magekillr

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00864.html Biden has always supported a timetable, or a plan of some sort. Biden was probably my first choice for President too, god bless you Fightin' Joe. http://youtube.com/watch?v=d_bSzKrQVY4

So you'd have nothing against parental notification? :roll: If she doesn't want her parents to know, then they shouldn't be contacted. Again: her choice...even if I disagree with it.

The girl shouldn't do it behind her parents' back, but I support her freedom of choice to do so. Especially when it comes to taking her across state lines. I dislike federalism.

I agree that the school shouldn't be relied on, and if I knew that parents were always responsible enough to tell their children about contraceptives, condoms, and even any sexual education (which, some don't), then there would be no need to get the school involved. Fact remains, people like my mom are irresponsible and do not tell their kids about the alternatives. It's a farce to say they "hand out condoms". They give them to the kids if they ask for them, which they should. Well, I support planned parenthood, so :P Had the condom been invented earlier in time, there would have been more stonings occurring in Biblical times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 322508.ece :wall: :-w

It needs to be age appropriate. For example, my family and I were watching "Everybody Loves Raymond", and it's a Halloween Special where Ray's dad gives out condoms by accident to children. My mom had seen the episode before, so she knew what he gave out. So while me and my dad are waiting to know, she hesitates to tell us. She goes "They're things Ray plans to use later, with his wife." When my sister leaves to answer the phone, she states the obvious and goes "He gave out condoms, didn't wanna say it with Ronni in the room." I thought about this for a second, and I gotta be honest it made me slightly concerned. I don't think it would be terribly important or imminent that my sister would know what a condom is at 11 years old (turning 12 in November), but the problem is, I know the school will fail at teaching it when she's in middle school. When she enters the 6th grade this fall, she'll have the first "real" sexual education class, but there's no "education" really going on. I didn't learn jack [cabbage] in my 6th grade sexual education course, except for maybe minor facts about the human body and I witnessed pictures of the worst cases of STDs. Great, you show me a picture of an STD, and tell me how a girl's boob is decided as firm or saggy. Now what? Nothing. I went to summer camp the summer after 6th grade, and that's where I learned what a condom was. Didn't know how to put one on, didn't know anything about any contraceptives. The reason I feel the school will need to be relied on is because my mother is taking the "abstinence only" approach, which is great, but it needs to be enforced with the other things as well. So while I don't think it's terribly important she learns what one is (or what other contraceptives are) at 11 years old, she's not going to learn what they are except on her own, which I'm sure she'll be given false information. I know my mom doesn't plan on furthering their "talk" because she's so pro-abstinence, but I can tell you from experience and just knowing teenage hormones, the second a guy touches her thigh or shoulders in a seductive way, there's a high chance of it leading somewhere whether my mom or God like it or not. So in a nut shell, teach things at "age appropriate levels", rather than all at once. "Do it early and often," he said. "If a little girl says, 'Hey, daddy, when am I going to grow one of those [a penis]?' The parent can explain that little girls don't have a penis, they have a vagina. That's sex education that is still age-appropriate."

Building model airplanes for the military for surveillance purposes. Good thing too, because there's a good chance of getting this job =D> \

I still don't get the big deal... What is so gross about a baby sucking on a [bleep]? God, the obsession with sex and sexuality is mind boggling.

I really think there are places (most places?) in the country where allowing gay couples - particularly male gay couples - to adopt would to my mind quite legitimately constitute child abuse, because of the HUGE suffering the children would be forced to undergo. So I really question the motivation of gay couples living in, say, rural Eastern Virginia who are militant about wanting to adopt children. Can you imagine what the child would go through? Is your desire to have a child in your life worth making that child go through an entire youth of suffering and abuse, with a psychological impact that will likely afflict the child throughout their life? Again, as I said before, your obsession with your own sexuality shouldn't lead you into causing suffering for others, whether through infidelity, spreading STDs, failing to take precautions and spawning unwanted pregnancies, having children you aren't able to care for, etc. Obviously some of these things can happen accidentally, but to deliberately make decisions that you know will result in your offspring having a decreased quality of life? That's not fighting for equality and equanimity anymore, that's self-cherishing - thinking that your emotions and desires outweigh other people's (your children's, most specifically) desire to be happy and free of suffering. Yes. I do think we need to start somewhere. I draw the line at artificial fertilization for lesbian (or indeed heterosexual) couples, but that's another fish to fry. This kind of legitimization needs to go hand-in-hand with responsibility and compassion on the part of homosexual couples, which I can't vouch for. So I'd like to see the right be legitimized by the legal process but also see homosexual couples be aware of their responsibility to their children and to behave compassionately towards them. Having kids should NOT be a means of expressing yourself or making a political statement - do that on your own time, not your kids'. And on an end note, why haven't you been banned yet? You're such an obvious troll lol.

They can (as well as heterosexual females) through the vile process of artificial insemination.

