That is the main problem.Lynks wrote: Governement and religion don't mix and one should not affect the other.
This is either a case of homophobia, or an abuse of power,
Thess you missed the point entirely. When you're out of a womb you have options. If you want to act to preserve your life you can do any number of things - like leave town. A baby has no such options. Clearly you're trying to, as is a typical counter for liberals like yourself, use everything that is not similar intstead of using the parallels that are relevant.Thess wrote: Right so you are under the impression every iraqi who has been killed is an insurgent. Okay - that makes sense, even my good friend who I talk to atleast once a week in Iraq says that is not the case.
Let alone the chemicals we've released there, but it's ok, the birth defect rate is only up something like 150%.
It's not a simple situation.
/sighLynks wrote:What part of "the government owns the catholic school board here" do you not understand? Governement and religion don't mix and one should not affect the other.Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: uh-huh
Or....it was a catholic school board (run by whomever the fuck you want), who are are cathlocis (otherwise why the fuck would they be on this board?) enforcing a belief that is a part of their religion. They think being gay is a fucking sin. They do not want that shit going on in front of their children, on their premises, or during a school function. Plain and fucking simple.
This is either a case of homophobia, or an abuse of power,
Why is it that you can't figure this out? At some point individuals join societies, thereby receiving the benefits at the price of submission to the code that society lives by. That code has arbitrary rules. You are the outcast here. Feel free to move to France.Lohrno wrote:The black and white distinctions that define your ideologies. Why is it you can not respect that other people do not believe this?Rekaar. wrote: It either is a baby or it isn't girl. All the rest means nothing with that distinction (unless you're ok wtih throwing babies in dumpsters).
-=Lohrno
Sometimes someones belief just isn't true. Life begins at conception. Watch any science show on the topic. You will see life being created. Believing in anything different is just a way to justify killing babies so you don't have to put up with them. Not having consequences for your actions has been an ever increases trend in America lately.Lohrno wrote:The black and white distinctions that define your ideologies. Why is it you can not respect that other people do not believe this?Rekaar. wrote: It either is a baby or it isn't girl. All the rest means nothing with that distinction (unless you're ok wtih throwing babies in dumpsters).
-=Lohrno
Thanks for stating the obvious but you are talking about American society at the moment. America was founded on freedom, equality and justice for all. A notice the key words freedom and equality. Freedom applies as it strives to give everyone the maximum rights without affecting society in an adverse negative way. Equality means that everyone should be treated the same. So just because you object to something I do is not a case for taking away my freedom, as we are equals. You have the right to not do it, I have the right to it. It seems to me that you should be the one moving to the Vatican.Rekaar. wrote: Why is it that you can't figure this out? At some point individuals join societies, thereby receiving the benefits at the price of submission to the code that society lives by. That code has arbitrary rules. You are the outcast here. Feel free to move to France.
A belief is not something that can be ascertained as fact or not fact.Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Sometimes someones belief just isn't true.
I don't see anyone claiming not life. I personally think it's not valuable life until a certain point. If the sanctity of life is so great for you then you should be an extreme environmentalist.Life begins at conception. Watch any science show on the topic. You will see life being created.
See, I don't believe it's a baby until a certain point. I believe it's a fetus. In fact the science you reference classifies it as such.Believing in anything different is just a way to justify killing babies
That's a personal moral stance, and has no room in this argument. As a side note, I would agree that accepting responsibility is important though.so you don't have to put up with them. Not having consequences for your actions has been an ever increases trend in America lately.
The government should try it's damnedest to act in this way. After all we were founded on equality.Rekaar. wrote:Please come up with one actual example of everyone being treated exactly the same, that no one can in any way pick apart as having been served out differently in some aspect.
Are we not striving for the perfect society?You're generalizing when you can and being specific when it suits you. You're lost in your own world of broad brush approaches to specific problems and you lack the fundamental ability to distinguish ideals from implementation. Good luck to you.
