Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Rubystars]

do honestly believe it wasn't that way in the 50s? crime was rampant in the large urban areas like new york, chicago, and l.a. there are always going to be some areas that have higher crime than others no matter what decade you look in, even within the same city. i grew up in houston, in the pasadena area to be exact. i know how high crime was there. then i moved to katy. not so much crime.

Katy is better than Pasadena these days.

My mom grew up in Pasadena before it got bad.

[linguist]

I don't believe that's accurate at all.

I think it has to differ regionally. Crime in my area is actually pretty high, crime in other areas may have gone down, so that could affect the average.

do honestly believe it wasn't that way in the 50s? crime was rampant in the large urban areas like new york, chicago, and l.a. there are always going to be some areas that have higher crime than others no matter what decade you look in, even within the same city. i grew up in houston, in the pasadena area to be exact. i know how high crime was there. then i moved to katy. not so much crime.

[Rubystars]

but you're ignoring the fact that, while there was an upswing in violent crime for some time, it's been on a downward trend in the last 20 years, and now is almost identical to what it was in the 50s

I don't believe that's accurate at all.

I think it has to differ regionally. Crime in my area is actually pretty high, crime in other areas may have gone down, so that could affect the average.

[linguist]

360



Any decade prior to the 1960s.

but you're ignoring the fact that, while there was an upswing in violent crime for some time, it's been on a downward trend in the last 20 years, and now is almost identical to what it was in the 50s

[Rubystars]

Did I miss anything?

[Rubystars]

I agree about the marriage thing. The government should have nothing to do with marriages. There should be ZERO benefits from the government for getting married.

I think it might be in society's interest to promote stable, heterosexual marriages. However I'd rather have the government just give up acknowledging marriage altogether if it means including gay marriage.

The only thing I REALLY want to know, is what is immoral about being gay? What part of being gay is so immoral that people feel the need to keep other people down?

I don't want to keep other people down. I just don't want the government to officiall acknowledge gay marriage as something legitimate.

Gay marriage is immoral in my belief because that's what my faith teaches me.

[Rubystars]

372

nevermind that they came from the middle east and indian subcontinent and pushed out the truly indigenous people, the proto-vasconic people (of whom the euskarans are the last surviving group).

It depends on how far you want to go back in time. Before then, the earliest European modern humans drove the Neanderthals to extinction. They were human too, just cold adapted.

since you seem fond of defining things, let me define indigenous for you: the people who originally settled the area. modern europeans may be native, but certainly not indigenous.

You could say the same thing for "Native Americans", because there were successive waves of people there too.

and once again, you sidestepped a question. what about indigenous americans? you don't seem so sad about them being overwhelmed by immigrants.

That's over and done with. Would you like me to revive the dead? There were some very sad things that happened in that situation, but now there's nothing that can be done about that at this point.

[Rubystars]

369

you mean like there isn't a majority of indigenous peoples here?

If by "here" you mean the Western hemisphere, yes.

besides, there hasn't been a majority of indigenous europeans in thousands of years. the last vestiges of the true indigenous europeans (the euskarans) can only be found in a small area bordering france and spain. everyone else came later, beginning with the indo-european migration out of the indian subcontinent and the middle east beginning in approximately 4000 bc.

I answered this part in post 370. There are Caucasian people in India, the Middle East, and North Africa, but the peoples of Europe I still consider to be indigenous to Europe because that's where they developed into distinct peoples such as French, German, Irish, etc.

[Rubystars]

360

Which decade? Looks like in 2005, the rate is nearly back to the 50s....

Any decade prior to the 1960s.

[Rubystars]

359

AGAIN, you are avoiding the question. Why are you quoting PAUL when we said that CHRIST never talked about homosexuality?

I thought Paul's words were relevant too because they are accepted as Scripture by Christians.

[Rubystars]

356

so in answer to an assertion that christ never said anything about homosexuality, you give us paul's epistle to the corinthians? sorry, doesn't fly. these are paul's words, not christ's.

I already answered this in post 358. However let me try again as my answer apparently wasn't satisfactory.

Try Mark 10:6 to Mark 10:9

Jesus says marriage is between a male and a female.

[the_std]

However much of the damage may be yet to occur, so I guess you'll find my argument to be invalid, because it's hard to prove something that hasn't happened yet.

That is a very valid reason to consider it invalid. If you cannot prove that something is harmful, there should be no law against it. Period. How is that even a debatable point?

[Rubystars]

350

I had written this:

"Originally Posted by Rubystars
I believe that sinful behavior brings judgment upon a society. No, I'm not expecting "fire and brimstone" to reign down, but I do think that society will suffer in the long run if we openly embrace things like homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. This view is based in my religious background. "

To which Wingates Hellsing replied:

I'm very sorry, but if you could please PROVE IT. As broom said, LALA IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG doesn't count as debate. No evidence? no validity

Well the Romans aren't around anymore. What I would consider harmful to society you probably wouldn't though. I consider homosexuality being accepted as normal as being harmful in its own right. However much of the damage may be yet to occur, so I guess you'll find my argument to be invalid, because it's hard to prove something that hasn't happened yet.

[Cat]

The only thing I REALLY want to know, is what is immoral about being gay? What part of being gay is so immoral that people feel the need to keep other people down?

Fear of the unknown.

[Greenday]

I agree about the marriage thing. The government should have nothing to do with marriages. There should be ZERO benefits from the government for getting married.

The only thing I REALLY want to know, is what is immoral about being gay? What part of being gay is so immoral that people feel the need to keep other people down?