Ginger_Warrior

Yes... I mean that's exactly what I said.

Hmm... that bit was unnecessary. Twice or possibly three times would have done. ilu2... but I watch the news daily and I make my own mind up. At the start, I was one of Obama's cynics. I've changed my mind. If I listened to my Dad, I'd be supporting whatever the Socialists are putting forward.

[hide=] It's not a cop-out. If you were to leave the comfort of your home and travel to, say, Russia or China or even Japan (Places with an even less tolerance of gays than the U.S.), the entire "seperation of church and state" argument wouldn't hold valid in those places mainly because the majority of the population is irreligious (In the Western sense, at least). [/hide] Would that include the 63% of Russians who consider themselves Orthodox? Or the 89% of Poles who consider themselves part of the Roman Catholic Church (of which more people accept homosexuality than oppose it, by the way)? Hardly a majority of irreligious people. [hide=] [/hide] You're quite naive if you think the legislature is the only body in the land which facilitates or puts into practice the Law. You can make all the legislation you like - if the Church doesn't agree with homosexual marriage, it won't do them. It's called de facto discrimination, and it's fairly simple to comprehend. Hence they should abide by the Law just like the rest of society has to, in other words, it needs to be disestablished. [hide=] [/hide] People don't vote on legislation. Again, your beliefs are mistaken. People vote representatives, who vote on legislation. Neither of us live in a plebiscite. [hide=] I don't know what country you live in, but last I checked anyone can marry anyone so long as you have the (State) license to do so. [/hide] It would have taken you all... 5 seconds to look up my profile? It even states what city I live in. You can't go wrong. Of course, if you had, you'd realise I live in the UK, where marriages (specifically marriage, not civil partnerships) are only provided by religious organisations on grounds that a marriage is itself a religious ceremony. However, the fact it is a religious ceremony does not remove the principle that a marriage is unequal to a civil partnership, and therefore, secular marriages should be granted alongside religious marriages in order to provide said equality of rights. [hide=] [/hide][hide=] No, it's the exact same thing only you tried to word it differently. [/hide] How is offering a secular alternative (read: not replacement) telling people what is right and what is wrong? There's only one person in this debate telling others that homosexuality is not a choice and therefore homosexual marriages should be banned. You can flower up your argument with fancy wording all you like - you're the one here telling people to believe homosexuality is wrong, and with absolutely no evidence to back the claim up too. [hide=] Okay. Fine. Show me the law which bans gay marriage on account of religious beliefs. The only place you're going to find said laws are in the Middle East. They don't exist in any (To my knowledge) Western country. Oh! And I believe I said this earlier, but if marriage is a contract then it becomes subject to regulation by the local government, meaning each state can decide who can and cannot enter into that specific contract (Unless Federal law overrides it). [/hide] Law =/= religion. Me stating religion acts as a conservative body against homosexual marriages does not equate to there being a law against it too. Jesus, do you have any understanding of a legal system? [hide=] Hating someone's actions does not equate to hating someone as a person. [/hide] [hide=] 1.) That isn't what I said. I said hating one's actions does not equate to hating the person. Since you used the term earlier, I'll use it again. That's called a strawman and is a blatant misrepresentation of a person's actual position. [/hide] You quite clearly implied being black was an action. I'm not the only one in this thread to believe in that implication either. It's not a strawman - it's a sign of your complete ignorance towards other people's inescapable destinies. [hide=] [/hide] What corollary? If you're going to Bible bash me with the whole "Homosexuality is a sin" and tell me it's a choice then don't bother. I and about three-quarters of this board really aren't interested in a theological claim which has no tangible evidence to back it up. [hide=] [/hide] Source: Wikipedia (it's sourced too) "Should homosexuality by accepted by society?" United States: 49% Yes; 41% No. Britain: 71% Yes; 21% No Canada: 70% Yes; 21% No. The Netherlands have had same-sex marriages (not just unions) for seven years now. If you're arguing it should be banned because the majority of people don't like it, you lose this argument anyway. Unless you can prove me to me homosexuality is a choice (and I mean homosexuality, not the act of), then I'll continue to support pro-Gay campaigns, and I'll get at religion if it chooses to be a force for conservatism.

