelming majority of available bestio-porn (or whatever it's called) is of the heterosexual variety. And even if the animals involved seem to be consenting; many of the human participants are so impaired that they don't know/care what's happening. My logic would lead me to believe that the human obsession with pornography would be the most-likely culprit in the desensitization movement, in general. If the government feels the need to impose morality on the masses, wouldn't it be a more noble fight to abolish pornography?

Of course I don't think this is possible or practical; but it would be a lot more effective than the effort of trying to define the word "marriage" for everyone else.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/16/2005 07:31:39 PM · #1004

Congratulations! Post #1000

Go on now...

11/16/2005 07:32:10 PM · #1005

Originally posted by scalvert:

Lol! you want answers that cannot be answered and you know it. Its like me walking on Mars I've never been there, but I can imagine how it is there and I can see pictures but never really know the experience. I have my opinions of Mars but I cannot really tell you fact by fact what Mars is like, we have some evidence of the climate and such. I really don't care what Mars is like but the science community does because they are looking for evidence they cannot find here, about our origin. I know you say we have evidence, but there is more evidence for creation. We can quote verse and chapter all day long where does it get us? Just a long thread that really has no end. When you are talking of creation and evolution it is a pointless debate, but I have had fun in this one, because I like pointless and mindless things to entertain me lol. We breathe in, we breathe out, Nuff sed, the rest will be sorted out later.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/16/2005 07:44:13 PM · #1006

Originally posted by jsas:

Originally posted by scalvert:
1) Relativity was proposed in this context as an explanation for a much longer period of time than we would expect for a day. The plants are on earth in this case (in our timeframe). If we are moving so slow relative to God, then the plants are experiencing an even longer period without sunlight.

2) Genesis doesn't mention seaweed. It specifically refers to grass and fruit trees. Can you offer a single example of either that would survive an extended period of time in total darkness at a temperature approximating absolute zero (without the sun, there is no heat either)?

Lol! you want answers that cannot be answered and you know it. Its like me walking on Mars I've never been there, but I can imagine how it is there and I can see pictures but never really know the experience. I have my opinions of Mars but I cannot really tell you fact by fact what Mars is like, we have some evidence of the climate and such. I really don't care what Mars is like but the science community does because they are looking for evidence they cannot find here, about our origin. I know you say we have evidence, but there is more evidence for creation. We can quote verse and chapter all day long where does it get us? Just a long thread that really has no end. When you are talking of creation and evolution it is a pointless debate, but I have had fun in this one, because I like pointless and mindless things to entertain me lol. We breathe in, we breathe out, Nuff sed, the rest will be sorted out later.

I have to say one thing. Scientist are not necessarily looking on Mars for evidence about our origin because they can not find it here. While SOME may believe in what is called Panspermia in that life on Earth got here by outerspace, not everyone does. I may add that many Panspermia theories have been discredited (I think. Don't hold me to that one). There are plenty of theories about how life on earth originated, of which I wrote a lengthy post about that (Miller-Urey experiment, crepe model, RNA world and all that). Just because scientists are looking for evidence of life on Mars doesn't mean they are doing it because they can't 'find' it here on earth. Anyways, wouldn't it be cool if we had martians as neighbors at one point? I wonder if we would be allowed to marry them?

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

11/16/2005 08:16:21 PM · #1007

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by jsas:

Originally posted by scalvert:
1) Relativity was proposed in this context as an explanation for a much longer period of time than we would expect for a day. The plants are on earth in this case (in our timeframe). If we are moving so slow relative to God, then the plants are experiencing an even longer period without sunlight.

2) Genesis doesn't mention seaweed. It specifically refers to grass and fruit trees. Can you offer a single example of either that would survive an extended period of time in total darkness at a temperature approximating absolute zero (without the sun, there is no heat either)?

