The_Squid Posted December 9, 2012 Report Posted December 9, 2012 Forget Darwin this gay gossiping is rather juicy Probably cuz yer gay.... Are you gay? Gay? Gay! You must be gay!! Betsy's new trolling techniques are great, aren't they? Evolution? You must be gay! Evolution is gay.... Quote
WIP Posted December 9, 2012 Report Posted December 9, 2012 "Progressives" do this on a routine basis, but they want to fund their ideas with the coercive power of government. Should I assume you that the progressives you are referring to would be the black church leaders who founded and pushed the civil rights movement along in the U.S.? Or are you referring to that small Christian voice, most prominently led by Jim Wallis - founder of Sojourner's Magazine, who attempt to remind Christians of the social gospel contained throughout their Bibles, especially in the Gospels and the Book of Acts? Or, maybe it's both....whatever....I would rather see the "coercive" power of government used to remind people (whatever their metaphysical beliefs) that they have a greater duty than ensuring their own self-interests! And, if the Christian Right is willing to give billionaires, libertarians, Rand acolytes or just plain selfish A#$holes a free pass on that one, so they can concentrate on controlling birth control and making their followers confused neurotics about sex....then I would say from the pov of an outside observer that the Christians on the political left more closely reflect the values contained in most of the books of the Bible than the right wingers. I'm still waiting for a right wing Christian to provide an adequate explanation for how that early Christian community described in Acts is not a template for a communist society! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted December 9, 2012 Report Posted December 9, 2012 Can you back up your inuendo that Cameron had turned gay? You claim Tom Cruise and John Travolta are gay? Got anything to back that up? Or do you rely on sleazy tabloid headlines for facts? Yes! I'll go with what the sleazy tabloids say about Hollywood stars living in denial when it shows up in the Enquirer. You see, the three main tabloids are all owned by the same company. One prints pure bullshit, another prints rumours that get passed around, but the Enquirer gets their stories through checkbook journalism, so when they have a story...like the one about John Edwards impregnating a secret mistress, the odds are it's a real story that will eventually surface in the MSM. Whenever I'm in the supermarket checkout line, I notice that the stories about Obama being a secret Muslim, being secretly gay, having other women, still using drugs, being an illegal etc. are splashed all across the other two tabloids on a constant basis, but not on the main brand! And that's because the company that owns these tabloids is rightwing extremist, so they make sure the other two have all the crap about Obama that doesn't really matter, but like rightwingers in general, they give Obama a free pass on doing nothing...not even mentioning the poor...doing nothing on climate change...expanding U.S. wars of aggression and the military budgets...NDAA and other attacks on civil rights etc. etc., all these things that should have had some opposition from somewhere, get stuffed by the way the U.S. two party system functions....but getting back to the issue at hand, yes, if it's in the Enquirer, they probably bought an insider's testimony to get the story! Even if Cruise and Travolta are real gay, and as you say, "living in denial" for trying to be heterosexuals....are you one?I mean, are you gay....and is that why you're so bitter about the cCtholic Church, and Christianity in general? Is that why you're so very much into the hypocrisy of Christians (like as if they've got a monopoly on hypocrisy)....that you find them so judgemental? Are you by any chance gay? Is that it? No, I'm not gay, and I've will have been officially married for 25 years this January....not including the almost 3 years prior that we lived together in sin! And, of course I am aware that there are many men and women who are gay or highly bisexual, who have lived secret lives, while putting on the front of conventional marriage to please their families, their church communities and society in general. But, I want to see those days when gays have to live in denial, and young gay men have to be careful in public to avoid attack, all come to an end! Most of the reason why gays would live in denial in the first place and have a sham cover marriage, is because of the type of brainwashing that you were subjected to and wish to subject others to! I've heard Brother Ray talk on this subject, and he spouts the conventional rightwing evangelical line; but the way him and Kirk interact....especially the fondling of that banana in the video, left a lot of people wondering what was being said at a subconscious level! All I know is I like bananas, I make sure we have plenty at home, especially in the winter time, but I have never felt the impulse to fondle a banana! And, on a public forum, those of us who refrain from posting personal information about ourselves so we can feel more freely in speaking our minds, would have no need to hide whether we were gay or straight, or whether or not we support gay rights. But, in my personal life fwiw, I pretty much say the same thing on this topic whenever I hear gay bashers or the stupid comments that were bandied about before gay marriage was recognized regarding gays attempting to 'recruit' children into their lifestyles. People should be accepted the way that feels natural to them. There should be no such things as "reparative therapies" to try to turn gays straight. We don't come into this world off some cookie cutter assembly line! People are all different, and have different needs. There are not even sharp lines between what's normal for each gender. Some males seem effeminate, while some females are quite masculine in behaviour. It does seem from casual glance that effeminate men have a bigger problem gaining acceptance than butch women. But that's getting off topic too, and these behaviours do not even track specifially along the lines of who's gay and who's straight anyway. I've made a new topic for this one, in Ethics section. Please go here to continue our discussion. http://www.mapleleaf...showtopic=22067 Thanks, I'll go check it out, because I believe your views on social issues are more of a concern for others than whether or not you accept the theory of evolution. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted December 9, 2012 Report Posted December 9, 2012 Probably, you saw in that video how they were playing around with that banana Yep! But I heard about it after it went viral. But if I didn't make it clear enough before so that Betsy can't twist my words around again, the gays who should be forced out of the closet are the public voices who condemn homosexuals or claim that gays can be turned straight....and that would include Tom Cruise on this one....and especially those political leaders, like the Republican gay politicians who were outed...Larry Craig and Mark Foley come to mind....and Foley in particular was preying upon young men who served as Congressional interns in Washington, and yet his Republican colleagues maintained his cover all through his five or six terms in Congress because he did their bidding, including speaking and voting strongly against gay rights. That's the kind of hypocrisy that is most lethal. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
betsy Posted December 12, 2012 Author Report Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) reply to wip posted in the "gay in denial" thread. To continue gay discussion, go to this thread. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=22067&st=180&gopid=863819entry863819 Edited December 12, 2012 by betsy Quote
Sleipnir Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 the gays who should be forced out of the closet are the public voices who condemn homosexuals or claim that gays can be turned straight....and that would include Tom Cruise on this one....and especially those political leaders, like the Republican gay politicians who were outed...Larry Craig and Mark Foley come to mind....and Foley in particular was preying upon young men who served as Congressional interns in Washington, and yet his Republican colleagues maintained his cover all through his five or six terms in Congress because he did their bidding, including speaking and voting strongly against gay rights. It seems that gay-basher republicans are more likely to be homosexual or bisexual than heterosexual. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
Boges Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Is this thread about Darwin the Ikea Monkey? http://postmediacanadadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ikea_monkey_20121209_25263445-e1355108747397.jpg?w=660&h=440&crop=1 http://www.cbc.ca/ne...c-pet-laws.html Edited December 12, 2012 by Boges Quote
Sleipnir Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Is this thread about Darwin the Ikea Monkey? http://postmediacana...60&h=440&crop=1 http://www.cbc.ca/ne...c-pet-laws.html Yes, cute monkey eh? Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Should I assume you that the progressives you are referring to would be the black church leaders who founded and pushed the civil rights movement along in the U.S.? Sure, why not, but the U.S. Civil Rights movement was founded long before that. You will have to use America's Google better next time. Or are you referring to that small Christian voice No, but it would include the voices who are petrified by "climate-change"...the new religion. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Mighty AC Posted February 12, 2013 Report Posted February 12, 2013 Happy Darwin Day! To honour his birthday here is an article discussing some common misconceptions about the great man. He was not an atheist, he did not say we descended from monkeys, he did not invent the idea of evolution and Darwinism is not a thing, evolutionary biology has advanced significantly in the 150 years since Darwin discovered a mechanism for change. He delayed publishing his findings for many years, in part, because his work disproved the church doctrine of the time. Here is another: http://www.guardian....09/darwin.myths Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
betsy Posted March 10, 2013 Author Report Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Here we go again for the umpteenth time.....another supposedly "proof" of evolution. Have you ever heard of this so-called, TIKTAALIK ROSEAE - which I fondly shortened to the, pink tiki. Tiktaalik roseaea fishy missing link Jonathan Sarfati, 15 April 2006 The secularized mainstream media (MSM) are gleefully promoting a recent find, Tiktaalik roseae (right), as the end of any creationist or intelligent design idea. Some paleontologists are claiming that this is a link between fishes and land vertebrates that might in time become as much of an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx.1 So is Tiktaalik real evidence that fish evolved into tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, i.e. amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds)? As will be shown, there are parallels with Archaeopteryx, the famous alleged reptile-bird intermediate, but not in the way the above quote claims! More..... http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a-fishy-missing-link Pink Tiki's fame was rather shortlived. I don't think it's even been mentioned on this board, ever. Unless I've missed it somehow. It got the darwinists all excited....for a while anyway. The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit "Quality" of Evolutionary Icon is "Poor" in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance (Updated) Casey Luskin September 26, 2008 Clearly, Darwin's public relations team has invested much rhetorical capital into this fossil. If past experience is to be our guide, the only event that might cause Darwinists to criticize Tiktaalik would be the publishing of a fossil that was claimed to better document evolution. The latest retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance comes on the heels of a published re-analysis of the bones of Panderichthys. Confident that Panderichthys fossil showed evolution better than Tiktaalik, Darwinists then proceeded to admit striking criticisms of Tiktaalik: The "quality" of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was "poor"? When did we see evolutionists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn't dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better. More.... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/the_rise_and_fall_of_tiktaalik011701.html Edited March 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted March 10, 2013 Author Report Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) But before evolutionists on this board get all excited about the Panderichthys.....take pause and read the link below. Panderichthys—a fish with fingers? by Shaun Doyle Published: 9 December 2008 http://creation.com/panderichthys-a-fish-with-fingers Edited March 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 Rhamphorhynchus muensteri Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 What about it? You tell me. When did it die? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
betsy Posted March 10, 2013 Author Report Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) You tell me. When did it die?Why? If you've got a point, then spill it out. Never mind playing Jeopardy. Edited March 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 Why? If you've got a point, then spill it out. Never mind playing Jeopardy. Can't, huh? I thought you were capable of defending your faith. So, no idea what it is and when it could have possibly died? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
betsy Posted March 10, 2013 Author Report Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Can't, huh? I thought you were capable of defending your faith. So, no idea what it is and when it could have possibly died? What's that got to do with my faith? Why don't you explain? Let me guess....you're lost. Therefore you can't. Edited March 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) So...any ideas when that critter lived...died...etc? Or are you going to dodge yet another tough question? Edited March 10, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
betsy Posted March 10, 2013 Author Report Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) So...any ideas when that critter lived...died...etc? Or are you going to dodge yet another tough question? I'm so used to most of you guys....I can read you like a book! I was right. You can't even explain your own point! If there's even any. Bye-bye for now.... Edited March 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 When you run away, I know I've made my point. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 I'm so used to most of you guys....I can read you like a book! I was right. You can't even explain your own point! If there's even any. Bye-bye for now.... Its a fossil, its not even 6000 years old, or it's a million years old. God loves punking people. Quote
Canuckistani Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 OK, Besty has established she's an intelligent design person - ie God set the universe in motion with the big bang and then stood back and watched it run. Not sure why she's arguing against evolution, because intelligent design just says that God created evolution along with all other natural laws. Is it possible Betsy is a bit confused? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Its a fossil, its not even 6000 years old, or it's a million years old. God loves punking people. Indeed...a Jurassic period Rhamphorhynchus (prow beak)...one of my favorites. Many have been found over the years. I think fellows like that and say...this fellow...from the Cretaceous...didn't worry about missing the Ark. Edited March 10, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
betsy Posted March 19, 2013 Author Report Posted March 19, 2013 Blushing 'biggest gap in evolutionary theory' Blushing is the biggest gap in evolutionary theory, say scientists who admit they can't explain why people turn red when they are embarrassed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4372231/Blushing-biggest-gap-in-evolutionary-theory.html Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.