Green Piece

The simple musings of a man who thought he knew everything . . .

Monday, May 22, 2006

A Very Convenient Lie




The picture above does a great job of summarizing everything that is wrong with the environmental movement. As this BBC report shows, Al Gore is using Hurricane Katrina to scare you into voting the Republicans out of office. That's really what this is all about after all. The liberals use environmental demogaguery to scare you into voting for them. Even the climatologists that believe in global warming are saying, with almost no exceptions, that the hurricanes we have been experiencing have nothing at all to do with global warming. Al Gore knows this. But he doesn't mind lying about it if it will get your vote.

The reason this makes me so angry is because I spent most of my time between the 4th and 9th grade being very afraid of environmental issues. When I was in elementary school we were shown a video showing a trash ferry in New York. We were told that the world was filling up with trash so quickly that nobody knew what to do with this trash and that pretty soon there would be no more room in any of our landfills. It ends up that the shipper was just trying to save some money on where he was dumping the trash and inadvertently started the controversy. (See Myth #4 on this ABC story by John Stossel.) I don't want to be too melodramatic about this, but the irresponsibility of environmentalist wackos literally stole a large portion of my childhood. I wouldn't even play with silly string because I was afraid I was putting a hole in the ozone.

Now, I'm not going to go over all of the reasons that the Global Warming theory is full of holes (Michael Crichton does a great job of that here), but please, just stick with the facts and leave the scaremongering out of it.

50 Comments:

  • At 10:35 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    If gays marry it will be the end of western civilization! So conservatives need to save America and vote for Republicans!...Hows that for fear-mongering?

    Both sides do it.

    What affects your life more, me marrying my partner of 13 years or the increase of extreme weather on your home town?

    I take the word of the vast majority of the scientific community over John Stossel and Michael Crichton any day.

    The debate is over. Global warming is real and it is aggrivated by man.

    By the way. Do you believe the planet is 6000 years old? I know it's off topic, but I was wondering.

     
  • At 7:44 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

  • At 8:12 PM, Blogger Jason Green said…

    frizzle,
    Good to hear from you.

    Quick point here. I didn't argue that global warming wasn't happening, nor was I saying that we aren't causing it. It's true that I don't believe that we are causing global warming, but that was not the point of the post. The point is that the consensus among climatologists is that the hurricanes are part of a normal cycle and even though they may believe that global warming is happening, it is not the cause of the hurricanes. The fear-mongering example you gave is one of opinion. Al Gore's fear-mongering is a blatant, and purposeful, distortion of the facts.

     
  • At 5:38 AM, Blogger K said…

    frizzle - if alarmists over global arming keep having to say that the debate is over, doesn't that imply that it really isn't over, since you have to keep saying it?

     
  • At 2:26 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    We "alarmists" keep saying it because the corporate sponsored "scientists" keep saying it's not happening. The SCIENTIFIC debate is over. You just haven't figured that out yet.

    The Extremist Rantings Of A Mainstream Progressive

     
  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    "The fear-mongering example you gave is one of opinion."

    Are you referring to Gay marriage?

    So...What's your opinion?

     
  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    "The fear-mongering example you gave is one of opinion."

    Are you referring to Gay marriage?

    So...What's your opinion?

     
  • At 2:50 PM, Blogger K said…

    Yes, the scientific debate is over, which is why we keep reading articles about dissenters being crushed.

    But hey, I don't blame you for not hearing about that, since this information is getting concealed in fringe outlets like London's Daily Telegraph, the Wall Street Journal and an open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister from 60 scientists.

    Simply saying it's over doesn't make it so.

     
  • At 7:13 PM, Blogger Jason Green said…

    Frizzle,
    I am for the Marriage Amendment Act if that's what you are wondering.

     
  • At 1:54 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Can you explain why? And can you answer this question: How does allowing me to marry my partner harm your marriage to your (lovely, I'm sure) wife, specifically?

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger frizzle said…

    You should check out ThinkProgress and the National Review Cover story. It refutes the story quite effectively.

    Here's the Link

    BTW jason, I'm still waiting for an answer...specific harm to your marriage.

     
  • At 8:07 PM, Blogger Jason Green said…

    Frizzle,
    How does gay marriage affect my marriage personally? Probably not in any real way - but it is not a fear about my personal marriage that causes me to think that gay marriage should be banned. It is the fact that I believe that God has ordained marriage to be between one man, and one woman. We have no right/authority/reason to change that. Before you tell me that others believe differently please refer to my post on Biblically based laws.

    Now, do I believe that allowing gay marriage would cause harm to the institution of marriage? Yes, if for no other reason than it would water it down. Do I believe that all children have the right to at least a chance at having a mother and a father? Yes, even though sometimes circumstances keep it from being so. Do I think that allowing gay marriage would be a slippery slope to essentially make the word "marriage" mean anything (why not allow three people to get married) thereby making it mean nothing? Yes, I do.

    There are a number of so-called pragmatic reasons that gay marriage should not be allowed, but for me there is one overriding reason. Because the Bible says so.

     
  • At 3:07 AM, Blogger frizzle said…

    The "institution" of marriage is comprised of all the individual marriages, including yours. So, if nothing happens to your marriage then the institution is harmed in no way whatsoever. What does "water it down" mean. Is that like allowing jews in an "exclusive" country club?

    "Because the Bible says so"? Will you please show me where the bible says that Governments of the world should not issue CIVIL marriage liscences to same-sex couples? Because that's what we're talking about, CIVIL liscences that in now way force churches to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Once again, this in no way affects your life or your faith. It does, however, affect mine. My partner and I are denied several hundred CIVIL rights and protections that you and your (lovely, I'm sure) wife may take for granted.

    I find it ironic that Right Wing Christians use the "promiscuous" lifestyle of Gays to condemn the Gay community yet try to block the very thing that would promote monogomy and stablity in gay relationships.

    By the way, what are those "pragmatic reasons". I don't know of any.

    As far as children are concerned, There will always be children raised by gay parents, whether we're granted CIVIL marriage liscences or not. What does it mean to "at least have a chance to be raised by an mother and father"? Some children will never have that chance. Would you rather have them raised in an orphanage, shuffled from foster family to foster family, or raised with two stable gay parents in a nurturing and loving home?

    I know you love it when I refer to the different interpretaions of the Bible but, come on! 150 years ago, "Christians" used the Bible to justify slavery.

    In the next decade or so, Gay Marriage will most likely be the law of the land. Do you want to be "that guy"? You know, the guy who history judges in a very harsh light? From what I can tell, you're smarter than that!

     
  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger Jason Green said…

    Negatory frizzle, it was the Christians that worked so hard at aboloshing slavery - a historical fact.

    Look, the reality is that you and I will not see eye to eye on the subject of whether or not gay marriage should be allowed because we don't see eye to eye on what God says about homosexuality in general.

    Sorry to make such a short post, but I am short on time here.

    Thanks for the thought provoking post.

     
  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger K said…

    If I may jumpin on a discussion to which I wasn't really invited.

    Frizzle - your attempt to have Jason set up a Straw Man ("how does it affect your marriage personally") that you may then slap around is both transparent and amusing.

    Jason, and any person arguing against Gay Marriage has as much right to argue in terms of the broader effect on society as anyone.

    You don't address Jason's very valid point about the lack of a definition for marriage were gay marriage to become legal, instead bringing in yet another straw-man (the promiscuity argument) to knock down.

    If we change the definition of marriage as a society, which by the way flies in the face of 5,000 years of civilization defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then there is no bedrock upon which to lay the definition. The slippery slope argument here is very real. The courts would (I guarantee you, and you know it, too) be deluged with attempts to marry 3 people together, marry their animals, etc.

    The truth is, we live in a wonderful country where you and your partner are allowed to live the exact same lifestyle as any other couple, and in many parts of it, can do this without any ostracization whatsoever.

    The recent push for gay marriage by activists was put upon the rest of the country by people like you in the courts, it is not us Christians attempting to make your life worse, it is a select few attempting to change the course of 5,000 years of history.

    Your attempts to shame Jason into changing his position based upon what will be seen as "right" is also laughable. It is precisely feeling and arguments like that one that show Christians just how right the Bible is.

    What's right is right, and was right, and will be right in the future.

    Can the Bible be mis-interpreted? Of course. This, fortunately, isn't one of those cases. It's pretty cut and dry as to what a marriage should be - Man, woman.

    I'll reiterate another point, just because I know you'll bring it up again - nobody here is saying that in a free country you shouldn't be able to live your lifestyle, and be happy and not persecuted for said lifestyle. I will stand up for your right to do so, if I have to.

    That doesn't make it right, and that doesn't make gay marriage right.

     
  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Hey K,

    Wow! It's like we're in two different universes with two different sets of logic.

    You keep calling my arguments "straw men" but they ARE precisely the point.

    Me getting married to my partner, IN NO WAY, affects yours or Jason's life! I find it amazing that the Christian right finds this to be such a threat when I've never heard any specifics as to how society is harmed. You just keep saying it but it doesn't make it real. In fact the opposite can be said. Allowing Gays to Legally marry encourages monogamy and stability in gay relationships. How does that harm society? Why don't you want that?

    "changing the course of 5000 years of history"? Wow! so we conveniently forget the fact that the definition of marriage has changed CONSTANTLY over the ages. Women used to be considered PROPERTY! In this country the definition of marriage changed DRAMATICLALLY when interracial marriage was allowed from state to state over time. Marriage has never been a static unchanging institution. It just makes a good talking point for those who really aren't paying attention.

    "The truth is, we live in a wonderful country where you and your partner are allowed to live the exact same lifestyle as any other couple"? Oh really?

    Here's a link to all the benefits that you and your wife enjoy because you have a legal marriage

    Benefits of Legalized Marriage

    So, tell me again how my husband and I have the same lifestyle as you and your wife? In other words you actually are saying that I don't deserve the same "lifestyle" that you and your wife have. You're simply paying lip-service with statements like that.

    As to your recent comment on my blog about throwing darts...I thought we were having a discussion. Because I disagree with you both doesn't mean I'm throwing darts.

    I'm not trying to shame anyone. I'm merely pointing out the fact that this issue has a direct effect on my life and that before responding to kneejerk reactions to constitution changing decisions, you should understand that this about real poeple with real lives.

