Pope: Saving world from homosexuality like saving rainforests

[Braunwyn]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Your thoughts and opinions are of no concern to me. Period.

You are the one interested in sticking your nose in other people's marriages, lives, etc. If you don't care what other people think than why bother to overtly discriminate? A couple that wishes to marry is none of your business. capiche?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Time will tell

Remember that separation of church and state thing, you really only want that to mean that the government cannot tell you what to do but yet you can tell them what to do.

The state of CA has already stated that homosexuals are deserving of minority status and their civil rights cannot be denied by the majority hence it is only a matter of time before the US Supreme Court affirms said right.

 

[bsd13]

You really should study genetics as it does not make any case whatsoever for biblical creation nor what you just said.

Noah, and his 3 sons (Shem, Ham and Japheth) along with all their wives were left to repopulate the world after the flood. It stands to reason that it isn't going to trace back to one single point.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Noah, and his 3 sons (Shem, Ham and Japheth) along with all their wives were left to repopulate the world after the flood. It stands to reason that it isn't going to trace back to one single point.

Mitochondrial DNA can actually be traced back to a single point so therefore that is a false assertion.

 

[bsd13]

Remember that separation of church and state thing, you really only want that to mean that the government cannot tell you what to do but yet you can tell them what to do.

That's how the US is setup. The government serves at the will of the people. They do what the people say. Representative democracy and all that noise.

The state of CA has already stated that homosexuals are deserving of minority status and their civil rights cannot be denied by the majority hence it is only a matter of time before the US Supreme Court affirms said right.

Get it before the right group of justices who agree and I'm sure you're correct.

 

[bsd13]

Mitochondrial DNA can actually be traced back to a single point so therefore that is a false assertion.

There wasn't a single point was what I was getting at. Noah + 3 sons + multiple wives each = many different points.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

That's how the US is setup. The government serves at the will of the people. They do what the people say. Representative democracy and all that noise.

Democratic Republic is what the US is set up as so therefore it is setup so that the will of the public is less important than the civil rights of the minority

Get it before the right group of justices who agree and I'm sure you're correct.

The justices that overturned prop 8 were mostly conservative republicans. And our Republican Governor and our attorney general have told the state Supreme Court to overturn prop 8 ASAP.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

There wasn't a single point was what I was getting at. Noah + 3 sons + multiple wives each = many different points.

Wrong, if there were one person such as EVE that everyone descended from then all of the women would have the same genetic markers in the Mitochondrial DNA and that is most certainly not the case, remember that the female is far more important in the genetic makeup of the offspring.

 

[Braunwyn]

Wrong, if there were one person such as EVE that everyone descended from then all of the women would have the same genetic markers in the Mitochondrial DNA and that is most certainly not the case, remember that the female is far more important in the genetic makeup of the offspring.

Remember? hardy har.

 

[bsd13]

Wrong, if there were one person such as EVE that everyone descended from then all of the women would have the same genetic markers in the Mitochondrial DNA and that is most certainly not the case, remember that the female is far more important in the genetic makeup of the offspring.

You think the 20 some odd markers out of the thousands in the dna sequence are enough to discount creation?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Remember? hardy har.

I know most people assume that the male is the dominant factor in the genetic soup that creates the embryo.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

You think the 20 some odd markers out of the thousands in the dna sequence are enough to discount creation?

Do you not grasp the relevance of Mitochondrial DNA, obviously not.

Mechanisms for this include simple dilution (an egg contains 100,000 to 1,000,000 mtDNA molecules, whereas a sperm contains only 100 to 1000).

 

[bsd13]

I know most people assume that the male is the dominant factor in the genetic soup that creates the embryo.

Seems to fit the Biblical account

(Genesis 3:20)
Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

 

[Braunwyn]

I know most people assume that the male is the dominant factor in the genetic soup that creates the embryo.

Well, a person can't remember something s/he didn't know in the first place. Given Adam, Eve, Noah, et al, I'd say the relevant information was lacking to begin with.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Seems to fit the Biblical account

But yet she is not.

 

[roflcopter101]

Sorry, posted in the wrong topic.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

Did I say I did? All Christians have direct access to God. Anyone who accepts Christ has a "license to God".

Actually, I believe anyone has access to God, not just Christians.