Anarchy is a total lack of government. Our Government is put into place to ensure people's freedoms and safety.Rekaar. wrote: You are striving for perfect anarchy where everyone's self-serving desires can be fulfilled and no one else will be bothered with it, but somehow everything continues to function so your standard of living is not impacted in any way.
I'm sorry I don't see your point...Adex_Xeda wrote:And this is exactly why corn subsidies must be overseen by an elected panel of in-state respresentatives, rather than some federally appointed board held unaccountable to the drastic consequences of their callous actions!
Democracy is under full assault here and it's just too corny to stand idle when the cornerstones of our freedom are being ripped loose beneath us!
Viva la Revolution!
Stop /sighing, only little kids do that.Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Turn all of government over to machines then. ALL OF IT. If you want your government officlas to make decisions without any consideration for the way they grew up, what has made them the INDIVIDUALS they are today, then just hire machines. Stop asking people not to be people. Run all proposals and bills, and laws through a machine. If it says it abides by constitutional guidelines, it goes through. Your thinking is so consistantly shallow and short sighted its fucking ridiculous.
I have thought the same about abortion since I was about 12. I even went to a hearing on ru-486 at that age. My stance on abortion will probably never change as well as people very close to me in my life have had them.Rekaar. wrote:You bet I'm pro life, in all its forms. I also agree that sometimes there isn't any option other than taking the life of another for the benefit of the many.
Your belief statements on abortion are very fuzzy though. It's clear you would change them situationally without thinking twice.
The solution to this social problem is multi-pronged as you said. We're talking about one aspect here - the availability and societal <strike>acceptance</strike> encouragement of the practice. It is a very personal issue for me because I have very personal experience with it.
Bah, just joking aroundLohrno wrote:I'm sorry I don't see your point...Adex_Xeda wrote:And this is exactly why corn subsidies must be overseen by an elected panel of in-state respresentatives, rather than some federally appointed board held unaccountable to the drastic consequences of their callous actions!
Democracy is under full assault here and it's just too corny to stand idle when the cornerstones of our freedom are being ripped loose beneath us!
Viva la Revolution!
-=Lohrno
As probably the most anti abortion person on these boards (absolutely no point in me adding to this thread before now, all other arguments have been declared, disputed, atagonized, and my voice would be lost in the crowd), I'm going to say that I LIKE this idea very, very much so.As for the abortion issue, this is my simple (but right wing) solution to the issue: When a woman becomes aware that she is pregnant and intends to go to term with the child (or put it up for adoption), she should file the birth certificate and citizenship at that exact moment. Once intent to give birth to a human life has taken place, then the fetus has all of the legal status of a born child, including being a valid victim of a homocide and not allowed to be aborted by the mother (barring medical risk to the mother). In theory, all good christians will register their unborn immediately, thus providing them legal protection from abortion and making the mothers who choose to retain their children responsible for them under the law.
proof?Jice Virago wrote:The absurd ignorance and bigotry in this thread shocks even me. There is no point in discussing the gay marriage issue further, because those opposed to it in this thread (and out in the USA) have closed their minds to all logic. Religion runs diametrically opposed to logic, fueling itself on fear and superstition; that is just how it is. The fact that both marriage and gay marriage predate christianity by thousands of years is irrelavent to them, as is the fact that same sex marriages occured with the blessing of the church among nobility in the middle ages.
What kind of whimsical world do you live in?Jice Virago wrote:Gays are simply the last great boogeyman for this group of people to cry wolf about. They did it with Booze, women, blacks, science, and communists. They would like to do it with Islamics, but that would expose them for the kind of people they are; bigotted hippocrytes. So they are left with gays to pick on, which they will until the gays (and their supporters) mount the kind of unilateral political movement that women and blacks managed to do in the past.
Great suggestion to this point.Jice Virago wrote:As for the abortion issue, this is my simple (but right wing) solution to the issue: When a woman becomes aware that she is pregnant and intends to go to term with the child (or put it up for adoption), she should file the birth certificate and citizenship at that exact moment. Once intent to give birth to a human life has taken place, then the fetus has all of the legal status of a born child, including being a valid victim of a homocide and not allowed to be aborted by the mother (barring medical risk to the mother).
So that would make the Christians, what responsible for their choices and people like yourself irresponsible children who feel the need to fuck without responsibility, add a drain on the already stretched medical resources in the country, and permit you all to commit murder in the name of convenience. Instead of teaching responsible sex, permitting a one time mistake (free pass on first abortion) and then making it more and more difficult for any future ones. Unless the mother or childs health is at extreme risk or in the case of rape or incest.Jice Virago wrote: In theory, all good christians will register their unborn immediately, thus providing them legal protection from abortion and making the mothers who choose to retain their children responsible for them under the law. This, if christians were not about imposing their will on others, _should_ be satisfactory as it ensures that all practicing christians would never be able to legally have an abortion (once registering their unborn child) and only non-believers would ever have one. Of course, we all know that if they were truely commited to stopping abortion in the first place they would adopt all the unwanted/neglected children out there.....
This wouldn't change anything. The only people that would register their fetus are the ones that intend to keep them anyway. The same people that would have aborted them will still do so and should be able to do so. Pretty soon you'll have a rape victim under additional pressure to sign paperwork on her fetus without having time to decide on her own.Akaran_D wrote:As probably the most anti abortion person on these boards (absolutely no point in me adding to this thread before now, all other arguments have been declared, disputed, atagonized, and my voice would be lost in the crowd), I'm going to say that I LIKE this idea very, very much so.As for the abortion issue, this is my simple (but right wing) solution to the issue: When a woman becomes aware that she is pregnant and intends to go to term with the child (or put it up for adoption), she should file the birth certificate and citizenship at that exact moment. Once intent to give birth to a human life has taken place, then the fetus has all of the legal status of a born child, including being a valid victim of a homocide and not allowed to be aborted by the mother (barring medical risk to the mother). In theory, all good christians will register their unborn immediately, thus providing them legal protection from abortion and making the mothers who choose to retain their children responsible for them under the law.
who would build the machines, other machines?Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:/sighLynks wrote:What part of "the government owns the catholic school board here" do you not understand? Governement and religion don't mix and one should not affect the other.Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: uh-huh
Or....it was a catholic school board (run by whomever the fuck you want), who are are cathlocis (otherwise why the fuck would they be on this board?) enforcing a belief that is a part of their religion. They think being gay is a fucking sin. They do not want that shit going on in front of their children, on their premises, or during a school function. Plain and fucking simple.
This is either a case of homophobia, or an abuse of power,
Turn all of government over to machines then. ALL OF IT. If you want your government officlas to make decisions without any consideration for the way they grew up, what has made them the INDIVIDUALS they are today, then just hire machines. Stop asking people not to be people. Run all proposals and bills, and laws through a machine. If it says it abides by constitutional guidelines, it goes through. Your thinking is so consistantly shallow and short sighted its fucking ridiculous.
Hi, Atokal, before you go any further please go and ask a grown up the difference between a FACT and an OPINION. Please note, as you do this, that it doesn't matter how popular the opinion is, how many people share your view, it doesn't turn it into a fact.Atokal wrote: What kind of whimsical world do you live in?
Islam oppresses women, Islam murders and maims people, Islam is connected to the majority of terrorist attacks happening in recent times.
All facts no bigotry. Who is picking on the gays you pompous shithead.
So to clarify, even if it has reached the point where you personally deem it a living baby, you support killing it if it has a missing arm or blind or something just because it is done rarely? Or is there a different underlying reason to kill a baby with no health concerns.Thess wrote:I don't believe life starts at conception. I believe it starts when the baby can live on it's own outside the mothers womb. I do however support late term abortions because they are rarely done, and normally done because of huge deformaties and when the mothers life is in jeopardy.
When I worked at Motorola, a coworker's wife was pregnant and through tests they discovered that the baby was severely abmormal, deformed and would be born basically without a brain.Rekaar. wrote:So to clarify, even if it has reached the point where you personally deem it a living baby, you support killing it if it has a missing arm or blind or something just because it is done rarely? Or is there a different underlying reason to kill a baby with no health concerns.Thess wrote:I don't believe life starts at conception. I believe it starts when the baby can live on it's own outside the mothers womb. I do however support late term abortions because they are rarely done, and normally done because of huge deformaties and when the mothers life is in jeopardy.
Rekaar. wrote:Why is it that you can't figure this out? At some point individuals join societies, thereby receiving the benefits at the price of submission to the code that society lives by. That code has arbitrary rules. You are the outcast here. Feel free to move to France.Lohrno wrote:The black and white distinctions that define your ideologies. Why is it you can not respect that other people do not believe this?Rekaar. wrote: It either is a baby or it isn't girl. All the rest means nothing with that distinction (unless you're ok wtih throwing babies in dumpsters).
-=Lohrno
LOLOLOLOL.... Never met a tech savvy liberal other than on this fucking board. Don't make a connection there.pyrella wrote: With that said, it kind of makes sense as to why those who are more technically savvy are also considered liberal and why this boards Republicans are the vast minority.
im willing to bet there are a lot more tech savvy liberals then conservatives...im not a good example as i am no where near tech savvyFash wrote:LOLOLOLOL.... Never met a tech savvy liberal other than on this fucking board. Don't make a connection there.pyrella wrote: With that said, it kind of makes sense as to why those who are more technically savvy are also considered liberal and why this boards Republicans are the vast minority.
Damned If They Do, Damned If They Don't
As more non-gay sexual minorities become politically active, gay rights activists must choose between principles and good PR
—By Alyssa Ford, Utne.com
December 9, 2004 Issue
During the 1996 congressional debate on the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights activist Andrew Sullivan was asked if legalized gay marriage wouldn't simply send society sliding down a "slippery slope," where the next thing on the agenda would be legalized polygamy. "To the best of my knowledge, there is no polygamists' rights organization poised to exploit same-sex marriage and return the republic to polygamous abandon," Sullivan retorted.
It wouldn't be the last time that a gay rights activist would publicly distance the movement from other sexual minorities. In 2003, Republican Senator Rick Santorum unloaded the same sort of argument on an Associated Press reporter: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." In response, David Smith, the communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, said that it was outrageous for Santorum to put being gay on the same legal and moral plane as a person who commits incest. "That is repugnant in our view and not right," he said.
There are a few important lessons to be gleaned here. First, social conservatives see the slippery slope as a poison arrow that can prevent all-out gay marriage, and they will use it again and again. Second, gay marriage advocates will say anything to distance gays and lesbians from other sexual minorities: the polygamous, the swingers, the S&M practitioners, and those rare couples that happen to be related.
This arms-length strategy is good PR. The reality, though, is that non-gay sexual minority groups are doing exactly what Sullivan said was improbable in 1996: they have formed political organizations to fight for their rights.
Perhaps the strongest of these non-gay organizations is the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF), an umbrella organization that caters to the needs of transgendered/transsexuals, intersexuals, swingers, polyamorists, and BDSM practitioners (bondage/discipline, sadism/masochism, dominance/submission). Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., NCSF does media relations work for more than 500 local groups and handles more than 600 information requests each year. NCSF scored an unprecedented amount of positive publicity in January 2004 when Time published a balanced profile of a BDSM couple.
Among the smaller pro-polyamory organizations: the Polyamory Association, the Polyamory Society, and Loving More, which publishes a magazine by the same name. Two organizations that advocate for first cousin marriage, C.U.D.D.L.E. International and Cousin Couples, received a huge boost in 2003 when the Journal of Genetic Counseling discredited the widely held belief that the offspring of first cousin marriages have significantly more birth defects. The Institute for 21st Century Relationships, another umbrella group, hosts well-attended seminars on activism and media relations for non-gay sexual minorities.
As these groups continue to earn publicity, gay marriage proponents will increasingly see their argument attacked on both flanks. Liberals and progressives will begin to chastise those activists who sell their principles of sexual liberation down the river in the name of media spin. Those who decide to align themselves with these groups risk being viewed as extremists. Either way, it's a good guess that, like it or not, gay marriage proponents are about to start sliding down that slippery slope.
That's the point. In any society I can find any issue under the sun and find two citizens with eqaul standing in society that will disagree. How do you make laws without stepping on toes? You can't. Period.pyrella wrote:Rekaar. wrote:Why is it that you can't figure this out? At some point individuals join societies, thereby receiving the benefits at the price of submission to the code that society lives by. That code has arbitrary rules. You are the outcast here. Feel free to move to France.Lohrno wrote:The black and white distinctions that define your ideologies. Why is it you can not respect that other people do not believe this?Rekaar. wrote: It either is a baby or it isn't girl. All the rest means nothing with that distinction (unless you're ok wtih throwing babies in dumpsters).
-=Lohrno
Whoa, last I checked, society was made up everyone. Are you saying a political party runs society? Yes society can be broken down to individual groups...but when you're encapsulating the entire country, Dem/Rep, Pro Life/Choice doesn't take that into consideration. Who's living in whose country, and who's the outcast?
Yes, After all... wasn't it Al Gore who invented the internet?pyrella wrote: With that said, it kind of makes sense as to why those who are more technically savvy are also considered liberal and why this boards Republicans are the vast minority. You have to be able to 'think outside the box', and accept that which is new to be able to progress in technology, to be able to turn around, and contribute to your 'society'.
But we are a society that supposedly puts a value on freedom right?Rekaar. wrote: That's the point. In any society I can find any issue under the sun and find two citizens with eqaul standing in society that will disagree. How do you make laws without stepping on toes? You can't. Period.
Hey don't make fun, I'm sure he spent a many a long night in his garage writing TCP protocols.Aruman wrote: Yes, After all... wasn't it Al Gore who invented the internet?
No again.Lohrno wrote:But we are a society that supposedly puts a value on freedom right?Rekaar. wrote: That's the point. In any society I can find any issue under the sun and find two citizens with eqaul standing in society that will disagree. How do you make laws without stepping on toes? You can't. Period.
So logically we should be comming to the solutions that step on as few toes as possible while preserving freedom.
-=Lohrno
If we are not making rules that respect freedom, then I do not see how you can consider that we hold freedom as a value.Rekaar. wrote: No again.
Logically we should be making rules that reflect the values of the elected representatives' constituents as they fit within the framework of our governing documents. Not the other way around.
Stop acting like gays not having the right to get married takes away some kind of "freedom." They're free to be in a relationship with whoever they want and do whatever they want with them. If there was a law outlawing homosexual relationships you might have something, but there's not.Lohrno wrote:If we are not making rules that respect freedom, then I do not see how you can consider that we hold freedom as a value.
I thought we are supposed to have the same laws for everyone. Not singling people out for their sexuality.Brotha wrote: Stop acting like gays not having the right to get married takes away some kind of "freedom." They're free to be in a relationship with whoever they want and do whatever they want with them. If there was a law outlawing homosexual relationships you might have something, but there's not.
I don't know. =D I don't see anything wrong with that.I was thinking about something that isn't really parallel to this debate, but sort of related I guess. Let's say I'm a nudist (I'm not). I want to walk around naked outside of my house and in public. Why should the morality of some be thrust upon me and there be a law preventing me from doing this? How am I hurting you by walking around naked in public? In many ancient cultures people walked around naked all the time.
Marriage is something that is exclusive, it's not some "right" that we're all born with. I can't currently get any of the legal benefits of marriage, does that mean I'm being deprived and being treated as less equal than married couples who currently get certain benefits? No, of course not, because I'm not "married."Lohrno wrote:I thought we are supposed to have the same laws for everyone. Not singling people out for their sexuality.
Pics inc.Lohrno wrote:I don't see anything wrong with that.
