beastie wrote:In fifty years, people will look back on this controversy and view anti-gay marriage advocates the same as anti-segregationists, in my opinion. Studies are already showing the generation currently in their twenties are much more accepting of the idea of gay marriage than their parents.
And the church will claim they never taught that gay marriage was wrong, and when presented with quotes to the contrary, the apologists will claim that was only opinion and any Mormon who believed it was an idiot for not making up their own mind.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
SatanWasSetUp wrote:And the church will claim they never taught that gay marriage was wrong, and when presented with quotes to the contrary, the apologists will claim that was only opinion and any Mormon who believed it was an idiot for not making up their own mind.
I think there's also gonna be a lot of:
"Back then, it was 'normal' to try and assert that a 1/4 of all homosexuals are pedophiles. And to compare them to thieves, rapists and murderers! Stop the self-righteous arm-chair presentism already...!"
Dr. Shades wrote:Are you saying you're in favor of socialized medicine?
duh. access to medical care should be a basic human right.
As far as I know, everyone does have access to medical care. I don't know of any governments which prohibit it.
But, like I said, are you in favor of socialized medicine?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Dr. Shades wrote:Are you saying you're in favor of socialized medicine?
duh. access to medical care should be a basic human right.
As far as I know, everyone does have access to medical care. I don't know of any governments which prohibit it.
But, like I said, are you in favor of socialized medicine?
short answer: yes.
long answer: abstract "access" and real, actual, material access are two very different things. Actually that's not really the long answer..the long answer is not only off topic but too long for me to type while sitting in my parent's driveway this morning. Its cold and the rock I'm perched on hurts my backside.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Dr. Shades wrote:Are you saying you're in favor of socialized medicine?
duh. access to medical care should be a basic human right.
As far as I know, everyone does have access to medical care. I don't know of any governments which prohibit it.
But, like I said, are you in favor of socialized medicine?
The United States only has "access" to medical care for everyone if you consider paying full price "access." Even health insurance companies will deny anybody they consider to be a bad risk (like if you take medication--even if the policy you're applying for doesn't cover medications)--no matter if you can pay for your own coverage.....but back to the origional topic of being gay (which may be considered a medical condition--I spent thousands of dollars on therapy for my homosexuality--out of pocket).
The United States only has "access" to medical care for everyone if you consider paying full price "access." Even health insurance companies will deny anybody they consider to be a bad risk (like if you take medication--even if the policy you're applying for doesn't cover medications)--no matter if you can pay for your own coverage.....but back to the origional topic of being gay (which may be considered a medical condition--I spent thousands of dollars on therapy for my homosexuality--out of pocket).
You had to PAY for that s***???
Man, and I thought I had a case to be upset about wasting all that money on tithing... that pales next to wasting thousands of dollars on "homosexual therapy".
Just try not to think about how much that money could have been earning all these years.
[MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not use the "S" word, or any of its variants, in the Terrestrial Forum. Thank you!]
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
thanks for making the argument, Livingstone. I need my eyes to do my work. I could benefit from laser surgery. Insurance won't cover it (considered "cosmetic") I don;t have a couple of extra thou layng around. What will insurance cover? six months of contacts once every two years. My contacts yearly cost nearly as much as laser surgery would once.
that's just hte tip of the iceberg.
Its shamefull.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
beastie wrote:I'd like to see the research that supports this assertion. It's been a while since I've read books devoted to human sexuality, but, If I recall correctly, those books asserted that lesbians are not only the most faithful of all possible combinations, but also have the least sex. (which is not unrelated, I'm sure)
If and when I have some time, I'll provide some research. Intuitively, you might think lesbians would be the least promiscuous, least sexual combination. That's because women tend toward monogamy in comparison to men and tend to have less sex on average. They often have the role of "gatekeeper" to men's advances. So you figure that if you put two women together, the effect would be multiplied. Nope. Or rather: not entirely. Lesbians tend to have lots of sexual partners relative to the general population. They do have less sex, though. This also doesn't mean that they are more inclined towards being unfaithful to their partners or nonmonogamous. It just means they have lots of partners.
Studies have shown that gay men in general do have more sexual partners over a lifetime than lesbian women, but the stereotype of gay men having thousands of partners is actually highly atypical. A more reliable estimate for the median number of lifetime male partners for American gay men is less than 50 and a typical estimate for lesbians is less than 10. The NHSLS found somewhat higher numbers for women.
If I recall correctly... Heterosexual men average around 10-12 sexual partners in a lifetime, heterosexual women, around 7.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj