Prop 8 upheld by CA Supreme Court 6-1 - Page 24 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #231 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 12:51 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
srf25's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2008
Vehicle: 1987 420 SEL Artic White, 1987 260E (RIP), 1993 190E, 1987 560 SEL Artic White (parts)
Location: Dalton, GA
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Reading this thread is hilarious.....better than sex, but maybe I'm not doing it right????
Attached Images
 
srf25 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #232 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 01:04 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65red View Post
I am sure that this will be received as well as my previous comments, but what the heck its my viewpoint.
My comment about the "cycle of life" were in regard to the irrefutable need for procreation, which can only be done natually between a male and female. Male and female were designed (or evolved if that is your belief) to reproduce. The male/female combination is the only human combination that biology proves is viable.

Setting the "what about infertile straight couple" argument aside, for a same sex couples the only way to procreate (without medical assistance) would be outside of the confines of a monogamous relationship.

Hence the comment.

No no need to reiterate the "Contract between to Adults" argument as I understand that this is view of some of the individuals on this forum.
In the big scheme of things, sex is about procreation, of course, but is that true on a personal level? How many times in your life have you had sex in order to reproduce? For the most part, and this encompasses most mammals and then some, offspring are little more than a side-effect of sex. In the end, we pretty much have sex for the same reason we eat.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #233 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 01:13 AM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2008
Location: Denver CO
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
Unfortunately, those two notions stand in some conflict. If you don't interpret literally, you or someone is twisting the meaning to suit a sense of purpose.
Not so. My original comment if read carefully said that you cannot interpret the ENTIRE text literally. You must maintain the context. Just like with any any information, if taken out of context it's just spin.

Many of the books of the old and new testament were written in different styles or genres. Such as Leviticus and Psalms. Leviticus would be interpreted in litteral manner, the book of Psalms on the other hand is written in a more figurative poetic style and could not be interpreted literally.

Quite frankly you dont need a secret decoder ring to understand any of it.
65red is offline  
post #234 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 01:31 AM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2008
Location: Denver CO
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
In the big scheme of things, sex is about procreation, of course, but is that true on a personal level? How many times in your life have you had sex in order to reproduce? For the most part, and this encompasses most mammals and then some, offspring are little more than a side-effect of sex. In the end, we pretty much have sex for the same reason we eat.
There is a distinct difference between behavior and biology. We all know about the birds and the bees. Each time we have sex the body thinks its on active duty, not on an training exercise. The fact that conception occurs on a relatively low rate has direct correlation to the natuaral sex drive. The more sex couples have the better the odds for conception (if everything functions correctly). The human body is soooo complex.
65red is offline  
post #235 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 09:45 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65red View Post
Not so. My original comment if read carefully said that you cannot interpret the ENTIRE text literally. You must maintain the context. Just like with any any information, if taken out of context it's just spin.

Many of the books of the old and new testament were written in different styles or genres. Such as Leviticus and Psalms. Leviticus would be interpreted in litteral manner, the book of Psalms on the other hand is written in a more figurative poetic style and could not be interpreted literally.

Quite frankly you dont need a secret decoder ring to understand any of it.
No you don't. At it's most basic level, the Bible is either the word of god or it isn't. There is no 'word of god but...'. Fundies seem to understand this better than many. By deciding which parts of the text merit literal interpretation, you have superimposed your comfort zone over the word of god.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #236 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 09:48 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65red View Post
There is a distinct difference between behavior and biology. We all know about the birds and the bees. Each time we have sex the body thinks its on active duty, not on an training exercise. The fact that conception occurs on a relatively low rate has direct correlation to the natuaral sex drive. The more sex couples have the better the odds for conception (if everything functions correctly). The human body is soooo complex.
Yes, that was the theme of my post. Icky or not, homosexual behavior is perfectly natural, while at the same time, homosexual biology is completely unproductive.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #237 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 09:48 AM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
cmbdiesel's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2009
Vehicle: 83 300SD
Location: Who want's to know?
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maine_coon View Post
Freaking A.

So many new posters, so many apologies from them.

And I am wasting so much time reading those posts trying to find something close to intelligent.
You reap what you sow.

Sow sorry.

I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. - Dalai Lama
cmbdiesel is offline  
post #238 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 09:51 AM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
cmbdiesel's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2009
Vehicle: 83 300SD
Location: Who want's to know?
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
In the big scheme of things, sex is about procreation, of course, but is that true on a personal level? How many times in your life have you had sex in order to reproduce? For the most part, and this encompasses most mammals and then some, offspring are little more than a side-effect of sex. In the end, we pretty much have sex for the same reason we eat.
Never, responds the father of three

I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. - Dalai Lama
cmbdiesel is offline  
post #239 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 11:17 AM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
I smell justification for the continuance of human life. But what if the continuance of human life is not in jeopardy, as is easily the case today, What if it is historically proven time and again that approximately only 10% of humans typically want to exist in a homosexual relationship? You have touched on it not being natural, but if it isn't spreading, and it isn't contagious, and it injures no one, then what is amiss with it, because you surely are pointing to something foul being afoot with it.
Shane is offline  
post #240 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-30-2009, 01:05 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2008
Location: Denver CO
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane View Post
I smell justification for the continuance of human life. But what if the continuance of human life is not in jeopardy, as is easily the case today, What if it is historically proven time and again that approximately only 10% of humans typically want to exist in a homosexual relationship? You have touched on it not being natural, but if it isn't spreading, and it isn't contagious, and it injures no one, then what is amiss with it, because you surely are pointing to something foul being afoot with it.
Historicall proven? It is a stretch to take studies done in the late 40's (assuming you are citing Kinsey's) and extrapuluate the data to be an all encompassing historical statistic.

Lets start by using the correct statistical data from that study.

Males:

10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55
8% of males were exlusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.
4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews.

Females:

2 to 6% of females, aged 20-35, were more or less exclusively homosexual in experience/response,
1 to 3% of unmarried females aged 20-35 were exclusively homosexual in experience/response

So taking the most recent world population statistic from the United Nations there is a 49.6%/50.4% split of female to male (respectively) combined with the best case(highest) percentage from the study for each sex you would net 8%. Using the worst case scenario(lowest) percentage from the study you would net 6%.

Now considering that the sample was not random, but rather a very targeted sampling of mostly younger white adults with some college education.

Another interesting fact is that the test group was not equal. There were 11% more female test subjects than male. Therefore, statistically the female sampling would have a lower margin of error.(statistically)

Now lets take a modern day study (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005).
The numbers are much different (lower, 2.3% male, 1.3% female) with a much larger, much more diverse sample from multiple regions of the country.

I do believe it is naturally and morally wrong. But as evidenced in my opinions I am biased more by my morals.

Lets not pretend that our morals do not form our opinions. Some will say (based on their morals) that I am narrow minded, a hater, or perhaps many other comments.

They will state these things as though they are completely objective, neutral, and open minded which could not be further from the truth. At least I am honest and recognize that this is my opinion.
65red is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    You be the Supreme Court and decided, Yea or Nay....... Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 3 04-21-2009 09:39 AM
    2nd Amendment upheld by the Supreme Court! Bruce R. Off-Topic 112 07-01-2008 06:06 AM
    Proof of ID to vote upheld by Supreme Court 430 Off-Topic 20 04-28-2008 09:54 PM
    Mann Coulter doesn't like new Supreme Court nominee, so he must be OK FeelTheLove Off-Topic 9 07-20-2005 07:13 PM
    Very significant ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court GeeS Off-Topic 11 02-02-2005 10:24 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome