How entertaining..

What's the problem with civil unions? How is her statement ignorant? Marriage is an invention of the church, and it should be allowed to regulate it the way it pleases. There IS a seperation of church & state. The church should be allowed to make its decisions and the government should stay out of it. Gays don't need to be married, marriage is between a man & a woman, but they should be allowed civil unions that afford all the benefits of marriage because they should be held equal by the government.

*takes notes* thank yooou...

But the semantics about my statement of judgement... no, I didn't mean that it was from the bible. That was a personal interjection... and I think you know that I didn't mean a man with a bloody knife. I meant don't judge others by sexuality, or any other unchangeable factor that makes them different.

We can judge, and do judge, people by their differences all the time. In fact it's pretty important to do so.

Examples:

I wouldn't hire someone with a severe speech impediment to work as a switchboard operator in my company. I have nothing against people with speech impediments, but they just plain aren't qualified to do the job.

I wouldn't hire a man as a model for womens' swimsuits, for the same reason. He is not qualified.

Both examples are judgments. And both are completely valid.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way...

Homosexuals aren't any more or less qualified than heterosexuals to visit their SOs in the hospital, inherit estates without counter-claims by blood relatives, adopt children, jointly own property and be responsible -and benefit- from joint tax returns.

And because they are no more or less qualified, because there is nothing to distinguish any criteria specific to heterosexuals that would disqualify homosexuals *according to law and not religion*, they should have the exact same rights as heterosexuals to each of those things, and anything else that applies.

I'll just slip in a note here:  

Over the past seven years, republicans have made an alarming move to take control over the branches of government.  Regardless of the facts, I'm sure it has something to do with being unsatisfied at filibustering Clinton's nominees in the past.

During these seven years, republicans have:

Taken over congress by means of redistricting texas and slipping into the majority.

Created an extensive abuse of lobbying practices almost effectively making it a fourth branch.



Consistently abused the sacred barrier of the seperation of church and state- A) Using pulpits to influence voting B) Allowing the audacious pursuits to allow creationism into schools just to name a few

Squandered the national spending and the foriegn policies of the world - A) The oil for food scandal was actually a US creation B) Money laundering in texas  C) Illegal activity within the congressional house D) Tyranny












You want to have a gay rights debate?  I suggest you take a look at where it comes from first.

I shouldn't even have to supply every reference.

I'm quite unsure as to how one can compare two adults being civilly united to pedophilia. I see your point, it just doesn't seem likely at all. Congress knows how to draw lines. But they also know how to cross them. I'd like to see a pedophile's argument as to why he/she can marry a child. That pursuit of happiness is infringing upon parental rights... and the well being of the child.

As for everything else... *takes more notes*

I'll have you know that the theory of Intelligent Design has the same right to be taught as the theory of Evolution.  I myself think that they should teach both in school.  My family happens to believe in Evolution, but I wouldn't want to force my beliefs on someone else who has different ideas. Intelligent Design and Evolution are both theories on equal footing, Intelligent Design isn't strictly a religious belief, but there are all kinds of people who believe in some form of it. We haven't proven either, so right now they're both on the same level as String Theory.

Oh the tangents =).

I wouldn't say so. While we will never have exact proof for either theory, evolution is in a much stronger position because of a fatal flaw in the arguments used by the proponents of non-religious intelligent design.

If life was too complex to have come about on its own, this makes intelligent design entirely irrelevant as the initial origin of life, because at the very beginning there were obviously no designers in the first place. If there were designers, then they must have come about on their own by some means. If we argue that intelligent design created life on Earth, we have only pushed the question of the origin of life up one level of abstraction, and thus have only solved a very narrow problem which evolution can easily address.

All gay people have the right to be shot.
And that is the only right they get.

Hey, I didn't say it was a -good- arguement, but it is one I've seen advocates of "preservering the traditional definition of marriage" use durring interviews on TV. So there is a chance someone might use it in a debate.

Both theories have the same problem when dealing with the prime mover, the first thing. Where did the creator come from? If the universe did not exist before the big bang, then what banged, where was it when it banged, and what caused it to bang? Random inorganic chemical soup spontaniously becoming life also sounds a little dodgy. Ok, stuff left in my fridge too long spontaniously begins to host life, but I assume the mold spores were pre-existing. When you get to the first things, all theories are basically speculation. So it doesn't make much sense to me to argue about it. In the end it doesn't really matter if life occured spontainiously, was created, or some combination of the two. What matters is how you live the life you have right now.


Angela Christine

Look man, I don't WANT to shoot you, but... If you say so...

Well, evolution doesn't easily address the dilemma itself. As many of those pro-intelligent design people have brought up, it is very difficult for evolution to work. It's hard for random chance to create anything decent. Also, we don't have our missing link that proves that humans evolved from apes. I think humans evolved from apes, but until we find a link fossil we can't prove the point. And furthermore, none of the I-design theorists said that evolution doesn't occur. They just think that life was created with external help besides pure chance. For example, alien species could have evolved on their own and then come and screwed around with earth for a while before producing a pet project of sentient beings. Intelligent design is not a denial that evolution exists, but a suggestion that perhaps there was external help in the development of life on earth.

Well, time doesn't necessarily exist now.  There is an inner time that scientists like to call "soul-time" which is an internal sense of something passing.  Humans can sense the passing of moments, and can recollect past moments, but that isn't really time.  There is also external time, which is time on a clock, not necessarily time but a measurement of the hand going around the clock.  The time we think of as "before" isn't really "before" but a "now" trillions of "nows" ago.  Many scientists have asked "what is time?" and "how long is a now?" but we will never have an answer.  There is no way to measure something that isn't actually a force or anything physical.  Time is more mysterious than a black hole, in that it is a force, but then again, it isn't a force.  It is nothing that is quantifiable in physical terms, but can only be thought of.  I don't think we'll ever know what time is, but we'll just keep measuring the hands going around the clock face and forget about it.  I also believe the common theory about the bang is that there was a large ball of energy in the center of what is now the universe, and it blew up.  It melted all the forces together and then when it cooled down we gained the four forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and one more that I can't think of right now.

Isn't this all a bit silly?

I mean yes, there's a debate over what lengths an emotional attachment between two same sex partners has in law. But, the US is inherently puritanical in belief since Plymouth Rock and the controversy about "gay" will always exist just like the "right to life" movement will never go away regardless of law.

Religious dogma promotes propagation to increase membership in that form of faith to gain power from sheer numbers, has been that way for centuries and won't change. Gay doesn't make babies, ergo religion denies them freedom of choice and the subsequent rebellion we all have to deal with in the news.

My perception is regardless of sex, two people can love each other. I love my wife and I understand that emotional dedication. Sexuality is a demonstration of the love by nature and two people in love perform pleasing acts together to satisfy physical and emotional needs. I firmly believe hormones and life experiences dictate what your preferences are, and I also consider there's a bit of rebellion in some "wannabe" types that adopt the lifestyle just because it gets attention. Should it be legal? Well, any adult can sign a piece of notarized paper stating exactly what their wishes are so a lot of this controversy is pure hype intended for stabbing at the stoicisms of both religion and law.

Jazuela...I again commend you on what I perceive to be well thought out and enlightening comments.

Ilkidarios...

Those have got to be amazing drugs, can I have the formula?

What kind of a sick sonofabitch says something like that? You have the right to dislike homosexuality. You have the right to express it... but not the right to make such disgusting comments about fellow HUMAN BEINGS. You never know, one of your closest friends could be gay and afraid to tell you because you're so disgustingly ignorant about the whole topic. Would you shoot them if you had the choice? In my opinion, people like YOU should have only the right to have a frontal lobotomy... but that's not the way it is. It's NEVER your right to decide whether someone should live or die, ESPECIALLY not based on something like sexuality.

Maybe you should make the eyeholes on your white hood a little bigger, because it seems as though you have trouble seeing the big picture. Your kind of self-righteous, supremicist mentality went out of style a long time ago. Do you hate people of other races, too? Better yet, are you a misogynist? Because if you detest those of differences that they cannot change, why stop at sexuality?

Please realize that the only reason I'm reacting this way toward you is your blatant _expression of generalized hatred for people that you don't even know. Had you expressed yourself a little better, maybe you would have merited a little respect. Remember this: hate breeds hate. In short... go to h e l l.



Love and smoochies,

Kopri