Warren Buffett donates to the Gates foundation.

[JB_From_Hell]

....a Christian can't quote the Bible because if he does, he is spreading hate propaganda, since homosexuals are defined as a protected group of people in their hate crimes laws. That's stupid. So because someone chooses to be gay, no one is allowed to even sound like they're not in agreement with it?

Such a shame.... people aren't allowed to spread hate propoganda.

Ok, here's a fresh angle.... what business is it of yours who anybody else has sex with?

[neosadist]

Such a shame.... people aren't allowed to spread hate propoganda. Ok, here's a fresh angle.... what business is it of yours who anybody else has sex with?

1) That's not hate propaganda. If you'd read the Bible and look at the idea behind everyone being a sinner, you'd realize that it's to point us to a loving God who actually guarantees that He will forgive us if we just admit we did wrong. How is that hate propaganda? More like "I hate what you have to say". Sorry, the Constitution guarantees me free speech. I never said "kill the gays", nor did I in any way espouse or recommend violence against them.

2) It's none of my business. However, television and activists are making it my business by their constant clamour. You don't have to even go looking: people will openly admit to their sin. I'm supposed to just sit here and let them scream lies into my ears? For example, where's my right to watch cable television without being offended? I'd have a lot more respect for the gay and lesbian agenda and movement if they didn't have their parades. And mostly, the parades ridicule various groups they don't like, especially religious groups, and they are in broad daylight committing disgusting acts and portraying disgusting acts.

As for the legal arena of this issue, it's stupid. Making something legal or illegal doesn't make it moral or immoral outright. It was "legal" in nazi germany to oppress and even destroy the Jews. The Jews had done nothing to deserve the way they were treated.

And making it "legal" in America doesn't make it morally right or wrong. It comes back to freedom. I should be able to walk down the street without having my senses bombarded and my morals attacked and insulted. I've already saw someone playing porn on their in-car entertainment system here in Florida. They wanted to make that illegal, yet gays and lesbians can parade down the street? Even the TV news reporters had to censor some of the parade. Sad.

As Hitler said, if you speak a lie loud enough, long enough, often enough, eventually the people will believe you.

[JB_From_Hell]

I'm not a christian, yet every year, I have to put up with months of television programming, decorations in stores, lawn ornaments, and all sorts of other things regarding christmas.

Everyday, I drive down the street, and am assaulted by churches, billboards ripe with religous messages, jesus fishes on people's cars....

Do you see my point?

It's also worth pointing out that the reason for the parades and such is opression.

[neosadist]

I think that the whole gay issue is choice anyways. For example, being gay or lesbian used to be diagnosable until 1973 when the psychiatric agency pulled it from their dianostic and statistical manual. It wasn't due to science either, but a poll initiated by the national gay and lesbian task force. Today, if you disagree with this, as a psychologist, you get harassed and accused of malpractice.

There is no evidence that homosexuality is inherited, despite what you heard. Despite lack of evidence, many news agencies have been covering this, and the public is believing them. For example, in identical twins there's only a statistical 50% chance: one twin can be gay, and the other will be gay only half the time. That's scientifically impossible, if we are to believe that homosexuality is inherited.

Second, if it was genetic, it would tend to die out, since homosexuals are pursuing a non-procreative relationship.

Third, if it was genetic, why does homosexuality flourish in some cultures and in others it almost doesn't exist? If it was genetic, it would be the same percent world-wide.

Lastly, if it was genetic, ALL those with the gene would be homosexual, and could not do anything otherwise. It would be untreatable and irresistable. Yet there are people who have left their depravity behind them. In June of 2002 there were 800-something recorded examples of "former" gays and lesbians. Why were they "former"? One such man, John Paulk, left homosexuality, and with his former lesbian wife, Anne, had two children and are raising a successful family.

Saying it's genetic also means one can't change even if the desire is there. So as a person, they can't quit being gay or lesbian? They can't choose to get out? That's a rather depressing thing to teach others.

Dr Robert L Spitzer in May of 2001 released a study to the American Psychiatric Association showing them that their decision in 1973 to remove it from their diagnostic manual (i.e. the psychology "bible") was a bad decision. He was threatened and insulted. However, here are his findings.

[neosadist]

I see your point JB. But would seeing Jesus pictures or a Jesus fish hurt your children's minds? I doubt it. But would watching porn (in someone else's car, or by attending a gay pride parade)? Yes, and even the American Psychiatric Association teaches this (that seeing porn at too young an age can cause mental and emotional development problems). In fact, if I'm not mistaken, exposing a child to sexually graphic images (porn) is classified as child abuse.

[JB_From_Hell]

I think that the whole gay issue is choice anyways. For example, being gay or lesbian used to be diagnosable until 1973 when the psychiatric agency pulled it from their dianostic and statistical manual. It wasn't due to science either, but a poll initiated by the national gay and lesbian task force. Today, if you disagree with this, as a psychologist, you get harassed and accused of malpractice.

There is no evidence that homosexuality is inherited, despite what you heard. Despite lack of evidence, many news agencies have been covering this, and the public is believing them. For example, in identical twins there's only a statistical 50% chance: one twin can be gay, and the other will be gay only half the time. That's scientifically impossible, if we are to believe that homosexuality is inherited.

Second, if it was genetic, it would tend to die out, since homosexuals are pursuing a non-procreative relationship.

Third, if it was genetic, why does homosexuality flourish in some cultures and in others it almost doesn't exist? If it was genetic, it would be the same percent world-wide.

Lastly, if it was genetic, ALL those with the gene would be homosexual, and could not do anything otherwise. It would be untreatable and irresistable. Yet there are people who have left their depravity behind them. In June of 2002 there were 800-something recorded examples of "former" gays and lesbians. Why were they "former"? One such man, John Paulk, left homosexuality, and with his former lesbian wife, Anne, had two children and are raising a successful family.

Saying it's genetic also means one can't change even if the desire is there. So as a person, they can't quit being gay or lesbian? They can't choose to get out? That's a rather depressing thing to teach others.

Dr Robert L Spitzer in May of 2001 released a study to the American Psychiatric Association showing them that their decision in 1973 to remove it from their diagnostic manual (i.e. the psychology "bible") was a bad decision. He was threatened and insulted. However, here are his findings.

*sigh*

Please don't pretend to understand genetics. I've had next to no instruction in it, and still saw enough incorrect statements in the above post that I lost count.

For instance, people can be carriers of Gene X, and bear no symptoms whatsoever of having that gene.

Wanna know what "former" gays and lesbians are? People who have been brainwashed into being ashamed of themselves by people like you.

[JB_From_Hell]

I see your point JB. But would seeing Jesus pictures or a Jesus fish hurt your children's minds? I doubt it. But would watching porn (in someone else's car, or by attending a gay pride parade)? Yes, and even the American Psychiatric Association teaches this (that seeing porn at too young an age can cause mental and emotional development problems). In fact, if I'm not mistaken, exposing a child to sexually graphic images (porn) is classified as child abuse.

I'm not saying that I would take my kids to a gay pride parade, and I obviously didn't say I let them watch porn.

However, I think teaching them to be judgemental is a horrible abuse. My kids are going to be free to go to church if they so choose, but I am NOT going to allow some guy with a chip on his shoulder and some extreme sexual insecurity to instill prejudice into them.

[JB_From_Hell]

I think that the whole gay issue is choice anyways.

There's as much proof of your belief as there is of mine. Stop preaching yours as if it is otherwise.

[Guitar Toad]

Why doesn't the argument go like this: Religion is old, archaic, illogical and pathetic. Marriage is a product of religion. Religion should be throw out, and therefore, marriage should be thrown out as well. Why not put a ban on marriage? Religion is as old as the hills, marriage is as old as the hills. We don't need to continue this old practices do we?

I just thought this might be an interesting twist for the "discussion". Have a nice and friendly Saturday.

[firebirdVII]

Why doesn't the argument go like this: Religion is old, archaic, illogical and pathetic. Marriage is a product of religion. Religion should be throw out, and therefore, marriage should be thrown out as well. Why not put a ban on marriage? Religion is as old as the hills, marriage is as old as the hills. We don't need to continue this old practices do we?

I just thought this might be an interesting twist for the "discussion". Have a nice and friendly Saturday.

That really doesn't fit in with the rest of the page.

[Willis]

We've been told all our lives that we're animals. This started around the time prayer was removed from public school and the theory of evolution began to be taught as fact. Crime has gone up dramatically since then. Just for the heck of it, compare crime charts from 1940s to present day.

Do you seriously believe that there is more crime today than in the 1940s solely because prayer was removed from schools and evolution was taught in schools? Do you really think those are the only factors that have changed in those 60 years?

[Jonny R]

True. Marriage goes against nature.

Not really, IMO. There are quite a few animals that form life-long exclusive relationships (yes, I've watched too many nature documentarys).

Apart from that, in the human side of nature, it's an incredibly 'in common' characteristic of human societies throughout history. Often for the sake of social stability and rearing the next generation too - even to the point of arranged marriages, with love being a secondary concern.

Besides, the other component of marriage is the protection of the vulnerable - children. Hence, behaviours such as women choosing a mate that will be good at fulfilling this role. And if men were only temporarily present sperm donors, the rate of child survival would naturally fall.

[Guitar Toad]

That really doesn't fit in with the rest of the page.

Nor does the bulk of this thread fit the topic of Mr Buffett's generosity.

It doesn't fit, but I thought it may be related and relevant. I may be wrong. I'm ok with that. I do think it's a "logical" question. Considering many of the appeals to logic.

[Willis]

Third, if it was genetic, why does homosexuality flourish in some cultures and in others it almost doesn't exist? If it was genetic, it would be the same percent world-wide.

No no no no wrong
By your logic, this would be true
If having blonde hair was genetic, it would have the same percent world-wide. Therefore we can conclude that people from Asia choose to have dark hair and having blonde hair is not genetic.

[Willis]

I see your point JB. But would seeing Jesus pictures or a Jesus fish hurt your children's minds? I doubt it. But would watching porn (in someone else's car, or by attending a gay pride parade)? Yes, and even the American Psychiatric Association teaches this (that seeing porn at too young an age can cause mental and emotional development problems). In fact, if I'm not mistaken, exposing a child to sexually graphic images (porn) is classified as child abuse.

That is a bad comparison. A better comparison would be to compare a Jesus fish to a rainbow or a pink triangle. Comparing porn to a Jesus fish is like comparing a rainbow to Jesus porn.

[JB_From_Hell]

That is a bad comparison. A better comparison would be to compare a Jesus fish to a rainbow or a pink triangle. Comparing porn to a Jesus fish is like comparing a rainbow to Jesus porn.

A better (but still not great) comparison would've been comparing porn to the crucifiction scene in Passion of the Christ. Neither are appropriate for children.

[Jonny R]

I'm sure we're all aware that sexual formation comes from more than just genetics.

We have the Spartans for whom sex with women was considered necessary for creating offspring, but for whom sex with younger men and boys was considered the ideal pleasurable form of sex.

In addition, we can see the role that abuse has on formation of sexuality in both boys and girls. Modern society has certainly given us plenty of examples of that. Clearly in the case of sexual abuse the choice to have normal sexually formative experiences in life is taken away.

Also, there is statistical evidence concerning sexual behaviours in families where abandonment by a parent is a factor. Even anecdotally in high schools many guys regard girls from solo mother familes as easier to 'get', not to mention studies observing behavioural trends.

Neither do I think it's reasonable - statistically - to argue that sailors and prison inmates over history have had a gene for homosexuality, at least until they get to port or get out of prison.

[JB_From_Hell]

Obviously, some do choose homosexual actions. I don't know that I really consider that person (ie, the sailor or inmate) to be necessarily gay. I don't like ham salad, but if that's all there is to eat....

[Jonny R]

Do you seriously believe that there is more crime today than in the 1940s solely because prayer was removed from schools and evolution was taught in schools? Do you really think those are the only factors that have changed in those 60 years?

Actually, he may correct me, but I believe his connection was between the psychological line of thought that started to be promoted "nothingbutness" - we're nothing but animals etc - and the rise of crime and social ills. The link is between his first and his last sentences.

Interestingly, in Victor Frankl's pyschological writing "Man's Search for Meaning" - published in 1959 - he notes the correlation between the reduction of meaning ascribed to human life, the increase in free time accorded by industrial efficiency (and the accordant increase in boredom), and the rise of social ills such as delinquency and drug use. Brilliant man, Frankl (a pyschology professor who survived Auschwitz and Dachau), and a book well worth reading.

[Jonny R]

Obviously, some do choose homosexual actions. I don't know that I really consider that person (ie, the sailor or inmate) to be necessarily gay. I don't like ham salad, but if that's all there is to eat....

I hope you're not going to mind too much if I don't go sailing with you buddy