Kristen said about 4 hours later

Neither.

I think there is already a trend in motion now with Christians of increasing acceptance of various sexual preferences. There is also the backlash, which tends to throw itself into the spotlight and mar the rest of the world's perception of Christianity. When more evidence comes to light showing that sexual orientation has biological roots, it will both increase tolerance in Christians and set off the zealots.

I can see the argument: Homosexuality is viewed as a defect, and if we can find a treatable defect such as this in a fetus, we should try to correct it. As if they had a heart defect.

The problem I have with this argument is that this "defect" has no bearing on the fetus's viability. We wouldn't reasonably expose a fetus to hormones or some form of surgery (or any other treatment that carries risks) to ensure that he/she would be blonde with no freckles right? That would be unethical. Treating them for sexual orientation is also unethical because it does nothing to increase survival rates. In fact, it would likely decrease it.

Here's a much safer way for Christians to avoid having homosexual children: Christians couples can have genetic testing done, just as they might to see what the risks are of the man and woman producing an albino child or one suffereing from Tay Sachs. If they find that they have a high probability of producing offspring that will be homosexual, then they can either choose to adopt or not to have children at all (through the Natural Family Planning Method, of course). The bible instructs couples to procreate, but then wouldn't it be wrong to knowingly create future homosexuals? Choose the lesser "evil", if you will.

Many Christians forget that claiming to be, identifying with, and/or feeling homosexual is not where the sin lies. It is when someone acts on homosexual urges that it becomes a sin (at least as the bible purports). So theoretically if a homosexual never acts on their desires then they don't sin. Remember that even if we find that homosexuality is biologically based, it still requires a CHOICE to act or restrain oneself. Hey, priests take a vow of celebacy, but we don't take away the choice by castrating them! A person can exist as both a homosexual and a fundamentalist Christian: they just can't participate in homosexual acts if they want to stay in good graces with their religion.

There's plenty of cleptomaniacs out there doing much more damage than homosexuals. I'm sure we could find some organic origins to that disease. So why aren't we trying to isolate that gene and correct it in the womb?

It amazes me that people find homosexuality so grotesque and vile and such a "problem", but adultery, theft, and abuse are hardly blinked at. I'd say adultery is much more detrimental to the institution of marriage, but what are Christians doing to eradicate this problem?

---

GJ said about 7 hours later

Well said, Kristen. I would argue that homosexuality is only a defect in the eyes of someone who believes we must procreate at all costs. If a test is developed that identifies the likelihood of having a gay child as being high, I don't have a problem if a couple decides not to have kids because of that. You know what, though--if a test is developed but can only be run on a fetus...it makes you wonder if the Christians will soften their stance on abortion. :)

---

Geoff said about 17 hours later

To play Devil adovocate...adultery, theft, and abuse are not biological "problems"...where as homosexuality is to some peoples eyes. Personally, I'd rather have a heterosexual child than a homosexual for a number of good reasons. One being the simple fact that procreation IS embedded in our DNA. We want to pass our legacy on to our children, and our children's children. I don't care what anybody says, human existence relies on natural procreation (for the time being)...and if we were all homosexuals, well the future of the human race wouldn't look so bright.

Now, not that I have a problem with homosexuals, in fact I had a friend in college who was one.

I would rather my child not be persecuted for his/her sexual orientation (they are going to have bad teeth, bad skin, and vertically challenged...thats plenty enough!). I would also want them to be able to have children of their own naturally. Would I still love them regardless of their orientation, of course.

So, what if I could do something about it before birth. Well to be honest, if there were little or no risk, I would have them "fix" the problem. While I don't think homosexuals are going to hell or anything like that, if I wanted a girl, I'd want her to be female and vice versa.

Whether that is politically correct or not, I don't care, just being honest.

---

Kristen said 1 day later

I'm glad to hear that you are tolerant, but you still call it a "problem" that could use an easy fix.
My hope is that in time less people will see it as a problem.

True, human existence relies on natural procreation for the most part. With an explosion of population growth over the past 2 centuries, I don't think we need to worry. And if it comes down to it, homosexuals can reproduce naturally. There probably wouldn't be so many if they couldn't. If the human race were at stake, I'm sure they would find a way to contribute.

