What is something that people still believe in today that shocks you

• Manhattan Buckeye

  "I used bigotry because, to me, people use their religion as a basis for their own bigotry."
  
  Still sounds to me that you're cheapening the word. Some people are uncomfortable with gay sex, some people are uncomfortable with sex of any type, or with other people's behavior in general (drinking, smoking, gambling, etc.). That doesn't make them bigots. And the gays aren't some subset of special snowflakes where everyone must be forced to accept what they do. It is great that people are tolerant and respectful of others' actions, but under our Constitution it isn't a requirement that we have accommodate all behaviors, especially those we disagree with.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  So S&L can have his thread back:
  
  http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?41542-Should-Churches-be-Forced-to-Marry-Gay-Couples
• friendfromlowry

  Classyposter58;1485520 wrote:That education in high school is as important as sports.

  Wait, what?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  friendfromlowry;1485751 wrote:Wait, what?

  I think he meant it the other way around. That people put high importance on sports, almost more-so than education.
• friendfromlowry

  ernest_t_bass;1485753 wrote:I think he mean it the other way around. That people put high importance on sports, almost more-so than education.

  I will wait patiently for clarification.
• like_that

  

  ernest_t_bass;1485753 wrote:I think he meant it the other way around. That people put high importance on sports, almost more-so than education.

  I take you haven't seen him post that often?

  friendfromlowry;1485779 wrote:I will wait patiently for clarification.

  I wouldn't hold your breath.
• TedSheckler

  

  That the Steubenville rape victim wasn't 5% responsible.
• WebFire

  Commander of Awesome;1485666 wrote:I disagree. If you're going to marry people in your church, you should have to marry anyone, schedule aside, regardless of sexual orientation. I read O-Trap's post and I disagree. To me it's not any different than a minority getting refused service at a restaurant.

  Wow.
  
  You all do realize that churches refuse to marry heterosexual couples as well right? Did you have to sit down with a pastor and read shit and take tests? It happens. And churches can and do refuse to marry straight people.
• sportchampps

  My future brother in law wasn't allowed to be married in the church he grew up in because the pastor wasn't happy that he hadn't attended in the last few years. There's no way you should be able to force a church to marry anyone and why would someone who was gay want to be married somewhere that isn't fully open to them marrying there.
• Tiernan

  I don't buy the "growing up in the church" argument...because anyone who grew up in a certain church is very familiar with the bigotries of that particular faith and maybe even more the local congregation of that faith. Sometimes I feel certain Gay couples are more interested in calling out a certain church faith than they really are about getting married there. And if that's their motivation they are as wrong as the bigots inside the church.
• OSH

  

  I'm shocked at all the talk over homosexual marriage. This affects less than 1% of the nation's population.
  
  We are all caught up in this and there are MANY more things that are important that can actually make a difference in the economy, the majority of peoples' lives, healthcare, education, military, etc. Politicians need to do something that will turn the country around a bit.
• I Wear Pants

  Tiernan;1485865 wrote:I don't buy the "growing up in the church" argument...because anyone who grew up in a certain church is very familiar with the bigotries of that particular faith and maybe even more the local congregation of that faith. Sometimes I feel certain Gay couples are more interested in calling out a certain church faith than they really are about getting married there. And if that's their motivation they are as wrong as the bigots inside the church.

  Not really. They're being petty or perhaps even passive aggressive. Not nearly as bad as what most churches that speak out against gays do.
• I Wear Pants

  OSH;1486099 wrote:I'm shocked at all the talk over homosexual marriage. This affects less than 1% of the nation's population.
  
  We are all caught up in this and there are MANY more things that are important that can actually make a difference in the economy, the majority of peoples' lives, healthcare, education, military, etc. Politicians need to do something that will turn the country around a bit.

  1% is a pretty low estimate.
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1486101 wrote:1% is a pretty low estimate.

  I will try to find the "estimate" which was done by homosexual advocates. They were hoping to get a 10% of the population and it ended coming back as "less than 1%" statistic.
• O-Trap

  

  Commander of Awesome;1485663 wrote:Spontaneous Generation is something I was wondering about as well. While I'm a believer that God doesn't exist, I still had questions about where the universe came froml. I came across a lecture by Lawrence Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing". If you're honestly interested in another answer other than God I would seek it out, (he also wrote a book by the same title). It helped answer some of the questions from a scientific background. If you're a firm believer it may not answer all of your questions, but it does help answer your spontaneous generation question.
  
  [video=youtube;Mg9beW9FFm8][/video]

  I've actually seen this, though I haven't read the book.
  
  By and large, I'd suggest he's not even really answering the question, as in order to explain something scientifically, one needs an existence in which scientific laws exist ... in essence, you need a universe. The moment he attempts to use science to explain the origin of anything which can be said to have properties according to the laws of science, the logic becomes circular or begging the question at best, and nonsensical at worst.
  
  I would compare it to Hawking's attempt to explain universe origins by suggesting it came from a quantum vacuum, arguing that a quantum vacuum isn't a "thing," but is rather "nothing." The problem is, the fact that a quantum vacuum can scientifically be said to have properties, it cannot be said to be "nothing." By definition, it is "something."
  
  As such, I'm not sure he satisfactorily does engage true spontaneous generation.
• I Wear Pants

  OSH;1486102 wrote:I will try to find the "estimate" which was done by homosexual advocates. They were hoping to get a 10% of the population and it ended coming back as "less than 1%" statistic.

  By "homosexual advocates" I assume you mean a group who advocates that gay people shouldn't be treated worse than other people. At least not for any reason related to their sexual identity.
  
  And 10% is very likely a high guess.
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1486101 wrote:1% is a pretty low estimate.

  USA Today says "1.4%" -- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-23-Sex-survey-revelations-on-gay-identity_n.htm
  
  Gallup says: "The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households." -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx
  Imporant to note this too from Gallup -- "While most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%."
  
  More report info here (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huston/060314):
  

  • The CDC reported that a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth set the number closer to 2.8% of adults claiming homosexuality.
  • In 1993, USA Today reported that only 2.3% of males ages 20 to 30 said they had a same-sex experience in the last decade.
  • In 1991, the National Opinion Research Center found that respondents who claimed they were active homosexuals only numbered .7%.
  • As far back as 1988 a Canadian survey found that 98% of first-year college students under 25 indicated they were heterosexual.
  • And the 2000 Census found that only .42% of American households consisted of same sex, unmarried couples as heads of households. This is less than 1%.

  Last link:
  http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/the-numbers-game-what-percentage-of-the-population-is-gay/
  
  
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1486106 wrote:By "homosexual advocates" I assume you mean a group who advocates that gay people shouldn't be treated worse than other people. At least not for any reason related to their sexual identity.
  
  And 10% is very likely a high guess.

  Regardless of their "high guess," homosexuality isn't nearly as "popular" as what many have proclaimed. And, it is shocking to me that homosexuality issues are at of more importance than some of the key issues that I mentioned (along with the etc.) that affect the majority of people in the United States -- heck, they impact at least 1% which is more than the homosexual population.
  
  To me, it's shocking that there isn't more done about things that can actually make a difference in the whole country rather than <1% of the population. Just something that shocks me.
• I Wear Pants

  How many of those surveys are just asking "are you gay?"
  
  There's tons of people who aren't out, especially the older the survey is.
  
  And the FRI is a joke.
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1486110 wrote:How many of those surveys are just asking "are you gay?"
  
  There's tons of people who aren't out, especially the older the survey is.
  
  And the FRI is a joke.

  I know, I know...77.28902% of all statistics are made up on the spot. It's not even worth siting anything anymore. No one likes it when there are six sources that are basically saying the same thing. They are also spread out through several years. So, it shows there has not been much change through the years in those that identify (anonymously) with homosexuality.
  
  The "tons" is probably another 100 people that will raise the statistic to closer to 1% of the population, or maybe get it up to 1.5% of the population. Depends on which way you look at it.
• BoatShoes

  cruiser_96;1485584 wrote:That's not "spontaneous generation" at all. That is a creator creating something. Much like TW bench I'm sitting on is a creation and was created by someone or something. Much like the phone I'm typing on was created and had a creator. Much like the building I'm in was created and had a creator. As a matter of fact, as I sit here typing, I'm trying to come up with something that is currently in existence but yet did not have a creator. Heck, even that paperweight was created by someone. Why is it so illogical to consider that these items are any less different than me? Than you? They are here. I am here. The were created by someone or something, but I just happened????? Come on now.

  I can't believe that there are some people who use cosmological arguments for the existence of God and then act like that establishes and justifies all of the rest of their religious beliefs.
• cruiser_96

  

  BoatShoes;1486119 wrote:I can't believe that there are some people who use cosmological arguments for the existence of God and then act like that establishes and justifies all of the rest of their religious beliefs.

  Where would you rather we start? The teleological? Ontological?
  
  Either way you must start somewhere, right?
  
  But I do agree with your statement. After all, knowing God exists based on these arguments is all about general revelation. That does not help us know much about that God. As you mention, those who "use cosmological arguments for the existence of God and then act like that establishes and justifies all of the rest of their religious beliefs" must reconcile what kind of God exists. That would depend on from whose vantage point you are looking. After all, a good day for the bird is a bad day for the worm.
• Ironman92

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1485554 wrote:That we need to teach cursive writing in schools.
  
  That women need to go full out shaved in certain areas (and not in other areas).

  
  I believe either this year or next that it is no longer a standard.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Thank God, from grade 1-6 we literally spent an hour a day practicing our script. A colossal waste of time.
• Heretic

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1486126 wrote:Thank God, from grade 1-6 we literally spent an hour a day practicing our script. A colossal waste of time.

  Indeed. By ninth grade, I was done having to work with cursive writing and, therefore, I was done with it. I don't even think I can remember how to cursive-form half the letters any more.