    I'm still waiting to the answer to this question:

    Will you please show me where the bible says that Governments of the world should not issue CIVIL marriage liscences to same-sex couples?

    You do follow the words of Jesus? Remember "Render unto Ceasar..."

    While we're at it, can you point to a direct quote of jesus that condemns homosexuality?

    Again, I truly wish all the best to you and your wife. Which, actually, is more than you wish for me. I hope that doesn't make you feel guilty in any way? ;)

     
  • At 2:45 PM, Blogger K said…

    Frizzle - I would still like you to put up a comprehensive post making the case FOR gay marriage.

    As for what the Bible doesn't say about civil unions, and as for what isn't in the Gospels from Jesus about Homosexuality, He didn't say anything about beating your wife either, yet I feel pretty comfortable in my belief that it's wrong.

    "Rendering Unto Caesar" means to respect your government, it doesn't mean to not make your views heard and participate in societal debate on a topic such as this. How you could construe it as anything suspporting your position is laughable.

    Please make your case in a post on your blog, I will enjoy reading it.

     
  • At 2:54 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Your wife beating comment is interesting because over the last 6000 years of "unchangeable" marriage beating your wife was not only allowed but in some cases encouraged to promote obedience. So once again, where does Jesus directly condemn Homosexuality and where the bible says that Governments of the world should not issue CIVIL marriage liscences to same-sex couples?


    Jesus didn't talk about a lot of things but you can't bring them all up to make your case. How is society harmed? The only thing laughable is you not addressing my points directly.

     
  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Hey K,

    So, I was in the shower after I made the last response and the enormity of the lameness of your "wife beating" argument dawned on me.

    Because Jesus never mentioned both homosexuality and wife-beating and since we both agree that wife beating is bad than he must have agreed with you that homosexuality is bad...how monumentally LAME!

    We're having a debate about CIVIL marriage liscsences. You state your opposition to them based on your biblical beliefs. I ask you to show the proof of your beliefs by pointing out the sections of the bible that say that Governments of the world should not issue CIVIL marriage liscences to same-sex couples. And you deflect with wife-beating. Why can't you justify your biblical beliefs on this civil issue? Because there is no biblical justification for this civil issue.

    And one more thing. Do you realize how insulting it is to equate the love that I have for my Husband to wife-beating?!

     
  • At 5:18 AM, Blogger K said…

    I'm not equating the two, and was hoping that you were intellectually honest enough not to pretend that I was. Oh well.

    Deflecting? I suppose I will spell it out for you. No, The Bible doesn't say anything directly about Civil Marriages for you and your partner. It also doesn't say anything about Illegal Immigration (that I know of), nor about NATO, Monetary Policy (except paying your taxes, "Render Unto Caesar"), Supply Side Economics, Flag Burning, whether or not Puerto Rico should be a state, the NSA spy program, Valerie Plame, or whether or not Condi Rice should become Commissioner of the NFL.

    But just because they're not directly mentioned doesn't mean that there isn't a right and a wrong answer for each of the above, now does it? Hence, just because there are not direct Bible verses about Civil Marriages specifically, doesn't automatically make it ok in the Christian viewpoint.

    Got it? Moving on.

    As for Jesus Christ Himself not specifically mentioning Homosexuality, you are correct. However, it is mentioned several other times in both the Old and New Testaments as a bad thing, to say the least.

    Therefore, from a Biblical perspective, one may logically extrapolate that Civil Unions sanctioned by the Gov't would not be a good thing.

    Therefore, we have (a summarized) the Christian, Biblical argument against Civil Unions for homosexuals. It is more than clear, and is counter-productive for you to pretend otherwise.

    As for wife-beating, just because some societies allowed it doesn't make it ok, which seems to be the underlying moral compass for your arguments "was it allowed". That doesn't really work, as we then have the basis for moral relativism, which is basing right and wrong off of what others think, and not something infinite and inchanging, like God.

    Still waiting for that post from you making your case. Instead, you continue to ask others to put up arguments that you can then poke holes in. Make your own argument. You seem to be inferring that it is up to those against Civil Unions to make their case as to why you shouldn't be allowed a gov't sanctioned Union.

    No.

    It is up to YOU to make the case as to why it should be allowed, since currently, it is not (save a few states where the will of the people has pretty much been stepped all over).

     
  • At 6:43 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    When someone wants to deny an entire class of people civil rights I would tend to think that the burden of proof would be on you. Once again you avoided the questions I asked. How does 2 gay men getting married harm society?

    Legally, you guys lose the argument because there is "no compelling state interest" to ban gay marriage. It's a fact that you're going to have to get used to. The courts will slowly but surely decide in our favor. I'm always amused the term activist judge thrown around by the President and the Republican leadership. An "activist" judge is somone who disagrees with them. And they forget one little point. The judiciary is a CO-EQUAL branch of govt. I guess the President missed that day in civics class.


    "I'm not equating the two"? When you attempt to counter my argument that Jesus never condemned Homosexuality with "he never condemned wife-beating either"? Please! Anyone with even a fraction of intellectual honesty gets that you're equating the two. If you don't mean to equate the two, then why even bring up such an obvious evil thing.

    "As for wife-beating, just because some societies allowed it doesn't make it ok"...Duh! Once again, you sidestepped my argument. I was countering your assertion that Marriage has been this 6000 year old "unchanging" sacred bond, when in reality, women were considered chattel. So, You're argument once again is shot down. Hell, you didn't even address the interracial marriage ban that was overturned in this country which further proves my argument that the definition of marriage has always changed over time. You're getting sloppy!

    "Therefore, from a Biblical perspective, one may logically extrapolate that Civil Unions sanctioned by the Gov't would not be a good thing."? Let me make one little correction...from "YOUR" biblical perspective. You seem to always forget that there are other biblical perspectives. Even the word itself (perspective) means Point of view. You keep denying that there is any other point of view besides your own. To deny civils rights based on YOUR extrapolated opinion of biblical scripture, without any DIRECT biblical reference, simply because it's your point of view is ludicrous! You have no right to codify your fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible into law, especially since it has no effect on your life. No one is forcing you to marry a man. Therefore, you should not have the right to impose your religious opinions on other people. This should be really simple!

    So to restate, eventually the courts will defy the (current) will of the people, as the Constitution gives them the right to do, in order to protect the civil rights of another group of people, from a misguided Biblical perspective. That has been the tradition of this great country from it's inception. Has it always functioned perfectly? No. (See Plessy v. Ferguson). But, eventually, they get it right (Brown V. Board of education) and my favorite (Lawrence & Garner v. State of Texas). Oh and by the way. The “will of the people” is also changing. Every poll conducted on this subject show a dramatic decrease in support for your “point of view”. It seems the more people talk about this subject, the more they tend to understand my “perspective”. So, in a way, I should be grateful to people like you for making people question there “points of view”.

    "It also doesn't say anything about Illegal Immigration" It does however say that you can own slaves from neighboring countries. I couldn't help it :)

    On a more personal note. Why does this matter so much to you? I'm being sincere in my questioning that. setting aside the "one-upmanship" of political debate, why does this upset you so much. This is the law in Massachusettes and that commonwealth hasn't sunk into the Atlantic. Please give me your personal feelings on this. I am sincerely curious!

     
  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger K said…

    I typed a response and somehow it didn't take, and now I lost it.

    I'll respond later......

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Jason Green said…

    Frizzle,
    Just got back from vacation. Had to delete one of your posts because I thought the content was inappropriate.

    Thanks for the great posts, though.

    Jason

     
  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Hey Jason,

    Hope your vacation was enjoyable.

    Inappropriate, huh? What's "inappropriate" to you is "date night" to me! ;)

     
  • At 6:27 PM, Blogger K said…

    Jason - welcome back.

    Frizzle - here you go:

    Your definition of gay marriage as a civil righyt is laughable. It is a request for a special right to be bestowed upon you and your partner that heretofore has not existed, nor been available. You have the EXACT same rights as I do. You are requesting additional rights that I do not have (nor want). Don't try to confuse the issue with Orwellian use of the "Civil Rights" banner. It is tiresome.

    "No compelling state interest". It's fun to watch you continue to try to frame the argument in terms you think are favorable to your argument. Anyways, go do some reading on the blazing success that the weakening of the traditional definition of marriage has been in Scandinavia. Then tell me there's no state interest.

    That's right, I agree that the courts will continue with this crap until we really DO enact a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Then it's over, pal. Yes, it is CO-EQUAL, Congress writes the laws, the judiciary interprets them. Too bad the courts forget that they don't get to make up their own laws, but oh well.

    I am tired of you saying I am side stepping arguments when you don't like being faced with logic, so I'm done with the whole wife-beating/6000 years/chattel thing.

    Civil rights again, -yawn-. I am not forcing my religion on you, but YOU are forcing your world-view on the rest of society by demanding special rights. Society doesn't want that, yet you find liberal judges to circumvent society. Hey, go with what works, right?

    Why does this matter to me? Because it's wrong, and I don't want to live in a society that says that it's ok.

    Bottom line, you view your man-man relationship as on the same level as I view my man-woman marriage. I don't view them as on the same level, nor does the law, nor does The Bible. Therein lies the obvous difference. I have (again), the law, Bible, and 6,000 years of history on my side. You have a mMassachutsetts court and the ACLU. Good luck.

     
  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    This has become very funny! You sound like a five year old having a tantrum when faced with facts that you don't want to hear.

    Unfortunately, for you, (and read this slowly) there is no compelling state interest! I no that's tough to accept, but maybe after your nap it will become more apparant.

    Fundamentalist Christians seem to have a problem with the scientific notion of cause and effect. The study you keep referring to does not prove any causality. Here's some interesting reading. Why gay marriage has been so successful in Scandinavia... I know they don't teach this stuff in Kindergarten, but try to keep up.

    Talk about trying to frame the argument in terms you think are favorable to your argument. That whole "special rights" thing is so 1990's. Wake up and smell the new millenium.

    "Why does this matter to me? Because it's wrong, and I don't want to live in a society that says that it's ok." Well I here Iraq's a great place for homophobes these days. And hey we can kill two birds with one stone by having you fight for Bush's war to create an Islamic Republic. It's been going so well.

    "I have (again), the law, Bible, and 6,000 years of history on my side." Are you holding on to your Bible? Get ready, because you may have those things on your side, but I have the FUTURE on mine, so get used to it!

    By the way Jason, thank you for allowing us to rant on your blog. God Bless you both. That was the only part of this comment that wasn't dripping with sarcasm.

     
  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger K said…

    I don't see anything in your post that warrants a response, other than to point you to something of my own.

    Gay Marriage in The Netherlands

    Tip of the iceberg, my friend.

     
  • At 12:07 AM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Dude, the tip of the iceburg just rammed your ship of "Logic"!

    The author of the article you pointed me to was the exact one that is debunked in the link I provided. I provide you with scientific data and you provide me with a homophobic political hack. I already have that talking to you.

    The future's so bright I have to wear shades! Once again, get used to it!

     
  • At 6:22 AM, Blogger K said…

    "Dude", I read your link, and knew that it was the same author. He was not debunked at all by your article, and it's funny that you can't/won't address any of Kurtz's points. There is much more where that came from, and I'll even ignore Kurtz, since you seem to refuse to read him.

    Why do I care? Try this for starters.

    Compelling state interest? Read on.

    I am still waiting on that post from you making your case, one that I sense I will never see, since you find it far easier to ask others to make their case against it, and then try to shoot holes in their arguments. It's much harder to have to step out there on your own, and make the case FOR gay marriage, vs. asking us to make the case against it.

    Keep in mind, the burden of proof remains on you, as it's you that needs the law changed.

    I agree with you that if current trends keep up, you'll get your way via a court of law somehow.

    That doesn't make gay marriage right, that doesn't make it good, and it will sure as heck energize a movement for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

    Since you're devolving into crowing about who is winning and a bit of name calling to boot, I'm done.

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Your first link didn't work. The second link, once again references Kurtz (political hack). And here's the magic word again...CAUSALITY!! I don't need to address a partisan hacks imagined and baseless arguments. That would assume they have legitimacy. I'm too busy setting up my bridal registry at Target's Club Wed. Would you like the link?

    It's quite Ironic that Jason's post was about fear-mongering because that's what you've brought it back to...factually baseless fear-mongering!

    The burden of proof is not on me. We are not asking for the law to change. We are simply asking for the inclusion in already existing laws. That is the very basis of this country legal history. The progressive inclusion of those who were disenfanchised in the past. You have read the history books, haven't you?

    You're waiting for my post on this subject but all of these comments show you don't have a leg to stand on. And come on. We both know that nothing I say is going to change your mind. Yes the future is on my side, yes I did call you a partisan hack, but please! Your entire argument is an insult to the way God made me and to the love that I share with my partner. You're done? OK. I guess we'll put a fork in you...unless you prefer something else ;)

     
  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger K said…

    I suppose if you keep trying this hard to convince yourself of the complete superiority of your logic, it's bound to come true, after all, right and wrong is defined differently for each of us, right? Isn't that the basis of moral relativism? What's right for me isn't necessarily what's right for you?

    That then must be how you can arrive at the conclusion that you don't wish to change the law, that you have no burden of proof, your make-believe belief in God, and the fact that your arguments are so mind numbingly brilliant that all those who disagree with you must be idiots.

    I enjoy the adolescent jokes, as well. I guess that's supposed to bother me since I'm such an illiterate homophobe.

    The truth is, it's wearying to attempt to debate with someone who spends 2/3 of their characters patting themselves on the back, and the other 1/3 consisting of thinly veiled innuendo, name-calling, and straw men.

    Bye.

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    My "thinly veiled innuendo" is, like everything else I've posted, based on scientific fact. I make reference to your possibly wanting to have intimate relations with another man because all of the scientific evidence shows that most men who spend so much time and energy focused on anti-gay efforts are closet cases.

    Here's a link:

    In tests conducted by Prof. Henry E Adams of the University of Georgia, homophobic men who said they were exclusively heterosexual were shown gay sex videos.

    Four out of five became sexually aroused by the homoerotic imagery, as recorded by a plethysmograph . . . a calibrated band fitted around the penis, which measures any enlargement.


    So, the key question you need to ask yourself again is "why does this matter so much to you?" That's not an insult, by the way. If you do have latent homosexual tendencies, that's fine. Just understand, this may be the motivation "2/3 of your characters".

    Bye!

     
  • At 5:52 PM, Blogger Jason Green said…

    Frizzle,
    It has been very interesting to watch this debate. At first, you were the definition of a civil debater. However, towards the end, your personal attacks and not so subtle innuendo made me turn off listening to any of your points.

    I saw your post about this discussion and your self-congratulations are not in order.

    Now, as for an analysis of the debate. As I said before, we are not debating at the correct level. By this I mean that K and I are both agruing against gay marriage because we believe that in and of itself it is a bad thing. To be sure, we believe that there are some bad repurcussions from it, but the bottom line is that gay marriage is the end, not the means.

    I realize that this will not set well with you, but if we are going to debate that is where the debate belongs. You can say that God made you this way, but for every study you come up with saying that is so I can come up with one saying the opposite (in turn, you could do the same to any study I find).

    Frizzle, I have no animosity against you and I don't to condemn your lifestyle. As a matter of fact, I can't condemn anything. It is all up to God. You can choose one of two paths - obedience or disobedience. This not only applies to homosexuality, but to every facet of life.

    I think you need to ask yourself one question. If God were to condemn homosexuality, would you be willing to change your lifestyle? If your answer is yes, then there is a reason for further discussion. If your answer is no, then I don't have anything for you. Just a verbal shaking of the hands and a wish you well.

    Thanks,
    Jason

     
  • At 12:57 AM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Hey Jason,

    As far as Personal attacks are concerned, your very position is a personal attack since it's very nature is to continue to deny me and my partner the benefits that you and your wife have. You can say you don't condemn my lifestyle but let's get real here. That is exactly what you're doing. If you didn't condemn it you wouldn't be advocating this position. I love the whole "I have nothing against homosexuality, I just think you're going to hell" line. Don't patronize me.

    We both know how you guys feel. You can wrap it in "love the sinner, hate the sin" but we're at an impasse because I believe that it's not a sin and you believe that it is. That's fine. That's why this country is so great! I can believe something and not impose it on your life. The problem we have is that your trying to do exactly that. If you're against gay marriage, the great tradition of this country is DON'T MARRY A MAN! It's really simple. When you attempt to impose your religious beliefs on me you move closer to what went on with the Taliban. A group with fundamentalist religious beliefs imposing their strict ideology on their entire society. You may not like what you see but it's the same reflection in a different mirror.

    As far as innuendo is concerned, there was none. I'm coming right out and saying that anyone who is that energized against homosexuality is likely to have deep-seated homosexual desires. That is not innuendo or a personal attack. That is based on scientific research. You and K are interpreting that as an attack. And please, you weren't agreeing with me before the "innuendo" so don't pretend there's a chance I could have changed your mind. Fear-based emotional reactions are very hard to change even in the face of logic.

    Yes, I do believe God made me this way but I can never point to a study that proves this. It is a Spiritual belief. That's why they call it faith. If you truly believed that God is the only one who should judge me, why are you advocating for an amendment based on a judgement that you have made? Can't you see that by saying I can follow two paths, obedience or disobedience (assuming you mean the homosexual lifestyle is disobedience) YOU'VE ALREADY MADE THAT JUDGEMENT!!

    Your last question is quite interesting but ultimately pointless. If God were to come down and condemn homosexuality, Of course I would beg forgiveness and pray to him to help me change. The problem is that is not the God that I believe in and God telegraphing his/her beliefs directly and not through a third party (the Bible) will never happen. Therefore we are left to use the brains that God gave us and search our own hearts for the right answers for OUR OWN LIVES. You have done that and made your choices based on what your heart tells you is right. Why shouldn't I have that same right? Trust me, I've searched my heart for years about this subject. Don't you think I have asked myself the really important questions and researched the very biblical references that have been brought up over and over? I've made my choice. I believe in my heart that the love that I have for my partner is celebrated by God because it adds to much-needed love to this planet.

    The question can also be reversed. If God came down and said "loving your fellow man" was required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, what would you do?

     
  • At 10:56 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Did I ask a question you're unwilling to answer?

     
  • At 5:14 AM, Blogger K said…

    Frizzle - Why don't you stop auditing comments on your own blog before they appear? I know that I was able to go in and enter several the other day, asking questions, making points, etc.

    I come back the next day, and voila!, no comments.

    It's much easier to troll other people's blogs, but pretty hard to have your own arguments (that's a very generous term for the posting you do) criticized, isn't it?

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I came across this blog completely by accident and I found the debate between the three parties interesting and thought provoking. I am a paracticing Roman Catholic with an open mind to new ideas and thoughts. I don't always agree with change but I understand that change can be good. I will not be the happiest of people if Priests are allowed to marry. This is because I was raised a certain way and have deep rooted beliefs. In fact, I realize that the Church may suffer if Priests are not allowed to marry. I am writing this statement because I am in favor of doing what is right and not just what my deep rooted beliefs are telling me WAS right at one time.

    As for gay marriage, I must say that I have great empathy for gay people. I am not going to post something here that I don't believe, namely that being gay is a condition that needs to be changed. I think we all would agree that gay people were born that way. So, if gay people are born that way I imagine that God made them that way for a reason. I believe in a loving God. I don't believe I have to fear God. God has helped me at every turn in my life. I love God with every fiber of my being and I pray to do His will. In saying this I also don't think God made gay people to suffer alone without the love of a partner.

    If two people love each other, be it opposite sex or same sex, that relationship I beleive should be recognized by the government in legally sanctioned marriages. This is just a legal step and really has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I have seen this issue debated on television and in print and I choose to learn and not turn a blind ear to what I learn based on deep rooted beliefs that I have had my whole life. By doing this I have changed my views on gay marriage because I don't think it hurts anyone and will give civil rights to gay couples.

    I have found all sides of the debate enlightening on this blog but I think that either side has made an effort to see the other side, they are standing fast on their deep rooted beliefs. By chosing to not learn and grow you are choosing to remain ignorant on this subject or any other subject where you mind if made up and you are not really open to change with newly aquired knowledge of a subject.

     
  • At 1:23 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Hey K,

    I'm confused by your comment. Are you saying I removed your comments on my blog? Check again. There still there. Did you mean something else?

    Hey Jason,

    So, what's your answer?

     
  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger K said…

    I am saying that after I posted a few, you turned on blogger's "comment review" feature, which effectively blocke my comments until you decide you wish to post them, which would be never.

    Do you really not realize that you did that, or are we pretending here?

     
  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger K said…

    Noce most recent post on your blog, by the way.

    Quite classy.

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Oh, I did that because I had a bunch of typos in my reply to your Wal-mart comment. It was the only way I could figure out how to correct my already published comment. Do you know another way?

    Every comment you make will be published. I won't censor a thing. I love a good debate, even when it gets nasty.

    Re: my "classy" posts. I never claimed to have class, just the facts. You have seen the title of my blog, right?

    The Extremist Rantings Of A Mainstream Progressive

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Hey K,

    Comments are, once again, unmoderated. Post away!

    The Extremist Rantings Of A Mainstream Progressive

     
  • At 7:33 PM, Blogger Jason Green said…

    Frizzle,
    Not afraid to answer - just don't have a lot of time.

    OK, here we go.

    There are two things going on that I think are really keeping us from having any kind of meaningful dialog. One thing is that comments you make like "your very position is a personal attack" make it very hard to even try to make my point. Essentially what you are saying is that my beliefs make me a bad person. According to this statement even if I were to vote for gay marriage I am personally attacking you because of what I believe about homosexuality. This pretty much limits anything I can say about what I believe.

    The other thing, and I think the most distracting thing, is that your arguments are all over the place.
    Namely, you spend so much time talking about the fact that you don't think the Bible says homosexuality is wrong ("Will you please show me where the bible says that Governments of the world should not issue CIVIL marriage liscences to same-sex couples?"), then you say that you don't even believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God "The problem is that is not the God that I believe in and God telegraphing his/her beliefs directly and not through a third party (the Bible) will never happen". We can skip a lot of wasted time by just getting to the actual thing we disagree with. We can both make our points, then we can get on with life.

    So, where is it that we disagree? Civil Unions? No, because our beliefs about that flow from our beliefs about homosexuality. Homosexuality? No, because we disagree about what the Bible says about homosexuality. So is it about what the Bible says? No, because we don't agree on whether the Bible is the authoritative word of God. Is it then that we disagree about whether or not the Bible is the word of God? I don't think so, I think it goes even deeper than that. My suspicion is that we can't get to the same place on this subject because we don't agree on the nature of God himself. Why do I think this? Because of this statement that you made: "I believe God is ever-expanding, everchanging. Since we are all a part of God, I believe God's "experience" continues to expand as does ours, as we live our lives."

    Based on this statement I can see that you and I have a fundamental difference in what God is.

    Is this a subject you would like to tackle? If we don't we are not going to get anywhere.

    Whaddayathink?

     
  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger frizzle said…

    Hey Jason,

    I don't think you're a bad person because you believe homosexuality is a bad thing. That is your right in this country. That is why this country is great. You're allowed to have those Religious beliefs.

    Please understand that this is the one thing I keep repeating over and over and the one thing I want you to understand about my argument...here it is:

    I believe you should not have the right to impose that religious belief onto my life.

    Regardless of our different beliefs in "what God is", that is the very point I've been trying to make.

    Don't you understand that this would have a direct effect on my life and no effect on yours. Is that a statement we can agree on or do you believe that Gay Marriage affects you personally? That is why I don't understand why those who believe the way you do are so up in arms about this.

    Please understand that it is my sincere belief that well-meaning Christians like yourself have been duped by your leaders into believing that this is some grave threat for political gain. why does this issue only come up during election years? I don't mean to suggest that you're easily duped. I just can't understand why the religious right is so afraid of my partner and myself. I feel offended that I've been labelled as some kind of Boogie man that is out to destroy western civilization when all I want is to make sure that if my partner gets ill, I am the one to make important medical decisions or if one of us passes on, the other will not have to both grieve the loss and fight family members over the estate. These are everyday benefits that your enjoy and I don't. That's why this matters to me. Because the consequenses of being denied those very things have a direct effect on us. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I don't think I'm being understood.

    I don't want to limit what you say or what you believe in any way whatsoever. I want to limit how those beliefs intrude on my life and my beliefs. Isn't that one of the very reasons why this country was founded?

    I wish you and your family all the joy and happiness that God bestows upon you. Please allow me the same

    Frizzle

    p.s. I don't need an answer to that question. I doesn't matter. That is what this post is all about.

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Anonymous Mike Cohen said…

    Counseling, Educating and Healing With Nature: We Unnecessarily Suffer Stress And Disorders Because We Are Victims Of A Convenient Lie.

    In the January, 2007, tenth anniversary edition of "Reconnecting With Nature" (Ecopress), I demonstrate how a vast majority us are victims of a dangerous falsehood perpetrated by Education, Psychology and Health Professionals. As an Ecopsychologist at the Institute of Global Education, I show that that our most trusted leaders subject us to the destructive stress and troubles we suffer by emotionally bonding us to a convenient, but very inaccurate lie we learn during our early childhood years.

    Most leaders fixate us to think that we live on the surface of Planet Earth, and we don't. We live 300 miles deep in the Earth, imbedded in its biosphere.

    Since 1929, scientists have recognized that Planet Earth includes a biosphere zone that recycles and sustains all life on the planet, including our lives. The biosphere integrates Earth's atmosphere, sunlight, ocean, soil, plants animals and minerals. In mutual support (and defying the universal laws of entropy) this life community cooperatively diversifies and grows without producing garbage or pollution or our excessive stress, violence and disorders.

    Natural systems are exemplified by the purifying and self-correcting flow of the water cycle locally and globally. Throughout the biosphere the grace, balance and restorative powers of natural systems regenerate and maintain the well-being of life. This includes our mental life, our thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Our health, intelligence and happiness depend upon the decontaminating flow of Earth's natural systems about and through us, including their flow through our mind.

    Because we don't embrace the biosphere as our planetary home, on average we unreasonably detach over 98 percent of our life, thinking and feeling from natural systems. This extreme disconnection stops the recycling stream of Earth's systems through our psyche. Our mind stagnates and our reasoning becomes contaminated. Stress escalates and our troubles begin. 

    Disconnected from natural systems, like a computer unplugged from an electric socket, our thinking is neither able to repair our or its disorders nor re-plug itself. Our thinking is our destiny. It needs help. However, its dysfunctions prevent it from valuing a powerful antidote and preventative for our dilemma.

    The remedy we seek is in the Organic Psychology of "Reconnecting With Nature" and its companion volume "The Web of Life Imperative." The book offers us a sensory science, a practical tool that enables our thinking and feeling to improve by thoughtfully plugging into natural systems, backyard or backcountry.

    Most of us know that a short walk in a natural area momentarily renews us as natural systems begin to flow through our mind. Organic Psychology provides us with the means, online, to habitually strengthen and lengthen this process. As we enjoy its benefits in our personal and professional life, we increase our well-being, locally and globally.

    For further Information
    Dr. Michael J. Cohen, 360-378-6313 
    Email: nature@interisland.net
    Website: http://www.ecopsych.com/
    Book: http://www.ecopsych.com/newbook2007.html

    This letter is also online with informative links to the points it makes:
    http://www.ecopsych.com/bookhelpincome.html

    * * *

    A short announcement you may use if interested:

    Book Release: A remedy has been found for a convenient but habitual lie that we live with respect to our true relationship with Planet Earth. Reconnecting With Nature 2007 teaches Organic Psychology, a hands-on science that helps individuals increase personal and environmental well-being. Natural systems are self-correcting and purifying. Learn how to think and feel with their grace balance and restorative powers. Renew yourself. Help nature recycle hurtful contamination out of your psyche and relationships. http://www.ecopsych.com/newbook2007.html

     
  • At 2:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hello!

    Nice site, keep up the good work .

    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu BUY PHENTERMINE
    BUY PHENTERMINE
    http://blog.sol.no/buy-phentermine
    BUY PHENTERMINE
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu buy phentermine
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu phentermine online
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu order phentermine
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu cheap phentermine
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu buy phentermine online
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu phentermine diet pill
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu phentermine online pharmacy
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu phentermine prescription
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu what is phentermine
    http://buy-phentermine.hem.nu free phentermine

     
  • At 2:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I would like to point out that "science" is based on theories, hypotheises, and laws.
    Science doesn't included the word "consensus."

    Consensus: An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

    You see there are no solid facts that man has created global warming. Please somebody tell me how this world came out of the "ICE AGE?" Surely it was man made CO2 emmisions. Al Gore and his puppets want you to feel guilty and feel that America is the problem. I'm sorry but we have the MOST STRICT emmision testing and clean air standards around. Their are more bad emmisions from cows the cars! This is an actual "scientific fact." Also I want to remind Al Gore and any enviro-wacko that volcanoes produces A LOT more CO2 and "green house" gases then all cars and manufacturing! Wake up people. You're going to see NY flooded.

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    bonus no deposit free cash -
    no deposit bonus pokerno deposit bonuses no deposit without poker
    online poker bonus

     
  • At 2:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    [url=http://kfarbair.com][img]http://www.kfarbair.com/_images/logo.png[/img][/url]

    בית מלון [url=http://www.kfarbair.com]כפר בעיר[/url] - שלווה, [url=http://www.kfarbair.com/about.html]חדרים[/url] מרווחים, אינטימיות, [url=http://kfarbair.com/services.html]שקט[/url] . אנחנו מציעים שירותי אירוח מגוונים גם ישנו במקום שירות חדרים הכולל [url=http://www.kfarbair.com/eng/index.html]סעודות רומנטיות[/url] במחירים מיוחדים אשר יוגשו ישירות לחדרכם!

    לפרטים נוספים נא לפנות לאתרנו - [url=http://kfarbair.com]כפר בעיר[/url] [url=http://www.kfarbair.com/contact.html][img]http://www.kfarbair.com/_images/apixel.gif[/img][/url]

     
  • At 9:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Making consideration after oecumenical propensity to consolidation in justifiable all things, interaction
    included, there is a gargantuan deficit championing studying English phraseology in those parts of the everybody, where English is not a plain language. This conclusion leads us that there is elephantine averment into the treatment of English-speaking tutors, who are specializing in teaching English. South Korea is the just the unchanging of most auspicious countries in terms of direct happening, which means teaching English in Korea would be incomparably profitable.

    click here

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home