I too would rather not have a child that is homosexual. I'd also rather not have a child that is from a minority group, or a child with a developmental disability or deformity. How selective are we going to be when we reproduce? You can get an amnio to try to test for some abnormalities, but they have a lot of false positives. It scares me to think of people going out of their way just to test for homosexuality, and the possible consequences. Imagine what will happen if the procedure doesn't work. Will people sue? Is there a way to prove that it even worked? I doubt it. What if there's a side effect? Could you live with yourself if you made your child infertile or blind or retarded, just trying to keep them from being gay?!

I can't think of many in utero treatments with little or no side effects...

---

Geoff said 1 day later

I don't know enough about utero treatments to make any quality statements about the reliability, but assuming these side effects didn't exist, I think the child selection process is going to grow. "Build your baby"...which I should trademark so I can market it in 30 years hahaha. Genetic engineering will continue to grow, and eventually tap into all kinds of great and scary things.

A good question I have for homosexuals is does a homosexual male see himself as a girl, or still a "guy" and vice versa. I'd be interested to see how they view themselves and also if they wish they could change.

One last thing...for those really flaming homosexuals (males...I don't see it in females), they really need to lay off, holy crap. They can be so annoying you want to slap them...or at least I do...but then again, I was always taught not to hit a girl.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Gays do not see themselves as inverted straights, Geoff. Some are girly, some are masculine. Funny, straight people are like that too.

As for the whole idea of procreation being burned into our genese...let's not forget that gays are quite capable of having sex in a way to build babies. :) However, in a world where there is an overabundance of babies, you can expect homosexuals to thrive, since their procreation is not needed for species survival.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

You show me a straight guy who can dress well, flail his arms around like girl, and speak 12 octaves higher, and I might believe your first statement. Unless they are purposefully hiding in the closet, many appear to me as women in men's clothing. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule.

All-in-all...I still consider myself tolerant of them, I just think it is strange because it is "different". My friend wasn't an outspoken flailing freak. He was fine to talk to and I enjoyed his company. The outspoken (thhhhhssssttoooopp) can drop off the planet for all I care. That is more of a personality trait than a sexual orientation though. What they do behind closed doors is their business. :)

---

GJ said 2 days later

My gosh, Geoff, you believe the stereotypes, don't you? You know more gays than you realize. You're only seeing the ones that meet your narrow stereotype.

I think you're confusing transvestites with gays. Transvestites are almost always hetero for some reason, but they like the opposite sex's clothing...a lot! They may indeed imagine themselves as the opposite sex.

So...I dunno if you're as tolerant as you believe yourself to be. Consider the following: would you care if your child's teacher was gay? Bus driver? Coach?

---

Kristen said 2 days later

You know what I always thought was kind of weird? Those "flamers" don't really act like women, in my opinion. At least I hope I don't talk and walk that way--and the wrist thing? Where did that come from? I'm tempted to say that maybe there are more than 2 genders...

I have another thought to put out there: Why is homosexuality so prevelant in prison? I can't help but wonder if sexuality, while based in genes (like your personality), is impacted by your environment. Not that I would know this, but I'm guessing that most of those behaviors in prison are linked with power struggles and humiliation.

---

GJ said 2 days later

Is it prevalent in prison? Can you point me to a study that shows this?

---

Geoff said 2 days later

I personally wouldn't care if my child's teacher was gay, so long as he/she was a good teacher. I've had gay professors at RIT and had no problem with them. A coach, yes I would have a problem. You wouldn't want your child changing in the opposite sex's presence would you? I wouldn't want my son changing in front of a gay man, just like I wouldn't want him changing in front of a female coach. Would you?

And yes, I do consider some stereotypes. I see what I see and hear what I hear, however misguided that may be. Unless I see proof otherwise, I am content with the way I think. There are exceptions to the case, but to be honest...if any of you found yourself in a bar surrounded by blacks...you couldn't tell me you wouldn't feel uncomfortable. I do hope that changes in time, but it won't change you or I...just our children's children. Oh and if you say it wouldn't bother you...you lie.

---

GJ said 2 days later

If I was in a bar "surrounded" by anyone I'd be concerned. However, what am I to assume will be different if they are black vs. asian vs. american indian vs. gay? I think you meant this: what if I was surrounded by a bunch of boyz from the hood?

Got news for you--they're just as likely to be asian or hispanic as black. It's not a race thing--it's an income disparity thing.

Try living in the South, dude...black population saturation is far higher than in the lily-white North. You see just how prejudiced you are when you're surrounded by middle-class blacks.

Now, changing in front of the opposite sex--nope, I don't have a problem with it. We're a nation of prudes, and that excuse doesn't wash for me.

Me, yeah, I'm guilty of stereotyping...usually do it to Christian and Muslim fundamentalists (i.e., they're all brainless sheep). However, I do what I can to keep it from influencing how I deal with individuals.

Let's go back to gays for a minute. Exceptions to the rule? How many gay people have you known? 3? 5? 10? How many do you think live in the New York alone? Are you familiar with statistics? It's hard to generalize with such a small initial population. Methinks you're using TV as your source of gay behavior. Not a good place to do your people research, imho.

---

Geoff said 2 days later

Right, the problem isn't with race, I know that, but we are judgemental people. I try not to judge people based on how they look, but if I show you a picture of a black, or white, or hispanic who looks from the hood, chances are by just seeing their picture, our brain automatically thinks criminal. Thats likely due to how and where we were raised. Eminem, being white but growing up in poverty, would probably see him as a struggling "brother" ...blah blah blah. But I digress, back to gays for a moment.

I haven't done any research on gays so I have no clue on the statistics, thus why I ask proof. I generalize gays because I don't know enough about them, same with blacks, hispanics, fat people, midgets, etc... Not something I'm particular proud of, but I still do it and I would agree many other people do as well. I draw from my experiences, which yes, does include television, but also where I went to school, where I grew up, etc... and there weren't too many gays, and the ones that were, were flamboyant or obviously "gay." So I just assume that is nature of most of them. Same assumptions for other people who aren't like me.

Quick jump back to the prude thing...you yourself may be comfortable changing in front of the other sex, but what about your children? You think they would be just as comfortable? You think there should be a coed bathroom? It's a touchy topic when you toss gay's in the picture you know? There are many people (especially young teens) who are self-conscious and I bet it would have some effect on them undressing in front of a gay counterpart. Running through their head, "why is he/she looking at me?" How do you know it is just a normal look like two straight males and not something else. If I knew a hideous girl was chasing after me, I surely wouldn't want to be forced to change in front of her. Same goes for a gay guys. And seeing as you've established gays are just like straight people, then this situation could very well happen. I'm just saying it's throwing new variables into the situation, I'm not saying we toss gays in concentration camps. I may have some German in me, but I haven't gone Nazi! Yeeeehaw.

---

GJ said 3 days later

Coed bathrooms! yea, now you're talkin'!!!!

Self-consciousness is taught---by the prudes.

---

Geoff said 3 days later

Who you calling a prude? :)

---

Kristen said 4 days later

If we start having co-ed bathrooms I ain't gonna share one with either of you, that's for sure!

---

Geoff said 4 days later

Prude!

---

GJ said 4 days later

Hahahaha

---

Steve said 12 days later

Damn, looks like I missed a good one. Burn 'em all, I tell you!!

---

Geoff said 12 days later

lol!

---

GJ said 13 days later

no worries, I'm sure to find some more to argue about. I seem to recall Steve and Geoff aren't too bad at this, either.

Geoff said 28 minutes later

Good lord, The New Republic eh? Been there, done that. Funny how their tremendous research and this giant article was timed precisely to the day of the New Hamsphire primary....hmmm.. Funny thing is, this shit is old and was already rebuked by Paul back in 1999 on the House floor. He didn't write this garbage and the loons that did were fired. Yes he should have proofed every darn article distributed in his name (and there were many), and he has taken responsibility for that, but he never wrote it and anyone who has actually listened to the man speak knows this stuff wouldn't come out of his mouth.

Funny how people need to go back decades to find any substance of garbage on Paul...while may other candidates you can go back, oh I don't know, a week? Why don't we ask Hilary to cough up ALL of those old Clinton administration documents since we are on the topic of sifting through old stuff.

This white supremacist stuff is crap...I love how they singled out 1 donor of over 50,000, and then they have the nerve to tell Paul to give the money back to the Supremacist group? I loved his answer to that one.

---

Steve said about 4 hours later

Who cares, Ron Paul ain't getting elected. He's sucked at the primaries so far, and I don't expect him to do much better anywhere else. Well, maybe in some of them southern redneck states, but that's not enough to win the nomination.

I'm pissed. First, I go and get an absentee ballot. Then, after I receive it, I hear that the parties are skipping Michigan, so my vote would be worthless. Now I read that the Republican party is actually going to count the votes in Michigan! Argh!!!!! And of course, I don't have access to that absentee vote anymore. Grrrrrrr......

---

GJ said about 6 hours later

Yes, of course....some of his people wrote it, ghost wrote it for him, without his knowledge or support. Yep, that old, tired excuse. Of course, there are a bunch of articles with this theme, and he was totally unaware of them.

But yes, what Clinton administration documents are we talking about? Whitewater? Vince Foster? Bring it on, baby. You know the GOP will try (and fail) yet again. Muwhahaha.

---

GJ said about 6 hours later

From Orac's blog...which Geoff apparently didn't think hold any water:
>>>
And Paul's denial that he had anything to do with the newsletter published in his name is truly laughable:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'"

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary."

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

So let's see. There's no two ways about it: Either Paul is lying, or he's just admitted that he's the sort of person who should never be elected President. After all, he just admitted in a press release that he's so careless that he didn't bother to read the newsletter printed in his name for two decades. Even if Paul is not a racist homophobe and militia nut, at the very least he is guilty of hiring racist homophobes and militia nuts to write his newsletters and then failing to supervise them, and then not disavowing what was said in them for years until, of course, he decided to run for President. How convenient. These are not qualities I'm looking for in a President. It's also particularly telling that Paul has refused to release these newsletters to the press;
>>>

Why anyone even thinks this guy says anything worthwhile is a mystery to me. Oh wait, it's not. It's called the cult of personality.

---

GJ said about 6 hours later

Oh, and try this one post on for size: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Geoff, would you care to say that these bills were among Ron's finer works of political art? As conservative as Steve is, I'm betting he finds the majority of these pretty nasty, too.

---

Geoff said about 8 hours later

Pretty nasty? He is against Abortion, clearly. So what else is new? Though he does not want to have the Federal Government to decide this, except for perhaps 3rd term pregnancies. You can actually dive in more detail with him on this in an interview with the loonies on The View...who spent their whole conversation on this topic. He is for a gold standard...which makes more sense to me than printing money out of thin air wouldn't you think? I mean we did this up until 1970. Not to mention the Canadian dollar is now worth more than ours, but who cares, print away!

These people are no different than the "Paulities" as i think they call them, or Rondroids. It doesn't matter what Paul says or does, they hate him. They hate him because he is a strict constitutionalist, but when he strays a bit from a totalitarian constitutionalist for things he believes in strongly, oh well holy hell, this man is a fake, a liar, a nut job. So IMO, they are no different than the people who hold Paul on a pedastal.

I tossed my hat in with Paul simply on the belief that we need fundamental change in this country and no other candidate proposes nearly the change Paul does. Abortion is the least of our worries IMO. I never said I agreed with all of his opinions, but this man is no idiot. Before we throw stones in glass houses, take a serious look at what your other fellow politicians have sponsored. I bet we can conjure up a list 2 or 3x this length on any other candidate...and not to mention some great character attributes and baggage some of these other characters come with.

Instead of providing me with a giant list of garbage, how about you pick a particular bill that Ron supported or co-authored, and lets take a serious look at it and see just how "crazy" it really is. That to me, is a better forum for discussion myself.

---

GJ said about 16 hours later

A giant list of garbage sums up the bills Paul authored or co-sponsored rather nicely. :) But when I get some time later, I'll do exactly that and dissect one of these pieces of garbage for you. However, let's review a quote of yours:

"I tossed my hat in with Paul simply on the belief that we need fundamental change in this country and no other candidate proposes nearly the change Paul does"

In effect, no matter what demons Paul brings along, because he is promising the most change, he's your man. Darcy will love this next line: Hitler was elected by the people, on a change for change's sake platform. Was that a responsible vote by the Germans who voted for him in spite of his demons? Now, I'm not saying Paul is the next coming of Hitler, mind you. However, his platform is nothing more than irresponsible change, and additionally he has some serious fairy tale issues. Gold standard anyone?

Drastic change generally causes more trouble than it solves. Of course, the young still see it as viable--let's just give the country a reboot! There's too much wrong to salvage! Besides, the form of government that saw us rise to prominence in the world is obviously fatally flawed, we should have never moved beyond the cotton and tobacco industries as our primary sources of income!

---

Geoff said about 20 hours later

Ok I keep hearing the media tell me the gold standard is a fairy tale...beyond saying its a fairy tale, I'd love to hear them give reasons for this, and why it is better to print money out of thin air. And then justify how our current fiscal policies, which are oh so great, have lead to the dramatic decrease in the dollar and the huge increase in our deficit.

What i enjoy most is people complaining of Paul's ideas and solutions to these problem, but not providing solutions of their own that may be better? Ignoring the problem isn't a solution either. I think that is an even better forum, rather than just ripping Paul apart. Let's visit specific problem areas, and see who has the best solution. We obviously know pretty much where Paul stands, what does Hilary or Obama think about the growing deficit and the value of our dollar? I haven't heard boo by either about these topics...except a few dodges from Hilary, thats about it. I'm sure they must have some solution, somewhere, I just can't find it.

---

GJ said about 20 hours later

So, list the problems you think we should solve.

I'd throw in the following:

1. fair / open trade with all other countries--how do we keep the trade imbalances in check, and ensure the market is fair for all parties?
2. regulation--how do we keep red tape to a minimum, but keep businesses playing honest with their customers, employees, and the localities they exist in?
3. education--how do we educate our population in the best way possible, without the influence of politics or religion?
4. science--how do we keep politics and religion out of this, too, yet keep it the envy of the world? Should we help fund it, or make it survive only as a business function?
5. personal rights--how should these be redefined in today's world? Is your right to privacy intrinsically tied to being free in a free country?

That's just a start...I'm sure I can come up with lots more. :)

---

Geoff said about 21 hours later

Nice, this is what I like to see. I'll add to this l8r when clients aren't kicking my butt.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Just to add to the original posting of this article...it looks like it is gaining some more publicity as it is now the top read political article on CNN.com. This will likely put Ron out of business I imagine, or perhaps have blowbacks like the Fox news exclusion did, though not likely :)

---

GJ said 1 day later

it's hitting the mainstream press and staying there because there's more than just rumor to it. politicians are never very good at the fess-up game--one need only to look at Larry Craig for a recent example of this.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Listen to this interesting tidbit...at least one possible case of voter fraud in NH against Obama and Paul:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=moay6TFSVGg

---

GJ said 1 day later

from no better source than talk radio. ok. grain of salt taken.

---

Geoff said 2 days later

We'll see on Wednesday if a recount is held. Both Kucinich and another Republican nobody have put in an initial $2000 deposit to have a recount. While I'm certain it won't make much of a difference, hopefully it will encourage future primaries, aka Florida, to be real careful.

---

GJ said 3 days later

Need I remind you that Florida has its own FARK tag? :)

Geoff said 21 minutes later

amazing.

---

GJ said 34 minutes later

And no, I'm not saying all Christians are like this. Just the ones I really dislike. :)

Very, very telling when she said something to the effect of "it's dangerous for the young to even hear of atheist viewpoints." Just how solid IS her faith? Or, more like, her faith in others to believe the way she does? :)

---

Steve said about 6 hours later

Oh God, not again....

---

Geoff said about 7 hours later

it's just our regular sermon...just be glad we don't preach it every Sunday.

---

GJ said about 9 hours later

muwhahahah.

C'mon, this is a crazy person. If I find a crazy atheist, I'll post him or her. :)

---

GJ said about 22 hours later

And now, after a week of bad press, she apologizes, saying "Geez, I was having a really bad day."

Nope, sorry, you're just a freaking nutjob, especially given that you can't manage to take back what you said as being totally full of blind rage and hate. It's like Mel Gibson claiming he only spewed those anti-Semetic rants when he was drunk. Sure, right.

And here it is--my point to the whole thing. In this wonderful country of ours, you cannot and should not be forcing your belief system on others. You're free to believe as you so choose (or not believe, if you so choose), and your choice in that matter should not weigh in on any public matter, period. Obviously, if your belief goes a little beyond civil law (think of that Jeffs dude and that major bust down south of the fundamentalist Mormon enclave), well, then, your right to believe isn't limitless. :)