Our point for Godzira is that he can say nothing to us if we just "think" homosexuality is unnatural, thus being contrary to what we should accept. He can't prove homosexuality is natural which is our entire argument.

 

 

 

Right, Ghost?

 

 

 

Right. My point is not to prove anything about homosexuality in particular. I don't know why it got that far. So I'll say it again - and I'll use a different example to emphasize the fact that I am not taking an actual stance on the subject.

 

 

 

If I believe that abortion is wrong because of my religion - how is that any different than me believing it's wrong just because I do? Why is one person's reasons for believing something better than my reason? They are all personal convictions in the end and should all have the same wait when the people try and pass laws.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

Hey I'm not saying that 'because animals do it, it's okay' - that was someone else.[.quote]

 

 

 

I know you aren't saying that. And since our arguments were specifically talking about that - it's completely irrelevant.

I was just pointing out where your responses to him were flawed, the cannibalism analogy in particular.

I was just pointing out where your responses to him were flawed, the cannibalism analogy in particular.

 

 

 

Actually it was quite on-topic for what we were discussing. Now we're discussing the morality of homosexuality which wasn't at all what my comment was made for.

Both homosexuality and cannibalism are natural yes. Do humans practice both? Yes.

 

 

 

As far as the argument that homosexuality works against procreation, that is true. But have you ever though that just maybe that is what it is supposed to do? Nature has many ingenious ways of dealing with overpopulation of a species. Is it that hard to extrapolate that with the sort of population explosion our species is experiencing that homosexuality may serve a purpose and might possibly even be beneficial to our race?

Politics = a lit match

 

Religion = gunpowder

 

 

 

Politics + Religion = dangerous together unless used properly.

 

 

 

Its better to keep em seperated IMO... :-k

I'm mostly atheist. I'm right wing in economic terms but liberal in social terms. The free market is a great thing IMO. Leaglising all drugs is a great thing IMO. Thats basicaly the kind of way I lean (kind of south east on the ploitical compass (google that and take the test))

Both homosexuality and cannibalism are natural yes. Do humans practice both? Yes.

 

 

 

As far as the argument that homosexuality works against procreation, that is true. But have you ever though that just maybe that is what it is supposed to do? Nature has many ingenious ways of dealing with overpopulation of a species. Is it that hard to extrapolate that with the sort of population explosion our species is experiencing that homosexuality may serve a purpose and might possibly even be beneficial to our race?

 

 

 

Okay. Let's go back to my original point.

 

 

 

You think that I should keep my religion out of politics. But if religion is my reasoning for believing something - why is my reason any less than your reason? If you just believe something is wrong based on your on beliefs, then why is your own method of determining right and wrong better than mine?

I feel that America is headed in the wrong direction. Neither Democrats or Republics have the answer to all the problems facing our country. I think they are working together to make America a Fascist State. Democrats are pushing forward the Socialist agenda with large government programs that end up keeping tabs on your personal details making you easier to track. Republicans are pro big buisness and are using their Christian base right now to stay in power.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the next Democratic President end up pushing gun control laws "to fight terrorism" or "protect families". The corporate news media is pushing us into this dichotomy with only these two choices as possible options. Fox News may be bad, but the New York Times is just as deplorible.

 

 

 

Fight for the Constitution!

I feel that America is headed in the wrong direction. Neither Democrats or Republics have the answer to all the problems facing our country. I think they are working together to make America a Fascist State. Democrats are pushing forward the Socialist agenda with large government programs that end up keeping tabs on your personal details making you easier to track. Republicans are pro big buisness and are using their Christian base right now to stay in power.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the next Democratic President end up pushing gun control laws "to fight terrorism" or "protect families". The corporate news media is pushing us into this dichotomy with only these two choices as possible options. Fox News may be bad, but the New York Times is just as deplorible.

 

 

 

Fight for the Constitution!

