Im afraid to choose....most of the canidates don't seem to fit my liking....
so thats why...I'm voting for....
Stephen Colbert
Well, America?
last edited by
Quote (Leon)
Gay marriage is a can of worms. Here's my thoughts, though.
I've heard arguments both ways, and I'm against it. If they love each other, cool, then by all means express that. But don't expect me to go and pay for their homosexual lifestyle with my tax dollars. Likewise, I don't expect them to pay for my heterosexual lifestyle. Sadly, they will. And if they were to get married, I'd be paying for theirs.
Anyways, marriage is something that is both church and state. There's no separation, no matter how you roll the dice. Marriage is defined by many religions, and the state adopted that for whatever reason. So, until there's a prominent, powerful, well organized mainstream homosexual religion, I don't think we'll see any changes on this front.
As for Obama, I don't remember. I should though, since Colbert made his Word based around it the one night.
Edit: Another reason why democrats and progressive-seculars are fail. Outrage.
How dare you. Obama supports civil unions. Do you really think that what you say applies to civil unions?
last edited by
Pay attention plz.
And yes, I do. Civil unions are for money, power, taxes, and recognition. Sure, I'm willing to bet some people really only want it so they're 'official', but honestly, its all about money and power these days.
Quote (You)
I heard about that but I forgot why. Why doesn't he wear the pin?
Quote (Me)
As for Obama, I don't remember. I should though, since Colbert made his Word based around it the one night.
And yes, I do. Civil unions are for money, power, taxes, and recognition. Sure, I'm willing to bet some people really only want it so they're 'official', but honestly, its all about money and power these days.
last edited by
Which they shouldn't get, because they're gay, right? Civil unions legalize governmental, but not religious gay marriage. Wanting to ban civil unions by this logic means you are being discriminatory. Unless you would rather only pay tax dollars for heterosexual couples who are Christian and who agree with your point of view, this doesn't seem to be a very consistent point of view.
last edited by
Quote (me)
But don't expect me to go and pay for their homosexual lifestyle with my tax dollars. Likewise, I don't expect them to pay for my heterosexual lifestyle.
Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't agree with it, it'll drain what precious little funding all the programs have left, and that'll make MY taxes go up even more as soon as some fucktard liberal steps into office and says "OMG WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYONE, WE SURELY CAN'T TEACH PEOPLE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND DO IT THEMSELVES!"
Sure, at the very least, make up two separate taxes, and you pay whichever one adheres to your status. Single people pay neither.
last edited by
So, setting aside the matter of "being official," you say that they have no right to the benefits that marriage gives? I'm actually surprised at you; if it was really a religious thing then a civil union ought to be just fine. On the contrary, your reluctance to dismiss civil unions as harmless suggests that you have a visceral, persistent (if mild) distaste for gays.
By your current logic, it seems like you also wouldn't want to pay for the mockery of marriage that would take place between two American muslims (or atheists), nor would you want to pay social security for an unemployed atheist (or muslim). They'd be getting the same benefits as good Christians, which apparently is awful, since you don't want to support such lifestyles. Atheist taxes should go to help atheists, not yours. By saying "no, I don't want to pay for civil unions," what you're saying is "I don't care about civil rights or equality; gays are abominations." I know you, and I have a feeling that none of this is true. This is, frankly, a little puzzling.
See, a lot of people (me, obviously) consider marriage (well, union) to be a right. If heterosexuals can legally have their families merged, then dammit, in a country of liberty and equality, gays want to be able to as well. Civil unions are supposed to allow gays this supposed right without forcing conservative Christians to accept it as a marriage before God.
It comes down to whether you think they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Yes, it comes out of your tax dollars, but you're already paying for millions of people who whose beliefs are reprehensible to you, and in all honestly, you're probably also paying for people who married for reasons like money, power, recognition.
Then again, this post could have gone terribly astray, and you could have been making the simple accusation that gays want civil unions for money only, in which case our problems run much deeper than a simple debate over civil unions.
I hope this post isn't interpreted as hostility.
By your current logic, it seems like you also wouldn't want to pay for the mockery of marriage that would take place between two American muslims (or atheists), nor would you want to pay social security for an unemployed atheist (or muslim). They'd be getting the same benefits as good Christians, which apparently is awful, since you don't want to support such lifestyles. Atheist taxes should go to help atheists, not yours. By saying "no, I don't want to pay for civil unions," what you're saying is "I don't care about civil rights or equality; gays are abominations." I know you, and I have a feeling that none of this is true. This is, frankly, a little puzzling.
See, a lot of people (me, obviously) consider marriage (well, union) to be a right. If heterosexuals can legally have their families merged, then dammit, in a country of liberty and equality, gays want to be able to as well. Civil unions are supposed to allow gays this supposed right without forcing conservative Christians to accept it as a marriage before God.
It comes down to whether you think they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Yes, it comes out of your tax dollars, but you're already paying for millions of people who whose beliefs are reprehensible to you, and in all honestly, you're probably also paying for people who married for reasons like money, power, recognition.
Then again, this post could have gone terribly astray, and you could have been making the simple accusation that gays want civil unions for money only, in which case our problems run much deeper than a simple debate over civil unions.
I hope this post isn't interpreted as hostility.
last edited by
Nice jump from me thinking gay marriage and civil unions are fail to thinking anything but two white Christians have the right to be married. As I said earlier,
Zolem was kind enough to point out to me that civil union papers are filed separately. However, that doesn't change the fact that the definition was obtained by religion to begin with, and is thusly linked.
Some statistics, which may or may not be correct, and apply only to the US.
Read over that, and get a good sense of the spread of religion in the US.
I tried to find demographics of the spread and percentage of homosexuals, but sadly couldn't find anything that was as easy to read or straightforward as that. However, the one site I saw listed gay men and women below 1% each. Whether this is right... I'd lean no, but who knows.
Now, please read over this definition of democracy:
Now, consider this: Every liberty you give to one person may or may not infringe on the liberty, whether it only be a perceived infringement or an actual infringement, of someone else. Likewise, in democracy, the decisions of the majority are binding to everyone, not the decisions of the minority.
Would you agree with these statements?
Following these facts and statements, why should the obvious minority of homosexuals be allowed to infringe on the liberty and desires of the majority?
A wiki page on the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
Now, out of that list, how much would you not filter into being about money or power? I quickly scanned it and found these, some of which still fall under the headings:
As I said, it was a quick glance. Maybe there are more.
People are upset that where they allowed gay marriage, this doesn't apply to them. Seems like their stabbing their own cause in the back, as most of the benefits listed are for couples who want to have a family, which gay couples obviously are not able to accomplish naturally (and before Hiko gets all up in arms about this being immature, prove to me that two males or females can impregnate each other or stfu).
Sure, argue that they adopt kids. So does Angelina Jolie. Argue that by not having children, they help curtail population growth. True, but there are also many straight couples who choose, or are forced, to not have kids and thusly end up doing the same.
I had more, but I've forgotten it. Finding all those links, and then my copy and paste shortcut failing, kinda made me lose my train of thought.
At any rate, you don't have to like me. You don't have to like my views. And you can hate the fact that I'm a Christian. And you can hate the fact that I disapprove of gay marriage and civil unions for many reasons. That's your call.
Quote ()
Anyways, marriage is something that is both church and state.
Zolem was kind enough to point out to me that civil union papers are filed separately. However, that doesn't change the fact that the definition was obtained by religion to begin with, and is thusly linked.
Some statistics, which may or may not be correct, and apply only to the US.
Read over that, and get a good sense of the spread of religion in the US.
I tried to find demographics of the spread and percentage of homosexuals, but sadly couldn't find anything that was as easy to read or straightforward as that. However, the one site I saw listed gay men and women below 1% each. Whether this is right... I'd lean no, but who knows.
Now, please read over this definition of democracy:
Quote (define:democracy)
majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
Now, consider this: Every liberty you give to one person may or may not infringe on the liberty, whether it only be a perceived infringement or an actual infringement, of someone else. Likewise, in democracy, the decisions of the majority are binding to everyone, not the decisions of the minority.
