Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Religion May Become Extinct in Nine Nations


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1776-1800 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 11:10:31 AM PDT
Vicki said:

"What judicial ruling clarified this? I don't know of any laws requiring people to attend church on Sunday. I don't know of any court rulings that say this law is a religious law and therefore is unconstitutional."

I said "would be," not "has been." Do you seriously believe such a law would stand?

That being said, it was ruled in Inouye v. Kemna that it was not permissible to require a man convicted of a DUI to attend religious alcohol treatment (AA), and that he must be given the option of attending non-faith based alcohol therapy. If even a criminal cannot be forced to attend a religious organization's meeting, even when that's relevant to their crime, it is hard to imagine that ordinary citizens could be en masse required to attend church.

"Interesting assumption. Think back to the time after we had won our independence from England and the French Revolution had degenerated into the Reign of Terror."

Which quickly destabilized, because societies where people are routinely killing each other are unstable. Religion doesn't prevent that--before the Reign of Terror, we had the Inquisition, after all. Lack of religion doesn't necessarily prevent it either, a nonreligious society can absolutely be one where people are routinely killed for little or no cause. But in either case, such a society will destabilize, because people who are already likely to be killed have nothing to lose.

"Do you realize that the founding fathers were quite grateful for the religious moral underpinings of American society, which they chose not to challenge, and credited it for the fact that our revolution did not take the same route as the one in France?"

[citation needed]

"For people who base their morality on religious values, their very actions can be religious even in what others may consider a secular sphere."

Sure, which is why courts generally consider effects of a law in determining whether it serves a significant secular purpose, and motivations are only a secondary consideration in very borderline cases.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 11:17:52 AM PDT
Domenico says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 12:23:10 PM PDT
Joe Anthony says:
@seraphimblade:

I don't know whether or not I agree with your post, but you responded intelligently and (I think) sincerely to everything I had to say.

I still don't know quite how to feel about abortion, but your post does present some things to think about.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 12:26:32 PM PDT
Nick says:
Domenico writes: Not all people accept that.

Nick: And those people are wrong. It is clear that *some* people are born gay or lesbian. Does that mean that every single person who *identifies* as gay or lesbian was born that way? No. But it is clear that *some* people are born gay or lesbian.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 12:28:59 PM PDT
Nick says:
Bubba writes: Your leaving out that one sentence changed the entire meaning of the part that you quoted, it was dishonest.

Domenico writes: Why ? You didn't want to read the content ??? Why not ?

Nick: Because it is dishonest to end a quote with ellipses when the next part of the quote changes the meaning of what the author is expressing. It is false representation of what they were saying.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 12:37:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 12:46:42 PM PDT
Nick says:
Domenico writes: If the self-righteous bigot that you are would KEEP READING as the ".............." in my post INVITE you will see more than you would like to see.

Nick: I know this is directed at Bubba, but you are in the wrong. Unfortunately, you (and perhaps that website) don't seem to understand the context or nuances of the issues. Let me explain below.

***
Domenico writes: What is clear is that people's behaviour is influenced by their family environment, their experiences and their sense of themselves.

Nick: Yes, people's *behavior* is influenced by the family environment, etc. But *behavior* is not *orientation*. A left-handed person (orientation) can learn to write with his or her right hand (behavior). However, just because they are writing with the right hand (behavior) does not alter the fact he or she is naturally left-handed (orientation). When it comes to sexuality, a person's behavior is not always in accord with his or her orientation. For example, people who grow up in a very religious home might engage in heterosexual behavior even though they are homosexual because of the family environment.

***
Domenico writes: Beliefs about sex are initially shaped by family values.
Later on these beliefs may be shaped by pleasant and unpleasant experiences of sex and also shape their choice of activities and partners.

Nick: This is very true. Once again, this could influence their sexual *behavior* but it would not alter their sexual *orientation*.

***
Domenico writes: Throughout their life a person's sense of who and what they are has a strong impact on their sexual development and experience.

Nick: This is very true. But once again, it really has little to do with sexual *orientation* and much more to do with sexual *behavior* and *attitudes*.

***
Domenico writes: You are angry. Your anger is misdirected. It shouldn't be towards me.

Nick: Actually, Bubba has every legitimate reason to call you out on your dishonest use of the ellipses, thereby misrepresenting what the website was discussing. You left out a key phrase where the website acknowledges the biological differences may be real and that sexual orientation is inborn: "There are some theories that stress biological differences between heterosexual and homosexual adults, suggesting that people are born with their sexuality already determined."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 2:54:37 PM PDT
steve:society that determines what is good and bad, right and wrong. And for a good while they saw homosexuality as bad, and wrong. Society could, and has in history, deemed pedophilia as not bad, or wrong. That is the point I'm making.

SA: No, that is not the point you are making. The point you are making is to sully homosexuality by putting it as close as you can to pedophilia. Shame on you!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:29:16 PM PDT
Domenico says:
Yes Nick, I already agreed about the *some* long pages ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:32:40 PM PDT
Domenico says:
I disagree. What do YOU understand when you see this "..................."??
It's asking you to keep reading.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:49:18 PM PDT
Nick says:
Domenico writes: It's asking you to keep reading.

Nick: That is not how ellipses are typically used. Typically, they are used to indicate missing information that is not relevant or that is superfluous to the main point.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:52:10 PM PDT
Domenico says:
You are both wrong.

1st. I know better than the two of you what my thinking was at the moment and I repeatedly reassured you that it was not that.
2nd. It's not what I see in that oh-so-important phrase;

''You left out a key phrase where the website acknowledges the biological differences may be real and that sexual orientation is inborn"

What you see is not what I see.

"Biological differences may be real" = means "possible"
" and that sexual orientation IS inborn"... is NOT what they say. You concluded. They did NOT.

"""There are some theories.... suggesting........ """"

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 4:19:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 11:44:07 PM PDT
J. Russell says:
Vicki says
"The Consitution doesn't say that a voter can't base their vote on their religious values."

My Response:
No it does not. But when voting to impose your purely religious dogma on everybody else REGARDLESS of what their religious beliefs are you might want to consider that tomorrow some other religious group that is then in assendence may do the same to you.

I would mantain that a better attitude would be to apply your religious dogma to your own life and allow others to do the same. As that mentality may prevent some other religious group from imposing their dogma on you someday.
If you can freely convience others that what you believe is right that is one thing, using secular law for force others to comply with your religious dogma is quite another.

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 4:21:37 PM PDT
Domenico says:
Ultimately, no gene or gene product from the Xq28 region was ever identified that affected sexual orientation. When Jonathan Marks (an evolutionary biologist) asked Hamer what percentage of homosexuality he thought his results explained, his answer was that he thought it explained 5% of male homosexuality. Marks' response was, "There is no science other than behavioral genetics in which you can leave 97.5% of a phenomenon unexplained and get headlines."

godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html

I'm not religious. Suggestions and some good points abound.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 5:27:51 PM PDT
Nick says:
Domenico writes: Ultimately, no gene or gene product from the Xq28 region was ever identified that affected sexual orientation.

Nick: Every time you post you simply demonstrate your own ignorance of the biological research that has been done in the last 15-20 years.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 7:12:40 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
Lawrence B. Jeffery says:
i would say pedophiles are personality disorders and are not cureable,

spl: Well, it wasn't long ago homosexuality was considered a personality disorder. Kind of shows how much faith you can have in shrinks.

lbj: there is no relationship between gay and pedophile.

spl: gays can be pedophiles.

lbj: The biggest cause of pedophilia is if you are a victim. Part of me wants all those with pedophilia to be in jail but thats obviously cruel as many I understand with lots of support and therapy can control their desires.

The there is nothing wrong with curiosity I tried sex once with a male best friend at his invitation and it just isnt my thing. we are still good friends just not my thing.

spl: Oh.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 8:38:48 PM PDT
well an abortion is a sad thing but the woman's right to decide what to do with her body for me is sacrosant any other approach leads to more harm in my view. We get obssessed with particular issues and are blind to bigger issues as i mentioned infant mortality, millions of children living terrible lives because of lack of good child care, high quality education and we are still only talking about the US.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 8:40:10 PM PDT
Joe not sure what your Mars comment is about we have 1,000s dieing every day here, lots to do.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 9:09:15 PM PDT
Domenico says:
I have nothing against you. My point is only that is no consensus. And that real gay people are in small percentage.. orientation and all.

Call me names if that makes it easier on you but, for example, Bubba is not the real McCoy. From a distance, of course. :))

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 9:10:21 PM PDT
Domenico says:
I did not say that. Just a quote.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 9:14:36 PM PDT
Domenico says:
Biology and sexual orientation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation.
No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated.
Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment, or no genetic influence.
Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.'''''''''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 9:15:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 10:27:15 PM PDT
Nick says:
Domenico writes: My point is only that is no consensus.

Nick: No one ever said there was consensus (getting conservative Christians to agree with actual science is never easy). However, the evidence clearly indicates that some people are born gay. Now, there is discussion on the various ways that can happen, but the evidence clearly shows there is an interplay between genetics and hormones in the prenatal environment. Thus far not a single identifiable post-natal factor has been demonstrated.

***
Domenico writes: And that real gay people are in small percentage.. orientation and all.

Nick: I don't recall anyone ever saying otherwise nor do I see the relevance of stating this. We know that about 8% of rams are exclusively homosexual in their behavior. In animals, as in humans, homosexuality is a natural variation of sexual orientation. It is in the minority, but that has no bearing on it being real or inborn.

edit: And just to prevent confusion, when I hear "real gay people" I interpret that to mean gay people - not straights in prison who "go gay because they have no alternative", not teenage girls doing it with another girl to turn on their boyfriends (if any actually do that), but actual gays and lesbians. And yes, real gay people are a minority in the population. Most people are straight.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 9:16:14 PM PDT
Nick says:
Domenico writes: I did not say that. Just a quote.

Nick: Then perhaps you should think before you quote others. Quoting irrelevant or incorrect information does nothing to further the conversation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 9:23:21 PM PDT
Nick says:
Domenico writes: No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated.

Nick: Exactly who has claimed there is a single cause? The actual evidence has shown multiple ways of reaching the same target, if you will. For example, genetics can play a role (it's estimated about 36% of gay males are gay primarily because of genetics, which can influence androgen hormone production, androgen receptor production and the timing of when the hormonal wash occurs in the first trimester), and that the prenatal environment can play a role (it's estimated about 16% of gay males are gay simply because of the number of male fetuses the mother carried before the gay son). Exactly who here has claimed there is a single cause of homosexuality? No one except the irrelevant articles you keep posting.

***
Domenico writes: Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment, or no genetic influence.

Nick: Exactly, just as I stated above. Different paths up the same mountain, if you will.

***
Domenico writes: Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

Nick: Yes, exactly. The neurohormonal theory explains it all quite nicely.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 9:45:16 PM PDT
Domenico says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 9:56:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 10:30:16 PM PDT
Nick says:
Domenico writes: I understand what you say.

Nick: Somehow, I doubt that.

***
Domenico writes: What you don't want to hear is that the criticism is against the "being born gay" craze.

Nick: Unfortunately, the criticism lacks scientific support.

***
Domenico writes: The politics are now bent to force people to believe that the vast majority of gays are BORN that way and that is false.

Nick: And no amount of evidence will ever convince conservative Christians. I get that. Unfortunately, you have no defensible evidence whatsoever that suggests the "vast majority of gays" are *not* born gay.

***
edit - added after the fact

Domenico writes: As I mentioned before our family friends and relatives that are MD's all say the same thing. The "real" gays are rare and indeed they are gays due to physiology. The great majority are whims. Messed up people or pleasure boys.

Nick: Hearsay is not considered valid evidence. Did these MDs actually do peer-reviewed studies? What are they MDs of? Where did they get their information? This is not evidence.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  83
Total posts:  2002
Initial post:  May 23, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions