threnody

The gene for red and blonde hair is recessive. Thus, eventually, it will be extremely uncommon, and even later on, extinct.

Rhetorical, but yes.

Oh sure! Close down law enforcement agencies in our modern law abiding countries for a single week throughout the world and see what happens. Oh please, it's an evolutionary advantage to not wantonly kill. Members of a group will fear for their safety in the presence of a wanton killer, and thus the killer will be segregated from the group, not passing on their genes. It's in man's best interest to not kill one another. But the relationship can result in reproduction, or could have at some point. Redundant. You're saying that homosexual activities are wrong in part because they do not result in reproduction. Neither does oral or manual sexual activities. Are those wrong too?

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction? Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"? I engage in a number of sexual activtities (all heterosexual) many of which couldn't possibly result in reproduction. And I certainly don't consider that I am guilty of "misconduct" This is also true.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction? Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

Homosexuality is nothing new. The ancient Greeks routinely engaged in homosexual activities, but the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" were used to describe activities, not identities. With the growing popularity (in ancient times), of organized cults, the original leaders had to find specific ways to increase the size of the organization. What better way than to declare homosexuality a "sin"? Less homosexual acts means more heterosexual acts, which transfers into more new little cultists every nine months. Homosexuality is not wrong. It's a tool to create more followers of a cult.

:angry:

Forgive me, but I don't know what "second ballot" is, haha.

Oh well thank you so very much for giving me permission. Don't patronize me. This is not someone's home; It is an internet message board. I am entitled to hold an opinion and ask a question of the admin, not you. I see this isn't a popular idea, so be it. You do not, however, have any right whatsoever to condescend to me.

This was enough for me to discount your entire post. What bias and bigotry must be involved in making such a ridiculous statement as this.

If by "safer" you mean "Orwellian", then yes, you'd be correct.

Of course it makes them less responsible for their actions. When a society ignores or neglects to provide sufficient institutional care, certain mental conditions that lead one to commit otherwise "unacceptable" acts become society's responsibility.

I hardly think living in the United States for the past 30 years, blindly assisting and supporting the Iraq invasion, and then showing up in Canada to lead a political party is something that we Canadians should want. Perhaps I have a biased opinion because I am detested at the Iraq war. Perhaps, but didn't Canada dissagree with this war as well? I don't know. Please enlighten me as to why Ignatieff is amongst the top contenders in the Liberal party leadership race.

Because some mental conditions make it very hard for some people. Passing a law like this completely ignores hardcore OCD cases, some schizophrenia cases, and many other conditions affecting one's judgement of certain situations.

If you remove yourself from religion and look at it on a higher level, you see that there are a lot of different ones all looking to rationalize the same concept of a higher power that presides over us. They were trying to put words that the average man could understand to an abstract concept that best explains what they believe to be. Conspriracy theorists basically create their own religion to create a way to explain what they believe to be true. Like ancient religions they come from people trying to put rational thought and explanations to abstract concepts. Their conclusions are usually considered radical for their time, but they aren't radical as far as the thought process they use to get there. The problem arises when self-proclaimed scholars interpret metaphorical meaning as literal history, thereby destroying the true meaning behind the message. It's funny, people still believe that Jesus existed.