Null



shabby

Verified Member
  • Content count

    1,071
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Sterling

About shabby

  • Rank
    Professor

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. pretty much all of Alabama's defense.
  2. I thought Both Clintons and Obama were moderate. Traditional Democratic candidates. If you look at Obamas actual positions he really doesn't differ a whole lot from Republicans of yester year (compare immigration and tax policy with Bush senior, Reagan and Nixon). Honestly, many Republicans of the past, Reagan included, look more like the Democrats today than the Republican Party of Today
  3. Kasich is a good guy and one person I could get behind if he won the election. My first choice will almost always be a Democrat but a sensible Republican isn't a bad consolation prize. I'm thinking, on the Off chance that Trump isn't impeached, that he would run as an independent rather than as a Republican. He would fare well in a Republican Primary due to trump Fatigue, but nothing I have yet seen shows me that the Republican Party would elect a moderate. Running as an independent would improve Republican outcomes down ballot in the house and in the Senate.
  4. At some point, republicans will realize that the misery that comes from impeachment will be shorter lived then the consistent pain that comes from the outright embrace or the look the other way tactic currently being applied to Trump. Do republicans really think the man will suddenly change into a competent Republican figure they can stay behind? At some point, a recognition will come that it's better to part ways than to be known as the party that continuously allowed this behavior to occur. A hundred years of scandals condensed into 4 months. If only someone could have possibly seen this coming.......
  5. Titan, again I ask, can you tell me again what specifically Jesus had to say about Homosexuality? If people use Jesus' name to justify religious bigotry on behalf of a class of people, they should have the courtesy to at least provide actual evidence that this is Christ's viewpoint. It's absurd to say Jesus is against the gay lifestyle now prove that he isn't. The burden of proof belongs to those making the claims. Thus, if you believe Christ was against homosexuality, present evidence of his word on this topic. Also The uniform explanation as to why many old testament commandments no longer are followed (like killing children and stoning wives) is because the new statement replaces old testament law. Again, though, this point is irrelevant to the entire topic, The only thing that matters is constitutional law. So I ask you again to provide this abundance of evidence you have about the well being of children being harmed as you claimed was supported by science. Again, I have provided a link to a total of 79 arguments and you have responded with nothing. If the science on this clearly supports that the well being of children is not harmed by gay adoption can we not just acknowledge your argument is supporting bigotry without a rationale scientific basis?
  6. My point has been stated several times in one form or another. It is this: point one: Titan ties his view on gay adoption to science. Science, however, does not support his view.. Point two: Others use Jesus' example to argue against gay marriage. He, however has said nothing on the matter. Scripture is interpreted many ways and many different interpretations exist as to what scripture truly says about homosexuality. Everything is an opinion on thus matter (thus the Jesus is gay or straight point) How do you prove unverifiable statements? But here's the caveat..... Who gives a damn about point two. As long as our nation is based on constitutional law, the religious argument is meaningless. The only thing that could justify discrimination in gay adoption practices comes down to the well being of the child. Thus we are back to point One. so let's look at that again. 79 peer reviewed research studies exist. 75 support gay adoption and see it as harmful. The overwhelming scientific body of work on this matter renders using science as an argument for discrimination as a faulty argument. Titan and others may want to convenient throw this research into the Fake News category. But scientific truth is verifiable. Look at the methodology of these studies and if you find flaws with it then discuss. But if you are rejecting these 75 research studies simply because it doesn't fit your argument then you are adding little to the topic.
  7. are you reading impaired? I said Jesus never stated anything about homosexuality. perhaps you could find some bible versus where Jesus discusses the topic. it may take you awhile.
  8. Blasphemy? Perhaps I don't believe homosexuality stands in oppositions with ones ability to be a great man. And it was a great attempt at Humor!! But as I state earlier, the point of my statement is this: Jesus has not made any statements on the matter of Homosexuality. Ascribing Jesus as anti-gay is just as ignorant as making a statement about his sexuality. That was the snarky point of the original response, #fabuloussavior
  9. Crack is whack. Jesus has not made any statements on the matter of Homosexuality. Ascribing Jesus as anti-gay is just as ignorant as making a statement about his sexuality. That was the snarky point of the original response,
  10. Titan, I just presented to you a quantification of every major peer referenced research study done on the matter and the vast majority counter your assertion. The vast majority support the fact that adopted children raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents has little bearing on the outcome of the well being of the child raised. You can always name a few studies that support your belief. That's why it's important to look at the body of research. if you actually Look at that body of research (the studies are referenced in the prior linked article) it will be apparent that "science" supports gay adoption and it's not even close. 75 studies support gay adoption and 4 believe it harmful. Again, I ask how you can make the assertion (Twice) that heterosexual couples, according to research provide better support. It's simply flat out wrong. I also think it's ridiculous to oppose religious exemption on matters involving baking cakes (trivial) yet supporting religious based discrimination on fundamentally important issues like the ability to raise children through adoption. If I'm gauging your responses right, you justify your support for religious exemption in one scenario because of the impact on children. If you review the research and the preponderance of studies dispute your assertion would that lead you to change your view on the subject?
  11. science really isnt settled as you claim on the benefits of heterosexual vs homosexual adoptions. not even close. take a look at all the quantified resear h studies here. you can't possibly make that claim. I'm glad we can all eat cake though...... http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
  12. Because I'm Gay and I don't distinguish between types of discrimination. If you treat a class differently, does it matter the criteria that qualifies them for that class. if you faced discrimination growing up (not having the right to marry was huge to me) then you would probably be less likely to see the differences. These arguments are matter of opinions. not sure why opinion should dictate human rights. needless to say I disagree with both points one and two. First, people made what they viewed as credible religious reasons for racial discrimination in the past. which brings me to point two. In our changing society, do you really believe that 20 years from now people will look at religious discrimination against gays any differently than they we do today when we look at past religious justification for racial discrimination. Why can't we just state that we are against all forms of discrimination. You state: "The most basic essence of liberty is not the freedom to do something unfettered. It is the freedom NOT to do something - freedom from coercion and force by the state or anyone else. If you take away that freedom from someone, then liberty is truly meaningless" doesn't that point get rendered meaningless by your stance that people shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate based upon religious belief (faulty or otherwise). you're placing a justifaction on that. A criteria that states the religious objection must be credible. Who determines credibility?
  13. But again, I have to ask, would you ascribe to this same viewpoint if the law allowed for discrimination of adoption by black couples? I'm baffled by those that see discrimination of one class as unacceptable but seem tolerant of it when done to another. Listen, I deliberately quoted you because I disagree with many stances you take but you have a respectable / logical way of arguing / debating with facts. It seems here that your are noting that one is a form of discrimination and the other is not. I'm just seeking to find out where you stand on that. Do you believe business can discriminate against couples based upon race. If not, what makes it different for you when it comes to sexuality?
  14. I get that we can all have different moral beliefs and religious beliefs but what about a constitutional belief? Are we ignoring the big question? Is it legal for religious based entities to discriminate against gays and lesbian in business practices? if so, where does that stop? Would we be having the same discussion if religious based agencies were granted the right not to issue adoptions to black couples or Muslim couples? It seems this country has turned the corner on realizing that religious entities doing business can't discriminate based upon race or religious belief, but we are still tolerate of allowing sexuality based discrimination in practices.