Romy

Juhniz made himself clear methinks!!

Hilarous :D!

230 buddies :D!

300.

Weird how the Same-Sex Marriage thread turned into a religous debate and this one turned into a same-sex Marraige debate....

I'd say, get her some good time. Both as a girl and as a person I can tell you these are the best gifts out there :). By good time I mean find an activity she really likes doing (whether it be something like going to the movies or having a picnic, or something more classy like a dinner etc), and just go fir it ^^.

I'm better than you because my post doesn't contain pointless paradoxes.

330.

Tipp-Ex.

Again, try to *choose* to be gay. If you ever succeed, it's because you always were. These girls either only found it out about themselves late in their lives, or are not gay, or something similar to what Zierro mentioned. You cannot choose your sexual orientaion, if that was possible, I doubt anyone would be gay.

I voted for the Green Party over here in Canada and my grass isn't any more greener than it was before. That doesn't mean I automatically support the other side.. This analogy doesn't make sense....you probably vote for the green party because you want them to make changes. They can't, since they aren't in power. But you did vote for them because you support the changes they want to make - so it would be unreasonable to complain about the changes they make once they make them. I think he was referring to Zaaps' post. He said you agree to pay taxes when you vote for a party that supports it, and then Infamous gave an example in which he 'agreed' to something and didn't get it. Atleast, that's how I see it.

320.

I'm better than you because social pressure and standards don't affect me :D.

You weren't condescending in anyway fyi, and I agree with a lot of what you said. Except for one point.1) How is homosexuality in anyway not a choice? Admittedly someone raised by a homosexual parent/couple will be more inclined to it, but is still a choice. From whatever standpoint you look at it from, evolutionist or religious, it still doesn't make sense. From an evolutionist, gay couples can't reproduce, so if it was a gay gene it would more than likely die out. From a religious standpoint, you've probably heard many arguments why it's wrong. But here's another. You were right that sin is a choice, it's a warping of the things God intended for us. And as for the original sin, I think it's more of an ability to rebel against the Law, which is part of free will. And when you do look at a woman lustfully, it is considered the same as sleeping with that woman because in your heart you want to. It's the same with a man, if a man looks at a man and lusts after him, it's the same as him sleeping with him. It's not the act itself it's the intention behind the act. And from a Christian standpoint, even a non-denominational one(which I am too, meaning I take everything I believe directly from the bible and not from what some preacher said) marriage is solely between a man and woman, and it always has been, you can't deviate from that. And it's a sin to lust after someone other than your husband/wife. 2)and as for the Ruth being a lesbian thing, I'll look into that, I have read Ruth as of yet, so I'm not sure. Although I'm not so sure it would matter much, seeing as Sinners run rampant in the bible. King David slept with someone other than his wife, and many other examples are everywhere in the bible. Just cause it's in the bible doesn't mean that God agrees with it. 1) Wow, I thought today only extremely religous or extremely old people believe that. Everyone else knows sexual orienation is not a matter of choice, and never has been. Why would anyone choose to be something discriminated against and that is seen as wrong sometimes even by his own parents and environment? Do me a favor, try to be gay for a week, see if you could choose to. 2) Actualy.... No. Marriage wasn't always between a man and a woman and the concept does not belong to the Christian Church- A. Marriage had existed long before Jesus was even born, and was not invented by neither Christianity, Judiasm or Islam. B. Same-sex Marriage is accepted in some cultures and religions. Which would totally kill the argument of hurting the right to practice religion, because not marrying gay and lesbian couples or not allowing that IS hurting the right to practice religion. C. In a Democracy, the church shouldn't have a say in lawful marriage. They should possibly have the freedom not to marry couples in a religous way, but that shouldn't change the fact that marriage is marriage regardless of what the church thinks of it, and that gays should have the right to legally marry in any democratic country.

340....

Don't say things you don't mean. If you didn't mean to bring up a 25% taxation idea, you shouldn't have.

310, only 30 more posts to win if no one from the other team posts!

While its true that more taxes would improve things loads. 10% on everyone will make things worse not better, we need to tax the rich more. Yes they might whine they have to pay 25% tax or w/e but really 25% of 1mil a yr? would u even notice it? If you taxed everyone 10% more you'd be screwed. As it stands in uk the dole gives better standard of living than fulltime minimum wage, 10% tax more and mimimum wage is unlivable. Even on alot of mid-range earners 10% would ruin them. Eg my mother 10% more icnome tax and she can't pay the mortgage any more so she'd have to the claim support from the government. Statistically speaking its proven taxing EVERYONE 10% more would put so many people in substantially worse places that the 10% tax increase wouldnt even cover the extra government support needed for people to carry on living. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. If the rich felt the taxes are unfairly too high on their part... They'd just move to a country with lower taxes (perhaps not all of them, but enough for it to matter. A country is more likely to lose money if set high taxes on the rich). And the rich get richer... <_< I didn't say they wouldn't My point was its true more taxes wuld make big improvements. But taxing everyone more doesn't work as u push ppl onto government support unnecessary. The only group who can realistically be taxed more are the rich. Just because I post a specific issue of who can and cannot be taxed to result in more money for government to spend and decide to not go into the politics of the fact rich move to avoid taxes doesn't mean I'm not aware of it. You must agree that 25% taxtaion only on the rich is insane. It would totally kill it's own purpose.

330 O.O!

While its true that more taxes would improve things loads. 10% on everyone will make things worse not better, we need to tax the rich more. Yes they might whine they have to pay 25% tax or w/e but really 25% of 1mil a yr? would u even notice it? If you taxed everyone 10% more you'd be screwed. As it stands in uk the dole gives better standard of living than fulltime minimum wage, 10% tax more and mimimum wage is unlivable. Even on alot of mid-range earners 10% would ruin them. Eg my mother 10% more icnome tax and she can't pay the mortgage any more so she'd have to the claim support from the government. Statistically speaking its proven taxing EVERYONE 10% more would put so many people in substantially worse places that the 10% tax increase wouldnt even cover the extra government support needed for people to carry on living. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. If the rich felt the taxes are unfairly too high on their part... They'd just move to a country with lower taxes (perhaps not all of them, but enough for it to matter. A country is more likely to lose money if set high taxes on the rich). And the rich get richer... <_<

That couldn't be logically true for everyone though, otherwise the government would be very poor... It can logically be true. If you take that statement to be true of the standard John Smith type of guy. Then factor in the waster type who drop out of education cant afford the bus etc. Which means they cost government less. And factor in the rich people who end up paying loads of tax as they can easily afford it. It'll all balance out nicely. Having said that though every country has a national debt and msot countries national debt grows by 1million+ a year. Effectively all countries are bankrupt, but as they print their own money they jsut owe themselves more and more. Your argument makes no sense. You said he probably took from the government more than he ever paid. I said that it can't be logically true for everyone because then the government couldn't sustain itself. You even contradicted yourself in the bolded part... According to that, someone DOES pay more than they cost.

350 ^^.

That couldn't be logically true for everyone though, otherwise the government would be very poor...

370!