 

 

 

I think fascist is a buzz word that is thrown too much. Although I agree with a lot of what you said - why would you consider it a move towards being a fascist state?

I feel that America is headed in the wrong direction. Neither Democrats or Republics have the answer to all the problems facing our country. I think they are working together to make America a Fascist State. Democrats are pushing forward the Socialist agenda with large government programs that end up keeping tabs on your personal details making you easier to track. Republicans are pro big buisness and are using their Christian base right now to stay in power.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the next Democratic President end up pushing gun control laws "to fight terrorism" or "protect families". The corporate news media is pushing us into this dichotomy with only these two choices as possible options. Fox News may be bad, but the New York Times is just as deplorible.

 

 

 

Fight for the Constitution!

 

 

 

I think fascist is a buzz word that is thrown too much. Although I agree with a lot of what you said - why would you consider it a move towards being a fascist state?

 

 

 

Bush believes he is above the law, above the constitution. The government has the ability to datamine all forms of communication. The internet is the last barrier in the fight against tyranny, once the corporations have the ability to charge websites to be in the fast lane, the independent news sources will not be able to compete against corporate news sources online.

 

 

 

It is not limited to the United States, globalists have already united Europe into one economic and political union and the same will be true for America, Canada, and Mexico.

first of I am a agnostic. I believe there might be a god but i would like to see some proof. one of the main reason i guess is since im gay, i have nearly no rights. i think that if the "all mercifull" god truely existed we wouldnt have all the crap going on today. or as my friend sais "god is like a kid who laughs at other people pains"

 

 

 

but as for politics, i am a left leaning moderate. meaning im not completely liberal, but i have a lot of liberal ideals.

I feel that America is headed in the wrong direction. Neither Democrats or Republics have the answer to all the problems facing our country. I think they are working together to make America a Fascist State. Democrats are pushing forward the Socialist agenda with large government programs that end up keeping tabs on your personal details making you easier to track. Republicans are pro big buisness and are using their Christian base right now to stay in power.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the next Democratic President end up pushing gun control laws "to fight terrorism" or "protect families". The corporate news media is pushing us into this dichotomy with only these two choices as possible options. Fox News may be bad, but the New York Times is just as deplorible.

 

 

 

Fight for the Constitution!

 

 

 

I think fascist is a buzz word that is thrown too much. Although I agree with a lot of what you said - why would you consider it a move towards being a fascist state?

 

 

 

Bush believes he is above the law, above the constitution. The government has the ability to datamine all forms of communication. The internet is the last barrier in the fight against tyranny, once the corporations have the ability to charge websites to be in the fast lane, the independent news sources will not be able to compete against corporate news sources online.

 

 

 

It is not limited to the United States, globalists have already united Europe into one economic and political union and the same will be true for America, Canada, and Mexico.

 

 

 

Note: I'm not arguing your point - I just want to know where it comes from.

 

 

 

Could you show me how Bush has shown he thinks he's above the Constitution? Things he's done with the references from the Constitution.

The creation of free speech zones, and him refering to the constitution as just a goddamned peace of paper come to my mind first. But also the fact that he feels he has the right to interpret laws to suit his policies, because we all know he's "The Decider".

 

 

 

I love how dictators have interesting nicknames.

The creation of free speech zones,

 

 

 

Explain that a little more in depth.

 

 

 

and him refering to the constitution as just a goddamned peace of paper come to my mind first. But also the fact that he feels he has the right to interpret laws to suit his policies, because we all know he's "The Decider".

 

 

 

I love how dictators have interesting nicknames.

 

 

 

What laws, and how has he interpreted them?

 

Bush believes he is above the law, above the constitution. The government has the ability to datamine all forms of communication. The internet is the last barrier in the fight against tyranny, once the corporations have the ability to charge websites to be in the fast lane, the independent news sources will not be able to compete against corporate news sources online.

 

 

 

It is not limited to the United States, globalists have already united Europe into one economic and political union and the same will be true for America, Canada, and Mexico.

 

 

 

If you believe that George W Bush introduced the monitoring of all forms of communication, you are solely mistaken. This kind of activity has been going on for almost 60 years in the form of ECHELON. The NSA doesn't get one of the biggest budgets for nothing (the budget remains classified but is known to be larger then the CIA's). The internet is too large and decentralised to be controlled, there is always going to be someone out there willing to leak news that the government doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to hear.

 

 

 

Globalisation is nothing but a good thing; it makes trade more efficient and synergetic. Without such moves, we would never have been able to make such giant leaps in technological progress and living standards. What would you prefer, we go back to subsistence farming; at least we arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t getting screwed by the corporations am I rite?

Leader of the Free world?

 

 

 

First of all Im not Canadian or American. Im in fact Barbadian. I was born in an island in the Carribbean sea. Anyways back to the point, i have lived in the USA and i live in Canada now and i would have to say that there is no Leader of the free world. Yes, the U.S president protrays himself like that, but there cannot be one single leader a place so vast.

 

The president has made some wrong decisions and who hasnt, but im saying that with these wrong decisons hes made more. The many wars we have had to suffer to on the news and in magazines, etc. Their all from common mistakes and after a while you would think they would learn from them, but they don't, or maybe they do. But they just don't care. Moving on-- Why must the so called "Leader of the Free world" stick his nose in everyone elses buisness? Look what happened from it. But don't get me wrong i know its not his fault, but on a general scale the last decent president was jimmy Carter cant remember the year.

 

So to finish up

 

 

 

1: Dont mess with nots yours

 

2: Dont declare the most disgusting thing humans can do to ea other(war) unless you have sufficent proof

 

3: Dont try to dominate every little thing you can

 

4: And finally dont talk like this ( actual quote Dont flame )

 

 

 

George Bush : "I think that when people come to America that they should have to know english. If I was going to Canada i would surely learn Canadian"

 

 

 

~~David

When you said: Dont declare the most disgusting thing humans can do to ea other(war) unless you have sufficent proof. I assume you are talking about bush thinking about invading iran over the nuclear plant incident?

When you said: Dont declare the most disgusting thing humans can do to ea other(war) unless you have sufficent proof. I assume you are talking about bush thinking about invading iran over the nuclear plant incident?

 

 

 

Of course. i could go on about that misconception but i wont :wink:

Bush has made lots of mistakes, just like the next person. I'll give him that, but I truely don't think that he uses the thing between his ears before he goes on with a plan ( ex: wars). Things like wars are the things that you have to know absolutely everything about what you are planning to do. You have to make sure that you have hard evidence (re: invading iran) before you even think about making plans to invade a country. Personally, I think Bush is war hungry. In class when I found out that he was going to put more money into invading Iran, as well as more men. I literally said, "What people? What money? he's used both resources to the cause in Iraq and Afghanistan." I think Bush paranoid, as well. I think paranoid, because Iran was importing large amounts of uranium, so he immediately thinks their making a nuclear warhead. Lastly, before I leave, I think war hungry, because I think his first thought would have been, "Oh no, their making nuclear bombs! I need to declare war on Iran and send troops there A.S.A.P" It's not a very smart thing to do.

first of I am a agnostic.

 

 

 

Interesting sidenote - Did you know that 'Agnostic' was a Greek term directly translated from the Latin word 'Ignoramus'?

 

 

 

i think that if the "all mercifull" god truely existed we wouldnt have all the crap going on today. or as my friend sais "god is like a kid who laughs at other people pains"

 

 

 

Is He? Or is he a loving Father who mourns the sin we have brought upon ourselves? In the world He created for us:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was good

 

 

 

We chose the path we're on. Not God.

 

 

 

I am a Christian.

 

 

 

And this:

 

 

 

I love the message of Christ, but the message of today's Christians seems far different.

 

 

 

Really makes me sad. People pretend to be advocates for Christ yet act in ways that totaly demean the message they are supposed to give.

 

 

 

However, we see many examples where He does not choose perfect people to do his will (Jonah, Gideon, Moses.. etc). Perhaps our failings serve to greater honour God when he succeeds despite our inadequacies.

 

 

 

I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, however I often slip up. I'm just fortunate that He's always there to pick me up and put me back on track. [Although sometimes that can be quite a painful experience]

 

 

 

As for politics:

 

 

 

I'm generally right wing. However the move of both Labour and Tory parties to the centre has left me wondering which fits my views more.

 

 

 

I don't believe you can justify abortion by saying you made a 'Mistake'. When a childs life is at stake It's not right to be selfish. The right way to atone for said mistake would be to do ones best to give the child the best shot at life you can.

 

 

 

Concerning UK law if you drink, and then commit an offence the fact that you were drunk is no defence. You know that getting drunk increases the chance you may commit an offence, thus you were reckless. The same should apply to abortion. You know the possible consequences of sleeping with someone beforehand, you should face up to the consequences of your actions and give the child a chance at life.

 

 

 

Oh, and i'm anti-EU. ;)

 

 

 

A countries sovereignty should not be willingly compromised, despite what possible economic benefits said compromises may bring. I understand now that leaving the EU is not a practical option, however I allow myself the indulgence of feeling slightly disgruntled. :P

 

 

 

Gid-out. Roger that, captain. Alpha Bravo Two Delta!

Interesting sidenote - Did you know that 'Agnostic' was a Greek term directly translated from the Latin word 'Ignoramus'?

 

 

 

Did they teach you that in church?

 

 

 

Etymology

 

 

 

From Greek prefix a-, not, + gnostic, knowing

 

 

 

Not knowing whether a god exists.

 

 

 

Concerning UK law if you drink, and then commit an offence the fact that you were drunk is no defence.

 

 

 

I think you'll find it is a defence against crimes of specific intent, reducing the liability to the offence's basic intent counterpart.

Interesting sidenote - Did you know that 'Agnostic' was a Greek term directly translated from the Latin word 'Ignoramus'?

 

 

 

Did they teach you that in church?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope. I was told that by someone who I respect and has enough grounding on the subject to be believable.

 

 

 

 

Etymology

 

 

 

From Greek prefix a-, not, + gnostic, knowing

 

 

 

Not knowing whether a god exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that was the same source i found to decide it's legitimacy. However we must have drawn different conclusions.

 

 

 

Ignoramus

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

The word ignoramus can mean:

 

 

 

* A person who is ignorant.

 

 

 

Ignorance

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

 

 

Ignorance1) is a lack of knowledge

 

 

 

Don't know whether God exists? Then you're ignorant on the subject, and thus an ignoramus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you'll find it is a defence against crimes of specific intent, reducing the liability to the offence's basic intent counterpart.

 

 

 

Perhaps intent, however it still implys recklessness, which is my point concerning abortion. If you act in a reckless manner, then be prepared for the consequences.

 

 

 

-Gid.

 

 

 

 

 

Etymology

 

 

 

From Greek prefix a-, not, + gnostic, knowing

 

 

 

Not knowing whether a god exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that was the same source i found to decide it's legitimacy. However we must have drawn different conclusions.

 

 

 

Ignoramus

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

The word ignoramus can mean:

 

 

 

* A person who is ignorant.

 

 

 

Ignorance

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

 

 

Ignorance1) is a lack of knowledge

 

 

 

Don't know whether God exists? Then you're ignorant on the subject, and thus an ignoramus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Gid.

 

 

 

You can be knowledgeable about god and still not believe in him.

You can be knowledgeable about god and still not believe in him.

 

 

 

Of course. But then you wouldn't really fall under the catergory of an Agnostic would you?

Why not? There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable about different religions' conceptions of god, but they personally deem it impossible to know whether he truly exists.