Would you agree with these statements?
Following these facts and statements, why should the obvious minority of homosexuals be allowed to infringe on the liberty and desires of the majority?
A wiki page on the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
Now, out of that list, how much would you not filter into being about money or power? I quickly scanned it and found these, some of which still fall under the headings:
1. Joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records.
2. Family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison.
3. Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims. (Partly money, for the death claims.)
4. Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce. (Again, mixed. You could get the property and sell it off, as it seems many divorced people do.)
5. Domestic violence intervention. (Don't all households have this? It's called the police.)
6. Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens.
7. Court notice of probate proceedings. (Obviously about rights to their items and money, but as they were together for a lifetime, this one is ok.)
8. Domestic violence protection orders.
9. Legal status with stepchildren. (Kids = Tax writeoffs, but we'll ignore that.)
10. Making spousal medical decisions.
11. Joint adoption and foster care. (See above)
12. Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation.
13. Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege). (Granted, I'm not a lawyer and have no idea what these priveleges are, but I assume they dont fall into those categories I'm avoiding.)As I said, it was a quick glance. Maybe there are more.
People are upset that where they allowed gay marriage, this doesn't apply to them. Seems like their stabbing their own cause in the back, as most of the benefits listed are for couples who want to have a family, which gay couples obviously are not able to accomplish naturally (and before Hiko gets all up in arms about this being immature, prove to me that two males or females can impregnate each other or stfu).
Sure, argue that they adopt kids. So does Angelina Jolie. Argue that by not having children, they help curtail population growth. True, but there are also many straight couples who choose, or are forced, to not have kids and thusly end up doing the same.
I had more, but I've forgotten it. Finding all those links, and then my copy and paste shortcut failing, kinda made me lose my train of thought.
At any rate, you don't have to like me. You don't have to like my views. And you can hate the fact that I'm a Christian. And you can hate the fact that I disapprove of gay marriage and civil unions for many reasons. That's your call.
last edited by
Quote (Leon)
Now, please read over this definition of democracy:Quote (define:democracy)
majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
Now, consider this: Every liberty you give to one person may or may not infringe on the liberty, whether it only be a perceived infringement or an actual infringement, of someone else. Likewise, in democracy, the decisions of the majority are binding to everyone, not the decisions of the minority.
Would you agree with these statements?
Following these facts and statements, why should the obvious minority of homosexuals be allowed to infringe on the liberty and desires of the majority?
There is one thing that is bothering me. If the majority has a view within something, does that automaticaly make it right?
What if the majority of americans today suddently decided that black people shouldn't have freedom of speech anymore. Should black people's right to freedom of speech infrige on the liberty and desires of the majority?
last edited by
Don't worry, I do like you. We're cool, right up to the civil unions part, and that includes marriage. We're talking about civil unions here, and I think I just spotted one of our problems.
Short version: Even if civil union is linked to marriage, which is religious, civil union is a government program that should not be denied to a group. If you're totally unwilling to seperate the two, we're out of space to argue in here and we should move on to a better topic, like Hilary Clinton, or something.
As an addendum to Kim's hypothetical situation, I'd like to comment that atheists are a minority too. It was part of my point actually; I can't see how refusing to support civil unions is any different from refusing to support atheist marriages or welfare for atheists. Now that I think about it, atheist marriages might actually be worse, since many atheists get properly married instead of getting a simple civil marriage.
Maybe you addressed these points and I'm too tired to see it, so if you could please reiterate your responses to these questions...
Are you saying that gays want civil unions because they want the benefits? Like, feeling discriminated against has nothing to do with it? Being excluded from a program with benefits is still discrimination, even if it's all about money.
Do you feel that your taxes should go to benefit only those who you agree with?
Why are you okay with atheists, muslims, and Democrats getting married, but not gays?
Quote ()
However, that doesn't change the fact that the definition was obtained by religion to begin with, and is thusly linked.We've got a fundamental problem in our discussion here, since I've been working on the assumption that you make the same seperation as me between civil union and marriage. You see, you said that marriage is both church and state which is true. Civil unions, however, are a matter of equality. The wiki page you posted proves what you said about marriage giving economic benefits. These are governmental matters (taxes, medicaid, disabilities) and to deny these material benefits to people on strictly moral grounds just doesn't seem constitutional. See, I understand that you feel like it's an extra cost, but I feel like it's an exclusion of a group of people from a program that already exists-- what if the majority of America decided that minority group xxx should not be entitled to a fair trial, for instance?
Short version: Even if civil union is linked to marriage, which is religious, civil union is a government program that should not be denied to a group. If you're totally unwilling to seperate the two, we're out of space to argue in here and we should move on to a better topic, like Hilary Clinton, or something.
As an addendum to Kim's hypothetical situation, I'd like to comment that atheists are a minority too. It was part of my point actually; I can't see how refusing to support civil unions is any different from refusing to support atheist marriages or welfare for atheists. Now that I think about it, atheist marriages might actually be worse, since many atheists get properly married instead of getting a simple civil marriage.
Quote ()
People are upset that where they allowed gay marriage, this doesn't apply to them.Hmm? I don't understand this sentence.
Maybe you addressed these points and I'm too tired to see it, so if you could please reiterate your responses to these questions...
Are you saying that gays want civil unions because they want the benefits? Like, feeling discriminated against has nothing to do with it? Being excluded from a program with benefits is still discrimination, even if it's all about money.
Do you feel that your taxes should go to benefit only those who you agree with?
Why are you okay with atheists, muslims, and Democrats getting married, but not gays?
last edited by
Civil Rights Act would shoot that down, even if something like that were to occur.
Sexuality is not a protected class. Nor should it be. Now you might say why, and here it is, although everyone will probably not take it the right way. It IS a slippery slope. You CANNOT deny that.
[Examples]
"I choose to be a pedophile. Can't touch me, because sexual orientation is a protected class and it's discrimination."
"I love my dog. You can't tell me that I'm not allowed to *inset anything you usually would do with another human here* with it. That's discrimination based on my sexual preference."
[/Examples]
Now, if we make sex a protected class like race, religion and what not, do you see the what will probably happen? The second you try to condemn anyone for anything regarding anything about sex, you've committed a hate crime.
Sexuality is not a protected class. Nor should it be. Now you might say why, and here it is, although everyone will probably not take it the right way. It IS a slippery slope. You CANNOT deny that.
[Examples]
"I choose to be a pedophile. Can't touch me, because sexual orientation is a protected class and it's discrimination."
"I love my dog. You can't tell me that I'm not allowed to *inset anything you usually would do with another human here* with it. That's discrimination based on my sexual preference."
[/Examples]
Now, if we make sex a protected class like race, religion and what not, do you see the what will probably happen? The second you try to condemn anyone for anything regarding anything about sex, you've committed a hate crime.
last edited by
I've heard that before, it's a good point, and on some level it has crossed my mind. Shooting either of the examples down would involve jumping through hoops... child abuse, animal abuse, and all that. I don't think it's neccecarily true, even if it is rather likely to happen (that is, if enough hypothetical senators pull their heads out of their asses so that Congress can go along with this hypothetical Constitutional amendment.)
That said, to be painfully honest, neither example that you give bothers me all that much.
I think statutory rape is a stupid law too for a lot of reasons. In Hawaii the underage sex, but in some states I would be guilty of rape (If I'm right, and 'sexual contact' qualifies) several times over. Yeah. Better watch out, Ro.
Pedophilia? Are we talking about pedophiles who kidnap, rape, beat, and kill kids? Legalizing sex between pedophile and kid does not legalize kidnapping.
Beastiality? I still don't care. Maybe it would get activists upset, and maybe it would increase cases of animal abuse by some trivial number, but why should I care if there are perverts among us? There already are.
Incest? Jeez, do I even have to continue? Incest is heterosexual, consensual sex. Seriously. Incest flourished for hundreds of years (inbreeding of royal blood) and all it did was make kids born with hemophilia. Yes, incest is likely to cause birth defects, but should we ban anyone carrying defective genes from having children?
And I shouldn't need to remind you that there are states where they didn't bother to repeal sodomy laws.
I guess that was unneccecarily long. Point is, yeah, sexuality as a protected group would probably work out. Most of the problems we risk are either still illegal (kidnapping) or only reprehensible to those with lingering Puritan squeamishness (Beastiality.)
That said, to be painfully honest, neither example that you give bothers me all that much.
I think statutory rape is a stupid law too for a lot of reasons. In Hawaii the underage sex, but in some states I would be guilty of rape (If I'm right, and 'sexual contact' qualifies) several times over. Yeah. Better watch out, Ro.
Pedophilia? Are we talking about pedophiles who kidnap, rape, beat, and kill kids? Legalizing sex between pedophile and kid does not legalize kidnapping.
Beastiality? I still don't care. Maybe it would get activists upset, and maybe it would increase cases of animal abuse by some trivial number, but why should I care if there are perverts among us? There already are.
Incest? Jeez, do I even have to continue? Incest is heterosexual, consensual sex. Seriously. Incest flourished for hundreds of years (inbreeding of royal blood) and all it did was make kids born with hemophilia. Yes, incest is likely to cause birth defects, but should we ban anyone carrying defective genes from having children?
And I shouldn't need to remind you that there are states where they didn't bother to repeal sodomy laws.
I guess that was unneccecarily long. Point is, yeah, sexuality as a protected group would probably work out. Most of the problems we risk are either still illegal (kidnapping) or only reprehensible to those with lingering Puritan squeamishness (Beastiality.)
last edited by
Quote (Leon)
Civil Rights Act would shoot that down, even if something like that were to occur.
Sexuality is not a protected class. Nor should it be. Now you might say why, and here it is, although everyone will probably not take it the right way. It IS a slippery slope. You CANNOT deny that.
[Examples]
"I choose to be a pedophile. Can't touch me, because sexual orientation is a protected class and it's discrimination."
"I love my dog. You can't tell me that I'm not allowed to *inset anything you usually would do with another human here* with it. That's discrimination based on my sexual preference."
[/Examples]
Now, if we make sex a protected class like race, religion and what not, do you see the what will probably happen? The second you try to condemn anyone for anything regarding anything about sex, you've committed a hate crime.
I understand what you mean Leon, but I don't agree with it. Your reasoning goes something like this:
A) People cannot help being gay
B) People cannot help being a pedohile
C) People cannot help beastiality
1) We should not accept those things that are wrong, even if people can't help it
2) If we accept it A, we would need to accept B and C too
Result: We cannot accept homosexuality as a perfectly normal thing.
(sorry, if I'm not correct, but I'll assume I'm right for now)
However, I think this reasoning is flawed. This is because you as a default assume that A B and C is wrong, when there is nothing relevant to support this.
For example, I could just as easy add:
D) People cannot help being black
Now, in what terms do you know that being black is okay but being gay is not? Do we have to accept gay people because we accept black people?
The reason I don't accept for example pedofilia is because a kid is too easily forced, and (depending on age) most likely not ready for sex. Thus, I would not agree to make it a accepted.
last edited by
Quote (Drakim)
Quote (Leon)
Civil Rights Act would shoot that down, even if something like that were to occur.
Sexuality is not a protected class. Nor should it be. Now you might say why, and here it is, although everyone will probably not take it the right way. It IS a slippery slope. You CANNOT deny that.
[Examples]
"I choose to be a pedophile. Can't touch me, because sexual orientation is a protected class and it's discrimination."
"I love my dog. You can't tell me that I'm not allowed to *inset anything you usually would do with another human here* with it. That's discrimination based on my sexual preference."
[/Examples]
Now, if we make sex a protected class like race, religion and what not, do you see the what will probably happen? The second you try to condemn anyone for anything regarding anything about sex, you've committed a hate crime.
I understand what you mean Leon, but I don't agree with it. Your reasoning goes something like this:
A) People cannot help being gay
B) People cannot help being a pedohile
C) People cannot help beastiality
1) We should not accept those things that are wrong, even if people can't help it
2) If we accept it A, we would need to accept B and C too
Result: We cannot accept homosexuality as a perfectly normal thing.
(sorry, if I'm not correct, but I'll assume I'm right for now)
However, I think this reasoning is flawed. This is because you as a default assume that A B and C is wrong, when there is nothing relevant to support this.
For example, I could just as easy add:
D) People cannot help being black
Now, in what terms do you know that being black is okay but being gay is not? Do we have to accept gay people because we accept black people?
The reason I don't accept for example pedofilia is because a kid is too easily forced, and (depending on age) most likely not ready for sex. Thus, I would not agree to make it a accepted.
Drakim, this has turned into an argument about Sexuality. Race has nothing to do with it anymore but to be a trivial argument.
Race does not equal sexuality.
Anyways, I dont have an oppinion because I dont care.
last edited by
This entire topic makes me think of a song... I shall now quote said song for you.
I must have dreamed a thousand dreams
Been haunted by a million screams
But I can hear the marching feet
They're moving into the street
Now, did you read the news today?
They say the danger has gone away
But I can see the fire's still alight
They're burning into the night
There's too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And there's not much love to go around
Can't you see this is a land of confusion?
This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth living in
Oh, superman, where are you now?
When everything's gone wrong somehow?
The men of steel, these men of power
Are losing control by the hour
This is the time, this is the place
So we look for the future
But there's not much love to go around
Tell me why this is a land of confusion
This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth living in
I remember long ago
When the sun was shining
And all the stars were bright all through the night
In the wake of this madness, as I held you tight
So long ago
I won't be coming home tonight
My generation will put it right
We're not just making promises
That we know we'll never keep
There's too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And there's not much love to go round
Can't you see this is a land of confusion?
Now, this is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth fighting for
This is the world we live in
And these are the names we're given
Stand up and let's start showing
Just where our lives are going to
Continue squabbling.
I must have dreamed a thousand dreams
Been haunted by a million screams
But I can hear the marching feet
They're moving into the street
Now, did you read the news today?
They say the danger has gone away
But I can see the fire's still alight
They're burning into the night
There's too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And there's not much love to go around
Can't you see this is a land of confusion?
This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth living in
Oh, superman, where are you now?
When everything's gone wrong somehow?
The men of steel, these men of power
Are losing control by the hour
This is the time, this is the place
So we look for the future
But there's not much love to go around
Tell me why this is a land of confusion
This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth living in
I remember long ago
When the sun was shining
And all the stars were bright all through the night
In the wake of this madness, as I held you tight
So long ago
I won't be coming home tonight
My generation will put it right
We're not just making promises
That we know we'll never keep
There's too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And there's not much love to go round
Can't you see this is a land of confusion?
Now, this is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth fighting for
This is the world we live in
And these are the names we're given
Stand up and let's start showing
Just where our lives are going to
Continue squabbling.
last edited by
Quote ()
A) People can help being gay
B) People can help being a pedophile
C) People can help bestiality
1) We should not accept those things that are wrong, even if people can't help it
2) If we accept it A, we would need to accept B and C too
My thoughts. You can help it. There's, as of now, now genetic proof that your born gay. Just like you aren't born fluent in english, you aren't born a homosexual, pedophile, or beast lover.
That's not to say its entirely nurture, and no nature. No, like everything, its still both. Which is more powerful, up for grabs. I refuse to believe, however, that people don't choose to be gay.
"But why would they choose a lifestyle that they would be prosecuted for?" You might say.
Why did people join anything they get persecuted for? Why would a nerd join the chess club, only to get picked on by bullies? Why would the early christians follow Christ, although it meant a great deal of tribulation?
There are countless others, and I don't really think I need to point every single one out for you to get the picture of where I'm going with this. Just because you do something that you know you'll be persecuted for DOES NOT mean that you were 'born that way' or 'can't help it'.
Quote ()
Pedophilia? Are we talking about pedophiles who kidnap, rape, beat, and kill kids? Legalizing sex between pedophile and kid does not legalize kidnapping.
Pedophilia: Having sex with kids. Who said anything about kidnapping?
Now, lets say that this hypothetical was passed. Later in life, you have a kid. Unknown to you, your neighbor is a huge pedophile, and asks your kid to have sex with them. Kid doesn't know better, or trusts your neighbor and agrees without really knowing what they're getting into, or feels intimidated or something, and now your 10 year old daughter/son has legally had sex with a 40 year old man/woman, and you can't do anything because your kid said yes.
Would that not make you angry in the least? Are you honestly telling me that kind of thing wouldn't upset you at all, looking at it from the perspective of a parent? And don't use a lame answer like "I don't plan on having kids."
I don't know. Maybe America really has no moral or ethical fiber left, if things like old men doing little kids or the family dog doesn't bother people.
Anyways, I think we've probably hit a stalemate. And we're keeping people from making fun of Hillary and shamelessly plugging Colbert for President '08.
And Shur, what song is that?
last edited by
Geez people. Gay marriage is too controversial a topic for it to reach an extreme of outright ban or complete acceptance within the period of one president's term of office, let alone a person's lifetime. There's enough strong arguements on either side of the issue that it is unlikely that anything resembling change will never occur because the large majority of politicians in the U.S. right now are too worried about their image and political correctness to do anything about any severely controversial issues. So discussing gay marriage stances in regards to politics is simply to appease the far left or far right side of the political engine, and don't even get started on abortion either...
To be perfectly honest, I don't believe any of the candidates on either of the major tickets are model people to become president. Heck, I normally vote Libertarian when given the chance since I agree with the party most when it comes to an issue by issue basis. But this year I still can't even agree with them especially when it comes to policy of how the war on terror is concerned. The other parties are more for show and to hold a stance on a single few issues for the purposes of getting their few followers to back one of the major parties when the 'promise' to push a little bit of their agenda provided that they are elected. Thus everything falls back to the main two parties in more depth. The democrats are full of hypocrites (John Edwards, Al Gore (even though he isn't running this time), Hillary Clinton), power mongers (Hillary Clinton), and the uninformed (Barak Obama). The main republican (Rudi Giuliani) has already shown that he'll lean Democrat if it's what the people want, making him too wishy washy in my opinion. If I would say I liked any of the remaining candidates, it would be Mitt Romney right now, simply because he is taking a stance on the war and backing it with what he would do rather than just saying their for the war and not for troop pullout.
To be perfectly honest, I don't believe any of the candidates on either of the major tickets are model people to become president. Heck, I normally vote Libertarian when given the chance since I agree with the party most when it comes to an issue by issue basis. But this year I still can't even agree with them especially when it comes to policy of how the war on terror is concerned. The other parties are more for show and to hold a stance on a single few issues for the purposes of getting their few followers to back one of the major parties when the 'promise' to push a little bit of their agenda provided that they are elected. Thus everything falls back to the main two parties in more depth. The democrats are full of hypocrites (John Edwards, Al Gore (even though he isn't running this time), Hillary Clinton), power mongers (Hillary Clinton), and the uninformed (Barak Obama). The main republican (Rudi Giuliani) has already shown that he'll lean Democrat if it's what the people want, making him too wishy washy in my opinion. If I would say I liked any of the remaining candidates, it would be Mitt Romney right now, simply because he is taking a stance on the war and backing it with what he would do rather than just saying their for the war and not for troop pullout.
last edited by
Well, now that you're asserting that people are not born gay (something I'm totally unprepared to argue against,) there's another flaw in what we say to each other caused by the differences between what we believe.
Let's go back to talking about candidates. I don't know anything about Colbert-- care to inform me?
And what strikes you as naive, or uninformed, about Obama?
Let's go back to talking about candidates. I don't know anything about Colbert-- care to inform me?
And what strikes you as naive, or uninformed, about Obama?