So, Where Do the 2012 Presidential Contenders Stand on Gay Issues?
- Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:02am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Wondering where the 2012 presidential candidates stand on issues that impact gay and lesbian Americans?
Marriage Equality USA has released an intriguing chart that maps out where all of the Republican candidates — and Barack Obama — stand on a number of associated issues.
Among the social and political matters mapped out are: marriage, citizenship, adoption, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, employment policy, military service and the potential appointment of gay justices.
What is most interesting about the chart is the ability to see the staunchly conservative pattern that many of the candidates have in opposing each and every same-sex policy. In fact, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Thaddeus McCotter stand firmly planted against all of the issues presented on the chart (as you’ll see, “no” runs across the board for each individual).
Candidates like Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Ron Paul, among others, seem more open to supporting some gay rights issues. Below, read it for yourself:
Also, read a bit more about how this table was created:
Starting in August 2011, a survey was delivered to the office of each active, formally announced candidate via e-mail, web mail, and/or facsimile, and also via certified U.S. mail for which a staff member signed a receipt confirming the delivery. Each candidate’s survey showed his or her latest stand on each LGBT issue, based on speeches made, documents signed, and interviews given. All candidates were invited to notify MEUSA of updates to their positions as they occur, up through election day on 6 November 2012.
(h/t Mediaite)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 585 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (317)
teddrunk
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:07amGays are over playing their hand. Everyone is getting sick of hearing from them. Who cares what they want.
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:18amI agree with Ted. Who fricking cares? I don’t have anything against them, but please just shut up you freaks.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:22amThere is tons of money for some candidate from the gay community – there are some gays in New York and California who are very wealthy – and since the major GOP candidates are so against gay issues – that is a lot of money to put in Obama war chest!!! http://wp.me/pYLB7-1pE
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:55amGays are amassing power, they are being promoted faster almost anywhere they work, because people are scared to promote anyone other than the gay first, because they don’t want to be accused of discrimination. They are being hired first above more qualified non gay people because again employers are scared of being sued for discrimination against a gay. They are getting accepted into schools they shouldn’t be accepted into so the schools can claim to be more accepting, while actually discriminating against all others.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:59am@MONICNE
Do you actually think the average person on the blaze is stupid enough to believe the lies you type? What stats are you drawing from? The majority of job creators are not gay and lesbian.
The majority of AIDS victims in the US are gay though. A high degree of other STDs are contracted by homosexuality also. Gays are way more likely to molest children. These stats can be backed up.
TEA? (I think your tea has bit too much sugar in it)
Report Post »rabblechat
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:01am@ MONICNE We need to support gays so that they will create jobs? How many more jobs do you think would be created by allowing gay marriage?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:04amNah, its jut that the bigots on the right have lost, they hate seeing all people be treated equal under the law.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:08am@rabblechat
Since the law changed in New York, there has been an increase in tourism, industry that support weddings, bakers, halls, florists, dress makers, formal wear rental, etc., have all seen a marked increase in demand. So the bigots in the bible can let history them over again, whie NY and other states are seeing an economic advantage to treating all people are equals.
Report Post »PATRIOTMAMA
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:23amAMEN!!!! Geez I think homosexuality is a sin but so is lying, stealing, and immorality. I don’t care if you want to ruin your own life or suffer the consequences of your choices, but for the love of Pete please SHUT UP about it!!!!! Holy crap, I am attracted to men, I’m a woman, I don’t go parading throught the streets shouting about how i love men and deserve special treatment because of it. STOP screaming about your sexuality geez!!! Enough already!!!
Report Post »VaVetVoice
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:37amDitto,,,,,how is it we Vets share this same opinion? Cause when I was fighting for this country, we didn’t have to worry about who had our backs, nor worry about who is looking at our backsides!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Sleazy Hippo
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:42amWe all know Job Creators are like the Princess and the Pea. If you spook these gentle critters, they will not create! They need serenity and certainty.
And lots of them are “other than straight.”
TEA
Report Post »Bum thrower
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:44amI agree: Don‘t see ’em lined up at the military recuruiting office, do you?
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 11:12amAgree, it’s the economy first…that should take up most of the time on the clock.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 12:29pmThey deleted my post, LOL. I was simply saying that we need to protect Job Creators. Period.
((Recognizing that Job Creators are more likely to be divorced, promiscuous, and non-straight than the general population. They have the money and time to enjoy kinky and sometimes borderline diversions internationally.))
TEA
gramma b
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 12:30pmThis is a junk chart. It was created by the gays and lesbians themselves, then, if the candidate did not intervene to change any of the classifications, it was deemed by the gays and lesbians to be accurate. If I were a candidate, I would have ignored it. I would not have put my own imprimatur on it at all. The Blaze should be more careful about promoting this as having any kind of validity.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 1:07pm@ walkwithme1966
There is tons of money for some candidate from the gay community – there are some gays in New York and California who are very wealthy – and since the major GOP candidates are so against gay issues – that is a lot of money to put in Obama war chest!!!
In other words, the GOP probably won’t be as likely to whore its values despite the money temptation?
I agree.
Report Post »Fredhead
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 1:14pmWhy is this even an issue, other than those on the left, and fringe gay/activists/perverts, looking to somehow demonize those with an opposing view, especially conservatives.
Report Post »Yes I’ll say it, a pervert by definition is someone that is obsessed with, and in your face, with their own sexuality!
rangerp
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 2:15pm@MONICNE
Yes they deleted it, it was a lie, and you are a fraud and a fake, and a troll.
Tea? it goes good with crow
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 2:26pmIn all seriousness we’re looking at going broke. This president, his enabling media and this party won‘t take the debt seriously and we’re asking where the candidates stand on homosexual issues?
Report Post »Let the homosexuals twist in the wind this election cycle…they’re not (nor have they ever been) important to anyone but themselves.
rangerp
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 2:32pm@MONICINE –
“We need to respect all Job Creators, including Muslim job creators and pedophile job creators and Jew job creators, etc. Money talks!”
Yep, I nailed you as a lib, and as a troll early on. Now I see you are anti-semetic. putting pedophile job creators and Jew job creators together is pretty slick of you. God bless those that bless the Jews, and curses those that curse the jews.
Tea?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 2:37pmENCINOM…“increase in tourism for wedding services in New York”? Doesn’t it make sense to you that an influx of homosexuals would pour into the state to “get married” since it’s one of the few states that will perform the service for them? It couldn‘t be the fact that they simply don’t have a lot of options for this and they’re excited that New York is doing this? If it was national then you wouldn’t see this spike in activity in New York. Is this simple stuff really beyond you ENCINOM? Really?
Report Post »Baron_Doom
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 2:59pmMaking your sexual preference first and foremost as your identity is sickening. Who cares? Just keep it behind closed doors where it belongs, and no one will bother you. It’s when you shove it in our faces and force us to accept your immoral behavior that upsets us. I’d vote for anyone on that list from Michelle Bachmann down.
Report Post »squeaker
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:16pmwho cares….!!! the US has been reeeeemmmeed up the butt long enough from obambam and crime inc…
Report Post »vivianclare
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:32pmI agree wholeheartedly—I’m sick and tired of hearing from gays. Why do they need anything special? Isn’t it hard enough to deal with the lack of jobs, the mess of health care, overregulation, inability and unwillingness to become energy independent, the education bubble, wars abroad, etc. THESE are the serious problems. Are gay people immune from these, or are they so self-absorbed being gay is the only thing that matters to them?
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 4:18pmWho care about the gay issue?
Report Post »A better question would be where does do the 2012 candidates stand on going to war without Congressional approval, federal mandate forcing people to purchase items,nation right to work legislation, EPA regulation,waste another trillion in a middle east he77hole,energy mandates that take perfect safe lightbulbs and replacing them with mercury filled lightbilbs,cutting government waste,…ect You know crap that actually matters
Marci
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 5:26pmAgree with Ted–overplayed. If you want special rights, move to the back of the line and commence whining. We are tired of it. It’s a states rights issue and should remain as such. Advocating that the federal government step in and mandate it is pure deluxe ignorance given your rants to back off of everything else except entitlements. That’s the problem with the left and their followers—they want government interference in the confiscation of someone’s earnings and demand they back off of everything else. EXCEPT mandating gay marriage. Where exactly is that stance in the scheme of common sense?
Report Post »avenger
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 5:51pmwho gives a shet ! why do we have to suck up to less then 3% of the population? are you people fkng insane ?
Report Post »ramburner
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 7:33pmAnd this poll shows why Michelle is leading the pack. She is against gays and lesbians in all categories. If God can be against them and abhor their behavior, so can we! This is NOT to say we don’t love the sinner, but just as God does, we hate the sin! ALL of us sin, and their is no sin higher or lower in status in God’s eyes. So, sin is sin, no matter what kind. We MUST love the sinner, because God does, it’s obvious, He gave His life for the sinner. But we do NOT need to promote the sin and especially grant the open sin any influence! Let this sin be between the sinner and God, as one day, THAT will be where it is judged. God forbid anyone goes to hell over this kind of thing!
Report Post »v-vet1968
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:16pmI agree TED, go back in the closet and nail it shut.
Report Post »appleoffmyhead
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:09pmIf you had limited rights, including not being able to marry the person you love, I think you could understand that they will not just “shut up.” Lack of basic human rights, that‘s all they’re asking for.
Report Post »I_Hate_Libs
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:07amGay issues = who cares
Report Post »Rightsofman
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 11:26amI agree – stick your—- where you want but don’t bother me about it. Same goes for the girls.
Report Post »avenger
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 6:17pmyou bet dude..liberal ******** to destroy the normal family !
Report Post »michael48
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:42pmcould care less…just don’t bill me for YOUR behavior, or make me a part of YOUR bad/good events…quite acting like Dem-Com LOUDMOUTHS…live your life and leave me the hell alone…one thing going for you , I know where you stand…I haven’t a clue WHAT the Helpless and Totally dependent Parasite Par-ta believes…changes hourly with Moveon.NUTS talking points…
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoStinkingBadges
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 5:21amIf a candidate advocates ARREST, TRIAL, and DEATH PENALTY for homosexual acts/crimes … that‘s America’s man!
Report Post »101
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:06amI’m sick of the gays & their protest. Burn the rainbow go home you’re not special and you have no rights to receive tax benefits as a married couple. Marriage is defined between one man & one woman, anything beyond that is sickening, what’s next a man & his sheep a woman & her dog!
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:30amIf you are rude to the GLBT Job Creators they will not create any jobs! Be respectful to those who are successful, they are wealthier and more intelligent than most of us.
TEA
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:35amRegardless of what sickens you, this is america. Funny that you call for obamas head for shredding the constitution but you have no problem departing from the limitations of it in this instance. hypocrite.
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:51ammonkeyshines
Report Post »Who are all these “job creators” you are talking about?
MONICNE
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:57amWe love, respect and protect the esteemed Job Creators, who are 16% Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT), much higher than the general population.
TEA
Report Post »deeberj
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:07amMonicne – “Be respectful to those who are successful, they are wealthier and more intelligent than most of us”
I can’t believe you are saying this. Apparantly success as you define it = wealth. I will agree that many folks believe that. But I’ll not believe that just because a gay person has more money than me it makes them more successful AND more intelligent. This is such a ridiculous argument.
I have a basic respect for everyone as a human being. God created each and every one of them. But I don’t respect certain people just because they are smart or wealthy. You are too class conscious.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:07am@MONICNE I agree…they will lead us into a glorious new age of peace, prosperity and equality, all we need is a little mark to identify the enlightened ones!
Report Post »Blackop
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 1:32pmsomeone should round up all of the freaks and put them on an island somewhere.
Oh, they already did: Manhattan.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 2:26pm@MONICNE
Report Post »Your first lies already got deleted, hope your follow on lies get deleted also. The break job creators need, is for big gov to get off their backs. Are you really stupid, or just liberal. Study our economy back in the 70s when Carter was Pres. he was a tax and spend lib, just like your boy in the white house now. Reagan lowered taxes, and the economy boomed,and boomed for years. You can not spend more than you make, and continue to punish those that succeed. Socialism does not work, and has never worked.
Baron_Doom
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:02pmMoncine, sorry, but the 2% of the population that happens to have a certain sexual preference is not creating all the jobs.
Report Post »squeaker
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:20pmkinda like saying be respectful to muslims… those are little sheets not rags they wear on their heads….
so be respectful and rather than call them RagHeads… refer to them as Little Sheet Heads…
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:54pmMONICNE, gay issues have nothing to do with this. It is strictly a socialist agenda, which uses sexual preference as a tool. Typical of the progressive agenda.
Report Post »pecosval
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:05amWho cares??????
Report Post »stage9
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:54amWell, minus the last one, the bottom 4 are all that matters anyway.
Report Post »Kamikazesan
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:54amIt is this simple, let me lay it out for you.
they are American Citizens therefore delared equal to you and I under the Constitution of the United States. They have the same rights and therefore the same duties to defend those rights as any other American Citizen. If you believe otherwise you are wrong. American Citizen=Equal protection under the law plain and simple. Now Move on.
Report Post »vrodder
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:07amOK, I’ll cede your point about all being equal, but ask where does that end? If our military MUST allow EVERYONE (remember we are all equal) to join what will happen to our military? Should we remove all testing standards (all equal) what about height, weight and age standards? Could a 16 year old join the military? In your everyone is equal world he could. What about a guy that is overweight? Can’t discriminate he would have equal rights.
And I guess in your world you think it should be OK for siblings to marry? What about a 30 year old and a 14 year old? They have the same rights as everyone else remember! What the liberals are forgetting is the “right” to marry is not a god given right but a government given right and so the government gets to pick and chose who gets that right.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:11amthen why do you gays want special rights? ‘hate crime’ laws…‘gay marriage’ all special rights. why is just YOUR sexual preference given those rights? why not polygamists and pedophiles? after all whats so special about YOUR sexual preference?
Report Post »one years food ration like glenn says
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:14am@KAMIKAZESAN: Ummm, what is your stance on polygamy ? Do they get the same rights ? If yes, then why persecute them when the try to have 5 wives ? Never mind, it’s probably way over your head to understand..
Report Post »LiberalMarine
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:16amJust so you know, a lot of people can get into the military while failing aptitude tests, and being short or over weight, or too young (17 usually since you need a GED or High School Diploma) using waivers? I myself admitted to trying pot before I enlisted, so I got a drug waiver. It’s nothing new.
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:20amExactly. They don’t want equal rights, they want special rights. Everybody is special and “protected” by the govt except white guys. And, white guys are getting quite sick of it. Oh, only the white guys that don’t work for the govt that is.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:34am@VRODDER
Your posting strays too far of topic. The isssue is gays in the military. I say give them a chance to get killed and maimed just like a straight soldier. I know the first arguement against homosexuals is that somehow they would make passes at straights, look at them in the shower, etc. When I was in the Army, we had no expectation of privacy. We had a common shower, sink and toilet area with no partions. We slept in open bays. We dressed in the open. At Officers Basic we had 4 person rooms and shared a two station latrine with the next room. Again with no partions.
There is only 1 reason I am concerned about homosexuals in the military is exposure to HIV/AIDS which is significant in the gay community. I don’t know if the military routinely tests on a random basis. I would be very concerned about exposure to infected blood on the battle field. Until I hear a good answer to that I wouldn’t support homosexuals in the military.
From a religious standpoint, active practice of homosexual acts is a sin. My church doesn’t let homosexuals have full membership unless they have declared themselves celibate and remain so.
Before you go off on me, I am not a homosexual. I find it disgusting and sinful.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:41amHow is being allowed (wait government must ALLOW us to do things?!) to be married and receive the same legal benefits every other couple receives doe al treatment?
What exactly is so wrong with polygamy as long as everyone is adults and consenting?
And all the slippery slope arguments are moot. Under 18 have limited rights under the supervision of their legal guardian and animals are not consciously aware enough to consent in legally binding contracts.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:44amThe army does do regular AIDS/HIV testing. Do you realize how rampant STDs are in the military? You don’t need to be gay to have and transmit an STD
Report Post »planotexan
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:45amCorrect. They deserve the same RIGHTS as outlined by the Constitution. The LGBT people want special privileges. The massive uprising against this ‘protected class’ stems from the fact that it is not good enough that gays are allowed to live their life, everyone has to accept their lifestyle choice. Personally, I believe homosexuality is a sin as outlined in the Bible, but to a large extent, what others choose to do is none of my business. The annoyance comes when perverse actions are purposefully put in the face of our children and families.
You are wrong, sir!!
Report Post »ThomasUSA
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:51amI personally don’t care what the Homesexuals want to do in their own culture/ homes… But.. Marriage is and has been a hetrosexual institution… between man and woman… what right do homosexuals have of demanding we change our institutions / values ? It was legally up held that the gays have a right to exclusivly gay clubs, or bars or whatever it was… But can Hetrosexuals have a group that prohibit Gays? No… that is descrimination.. This is what is hypocritical about the Gay movement of tolerance of diversity.. etc… They do not tolerate those who do not agree with their bias.
Report Post »Kamikazesan
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:02amyou naysayers are becoming a joke if you ask me. What about polygamy, what about incest, what about standards in the military. you know what you guys sound like the racists of the yesteryear when the topics were Blacks in the military and interracial marriages, thank you for becoming Pathetic. I am not too keen about congress getting involved with Marriage, the issue of Polygamy and rules of marriage should be a state issue not a federal one even then i am hesitant as my stepdaughter put it how can you legislate love? (yep sorry Joe 1234 I am a confident heterosexual)…why would we want to leave the definations of Marriage to a group of people who don’t even have a 20% approval rating? Military has standards yes…they should be based on objective reasoning not subjective like the whole sexual preference issue, being a homosexual does not effect your fighting ability. As for special rights I am against them, EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS JUST THAT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
Report Post »gramma b
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 12:35pmThey already are equal. They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. What they want are special rights based on their sexual behavior.
Regardless of what you think about the moral issues, sexual attraction and sexual intercourse have an obvious biological purpose. The urge to imitate intercourse with a person of the same sex is an obvious dysfunction, in anyplace but the PC, Emperor’s New Clothes world in which we now live. But, just because they want to imitate intercourse, they now want us to change our laws to let them imitate marriage, and pretend that what is an obvious dysfunction by any objective criteria can thus magically be converted to something “normal.” It really is an affront to rational people.
