ollkiller

In your opinion. Scientists and millions of people would differ. Such is life.

And Darwin didn't have a hypothesis? They both had an idea that couldn't be proved and then years later it was proved. So we're both right lol.

You have a very long post. Some of the items you suggest are things we don't know yet. There is a lot of points in your post that are easily proved wrong with a little bit of research. I'll take just one point you have listed. Earth's density is more as it has an iron core. The moon was made from mostly the mantle of the earth. It has no iron core hence is less dense.

Hello worthy members. Long time away. Hope ye are all keeping well. Albert Einsteins General Theory of Relativity was developed between 1909 and 1915 and published in 1915. It wasn't proved by evidence until 1919 by Sir Arthur Eddington during a solar eclipse which proved that light does indeed bend around massive objects (gravitational lensing). So according to your logic because the Theory of General Relativity had no evidence it discredits it as a scientific theory. Look how that panned out.

My two cents on the topic (probably not worth even that) Could the human body have evolved? Yes i think it's very plausible that it could have. Could the human body have been created by God? Yes i think it's possible. We live on a rock that revolves around a sun in a vast universe. If that's possible then anything is. Could the human body have evolved by Gods creation? If god exists it's obvious he's all powerful so evolving the human body through evolution would be a walk in the park. Do i know for certain which of these is true. No i don't and i don't mind admitting i don't. We weren't here 6000 or 13.9 billion years ago so we can never say for certain. We can postulate and come up with theories and try to justify them. Maybe in future we can know for certain. I fear the only way to know for sure is to die. If nothing happens then we evolved but as theres no heaven or hell then we'll never know about it. If we do awaken after death then i think it's pretty obvious that God exists. And that would be pretty awesome.

I'm going to have to state that, although I'm against gay marriage, you really shouldn't make such assumptions about another person. Unless you know him personally and have talked to him or been called names by him then the above is a bit insulting, don't you think? He's in Ireland but the freedom to have opinions should be enjoyed by everyone. Well said Morning, couldn't have put it better myself. The reason i post here is that i get to see differing points of view. It's always good to hear different sides of each argument and then make up your own mind.

Equality to me is letting everyone access the same services regardless of creed, colour or race. Your reasoning of setting up a different institution dosen't seem equal to me. Hi Ollkiller, 1. If the legislation provides identical benefits to committed homosexual couples as it does to married couples, then both institutions “have access to the same [state] services”. That is equality. So replacing traditional marriage is unnecessary to achieve equality. The social recognition of homosexual relationships is not, and never will be, elevated to that of traditional marriage. All redefining marriage achieves is the removal of any legitimate social recognition associated with the term “marriage” – due to the removal of the entity that earned that social recognition. 2. The only reason my solution “doesn’t seem equal” to you is because you want more than equality, you want sameness. But pursuing sameness involves manipulating how people think – attempting to erase any traditional distinction between homosexual and heterosexual commitments. It is an attempt to legislate against freedom of thought. 3. Your statement that “some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us hetrosexual people” demonstrates that you are presuming the legitimacy of the new definition – without the need to provide supporting justification. As is common in leftist reasoning - simply assume that you are correct and everyone who dares to disagree with you must be some kind of bigot – probably a religious bigot. And therefore you feel justified in making such statements without being obligated to provide any supporting argument – or even having to engage in rational debate. I've edited your post just to put in point 1,2,3 so you can see what i'm replying to as i haven't figured out how to split the quote function 1. They would get the same rights all right if the legislation provided for it but, in my mind it's still not equal. Theres no need to seperate the two. Marriage is marrigae. Now of course it is marriage in the secular sense as in a government contract. The Catholic church isn't going to start performing homosexual marriage in Ireland. Next you say the social recognition of homosexual relationships will never be elevate to that of traditional marriage. That all depends on your viewpoint. To me and lots of people i know a gay married couple we would view the exact same as a hetrosexual married couple. Religious people of course wouldn't view them the same. Saying that it's amazing the amount of devout religious people here in Ireland actually voted Yes. It's easier for gay people to come out now and once a father or mother knows one of the offspring or near relation is gay their attitude to gay marriage usually changes. 2. If you knew me at all you would quickly realise that i am abhorrent to sameness. If we were all the same it would get boring very very quickly. If your implying that i want the same rights for both types of couples then you are correct. I don't think there should be any distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual commitments. Obviously you would disagree. See both of us have freedom of thought on the issue. I don't agree with your view but i'll defend your right to hold that view. 3. Nowhere did i call you a bigot or imply your a bigot. Also i'm leftist on some issues and hard hard right on other issues. What supporting argument to i have to provide about my statement. I said gay people could now marry the same as hetro couples. Don't see what supporting of that statement i have to provide as it's a factual statement. As for the last part aren't we engaging in rational debate now.

Equality to me is letting everyone access the same services regardless of creed, colour or race. Your reasoning of setting up a different institution dosen't seem equal to me. Have you had gays suing Christian businesses and forcing them to close? That is what has been happening over here so far, and what will be happening more and more now. We had a case in Northern Ireland where a gay couple sued a cake business for not supplying them their cake as the owners said there lifestyle was against their religion. They won. Funnily enough Gluttony is a sin but i didn't see them refusing fat people their bit of cake. Now if i owned a business i'd like to think i could serve whoever i wanted but it's a slippery slope. For instance could an Israeli not serve Palestinian people etc etc. Slippery slope as i said. What instances are you talking about when you say they are suing businesses in America.

It's all our fault here in Ireland, we passed the referendum on gay marriage a few weeks ago and now everyone is just copying us. You'll never guess what happened they day after the bill passed. Nothing. The sun still rose in the morning and it was exactly the same as any other day. The only difference was some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us hetrosexual people. Equality to me is letting everyone access the same services regardless of creed, colour or race. Your reasoning of setting up a different institution dosen't seem equal to me.

I clicked on the link and then realized it was The Daily Mail paper's website, realize mistake and close the link as soon as possible. Why. The Daily Mail is up there as one of the worst papers in existence, pandering to the lowest common denominator on important social issues. A pack of bigoted, ignorant, racist vacuous bullies of journalists. I'll check on the subject matter of the thread through google but never, repeat NEVER through the rag that is the Daily Mail.

Sure I can compare them. They are both unnatural sexual perversion and counter-intuitive to normal, acceptable human sexuality. You are simply not equipped to understand that truth. And yes, eventually, this depraved culture will normalize even greater perversions and abnormal disgusting behavior than homosexuality. I think i am well equipped to see the truth and look at an argument from the other persons side. You see both as unnatural where i see pedophilia as unnatural but homosexuality as natural. Of course you can compare them but there still miles apart. If I or you or anyone for that matter had a son and he came home one day and was going to tell you either a) I'm a homosexual or b) I'm a pedophile i know which one i want be told. There miles apart. Also there's never going to be a day when paedophilia is normalised, so you think it will happen and i don't. Only time will tell. Anyway, on thread title i've read stuff about gay brains and gay genes and i'm still not convinced. Haven't done loads of research mind you. Your attracted to who your attracted too.

We shall agree to disagree, there's not a hope of pedophilia or incest ever becoming normal. 2 consenting adults in love of the same sex could never be compared to the rape of children.

That statement is absolutely outrageous. 30 years ago, same sex marriage was "outrageous" and now it is mainstream. Not only is it mainstream, but even transgender surgery and sex changes have become "normal" and acceptable. Mankind knows no end to the depths of his depravity. Pretty soon gay same sex pedophilia will be seen as an "orientation." as will just about any other form of sexual perversion such as same-sex incest. The doors have been opened wide for gays and the rest of sleaze of society to justify any kind of sexual perversion they deem fit. If you think that will become the norm you have very little faith in humanity never mind gay people. Hopefully you and I are still posting here in 30 years so I can buy you some humble pie.

That statement is absolutely outrageous.

7 pages and not locked. That's an achievement in itself lol. I always found it funny how when 2 men love each other it makes so many angry (as said in the thread you don't hate gay people but the rhetoric does incite many to hatred). Funny how (this was brought up in previous threads) the churches are very vocal on this issue and silent on greed. Astonishing. Unfortunately while I would defend your right to disagree with homosexuality the hate speech spewed by some can lead to the disgusting situations like you have in Uganda today. Just something for thought. I am straight. Like totally. I fancy women. Gay men fancy men. Telling a gay man he is wrong would be like telling me I'm not allowed to fancy women. Eh right. Like that's going to happen. I have a few gay friends. One of them is in a long term relationship. He loves his partner. He's not perverted. He has suffered intolerable abuse from so called Christians but doesn't hate normal Christians who let him be. He's a bigger man than I am. I just find it such a non issue. Black people are born black as homosexual people are born homosexual but it's ok to demonise one set of people but not the other . Funny.