Would you date a Transgender?

The Mayor can do many things.

Making a rock defy gravity isn't one of them. Teaching the religiously deluded how truth is determined is another.

You want to pretend evolution isn't an observed fact? Go ahead.

You want to pretend the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection isn't the first Cornerstone Theory of the life sciences? Go ahead. No other scientific theory comes close to explaining observations.

Explain how your blind religious dogma is superior to the blind religious dogma of the foolish cannibalistic socialists presently destroying this country because their masters tell them it's a good thing. Try to get back on topic in the process.

 

I think people are doing more harm than good by encouraging this behavior.

 

AH. you have found a lone dissenting voice. You can probably find a Biologist whop beleives in creationism if you try hard enough

 

And you will be hard pressed to find a scientific proof that transgender is physical condition based in physiology, and not psychology.

 

So explain the undeveloped hypthalamus found in Transgendered m-f s. That not in your bible?

 

Not that any of this has anything to do with my liking of and prescribing to the three quotes in my signature, BUT...

There is proof that Franklin and Jefferson were both Christians, while Paine was a deist (who previously had been a Christian). Franklin, while friends with Paine, even wrote him a dissenting letter about Paine's Age of Reason, questioning his belittlement of organized religion. Jefferson even founded a Christian University (University of Virginia), albeit a trans-denominational (not specific to any one denomination) one. Jefferson was a Christian, but a non-denominational Christian who attended many Christian churches on a regular basis - every Sabbath that he could. He wasn't an atheist or a deist (as liberals love to believe).

If anything could be said of Jefferson on religion, it's that he detested the Church(es) and religious institutions, but embraced Christianity (the belief in God and Jesus). He even donated to the Bible Society of Virginia in order to fund the distribution of Christian Bibles to the poor.

Jefferson and Franklin both questioned the divinity of Christ, which doesn't make them non-Christians... it just makes them pragmatic and reasonable. As Jefferson is famously quoted, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

If they weren't Christians (and merely deists), they would not have studied from the Bible, wouldn't have professed an adoration of Jesus' moral system and religion, and would not have attended Christian churches on a regular basis to worship. You could argue that they were Christian Deists.

On the Bible in schools:

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying "The Bible is the source of liberty. I have always said, and I always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens."

In 1782, Congress endorsed Robert Aiken's Bible for use in public schools.

In 1804, Thomas Jefferson was elected to the DC Public School Board, and served as Board President for 4 years, where he required the Public School system to use the Bible and Watt's Hymnal for teaching students to read. ("Public Schools of Washington, 1805-1885" in the *Records of the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D.C., Vol. 1, p.119-170) *Available in print format

Washington was possibly the most religious of the three... and devoutly Christian.

Quotes of the Founders on Jesus, Christianity & the Bible

Lies.

From Thomas Jefferson's A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments (Chapter LXIV1 ):

Sect. XIV.

"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape,2 [polygamy,1 ] or sodomy2 with man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration,3 if a woman, by boring4 through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."

Both married women, of whom they were faithful to, neither condoned or practiced adultery and there's no proof or substantiated evidence of Jefferson having a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings (the slave you're referencing) or having several children with her.

Lies. Conservatives believe in morals (as they always have). Homosexuality and homosexual acts are arguably immoral. This country was based on the morals and principles found within the confines of Christianity, which makes the case that homosexuality is immoral. Marriage has always been defined (until recently) as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

That being said, Conservatives have always been for the freedom of all people, not specific sects of people, such as the liberals. If a law is passed, it should be applied to all citizens - man, woman, homosexual, sexual and asexual.

You are correct about Paine. While an ardent fighter for freedom/liberty and originally an economically senseful man, which is seen in Common Sense, her certainly takes a turn into the realm of Social Justice, before it was cool.

It's taken me literally 8hrs (off and on, in-between working), to find/read these links. I do hope you read them and not just shrug them off... That would be highly annoying.

 

What I find ironic is how Evolutionists/Darwinists/Pretenders of Science denigrate those of the religious variety for having faith in a God that created Heaven and the Earth, and all those things residing on it. You claim that you're so open-minded, because you accept Evolution as fact, but how open-minded can you possibly be, if you immediately refute the existence of God and belittle those who do have faith that God exists? Faith in God doesn't require evidence... it requires spiritual belief and an openness to accept that not everything can be explained, despite some humans believing they can.

Evolution cannot be observed... nor has it ever been. The idea of evolution can be explained (through non-scientific theory), but that's it. There's nothing in our fossil record that can prove the occurrence of evolution. You can pretend that Evolution is scientific and meets the scientific requirements to be a Scientific Theory... but that would be factually and scientifically incorrect. You can pretend... but just realize that pretending isn't real life.

Natural Selection by Survival of the Fittest... This exists, but it doesn't explain evolution. Just ask the Dodo Bird, Sabretooth Tiger, Mammoth and the Dinosaurs. They call it extinction for a reason.

Here's a question for you... If you believe in evolution and natural selection, then why all the worry about Polar Bears and the like? I assume that since you're a believer in Evolution, you must also believe that humans can manipulate the weather and cause man-made global warming. Adding onto this point, why the need for an "Endangered Species Act?" These endangered species have been selected by nature to die, or rather "evolve." Right?

I'm curious... what replaces the Polar Bears when they evolve? Has the evolution taken place yet? They're just about extinct (according to environmentalists - another lie), so I assume they must be on the precipice of an evolutionary breakthrough. Same with the Orangutan. Do you think with their next step, they'll be able to communicate with Homo sapien sapiens?! What a wonder that would be.

Your entire theory of evolution is dependent upon a random act in the universe that sparked life in a single-cell anomaly. This single-celled organism then evolved into 5 different multi-cellular being, creating 5 different phylums, in water... Eventually, these all evolved... The Oceans were filled with life, then these lifeforms, over millions of years grew into a variety of different creatures, like insects, fish, amphibians and reptiles... Eventually, these all evolved... except for sponges, jellyfish, sharks, alligators, crocodiles, horseshoe crabs, some shrimp, and a multitude of other species... fish grew legs and started to walk on land as amphibians and reptiles... Then amphibians and reptiles evolved into amphibians, reptiles, and mammals... thus creating (I mean, evolving) the amazing number of different species we have in our taxonomic database.

Yep, all plausible. No magic there. I find it funny how we still have many animals present today that were here hundreds of millions of years ago. Kinda' throws a wrench into things, doesn't it?

 

I don;t brush things off. I don;t have the time you have but I do appreciate the time you have spent. Most conservatives here just shout abuse and refuse to debate (as do most progressives for that matter) I am a classic liberal. Paine Jefferson Franklin (as well as Locke, bentham,ricardo, smith and many more ) are my Heroes these come from the liberal canon (othying to do with Progressivism thouigh which has a different pedigree)

Firstly Jefferson certainly was a Christian in the 18th century -no doubt about that. However if someone was writing about me - a professed atheist- then they could -using your method claim i was a Christian because I went to a seminary in my twenties and intended to become ordained. His veiws change substantially post 1805

Franklin was certainly a sexual libertine as his period in France testifies.

lastly and this is what is most important. you quote:

I have an issue with your use of Liberal here however I understand that by liberal you mean progressive My use of Liberal is the European one and it refers to rights being accrued to individuals. I know that Progressives deny individual rights -to me they are paramount.

However conservatives have constantly tried to deny rights to Gay people and to women. They opposed giving women the vote, they opposed equal pay legislation. Conservatives wanted to keep homosexuality as a criminal offence they still oppose gay marriage. As a Liberal I want everyone to have the same rights.

Actualluy I think marriage should not be a state issue at all. Anyone should be able to enter into a civil partnership given certain conditions being met so that the civil partner accrues various legal benefits as next of kin but marriage as a celebration or religious sacrament should be an entirely separate affair .

 

Because open-minded people look at all the evidence.

For example, the Bible must be inerrant because it requires the Believer to accept the ridiculous notion of virgin birth. However, the Flood of Genesis and the Noah's Ark story are simple myths, and not a factual historical reality. Ergo, the Bible has untruths in it. Hence the notion of virgin birth must be called into question.

As for the Creation story in Genesis, that's a pretty good fireside tale for ignorant nomads resting up after a day of chasing sheep. It's not sufficient for anyone living in the 21st century, what with their access to real cosmology and other sciences and all.

Because the OBSERVED FACTS of evolution refute the biblical mythology of Creation, the facts win, the mythology doesn't.

 

opposed equal pay legislation...that's a fascist issue, not a "liberal in the old sense" issue.

Got any idea who is SUPPOSED TO determine what an employee gets paid? No. The correct answer is the employer. He makes an offer, the prospective employee decides to reject and re-negotiate, or accept. The government has no lawful or moral role, none whatsoever, in the process. If a woman accepts a lower offer than a man, that's her choice.

Her body, her choice, right?

The gay rights issue?

Currently in the United States normal people with religious convictions are being convicted under state law for "violations of civil rights" by exercising their own freedom to refuse to provide services to same-sex marriages. They're under no moral obligation to provide service to anyone they don't wish to. Their body, their choice, right? But the unhappy little gays are upset that some people dare refuse to accept their perversions, and they sue because some states don't have laws that protect the individual. There are always either other bakeries, other florists, and other photographers to take part in their wedding, and even if they were refused all across the board, they have no RIGHT to wedding cakes, flowers, or photography, just as they have no right to health care, as the Fascist In The White House said yesterday.

Whose freedom is violated when the State arrogates the immoral authority to MANDATE individual actions?

Old school liberals oppose punishing people who stand on their freedom to refuse.

That's fine. Agreement there. But follow the chain of consequences here in the United States and see where the fascists once again violate freedoms as a result.

The Mayor once owned a bakery specializing in wedding cakes, his wife did the baking and decorating. We sold plenty of wedding cakes to same sex couples. We were in the business of selling food, not imposing morals. Other people see their lives and their businesses differently, and they should not be punished for exercising their own freedoms.

 

No, they're just clearly disgusting to normal mentally healthy people. However, if two adults consent, and there's no hamsters involved, they can do whatever they wish to each other and it's perfectly moral.

 

What is disgusting about them?

 

Not no, but HELL no. #sorrynotsorry

 

I wouldn't have guessed that from your signature. Thank you for clarifying where your principles lie. I have called myself a "classic liberal," in the past, but I find that since progressives have taken to the dictionary to re-define some words, doing so only becomes confusing.

I can understand that. However, Jefferson by the end of his days was certain a Christian Deist, not just a Deist. He questioned the divinity of Jesus, but followed in his footsteps, because he believed in the same principles as Jesus. The same holds true for Franklin.

I've yet to see this evidence. Have you ever read The Real Ben Franklin? He was actually very fond of his wife and missed her greatly, while he was in Paris. While there were many rumors of his sexual deviancy, there's no proof that I've seen. He did take air baths, though... which could be argued as strange.

Then we are in agreement.

I disagree with this idea. The passing of laws that only benefit a certain grouping of people is inherently progressive and less classically liberal. All laws should be applied to all people, not specific sects.

John Adams wrote of voting: "Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level."

What he says makes sense, to a degree. Obviously, I don't agree that certain peoples should not be allowed to vote, based on color of skin or sex, but I do agree that only those who contribute to society should partake in the election process. What have we seen, as the country has progressed? Some good legislation (votes for blacks and women) and some bad (votes for young "adults," who are 18 or older). He was right. Progressives are still pushing for further legislation to allow more people to vote, such as prisoners in jail and illegal immigrants. When does it end? Essentially, this is Democracy in action, not a Republic.

I agree that it shouldn't be a state issue. To extend on that point, I don't think it should be a federal issue, either. The government should have absolutely no say in the religious institution of marriage. Tax incentives should not be given to married couples, marriage licenses should not have to be distributed, etc. I have proposed this idea to someone who was gay - do away with all of it and keep it confined to religious institutions, before, but he declined. It's not about equality... it's about power. He wanted the tax credits and to use government to force others to recognize his choices. There is no compromising with tyrants.

 

If they did, they wouldn't put so much faith in Evolution and they wouldn't denounce religion without seeking further answers. Have you ever taken a look at Biblical Archaeology?

Ridiculous notion = a miracle. Who said the flood of Genesis was a myth? I'm not suggesting I have evidence to say that it's not, but who's your authority on the subject, declaring that it is an outright myth?

I agree that the creation story is silly, just as the creation stories in other religions are silly. However, that doesn't refute the idea of creation.

No, they don't. Faulty dating methods and a questionable fossil record are at most, observed facts of fossilization, mineralization, petrification, death and possible age of the specimens found and surrounding strata.

 

I hate having to agree with you... How could someone so deluded with faux science have common sense when it comes to political science? ;]

 

Moral in your sense... not in mine. Disgusting either way.

 

It is progressive but it is also conservative. I see conservatives an progressives as being inherrantly collectivist

Why is it bad to allow 18-21 year olods to vote? They pay taxes, they serve in the Military at that age.

hang on a minute there is a reason we need Civil partnership - to give next of kin rights , to ensure proper division of property. If a person is in hospital then their partner should have rights precedence over familly such as a parent or sibling.

Religious ceremonies should have no legal ramifications whatsoever. You should be able to be legally un partnered but religiously married and vice versa

- - - Updated - - -

Again to major and Kevin

what is disgusting about what gay people do?

 

That's a bit extreme. In my opinion, Progressives are collectivists... but Conservatives (at least Constitutional Conservatives) are the exact opposite.

In theory, it should be fine... In reality, 18-21yr olds are relatively immature, don't pay attention to politics and are typically uninformed.

People used to work at the age of 13 in this country... should they have been given the right to vote?

Next of kin rights... Why don't we just start writing wills again?
For children, parents take precedence. For adults... you should be allowed to choose who takes precedence, but that shouldn't depend on your marriage/civil union.

Legally un partnered? What do you mean by this? Do you mean divorce for civil unions? I don't believe in civil unions or homosexual marriage, so you're barking up the wrong tree here. Marriage is a religious institution, so I'm not sure why any atheists, etc. would want to bother with civil unions or marriages. Take away government benefits for these unions and what incentive would there be? As for homosexuals... if they want to marry, why don't they just create a religious institution for homosexuals? Then they can marry whoever they want.

The unnatural act of sodomy to show some modicum of love for one another is disgusting to me. The sheer kissing of a man and a man makes me shudder. I have nothing against homosexuals... In fact, my brother in law is gay and lives with his partner in LA. However, I do not agree with his lifestyle and I do believe that there's a chemical imbalance involved that could be corrected with psychological or psychiatric help. The fact that progressives have argued for its normalcy is troubling, because it doesn't address the problem. It just makes the abnormal normal... when it could probably be corrected.

That doesn't mean to say that we should force homosexuals to get help, but I think it's important to distinguish what's normal and what's not. What's next? Is pedophilia going to be normalized?

 

No I wouldn't. I had one as a room mate once. She was crazy, but nice.

 

Certainly. If I honestly believe I am Justin Bieber, why should I not be entitled to the royalties my name generates? Who is anyone to tell me I'm not Bieber?

Science or activism? Most people who attempt to use science to push a political agenda suck at understanding the difference between the two.

 

Do you have the genetic makeup of Justin Bieber?

 

Does a transgender person have the genetic makeup of the other sex? I rest my case.

 

perhaps we are using conservatives in a different way but I am using it to describe those who think that the state should legislate on social issues in order to control people. Conservatives tend to be extremely authoritarian.

I find the vast majority of people typically uninformed and that includes many politicians.However I have no real objection to a higher voting age

This refers to people in Hospital.

The civil union establishes it by right.

No I mean where someone has been married in a church but has not become joined in a legal sense.

Marriage is for you a religious institution. In many cultures it isn't.in may countries you are married in front of the mayor or his or her deputy.

I utterly reject the idea that you need to beleive in a deity to get married.

Most sodomy, if you are referring to Anla sex, happens between heterosexuals. I am completely straight and I enjoy it with women who also enjoy it. There is nothing the average gay couple do that I have not done with women. Do you abhor oral sex too?

I wouldn;t like to do it either. lots of things make me shudder-eating meat for instance, watching cruelty is another.

Funny how the psychiatric profession profoundly disagrees with that and that its practioners are all fundamentalist christians without any psychiatric training. I suppose you think god heals people too.

I don't see a problem

The practice of Paedophilia is not wrong because it is abnormal it is wrong because it violates principles of consent because children are unable to give consent. Getting children to sign contracts for financial purposes violates the same ethical position. Paedophilia doesn;t cover sexual activity with 13+ year old minors either because it is completely natural to find 13 year olds attractive (and I won't believe you for a second if you say that you are not attracted to 13 year olds who have developed breasts/Hips etc.

 

The Constitutional Conservatives I know want maximum freedom and limited government.

I know. You do know that marriage licenses are a relatively new creation, right? It wasn't until 1923 that the Federal Government mandated that marriage licenses be issued. Here's some background.

Yes, but why do you want to grant government power over your union/marriage? Get rid of licenses and it'll change everything, probably for the better.

Marriage has historically been a religious institution... it has been since the original writing of the Torah/Old Testament. Marriage is described in the Bible as the coming together as one flesh, which stems from Adam & Eve having been created from one flesh. So, marriage as a religious institution has been around for approximately 6,000 years.

Don't call it marriage and just live together. What's the problem with that?

Ok... it's just the imagery that's disgusting. Man on man sex is repulsive.

You asked what's so disgusting about it... I responded.

Yeah, now they do... You believe that there are progressives in this country, but you don't believe that they've been tainting everything in this country from Universities to medical professions and government?

Homosexuality was a mental disorder until the 1980s. I remember, because I was there. Were you? Here's a video about the transition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEpgkSG9B3k

Probably because you've been indoctrinated to believe it's normal.

Ok, you lost me here bud.