Are you for real? You live in England, all you see is what the media gives you...unless you're buying their spin that is. If you wanna be pedantic about it, there's always a split in the democratic party as it's the largest party in America working towards progression to the left. Of course I expected him to run, and good on him. He's a politician, I expected nothing less. However, by running, he did cause a split in the Democrats, thus removing your image of him being a mediator between opposing sides. No, he really didn't. If he did, it's virtually repaired. The ones who weren't even prepared to vote for him were Dixiecrat/blue dog dems anyway, which were virtually apart of the party for the sole sake of Hillary Clinton. I talked to one woman last summer who wasn't thrilled with her in years past, but this election she took to her liking because of the surge in dem support from this area. Furthermore, how can he not be a mediator from opposing sides if he has the majority support from the center, and is seen more and more moderate every day? His base extends from independents, to democrats, to republicans. It's a very solid base, and he's only pissing off the extreme left and right. The world's politics is moving rightwards. Obama is on the left-wing of America. I have no doubt he'll become President if he plays his cards right, but most of America remains hugely conservative towards the issues you're talking about (drugs, healthcare etc.) Surprisingly enough, before the economy started to tank, healthcare reform was the most important issue. Sadly, even more important than the war. Only for a short while though... Says the man who loathed Hillary and all she stood for just three months ago. She didn't get it in the 1990's, why would I expect her to get it now? She accepted money to get off the health care reform boat and to shut up afterwards. What I meant by that is, you need to build a movement from the ground up. Take the Green Party for example. You cannot win the presidency if you don't have a large organization. I look at the Green party with sympathy, but I say to myself, "how many Green governors are there? how many senators? state senators? mayors? ... council at large?" We need a huge movement. This is why Barack has succeeded in some part - he has a huge base now. The greens should focus on governing locally, then statewide, then nationally. This way they can show that they can govern well, and they have the organization to back it up. They get more press time, they get more converts, they work their way up without getting to the point Barack is now and going "oh gosh I guess I have to include some washington insiders now." They get here and go "I'll take that guy and that girl for my campaign, they're strong Greens and they've been here a while, but still hold our values." That's why the radical right has more power than they should, they get busy as hell infecting school boards and governorships and whatnot. That's the problem with progressives, though we're trying to fix it. We have all these blue dog democrats blocking our way. That's why the FISA bill sucks, too many weak dems and not enough progressives.

So.... what caused the current split in the Democrat Party? Don't tell me it was all Hillary in that battle. He's better than most, but he's still a politician, and this is the nature of party politics, especially it seems when you rally around individual people, rather than a group of people, to lead a country. It is 'us vs. them' with the electorate caught up in the middle deciding between the two. There is no split. Come to think of it, more Dems are rallied behind Obama than Republicans around McCain, and he's had months to do get his base together (article I read a while back...like 69% satisfied with Obama vs. 50 some odd percent with McCain). I mean, did you just expect him to not run lol? She was the expected winner until the primaries got underway in which he won the first one, and then he won 11 in a row. This is like saying Ralph Nader caused George Bush to win... Yeah, he is a politician, something we must all remember (and some more movements to the center with issues such as filibustering FISA and decriminalizing marijuana are somewhat expected for the general). Ultimately, the real change is in the communities from regular citizens, but it takes a leader to energize these people and make them believe it. It'd be nice to have some help from the fed to put some programs into place though. What I would give for a system like the NHS...

Ironically that's exactly what I'm talking about. You all categorise each other as "liberal" or "conservative" when in reality people have a huge variety of opinions on all issues. What I'd rather is people stop calling each other by ideology or category as if you can divide people into two opposing groups, and as if pointing out divisions makes your side better (hence satisfying the most carnal notion of "us vs. them," which I find to be stupid and shallow). I completely agree with your "us vs. them" issue with American politics. That's why I support Barack Obama lol, because he's a moderate centrist who is trying to bring both sides together. Frank Schaeffer said the other day in an article: "Barack Obama is pissing off the left and the right wing, so he must be doing something right." However, if you'd like me to list off every issue where I feel he's conservative and every issue where I think he's liberal, well, I personally feel that's a waste of time. It's just easier to say "he's in the center". The thing about labels, I fit it. I'm just about liberal on every issue you can find. Come to think of it, I can't think of any issues where I'm not. I had no opinion about gays having children, because I was ignorant about any studies done. So, I read the ACLU's research, and the peer review, looked for counter arguments (couldn't find any except for religious ones), and moved from no opinion to "Let gays adopt". So, the label kinda works for me I guess?

Yeah and Kerry was the most liberal in 2004. It's just right wing smear to make the person look like a radical.

How I wish a left winger could survive in America :cry: He's a moderate centrist...I'd say he's closer to the right than the left. Most definitely near the center though.

insane, have you read the letters between Galileo and his daughter?

This is totally taken out of context, but in my opinion, context or not, it serves the same purpose and has the same message: Although this is how brainwashing goes about...

Why is it wrong to suppress rights based on skin, but doing the same thing by the means of someone's sexual orientation all right? People were denied rights, discriminated against, and flat out treated like they were a different breed/species based on their race, and the same thing is happening with homosexuals. Again, inter-racial marriage was also wrong, and the justification for it came from religion.

Yeah and the Confederacy had different beliefs and thought Slaves were necessary to their economy, so slavery should have been, and still should be, legal. Right?

They will secks and experiment with a vast majority of different types of women to "possibly" and "maybe eventually" stick with one of them after meeting many to finally realize the best side of the coin that represents their own attributes. Meanwhile you'll be stuck.

for women artificial insemanation (sp?) and gay guys can donate to a sperm bank I draw the line at artificial fertilization for lesbian (or indeed heterosexual) couples. If you're going to ask why I'm against artificial insemination, the answer is quite simple: World overpopulation, it's as simple as that. I do not support the spending of money, resources, and time - all of which could be dedicated to INFINITELY more worthy pursuits - to make wealthy first-world people capable of doing something biologically impossible just so they can spawn children of their own genetic extraction when there are so many millions and millions and millions of unwanted, underprivileged, disenfranchised infants and children in the world. It's such an extraordinary vanity. If having children is so important to you, prove it by adopting.

Ask Hell's Most Wanted: Inappropriate image removed ~Turtlefemm They happen to include homosexuality and women on women as separate.

warren, again I ask: is inter-racial marriage wrong? People in the 18th century sure felt it so.

www.diabloii.net