Report Post »TXWildfire
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 12:59pm@ DISMAYED VETERAN
I have some insight into the Army regualtions, but for the rest of the military branches, I have no clue. I recently ETS’d (End of Time in Service) from the Army and yes we do have HIV testing required every 2 years just for the medical readiness portion. You can get tested earlier than that if you‘d like or if needed by a military school you’re going to or if you’re being deployed or what have you. And as for the STD’s, man don’t even get me started. It’s ridiculous. I concur with American Soldier (Separated).
Off topic, but still kinda interesting:
Report Post »Also something I found out when I went overseas, Army military personel that have POS HIV/AIDS results are stationed CONUS (here in the states). They are not allowed to go overseas. If they find out if they’re POS while OCONUS (overseas) they send them stateside. Just a nugget of knowledge for y’all.
But even then in a combat situation (i.e. bullets flying 2″ over your head) of course you‘re not going to put gloves on while handling a patient that’s bleeding all over the place, even though you’re “supposed” to (which is stupid ’cause you’re not thinking about HIV, you‘re thinking about stopping the bleeding and saving you’re buddies life). Even then, you never know who might have it cause it could take months to several years for a test to come up POS.
MONICNE
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:53amGod Bless all Americans, this is a great big country, the greatest on Earth, because we are diverse.
We should respect the middle class just like we love, respect and protect the esteemed Job Creators, who are 16% Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT).
Live and Let Live, we must learn to get along with our loyal, hardworking state and federal workers, postal employees, teachers, firemen, police, nurses, combat veterans, and dependents of active duty service persons. These groups happen to be 9 to 11% GLBT.
TEA
Report Post »pscully17
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:04amwhy does it matter if they are gay? why do we refernece them as GAY firemen, the First Gay Mayor( houston), the California History Books highliting societal Acheivements by GAY people? what does their being GAY have to do with anything? its a sexual personal prefernce.. its Not because they chose to BE GAY, gave them super powers in innovation, industry, politics… and otherwise wouldnt have used their brains in a productive capacity… By condoning Gay Marriage on the same level as Man/Wife who are supposed to PRO-CREATE to sustain Gods earthly societies… the ONLY reason Gay people are Banging down the Church doors for marriage equality, is NOT spiritual… its for the purpose of entitlements that the government awarded married couples for the last 200 years… and we awarded them those entitlements and tax breaks… throough a comprimised CIVIL UNION Law, in most every state. Other than that, Marriage is a Religious Biblical contract through you and God, it has NOThing to do with societal law other than benfits.. and I have to ask, How many Gays are Christian religious advocates? I shall have to research that!!
Report Post »ColoradoMaverick
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:09amWe all know that a percentage of people are gay, so what. Why is this a political issue. What they do behind closed doors is their business and they have a right to privacy. Some people have moral objections to gay marriage, etc… That too is their business. Gay marriage is a States Rights issue, period. If the voters in NY or wherever want to legalize it, that is their business. This issue should be be on ANY President’s agenda, period. The President has more important things to worry about that trying to get the gay vote.
Report Post »deeberj
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:12am” love, respect and protect the esteemed Job Creators, who are 16% Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT).”
Why are you repeating this phrase over and over again? Saying it often doesn’t make it true. Link me to stats that are not from a GLBT group but a non-biased organization and maybe I’ll listen to you. But I will not “esteem” the GLBT lifestyle. I believe it’s sinful.
Report Post »GIDEON612
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:24am@monicne
I have seen that you have posted an absurd amount of of your liberal views here lately and want to write “TEA” a the end. Those that have the tea party ideals are those that agree with the ideals of the founders. These people overcame insurmountable odds. Similar to Israel’s past but not even close. Why that is is due to the fact that we were founded upon God and His Word.
Report Post »God’s Word is very clear on things and sexual perversion is strongly looked down upon in any manner. No one is born a rapist, incestuous, pedophile, groper, or sexually attracted to the opposite sex…..PERIOD!
These are caused by outside influences and primarily…demonic spirits. Yes I said it. This in great part I blame upon the churches that have their own problems with these forces. Church splits are caused by demons which divide and weaken the Body of Christ. Then not only to be PC but mainly to keep their doors open churches preach and teach a feel good message that keeps the seats full and the offering plates full. This trickle down effect has left generations sick and infected. We are, or were the most advanced country on earth, and the sickest.
Preachers and teachers I urge you not to sell your birthright for a morsel of food, the Lord will provide. What I have told you is out of experience in the deliverance field and that is an area of much need and a great harvest is there.
Do not be swayed by people like monicne or any other that come in sheep’s clothing and only wan
Sleazy Hippo
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:47amShe is just saying that as TEA members, we are to protect and serve the Job Creators, and she further points out we cannot do that unless we respect their highly sophisticated lifestyles.
Average Americans cannot truly comprehend the beauty and value of gayness like the Job Creator Community can.
Report Post »GIDEON612
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 11:27am@Sleazy Hippo
I am to follow and believe that these creations of God are more sophisticated than God?
Report Post »Just as I said, ” Do not sell your birthright for a morsel of food.”
Let me break this down to a little. Our birthright as children of God is to be with our Father. Sin blocks us from this. To take any type of payment, or make any, for earthly and worldly gains that is contrary to God’s will and instructions to us is selling out.
Let‘s say you had a rich dad that left you and let’s say your only brother half of his multi-billion dollar fortune each. The thing is you have to wait for it, for him to die. You decide that you cannot wait for him to die and make a deal with your brother to get this half for your own business instead of waiting for what was already yours. Your bother gives you all that he has in turn for your portion of the will. Now you set off on your new seemingly fool proof endeavor. But, now your new business partner takes everything out of the bank, skips town, and leaves you with nothing again.
You had a small portion to sustain you for a season but you are now blocked for what was rightfully yours, by your own actions.You have sold your security for temporary oversights and delusions of grandeur on an ungodly ideal.
You go back to try to reconcile and get what you were originally offered by your dad, but it is too late. You sold out for an ideal and were taken for a ride and left in worse shape than you were before. Do not sell out for an
vivianclare
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:47pmWhat is this obsession Monicne has with Job Creators – there is no one taking away any rights that gays are given in a reasonable society. The rights gays want is to redefine society, and to claim that a gay couple is the same as a straight one. This is balderdash to anyone who actually thinks. The reason why marriage is protected by the state is that the state has a vested interest in encouraging people to live in families, in encouraging men to stay with their woman, instead of just mating around with anything that looks good. The state has an interest in men being responsible husbands and responsible fathers. It has no such interest in a gay couple. There are no children to protect, for the most part. No society has ever survived by pretending that a same sex union is a marriage. It deserves no special protection from a government, nor such recognition from society. It will always be a threat to everyone else’s family. In the end, gay “rights” is only about recruitment, and nothing else. Those of us in the overwhelming majority of this nation are sick and tired of being bossed around by the small minority interests of a few unfortunates. Yes, they have the same rights. They can get jobs, they can marry members of the opposite sex, pay taxes, etc. How many of you here wish to see your children grow up to be homosexuals? Be honest.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 4:18pm@GIDEON612
You speak the truth, and speak it well. It is not hard to pick out the Bible deniers and God haters on here. They stick out like a sore thumb. Funny how they write with a condescending tone. Keep up the truth, and keep writing.
Report Post »AntiLiberal74
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:50amForget the debt. Forget our future. Let’s focus on gay rights….sigh
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:49amWhy are we wasting our time paying any attention to these zeolots. Who cares. Ignore them. When you put your head on your pillow every night, I don‘t care who is next to you and you definantly don’t get any political favor because of it.
Report Post »Danola
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:47amA chart that shows who is willing to sell their soul for a vote.
Report Post »gabbygirl
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:47amYou can see who the compromisers are. Which in my mind translates weakness.
Report Post »patriot4ever
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:41amI say give them their own island State and let them do whatever they want. After all, how long would lit take to figure out that pro-creation takes two opposite sexes? Either they would be extinct in one generation or submit to the laws of nature to survive.
Report Post »ColoradoMaverick
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:40amWho cares!
Report Post »TheTruth1984
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:37ami know a lot of gay people. they are a hell of a lot smarter and all around better people than 80% of the straight couple i know. it is funny to watch the simple minded idiots on this page bash someone for no real reason. other than their own fear of coming out. homophobes….
Report Post »LiberalMarine
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:45amIt’s not that they are “Homophobes” since that would assume that they are afraid of them, but that is wrong. They hate the LGBT community. Many here don’t think that they deserve the right to marry the one they love, serve openly, or adopt and wrongly thing that the majority of America agree with them, which is true if they only look at conservative sites. I try and look at both sides websites and the number of people who support the rights I mentioned earlier far outweighs those who don’t.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:46amAmen!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:53amYour comments have nothing to do with the issue either. I doubt your statistics as they sound utterly fabricated in order to incite a harsh response.
This is not a federal issue, very few issues are federal issues. I’m on record here as not being against gay civil unions or gays being a part of a healthy productive society. I will not however kowtow to the notion that because I accept all people into society as equals that this means that I must chant for all issues to rise to the level of federal concern. If all are being treated equally under the law, then live and let live. Anything else turns quickly into tyranny, regardless of the issue in question.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:55am@liberalmarine
Nobody has a “right” to be married or get married. Marriage is a religious institution, not a civil institution. If one’s society establishes civil unions (non-religious) and that society proclaims to be for equality before the law for all citizens, then civil unions must by needs be available to all consenting adults without exception.
Everything else is a case of divide and conquer, that keeps most people at each other’s throats and distrcted from real issues.
Slainte
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:05am@Ghost
“Nobody has a “right” to be married or get married. Marriage is a religious institution, not a civil institution.”
Wrong. You might feel that way, and your own words describe how you’d personally like marriage to be defined, but marriage is a secular institution within the States (or else non-religious marriage would be illegal) and a right as decided by the Supreme Court. Quoted by Justice Warren in the case Loving v. Virginia (1967):
Report Post »“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men …”
joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:14amthe gay community hates christians and wants to take away their freedom of religion and speech..its what ‘gay marriage’ is all about.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:15am@Locked
Incorrect. It has traditionally been a religious institution. Believe it or not, the State was for most of history not omnipresent in our lives. Marriages (and births) used to be recorded *only* in church records (ask any geneology researcher) and family Bibles. The local government magistrate/leader had no interest in such matters as a concern of social policy (overarching nation wide social policy itself being a rather new invention historically).
If you want to get married go to a church and plead your case. If you want a civil union in a nation of laws not men, go to the local magistrate and get it done. You cannot force a church to marry you, but you can establish that all free citizens have the right to equality before the law.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:16am@locked…then what about polygamists? shouldn’t they have the same right? after all theirs is just another sexual preference…same for pedophiles…why should their sexual preferences be ‘discriminated’ against? hmmmm?
anything goes…all sexual preferences should be treated equally right?
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:19amThetruth1984, actually we’re just tired of hearing from and about gays. To most people their lifestyle will never be normal no matter what. That’s fine if they want to pursue it. But quit shoving that lifestyle in my face and telling me I have to support it. I’m so sick of hearing about them.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:21am“Incorrect. It has traditionally been a religious institution. Believe it or not, the State was for most of history not omnipresent in our lives. Marriages (and births) used to be recorded *only* in church records (ask any geneology researcher) and family Bibles. The local government magistrate/leader had no interest in such matters as a concern of social policy (overarching nation wide social policy itself being a rather new invention historically).”
The problem being that you’re relying on vague “tradition” here. I’m talking explicitly about the laws of the country. Marriage is tracked by the state for many reasons; and it IS called marriage, and is not religious in nature. As far the government is concerned, a church wedding means nothing unless you get yourself down to the local city hall and get a marriage license.
Again, the law is pretty clear on marriage being a basic right, and the institution itself being secular in nature. Whether or not you or I feel this is the correct way for it to be portrayed is a completely different issue.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:23am@Joe
Straw man arguments I’m afraid. Children have no legal or moral agency, and are thus not accorded their full share of rights until they reach the age of majority. In the time that they are children their rights are present but under the custodianship of their parents. Ergo, laws can justly be made to prohibit the exploitation of children sexually (and animals as well, same theory), again since they have no legal or moral agency.
Polygamy, well, what business is that of yours? If it’s a freely entered into union by all parties, it’s none of your business.
Report Post »one years food ration like glenn says
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:26am@THETRUTH1984: other than their own fear of coming out. homophobes….<<<<< For someone that is sympathetic to the Gay cause and have," as you say " so many gay friends" You act like being gay is wrong and disgusting .. You're a moron and you don't even know it assuming by the last words of your statement .. I'm only using YOUR words, so now tell me I'm a liar..
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:26am@Locked
I generally don’t accept when the state commandeers tradition and keeps the names in tact. The state also deems that it is the font of our rights, but I don’t accept that either. Discarding basic notions and adopting the notion that the state controls them now, is not in my mind a good thing to do. Distinctions keep the conversation clear. Muddying the debate is something that keeps us all at others throats.
You’re looking for disagreement where none exists. I’m 100% for all adults to choose to enter into civil union together, regardless of their (peaceful and consensual) sexual preferences.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:27am@Joe
Stay on topic please. If you want to discuss polygamy or pedophilia, get to an article on such things; or a support group perhaps. You seem incredibly interested in both.
The only point I was making was in response to Ghost: marriage in the US is secular, and it is a human right as per the words of the Supreme Court. GAY marriage is a different bowl of fruit (pun intended), but gay rights and issues include much more than simply marriage, as is shown in this chart.
It’s a pretty interesting chart overall, though it seems pretty incomplete. A lot of those “maybe”s warrant a more careful explanation.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:38am@Ghost
” Distinctions keep the conversation clear. Muddying the debate is something that keeps us all at others throats.”
This is true, and I‘m sorry if it seems I’m jumping down your throat. Er, gay puns not intended there. I can understand being upset when traditional terms lose their traditional meaning; I guess in my mind I’ve long decided that the division is relatively easy to understand. Marriage (Christian) is a religious tradition; marriage (state) is a secular institution. They share a name and a general form, but there are clear differences between them.
I agree, it would be cleaner just to cut the term marriage altogether and use civil unions. And ideally (in my mind) the only benefits conferred to these couples would be non-financial; I am a firm believer that financial benefits for married (or civil unionized) couples should only be conferred when they are raising children, as an incentive to stay together and make sure the kids grow up well.
I guess my point was that these ideas differ from the reality, where marriage is part of the legal jargon of the country and is stripped of religious meaning and described as a human right. So if I came off overly antagonistic.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:38am@locked…I’m agreeing with you…and asking where does it end? since homosexuality is a sexual preference and is given special rights, then why aren’t ALL sexual preferences given the same special rights?
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:41am@GhostOfJefferson no, no straw man obviously…you already want polygamists to be ‘married’ so why not every sexual preference?
as far as children…well what IS the age of consent again? its varied over time…and surely there is an ‘enlightened’ federal judge around who will declare age-of-consent laws discriminatory!
equal rights for all sexual preferences…anything else is ‘discrimination’
Report Post »inexiletill2012
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:46am@ truth
“they are a hell of a lot smarter and all around better people than 80% of the straight couple i know”
That is the biggest diaper load I hever heard ! . So you are saying gays are smarter ? I would say they are not as intelligent…after all how do they propagate ? they cant….ITS A LIFESTYLE !
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 11:56am“the gay community hates christians and wants to take away their freedom of religion and speech..its what ‘gay marriage’ is all about.” -joe1234
The most extreme example of ignorance. I’m no fan of christianity but that is absurd assumption. I can name two very active LBGT churches nearby my neighborhood. I have met gay people who are great human beings and are not necessarily very political and are in love like heterosexuals can be. Homosexuality makes little sense to me personally and I’ll never understand it but it exists all over the world. These human beings should accept treatment as second class citizens? If being gay was a choice why the hell would anyone want to be? Yea, sure, like one chooses to be in a position in life full of condemnation. One guy I know who is a violin instructor explained how once he told his father he was gay that he should go throw himself into a ditch. Another guy I met once was hospitalized by gay bashers, almost killed. All you people do is prove to any “agenda’d” gay people as joe suggests, that god is a malicious *******.. if there are gays that hate christians it’s ’cause you hate them to such a degree it serves your own egotistical righteousness.. what does that say about you? Who cares if they get rights as long as they are not perverse… it’s not like they will amass and take over the US. Biology will not allow it!
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 1:00pmoh boy cesium again….sigh….
ok, riddle me this cesium…why did the gays in MA take away the rights of the catholic charities to practice their religion in regards to adoption? they drove them out of the adoption business.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 2:01pmyea, you can find american atheist hypocrites too who do something outlandish and ridiculous like protest memorial religious symbols or street names and it gets notice in the media…after all they are pronouncing their atheism as religion.. That doesn’t represent the majority at all of people who are atheists or agnostics in the US by a longshot. It takes one person or a small group of people to make a big splash.. (by your logic) An alien reading national headlines for the first time may see a lot of news about the westboro baptist church but almost nothing about how much churches give in charity…what could their conclusion be about christianity?
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 2:08pmuh yeah that was the kind of precise analytical response I expected from the ‘scientist’ cesium…
I bet he’s either an evolutionist or an AGW climat scientist….
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:06pm@joe I don’t have time for your righteousness over me…. I am in the middle of quantifying my protein samples, the non scientist I am. PS.. found some transitional(s) for you too.. I know it’s not enough evidence and there is so much more intangible evidence in the bible. Australopithecus africanus and the rest were surely on Noah’s massive boat. http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm#Transitionals
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:31pmuh yeah the ‘scientist’ refers me to a .org web site…hmmm…well what about this peer-reviewed paper, cesium??
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21#IDA2DWZO
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 4:29pm@joe there is no denying of evolution in that paper you linked at all:
“A Biological Big Bang (BBB) model is proposed for the major transitions in life’s
evolution. According to this model, each transition is a BBB such that new classes of biological
entities emerge at the end of a rapid phase of evolution (inflation) that is characterized by extensive
exchange of genetic information which takes distinct forms for different BBBs. The major types of
new forms emerge independently, via a sampling process, from the pool of recombining entities of
the preceding generation. This process is envisaged as being qualitatively different from treepattern
cladogenesis.”
secondly: fine you want a paper.. here’s a recent one.. at least these researchers used the big lab(the wild) for their experiments. You havn’t the slightest of the constraints on doing an evolutionary in lab experiment http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01676.x/full
If you are to use the 600 generation fly experiment as negative data, then it doesn’t matter much because richard lenski showed a life form could evolve a new trait after subsequent generations in a (restrictive) lab setting. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1997,%20Nature,%20Sniegowski%20et%20al.pdf
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 5:21pmyeah a ‘rapid phase’ of evolution that leaves no transitional forms and is indistinguishable from special creation.
your first link requires a membership…so I cannot comment.
as far as lenski…..the link wouldn’t open up for me…but behe’s response says it best..
This fits well with recent work by Lenski’s and others’ laboratories, showing that most beneficial mutations actually break or degrade genes (4), and also with work by Thornton’s group showing that random mutation and natural selection likely could not transform a steroid hormone receptor back into its homologous ancestor, even though both have very similar structures and functions, because the tortuous evolutionary pathway would be nearly impossible to traverse. (5, 6) The more that is learned about Darwin’s mechanism at the molecular level, the more ineffectual it is seen to be.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/michael-behe-on-the-most-recent-richard-lenski-%E2%80%9Cevolvability%E2%80%9D-paper/
keep the faith in your racist god of evolution, darwin.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 6:51pmok lenski’s paper finally opened up…not sure why I had problems with it previously…anyway…
I’ve heard about his experiment, the paper you posted to is rather old….are you talking about the one where he gets bacteria to use citrate? I find this rather interesting..
Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with less than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
I have read it took 30,000 generations to get the bacteria to use citrate….I think this clearly illustrates Haldane’s dilemma…for humans with a generation of 40 years…is 1,200,000 years….or if you think generations are 20 years, then 600,000 years…there just isn’t enough time. lenski didn’t produce a new species of bacteria…
according to behe…
Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a “citrate permease” which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 7:14pmtry the quote again..
Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a “citrate permease” which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1)
I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. “If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.” (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/richard_dawkins_the_greatest_s026651.html
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 7:17pmthe abstract of your other paper talked about population densities..you might find this interesting…
The fact that very large population sizes–109 or greater–are required to build even a minimal [multi-residue] feature requiring two nucleotide alterations within 108 generations by the processes described in our model, and that enormous population sizes are required for more complex features or shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species, because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.
(Michael J. Behe & David W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, Vol 13:2651-2664 (2004).)
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 7:31pmIn 2008, Behe and Snoke’s would-be critics in Genetics tried to refute Behe but found that to obtain only 2 necessary mutations via Darwinian evolution “for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years.“ The critics admitted this was ”very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.” In other words, there is too much complex and specified information in many proteins and enzymes in humans to be generated by Darwinian processes on reasonable evolutionary timescale. (Behe’s responses to these critics are linked here.)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/richard_dawkins_the_greatest_s026651.html
Haldane’s dilemma…….
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 1:00pm@joe, I don‘t believe haldane’s dilemma can be applied to data gleaned from a laboratory setting no matter how much the numbers don’t add up to you and other creationists liking. You and many other scientists are ignoring the multifactorial multitudes of environmental pressures in the wild (design space). It is no way to discount what has been collected as evidence… There are transitional fossils!! It is totally unsurprising to know the bacteria strain unable to use citrate harbored other requisite enzymes in the citrate biochemical pathway. The variation within our population is evidence in front of your own eyes. I have known a number of mormons, and though it is not 100%, they are quite interbred people and many have distinct features, very deep eye wells as a major example. Lets imagine those deep eye wells they have by random chance served a benefit to survival when the whole population of humans is challenged by the environment. The same is thought to be true about the ccr5 receptor mutation immune to “the plague” and happens to also be immune to HIV. Where do these variations come from? I disagree with Behe’s argument on 2 mutations
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 1:13pmcont. Behe asserts “If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.” (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.”
Report Post »This point completely ignores conservation of traits. Two mutations do not HAVE to occur before a beneficial trait.. that is a conjecture! Especially when looking at where the biosphere is right now. I study a protein called mTOR (part of a kinase family) and a fungal sourced drug/poison that is highly selective for this molecule. However, this enzyme (with genetic variation) is so conserved it spans ALL eukaryotes. Despite that fact, single mutations in the TOR pathway in different species have led to different benefits for those respective species in that particular pathway that has been so conserved! That is one molecular example. I could give many more including the divergence of the insulin receptor. If you want to see transitional fossils examine all the kinase families in the cells and their subtle variants (ontologically and genetically) and then across species and it’s all there!! As you say all those subtitles within kinase families that are tractable yet arise from distinct genes(or splicing machinery) just appeared. Shazzam!!!!
Cesium
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 1:29pmcont.. TOR itself is a Kinase… All kinases have retained a very distinct enzymatic function no matter their sequence variation in the rest of the enzyme. TOR just as Ras can phosphorylate a protein.. Just consider for a moment that as divergent as TOR is from Ras in sequence and purpose within the cell, they have retained phosphorylation chemistry SINCE THE BEGINNING. You don’t even require a mutation for a kinase domain to fuse with a regulatory domain which could severely alter the directive of the kinase. Thus mutation event missing! The fact I can use a retrovirus in my lab containing genetic segments I put in to transfect human cell lines proves that it can happen. This is all very supportive of the evolutionary theory which is what led to this type of medical research… Your arguing in favor of a magical diety that just placed all the animals and species and variations here in a mythical mysterious manner outside the laws of physics. It’s a preposterous assumption and wishful thought at that! Knowledge of evolution itself may not be useful for innovation on its own,but so far a huge cache of knowledge on cell function has been attained ONLY because evolutionary logic provided the basis for experimental design… You want to do away with this? force everyone to just accept the sky fairy? LIke I said before, even if ID is true, evolution is still a fact.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 4:05pm“There are transitional fossils!!” really? is that Gould said this…
Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?
Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.
I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.
http://www.powells.com/authors/gould.html
“I don‘t believe haldane’s dilemma can be applied to data gleaned from a laboratory setting no matter how much the numbers don’t add up to you and other creationists liking.”
actually I think just the reverse is true…since the survivability of the mutation would be better in the wild, since whatever organism that the mutation occured in would not have as many challenges and competiton.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 4:32pmlooks like one of my comments didn’t go through…I was commenting upon using kinase which is an enzyme to prove transitional fossil?? it doesn’t even make sense, since its not a life form…
I don’t remember how I put it, this is frustrating..
you said :”. However, this enzyme (with genetic variation) is so conserved it spans ALL eukaryotes. ”
how can anything be conserved in evolution…I thought the whole point of evolution was change…to me this shows design…just like the pax6 gene that is responsible for all eyes in animals…this stretches the concept of parallel evolution or convergent evolution to ridiculous levels…
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 4:33pmlooks like my other comment didn’t make it either…great…this is so annoying…
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 5:48pm@joe Gould is remarking on very gradual examples of transitional fossils.. I showed you a link of hominoid skulls showing a great deal of transitional aspect. Conservation means “very successful” another random example hemoglobin. Where did the original kinase come from.. oh now you’re confusing evolution with origin of life. I told you this TOR enzyme is part of a huge family called kinases. TOR’s function like other kinases is very conserved Ie found in lots of species. A kinase not well conserved is found uniquely in very few species. Despite that both retain phosphorylation chemistry. If you go to the origin of this chemistry which is not known (yet) you can easily see in the kinase record they share common “ancestral” domains (of function). You end up with kinases that exist as tapestries of other domains, ie some kinases have membrane localization domains that are also found in non-kinase enzymes.. You focus all on mutation which is a very myopic understanding of the mechanism of evolutionary algorithm. There is a combination of mutation and gene transfer. The human chromosome 2 is total fusion of two separate ape chromosomes(~100% sequence identity) however, a fusion can result in major consequence of gene regulation from that chromosome WITHOUT MUTATION.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 6:03pmcont. I work where the rubber hits the road and see it for my own eyes all the time.. I am forced to go through 100s of molecular papers a year (mostly on cancer), focused on molecular cell events that require an evolutionary consideration in order to understand exactly why a certain kinase may be a candidate for a certain function. Im many cases its the evolutionary perspective that produces the experimental design which in the end, shows that a particular result in the cell is true.. without the evolutionary perspective the experiment could not be conjured in so so so many cases… You like other non-cell/mole cell scientists(ie hardcore chemists) sound like some of the elitist academics in “atlas shrugged,” speaking on that which they have little understanding of. At no point did Stephen J Gould ever hold a degree in biochem or molec cell! As brilliant as he is he rambles a lot and makes a lot of contradictions..he is one piece of the information puzzle. he may not find a striking amount of transitionals but he has done his job and molecular biologist have shown the molecular. You can find tons of transitions in cells.. Even one gene can splice into say 3 subtle variants for different purposes until you find a related gene that is 90% homologous to the first gene yet produces a product that does something more distantly unrelated and through either mutation, duplication, or transfer has become too different to be just a variant of the first gene…
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 6:24pmIt is a joke for me to watch you try and defend mysticism over evolution. Even Mr. Evangelical Dr. Collins head of NIH accepts evolution! Why?! because he has seen what I have!!! He can reconcile his faith to science all he wants to make himself happy but why does this Evangelical have a soft spot for evolution?! Go talk to the molec biologists at notre dame or Brigham young. I used to work with a Mormon from Provo who acknowledge evolution as well! The difference between us and you (including so many laudable scientist/mathematicians who comment from outside the field of medical genetic/molecular research) is you havn’t immersed yourself in the science to see it.. I challenge you to go to graduate school for a doctorate in medical research related field and come out with your current staunchness on evolution… You might even see intelligent design in it yet that doesn’t discount the evidence in favor of evolution! All the transitional evidence and phylogentic relics are in the cell! I guarantee if you dug up an extinct animal and looked at a specific protein it will have a unique sequence that fits somewhere in between the same protein in other species yet is now lost in extinction. bone fossil evidence is only one very limited capacity for seeing transitionals.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 8:38pm@cesium..Gould is commenting upon the LACK of transitional fossils becaues as a paleontologist he couldn’t find any…homonid evolution is even more in dispute than brd to dinos….with several instances of fakes. evolution predicts gradual transitions…the lack of transitions speaks volumes…and your link is from a .org site…please……I’ve given you a peer-reviewed paper for the ‘biological big bang’….that talked about the lack of transitions…..because animals appear suddenly….as CREATIONISTS predict….just because a paper uses the magic word ‘evolution’ doesn’t mean that it proves evolution…
“TOR’s function like other kinases is very conserved Ie found in lots of species. ” yes this is what I would expect from intelligent design….you do realize you are making my case for me, right?
do me a favor, please use paragraphs, your posts are difficult to read, they run on and on and on…
“You focus all on mutation which is a very myopic understanding of the mechanism of evolutionary algorithm.” uh thats because since the synthesis, evolution has focuses on mutations…its like that example with the water flea…when the mother is attacked the offspring acquire a horned helmet…thats not evolution…thats design…epigenics is design, not evolution…you can’t have evolution mean everything…then it means nothing.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 8:46pm“The human chromosome 2 is total fusion of two separate ape chromosomes(~100% sequence identity)” uh not really..,.
To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million ’letters’ align with the chimpanzee genome – that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless ”junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
this is from dr. richard buggs… (sometimes when I put links in my posts don’t make it, I’m tired of it)
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 8:52pm@cesium…you talk about all this ‘evolution’ in the cells…well that ‘evolution’ doesn’t add up does it now? you should be able to evolve something then, take a bacteria, and make a multi-cellular animal out of it, you can even name it….prove your theory. but you can’t, and neither can anyone else…
ever hear of the tuatara?
Tuatara Genes Are Running in Place 03/24/2008
March 24, 2008 — One would expect a living fossil to show extreme stasis at the genetic level. Not so for the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, reported EurekAlert: researchers found that “although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined.”
(again I”m not putting the link in on purpose)
you can talk about the cellular ‘evolution’ all you want, but if it doesn’t change the animal, then its meaningless…
as creationists and IDers predict animals only vary within narrow ranges…new types of animals do not evolve. and if evolution was true, you should be able to prove it…but you can’t…you say 30,000 generations isn’t enough…how much IS enough?
as far as mysticism, my beliefs have far more support than yours..the fossil record shows my beliefs…the predictions of ID show my beliefs…the predictions of evolution, like transitions in the fossil record, vestigial organs, junk dna, the tree of life, etc have been FALSIFIE
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 8:58pm•Biochemistry, where ID explains and predicts the presence of high levels of complex and specified information in proteins and DNA;
*we haven’t even talked about the specific information in DNA the codes within codes..the splicosome…etc…codes REQUIRE intelligence….the sender and receiver have to understand the code….this is impossible with evolution
as far as a graduate degree I have a graduate degree and work in a technical field…and I know how hard it is to do the smallest thing…and how one character out of place ruins the entire thing..,.it has shown that nothing works without intelligent deisgn…..
•Genetics, where ID predicts and explains function for so-called “junk” DNA while neo-Darwinism stifles such research;
•Systematics, where ID explains why there are similarities between living species, including examples of extreme genetic “convergence” that severely conflict with conventional evolutionary phylogenies
•Paleontology, where ID’s prediction of irreducibly complexity in biological systems explains paleontological patterns such as the abrupt appearance of biological life forms, punctuated change, and stasis throughout the history of life;
•Animal biology, where ID predicts function for allegedly “vestigial” organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions here;
ID models the real world far better than evolution..evolution is nothing more than atheism disguised as science…
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 9:02pmoh another failed prediction of darwin….
Today, there’s also an Arland D. Williams Jr. Bridge, in Washington, D.C.; an Arland D. Williams Jr. Elementary School, in Mattoon, Illinois; and an Arland D. Williams, Jr. Endowed Professorship of Heroism at the Citadel. There’s an Arland Williams folk song and a made-for-TV movie. There’s even an Arland Williams shrine created by a woman in Japan. But as Darwin predicted, there is no Arland Williams IV.
And there never will be.
/www. msnbc.msn .com/id /21902983/page/4/
the darwinists admit evolution is atheism..
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 9:21pmas far as the codes within the genome…they prove that darwinism is just impossible…it takes intelligence to produce a code….because code have to be understood between sender and receiver….impossible for unguided evolution…
The astonishing complexity of the dynamic information
storage capacity of the DNA/chromosome system is, in
itself, a marvel of engineering design. Such a magnificent
solution to such a monster logistics problem could surely
only come from a Master Designer. But the nature of the
majority of this information poses an impossible conundrum
for neo-Darwinists.
Proteins are the work-horse molecules of biology. But
protein-coding genes make up only a tiny proportion of
all the information that we have been describing above.
The vast majority of information in the human genome
is not primary code for proteins, but meta-information—
information about information—the instructions that a cell
needs for using the proteins to make, maintain and reproduce
functional human beings.
Neo-Darwinists say that all this information arose
by random mutations, but this is not possible. Random
events are, by definition, independent of one another.
But meta-information is, by definition, totally dependent
upon the information to which it relates.
this is a really interesting article….not for cesium, but for any interested observers (remove spaces)
http:// creationontheweb.com/ images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 12:28am@joe I already told you what the field views that outdated term “junk DNA” as so stop using it in your arguments.. It’s an archaic term..
This what gould says.. “Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.” Yes! Transitional forms would be very lacking at species level but that doesn‘t mean forms haven’t been found! Complete fossils are rare and transitionals may not have been successful enough to produce larger populations to increase the number of fossil remnants.
then you say:
Report Post »“it takes intelligence to produce a code….because code have to be understood between sender and receiver….impossible for unguided evolution…” No! that does not have to be true. Do you know what RNA directed evolution is? A chemistry that links RNA nucleotides in random sequences can eventually produce a catalytic species towards another RNA or other chemical ligand! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_Evolution_of_Ligands_by_Exponential_Enrichment
It is possible by chance to produce an enzymatic RNA. And recently it has been shown RNA can be self replicating..http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1229.short This gives immense weight to the feasibility of the the
Cesium
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 1:16am(as i was saying)
Report Post »It is possible by chance to produce an enzymatic RNA. And recently it has been shown RNA can be self replicating http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1229.short This gives immense weight to the feasibility of the theory! There is certainly an algorithm possible without need of ID if RNA can replicated itself! Thus the code doesn’t require ID! And even if ID exists than it very likely used the blind meanderings of stochastic chemistry it created. ID provided the conditions but it don’t go like it goes in the bible! I already broke apart your argument of epigentics previously. KINASES regulate epigentic regulators. It is all still subject to DNA code and the variations between species and the environment. No way is epigentics outside evolution! I know Dr. Collins would agree with me!
On requiring ID
Small grains of sand on the beach laid over large ones by regular cadence occurs by an algorithm that requires no ID. The same can be true for the selection of spontaneous replicating/processive heterogeneous polymeric chemicals.
Conserved molecules do not give your argument strength! at a certain point a molecule becomes successful and is still used throughout divergence and retained.(then varied) It makes it successful for a eukaryotic cell and it gets used over again. some both in plant and animal.ie tubulin. These are some of the most ancient molecules that provided the groundwork before new molecules where selected
Cesium
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 1:29amand i apologize if my paragraphs don‘t come together to your liking but again my responses are hasty as I’m not keen on spending time on this. I am also in between other things as I respond..pretty much all the time. Right now, my atheist asian girlfriend I date since I‘m a racist keeps stealing the computer to look up recipes for the desert she is making and cutting off my thought train and I don’t care to take the time to reread and organize for coherence for you so if i apologize to you for anything it’s that…
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 9:09amself-replicating RNA? oh this is too funny, now you’re getting into OOL, which evolutionists usually state is outside the bounds of evolution..
There are a number of reasons why this is irrelevant to an evolutionary origin of life
Report Post »1. This system carries very little information, in contrast to even the simplest cell. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any living organism, which contains 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.8 This organism is an obligate parasite. A free-living organism would need many more genes.
2. The new AATE molecule binds too strongly to the parent, so no new reactants can come in and join, as Rebek himself admits.9
3. Replication only occurred in highly artificial, unnatural conditions.10 A reaction in chloroform is irrelevant to living organisms. In particular, chloroform would not hinder condensation reactions as water does. Most polymerisation reactions in life are condensation reactions, that is, they eject a small molecule like water. If there is much water around as there is with all living things, the reverse reaction is favoured, that is the hydrolysis (break-up) of polymers. [For more information, see my later paper, Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem].
4. The molecule reproduced too accurately—there is no possibility of neo-Darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection.11
joe1234
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 9:19amepigenics is part of evolution huh?
In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence – hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above, outer) -genetics.
uh nice try, but its BS…evolution is all about random mutations…epigenics is more like LAMARCKIANISM….where offspring acquire traits based upon the behavioral experiences of their parents….this is clearly DESIGNED…please your desperation is laughable.
no comment about the tuatara, no surprise…
of course anything conserved in biology makes my argument…especially when you talk about genes, or anything else, conserved across many species…this clearly indicates intelligent design.
no comment about how ID models the real world much better than evolution..
you know cesium, you’re not nearly as clever as you think you a re…you rants don’t make a great deal of sense, you cannot see the forest for the trees, and your refusal to comment upon a wide variety of issues show that you are really not that conversant in this area.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 9:23amyou know when the left-wing guardian of london has a headline like this you know your beloved theory is in a great deal of trouble….
Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong
What if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants? Evolutionary thinking is having a revolution . .
EPIGENICS….DESIGNED into the animal…no evolution….sorry…
Three years ago, researchers led by a professor at the university of Linköping in Sweden created a henhouse that was specially designed to make its chicken occupants feel stressed. The lighting was manipulated to make the rhythms of night and day unpredictable, so the chickens lost track of when to eat or roost. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, they showed a significant decrease in their ability to learn how to find food hidden in a maze.
The surprising part is what happened next: the chickens were moved back to a non-stressful environment, where they conceived and hatched chicks who were raised without stress – and yet these chicks, too, demonstrated unexpectedly poor skills at finding food in a maze. They appeared to have inherited a problem that had been induced in their mothers through the environment. Further research established that the inherited change had altered the chicks’ “gene expression” – the way certain genes are turned “on” or “off”, bestowing any given animal with specific traits. The stress had affec
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 12:29pm@ uhh you live in a your own little world! I explained to you already a basic idea of how epigenetics works and you fail to listen!!! eipigentics is regulated by genetics!! get it?!? The environment comes into play and is intertwined…It is not full Lamarckian!!! You think of humans as divine outside of nature so you fail to consider the environment as part of you!.. that is your whole angle. This discovery was very exciting to me.. it has significant potential weight to the role of personal responsibility in one’s health! The tuatara rapidly changes it’s DNA.. so what? so do we.. You’re probably full of eptein barr virus, and we know we have transposons that can jump and change our DNA over life. You don’t think there are mechinisms involved to retain the viable segments of code while others are allowed to change and swap info? especially in germ cells? by the time you die, your somatic DNA is not the same as you were born! You make select data fit your view. I would seriously advise you to contact Dr. Collins at the NIH and have these discussions with him.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 12:38pmI’m sure Dr. Collins has a better tolerance for having this discussion and you can both talk about your magic jew savior together but I do not have the poise at this time in my life to be didactic on a blog with creationists. The ignorance is astounding and Gould would agree. I am doing hardcore research in between ideas and I don’t have the time to whip up papers to show you as much as you have the time to. I have a life to live for life..it is the jewish way.. I’m sorry many of you (not all) christians live for death… You also have to stop calling people evolutionists and darwinists! there is no such label! There are no Pasteurists, Hawkingists, Einsteinists, or, DNA replicationists, Cell divisionists, and glycolisists. That is a perfect example of your simplistic thinking process and holier than though judgment on people.. I don’t believe in a god who would view you as more righteous than me… I don’t believe in a god as petty as the one in the bible.. If there is ID or a god I assure you he is not a jealous petty punisher
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 3:02pm@ cesium…the very definition of epigenics is OUTSIDE, ABOVE genetics, I gave you the definition and you still deny it….laughable.
“The tuatara rapidly changes it’s DNA.. so what? ” again laughable….you tell me about ‘evoltuion in the enzyme” ITS MEANINGLESS….if it doesn’t change the animal, then it doesn’t matter….this just dipsroves your ‘evolution in the cell’ and you’re too dumb to even see it…no surprise there.
as far as JUNKE DNA being obsolete…yeah it is duhhhhhhhh because its another failed prediction of darwinism. you just don’t have the integrity and honesty to admit it…no surprise there huh?
you say “You don’t think there are mechinisms involved to retain the viable segments of code while others are allowed to change and swap info?” yeah there are, and why would evolution put those in place??? hmmmm???? that indicates DESIGN…..you really make this TOO easy!! LOL
“by the time you die, your somatic DNA is not the same as you were born! ” yeah I have different hairs on my head, do you think proves evolution too??? duhhhhhhh
oh and one day you‘ll bow your knees to that ’magic jew savior’ and proclaim Him Lord…then He will consign you to the outer darkness where you belong…and you’ll find out how real demons are…and how hungry they are…..
funny how my simplistic thinking has made you look so foolish so often, how does it feel to be beaten again by a goy?? loser.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 6:13pmHa.. “beaten by a goy” congrats! You are part of a long line of goy who has “beaten” us since you cannot fathom our success or perspective on life. It drives the rest of the world out of their mind. Judaism is not all about belief in god and you fools can’t wrap your head around that. There are jews who choose to believe and there are those that don’t but we all still do the rituals anyway… You’re hoping I will be tormented by demons as punishment which is a very evil and barbaric thought for someone. mighty christian of ya… I‘m as proud as any american that bin laden was taken out by us and i’d shoot him myself ..but you probably get yourself off imagining he is being tortured right now. Well guess what, they imagine dead christians are getting tortured right now… Jews don‘t concern ourselves with hashem’s handling of the dead. so congrats! you are a barbarian. Many of us Jews consider our pantheistic roots and view hashem as the way of the universe..no beginning no end.. that which is all and nothing.. yes NOTHING. it is far too complex for christians to understand so don’t wrack your brain trying to see through jewish eyes. belief in god for the jew is up to the individual.. we don‘t function like a union like christian and islam’s “you‘re with us or you’re not us” mentality.. and the hassidic do not represent the history of my people. Your religion is a CGI movie….
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 6:41pmmany many modern jews who themselves believe in god do not take the torah literally at all.. In fact our whole history is full of jews who view the whole bible as a lot of allegory. It is not a sin for us to do that. so, you fools have no authority over our sinning. In fact the word torah doesn’t mean bible and was never titled as holy torah either! In hebrew it means “teach/instruction” This can include all the meanings and allegory from midrash. only the koran and NT are oh so holy…GTFO I assure you the rabbi jesus as I know any rabbi would not be one to cast anyone into torment. but for you it’s all a self satisfying thought. The root of your sickness..
and you still are so beyond reaching in terms of epigentics… epi; OUTSIDE genome code not exclusive to it! It is a different code! get it epi! It is still modulated by standard genetics… factors sourced from genes REGULATE IT.! I don’t know how else to explain to you… like i said contact Dr. collins. Try to explain to him that it is incompatible with evolution.
go back to watching your heaven hell demon angel resurrection CGI movies in your head.. I know it is quite entertaining and your viscera is enslaved by your christian imagination .. how’s it feel being a slave to your mind…?
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 7:37pmtalk about drooling over your keyboard.. you get so excited about your self satisfying explanations.. “hmm that indicates design” “so easy.” Is that where your brain stops? Life sure does indicate design!! Algorithm results in consequence! just because you didn‘t witness the random algorithm building up on itself and changing constantly doesn’t mean there is a designer to it. Who designed the weather algorithm that is replicating under stochastic degrees of predictability? Where’s the part in the bible about el nino? yep no reproducing system here.. I‘m sure it’s exactly the same storm every time too and there’s no randomness within that storm system. hmm system, that implies designer.. so tell me,, who designed the el nino system? why does it send it’s offspring every 3 to 6 years? who’s behind this mechanism? yea… tooo easy…
When you go on your rant about mutation being the sole driver of evolution, don’t forget to mention retroviral insertion, transposon jumping, and gene fusion/fusion mistakes.. don’t keep it so simple for yourself … (I know, hard for you) There is much more than just “mutation” … don’t keep violating the 9th commandment as you troll…
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 9:29pmuh yeah there are darwinists…and there are darwiniacs like you…
Even prominent Darwinist scientists use the term in their popular writings. Richard Dawkins writes that “There are people in this world who desperately want to not have to believe in Darwinism.” (The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, 1996 ed, pg. 250) The term “Darwinism” has over 20 entries in the index to Stephen Jay Gould’s magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.
“I also already told you mutation is not the only way to introduce changes into code.” and I already told you code is only produced by intelligence….your lack of that shows in every post you make…
algorithms exist in nature because they were designed into the fabric of nature…fibonacci numbers for example….there is no ‘weather algorithm’ moron…we create the algorithms that describe the math that was DESIGNED into creation…..duhhhhhhhhhhhh damn you’re dumb.
you’re so full of BS its laughalbe….you’re a typical brain-dead darwiniac troll…no matter what the data says you drool ‘it evolved’ ‘it evolved’ squawk…you‘re a talking point parrot who doesn’t have the intelligence to debate the issues…or even understand them.
I do enjoy making you look stupid, its so damned easy!! LOL loser.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 9:32pm“don’t forget to mention retroviral insertion, transposon jumping, and gene fusion/fusion mistakes”
oh yes more grasping at straws…well since you have all these POWERFUL FORCES working on evolution…then evolve something….you’re SO smart, at least you think you are, then go ahead and evolve something…how hard can it be?? hmmmm??
oh but you can’t…well why don’t you just list the mutations, and retroviral insertions, etc that led to the eye…in order…how hard is it??
Report Post »oh you can’t because it NEVER EVOLVED….nothing else does either…wish you could evolve some intelligence but there is no hope for that…
Cesium
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 10:08pmhaha.. I’m dumb and you set up that frail of a straw man…? uhh why can’t I evolve something? uhh last I checked we’re still in the middle of researching cells… uhhhhhhhhhhh…check back in 1000 years… gimme a break…. fibonacci sequence.. great! A ratio that serves as a basis for building an algorithm off of in terms of shape and probability constraints… it’s definitely a cool realization, but how bout this! Give me the example of fibonacci sequence in the so called bible codes… or your holy NT.. And I’m NOT talking about the arc or any other man made object which people have a history of basing on human proportions…it should lie under the story NOT be part of the story…
Report Post »rrrrea
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:36amI like this chart. It would nice to see charts similar to this one being designed for all the other important issues that are affecting this country and how the presidential candidates stand on them…
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:07amAgreed. The only issue is that many candidates are not “yes” or “no” on issues. For example, Obama has said many times he is against gay marriage, but he’s listed as “Maybe” on here. Why? It’s a nice quick reference guide, but it’s not comprehensive, that’s for sure.
Report Post »DeercreekPatriot
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:35amRON PAUL 2012!!! Restore America Now!!! W.W.T.F.D -What Would The Founders Do
Report Post »constitutionaldirective
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:34amTHIS IS NOT a FEDERAL ISSUE.. this is a STATE’S ISSUE.. Stop it! Stop misusing the federal government then complain after you surrender the 10th Amendment… I KNOW this is an important issue.. but… JUST.. STOP IT!!! Stop surrendering OUR Bill of Rights for YOUR (our) IDEOLOGY!!!
libertyforkeeps.com
Report Post »jnobfan
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:43amAbsolutely correct sir!!
I do not care if NY or Cali wants gay anything and I don’t want Ny + Cali telling Fl about where I can carry a gun or have flat sheets on my bed. States Rights are perfect examples of diversity in lifestyle but the left only wants diversity when they agree with it.
Report Post »Al_Capone
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:55amgood word
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:13am“THIS IS NOT a FEDERAL ISSUE.. this is a STATE’S ISSUE”
Generally correct, but with most of these categories you would be wrong. The military benefits, DOMA, federal benefits from gay marriage or civil unions, foreign citizenship for same-sex spouses, federal civilian worker discrimination, and potentially judges who are sensitive to LGBT issues all fall under federal purview.
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:29amThe morality of a people and their country is always an issue, regardless how small a percentage of the population supports it.
Report Post »Using the logic “so few support it” would insure total gun control in this country if we paid no attention to the issue since so few are pushing for it.
So few support abortion, yet millions of babies are murdered each year because of it. Yet so few support it.
Just a couple of examples of what ‘so few support’… yet our lives are controlled by the issue. Saying something is a “non-issue” is to bury your head in the sand because once it haqs become a topic of discussion, it’s an “issue”. Period.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:38amI doubt your gun control example holds water. Over 100+ million gun owners in these united States (civilian).
Ultimately it comes back to what the Federal government is and is not permitted to do. There are no provisions for granting special rights in the Constitution. They must ensure equality before the law for all citizens, but nothing more. There are no “gay issues”, there are only human rights issues. Once equality before the law is established, meaning we all get the same treatment under the law, everything else is moot.
Yes, this means that the Feds could not force people to associate together and other violations of human rights as they do now in the name of groups. But hey, that’s what we call freedom.
Report Post »Kai Wan
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:28amUnfortunately, the 2% can destroy our way of life if we let them. Stand up to these social terrorists and don’t give into their threats of changing our way of life. Stand tall conservatives. Stand up for my values!
Report Post »quicker
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:23amI heard that they found two new weird dinosuars ,One they called licalotapus and the other homosuaras
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:29amHow anyone could allow gays to adopt children is absolutely as evil as you can be. I would hope that any politician that supports such sickness chokes on their own tongue and dies in their sleep.
Report Post »pscully17
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:30amHeres an eye Opener for all the gay activity supporters… bing search gay men and disease…. after reading a few articles from the cdc, this should really deter people from engaging in gay/ bi sexual relations.
Report Post »one years food ration like glenn says
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:31am@PSCULLY17: Here open your eyes do a bing serch on “ TROJAN ”……Just sayin man..
Report Post »pscully17
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:47am@one years… do you really believe a poopchute is a place for ding dongs? Seroiusly.. thats your vision of a natural behavior? The last 1000 years of moral acceptance on the issue was its WRONG, as seen in every state having ant-sodomy laws up until the supreme court over-rode the majority public stance on it, soddomy was a crime.. of course, thats when we as a society truly believed in the moral teachings of the Bible, which Long Ago established a collective moral standard of living in society, and many A-moral acivities were shunned, including unwed pregnancies, abortion, drug use, adultery, you know.. everything that that the leftwing has now, through mass media propaganda, created the impression that all those things are NORMAL and accepted behaviors…
Report Post »taxidriver76
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:19amI am glad to see that there are some candidates who still believe in a federal government interfering in peoples personal lives. That is why we can’t elect Ron Paul, he will try to make government smaller and less invasive. We need to elect Rick Perry and get that large controlling federal government that we all want!
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:15amThe Gay Issue is a non-issue. It’s a weapon of the Left to beat down conservative candidates. Less than 3% of US is openly gay.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:20amQuite correct. It’s the normal case of “divide and conquer”. There are no “issues” except human rights issues, nation *defense* issues and economic issues. Everything else is imaginary chaff thrown out to keep the people bickering and at each other’s throats. What’s worrisome is how people allow themselves to be segregated into battling “classes” so easily.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:26amEveryone is entitled to their own opinion, no one is entitled to their own truth- it is universal. Gay is nothing new, has been tried numerous times throughout history. Superpower nations in the past have gone the way of evil, and have allowed and embraced homosexuality. They have all fallen within two generations of doing so. Rome, Greece, Persia, Babylon…. When you destroy the family, you destroy the nations. Sodomites destroy families.
I sound like a broken record, but go to the CDC and check what they have to offer about gays. For your info , the center for disease control is not a right wing baptist organization, it is a federally funded group. You will see that gays are way more likely to have STD’s commit suicide, molest children, have multiple partners in a short period of time, tote 70% or more of the AIDS in the U.S. be drug and alcohol dependent….. They are a unhealthy and criminal bunch, and always have been. No nation was built by gays, but many have been destroyed. It is against the Bible, against nature, and it does not work to help a nation. A little rusty on my Old Testament history, but I seem to remember a certain king after David that cleaned up Israel by tearing down the high places (places of idol worship), and running the sodomites out of the land. Wish we could get a leader like that.
Report Post »LiberalMarine
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:33am^ lol
Report Post »rabblechat
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:12amAs ranger as pointed out, Gay marriage is a dead end for humanity. I do not doubt that some people are born gay, but it is absolutely wrong to teach our children that it is normal. Heterosexual relationships are normal. Homosexuality is nothing more than a aberration in humanity, much like midgets or people born missing limbs…
Report Post »LiberalMarine
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:23amSo are midgets and people born missing a limb supposed to not get married either?
Report Post »LiberalMarine
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:14amOf course the ones who think it is a choice are also the ones who are more discriminatory.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 9:17amreally the only discrimination I see is from the gay fascists who want to take away the rights of christians like they did to the catholic charities in MA and that doctor in CA who refused to artifically inseminate a lesbian.
Report Post »pscully17
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:08amwho Cares? Do we really need to have a debate on issues that only affect 2 percent of the population? we have already made concessions to the gay lesbia Orgs its called civil unions.. GET OVER IT!!! wait and the biggest conscession by the supreme courst to the gays, removing all anti-sodomy laws in 2003… so, what else can we talk about? Jobs, the economy, making sure obamas team is impeached!!
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:20amAmen.
Report Post »ConservativeResponse
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:26amObviously the 2-3% care and instead of the 20% unemployment, let’s make sure gays are comfortable and can be married. That’s what we should be worried about. Heck, why don’t we have another 800+billion dollar stimulus to ensure that every gay man and woman are guaranteed married. Now that’s some social motha fuggin justice!
Report Post »HowardSternIsABigot
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:07amI dont think I even want to know what “gay issues” means. Why would they be different than human issues? Is there something different about gays?
Report Post »DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 8:17amYes. They can’t procreate with each other. Thankfully.
Report Post »