Ok, sure we'll go with this.

Artificial Insimination is not "natural" yet it is legal. Why? it doesn't hurt anybody and can help people who can't have children "naturally". So any arguement you have based on whats "natural" and not is null and void. I'm waiting for a real reason here, you've given nothing substantial but "its not right, so it shouldnt be" which is simply your narrow-minded opinion, nothing more nothing less.

Eqaddicts stances....

Pro-Choice, it is her choice, not yours a-hole.

Pro-Gay "equal rights" ie if goverment issues marriage certificates, it cannot discriminate. If it only issues something else (and lets churches do marriing) so be it. But has to do it fairly.

Pro gun rights.

Pro Tax Reform to stop exodus of US jobs, importing of overly cheepified goods. (Shut down the Wallmarts of the world)

Pro welfare reform, BOTH individual AND corporate welfare.

Pro tighter border control. Have our millitary patrol there, not fricken BFE. And 86 ALL illegals, even senator soandso's cook...

edit- on this last one, I think it is a crock o shite when people claim we need to let illegals mantain their status because they do jobs "normal" American won't do. NO... They are just willing to do a job that an american won't for the wage that is paid. Get rid of illegals, and wages will have to increase to get people to do those jobs. Law of supply and demand has been broken by business, people demand higher wages, so business supplies illegals to do it for less..

this is a start, but sure to think of more...

Pro-Choice: hmm... a choice if another human being lives or dies. Fine, I'd like that choice to pop a cap into anyone I see unfit of sharing my oxygen - starting with everyone who's "Pro-Choice".

Pro-Gay: Well, neither the Gods nor Darwin favor homosexuality. Don't know of too many species that thrived once Adam married Steve. Homosexuality is a state-of-mind, a growing epidemic that either God or natural-selection will eventually exterminate. Why should we foster or encourage it? Let's just proliferate a nuclear arsenal to anyone who wants it - I mean, we're only helping each other reach inevitable doom.

Fair 'nuff. That way I can exercise "Pro-Choice".

Wow, where'd you get the degree in macroeconomics? Must've missed that CrackerJack box... Your so-called 'exodus' of US jobs isn't based on taxes. It's founded on our economy's last 20-year ideology: a paradigm shift from manufacturing/agriculture to technology development and production (mainly medicine and electronics). By foregoing industry and farming, we tried to corner the market in the wonderful world of MRI's and semiconductors. But the rest of the world has caught up, and can do it for less since thier's is a culture where quality time is spent at home with the family, and not pursuing the next big-ticket purchase for the home or driveway. Want to keep jobs in the US? Re-shift our focus to something the rest of the world can't do for less. <Lots of great ideas out there, from focus on small buisness to mass production of a petroleum energy substitute>

Excellent idea! Wow, something I wish one of our several think-tank genius' who quietly boast an IQ greater than your Social Security Number had thought of... And what is your specific plan?

Have you served in the military? We're stretched so thin as it is - I'd hate to have to be called in for another expeditionary rotation away from my family to monitor Florida's southern coastline. Unless your family's name sounds something like "Bear-Claw" or "Stands-with-a-fist", chances are you live in this superpower because an ancestor migrated over with a hope for a better life, or for a taste of that freedom our military is literally dying to give Iraqi's and Afghan's. Who the hell are you to tell someone they can't freely enjoy that simple dream to freely be whatever you want? And I'm proud to have served in "BFE" - because there we're treated like both tyrants and kings. Those good people were grateful, more than the common American I pass on the street here, for the Coalition blood that quenched thier burning sands.

Scripture, that is. Inspired holy writ! Amen! You're darn right - why should I have to go sweat in a tomato field for 12 hours at $2/hr when welfare pays over $40k/year? "Supply and Demand"? Think about what would happen to supply and demand of US agricultural products if farmers had to pay more than quadruple what they do now to have someone pick/sort/inspect thier produce? Would right-minded "normal" Americans pay $5 for a US apple, when China imports 'em for under a nickle? Go back to your Tax Reform ideology. We deserve our immigrants, and they deserve a chance to become American.

Oh, please - don't. Stick with EQ economics and politics and let's leave the real world to the real smarties who know a heck alot more than me and you and have access to endless sources of information that we don't even know exist -

I like the Matrix.

Go kill yourself kkthx

Daeath, are there guys in white hoods and swastikas running around your neighborhood?

lmfao. well said

No, at least not openly - why do you ask?

Daeath, I think said it pretty 'okay'.
I think this gay marriage thing is about acceptance, they want to be accepted just like married straight people. The problem is gaining the right to marriage will not solve this, and in addition, they would be supporting an unnatural communion. (How many gay animals have you seen?)

If you remember, when before homosexual acts were legalized, there were two sides to the issue. There were people who wanted them to be legalized, and there were people that didn't, who said that if they were given this, in decades to come they will want to have equal rights as married couples.

I'm all for having more same-sex couples rights, like as Kerry likes to bring up, "being able to see your sick partner in the hospital", however lawfully, I don't think they should get the right to marriage.

Just my 2cp.

i seriously can't beleive you used this as part of your arguement. I have a gay dog and i've known many other people with gay animals. You are seriously grasping now. Come on man, give us a break. You don't think gay marriages are right and thats your only reason, they are wrong bad, ok. whatever. Quit trying to pretend there's an actual reason besides "Jesus says its wrong".

You've never seen a dog that constantly tries to hump another male dog? get out more. it happens a lot. They aren't raised to beleive that being gay is bad, so it happens naturally. yes NATURALLY. So there goes the society created it theory and the "it's a choice" theory as well.

There are two prevailing sources apon which all modern ideologies are founded: religion, and science.

In the case of homosexuality, religion is very black/white with its stand: homosexuality is an abberation to mankind. God/aliens/mice created two distinct sexes for the reason of procreation and a continuation of life. Religion goes on to state that homosexual acts are thus an open defiance to the will of "God(s)", making mankind unfit for whatever future thus designed for them. Religion bases the motivating factor (for the most part) of homosexuality on Evil/Satan/Yang/Darkness - the enemy/opposite force to God/good. In the eyes of religion, homosexuality is like having a tendency for murder/stealing/lying in that it stems from temptation by that enemy to God/opposite force to good.

Science too, understands the purpose of our sexual distinction. The most basic and primal instinct each living organism carries in its cellular makeup is the need to procreate: a continuation of genetic material. Science recognizes the existance of homosexual orientation, and is trying to understand why it exists. Practically every scientist believes that homosexuality is not mearly a 'choice', nor stems from a single factor - but rather a combination of factors such as enviroment, genetics, chemical imbalances, etc... However, to base your ideals on science is to accept natural selection. In the eyes of science, homosexuality too is like mental/physical disorders - unnatural, but exsistant due to mental/physical factors promoting such behaviors.

Weither you are religious or scientific (or a combination of the two), homosexuality is NOT natural by any whim of the imagination. We weren't created/stemed from homosexual ancestors. Homosexuality exists, even in the animal kingdom. I recently watched a nature show on MSNBC about homosexual primates that live near Mt. Fuji, Japan (mostly females). But I doubt my great-grandchildren will ever see a live Japanese snow monkey if they continue thier homosexual trends. Should mankind continue to encourage homosexualty within its genus, the future of mankind looks bleak - either from lack of future generations, or bringing down the wrath of God.

Now marriage, however, is a religious practice. Yes - it has been proven by anthropologists of all learned periods of human history that the institution of marriage is something steeped from the sacred and/or the divine. You cannot include a conversation about marriage without religious overtones. The very definition of marriage is to conjoin the two opposite sexes into a union of one, out of respect for the sacred. How can we institutionalize homosexual marriage, unless we first create a purely homosexual religion? There really is no such thing as state marriage - the forms of government got the idea first from religion and thought it a good thing and has tried to implement it into its doctrines.

So the gays want to live together? Fine. They want a piece of paper to make thier unnatural union feel more natural? I believe that falls under the definition of "psychotic", but I guess it doesn't hurt me none. I just feel they're only trying to fit in - like some high school teenager and all the stupid things they do to feel 'normal'. If you're gonna be gay, BE GAY - don't try to be like your heterosexual ancestors.

My view:
First of all I dont accept or condone that kind of behavior. I have met people who were openly gay and as long as they dont try to flirt with me I dont care what they do behind closed doors. Is it natural? Of course not. Is it right? Thats between you and whoever you call God. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I dont agree with it, but who am I to say "your going to hell because your a fag, but I'm not even though I am having sex without marriage"? The only issue I have with them getting married (besides it being wierd to refer to a males spouse as 'your husband' or a females spouse as 'your wife') is the extra benefits like tax breaks, price reductions, etc that come with getting married. That might sound stupid to some, but thats the only legit reason (all prejudices aside) I dont want it to be legalized.

What a disgusting display of ignorance. I'm sorry, I never thought I'd be that critical either. How dare you claim that homosexuality is not a natural occurance? My theory? I believe it's genetic. Just like everything else. I believe it's an imbalance in hormones. Why are people being born homosexuals? People years ago were not as accepting as our generation has (or apparently claims...) to be. Homosexuals were forced to take part in sexual acts with the opposite sex because to even think about contact between the same gender was a crime punishable by the highest authority - their diety. So, by procreating they passed their genes to the next generation, and sure it isn't always the dominant trait. In fact, I think it was...86% does have - or has had homosexual fantasies or experiences, and still claim to be heterosexual.

This is my huge question: Why would ANYONE choose to be a homosexual? Why chose to have a social stigma follow you wherever you go? Why chose to be a "Deviance" among your peers, your friends, and your gods? I just don't understand it. Teenage suicide is very high these days, and a vast majority of these suicides are homosexual teens that have found no acceptance. How dare anyone say we should stop encouraging homosexuality as a normal thing? A professor of mine - and also a very close friend - has just recently realized he is a homosexual - after getting married and having a child. The man was a wreck, he felt he had ruined his wife's and his child's life forever. Why would anyone wake up one morning and say "Hmmmm...I'm gay now. Yup! Sounds great!" How terribley ignorant.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to be married? This is starting to sound like a Phelp's(He's not a Reverand to me. He does not represent my religion - at all.) conversation. "You don't like that attribute of God. God's hatred is pure!" But isn't God's love pure as well? And just because one religion views homosexuality as a sin, it doesn't mean all the other's do too. I believe same-sex marriage should be legalized. If a certain church would not allow homosexuals to get married - that's fine. I have no qualms with that. That'd be like saying "Me and my girlfriend are Jewish, we'd like to get married in a menonite church." No. But because of one groups views they are not to profess their love - and the wish to share a sacred union - to become one to any god? What are we here - England 1500's?

And it actually is proven that there are numerous amounts of animals that are homosexual.

All it boils down to is that President Bush is trying to push the beliefs of one religion upon the entire free nation, and that is against the Constitution.

Well, dogs will hump anything, living or not. Having a hole in the behind makes it that much easier. :oops: Hmm.. now I am wondering how many lesbian dogs there are.

I think there is at least a third, if not more. Basic Morality/Ethics that transcend any religion and a basic respect for human life.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...;x=17&y=15

liberty-1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

Oh dont give me that. According to that definition drugs (meaning marijuana, heroin..) are legal.

We're being sidetracked, the issue was marriage. And the fact is, marriage offers tax breaks and other benefits, marriage is and always has been between 2 people that love each other. i don't care what gender they are, the government should have no say in it, what-so-ever. It's none of their business, that's the simple truth.

People get married every day just to stay in our country, at least these homosexuals actually respect the communion of marriage unlike those immigrants.

Hehe, quick back-offtopic. Well, imo, by the strict definitions this country was set up under, ie declaration and constitutuion, drugs should be legal as well as a number of other currently illegal activities. Basically if you are able to do something without depriving any other citizen of thier rights, you should be able to...

Would you be against same-sex unions, with the same benefits of marriage? Something like that would seem more likely to appease both sides.
I think history might argue with that oversimplification, but anyway..
I am not talking about you here specifically, but when I hear this I have to wonder what one's view on polygamy, beastiality (not to be too graphic), etc, is. Just about everyone has certain moral lines that they hold to, but those lines differ between us. It is okay for them to say one is bad, and another is not, but then to turn and say that it is not okay for someone else to say one is bad, and another is not?

And there is plenty of domestic violence between couples. Does poor behavior justify any other behavior, good or bad, soley on the fact that it exists? At least those immigrants respect marriage enough not to marry someone of the same sex. Anyway, soto, you know I love you, but sometimes I feel inclined to be the opposition. :D

Now I am going to simplify with my own little tangent, and since it's a political season -- There are two factions, the right and the left.

The right compares past and present, noting values that have been lost through time. They look to the future, and see one with a confused direction. Many of our new freedoms are not freedoms at all, but vices.

The left compares past and present, and sees how far we have come with acceptance, freedom, and diversity. There is always a line that must be crossed, or a goal that must be obtained, in order to progress.

There is always talk of partisans coming together, uniting the country. Does anyone believe this will happen, under any leadership? Woof, a longer post than intended. Sorry!

Well, since we're trying to come up with a solution...

Why don't we propose that the government come up with it's own form of marriage? I mean, for tax purposes/death benefits/etc... Let 'marriage' fall under the definitions and bounds of religion, and the 'legal' binding of two orgainisms (that way Adam West can still hitch his right hand) fall under sole government jurisdiction. That way religionists don't feel like thier marriage vows are being mocked or cheapened, and everyone else gets thier tax breaks/citizenship.

eq_addict_08: we can't have total freedom in this country. I believe that falls under the chants and vows of Anarchists. We have the courts to establish a standard of morals: what will be considered right and wrong, since we don't all adhere to the same belief system (ie. the various religions and sciences). But the beautiful thing about democracy (or a republic, as we reside in) is that the people ultimately choose what those standards are. Its when the minority has the say that democracy has failed (minority as in those who yell the loudest, or those who have the biggest payoff to the lawmakers, or those who can force thier will on the majority - not so much as in the minority races/cultures/lifestyles).

If America as a whole feels that homosexuals deserve an equal standing as the heterosexual family, then I personally feel we've let down the human race that has sacrificed so much to bring us to this point. We already allow them to live together, so I don't care if they're allowed the same tax benefits as myself - but I just feel that my heratige and family are mocked if homosexual marriage, in the fullest sense of the word, is constitutionalized.

Daeath, we are in agreement. I would also say best solution is to get government completely out of marriage and let the churches etc have it. The government would only issue something else.

And, as far as second paragraph goes, anarchy is only "bad" because we have been programmed to think so. Red scare 1950s? I am not an anarchist, nor a socialist, but I do believe that many of those two "sects" thoughts are more in line with how a government should be, than the corporate payoff government that has 22 billion laws for every little friggen thing, that we currently have.

Edit- also, democratic morals would be a VERY bad thing. You can NOT legislate morality upon anyone.

The best rule/law set would be one that is only based upon ones actions harming another. Anything more is taking away a bit of what America was supposed to be in the first place.

Edit #2-

Moon, it is my belief (most likely true :D ) that values have remained fairly constant throughout history, if not have goten better over time. There have been select gorups, pilrims, mormans, etc who have fled areas that had values and whatnot that they did not believe in. They fled to "uncharted lands" to start "their" way of life. But enough time has passed that the world is becoming more homogenized, thus we are seeing things that we had sheltered ourselves from. Though those things have ALWAYS occured. Imo, there are just some people who haven't ever evolved into as state of acceptance of others. They have no choice any more. WE all will need to evolve, myself included; seeing how there are plenty of things which I have been sheltered from within my life.

So gays that are currently paying the taxes that are covering your tax benefits for marriage should be denied the same right? If u want to make some new marriage thing thats controlled by govternment then stop making gays pay for straight people's marriage benefits.

Anarchy doesn't mean 'no rules', it means 'no rulers'. One of the closest societies to a real anarchy was medieval Iceland, and they still had agreed rules of conduct (e.g. if you killed someone in self-defence you had to announce it soon after the killing or be treated as a murderer): you could break the rules, but then you became an outlaw and no-one had to obey the rules when dealing with you.

Of course there's also left-wing 'anarchy', which isn't much different to other kinds of left-wing authoritarianism, giving the state^H^H^H^H'workers councils' total control over individuals.

Big government and big business are indispensable comrades: you can't have one without the other. Within limits, the less government you have, the less you need to worry about that government stealing your money to give to their cronies in big business. Socialism and communism are the worst offenders in that sense, since big government and big business become pretty much the same thing.

Fine, provided that straight people are no longer expected to pay for AIDS treatment for gays.

Of course in a rational world the government wouldn't be interfering with marriage at all, and this wouldn't be an issue.

Uh, AIDS is not a gay disease.

Yea dumbfuck more straight people have AIDS then gays

Anarchy is not a practical solution to our modern age of civility. It doesn't matter how you define it - be it no rules or no rulers - society cannot thrive if there are no people who are generally accepted as the rule makers/intrepreters and the rule enforcers.

To say that there should be no law except the general rule of don't hurt your fellow man is fine and dandy - but being too generalistic is a quick recipe for disaster. I could intrepret that to mean that I can't hurt anyone on a physical level - but I can steal, lie, cheat, or trespass all I want. In an anarchy, who would intrepret the specifics of acceptable behavior? Who would enforce it? Who would punish violators?

One of my favorite philosophers, an ancient American Indian, once said: "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not, there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Now weither you accept the religious aspects or not, without the law and those who interpret/enforce it we have no justice. If you can't keep the law you can't break it. And if you can't break it, you can't be punished (nor condoned for keeping it).

I'm proud of our form of government. It's not perfect, but it could be MUCH worse. IMHO it's the best system on the face of this planet (currently). It sucks that the citizens of Afghanistan are more democratic than us, in that they have a direct vote in thier Commander-in-Chief whereas ours is picked thru electorial vote (I feel bad for all you Democratic-Party Texans!). But I do live in the most 'free-est' of nations on this planet. How cool is that?

asd
 

my god... what have i created?

i should never had made this topic heh..

Im sick of those stupid "Vote for the president" things interrupting my MTV shows...Make's you want to stab someone!

You know, i might actually listen to Kerry if he actually said anything that was worthless dribble. I watched the debate for a few minutes before getting up and leavnig when Kerry started.

I have a plan for this, that will make the world perfect yadda yadda, better than bush, really, i promise.

"How does this plan work?"

My plan will make the world perfect and give everybody millions of dollars, people will live in happiness forever.

"But how does it work?"

It's better than bush's take my word.


Yes its an exaggeration, but it gets the point across. if he would just EXPLAIN one of his plans in detail, i and many others might go, hey that sounds pretty good. But since he won't he most likely has no plans at all and just wants to sound good to get elected.

vote bush

Yup, thats exactly the same issue I have with Kerry. I dont agree with a lot of the stuff Bush does/did and I would be willing to vote for someone else. The only problem is, like you said Kerry is just telling the people what they want to hear. He hasnt mentioned any of the specifics of his "plans". I'm not going to vote for someone unless I know what they stand for and Kerry has YET to convince me that he stands for anything I believe in. He reminds me of a used car salesman, just trying to sale himself by exploiting the unsuspecting voters. He is blaming all of the voters problems on the "current administration", but he doesnt have any details about how he will fix their problems. The sad thing is that most people will vote for him not knowing anything about his no called "plans" just because they either dont like Bush or they are fooled by Kerry's exploits. I would rather vote for someone I know versus someone who is just feeding the voters deceipt with a side of uncertainty.

How did you come to that conclusion? An overwhelming portion of HIV/AIDS positive patients are male, around 40% of the total carriers homosexual. How many people do you think are gay -- 100%? Insurance companies do not want to cover homosexuals, especially male, due to their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

D.A.B.
 

http://detfalskested.dk/bush/en/?bush=I'll%20drink%20to%20that!

Ok so 40% are homosexual, which means 60% aren't. AKA still proving my point that there are more straight people with AIDS then gays.

found http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

If your going to quote statistics show were your getting them

you do know that straight guys do get drunk and occasionally have sex with eachother? So that statistic isn't entirely accurate. It does just say male to male, which doesn't just include people who are actuall gay.

Oy.. I have 100 people, 10 of which like the color blue. 4 of this subset has red hair, out 10 red-haired people overall. Thus, 40% of the red-haired people like blue. The remaining 90 all have brown hair, 6 of which like the color blue. 7% of the brown-haired people like blue. Overall, 10% like blue, 6% of them brown-haired, and 4% red-haired.

Sorry -- I had to run to class, and didn't have time to quote a source, so I made my number conservative. :(

Draupner: I'm not arguing with your statement about men getting drunk and having sex with other men. Think about this, would you have sex with someone if you got drunk if they were gay and you were not? Sure, but I (yes me) would not have sex with a man if i were drunk... just a thought. So your statement about the statistics can be very off. What % of americans get drunk and have sex? Hell i don't know. Probably alot. But for the most part its your fault for getting drunk and getting the AIDS and the fact that most AIDS is spread through male-to-male sexuality. I in my opinion, don't really care about gays. Now about gays getting married, what LE said, the thing about saying "my wife" or "my husband" isnt normal. There will always be gays and there will always be straights, but why would gays want to get married? Then I think about how would straights want to get married? Well they love each other no doubt, but is there more behind this than we think. Like everyone has been saying about the marriage benefits and such. Could this be the reason the gays want married? Who am I to judge what they are thinking and what their intentions are? I, myself, am straight. But my opinion on gays overall is: dont flirt with me and i wont argue with you being gay.