Drix D'Zanth

[quote name='Siren']What's to say that homosexual marriages wouldn't succeed and live caring and loving lives?[/quote] Then get married. Let their ministers/priests/rabbis marry them, let them exchange rings. Just don't take it into a public forum and try to change the current social insitution. That's what I'm arguing.

[QUOTE=Lore][color=#4b4b79]I'm beginning to think that any discussion on the "Sanctity of Marriage" should be limited to the holy institution's failure rates. from russia with love, Sara[/color][/QUOTE] That's not really fair to the marriages who [b]do[/b] suceed and live caring and loving lives. Homosexuality is a sin. God does not hate anyone. God can be angry, and God does not live with sin, but God is merciful and has provided anyone who wants forgivness that opportunity. *shrug* Love the sinner hate the sin. Homosexuality isn't a practice, sociologically and ethically, that I think should be recognized or otherwise accepted as a "good" thing in our nation. Do I mind that people are homosexuals? Nah, go for it. Do I wan't to pay for it? No thanks :).

I'd like to see: Alex (Siren) [thanks for forgetting me -_-] Annie Laura (Japan) David (Boba) Tony (Semjaza) Baron I guess I'd see Charles... in his orgy Chaos ScirosDarkBlade Raiha maybe Shy.. *shrug* havent' talked to him in a while though Chibi, not because i know her very well, but to have a debate with her [i]in person[/i] Mitch

I?ll make this short, my vicodin is wearing off. The United States is going to be giving in excess to 1 billion in funds through our gov?t alone. Independent businesses are going to raise even more (i.e. Exxon raised 10 million and Pfizer around 250 million)? the US is giving, and will give more aid than all other nations [b]combined[/b]. What?s the UN doing? Kofi?s just asking for more money and Finland is calling us stingy. [QUOTE=Juuthena][size=1]Since when does inside which borders you live in effect where a vast majority stands and acts on moral issues as 'big' as what's right and wrong? [/size] [size=1]Whoa, so because it doesn't [b]benefit[/b] us, 155,000+ [b]human beings[/b], something I'd expect has more importance than a nationality, it shouldn't be taken into consideration as much as something that happened to people who happen to reside on the same patch of land? I think you need to look at this from another point of view. Imagine if this happened in America. I bet my life that we wouldn't expect the other countries to sit there and let us starve because their own affairs are 'more important' to them. [/QUOTE] No, but the money should be taken into consideration, Juu. The US was a huge relief in Somalia before and after the Black Hawk Down incident. Want to know the primary form of currency in Somalia? The US one hundred dollar bill. We flooded the country with money, creating a currency vaccum and threatening any sort of trade to continue because we felt that giving them large relief grants would solve their problems. Newsflash: Giving 1 billion or 10 billion dollars isn?t going to repair the hard hit areas any faster. It?s not going to buy the destroyed land back, and it?s not going to fix the buildings any sooner. If anything we should limit the amount of money until we find it NECESSARY. What the country needs most of all is rescue efforts, manpower, and reconstruction by manpower. The US is doing that, sending marines and carriers to provide fresh water using their nuclear reactors. [QUOTE=Juuthena] [size=1] We're talking about people dying because of a natural disaster. Not a war. A war is based on politics, politicians, close-mindedness, military, and unfortunately, civillians. A natural disaster HAPPENS, yet people are dead. This wasn't between the countries hit and a nation, it was between human beings and the force of nature. Human beings need to help human beings. You can't put this on a 'list' with matters that involve a nations benefit. It hit regardless of nationality, and Americans died there too, as well as from other nations.[/size] [/QUOTE] Americans are helping just as much as any nation, and we are doing it selflessly. We?re spending our money to save a population that was ill prepared for this disaster, yes. While I have no problem with our nation?s sending aid, I?ll be dammed if our help is criticized. Stingy? As for the original question on hand; I am happy with the U.S.?s more sovereign orientated foreign policy. I am pro-Israel, and pro-war on terror. Now, I think Iraq could have been fought better, but I?m pretty happy with the results. We aren?t fighting Iraqi?s , we are fighting militant Islamic terrorists now from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. I don?t see North Korea as a threat because they won?t attack the U.S. or South Korea. Why? China won?t let them, because China is struggling to become a world power similar to the U.S. and won?t risk a world war (inevitable in a Korean conflict) over Kim Jong Il?s defiance. I think the EU is an attempt for Europe to keep up with the U.S. and I think the UN should be torn down and we should build a beautiful Barnes and Nobles over it?s wreckage.

[QUOTE=Lore][size=1]If you're upset about people's being heartless, I don't see why you would advocate solitary confinement. It seems we have a lot of vengeful people here... / kissed by a rose, Sara[/size][/QUOTE] I wonder how long we get an abortion thread and the people "for" the death penalty are suddenly "against" abortion.... I'm against both, personally. I thought Baron and DarkOtakuBoy made great posts. Not much more to be said, I suppose. If there were a death penalty.. it should be Scott put in a fairly large, empty room; then releasing several of Laci's family members to rough him up however they want. Despite the fact I'm against the death penalty, I would most likely kill anybody that killed my family; a flaw that I find most regrettable and unfortunate.

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Are we discussing homosexuality or vegatarianism? I'm too lazy to wade through 9 pages of debate so I'll just say this: Yes, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but it also says that having relations with a woman during her period is wrong and so is wearing clothes made with more than one fabric. The Bible says that you can beat your children or sell them for slaves. But the Bible also has a lot of things to say about how you should love your neighbor, how God loves everyone and that Jesus told a crown of people once: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The Bible has a lot more to say about love than hate so maybe those who subscribe to a Judeo Christian tradition and read their Bibles should skip over the part about how God hates everyone and read more about love. Other than that I don't have much else to add and I'll let people debate as they wish.[/color][/QUOTE] Why do you post the Bible when you obviously have no idea what the texts hold? Having sex with a woman during her period was considered ?unclean? for the same reason the Torah instructed the Jews not to eat pork; it was a survival mechanism. Just as hogs were quite dirty, endangering the fragile Jewish population, blood is an excellent vector for disease, and infection. As for the ?wearing of two threads?, that deals with linen and cotton, because linen was the official fabric of the priesthood, and the wearing of those threads would defile some of the sanctity of the temple. As for child-slavery.. I don?t know who was cut and pasting your version of the Bible, but could you please, please provide some sort of reference to that? Besides, I doubt anyone here actually [b]hates[/b] gay people. I don?t. I?ve said that I really don?t mind that they are gay; I just don?t believe it should be a part of our government. I don?t believe we should change this particular institution. [QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New] And if men are going to marry their sons all of a sudden, why aren't they already marrying their daughters? [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Uhh, I?m pretty sure in several key states they have tried. I mentioned this to Alex and Erik earlier, but every time I have to quote this guy I feel like I?m committing child abuse. [quote name='Altron']I would like to know what you think what could possibly happen if we let gays marry each other. They're still going to have relations with each other, if that's what you're worried about. I fail to see a negative. [/quote] Have you even paid attention to the ?slippery slope? argument? Hey, I don?t hold the keys to the future, but I don?t believe our country really needs to destroy one institution that holds meaning to me. [QUOTE=Altron] Besides, all of this stuff is pretty close to segregation and such back in the 60's. Why did white people want to keep black people away from them? Not quite sure, but black people weren't gonna go shoot them all to death if they were allowed to drink at the same water fountain. I'll try plugging in racist responses to Adahn's sentense frames. Both issues are/were opposed, in the same general manner, and both issues are/were very controversial. If we let black people into our neighborhoods, who know what might happen? We're opening the door, and we don't know what's on the other side. For all we know, they could bring in poverty, crime, and whatever else. We don't want America degenerating into that, do we? [/QUOTE] Glory, glory Hallelujah! If it isn?t the ?I don?t care if you think it is immoral? ?we shouldn?t use religion to justify anything? argument biting itself in the ***. Newsflash? without a religious argument as the moral foundation in the ?60s the Civil Rights movement wouldn?t have happened ^_^. Ouch, that?s gotta sting. [QUOTE=Altron] Sorry if that offended you, but do you see the similarity? Both arguments don't have much ground to stand on. White folk were just racist and scared back then. Now, I don't see the ground where you stand on, saying that gays could degenerate the world into a 'blood orgy,' or could 'worsen the world for everyone else.'[/QUOTE] Hey, people are going to steal. No matter what we do, thousands of dollars worth of property is probably stolen in my county alone! I mean? no use trying to regulate it because it?s just going to happen anyway! Here?s an idea? let?s make only petty theft legal, then crime will drop. I know the comparison is a rough one, but look at it from a moral perspective. Stealing is wrong. I think homosexuality is wrong. I do not want my government to recognize the practice as being as morally sound as the current man+woman conception of marriage. God forbid I don?t want those rules changed? Here?s another analogy. Next time you play soccer, play offense. When the ball reaches you, pick it up and throw it in the goal. Declare to everyone that you have scored a point. If anyone refuses to accept your goal, just say they are prejudice and cannot accept the fact that you put the ball in the net just like everyone else, you are just a little different in the actual ?practice?. No big deal? Actually, not really? I?ll just play another game of soccer with my friends who won?t pick up the ball with their hands? not only that, if this hand-soccer fellow wants to play his version of soccer with his buddies I won?t try to stop him. Now, let?s say this person decides he wants to change the rules for [b]everyone[/b]. That?s how the current defense of marriage advocates feel. We?re not being forced to play soccer with our hands, but the rules are changed for good. Here?s the tie in to the slippery slope argument: Let?s say another guy plays soccer an entirely different way? he scores on his own team and counts it as a goal for himself.. etc. The point being, if one guy can change the rules for everyone, why can?t another guy do the same exact thing? How can one say homosexual marriage is OK but incest is not? [QUOTE=Altron] And when you think about it, for every decision our country makes, there is always the chance that things will go wrong, and we will be significantly wounded as a country. It's like not wanting to drive in a car, for fear that you might crash and die. There is always a chance, however low, that you will crash, but you should just go ahead and live your life. That analogy wasn't exactly perfect, because gay marriages don't have as high a chance of hurting either person as driving in a car does.[/QUOTE] Swing and a miss?. Edit: Quickly after reading Baron's post.. I noticed that you said incest, bestiality, etc "harm society". How exactly does homosexuality benefit society?

[quote name='Siren']Jordan, you wanted me...to pleasure you...deeply, so here goes. XD[/quote] It?s been a while since you?ve Q&O?ed me. (Quote and Owned) ;) Drixspeak for the rest of you. [QUOTE=Siren] Psst, hey Jordan, for a fun little activity, check out the Election results. Compare the Sanctity of Marriage poll results against the Presidential electoral results. I don't think it's coincidence that most states deciding on that SoM Act turned out Red. ~_^[/QUOTE] You?re exactly right! I am not for a constitutional change, personally? as far as marriage is concerned I?m not for much change at all. I understand why people [i]have[/i] chosen the SoM act, and that the supporters are vastly republican? It still must be understood to the rest of the people that we can, and should be able to decide on this issue; what better way than voting it? Hey, we can?t forget the fact that my good ol? blue state of Michigan passed the SoM/DoM. Heck, even the Florida of 04?s election: Ohio did the same thing! I?m not sure how polls are today, but I?m pretty sure the majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage. Now, despite my babbling, what do you think should happen? Should we change our constitution? Vote by state? [QUOTE=Siren] I honestly don't think there's evidence that concretely supports one or the other, and as far as I'm concerned, there's something more to it than pure psychology and/or biology. [/QUOTE] It?s really not concrete yet, as we have only recently finished mapping the Genome. Now, I?m pretty sure we?ll be able to try to test any significant difference between a ?homosexual? genetic code and a ?heterosexual? genetic code to see if there are any concrete differences that might explain it. As far as I can tell, we haven?t found anything. I guess time will tell. [QUOTE=Siren] Jordan, remember, I'm no mindless drone. I make sure to ask why when someone tells me something. I don't just naively accept anything and everything, and here I am, standing as an advocate for gay rights. I'm not a pushover (you definitely know that, haha), and here I am, supporting a cause, the supporters of which you've just labeled as...blank, essentially. [/QUOTE] *tsk tsk* Not true. I was merely deterring people from the casual use of the phrase ?openmindedness?. It?s rhetoric not fit for this debate. This wasn?t an attack on the people supporting gay rights as being mindless, at all. [QUOTE=Siren] It sounds like you're against homosexuality here, and I had already gone into [i]why[/i] it's an entirely different issue back a few posts ago. [/QUOTE] Fair enough, I?ll let you guys duke it out and save my arguments concerning incest/bestiality a few more weeks when the next homosexuality-related thread pops up. [QUOTE=Siren] I actually can't quite find the point here, Jordan, lol. Maybe you could help me? [/QUOTE] My point is that, when concerning benefits, there?s no reason why a homosexual couple should receive the benefits where any other couple (such as mother/daughter roommate/roommate) cannot. Sex has nothing to do with it, and we can?t really legally ?prove? love, so why not? [QUOTE=Siren] Slippery slope, eh? The same was said back during the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Lib, the American Revolution...virtually every single societal progressive movement in history, and society is better for them.[/QUOTE] Comon Alex, who wants women voting anyway? Heh Heh (oh god.. I?m going to get flak for that one) In all seriousness, it surprises me that you forget that the same moral foundation that opposes same-sex marriage was the groundwork for the Civil Rights Movement and could be equally equated to the Women?s Liberation (I?m not going to say if it was, I really do not know). As for the American Revolution, well, we were pissed that our unalienable rights endowed by ?our creator? were so heinously stolen from Georgie? [QUOTE=James][color=#811C3A]Exactly. This is why the slippery slope argument doesn't work. I could say to you "You can't have marriage between a man and a woman, because that would open the floodgates for fathers marrying daughters, uncles marrying nieces and brothers marrying sisters." So really, this kind of logic could chase its tail all day. As human beings, surely we have the ability to make key distinctions (as has been made about beastiality and so on -- the comparison there is something I actually find quite shocking). I just wanted to make that addition, because I think that you have really understood one of the key problems I have with that type of argument.[/color][/QUOTE] Hey, incest and polygamy have been up for debate as much as same-sex marriage. The trick is, it was fought with the same arguments that fight homosexual marriage. Not only that, it?s just plain icky. [QUOTE=DarkOtakuBoy]Alright....i have a biology degree and im eventually going for a Ph.D in biochem/genetics. First of all...people are under the impression that genetic info must be mutated for the good of the species, for things that will insure its survival. It doesnt work like that. Evolution isnt about making better and better, its natural selection via RANDOM mutation. In the animal kingdom, if an analog of the 'gay gene' were to be passed in the animal kingdom, it wouldnt survive long, because that species would natually become extinct Works different for us humans with a cerebral cortex and the ability to reason. Aside from THAT..... umm, dude....mutated genes that threaten a species are created in nature all the time. NATURE IS INDIFFERENT. The latest papers by some up and coming bio genetic researchers are almost positive that there is a 'gay gene', an 'intellegence gene', etc. and its a moot point...because once the Genome Project is finally done and decoded, we will have all the answers (and prob. put the world in some kinda Eugenic War, but thats for another topic)[/QUOTE] Okay, let?s say the gay gene mutates. Now, we all know that mutation is quite a frequent occurrence, yet it may take thousands of mutations before any drastic change is visible. Let?s take a population of 200 individuals and 2 have the gay allele. Now, this gay couple can either have children and preferentially ignore that gene, which would slowly pass down through the offspring, or decide that they should be a homosexual couple and?. the gene dies off. This sounds disjointed, I know? but despite the gene even possibly occurring, that?s like saying someone is born with a preference between pepsi and coca-cola. [url]http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html[/url] (the above site seemed the most reasonable and credible site I could hastily provide.. please take a look at the articles. If anyone can find a different source, please provide) I understand that certain mutations threaten our species (heck there are seven deadly alleles that would kill us upon conception)? I?m just saying that if a gene really influenced someone to have homosexual sex it WOULDN?T be passed on! I know what you are saying ?homosexual sex was just never accepted before, so it was passed on anyway?? then how can it account for a nearly exponential increase in the number of admittedly ?gay? people in the last decade?

[QUOTE=Altron]Yes, you're reading waaay between the lines. Stop overanalyzing. You know what I mean. Seriously, cut the elusive answer stuff. From what you are saying, if the constitution doesn't explicitly say it, it's a loophole? *sigh* Anyway. ... I didn't quote the Constituion like it'll solve anything, only to further my point, in that we, in my opinion, have no right voting over this, because in our Representative Democracy, we can't vote to change the Constitution. Only our reps, therefore, we can't vote on this issue, so how could I be even claiming to remove your right to it? You never had it in the first place. And why do gays need your or someone else's permission to live their life? I guess you can always pull that 'immorality' think on me again, like people seem to be doing now.[/QUOTE] That's right, because no law in our society has anything to do with whether it is concieved as "right" or "wrong"... So let me get this straight, you aren't solving anything by quoting the constitution... but you are furthering your point? I can understand why you think I'm overanalyzing, but you really need to think before you type. Not only that, if you knew the first thing about our consitution, one of the only ways it [i]can[/i] be changed.. IS BY THE VOTING POPULATION. [QUOTE=Altron] Yes and no. Homosexuals do want to change marriage, in the sense that it isn't only between a man and woman, but also a man + man, woman + woman. No, because laws never said that it [i]had[/i] to be between a man and woman. That's why Bush and his people are scrambling to ban it in the states..[/QUOTE] So you say that homosexuals don't want to change marriage... they just want to change it's definition. Wow, I must have had it alll wrong! [QUOTE=Altron] Pushing my beliefs down your throat? No, I was defending my position, stating my opinion, and answering your questions, as well as posing some of my own. Pushing my beliefs down your throat would be something like ... I'm a Christian, and you're a Jew. In the Bible, it says that all other religions are sinful and wrong. So I either forcibly convert you to Christianity or killl you. I've read your posts, and I'm only voicing my opinion. How that sounds to you is for you to determine..[/QUOTE] So when you implied that anyone bringing a religious argument was "pushing their beliefs" down people's throats earlier, you meant there's some vast crusade of people threatening to kill homosexuals if they want to voice their opinions? We both know that isn't true, so then we can conclude that the whole phrase "pushing one's beliefs down another's throat" is blissfully inaccurate and just trying to tug the heartstrings that defy any sort of logic.(Please note that my use wasn't the least bit serious... oh well) Ok, I hate to pick on you, but there?s a few issues that need to be put to rest. [QUOTE=Altron]And it doesn't really break up the fabric of society. Kids who grow up in a gay home accept it as nothing out of the ordinary, and don't become confused. [b]I believe that you don't choose to be gay, it just is something you're born with,[/b] [/QUOTE] Hang on? bold text. Read that again? ?born gay?. Really? Please, please explain just how anyone is ?born? gay. Are you telling me it?s hereditary? Care to back that up with a little science? Let?s talk genetics then? please answer me this fundamental question: Why in the world would our genetic material? the very information that is ONLY maintained by being ?passed? from generation to generation somehow mutate to create a gene that worked counterproductively to its own survival??? Homosexuality is [b]not[/b] genetic, it is psychological. [QUOTE=Altron] so you can't sexually confuse the kid. They'll act on their primal instinct. [/QUOTE] Please, where are you drawing these conclusions? I mean really, do you have ANYTHING to back this up with? Instinct? We are talking about human beings here.. our instinct is nothing but a vestigial husk. [QUOTE=Altron] I know a girl who's parents were lesbian. She grew up fine. I know her, and she's living a completely normal life, and is in college. I also know a guy who is growing up in a lesbian home. He's fine too. Sure, he gets ribbed a few times every now and then from it, but by no means is he sexually confused, or socially confused.Children who grow up in gay or lesbian homes are no less normal than anyone else. If anything they probably grow up to be more free-minded and acceptant of everyone else's differences growing up in a different home than everyone else. [/QUOTE] Once again, where do you draw these conclusions? And ?openmindedness? is a wonderful world brought up in this thread very often? who the hell thought of it? Think about it for a second without suffering an aneurism. ?Open-mindedness? basically means accepting whoever?s viewpoint is told to you without giving any regard to the other, not merely discriminating between the two, but eating right off the plate of any ?gay rights? advocate. That?s openmindedness? I?m just as ?openminded? as anyone here, that doesn?t mean I have to [i]agree[/i]! [QUOTE=Altron] And how does it hurt? Actually, it can help the people in the marriage. They are happy, so it can make people who are gay happier. And isn't that what's life about?[/QUOTE] Thank you for revealing how truly naïve you are? Guys, Adahn does have a point here. You can support acts such as necrophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality on the same grounds you support homosexuality! By repeating ?No no, that?s a totally different issue? as your only rebuttal isn?t proving anything. Not only that, why can?t a son and father get a civil union? Why can?t they have shared health insurance? Why can?t my college roommate and I get a civil union for our stay at college and reap a few benefits off of that one? You?re going to tell us that we can?t because we aren?t in ?love?? Since when did the government ever demand a marriage be recognized between two people that ?love? eachother? Homosexual marriage is just another step down the slippery slope of "everything's okay, doesn't matter what you do." And as far as I'm concerned: if you leave it [i]out[/i] of the Government (aka me, Adahn, everyone else) I DONT CARE what you ****!

[QUOTE=Altron] Not irrelevant. Just no reason to ban something. .[/QUOTE] I might be reading between the lines, but isn't calling something irrelevant about the same thing as saying it has no "reasonable" bearing on an argument? [QUOTE=Altron] It contradicts our Constitution, and unless we amend it, it'll stay that way for a long while. Whether you're for the issue or against it, really doesn't change the way the Constitution is written. .[/QUOTE] Kiddo, if the Constitution were that easy to intepret, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. Please, tell me where in the constitution it mentions "gay marriage"? [QUOTE=Altron] That's why I think this whole issue is ludicrous, mainly because we have no right to be voting over this stuff. If you want to ban gay marriage, delete the word 'creed' out of it. THEN we can start the votes..[/QUOTE] This is especially interesting, first you quote the Constituion like it's somehow solving this whole issue, then you conclude that our basic right to vote should be removed and that Gay Marriage should just be instituted without asking the people.... that's the AMERICA I love! [QUOTE=Altron] And just because we think that according to our faith, gays are immoral or whatever, doesn't mean they think so. And if they don't think so, can you really push your beliefs down their throats? Don't try to live other people's lives just because of your opinion.[/QUOTE] As a matter of fact and in a subtler sense, we [i]can[/i] "push eachother's beleifs" down eachother's throats! I'm not "pushing" my beliefs on anyone, [b]I[/b] am not the one that wants to change anything. It's homosexuals (and their supporters) that want to change marriage... not the other way around. If you had read the previous posts, rather than "pushing your beliefs" down my throat, you would somehow understand that I'm not arguing against homosexuality or their ability to marry. I just don't believe it should be recognized in public forum; aka Government. [QUOTE=Altron] The sanctity of marriage? Who said they'd have to have a Christian or even relgious marriage. A state marriage would do, so long as they have the same rights as a straight person.[/QUOTE] When was sanctity an issue? I don't need the government telling me that I'm married to someone. I will accept the privilages that marriage brings, but I don't need them to somehow ameliorate my marriage!

[QUOTE=Altron] In this country, we aren't allowed to discriminate against people on their race, gender, [b]creed[/b], religion, etc. Meaning, we shouldn't be allowed to amend the ****in Constitution with a *** amendment, that contradicts it! Soo... in conclusion, don't flash your religious beliefs just to get an amendment passed, because other people don't share your view, so why are you allowed to cram it down someones throat?[/QUOTE] I posted this argument first because I want you to read it first, everyone. Just take your time and view it's oh-so-heartwarming ponit. Let's move on to the second point when you are ready... and make a glass of warm milk, cause this might go down hard. [QUOTE=Altron]Everyone, [b]stop quoting the Bible[/b]. It's people like who you are blind to other people's points of view and opinions. For all you know, the person reading your post couldn't care less about the Bible, it's message, or it's meaning to the argument. It's just another book. Sure, I'm a Christian, too, but we live in AMERICA. And in AMERICA, we get to practice whatever religion we want, so don't bring religion into this debate, please. 'Immorality' is complete garbage, since we do plenty of immoral things every day, but no one lifts a brow or points a finger at.[/QUOTE] You see it? It's tricky, hidden behind a self-righteous attempt at social justice. It's kinda hard to intepret beyond all the regurgitated rhetoric I hear at every event supporting the "right" to marry. Behind the smoke and mirrors we get some good ol' fashioned discrimination! Now, that my be too hard a word... suffice it to say, he just tried to completely devalue my entire ethical foundation! He just tried to say that opinions, when referring to a MORAL foundation, when commiting an ETHICAL decisions, are worth nothing when influenced by the Bible. Sorry buddy, bible-born ethics are no less substantial than any of your opinions. I know you hate to consider the fact that certain people may view homosexual marriage as "immoral", and for all intensive purposes that is perfectly fine! Instead of trying to attack the ground he stands on, why don't you be a reasonable young debate machine and try an honest rebuttal. You have to learn that "not agreeing" with someones opinion doesn't always mean that i haven't listened to it. I've listened to yours, and the opinions of others on this debate forum for a couple years now, and whatever ethical background they draw it from (socratic philosophy, the Koran, the Torah, Christianity, Hume's method of doubt). God forbid I tell them that what they say is irrelevant because of their "creed" or "religion". Voltaire once stated: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.'' When I am asked whether or not I support Gay marriage, I am called to an ethical dilemma. How I come to my conclusions are my business, how I ameliorate them are my arguments, and my arguments [b]will[/b] hold as much bearing in [i]any[/i] argument as much as the next voter.

Forgive them. Forgive them with all of your heart and then walk away realizing exactly how much of a better person you have become by doing so. Do not mistreat them the way they do you, and forgive them. You cannot lose if you do this.

Hi, my name is Janet, and I'll be your server this fine evening!

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] Just to say, right off the bat, I am NOT directing the rest of this post at you, Drix. I'm merely using it to direct it the people that I'll soon be talking about. Personally, I think that's an excellent response. Most of my friends would go with that response. I'm really very glad that you're not running around screaming 'bloody murder' everytime you hear about a gay marriage and saying 'homos sucks' or w/e people say, so I respect you. :) Well, actually, now that I think of it, the quote doesn't fit that well with what I'm saying... >_>. Anyways, I get really sick when some people say 'I don't care about gay people getting married, but I still don't think it's right because it violates the meaning of marriage and etc. etc. etc.' BUT, they think Britney Spears's, what, 40 hour marriage or something, is better than two gay people getting married. Hello, people! In my opinion, and possibly many other people's opinion, marriage is a very SERIOUS thing and it should not be taken light in any way whatsoever. What I'm basically saying is that I get angry at people who dislike: Two gay people getting married and having a very good and positive relationship for the rest of their lives but they think: Britney Spears running off and marrying some guy for like, a day, is better than the above happening.[/color][/QUOTE] Hey, I think both are equally immoral! I am against frivolous divorce and marriages like Mrs. Spears' as much as I'd be against gay marriage. But the system can't stop that from happening, it is flawed after all. Adding homosexuality would do nothing to benefit marriage, in my opinion, and possibly work as retroactively as any sort of Brittany marrriage.

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1] Anyway, Thats OK. As long as you're not discriminating. Now, on that basis, why is gay marriage wrong? If you hold no ill-will to homosexuals, then why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?[/size][/QUOTE] If a homosexual couple walks into a church, swap rings, and the priest gives them their blessing, I don?t care. If they want to call eachother husband, and husband? I don?t care. If they want to visit eachother at hospitals, and have equal property transfer; I don?t care! In fact, I support their ability to do so! But please, if you are asking my opinion on your lifestyle and how it should be publicly recognized; I?m going to examine my moral fiber and give you a vote/answer. When homosexual marriage is brought up to change our definition of marriage for the sake of ?equality? I chuckle to myself and say, ?Sorry buddy, you got to meat the prerequisites.? I don?t think homosexuals should get married for the same reason rich people shouldn?t get welfare: they don?t meet what I see as requirements for marriage! My ?requirements? aren?t very difficult? they are the same sociological non-religious purposes that I think marriage was created for: the benefits are for the baby. There is nothing sociologically unhealthy about too many heterosexual marriages. Can there be too many homosexual relationships? It is certainly possible. Not only that, bringing the idea of homosexual marriage into a public forum such as government, especially within a republic ?of the people? you demand my ethically-supported response. I would be deceiving my moral obligation as a Christian and a voter to just vote ?yes? when I don?t believe it is ?right?. That being said, get married all you want? but please, do NOT ask me to agree with it.

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']I don't care about atrocities and what nation has numerical superiority with them, I wasn't involved in that discussion. Nations exist and they all wish to continue existing- the 'business' they are in requires bloodshed of differing degrees. I was just tossing you another war that is questionable in nature, lol. Maybe flexing my historical muscles a bit. *flex* *flex* Yeah.. [/color][/quote] Looks like we got tickets to the gun show? [QUOTE=DeathKnight] [color=crimson]It doesn't. It wasn't meant to oppose your claim. I wasn't involved in that debate either, lol.[/color] [/QUOTE] That?s silly! I just figured since it began a debate, remained a debate, and you quoted me?. You were debating me? Maybe my meds are wearing off? [QUOTE=DeathKnight] I said first two years for a reason. After that, the quality of the Russian army had increased substantially over a short amount of time- especially their tanks. Above average quality+quantity= a royally screwed Germany. Only thing Germany wasn't prepared for was Winter- apparently they didn't read about Napoleon. Their supply-lines were still mostly non-motorized- I really wish I was kidding, but most of the Fatherland's supplies were being trudged around by horses. Of course their supply line was over-extended and yes, that did put them at a disadvantage in the behemoth country of Russia. But when you compare the state of the Russian army and the German army, who has the advantage? I say Germany still had a very clear advantage- they had already rolled over several other countries [their soldiers were experienced, in other words], their morale was at an all time high [especially in the SS divisions] due to the perceived 'crusade against Bolshevism' finally taking place, the air superiority of the Luftwaffe and their edge in land technology [at the time]. They took a gamble that all of this would let them take Moscow before winter- and they obviously lost that gamble. [/color][/QUOTE] Why did you waste all those wonderful carbohydrates typing up basically expounding what I had said in my prior post? Flexing again? Just suggest Googling ?World War Two? and save us the trouble. [QUOTE=DeathKnight] [color=crimson]You were implying that numerical superiority in nuclear warheads actually means something, lol. I think we might have just inadvertently agreed, hm. [/color][/QUOTE] And it took quoting me to figure out that was my point in the first place? [QUOTE=DeathKnight] [color=crimson]But, there would be no invasion of the "homeland" as you put it. That is one "What if?" that can't happen. If you think millions of Japanese citizens violently resisting an assault by US marines is bad, imagine all the PO'ed American citizens if Japan even tried to step onto the lower 48's soil. [/color][/QUOTE] I mean, that would be wishful thinking to consider the possibility that the United States would just be left alone. While the invasion of the US, besides a few islands in Alaska, is completely hypothetical; I would wonder exactly ?what if? the Japanese [i]had[/i] destroyed the majority of our fleet at Midway? and let?s say that Germany [i]did[/i] succeed in not only invading GB, but Mother Russia. I sincerely doubt any war would have ended between Japan or the US without some sort of dynamic series of events, whether it be the atomic bomb, or some sort of massive invasion. [QUOTE=DeathKnight] [color=crimson]He had gotten away with Austria, Czechoslovakia- it was already shown that, thusfar, the Allies really wanted to avoid another World War, at any cost. What was to make him think they would actually declare war? They had been pretty much push-overs prior to that, you know? They alienated both Italy and the USSR- Italy suddenly realized "Why the heck am I arguing with Germany when none of these guys are backing me up?" and the USSR, well- we all know how that turned out. That isn't exactly a good track record of standing up to Germany. Of course, he was rather blatantly crossing lines here and there, as much as possible- but he genuinely respected Britain, as noted in Mein Kampf. His enemy was Communist Russia- that is what he wanted to see destroyed. And the Fuhrer's enemy still became America's enemy. [/color][/QUOTE] Fair enough, Hitler hated communism. He annexed Czechoslovakia, Austria, and invaded Poland after rising to power on restoring Germany to its next golden age on anti-communist idealism? I don?t think his motives were so limited. While it is true that his intentions from the beginning included invading Russia, to say that he didn?t count on any sort of retribution from Britian and France after invading Poland would be absurd. [QUOTE=DeathKnight] By the way, Seawolf? That was unfamiliar to me.. I tried to look it up and didn't get any pages that were really relevant to World War 2. Did you mean Operation Sealion, perhaps?[/color] [/color][/QUOTE] Way to dance around that one, Taglioni. [QUOTE=DeathKnight] [color=crimson]What does the Maginot Line have to do with anything? Andre Maginot already had the idea several years before Hitler was even known of- he had been trying to get it built since the end of WW1, lol. Chamberlain? The same guy who proclaimed "Peace for our time" after the Munich Agreement? That's amusing. If you say so, good sir- if you say so.[/color][/QUOTE] I don?t know, maybe after Maurice Gamelin sent twelve divisions to fortify the Maginot line during 1937-1939 they were just riding on a ?hunch?. Please note that I never implied the original construction of the line in my post. As for Chamberlain, he was proclaiming ?Peace for our time? like he could somehow delay the inevitable. That requires two things: seeing the inevitable coming, and trying to stop it. Chamberlain wasn?t as fooled as we?d like to pretend, he was just foolish.

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1] Are you getting the drift. I can understand why some people feel how they do about homosexuality due to their religion, but sadly I lack any respect for that kind of decision. I'm not going to stand here and say "You all should accept homosexuality, or I'll ram it down your throats", but I do take the stance that as long as people are discrete, then their sexual preference [b]should be of no concern to you[/b]. I'm not always the most tolerant person, but I do think that sometimes people should keep their opnions to themselves, and allow other people freedoms.[/size][/QUOTE] I really don't think homosexuality is any more of a problem to the church than the fact that we as Christians so often forget the second, and second most important, commandment. I will never hold contempt in my heart for anyone for being homosexual, but I will never agree with that lifestyle. So where does that put me? Well, I don't treat them differently, as I said before. As for religious interferance in ethics... i don't see a huge problem. People say "you are a different religion than I am, what makes you right?". Well, people share different ethical beleifs regardless of religion, that are not so far removed from the strucuture of a religion despite not being organized. Hey, you think homosexuality is "OK" because of your philosophy, mine tells me differently. There's really no difference between an opinion founded upon religion and an opinion from other ethical or philosophical means; they both remain on the same level ground, and should be respected equally.

