FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: sigmapi1501 on May 08, 2012, 07:13:43 pm
-
First in Flight, last in progress.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html
Outlawing same sex marriage wasn't enough for these homophobes... they wanted to bury the chance of their state to ever come to their senses.
-
First in Flight, last in progress.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html
Outlawing same sex marriage wasn't enough for these homophobes... they wanted to bury the chance of their state to ever come to their senses.
There must be some explanation for why their necks are red - most of them do wear hats after all ...
-
First in Flight, last in progress.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html
Outlawing same sex marriage wasn't enough for these homophobes... they wanted to bury the chance of their state to ever come to their senses.
There must be some explanation for why their necks are red - most of them do wear hats after all ...
You need to do some examination of voter data before making such specious claims.
-
I saw this yesterday, and it made me very sad. This shouldn't be happening in 2012. I don't think states should be allowed to make their own laws that blatantly deny civil rights.
-
I saw this yesterday, and it made me very sad. This shouldn't be happening in 2012. I don't think states should be allowed to make their own laws that blatantly deny civil rights.
These are not civil rights, they would actually be more along the lines of denying civil privileges.
-
Judging from the usual misguided and uninformed, North Carolina is probably full of fundamentalists who are completely out of date with the world. This is pretty sad news, but I speculate it will eventually do nothing but damage the state's reputation through time.
-
Judging from the usual misguided and uninformed, North Carolina is probably full of fundamentalists who are completely out of date with the world. This is pretty sad news, but I speculate it will eventually do nothing but damage the state's reputation through time.
Misguided and uninformed? What is it they need to be informed about in order to be able to make their own decisions? They voted on how they felt about it, and it is now Law. Such is the way of Democracy, unless protected under the Republic. In this case they decided to not bestow upon gay's additional privileges, but they haven't denied them of anything as they can still get married (they just cannot redefine what marriage means to include additional things).
-
Misguided and uninformed? What is it they need to be informed about in order to be able to make their own decisions?
Just the base facts- Homosexuality is natural and seen throughout the animal kingdom, it's not wrong even if it seems to be abnormal behavior, etc. Informing them on that and coupling it with telling them to not base their vote upon irrational authority and popular culture/prejudices probably would have made this vote more interesting. However I am glad this was decided by the people and not a couple of grumpy old guys in office. Still, "Only 46 percent of voters realized that the amendment would ban civil unions for gay couples as well as marriage". :(
-
Misguided and uninformed? What is it they need to be informed about in order to be able to make their own decisions?
Just the base facts- Homosexuality is natural and seen throughout the animal kingdom, it's not wrong even if it seems to be abnormal behavior, etc. Informing them on that and coupling it with telling them to not base their vote upon irrational authority and popular culture/prejudices probably would have made this vote more interesting. However I am glad this was decided by the people and not a couple of grumpy old guys in office. Still, "Only 46 percent of voters realized that the amendment would ban civil unions for gay couples as well as marriage". :(
While I have no particular opposition to allowing civil unions personally if a state wishes to, I am simply not an advocate of it.
Homosexuality isn't natural at all. I am aware of some studies claiming it to be normal behavior in the animal kingdom, but I consider these to be biased and unscientific studies that generally confuse what they are seeing (domination acts as homosexuality), and as a simple example most everyone is familiar with, male dogs humping each other is entirely domination behavior and not sexual. I suppose you would consider incest natural too, since these same studies highlight the acts of incest within these animal communities such 'studies' were observed on, commenting on how the 'cute little ones' eagerly participated too. Personally I find the entire matter rather disgusting and depraved, but if it is what you like then I suppose that is your business, just don't try to push it on me as if it is something natural or desirable.
-
Misguided and uninformed? What is it they need to be informed about in order to be able to make their own decisions?
Just the base facts- Homosexuality is natural and seen throughout the animal kingdom, it's not wrong even if it seems to be abnormal behavior, etc. Informing them on that and coupling it with telling them to not base their vote upon irrational authority and popular culture/prejudices probably would have made this vote more interesting. However I am glad this was decided by the people and not a couple of grumpy old guys in office. Still, "Only 46 percent of voters realized that the amendment would ban civil unions for gay couples as well as marriage". :(
While I have no particular opposition to allowing civil unions personally if a state wishes to, I am simply not an advocate of it.
Homosexuality isn't natural at all. I am aware of some studies claiming it to be normal behavior in the animal kingdom, but I consider these to be biased and unscientific studies that generally confuse what they are seeing (domination acts as homosexuality), and as a simple example most everyone is familiar with, male dogs humping each other is entirely domination behavior and not sexual. I suppose you would consider incest natural too, since these same studies highlight the acts of incest within these animal communities such 'studies' were observed on, commenting on how the 'cute little ones' eagerly participated too. Personally I find the entire matter rather disgusting and depraved, but if it is what you like then I suppose that is your business, just don't try to push it on me as if it is something natural or desirable.
How exactly, would allowing same sex marriage between two consenting adults be pushing it on you?
-
Not that I like the prospect of allowing same-sex marriage, but the only real consequence of allowing it will be the sharp increase in divorce lawyers entering the field. Being a guy, I like women (especially my wife) and am therefore not into marrying a guy. But If you are, cool with me. I don't hate.
-
Judging from the usual misguided and uninformed, North Carolina is probably full of fundamentalists who are completely out of date with the world. This is pretty sad news, but I speculate it will eventually do nothing but damage the state's reputation through time.
Misguided and uninformed? What is it they need to be informed about in order to be able to make their own decisions? They voted on how they felt about it, and it is now Law. Such is the way of Democracy, unless protected under the Republic. In this case they decided to not bestow upon gay's additional privileges, but they haven't denied them of anything as they can still get married (they just cannot redefine what marriage means to include additional things).
YES MISGUIDED!!! 46% of the people who voted DID NOT know that it would ban civil unions.
-
While I have no particular opposition to allowing civil unions personally if a state wishes to, I am simply not an advocate of it.
Fair enough.
Homosexuality isn't natural at all. I am aware of some studies claiming it to be normal behavior in the animal kingdom, but I consider these to be biased and unscientific studies that generally confuse what they are seeing (domination acts as homosexuality), and as a simple example most everyone is familiar with, male dogs humping each other is entirely domination behavior and not sexual. I suppose you would consider incest natural too, since these same studies highlight the acts of incest within these animal communities such 'studies' were observed on, commenting on how the 'cute little ones' eagerly participated too.
I have heard this argument from fundamentalists throughout my entire life (especially with the dog and horse examples). In those cases, it can be a form of dominance (though one can also argue some sexual behavior does involve dominance no matter the genders). But you do not account for the other 1000+ studies involving things such as placing electrodes on the uterus's of two female monkeys and monitoring the contractions they give each other. They are obvious forms of pleasure that are documented. Birds can form homosexual bonds that are sometimes life-long. Overall heterosexual or homosexual behavior in all animals (us too) serves a huge variety of social and psychological aspects, and simply saying it's all about dominance is a bit ignorant of everything else. If it's seen and documented in nature numerous times, it's natural behavior.
Comparing it to incest is a strawman argument and I'm kind of surprised you wouldn't catch it in your example- incest can produce damaging problems genetically and therefore is undesirable in procreation. It can hurt the baby. Incest is mostly seen between an adult and a child, so again, it could be argued that an innocent is harmed (rape). Homosexuality is completely consensual and does not allow for procreation or forced relations, therefore cannot be directly compared to incest.
Personally I find the entire matter rather disgusting and depraved, but if it is what you like then I suppose that is your business, just don't try to push it on me as if it is something natural or desirable
I hate to dive into personal aspects, but just between us dudes- if you ever masturbated to hot lesbians before, your argument is completely hypocritical. ;)
How exactly, would allowing same sex marriage between two consenting adults be pushing it on you?
In the same sense that allowing blacks to vote would be pushing it on a white person.
-
I find it so interesting that the fact that homosexuality exists is for some people "pushing" it on them. I would love an explanation of what exactly that means. How is homosexuality "pushed" on anyone. People living their lives as everyone had a right to do doesn't push anything on anyone. It would be far better if people were a little more honest and told the truth that the fact that homosexuals exist bothers them. Period. That seems to be the criteria for "pushing".
-
Misguided and uninformed? What is it they need to be informed about in order to be able to make their own decisions?
Just the base facts- Homosexuality is natural and seen throughout the animal kingdom, it's not wrong even if it seems to be abnormal behavior, etc. Informing them on that and coupling it with telling them to not base their vote upon irrational authority and popular culture/prejudices probably would have made this vote more interesting. However I am glad this was decided by the people and not a couple of grumpy old guys in office. Still, "Only 46 percent of voters realized that the amendment would ban civil unions for gay couples as well as marriage". :(
While I have no particular opposition to allowing civil unions personally if a state wishes to, I am simply not an advocate of it.
Homosexuality isn't natural at all. I am aware of some studies claiming it to be normal behavior in the animal kingdom, but I consider these to be biased and unscientific studies that generally confuse what they are seeing (domination acts as homosexuality), and as a simple example most everyone is familiar with, male dogs humping each other is entirely domination behavior and not sexual. I suppose you would consider incest natural too, since these same studies highlight the acts of incest within these animal communities such 'studies' were observed on, commenting on how the 'cute little ones' eagerly participated too. Personally I find the entire matter rather disgusting and depraved, but if it is what you like then I suppose that is your business, just don't try to push it on me as if it is something natural or desirable.
How exactly, would allowing same sex marriage between two consenting adults be pushing it on you?
I am not sure that it would, but I don't understand the relevance of your question to my post. Are you asking me to develop an opinion about some question you have regarding the matter? Please clarify as your question makes no sense in regards to the quoted post.
-
Judging from the usual misguided and uninformed, North Carolina is probably full of fundamentalists who are completely out of date with the world. This is pretty sad news, but I speculate it will eventually do nothing but damage the state's reputation through time.
Misguided and uninformed? What is it they need to be informed about in order to be able to make their own decisions? They voted on how they felt about it, and it is now Law. Such is the way of Democracy, unless protected under the Republic. In this case they decided to not bestow upon gay's additional privileges, but they haven't denied them of anything as they can still get married (they just cannot redefine what marriage means to include additional things).
YES MISGUIDED!!! 46% of the people who voted DID NOT know that it would ban civil unions.
While that could qualify as uninformed, it certainly doesn't fit the bill of misguided. Additionally do you have any proof that these 46% would have cast their votes differently?
-
I find it so interesting that the fact that homosexuality exists is for some people "pushing" it on them. I would love an explanation of what exactly that means. How is homosexuality "pushed" on anyone. People living their lives as everyone had a right to do doesn't push anything on anyone. It would be far better if people were a little more honest and told the truth that the fact that homosexuals exist bothers them. Period. That seems to be the criteria for "pushing".
If you are referring to the post I made you really need to reread what I posted. I believe people should generally be free to do what they wish, and am libertarian on many matters like that. My post was particularly speaking of coining homosexuality as 'normal' and that isn't something I would ever agree with and I don't want such taught in schools or advertised in public as 'normal'.
-
Homosexuality isn't natural at all. I am aware of some studies claiming it to be normal behavior in the animal kingdom, but I consider these to be biased and unscientific studies that generally confuse what they are seeing (domination acts as homosexuality), and as a simple example most everyone is familiar with, male dogs humping each other is entirely domination behavior and not sexual. I suppose you would consider incest natural too, since these same studies highlight the acts of incest within these animal communities such 'studies' were observed on, commenting on how the 'cute little ones' eagerly participated too.
I have heard this argument from fundamentalists throughout my entire life (especially with the dog and horse examples). In those cases, it can be a form of dominance (though one can also argue some sexual behavior does involve dominance no matter the genders). But you do not account for the other 1000+ studies involving things such as placing electrodes on the uterus's of two female monkeys and monitoring the contractions they give each other. They are obvious forms of pleasure that are documented. Birds can form homosexual bonds that are sometimes life-long. Overall heterosexual or homosexual behavior in all animals (us too) serves a huge variety of social and psychological aspects, and simply saying it's all about dominance is a bit ignorant of everything else. If it's seen and documented in nature numerous times, it's natural behavior.
Comparing it to incest is a strawman argument and I'm kind of surprised you wouldn't catch it in your example- incest can produce damaging problems genetically and therefore is undesirable in procreation. It can hurt the baby. Incest is mostly seen between an adult and a child, so again, it could be argued that an innocent is harmed (rape). Homosexuality is completely consensual and does not allow for procreation or forced relations, therefore cannot be directly compared to incest.
It isn't a strawman and it wasn't put up as a direct correlation to homosexuality. It was put up as something that was described by the same 'experts' claiming homosexuality to be normal as also hinting at incest as just as normal. I was challenging the science and bias of the 'experts' and using their own claims as evidence. Incest would totally end any species that adopted it entirely and this cannot be ignored. Its propagation proportionately leads to the death of a species.
Personally I find the entire matter rather disgusting and depraved, but if it is what you like then I suppose that is your business, just don't try to push it on me as if it is something natural or desirable
I hate to dive into personal aspects, but just between us dudes- if you ever masturbated to hot lesbians before, your argument is completely hypocritical. ;)
How exactly, would allowing same sex marriage between two consenting adults be pushing it on you?
In the same sense that allowing blacks to vote would be pushing it on a white person.
Why is everyone misreading what I posted? It is as if their is bias to make me appear to be biased or something and I don't understand. Everyone wants to seem to play the victim and find the worst case scenario in another persons words and misrepresent it to appear that way. I was speaking of claiming it to be 'normal'. That is what I don't want pushed on me. It is abnormal by about any standard one could imagine.
Also I have never 'masturbated to hot lesbians'. First off I don't know any hot lesbians, and secondly I have watched some videos of such and found it hilarious and I could not stop laughing. There isn't anything particularly exciting about it to me and I would find more stimulation from watching naked women chopping down trees with axes and chain saws.
-
If we are forced to bring incest into the discussion...
In North Carolina it IS legal to marry your 1st cousin.... Just not your GAY cousin
-
If we are forced to bring incest into the discussion...
In North Carolina it IS legal to marry your 1st cousin.... Just not your GAY cousin
Actually it is legal there to marry your GAY cousin.
-
While I have no particular opposition to allowing civil unions personally if a state wishes to, I am simply not an advocate of it......
just don't try to push it on me .....
[/quote]How exactly, would allowing same sex marriage between two consenting adults be pushing it on you?
[/quote]
I am not sure that it would, but I don't understand the relevance of your question to my post. Are you asking me to develop an opinion about some question you have regarding the matter? Please clarify as your question makes no sense in regards to the quoted post.
[/quote]
Your post demands that same sex marriage, which is the topic of this discussion/debate, not be pushed on you. It is a very simple question.....if same sex marriage is allowed, how in anyway, is that pushing the act on you? (watch him dodge the question again ;) )
I have a follow up question as well but don't want to confuse you again with too many words all at one time.
-
It doesn't demand that at all. I demand that people don't push on me the idea that homosexuality is 'normal' behavior. Being that you are a man that seems to generally favor traditions I would think you would have some similar understanding the situation of traditional marriage for most people, but that is another matter.
-
It doesn't demand that at all. I demand that people don't push on me the idea that homosexuality is 'normal' behavior. Being that you are a man that seems to generally favor traditions I would think you would have some similar understanding the situation of traditional marriage for most people, but that is another matter.
No, actually most of "our" Nations have a very different traditional view on this subject as you "normal?" xtians, do.
So first you say don't force the idea that homosexuality is normal behavior, on you, then you say that you don't know that anyone is doing such, now you are "demand"ing that the idea isn't pushed on you again.
Based on your own posts, I think it would be safe to say that you don't really know what you think of the matter. I would venture to further suggest that in all probability, based on obvious history of Xtian behavior in these types of situations, that you simply heard/saw some Xtians bullying some gays in the name of christianity, and thought that was a pretty shiny bandwagon and decided to jump aboard.
-
It doesn't demand that at all. I demand that people don't push on me the idea that homosexuality is 'normal' behavior. Being that you are a man that seems to generally favor traditions I would think you would have some similar understanding the situation of traditional marriage for most people, but that is another matter.
No, actually most of "our" Nations have a very different traditional view on this subject as you "normal?" xtians, do.
So first you say don't force the idea that homosexuality is normal behavior, on you, then you say that you don't know that anyone is doing such, now you are "demand"ing that the idea isn't pushed on you again.
Based on your own posts, I think it would be safe to say that you don't really know what you think of the matter. I would venture to further suggest that in all probability, based on obvious history of Xtian behavior in these types of situations, that you simply heard/saw some Xtians bullying some gays in the name of christianity, and thought that was a pretty shiny bandwagon and decided to jump aboard.
Please tell me how 'our' nations view tradition differently (and not simply your isolation on marriage since my distinction of traditions from traditional marriage was rather clear in showing that to some people there is a tradition of marriage and you have emphasized the value of traditions in other posts).
You have no idea of what you speak and you obviously have no idea of what I posted as your own post is evident with it showing contrasting opinions of the exact same post of mine. Let me explain it to you since you have such difficulty in your reading comprehension. I said don't force upon me the notion that homosexuality is natural and normal. When you put forth a question that had nothing to do at all with what I posted. You asked "How exactly, would allowing same sex marriage between two consenting adults be pushing it on you?" and I answered "I am not sure that it would, but I don't understand the relevance of your question to my post". Considering I was speaking of trying to claim homosexuality as natural or normal it only logically follows that you were asking how allowing same sex marriage would be forcing the idea that homosexuality is natural or normal, and my answer would be that I am not sure that it would be forcing that definition of natural or normal on me. The problem here is that you have failed to comprehend what I posted from the start and you have continued with your questions to me based on your biased and prejudicial judgements of what you wanted me to post (so that you could feel your bias and prejudice). It is all here for everyone to see, and it is a simple thing to go back and reread it (but this time make sure you read what I posted and not what you wanted me to post).
Like so many others here, you entirely misjudge me and do so in an extremely prejudicial manner. Would it interest you to know that my great grandmother was full blooded Cherokee? Would it interest you to know that I attended native American schools as a child (question, would this be different from a tribal school as I was very young then and don't remember much)? Would it interest you to know that I have had many friends who were gay and have stayed the nights over their houses and them at mine? Would it interest you to know that I got into some trouble with one of my gay friends and we were arrested and the police were calling me all sorts of names and making all sorts of accusations against me because of my friend being gay? I suppose these things are of no interest to you and you never considered them while you were too busy being a dukshanee.
-
It doesn't demand that at all. I demand that people don't push on me the idea that homosexuality is 'normal' behavior. Being that you are a man that seems to generally favor traditions I would think you would have some similar understanding the situation of traditional marriage for most people, but that is another matter.
No, actually most of "our" Nations have a very different traditional view on this subject as you "normal?" xtians, do.
So first you say don't force the idea that homosexuality is normal behavior, on you, then you say that you don't know that anyone is doing such, now you are "demand"ing that the idea isn't pushed on you again.
Based on your own posts, I think it would be safe to say that you don't really know what you think of the matter. I would venture to further suggest that in all probability, based on obvious history of Xtian behavior in these types of situations, that you simply heard/saw some Xtians bullying some gays in the name of christianity, and thought that was a pretty shiny bandwagon and decided to jump aboard.
Please tell me how 'our' nations view tradition differently (and not simply your isolation on marriage since my distinction of traditions from traditional marriage was rather clear in showing that to some people there is a tradition of marriage and you have emphasized the value of traditions in other posts).
You have no idea of what you speak and you obviously have no idea of what I posted as your own post is evident with it showing contrasting opinions of the exact same post of mine. Let me explain it to you since you have such difficulty in your reading comprehension. I said don't force upon me the notion that homosexuality is natural and normal. When you put forth a question that had nothing to do at all with what I posted. You asked "How exactly, would allowing same sex marriage between two consenting adults be pushing it on you?" and I answered "I am not sure that it would, but I don't understand the relevance of your question to my post". Considering I was speaking of trying to claim homosexuality as natural or normal it only logically follows that you were asking how allowing same sex marriage would be forcing the idea that homosexuality is natural or normal, and my answer would be that I am not sure that it would be forcing that definition of natural or normal on me. The problem here is that you have failed to comprehend what I posted from the start and you have continued with your questions to me based on your biased and prejudicial judgements of what you wanted me to post (so that you could feel your bias and prejudice). It is all here for everyone to see, and it is a simple thing to go back and reread it (but this time make sure you read what I posted and not what you wanted me to post).
Like so many others here, you entirely misjudge me and do so in an extremely prejudicial manner. Would it interest you to know that my great grandmother was full blooded Cherokee? Would it interest you to know that I attended native American schools as a child (question, would this be different from a tribal school as I was very young then and don't remember much)? Would it interest you to know that I have had many friends who were gay and have stayed the nights over their houses and them at mine? Would it interest you to know that I got into some trouble with one of my gay friends and we were arrested and the police were calling me all sorts of names and making all sorts of accusations against me because of my friend being gay? I suppose these things are of no interest to you and you never considered them while you were too busy being a dukshanee.
No, you mis-understand my question. Again, how would allowing same sex unions force upon you anyones idea that such is normal? You are free to have any ideas you wish, I just think it is being dis-honest of you to make the claim that if others are allowed to enter into union of any kind, much less a same sex union, that it would force upon you someone else's ideas.
Now, if they were to get on their soap box at each and every oppertunity, declaring that their chosen life style was the only normal and there for acceptable one, then perhaps, that would be an attempt at assimilating you into their lifestyle.
As for your stated claims in regards to your Grandmother? Why would that be of special interest to me? Doesn't everyone have a full blood Cherokee GrandMother?
"Our Nations" are the indigenous nations of this continent, "yours" is not.
Many of our Peoples believed that those whom you call gay had a special and much deeper connection to the spirit world, and were/are held in great esteem and admiration. I could continue with this line of conversation but will decline on the basis of the need to know is completely lacking in this instance.
-
Doesn't everyone have a full blood Cherokee GrandMother?
No, no, no ... I was informed that 'everybody either has a full-blooded Cherokee princess grandmother or, is one themselves', (if they're a "twinkie").
-
Doesn't everyone have a full blood Cherokee GrandMother?
No, no, no ... I was informed that 'everybody either has a full-blooded Cherokee princess grandmother or, is one themselves', (if they're a "twinkie").
oh gheez, the "princess" part is just a given, ennit?
-
Doesn't everyone have a full blood Cherokee GrandMother?
No, no, no ... I was informed that 'everybody either has a full-blooded Cherokee princess grandmother or, is one themselves', (if they're a "twinkie").
oh gheez, the "princess" part is just a given, ennit?
No more or less so than the "twinkie" part, I would guess.
-
Doesn't everyone have a full blood Cherokee GrandMother?
No, no, no ... I was informed that 'everybody either has a full-blooded Cherokee princess grandmother or, is one themselves', (if they're a "twinkie").
oh gheez, the "princess" part is just a given, ennit?
No more or less so than the "twinkie" part, I would guess.
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/Half-Breeds/2932408436.jpg)Yeah, but you, I and maybe 2 or 3 others here are the only one's who would/will get that. heh heh heh
I guess we don't even need to get into a discussion on the sad numbers of "Apples" running around, who are such as a direct result of the "forced assimilation/genocide" policies that have been in place for 520 years now.(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/Half-Breeds/3973183405.jpg)
-
Yeah, but you, I and maybe 2 or 3 others here are the only one's who would/will get that. heh heh heh
No doubt the day will arrive that someone will claim to be descended from the "Anasazi", (not just a Pueblo tribe). If so, I'll have questions. *chuckle*
I guess we don't even need to get into a discussion on the sad numbers of "Apples" running around, who are such as a direct result of the "forced assimilation/genocide" policies that have been in place for 520 years now.
Unless a family history is riddled with inbreedings, pretty much eberyone is genetically-'mixed' in some way. Even different tribal ancestoral mixtures occurred to such an extent that I've wondered before how blood quantum requirements to be on the 'rolls' are determined. Plus, if someone had viking/norse ancestors that arrived in North America 500 years before Columbus stumbled upon it, should they be entitled to federal aid as well? What about those who Chinese ancestors were from "Fou-Sang" in the Pacific Northwest from the 5th century?
http://www.geographicus.com/blog/rare-and-antique-maps/fou-sang-or-fusang-a-5th-century-chinese-colony-in-western-america/
-
Yeah, but you, I and maybe 2 or 3 others here are the only one's who would/will get that. heh heh heh
No doubt the day will arrive that someone will claim to be descended from the "Anasazi", (not just a Pueblo tribe). If so, I'll have questions. *chuckle*
I guess we don't even need to get into a discussion on the sad numbers of "Apples" running around, who are such as a direct result of the "forced assimilation/genocide" policies that have been in place for 520 years now.
Unless a family history is riddled with inbreedings, pretty much eberyone is genetically-'mixed' in some way. Even different tribal ancestoral mixtures occurred to such an extent that I've wondered before how blood quantum requirements to be on the 'rolls' are determined. Plus, if someone had viking/norse ancestors that arrived in North America 500 years before Columbus stumbled upon it, should they be entitled to federal aid as well? What about those who Chinese ancestors were from "Fou-Sang" in the Pacific Northwest from the 5th century?
http://www.geographicus.com/blog/rare-and-antique-maps/fou-sang-or-fusang-a-5th-century-chinese-colony-in-western-america/
Most nations that I am aware of that has B/Q requirments base it on proven ancestry of a person/people who are listed on their rolls as a tribal member. Thing is, traditionally there have been multitudes of "adoptions". Just because someone is on a Nations roll doesn't necessarily mean they are of that Nation by blood. I have heard, however, that some Nations do not recognise ancestry of an adoptee when it comes to deciding tribal membership in regards to the descendant.
-
The living God must be homophobic as well; marriage between a man and a woman was His idea. North Carolina did the right thing. You can lift up same sex marriage and legislate morality all you want, but man is not the one with whom we ultimately have to do.
-
No, you mis-understand my question. Again, how would allowing same sex unions force upon you anyones idea that such is normal? You are free to have any ideas you wish, I just think it is being dis-honest of you to make the claim that if others are allowed to enter into union of any kind, much less a same sex union, that it would force upon you someone else's ideas.
Now, if they were to get on their soap box at each and every oppertunity, declaring that their chosen life style was the only normal and there for acceptable one, then perhaps, that would be an attempt at assimilating you into their lifestyle.
As for your stated claims in regards to your Grandmother? Why would that be of special interest to me? Doesn't everyone have a full blood Cherokee GrandMother?
"Our Nations" are the indigenous nations of this continent, "yours" is not.
Many of our Peoples believed that those whom you call gay had a special and much deeper connection to the spirit world, and were/are held in great esteem and admiration. I could continue with this line of conversation but will decline on the basis of the need to know is completely lacking in this instance.
I will give you the same answer that I did before, and that is that I don't know that it would. I will also once again bring to your attention that I never said that allowing same sex marriages would force upon me such ideas of normality. I will challenge you to indicate where I said this, and if you continue to spread this assumption about me I will challenge you to explain where you have divined such an assumption.
Yes I am well aware of the claims to native American ancestry that are often made by people. This doesn't seem as common to me now as it did in the 70's though. I am not making any claim, I am simply telling you how it is and if I were speaking nonsensically I would have at least come up with a less known heritage. The reason I pointed it out was exactly indicated in your following sentence where you imply that you have some rights to this continent that I don't. I am not my ancestors, though, and I will not shame myself by allowing what is mine to be taken from me, or for me to be driven like a dog from my own land. I claim what is mine by right of will alone.
-
Most nations that I am aware of that has B/Q requirments base it on proven ancestry of a person/people who are listed on their rolls as a tribal member. Thing is, traditionally there have been multitudes of "adoptions". Just because someone is on a Nations roll doesn't necessarily mean they are of that Nation by blood. I have heard, however, that some Nations do not recognise ancestry of an adoptee when it comes to deciding tribal membership in regards to the descendant.
Understood. It can get convoluted concerning B.Q. percentages. Instead of getting into that at depth, I segued into the whole 'where did people come from originally' contentious subject because that's something I've researched on and off over the years, (since that tangentially bears on the subsequent arguments about 'who got where first' and ancestry). As mentioned, it's a contentious and controversial subject. Some people get quite offended when it's even discussed, (let alone, debated). If you don't wish to discuss that underlying subject matter, I'd understand. If you do ...
What about those whose Chinese ancestors were from "Fou-Sang" in the Pacific Northwest from the 5th century? If there was a Chinese colony on the PNW in the 5th century, they might've had contact with the Tlingit, Makah, Nisga'a,Tsetsaut, Haida, Tsimshian, Gitxsan, Haisla, Heiltsuk,
Wuikinuxv, Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth, Coast Salish, Nuxálk, Willapa, Chimakum, or Quileute. It may be that there are oral traditions related to any such ancient contact however, not that I'm aware of.
http://www.geographicus.com/blog/rare-and-antique-maps/fou-sang-or-fusang-a-5th-century-chinese-colony-in-western-america/
[/quote]
-
The living God must be homophobic as well; marriage between a man and a woman was His idea. North Carolina did the right thing. You can lift up same sex marriage and legislate morality all you want, but man is not the one with whom we ultimately have to do.
What "living g-d" is that? Can you produce evidence to support your assertions or, is this one of those 'taken on faith' claims?
-
... where you imply that you have some rights to this continent that I don't. I am not my ancestors, though, and I will not shame myself by allowing what is mine to be taken from me, or for me to be driven like a dog from my own land. I claim what is mine by right of will alone.
So, is it all about who "calls dibs" second-to-last or, the last ones to do so? The reason that question arises is because throughout history, people have invaded/conquered/colonized/wandered into the lands of others. How far back does one go to determine 'original ancestries'; as far back as possible or, only considered the most recent/current descendent-lines?
-
Most nations that I am aware of that has B/Q requirments base it on proven ancestry of a person/people who are listed on their rolls as a tribal member. Thing is, traditionally there have been multitudes of "adoptions". Just because someone is on a Nations roll doesn't necessarily mean they are of that Nation by blood. I have heard, however, that some Nations do not recognise ancestry of an adoptee when it comes to deciding tribal membership in regards to the descendant.
Understood. It can get convoluted concerning B.Q. percentages. Instead of getting into that at depth, I segued into the whole 'where did people come from originally' contentious subject because that's something I've researched on and off over the years, (since that tangentially bears on the subsequent arguments about 'who got where first' and ancestry). As mentioned, it's a contentious and controversial subject. Some people get quite offended when it's even discussed, (let alone, debated). If you don't wish to discuss that underlying subject matter, I'd understand. If you do ...
What about those whose Chinese ancestors were from "Fou-Sang" in the Pacific Northwest from the 5th century? If there was a Chinese colony on the PNW in the 5th century, they might've had contact with the Tlingit, Makah, Nisga'a,Tsetsaut, Haida, Tsimshian, Gitxsan, Haisla, Heiltsuk,
Wuikinuxv, Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth, Coast Salish, Nuxálk, Willapa, Chimakum, or Quileute. It may be that there are oral traditions related to any such ancient contact however, not that I'm aware of.
http://www.geographicus.com/blog/rare-and-antique-maps/fou-sang-or-fusang-a-5th-century-chinese-colony-in-western-america/
[/quote]That's very interesting and something I haven't heard of(Chinese colony). I will follow up on that link later as I am totally off grid and its quite a storm here now IE: Im not making solar power and my batteries are almost depleted. Thanks for the link. I'll get back to you on that as well as my thoughts on ancestry.
-
No, you mis-understand my question. Again, how would allowing same sex unions force upon you anyones idea that such is normal? You are free to have any ideas you wish, I just think it is being dis-honest of you to make the claim that if others are allowed to enter into union of any kind, much less a same sex union, that it would force upon you someone else's ideas.
Now, if they were to get on their soap box at each and every oppertunity, declaring that their chosen life style was the only normal and there for acceptable one, then perhaps, that would be an attempt at assimilating you into their lifestyle.
As for your stated claims in regards to your Grandmother? Why would that be of special interest to me? Doesn't everyone have a full blood Cherokee GrandMother?
"Our Nations" are the indigenous nations of this continent, "yours" is not.
Many of our Peoples believed that those whom you call gay had a special and much deeper connection to the spirit world, and were/are held in great esteem and admiration. I could continue with this line of conversation but will decline on the basis of the need to know is completely lacking in this instance.
I will give you the same answer that I did before, and that is that I don't know that it would. I will also once again bring to your attention that I never said that allowing same sex marriages would force upon me such ideas of normality. I will challenge you to indicate where I said this, and if you continue to spread this assumption about me I will challenge you to explain where you have divined such an assumption.
Yes I am well aware of the claims to native American ancestry that are often made by people. This doesn't seem as common to me now as it did in the 70's though. I am not making any claim, I am simply telling you how it is and if I were speaking nonsensically I would have at least come up with a less known heritage. The reason I pointed it out was exactly indicated in your following sentence where you imply that you have some rights to this continent that I don't. I am not my ancestors, though, and I will not shame myself by allowing what is mine to be taken from me, or for me to be driven like a dog from my own land. I claim what is mine by right of will alone.
You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.
-
That's very interesting and something I haven't heard of(Chinese colony). I will follow up on that link later as I am totally off grid and its quite a storm here now IE: Im not making solar power and my batteries are almost depleted. Thanks for the link. I'll get back to you on that as well as my thoughts on ancestry.
Fair enough, take your time. Let those batteries recharge.
-
... where you imply that you have some rights to this continent that I don't. I am not my ancestors, though, and I will not shame myself by allowing what is mine to be taken from me, or for me to be driven like a dog from my own land. I claim what is mine by right of will alone.
So, is it all about who "calls dibs" second-to-last or, last the ones to do so? The reason that question arises is because throughout history, people have invaded/conquered/colonized/wandered into the lands of others. How far back does one go to determine 'original ancestries'; as far back as possible or, only considered the most recent/current descendent-lines?
I am more of a possession determines ownership type thinker, but as you point out is indeed more complex than that and often convoluted and indeterminate. Occasionally a people that once occupied a place will have later split into two different 'peoples' and it muddies it even more. I choose a more simplified, possibly 'caveman' (well I have been called that a few times here) approach and say if you control and hold it then it is yours. I don't approve of additional conquering or even necessarily having to give back what was conquered (although I am sympathetic and in favor of spiritual lands being restored but would approach such claims intentionally dubiously).
-
You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.
Would you share with me what your point is please?
-
I am more of a possession determines ownership type thinker, but as you point out is indeed more complex than that and often convoluted and indeterminate. Occasionally a people that once occupied a place will have later split into two different 'peoples' and it muddies it even more. I choose a more simplified, possibly 'caveman' (well I have been called that a few times here) approach and say if you control and hold it then it is yours.
As you may or, may not be aware of, every land has been conquered/reconquered, settled and resettled by various people throughout millenia. My inquiries stemmed from that basis and trying to determine where descendants drawn the line; at next-to-the-last to 'call dibs' on it before usurped or, going back to when those 'dibs-callers' pushed the previous occupants out and so on. The situation gets even more diffuse the further back in time one looks. Of course, there are those who claim that their ancestors/people had "always been" wherever they are. This is simply not so; folks initially migrated/wandered around following hunted prey wherever those wandered, etc. to such an extent that all of that migrating & wandering overlapped and "dibs" becomes a transitory claim.
I don't approve of additional conquering or even necessarily having to give back what was conquered (although I am sympathetic and in favor of spiritual lands being restored but would approach such claims intentionally dubiously).
Okay, then the would the S'klallum tribe have to give back land, (which was 'ceded' back from american settlers), that they occuppied by subduing the Quileute tribe, who swiped it from the Salish and so on and so on? Like I queried; how far back do 'dibs' go? If it's just the most recent 'call'/claim, then possession being 9/10s of all that means the last previous tenants don't have a 'dibs claim', (unless everyone who was there prior to them gets to preempt that claim and so forth unto the mists of prehistory.
-
My own thoughts on the subject is that no man can actually own a piece of the earth. I believe the earth in it's entirety is here for all of us. I also believe that each of us are entitled our own culture believes and traditions as long as exercising those ways do not victimize in any way, anyone else, as would happen if one were allowed to insist that another assimilate into/adopt their ways, culture, language etc etc. In other words you do you and allow me do me or....."can't we all just get along?"
-
You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.
Would you share with me what your point is please?
No.
-
You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.
Would you share with me what your point is please?
No.
In other words you are in agreement with me then, as their can be no other conclusion.
-
You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.
Would you share with me what your point is please?
No.
In other words you are in agreement with me then, as their can be no other conclusion.
Not sure whose "can" you mean however, this could be one of those elusive mysteries wrapped up in an enigma, sealed-up in a box, painted with camouflauge-paint and buried way out in the woods somewhere. Or, it could be hiding in plain sight - one of those should work.
-
You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.
Would you share with me what your point is please?
No.
In other words you are in agreement with me then, as their can be no other conclusion.
Not sure whose "can" you mean however, this could be one of those elusive mysteries wrapped up in an enigma, sealed-up in a box, painted with camouflauge-paint and buried way out in the woods somewhere. Or, it could be hiding in plain sight - one of those should work.
I blame auto-correct and laziness/haste on my part.
-
No.
In other words you are in agreement with me then, as their can be no other conclusion.
Not sure whose "can" you mean however, this could be one of those elusive mysteries wrapped up in an enigma, sealed-up in a box, painted with camouflauge-paint and buried way out in the woods somewhere. Or, it could be hiding in plain sight - one of those should work.
I blame auto-correct and laziness/haste on my part.
I misspell sometimes too however, the reference was to the assumption and not really the grammar.
-
I misspell sometimes too however, the reference was to the assumption and not really the grammar.
It actually is more of a challenge to the game statement (the classic 'terse dismissal' used and one I use sometimes as it can be effective to test the ego of the target) and less of an assumption -- consider it a catspaw. My point was that such can be instantly riposted and they are ineffective answers in such a presentation (although they can be useful in other areas).
-
It actually is more of a challenge to the game statement (the classic 'terse dismissal' used and one I use sometimes as it can be effective to test the ego of the target) and less of an assumption -- consider it a catspaw. My point was that such can be instantly riposted and they are ineffective answers in such a presentation (although they can be useful in other areas).
Still, this could be one of those elusively-subtle mysteries wrapped up in an enigma, sealed-up in a box, painted with camouflauge-paint and buried way out in the woods somewhere. Or, it could be hiding in plain sight within a prior reply.
-
You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.
Would you share with me what your point is please?
No.
In other words you are in agreement with me then, as their can be no other conclusion.
Not even close.
-
That's very interesting and something I haven't heard of(Chinese colony). I will follow up on that link later as I am totally off grid and its quite a storm here now IE: Im not making solar power and my batteries are almost depleted. Thanks for the link. I'll get back to you on that as well as my thoughts on ancestry.
Fair enough, take your time. Let those batteries recharge.
Sorry Falcon for taking so long to get back to this, and, regret that at this time I'm forced by necessity to make a breif hit and run reply. I will try to revisit this with a more in depth reply another day as time permits.
My thoughts are that culture and traditions are a big part of what defines a Nation. I get the whole "common ancestor" thing and will not elaborate on my thoughts of such at this time. But as we can all see, there are many distinct and separate cultures. So in asking me how far back I would draw the line on who I consider an Ancestor.....I couldn't tell you. I do know that based on artifacts and remains, archaeologists have estimated that my Nations peoples have lived in the southeastern U.S. for about 10,000 years, however, it would be completely idiotic to say that if we migrated there for elsewhere, that our cultural traditions just mysteriously began at the time of our arrival. Based on this evidence my best answer would be "in excess of 10,000 years.
-
Sorry Falcon for taking so long to get back to this, and, regret that at this time I'm forced by necessity to make a breif hit and run reply. I will try to revisit this with a more in depth reply another day as time permits.
While some may let a discussion lapse for various reason and not get back to it, you weren't considered to be one of those people. Everyone gets busy sometimes, even me. :o
My thoughts are that culture and traditions are a big part of what defines a Nation. I get the whole "common ancestor" thing and will not elaborate on my thoughts of such at this time. But as we can all see, there are many distinct and separate cultures. So in asking me how far back I would draw the line on who I consider an Ancestor.....I couldn't tell you. I do know that based on artifacts and remains, archaeologists have estimated that my Nations peoples have lived in the southeastern U.S. for about 10,000 years, however, it would be completely idiotic to say that if we migrated there for elsewhere, that our cultural traditions just mysteriously began at the time of our arrival. Based on this evidence my best answer would be "in excess of 10,000 years.
While I tend to agree with you regarding separate & distinct cultures, I would quibble on the "in excess of 10,000 years" caveat based upon those very distinctions. Controversially, regarding the Kenniwick Man remains, (circa 9,000 years ago), the 9th District Court of Appeals denied of four northwest NDN tribes to claim the Kenniwick remains as their ancestor. Due to distinctive differences between caucasiod and eurasian physiologies. They further ruled that the remains could not be defined as Native American under the NAGPRA law. The NAGPRA law refers to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001.
Since there is dispute regarding cultural connections between 10,000+ and 9,000 or less years ago, (those separate and distinct cultures which were not NDN and yet, were extant), we can either pursue or, let this aspect drop.
-
Sorry Falcon for taking so long to get back to this, and, regret that at this time I'm forced by necessity to make a breif hit and run reply. I will try to revisit this with a more in depth reply another day as time permits.
While some may let a discussion lapse for various reason and not get back to it, you weren't considered to be one of those people. Everyone gets busy sometimes, even me. :o
My thoughts are that culture and traditions are a big part of what defines a Nation. I get the whole "common ancestor" thing and will not elaborate on my thoughts of such at this time. But as we can all see, there are many distinct and separate cultures. So in asking me how far back I would draw the line on who I consider an Ancestor.....I couldn't tell you. I do know that based on artifacts and remains, archaeologists have estimated that my Nations peoples have lived in the southeastern U.S. for about 10,000 years, however, it would be completely idiotic to say that if we migrated there for elsewhere, that our cultural traditions just mysteriously began at the time of our arrival. Based on this evidence my best answer would be "in excess of 10,000 years.
While I tend to agree with you regarding separate & distinct cultures, I would quibble on the "in excess of 10,000 years" caveat based upon those very distinctions. Controversially, regarding the Kenniwick Man remains, (circa 9,000 years ago), the 9th District Court of Appeals denied of four northwest NDN tribes to claim the Kenniwick remains as their ancestor. Due to distinctive differences between caucasiod and eurasian physiologies. They further ruled that the remains could not be defined as Native American under the NAGPRA law. The NAGPRA law refers to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001.
Since there is dispute regarding cultural connections between 10,000+ and 9,000 or less years ago, (those separate and distinct cultures which were not NDN and yet, were extant), we can either pursue or, let this aspect drop.
So....the 9th District Court of Appeals agrees that there are atleast some folks who are not my relatives?....Kool.
I am familiar with N.A.G.P.R.A.
I was of the assumption that the question was who I considered a relative.....not some U.S. courts opinion on the matter. My bad.
-
So....the 9th District Court of Appeals agrees that there are atleast some folks who are not my relatives?....Kool.
Amazingly, so folks aren't my direct descendants/relatives either.
I am familiar with N.A.G.P.R.A.
Cool.
I was of the assumption that the question was who I considered a relative.....not some U.S. courts opinion on the matter. My bad.
My take on the matter was that courts consider evidence when making rulings. If there's a gap in evidence linking one prior separate and distinct culture to another latter one, then any claims to the contrary would not be substantiated. Anyone can presume 'lineage' sans evidence however, that doesn't lend validity to such presumptions.
-
So....the 9th District Court of Appeals agrees that there are atleast some folks who are not my relatives?....Kool.
Amazingly, so folks aren't my direct descendants/relatives either.
I am familiar with N.A.G.P.R.A.
Cool.
I was of the assumption that the question was who I considered a relative.....not some U.S. courts opinion on the matter. My bad.
My take on the matter was that courts consider evidence when making rulings. If there's a gap in evidence linking one prior separate and distinct culture to another latter one, then any claims to the contrary would not be substantiated. Anyone can presume 'lineage' sans evidence however, that doesn't lend validity to such presumptions.
A quick search on google with the key words "cherokee" and "10,000 years" produced 430,000 results
Evidence-------> http://www.ncmarkers.com/Markers.aspx?ct=ddl&sp=search&k=Markers&sv=Q-13%20-%20CHEROKEE%20INDIAN%20RESERVATION
The ancestors of the Cherokee sparsely occupied an area of 140,000 square miles across the southeastern United States. With a culture dating back 10,000 years, the Cherokee had developed linguistics shortly before the first millennium of the Common Era.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0713/p11s01-trgn.html
Cherokee, N.C., is a window into another time and culture. It offers an opportunity to see the world through the eyes of this tribe, which can trace its presence back to 10,000 BC. Small groups camping in the Southern Appalachians left behind stone tools and artifacts that have been dated from that period.
http://allthingscherokee.com/travel_kituwah_mound.html
- Kituhwa, which is often referred to as the "mother town of the Cherokee." Archaeologists date the site back to nearly 10,000 years ago.
http://www.ajc.com/news/cherokee/trove-of-artifacts-in-1372024.html
officials hope to exhibit the findings — ranging from 10,000-year-old spear tips to a rifle used by the Cherokees — at The Funk Heritage Center at Reinhardt University.
-
Ummmm, yea right. How could they be here 4,000 years before god created the earth?
-
A quick search on google with the key words "cherokee" and "10,000 years" produced 430,000 results
Evidence-------> http://www.ncmarkers.com/Markers.aspx?ct=ddl&sp=search&k=Markers&sv=Q-13%20-%20CHEROKEE%20INDIAN%20RESERVATION
The ancestors of the Cherokee sparsely occupied an area of 140,000 square miles across the southeastern United States. With a culture dating back 10,000 years, the Cherokee had developed linguistics shortly before the first millennium of the Common Era.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0713/p11s01-trgn.html
'Indigenous Amerindian genetic studies indicate that the "colonizing founders" of the Americas emerged from a single-source ancestral population that evolved in isolation, likely in "Beringia", (the posited land/ice bridge connecting Siberia with Alaska; which means these people migrated from Siberia). Age estimates based on Y-chromosome micro-satellite place diversity of the American Haplogroup Q1a3a (Y-DNA) at around 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, (this would be the "Clovis" migrations - there were at least three such distinct migrations traced back along that 5,000 year interval and perhaps earlier still). These migrations would account from tribes spreading out from the Pacific Northwest following game and a slowly improving climate as the wandered southeast.' -- excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas
The Cherokee, (and other "first nations", which weren't actually "first" as distinct cultures), derived from such secondary, tertiary and so on migrations from the PNW area. Indeed, if one goes back 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, nearly all extant, (and now extinct), tribes developed from the Clovis migration, (so, they're either Siberians or, came from elsewhere to Siberia even earlier than 15,000 years ago). Based upon the distribution of Amerind languages and language families, a movement of tribes along the Rocky Mountain foothills and eastward across the Great Plains to the Atlantic seaboard is assumed to have occurred at least some 13,000 to 10,000 years ago.
Cherokee, N.C., is a window into another time and culture. It offers an opportunity to see the world through the eyes of this tribe, which can trace its presence back to 10,000 BC. Small groups camping in the Southern Appalachians left behind stone tools and artifacts that have been dated from that period.
http://allthingscherokee.com/travel_kituwah_mound.html
- Kituhwa, which is often referred to as the "mother town of the Cherokee." Archaeologists date the site back to nearly 10,000 years ago.
http://www.ajc.com/news/cherokee/trove-of-artifacts-in-1372024.html
officials hope to exhibit the findings — ranging from 10,000-year-old spear tips to a rifle used by the Cherokees — at The Funk Heritage Center at Reinhardt University.
Interesting; I'll have a look at those and examine any supporting evidence. Thanks, 'walks'. I did look into those links and a bit deeper as well. I found that, while such evidence of the existence and migration patterns, (such as of the "Clovis" migrations), indicates that nomadic tribes probably did derive from these migrations from Siberia/"Beringia", none of that evidence definitively provides that any of those tribes were distinctly and culturally "Cherokee". As mentioned, there's a strong case for such early tribes as the Iroquois, Cherokee, Choctaw, Apache and others deriving from the Clovis migrations however, the assumption that the same evidence for that supposition supports a jump to the conclusion that it is specifically evidence of the Cherokee being a 10,000 year old distinct culture is unwarranted.
The same thing happened with the Kenniwick Man controversy in that an assumption was made that, since the Kenniwick remains were 9,000 or so years old, that they must be "native american", (when in fact, they were from the Siberian/Beringa migratory people of the Clovis era and not distinctly ancestrial to any specific tribe now extant).
-
Ummmm, yea right. How could they be here 4,000 years before god created the earth?
Because "God" didn't....a water beetle did, duhhhh
and yeah, the 6,000 years claim is bogus too.
-
Ummmm, yea right. How could they be here 4,000 years before god created the earth?
Because "God" didn't....a water beetle did, duhhhh
Or, an "invisible pink unicorn" did it ...
and yeah, the 6,000 years claim is bogus too.
Years ago, I had one bright-eyed 'believer' inform me of her belief that, for 'g-d', a "day" was one billion years long and that for the first 3 1/2 such "days", (=3.5 billion years), the universe was being assembled from a kit, apparently. For the next 3 1/2 "days", the earth was constructed by 'union labor', (thus accounting for it taking so long and the 3.5 billion year age of the earth).
I recall staring into her vacant eyes and considering not letting her know that her "hypothesis" required 'reasoning backward' from the conclusion to the premise, (instead of from the premise, through syllogisms and arriving at a conclusion). Instead, I think I coughed and left her vicinity before that zombie bit me.
-
Why does every discussion about homosexality turn into a discussion about God and the Bible?
And btw, for those who did not know... NC had already banned gay marriage. They recently just made it more illegal--meaning that an LGBT person can be harassed or hurt and the guilty person can almost get away with it.
Even if you do not accept homosexuality, you can at least TOLERATE it. NO ONE deserves to be harassed and shunned upon.
-
Why does every discussion about homosexality turn into a discussion about God and the Bible?
And btw, for those who did not know... NC had already banned gay marriage. They recently just made it more illegal--meaning that an LGBT person can be harassed or hurt and the guilty person can almost get away with it.
Even if you do not accept homosexuality, you can at least TOLERATE it. NO ONE deserves to be harassed and shunned upon.
BUT ISNT IT VERY CONTAGIOUS????? 0.0
relax, I'm being facetious
-
Why does every discussion about homosexality turn into a discussion about God and the Bible?
And btw, for those who did not know... NC had already banned gay marriage. They recently just made it more illegal--meaning that an LGBT person can be harassed or hurt and the guilty person can almost get away with it.
Even if you do not accept homosexuality, you can at least TOLERATE it. NO ONE deserves to be harassed and shunned upon.
BUT ISNT IT VERY CONTAGIOUS????? 0.0
relax, I'm being facetious
I don't hear the word "facetious" very often around here. Ha ha
-
Why does every discussion about homosexality turn into a discussion about God and the Bible?
And btw, for those who did not know... NC had already banned gay marriage. They recently just made it more illegal--meaning that an LGBT person can be harassed or hurt and the guilty person can almost get away with it.
Although some NC state laws can likely deemed as 'aggressively-regressive', they still have laws on the books regarding harassment and assault against any citizen, (and the last I'd heard, even homosexuals can be citizens at this point - amazingly enough).
Even if you do not accept homosexuality, you can at least TOLERATE it. NO ONE deserves to be harassed and shunned upon.
BUT ISNT IT VERY CONTAGIOUS????? 0.0
relax, I'm being facetious
So was I ... sort of, in a way, pretty much.
-
I don't hear the word "facetious" very often around here. Ha ha
It isn't spoken much around these parts either ... ever since one of the kids had mispronounced it as "feces" and couldn't understand why all laughed.
-
I don't hear the word "facetious" very often around here. Ha ha
It isn't spoken much around these parts either ... ever since one of the kids had mispronounced it as "feces" and couldn't understand why all laughed.
I'm often accused of being that too :-
-
I don't hear the word "facetious" very often around here. Ha ha
It isn't spoken much around these parts either ... ever since one of the kids had mispronounced it as "feces" and couldn't understand why all laughed.
I'm often accused of being that too :-
Too subtle; which one? :o
-
Why does every discussion about homosexality turn into a discussion about God and the Bible?
I'm guessing because the Bible is an "acceptable" form of hate speech.
-
Why does every discussion about homosexality turn into a discussion about God and the Bible?
I'm guessing because the Bible is an "acceptable" form of hate speech.
Clearly, not by everyone.