You who have made claims to having been a Christian for 20 years, "on fire" I might add, surely recognizes that the Bible disagrees with your statement.

Sorry, but I put the word of God over and above what the government thinks.

I can only think that you're playing willfully ignorant here. I no longer care what the Bible says. And the marriage I speak of is, again, a government institution, not necessarily a church institution. The sooner you realize that the sooner you will cease coming across like a complete hypocrite. Because again, you are trying to use the government to dictate what you see as an institution of God.

The scriptures also spoke at great length about how doing things because you had to do them was meaningless. "Dead works" If the government makes you do something it is dead works. Meaningless.

What business does the government have being involved with legislating anything to do with the Bible? What happened to separation of Church and state? How come you don't seem to have an issue with the government getting itself involved in a Christian institution like marriage? Either they are separate or not.

Then you had better apply that to everything, not just the things you want to apply it to. That includes marriage. Like it or not, marriage is no longer strictly a church institution, it is a government regulated institution. Either call for the abolishment of all government regulation and instution of marriage or stuff it. Anything else, as I have said and demonstrated quite clearly several times now, is complete hypocrisy on your part. If you don't understand that then you're clearly not capable of carrying on this conversation.

And like I said it seems your delivery needs work. I've been very consistent with what I've said. I've maintained all along that forced charity is meaningless to God. Don't believe in God? I'll give you another one to gnaw on; forced charity is entirely against the US's constitutional principles. Especially when that forced charity comes by way of taxation.

Really, it's your comprehension. No one else on this board has trouble reading what I write. It is quite clear to anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension.

As far as my position on marriage goes it is based on the fact that I don't believe the government has ANY business being involved with it. I've spent the vast majority of my life as a heathen and even as one I've always been firmly against the idea of the government having anything whatsoever to do with marriage. That's not changed because I'm a Christian. Government has no business being involved with marriage at any level.

Well, it's good to hear you are against government being involved in the marriage institution. So stop being a hypocrite and start calling for the abolishment of ALL government regulation of marriage, instead of picking on gays. Not too hard, I wouldn't think.

 

[bsd13]

But yet she is not.

If that's your belief, so be it. It's not my concern. You've done nothing to convince me of anything you've said relating to creation, or more importantly that someone who makes the choice to be gay should be allowed to claim marriage from the church.

 

[Braunwyn]

If that's your belief, so be it. It's not my concern. You've done nothing to convince me of anything you've said relating to creation,

mtDNA is traced back tens of thousands of years. Eve/creationism is 6,000 yrs old, no?

or more importantly that someone who makes the choice to be gay should be allowed to claim marriage from the church.

Nobody in this thread has advocated church sanctioned marriage for homosexuals. The argument is about state sanctioned marriage.

 

[bsd13]

Actually, I believe anyone has access to God, not just Christians.



I can only think that you're playing willfully ignorant here. I no longer care what the Bible says. And the marriage I speak of is, again, a government institution, not necessarily a church institution. The sooner you realize that the sooner you will cease coming across like a complete hypocrite. Because again, you are trying to use the government to dictate what you see as an institution of God.



Then you had better apply that to everything, not just the things you want to apply it to. That includes marriage. Like it or not, marriage is no longer strictly a church institution, it is a government regulated institution. Either call for the abolishment of all government regulation and instution of marriage or stuff it. Anything else, as I have said and demonstrated quite clearly several times now, is complete hypocrisy on your part. If you don't understand that then you're clearly not capable of carrying on this conversation.




Really, it's your comprehension. No one else on this board has trouble reading what I write. It is quite clear to anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension.



Well, it's good to hear you are against government being involved in the marriage institution. So stop being a hypocrite and start calling for the abolishment of ALL government regulation of marriage, instead of picking on gays. Not too hard, I wouldn't think.

Your "righteous" indignation is really telling. Fact of the matter is that if I were to sit here and tell you all the things I'm against the government being involved in you would have a fit. In fact I think you've lashed out at me about my belief they shouldn't be involved in charity work.

And just to be clear, I don't believe the government has any business being involved in marriage at all. On any level. I don't believe in tax breaks for married people, I don't believe that a marriage should get you any benefits from the government for any reason.

But the issue at hand was the Pope's statement about marriage needing to be protected. Not how someone feels about the government in general. And like I've said before I agree with the pope on at least this one issue.