Lol! you want answers that cannot be answered and you know it. Its like me walking on Mars I've never been there, but I can imagine how it is there and I can see pictures but never really know the experience. I have my opinions of Mars but I cannot really tell you fact by fact what Mars is like, we have some evidence of the climate and such. I really don't care what Mars is like but the science community does because they are looking for evidence they cannot find here, about our origin. I know you say we have evidence, but there is more evidence for creation. We can quote verse and chapter all day long where does it get us? Just a long thread that really has no end. When you are talking of creation and evolution it is a pointless debate, but I have had fun in this one, because I like pointless and mindless things to entertain me lol. We breathe in, we breathe out, Nuff sed, the rest will be sorted out later.

I have to say one thing. Scientist are not necessarily looking on Mars for evidence about our origin because they can not find it here. While SOME may believe in what is called Panspermia in that life on Earth got here by outerspace, not everyone does. I may add that many Panspermia theories have been discredited (I think. Don't hold me to that one). There are plenty of theories about how life on earth originated, of which I wrote a lengthy post about that (Miller-Urey experiment, crepe model, RNA world and all that). Just because scientists are looking for evidence of life on Mars doesn't mean they are doing it because they can't 'find' it here on earth. Anyways, wouldn't it be cool if we had martians as neighbors at one point? I wonder if we would be allowed to marry them?

E.T. phone home.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/16/2005 08:37:07 PM · #1008

Just found this, which will probably add fuel to this fire.

Burials in Greek Macedonia: Possible Evidence for Same-Sex Committed Relationships in Early Christianity

JHC 4/2 (Fall, 1997), 33-56. available here:

//www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/16/2005 08:53:48 PM · #1009

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

There is evidence of that today! LOL

Flash

Nikon D700

11/16/2005 08:57:48 PM · #1010

Originally posted by Riponlady:

Thank you for such a helpful response about the Goliath " wood" which is in fact the name Goliath on a piece of pottery which only proves that the name Goliath was in use at this time.

Obviously your "local newspaper" didn't get its fact right when you read about it.

Unfortunately the Ripon Gazette only deals with Ripon events and the Daily Telegraph must have felt there were more important international news to report that day than a piece of pottery being dug up in the Middle East. Silly them, they were probably writing about people dying!
P

The wood vs. pottery was not a mistake of the local paper, but rather my mind being forgetful. I remembered enough of the details (having seen a photograph) to make my point and that was all I truly cared about. You are correct in stating that the proof is ONLY of the name in use, in the area of the biblical story, and during the time period of the biblical passage. As stated else where, belief is a personal choice.

Some will never believe, even in the pressence of miracles.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/16/2005 09:08:13 PM · #1011

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Thank you for such a helpful response about the Goliath " wood" which is in fact the name Goliath on a piece of pottery which only proves that the name Goliath was in use at this time.

Obviously your "local newspaper" didn't get its fact right when you read about it.

Unfortunately the Ripon Gazette only deals with Ripon events and the Daily Telegraph must have felt there were more important international news to report that day than a piece of pottery being dug up in the Middle East. Silly them, they were probably writing about people dying!
P

The wood vs. pottery was not a mistake of the local paper, but rather my mind being forgetful. I remembered enough of the details (having seen a photograph) to make my point and that was all I truly cared about. You are correct in stating that the proof is ONLY of the name in use, in the area of the biblical story, and during the time period of the biblical passage. As stated else where, belief is a personal choice.

Some will never believe, even in the pressence of miracles.

The name Goliath on a piece of pottery is a miracle? Did I miss something?

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/16/2005 09:18:03 PM · #1012

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
It appears that you are claiming that since other cultures have provable history and religion, that the Bible is no more accurate as a religious text than the Pharoh's of Egypt.

Almost. I'm saying that the existence of other references ALSO written by man or evidence that some of the characters may be based in truth does not automatically mean that the entire text is infallible (or even non-fiction).

Consider for a moment that a book of stories is over two thousand years old. The stories are wonderful parables from multiple authors that teach moral lessons or truths about living. We know that the principle character / author likely existed (some people don't believe that, but other ancient references mention him by name). There is evidence that at least some of the stories may have occurred or were based upon actual events. The book is known worldwide and usually introduced to us as children. It includes talking serpents and other fantastic elements that defy mainstream science. The book has been translated into multiple languages (the most authoritative versions by monks), and the text from ancient copies is very similar. I am speaking, of course, of Aesop's Fables.

Originally posted by Flash:
...did you get to visit the archives from the 1st century? Did you do any translations? ...

Those things aren't generally available to the public, and I doubt you'd find a single person in this group (on either side) who has. While I haven't personally translated any ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, I HAVE witnessed Jupiter's moons in orbit... Father Lecazre declared of Galileo, "...his pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation. It casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation." Others declared, "It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the Earth is a planet, and only one among several planets, it cannot be that any such great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam and Eve?" Note that these are the words of church scholars who were likely far more familiar with the Bible and the Vatican archives than you or I.

Being an Literature major in college (University of Michigan, many years ago) I am familiar with Aeosop's fables. I studied Shakespere, Greek Mytholodgy, and had a special concentration in Arthurian Literature (King Arthur). The writings of many great story tellers I have had occassion to read. I am still not sure I get your point.

The Bible is 3 texts in one. A historical text which can be proven or disproven based on archeological evidence. (The evidence suggests it is historically accurate.) A philosiphical treatise, which can never be proven except through argument and thurough examination. And a religious doctrine, which is based on FAITH. A reader of the Bible can and does choose which text they are reading. To some it is simply a history book. To others it is a philosophy. And to others it is the highest recitation of the word of God. For a few it is all three. To some it is none of the above.

Regarding your dismissal of the vast archives at the Vatican and your cavalier attempt to portray a church writings as erroneous. So what. It is not I have that have made your decisions. You have. If you are correct and in no need of salvation, then there is nothing lost. If you are wrong, and have missed an opportunity, then you will come to know of it one day. Either way you do not seem too bothered by your choice, and neither am I. Should you choose to seek out a relationship with your father, he will be there. If not, then that is your choice.

Flash

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/16/2005 09:21:00 PM · #1013

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Thank you for such a helpful response about the Goliath " wood" which is in fact the name Goliath on a piece of pottery which only proves that the name Goliath was in use at this time.

Obviously your "local newspaper" didn't get its fact right when you read about it.

Unfortunately the Ripon Gazette only deals with Ripon events and the Daily Telegraph must have felt there were more important international news to report that day than a piece of pottery being dug up in the Middle East. Silly them, they were probably writing about people dying!
P

The wood vs. pottery was not a mistake of the local paper, but rather my mind being forgetful. I remembered enough of the details (having seen a photograph) to make my point and that was all I truly cared about. You are correct in stating that the proof is ONLY of the name in use, in the area of the biblical story, and during the time period of the biblical passage. As stated else where, belief is a personal choice.

Some will never believe, even in the pressence of miracles.

The name Goliath on a piece of pottery is a miracle? Did I miss something?

Yes you did. Please explain how you concluded that my allusion to miracles had anything to do with the piece of pottery and not to do with the many passages in the Bible refrencing them?

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/16/2005 09:52:35 PM · #1014

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Thank you for such a helpful response about the Goliath " wood" which is in fact the name Goliath on a piece of pottery which only proves that the name Goliath was in use at this time.

Obviously your "local newspaper" didn't get its fact right when you read about it.

Unfortunately the Ripon Gazette only deals with Ripon events and the Daily Telegraph must have felt there were more important international news to report that day than a piece of pottery being dug up in the Middle East. Silly them, they were probably writing about people dying!
P

The wood vs. pottery was not a mistake of the local paper, but rather my mind being forgetful. I remembered enough of the details (having seen a photograph) to make my point and that was all I truly cared about. You are correct in stating that the proof is ONLY of the name in use, in the area of the biblical story, and during the time period of the biblical passage. As stated else where, belief is a personal choice.

Some will never believe, even in the pressence of miracles.

The name Goliath on a piece of pottery is a miracle? Did I miss something?

Yes you did. Please explain how you concluded that my allusion to miracles had anything to do with the piece of pottery and not to do with the many passages in the Bible refrencing them?

Because your post went from discussing the piece of pottery to beleif being a personal choice to miracles? And now I'm completely confused. There are passages in the Bible refrencing pieces of pottery or the miracles?

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/16/2005 10:05:06 PM · #1015

OK, I've seen this thread just keep going, and going, and going like that damn pink rabbit witht the battery in its back, and the base drum on its fat stomach.

All I've got to say it this.

I am ashamed that your a Texan as well. Not because of the unsophisticated backwards thinking of the population. Not because it's a red state. Not because of the unenlightened folk who want to keep America white, straight, an in Iraq.

I am ashamed of one thing about you Texans, and one thing only...

...that is, where in the hell were you Texans when Santa Anna attacked the Alamo, and John Wayne was killed? Or in the 'Cowboys', wasn't he in Texas again, and again was killed? What about 'The Searchers', ok, he didn't die in that movie, but his neice was kidnapped in th territory of Texas!

Hell even in the 'The Green Berets', John couldn't be killed by charlie in a far off land. But in Texas, it seems to me that John Wayne had a tougher time there than any other place in the world.

So to end my "rant",...get off the horse, forget about those people that can't handle change for the better, and start working on a better image for future actors that want to emulate John Wayne, but don't want to end up six feet under in the script.

Off to get a swig of whiskey, pilgrum.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/16/2005 10:19:25 PM · #1016

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

Off to get a swig of whiskey, pilgrum.

Come on over.

11/16/2005 10:50:49 PM · #1017

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

The Duke, a moment of silence please.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/16/2005 11:23:00 PM · #1018

I have enjoyed this thread with a mixture of humor and astonishment at what passes for logic in the minds of some people. Right or wrong, though, I commend them for the strength of their convictions and standing up for their beliefs (unless of course such beliefs lead to detonating an explosive belt in a crowd of civilians). What I do NOT buy is hiding open prejudice under the cloak of religion. If anyone thinks that's not the case here, just follow along...

Texas passes a law banning all forms of union between same sex couples. Why? Are these consenting adult humans hurting anyone or infringing upon the rights of others in any way? The question was asked over and over, and the only answer given is that gay marriage corrupts the definition of marriage as a religious ceremony between a man and a woman, thereby harming the very concept of marriage itself. Exhibit A:

Originally posted by res0m50r:

I find it sort of humorous that so many people are upset that homosexual individuals can not engage in a religious ceremony. If they want to be joined in a civil union then create one for them and stop trying to change a historically proven ceremony into the definition that fits only for man and woman marriage.

OK, so it's acceptable to have a legally binding union between two people of the same sex, we just can't call it "marriage?"

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
So, what harm is there in the State recognizing the right of any two people to enter into the legal contract we now refer to as marriage, and affording them all the legal rights to which they'd then be entitled?

None at all, as long as they don't call it "marriage".

I don't see any other interpretation there. So... the opposition is only to using the religious term "marriage" for this ceremony- not the union itself. It's not so much that gays can't be together, they just can't call it marriage. So far, so good?

Originally posted by RonB:

I am opposed to gay marriage - but I did NOT say that I was opposed to gay unions by a different name.

That seems pretty clear. So now we have to ask why gay marriage is a corruption of the term. Ron and others explain that the reason for this is that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that goes against the bible. The logic is that everyone has a choice. You can choose to lead the virtuous life that the infallible word of God defines as heterosexual, or turn your back on God by choosing a sinful lifestyle that the Bible calls abhorrent. We must assume from this that homosexuality is not a genetic trait or pre-programmed at birth. Nobody is "born" gay because that would imply that God has created an abhorrence, and besides- we all have free will, right? Fine. I won't trot out links to studies showing that homosexuality IS genetic because it will just be countered by studies claiming it's not.

Alrighty then... so then I pose the question "what is the correct moral behavior for someone born transsexual?" I asked the question three times, but nobody wants to touch that one. Gee... I wonder why? They can't claim such people weren't born that way because clearly they were. They can't claim that everyone is free to choose a heterosexual lifestyle for obvious reasons. If everyone is God's creation and there is no possibility of significant "unguided" physical changes (macro evolution), then the idea that God has decreed as abhorrent any union that isn't between a man and a woman goes out the window because a perfect god would have then created an abhorrence or at least denied the promised free will to choose.

I submit from this that the Emperor has no clothes... that any pretense of righteousness in banning gay marriage is imaginary and little more than an excuse to practice prejudice and bigotry.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/16/2005 11:35:26 PM · #1019

Originally posted by scalvert:

Alrighty then... so then I pose the question "what is the correct moral behavior for someone born transsexual?" I asked the question three times, but nobody wants to touch that one. Gee... I wonder why? They can't claim such people weren't born that way because clearly they were.

The Gender Identity Project defines "transexual" within the larger category "transgender" thusly:

Definition of Transgender

GIP, along with many other service providers, uses the term transgender as an umbrella term encompassing a diversity of gender expression including drag queens and kings, bi-genders, crossdressers, transgender people and transexuals.

Transexuals are defined as people who find their gender identity -- their sense of themselves as male or female -- in conflict with their anatomical sex. Some transexuals may live part-time in their self-defined gender. Many desire to live fully in their self-identified gender. Some undergo hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery.

I strongly suspect that virtually everyone who speaks against "gay marriage" out of religious conviction would classify the above within the broader term "homosexuality". Certainly, those who believe that homosexuality is NOT a genetic issue would likewise consider transexuality to be not a genetic issue, and would deny that anyone could be "born" that way, so your argument isn't going to go anywhere IMO...

Robt.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

11/16/2005 11:54:52 PM · #1020

Originally posted by jsas:

You want to go from a hot dog to a taco that is up to you, but don't expect people to accept it.

i would just like to note that this is the funniest thing i have read all day.

whether i "choose" a hot dog or a taco is up to me. i don't give a shit who accepts it. all i expect is not to be discriminated against because i prefer one entree instead of the other.

frankly, who i choose to marry is of no more consequence to anyone else than what i choose to have for dinner. it doesn't affect them one way or the other. why the hell should they care what choice i make?

if you have a moral objection to it, fine. that's YOUR moral objection. if you don't violate it, your morals are still intact. morals are in the eye of the beholder. if you're a vegetarian, you have a moral objection to me eating a cheeseburger. you're not seriously going to try and make cheeseburgers illegal, are you?

let's look at another demographic. rednecks offend me. some might say you're born a redneck, some might say it's a lifestyle choice. either way, they bug me. what the hell do rednecks and homosexuals have in common? what the hell is my point? let's compare stereotypes:

1) they talk funny (gay people: lispy; rednecks: syrupy drawl)

2) they wear wierd clothes (gay people: hotpants; rednecks: spandex. and overalls.)

3) they shop at stores geared especially for them (gay people: abercrombie; rednecks: wal-mart)

4) they congregate in specific geographic regions that are compatible with their lifestyle (gay people: urban areas; rednecks: wal-mart)

5) they only like certain tv shows (gay people: the oc; rednecks: blue collar tv)

6) they have annoying catchphrases (gay people: "girlfriend!"; rednecks: "git 'er done!")

7) they consume tobacco (gay people: camel lights; rednecks: skoal)

8) they do the same thing every sunday (gay people: brunch, preferably somewhere with a bloody mary bar; rednecks: nascar, preferably somewhere with a case of schlitz)

the point is, no matter how much they bug me, i just let them live their lives. i do what i can to avoid them, but i don't actively try to intervene. i don't preach any gospels about the benefits of showering or using proper grammar. i don't promote legislation that forces them to conform to societal norms. i leave them alone. they have their little lives and they really don't affect me at all.

if you want to be straight or gay or a hick or a religious zealot or a vegan, go for it. just don't try to push your views on me. don't try to legislate my life. i've done nothing to harm you. i've not tried to recruit you or hit on you or forced you to go to a margaret cho concert. i just want to live my life the way i see fit. and i just want to have the freedom to determine what "fit" is.

and with that, me and my hot dog are goin' to bed.

res0m50r

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/16/2005 11:59:21 PM · #1021

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Alrighty then... so then I pose the question "what is the correct moral behavior for someone born transsexual?" I asked the question three times, but nobody wants to touch that one. Gee... I wonder why? They can't claim such people weren't born that way because clearly they were.

The Gender Identity Project defines "transexual" within the larger category "transgender" thusly:

Definition of Transgender

GIP, along with many other service providers, uses the term transgender as an umbrella term encompassing a diversity of gender expression including drag queens and kings, bi-genders, crossdressers, transgender people and transexuals.

Transexuals are defined as people who find their gender identity -- their sense of themselves as male or female -- in conflict with their anatomical sex. Some transexuals may live part-time in their self-defined gender. Many desire to live fully in their self-identified gender. Some undergo hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery.

I strongly suspect that virtually everyone who speaks against "gay marriage" out of religious conviction would classify the above within the broader term "homosexuality". Certainly, those who believe that homosexuality is NOT a genetic issue would likewise consider transexuality to be not a genetic issue, and would deny that anyone could be "born" that way, so your argument isn't going to go anywhere IMO...

Robt.

Honestly, I have never seen or heard a documented case of a born transexual? I just haven't given it that much thought and I don't mean this in slight, but rather truly being honest. I did not address your questions because I honestly have not given it much thought before now. Do you have any documentation on a case where someone was born transsexual?

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

11/17/2005 12:00:46 AM · #1022

Originally posted by bear_music:

...those who believe that homosexuality is NOT a genetic issue would likewise consider transexuality to be not a genetic issue, and would deny that anyone could be "born" that way

For the purpose of that post, I am referrring specifically to human beings born with physical male AND female characteristics or indeterminate physical sex.

muckpond

Nikon D200

11/17/2005 12:05:19 AM · #1023

a hot dog AND a taco? i am under the impression that is a hermaphrodite.

i've only ever heard of transsexual in the context of one who believes they are the opposite sex "on the inside" and takes measures to reconfigure the "outside" to match that gender.

then again, i personally think that is a wholly different phenomenon than homosexuality. i've never liked being lumped in with the whole "LGBT" thing because, honestly, i can't even wrap my head around it. i don't have a problem with trannies (as the term goes), i just think they're an entirely different barrel of monkeys.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/17/2005 12:09:27 AM · #1024

Some stats for Prop. 2: Same sex marriage denied legal status

Texas:
EARLY VOTES PERCENT TOTAL VOTES PERCENT

IN FAVOR 505,429 75.93% 1,718,513 76.22%

AGAINST 160,242 24.07% 536,052 23.78%
--------------- ---------------

Total Votes Cast 665,671 2,254,565

Early Provisional Ballots Reported 202

Total Provisional Ballots Reported 2,370

Precincts Reported 7,429 of 7,429 Precincts 100.00%

* Statewide Turnout 17.93% 12,577,545 Registered Voters
--------------------------------------------

my county: (Travis)
IN FAVOR 23,231 44.46% 58,552 46.32%
AGAINST 29,017 55.53% 67,846 53.67%
----------- -----------
Total Votes Cast 52,248 126,398
Early Provisional Ballots Reported 44
Total Provisional Ballots Reported 44
Precincts Reported 262 of 262 Precincts 100.00%
* County Turnout 23.50% 537,774 Registered Voters

Conclusions:
- Travis county is still cool (that's why DeLay risked jailtime to rip it apart and redraw congressional district maps)
- Only 17% of all registered voters determins the fate of all.

The latter is the indicator of ripeness for change in political model. Something needs to give - people are just not interested enough in politics, or are lazy come election day. Democracy as practiced in the US these days has been overgrown for all practical intents and purposes. There must be a way to include more people, e.g. voting over the internet, or some other representative method where majority will decide what goes and what doesn't. 75% of 17% is what, some 13% of the adult voting population of texas that determined what the whole state can and cannot do.

Bogus... something radical needs to happen for the people to get out and vote. And when something radical happens, people will again be blinded by respective party leadership and won't be able (at least 80% in my opinion) to deduce good from bad. E.g. local leaders will come out and tie the issue with either church, morality, terrorism, or party affiliation with all kind of trailing labels, and that would fry the weak brains of voters and coerce them into voting the expected way.

good night!