Lucky us, we have a bush-bashing thread a page or two back, a war-concerned thread, and back to the gay/gay marriage debate! I?m surprised an abortion thread hasn?t come up in recent history?. Wow, the circle keeps on revolving. So the question is; what do I think about homosexuality? Well, I don?t agree with it. Then again, I don?t agree with homosexuality as much as I don?t like listening to Eminem. Hey, some people do it, good for them! If they keep their life choices to themselves and decide against indoctrinating me, all the better! Is homosexuality natural? Well, I would divide homosexuality into two aspects: the sex (carnal attraction) and the relationship. Is homosexual sex natural? Let?s look at human physiology? does a penis really fit inside a rectum? Sometimes, though it wasn?t really made for a penis. Now, does the ejaculate actually have a purpose inside a rectum? Nope. Hey, I?m not going to hold that against anyone! But far be it from me to say it?s ?unnatural? right? Now, is the attraction to the same gender unnatural? Firstly, does anyone have a choice of who they love? Strictly speaking, you can desire sex at any time without any discernable control. Yet as the character Alice in the Patrick Marber play ?Closer? said, ?There?s always a point where you can go with it.. or you can resist it. I value having some sort of conscious decision making in who I fall in love with, if anything. I do not believe anyone is [i]born[/i] gay, however, I don?t believe there is a definitive choice, or crossover point. I think homosexuality is a combination of physiological changes that may result from any sort of stimuli. It may be sexual insecurity? it?s understandable that being around guys is a lot easier than girls sometimes. Perhaps this comfortable feeling could lead a guy to desire only male companionship. Perhaps a guy has not had success with women and decides he would rather be attracted to men. If guys can be attracted to farm animals, they can be attracted to the same gender. This would also lead to the conclusion that one could be ?raised? gay? this isn?t so far fetched an idea. Aren?t we somewhat raised heterosexual? Always asked if we have girlfriends, first kisses, posters of the opposite sex, pornography? etc. Do I think it is ethically ?right?? No, I consider homosexuality a sin. I sin as much as the next human being? and I can ?love the sinner and hate the sin?. If my dad robbed a bank, I wouldn?t love him any less? that doesn?t mean I would approve of him robbing a bank. Gay Marriage? No thanks. Just read any of the previous threads concerning gay marriage?

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson] Philippine-American War. 250k-1m civilians killed, 4 thousand and some odd number American servicemen killed in action. U.S. actions included scorched earth campaigns, torture and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones".[/color][/QUOTE] Hey, never said the US wasn't sin-free... and this example only furthers my point that the US still doesn't come close to the atrocities of other nations. I'm pretty sure the Veitnam War would have proven a better example when referring to "scorched earth" policies. But I think we got the same idea. [QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson] The British and Americans had a reprisal to that. Research the history of Dresden, specifically in early 1945. An eye for an eye.[/color][/QUOTE] Yeah, the firebombing was pretty rough. And in fairness Charles Portal recognized Dresden as being bombed for the sincere purpose of reducing German morale. The 35,000 killed by RAF and USAF bombers were, for the majority, innocent. Understandibly, it was a horror that accompanied a war nothing less horrific. But how does that example oppose my claim that less american civilians perished than British civilians? [QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson] Nothing personal, but Russia was not prepared for Operation Barbarossa. Of course the greatest death toll was their's- the Great Officer Purge damaged the army to the point they barely beat *Finland* in the Winter War- they only way they won was through outnumbering them something like 10 to 1. Stalin brought the losses onto his own army due to his paranoia and trust of Hitler- his paranoia caused the Great Officer Purge and he trusted Hitler to honor the non-aggression pact for a few more years- he had signed it in the first place to buy time for his army to grow stronger. He didn't get enough of that time- they had a Quantity > Quality army fighting a Quality > Quantity army. The two didn't cancel each other out as the Russian losses in the first two years show. [/color][/QUOTE] This is partly true, as it was Russia's sheer quantity of men that helped them overrun a post-stalingrad Nazi army. You claim that Russia wasn't prepared for Barbarossa.. I would claim that Germany wasn't either. They were unable to decisively break seiges in Leningrad and Moscow; they were unable to repel the Russians in Stalingrad. They overextended their supply-lines, and the winter of 1942 was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Wermacht unprepared for a Soviet winter. Let's also not forget the Armored pincer at Kursk and her star: the T-34. [QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson] Yes. American nuclear technology is focused on quality > quantity. Our nuclear capability is equal to or greater than their's because our nukes are more advanced. Sheer numbers mean nothing when you are talking about anything Russian.[/color][/QUOTE] All in all, your point concerning nuclear warheads is that the significance between each nation's number (or quality) becomes fairly trite. When you start talking about the nuclear capabilities of the US, Russia, and possibly France+Britian you are discussing how many times over you can destroy the face of the earth, much less individual nations. [QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson] Wrong. The Anti-Cominterm pact divided the world into three sectors. Germany got Europe, Italy got Africa and Japan got Asia and the Pacific. There was no way that Japan could even try to invade America while still engaged in China.[/color][/QUOTE] Fair enough, the US did bring itself into war with Japan through the oil embargoes that were slowly choking the growing Japanese Navy. Consider this, after the pacific is conquered, and hypothetically America's armed forces rendered usless... I doubt Japan would have wanted to leave the US on it's own... even Yamato understood the danger that our nation posed towards the survival of the newly conquered Pacific islands. I'm pretty sure some sort of peace treaty/armistace involving the US's disarmament would have followed in the wake of a Japanese victory. [QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson] Hitler didn't want war with the Allies. He had great respect for Britain and America. His goal was the destruction of what he considered to be the greatest danger to humanity- Communism. Ironically, this later became America's prime directive too. How odd history is..[/color][/QUOTE] Perhaps I mistaken counting Poland among the "Allied" nations. As it were, despite his "respect" it would be naive to assume he didnt' anticipate a declaration of war after invading Poland. It would also be naive to think that he wasn't preparing to invade not only France, but Great Britian... research Operation Seawolf. [QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson] You'll note that France and Britain declared war on Germany and not vice versa. [/color][/QUOTE] Irrelevant, Hitler had already broken Verseilles and everyone saw ware coming. The Magenot line saw it coming, Chamberlain saw it coming... it was inevitable once Hitler was in power.

[quote name='Garelock']The fact of the matter is that the Democratic way of doings things ISN'T what caused America to be the most hated country in the world. It's the idiots that run the Democratic party that caused this. Again people, don't blame the ideal, blame the people who use the ideal as an engine to fuel their initiative. [/quote] I would contest it?s the people who hate America that are the idiots *shrug*. [QUOTE=Garelock] And after all of what you said, how do you justify even one innocent death? You can't compare numbers to numbers here. If one innocent person is killed, to me, it's like killing a million people because life is life and death is death; period. [/QUOTE] Let?s be realistic here? you can be an idealist about life, sure, but you cannot if you do not hold contempt or any sort of justice against agents of death. Wars, when fought, are for a REASON. So, all of the people that died during the Civil War shouldn?t have? There should have been no Civil war? How about WW2? So we should have allowed the Holocaust, Nazi expansion into our allied nations, and Japanese conquest of our homeland? Every life is worth something, but the in the grand substance of things, the millions killed under a single hand hold their millions of significance even when compared to one life. I know I would rather a million people die rather than, say, my sister? but listen to your self! You say a single death is the same as a million? That sounds ridiculous?. Especially considering that there have been millions of sacrifices that are reduced to nothing by that statement alone. [QUOTE=Garelock] America has done its wrong too so we as Americans have NO ROOM to talk about anyone. Saddam may have stolen someone's life but America took my ancestors' freedom and sense of pride; that's the worst thing you could take from someone. And you don't have a right to tell me about how many people were killed in slavery; I think I would know how many of my own people were killed. [/QUOTE] Who is America holding her sins against? Europe? We are held accountable on our own accord, as we hold those accountable for their actions. I don?t know about you? but I would much prefer being ALIVE without my sense of pride and freedom? at least then, I can do something about it. Sounds like you are pissed about slavery? man, I forgot that you were a slave? Were you? Who are you holding the contempt of slavery towards? Me? Everyone who isn?t black? Isn?t it this kind of contempt that continues to separate the white and black communities? I never owned a slave, my family were abolitionists during the Civil War? they fought for the Union and for the abolition of slavery. Why don?t I have a right to be objective about death tolls? Because I was never a slave? Because my white, Austrian, ancestors were never slaves? (uh oh? they were !) That?s absurd. You and I both know the number of slaves killed was miniscule in comparison to the number of Native Americans. How about the current homicide rates? Who?s killing the average black young male? Another young average black male is, statistically speaking. [QUOTE=Garelock] And pretty much, we have a history of bombing the living hell out of people. With D-Day alone we've pretty much accumulated one of the highest death tolls in world war history. On top of that, I've yet to see a country that has managed to completely and I mean COMPLETELY obliterate two whole cities with a single, powerful bomb; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All those innocent people had to suffer because one harbor was attacked. Was it necessary? No it wasn't, just like a lot of the wars America has been involved in. [/QUOTE] D-Day? You mean casualty rates? Our European theatre casualties were less than that of the Italians? relatively few Americans died in comparison to , say, Russians. D-Day was rough (especially on Omaha) , but that?s only about 3 thousand casualties in a single, gigantic invasion of a fortified beachhead?. Are you retarded? Oh yeah... your next point answers that question soundly? Two bombs, not one, destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Here?s a situation where you can trade the life of around 80,000 deaths to a possibility of millions upon millions of deaths if we were to invade Japan itself. Do you honestly think Japan would have surrendered without the Bomb? How many Americans would have died invading Japan? How many more civilians would have died? Don?t you understand that the bombs didn?t kill such a significant number of people? More people died in previous firebombing than the A-Bombs. As for the ?one harbor? being attacked was the central command point of our ENTIRE PACIFIC FLEET and Japan?s effort to DESTROY OUR NAVY! Wow, doesn?t sound like a little attack when you look at it realistically. You are saying that WW2 wasn?t necessary? I hope you mean the initial attacks, because you should have told Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito that? As for our involvement, we are talking about the survival of the free world as we knew it, doesn?t sound unnecessary to me. [QUOTE=Garelock] AND PLEASE, don't you EVEN say that this war had nothing to do with religion or oil. Lets be honest, America has no room to talk about weapons of mass destruction; we've got the mother load of those so we all know it had nothing to do with weapons. [/QUOTE] Drive to your nearest gas station? how much does gas cost? What? It?s still like 2 dollars per gallon? Thanks for the Free Gas Iraq! Oh wait, we gave the government their economy back! Go figure! Russia?s got more Nukes than we do. [QUOTE=Garelock] I'd trust Saddam Hussein with those kinds of weapons before I'd ever trust America with them. Has Saddam ever bombed out two cities so badly that it took nearly 20 years to rebuild them and a grand total of over 10 billion dollars? No, Saddam was a very brutal person, there's no denying it. But America doesn't have a right to criticize Saddam or any other person that is seemingly brutal. The fact is that America has done its wrong too so criticizing another country is down right hypocritic. [/QUOTE] America was in a WAR with Japan. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated that he was nothing more than a lunatic who would certainly attack the U.S. if given the opportunity. Of COURSE we have the right to criticize whom we wish! We are responsible for our errors, just as we hold our enemies responsible for theirs. [QUOTE=Garelock] Why don't you try telling everyone else that? I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic and Republican parties will be at large for at least a good 50 to 70 more years. [/QUOTE] Where the hell did you get that number? [QUOTE=Garelock] I never said that I agreed with the war or how the war would be conducted; I was always against the war. I say that we have terrorists on our own soil. How about the KKK? Or new black panthers? Or the average street gang? Those aren't terrorists too? How do we plan to fight something that we can't even get rid of on our own shores? You want a good example? Does Orangeburg, South Carolina sound familiar to you? That's where I live and on the news nearly everywhere is a story about yet another killing. This time, it was a 14 year old girl who was found in the Orangeburg State Park with a rope around her neck and a bullet hole to her head. It's pretty much established that it's a racial crime. No one seems to think that it's terrorism but to me, that's terrorism in its worst form. I say that until we do something about all the killing that's happening right over here, we don't need to worry about other countries. I mean, California alone has more murders than Iraq does right about now. [/QUOTE] So quantifying death has no substance, yet when it comes to crime there can be a ?worst form??. *sigh* I?ve talked to you before on this information, don?t you understand that we DO fight the KKK, Black Panthers, and gangs? California does not have the homicide rate that Iraq had before we invaded. [QUOTE=Garelock] Again, I don't get why people even get on abortion. First, and I'm not trying to be mean Drix, you're a nice person and all; I can respect your opinion because at least you make sense. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread at all... Until people start speaking out against this war that would have innocent children shot at every single day then I don't even want to hear about abortion. Either you're pro life or pro death; you can't be both.[/QUOTE] Who?s shooting innocent children? American Soldiers? I would just love to hear you say that?s why we are over there.. to shoot innocent children. Don?t you understand that sometimes you need to FIGHT in order to survive? Do you think we could have talked our way out of WW2? How about the innocents slaughtered by Hitler? They did not fight, they were not capable of it. Being anti-holocaust did NOTHING? it took the total elimination of the Wermacht and Hitler to stop that genocide. Saying you are anti-death is one thing? but we have an OBLIGATION to stand up to tyranny.

[quote name='Garelock'] This one girl on our team was LITERALLY punched in the eye and had a fist mark on her eye. She was out cold for 30 minutes and you're meaning to tell me that's not a foul?! The boys and girls played tonight though. [/quote] Anyone out cold for 30 minutes would be going to the Hospital... any reason why she didn't? Suffering a mild concussion is one thing... but 30 minutes?

[quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I can't seem to find who said it, but the idea about going through wormholes is exactly what Einstein saw as the best means to travel through space. Unlike on Earth, quite a few people believe that the universe is curved, so the shortest means from point A to point B is not a straight line, since, when you unfold the universe, it would be an extraordinary (almost parabolic) direction.Where did you hear this from? [/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote] Well, I remember reading a book by a scientist restricted to a wheelchair, who must use some sort of vocalizing machine? I can?t recall his name; Steven Hawkings or something like that... It was in a book titled ?Ooh, look at the pretty stars!? Or ?Black holes and you..? [QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] Are you sure you aren't confusing acceleration due to gravity with the speed of light, which is a little less than 3 x 10^8 m/s? [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] I edited my post.. my bad. You are right with that number.. approx 2.998 x 10^8 m/s [QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] Could you elaborate on your idea, explaining how you think this is possible? I know you are ignoring the listed variables, but even then, where would the energy generation come from? Wouldn't the person going as fast/faster be freezing up as well, and why would things turn white at all if there's no light?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] Well, I don?t really have much of a quantitative theory. I could only suggest that a wormhole is the only possibility. Perhaps the energy between a matter/antimatter reaction? *Shrug* I?m just saying it?s possible because I don?t really see how it could be impossible. Granted, the hurdles to overcome our current physical restraints may *seem* impossible? I think you are right about the ?freezing up? effect. I know that electricity itself may be insufficient to power such a mechanism for travel. As for the vision turning ?white? I?m referring to the electrons continuing to fire in the brain despite the disability of any sensory organ. This usually occurs when your occipital region strikes an object hard enough so that you cannot see anything for a short period of time; it is described as blinding light, rather than pitch blackness.

Millions of people don?t die because of feudalism, communism, democracy, or any sort of economic policy. That may be the root of some of their discontent; but it was Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc that killed people, not their economic or government policy. Fascism could exist peacefully as easily as a republic. It?s mostly about what the people/leader of a nation prefers. [QUOTE=Garelock]What form of government hasn't had thousands upon millions of people killed? Rather it's the Democratic way or the Republican way, to Socialism and Communism, innocent people have always suffered under just about every form of government. Still, I say, choose the lesser evil. Go ahead, say what you want about the Democratic party. The Democrats aren't what caused America to be the most hated country in the world now...[/QUOTE] I thought you were off to a good start Garelock, you are right about all government?s having blood on their hands. Then you lost me at ?The Democrats aren?t?? Oh boy. [quote name='Garelock']Actually, America itself is in the lead of having more innocent people killed. Rather you count the Native Americans who had their land stolen and in return, they were killed, rather you count the countless slaves brought to America who were also killed, rather you count the long list of wars America has had, rather you count the religious killings America has had and if you count killings in America PERIOD, it's a far cry from what you call a death toll. Communism isn't the reason why people are dieing, it's the PEOPLE using Communism that is the reason; don't blame the ideal, blame the people. [/quote] America is not in the lead by a long shot. The genocide of Native Americans were a combination of : disease, actual fighting, and pure genocide. We stole the land from the Native Americans, yes? but we didn?t discriminately eliminate a fourth of those that died (most died because of disease). Slaves weren?t killed so much as they were kept alive. Their dignity and humanity was stolen from them, though there weren?t so many deaths occurring from slavery to even hold any bearing to your argument. The wars we fought were destructive yes, but America wasn?t the leader in any aspect. More innocent British civilians were bombed to death than American civilians. How about the Chinese? Those people were MASSACRED when Japan invaded. Ever read the ?Rape of Nanking?? The greatest death toll was Russia, by far. Let?s take Stalingrad, for example: 1.2 million people died in those few weeks of battle at Stalingrad. The US by comparison only lost approximately 52,000 servicemen. Garelock, as much as it would please your political viewpoints; I regret to inform you that the United States hasn?t fought any war strictly due to any religious motivation. How about the 600,000 people in central Africa that died in a tribal genocide? What about the one million Armenians massacred by the turks during WW1? What about the estimated 2 million innocent people killed by Sadaam Hussein? Sorry: America can?t touch those numbers if she wanted too. You are right about one thing: it?s the people behind the government/economic system that are responsible for the killing. Mao is probably the most murderous person on earth with possibly more than 50 million deaths under his name alone.. that tops the serviceman casualty list for EVERY NATION INVOLVED IN THE WAR. If Mao and Stalin are ?communism? personified? I can see where some people draw conclusions. [QUOTE=Garelock] I'm a Christian but does that mean that even Pagan and Witch or Warlock alike should hate me? Under that religion, thousands of people were killed from England, to all of Europe to America and back to Europe again. See what I mean? Don't blame Christianity for the religious crusades, blame the people involved. That's why I don't hold Communism itself accountable. .[/QUOTE] The religious conflict in England was a politically motivated genocide between a Papal Catholicism and Protestants? the King determined the Country?s religion. I understand, and I wouldn?t hold communism any more responsible as I?d hold Christianity responsible. [QUOTE=Garelock] And YES the Democratic party has realized that America is the most hated country in the world. That's why we're focused solely on world peace. At least I know I am. Anyone that talks to me knows that I hate conflict with other countries; it's an established fact.[/QUOTE] I?m glad to know your word is established fact. And that your opinion is so inflexible that it can be quoted as ?fact?.. concrete, unchanging. Maybe, with a little living an experience, you shall count open-mindedness amongst your attributes. This polarization between parties is ********? if it?s going to exist we should have more political parties. Everything being restricted to ?Democratic? or ?Republican?.. *sigh* don?t you know that both parties are invested in the interests of not only the world, but our nation? BOTH parties voted for the War in Iraq, BOTH parties voted to fight Terrorism DESPITE how they might appear towards our European ?allies?. We are at peace with Europe, despite the social unrest between our nations; we are at WAR with militant Islam as far as I?m concerned. I?m sorry France, our sovereignty takes precedence over your UN vote, maybe you?d understand that if terrorists crashed a plane into the Eiffel Tower? [quote name='Garelock']It's very simple, that is, the answer to your question. America simply had more people killed at a faster rate than what any other country could do. You don't believe me? Take the near genocide of the Native American race. There's only a handful of them left in America now. Let me guess, they're disappearing because the buffalo in America are as well? That's just a quick example of how America can destroy people's lives and yet, America has the nerve to criticize other countries...Afterall, nearly every state America has now was all Native American land. That clearly proves the death toll numbers for those poor people.[/quote] Once again, Native American?s died by the tens of thousands. Yes, it was genocide to some extent. Yes, we relocated and interned these people. Yes, we fought with them in offense and self-defense. Yes, our diseases killed the greatest number of them. But that?s not even a tiny tick in say? the 70 or so million aborted babies. Hey, let?s not turn this into an abortion thread, but to those of us against this practice, is this not genocidal, is this not any less Hitler, Mao, or Stalin?

[quote name='Garelock']I'm not saying that we should igive America to the Muslim faith but what I am saying is that land should be shared. You neglected to get that point in my previous reply. I don't think it's right to shoot someone over some Earth. Really, would YOU kill me over something like this?[/quote] Israel exists, British Palestine existed, The Ottoman Empire existed, the Mamluk sultanage existed... Arab Palestine was never a state.... It doesn't matter.. Palestinians DO live in Israel, they were never displaced by the Jews, and they have all of the same rights as JEWISH ISRAELIS! They can vote, own as much land as the jewish residents, and participate in the government. Muslims can join the IDF! This whole war of "reclamation" is just an excuse for genocide. If you look closely, almost all of IDF's "attacks" were retaliatory.

The speed of light is about 2.998 x 10^8 m/s. (oops.. somehow 2.998 was turned into 9.88 in my mind, Azure called me on this one) E=mc^2 refers to energy with relation to matter... not really breaking the speed of light. Could we go faster than the speed of light? Discounting artificial gravity produced, the fact that speeds like that would require some sort of energy generation, friction... space is not an absolute vaccum... the fact that you would eventually collide with matter....yup.. you could go as fast or possibly faster than light. One problem, everything would go pitch black or pitch white. Concievably, everything around you would freeze, not in time, but as you reached the speed of light, the photons would have a hard time catching up to your eye.. until... they cannot. I think the most prevailing hypothesis is the utilization of black holes and the energy within them to send us beyond our current physical limitations. The only problem: a black hole would squeeze earth into the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Grabbing land from whom? Israel has legal right to both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. If anyone, the current occupants of those territories are involved in a land grab.[/color][/quote] Technically, the Gaza and West bank weren't origionally part of 1948 Israel. They were acquired through military operation; all retaliatory, during various wars. They are similar to the Sinai peninsula, which Israel controlled for a period of time after the 6 day war.