So far, cadburys, it seems your contribution to this thread has been equal to that of the YouTube idiots who go on songs they dislike just to cause an argument about WWII or something meaningless.

Half the pictures are made up anyway. In the picture I posted, I cannot possibly see how the swinging action in Bowling leads to that sort of trajectory, such that it goes into the TV at a perfectly horizontal angle. Seems a bit too convenient for me...

I'm talking Newsnight as in BBC Newsnight, and iPlayer would have looong got rid of it by now. Firstly, there's not as many black people in Europe as there are in America (...wow, that sounded supremacist :shock:) due to the nature of the slave trade. Therefore due to proportional representation, there will be less black people in parliament, you're right. There's nothing racist about that, that's the nature of our society. Out of the big three names in the EU, only the UK can actually provide any detailed information in regards to its ethnicity because Germany and France in particular promote integration, preferring to talk about a person's national heritage rather than their race. However, if we compare the UK and the US: [*:188ygm3v]UK - White (92%); South Asian (4%); Black (just 2%) [*:188ygm3v]US - White (80%); African American (12%); Asian (4.4%) Proportionately speaking, you have six times the percentage of African Americans than we have of Blacks as a whole. You are right though. I can't imagine the KKK getting a prime time broadcast to spread their racist crap in America, like the BNP did in the local elections this year in the UK. To say there's only white people in the House of Commons though is a lie - Preston's mixed race MP is half-Somali. What it underlines rather is that racism still exists at large across the whole world, no matter what people say about 'positive discrimination'. I didn't mean to make it sound like it existed only in America.

That's the system we live in. It works in peaks and troughs. To some degree (I have every faith these were actually the words of an aide putting words in his mouth, because he's a decent and honest enough man naturally), Gordon Brown was a fool to say he'll bring an end to it. It did for the US. Except for the Lend-Lease scheme in which it lost millions to aide the Allies in Europe, it undoubtedly aided the US economy. War creates jobs.

Wait why? I've been here every day waiting for a post and asked him to PM me at least once if not more. He hasn't posted at all. EDIT: After searching, I found he's made one post (must have missed that one somehow), which was one sentence on page 120. He didn't even mention our match at all. I'm fine waiting for you two to have a match. But whoever wins, you will face me by this Saturday, so if you wanna do some preparing, it's in your own interests to get the match sorted ASAP.

Let's face it, the DS doesn't compare with the Wii for decimations.

If McCain wins, all it proves is what I have thought ever since Newsnight did a documentary on Obama's nomination launch in Illinois all those many months ago. America would rather vote for George Bush v2 (as far as foreign policy goes), even if he lies and scaremongers his way into power, than vote for either a woman or a black man. EDIT: It's from about two months ago so I don't know whether it's been raised before, but McCain is also quite clearly confused on the geography of the Middle-East. Maybe he also thinks Georgia's in the area. Who knows, really. uCagyQT5Y9g

I was talking about games I liked. It wasn't an argument, but a statement of preference, which is exactly what the topic asked for. If you like those games, good for you. I'll be happy on my DS, you'll be happy on your PSP, and everyone's getting along nicely. I too, dislike ignorance.

The OP asked us how we felt. We've told honestly how we feel, and you jump on our backs for it and call us "anti-American". Cold-hearted, maybe, but I really don't care if you think I'm anti-American, because for what it's worth, I am fairly anti-American despite having family who live there. Well, I've news for you. 90% of the world isn't American, and may not join in the whole "Let's leave it alone because it's America and it's a tragedy" ethos that seems to surround this thread. I'm fed up of talking about the impact of 9/11 and having it all come back to that very sentiment. We're allowed to give our views. If you don't like it, not my problem. It's not like I've come on here and gone "Haha 3,000 Yanks died, and they deserved it!" because I would never say or believe in a view that disgusting, but it seems to be the mentality you feel is going through my head.

You've always been able to take Glories to Entrana. Law runners need to for tele-ing to Draynor. :?

You're criticising Obama for not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge once, while you support a campaign which has consistently lied (or at least been economic with the truth)?

The PSP doesn't have: Mario Kart DS Animal Crossing: WW Starfox Command Pokémon D/P Advance Wars ...and countless other good RPG games.

I can't see where you've got "OCD" from that article. It might not necessarily be the parents' meaning to "bubble-wrap" him though. It's not like they're demanding he phones his mum every lunchtime to check up on him. It's not like they're telling him he can't go outside and socialise. It's not them actively stopping him from moving on and finding his own life. It may very well be he's just a clingy, needy child and without any friends of his own still depends on his mother's support to help him through. That said, they should make more of an effort to push him out of the house. They need to turn his life from seeing his mum as a support nexus, to seeing his friends as a support network. [hide=]With fairness, he's not that different to the RS players who play the game like it's some sort of religion - some of the very people who will reply to your threads. It's just the support nexus is superficially different.[/hide]

It has to be said, most of the immature "Eww... gays kissing! No!!" sort of arguments on this thread have been made with males in mind. I'm not afraid to say this generalisation, because I believe it's true: guys like looking at [woman-woman] more than women like looking at gay men, for reasons I won't go into through fear of breaking the forum's G rating. While we're on this topic, why is the "L" word even blocked? I love it when apparently anti-homophobic people go overboard and start banning all gay terms, even when they're accepted by gays themselves.

Best way I can describe how the match went. If only I could record matches... but no, my TV's so old it could be in a museum. -.-

Me and gohan have played our game. First round: Me (Toon Link) beats gohan (Diddy Kong). Second round: Me (Toon Link) beats gohan (Pikachu). (Both of us went down to final stock 100%+ dmg. Great game!) Third round: Me (Toon Link) beats gohan (Pikachu). Fourth round: Me (Toon Link) beats gohan (Pikachu). Final round: Me (Toon Link) beats gohan (Meta Knight). 5-0 Good games. Thanks gohan. :

That means nothing. His "tribute" had a clear political point to it, which I replied to. One of the qualities I have always held true to is honesty. If you don't like my honest opinion, that really isn't my problem, and it doesn't make my post bad. It was clear to anyone using rational thinking at the time that a war equates to innocent people dying. War always does. It was also clear Iraq would not be as easy a problem to deal with as Afghanistan, and that war would last longer as a result. The fact the number of casualties ended up thousands is neither here nor there. Of course no one wants people to die, but that's the stone-cold reality of war. Innocent people are dying in Iraq as a result of our occupation there, on a massive scale, and the only validation the US government, along with people who follow purely pro-American agendas can come with is the 9/11 attacks, with the constant implication that we are never totally safe from the threat of terrorism (when in reality, I'm more likely to die from cancer than a terrorist attack). It annoys me that people would use the deaths of innocent people as a justification for a war in which more innocent people are killed, even if only inadvertently. I have total sympathy for those who were affected, and I actually do pay my respects on 9/11 each year, but the OP claiming he was "upset" 9/11 isn't topic-worthy seven years after it happened is over the top.

Yes, Ginger. We are sympathetic about 9/11, so we citizens declared war. -.- Possibly your worst post ever. I don't recall saying you personally did, or even that America in general did, before you attempt to bring old personal scores up, Zierro. I was referring to the video Jack posted, which seems to imply 9/11 is a just cause for the war in Iraq. For the matter, Bush's approval rating of around 85% when the War on Terror began. Not that that means you chose war directly, but the majority didn't exactly oppose it at the time either.

If you want a game, I'll meet you online. I dunno if we'll have lag issues or not though.

...Fantastic idea. Nerdy, but fantastic.

Speaking of iTunes 8, is anyone else having trouble with Live Messenger v8.5's "Now Playing" feature? I've made iTunes my default music player in Control Panel, and checked Messenger's settings and it still won't work. I'm on XP, not Vista, if that's the problem.

That's the thing that concerns me. There are many homosexuals seeking scientific answers as to why they are homosexuals, and this concerns genetics (a documentary with John Barrowman springs to mind). If it turns out genetics do have a role to play, then that makes the anti-homosexual case even stronger and it especially adds to the religious view that it isn't natural. Of course I would still accept it though. People with Downs' Syndrome can't just turn it off, their condition is down to genetics, yet of course we accept their legitimate right to be. If homosexuality comes down to genetics, and it isn't a medical condition, I still see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted.