Political view points

[arek]

So what is your political viewpoint are you a fascist (leaning way to the right), communist, (leaning way to the left), conservative( leans to the right), liberal (leans to the left), or something in between?

*Rant Mode on*


I myself lean a bit in between, I feel I'm very moderate in things I'm for and against. I'd probably say I'm a fascist when it comes to social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, et all. But when it comes to money I feel I'd rather my government to spend more on the people almost communist in thought. I'd want my government to provide everything for its people. I always seem to be torn on subjects. Then again I believe the way governments are run now they only hinder people instead of helping them. I believe government doesn't serve it's basic needs of keeping the basis they are founded on. Being an American my government was founded on freedom and liberty. I do not see the way my congress argues protecting my liberties and freedoms. So looking at it from this viewpoint I reject universal health care.
I have come to this conclusion that absolute government is bad for the people, I look at the fledgling waiting lists people have in commonwealth countries for surgeries and I'm glad we have a free market. The only thing I would prefer my government to do is take protective tariffs out on imports like the USA use to. Our economy is on the verge of collapse and they wish to spend more money. Ross Perot had a solution for our economic woes over a decade ago and instead of electing him we have had to live through two Bushes and a Clinton. Clinton effed up Social Security reform and Bush Jr more than deep sixed the system. Then again SSI should have been destroyed after WWII and only brought back in economic debacles. Sort of like the economic debacle the low and middle class is going through right now. The rich keeps getting richer with their exporting of jobs to China while they put Americans out of jobs. Either that or they keep giving jobs to illegal immigrants.

The wasted resources on this war, we keep spending time in Iraq, whilst Iran continues to kill Americans each day in Iraq. In the 1960's America would have invaded anyone killing one American, now we sit back and watch congress argue, of course the war in Iraq is a waste, at least we won't have stability till Iran is out of the picture. Alas, the people's thoughts and concerns are falling on deaf ears.

The last thing I will hit on in this rant is the so called allowing people to keep their old customs and languages, hello America had immigrants coming from distant lands to start the country and they all conformed to using English as their public language. So my thought is learn English or get out. That's what I tell all the atheists that want the words In God we Trust removed from our money, and from our pledge. It's the right most people forget they have, you have the right to get out of America at anytime.

*Rant mode Off*

I'm mostly conservative in my views, but that's just how my country's current state has led me to go. In my perfect world there would be no Government at all.

 

[Orangen]

I'm personally nuetral. This is because I have rather mixed views on things. I'm mostly a mild liberal but do think conservative on a couple of things.

Take abortion; I'm for it if the birth would cause some kind of life-threatening disease / injury, but I hate that the public's taken the view that people are all idiots on it and it should be banned.

I also believe in a government that is purely by the people, for the people. None of this ridiculous representative junk as the recent ones have been not so representative; I mean pure old fashioned Greek Democracy.

But on the other hand, I do believe all the illegal immingrants should just learn English and immigrate legally. If they want to come to a country the least they could do is learn the language. On top of that I'm sick of hearing complaints of "Oh, I'm illegal, I have no rights." Well, if they came legally, they wouldn't have this problem! The learning English thing applies to every immigrant too.

I'm also against gay marriage and am conservative on a few other things.

I do think we need some form of government though. Non would really screw things up. But the way the conservatives are going these days, I still stick by the pure democracy thing.

 

[Gardevoir Master]

I'm personally nuetral. This is because I have rather mixed views on things. I'm mostly a mild liberal but do think conservative on a couple of things.

Take abortion; I'm for it if the birth would cause some kind of life-threatening disease / injury, but I hate that the public's taken the view that people are all idiots on it and it should be banned.

There are people who use abortion as a form of birth control. That appalls me. I don't think it's a good enough reason to ban it, though. Our country's got enough people in it as it is, and if you're the kind of person who'd kill a baby I don't think I want you reproducing anyway.

And I'm for gay marriage, because I see no good reason to ban it. Anyone can say they're against something, but unless you have a good reason to be what's the point? All viewpoints against gay marriage are xenophobic at best. It's like saying Nazis or retards shouldn't get married. There's no good argument for it. They say the institution of marriage needs to be protected, but it's even evolving since its inception. Even in the last fifty or one hundred years its been evolving. Not surprisingly, a lot of the people against gay marriage are also against evolution. Marriage is not going to become a farce because two guys want to become one in the eyes of god. The parts in the Bible that are explicitly against it? That's the Old Testament, which the New Testament says doesn't fully apply anymore. The New Testament, which all good Christians should be following, says God is perfectly fine with it, no one's going to Hell for being gay, and that it's up to us to decide what to do about it. God's okay with gays, Nazis and retards getting married, so why aren't you?

 

[Orangen]

There are people who use abortion as a form of birth control. That appalls me. I don't think it's a good enough reason to ban it, though. Our country's got enough people in it as it is, and if you're the kind of person who'd kill a baby I don't think I want you reproducing anyway.

And I'm for gay marriage, because I see no good reason to ban it. Anyone can say they're against something, but unless you have a good reason to be what's the point? All viewpoints against gay marriage are xenophobic at best. It's like saying Nazis or retards shouldn't get married. There's no good argument for it. They say the institution of marriage needs to be protected, but it's even evolving since its inception. Even in the last fifty or one hundred years its been evolving. Not surprisingly, a lot of the people against gay marriage are also against evolution. Marriage is not going to become a farce because two guys want to become one in the eyes of god. The parts in the Bible that are explicitly against it? That's the Old Testament, which the New Testament says doesn't fully apply anymore. The New Testament, which all good Christians should be following, says God is perfectly fine with it, no one's going to Hell for being gay, and that it's up to us to decide what to do about it. God's okay with gays, Nazis and retards getting married, so why aren't you?

 

[arek]

My reason for being against homosexuality is by doing a comparison with the collapse of other great empires I have noticed when the rise in homosexuality occurs there is a drop in production and so forth. It happened in Greece, It happened in Rome, it even led to the fall of the Babylonians (that and after the death of Hamurabi Babylon was left with weak rulers.) (The neo-Babylonians of Neckebnezer were different but were also called Babylonians. In fact America currently has a lot in common with the collapse of Rome. Illegal immigration anyone. Sure our illegal immigrants are coming for jobs and not staying a short while then coming back with swords.

I technically see marriage anymore as a way for the state to make money by selling a marriage licenses. Also the bible is clearly for polygamy but the state outlaws that hmm, they could make some extra money off that. God also smite quite a few cities in the old testament. And here in Corinthians 1 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, and 1CR 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

So therefore even in the New Testament it condemns homosexuality.

I'll be honest I'm not the biggest religious person, but I do have faith. In fact, homosexuality is condemned in a few other religions, Islam namely comes to mind, but it's strange how homosexuals seem to flock to Islam.

The big topic on my mind today is why are we wasting money on bridges in Iraq when our own bridges are falling a part. Also why is it Geroge Bush's fault that a mine in Utah collapsed? That is why I do not trust the media. Propagandists.

 

[ZeroKirbyX]

While it is impossible to actually be a communist in a democratic and capitalist country because to BE a communist you have to PRACTICE communism, I'd like to consider myself one who believes in the ideas and notions of traditional Marxism/Leninism. Of course I recognize the errors which are dominant in both, and for awhile I've actually just called myself a republican with communist ideals (damn near oxymoron I am aware).

 

[Gardevoir Master]

And uh, there are parts of the New Testament against homosexuality. It's NOT Old Testament exclusive. Care to read the book of Romans? By no means do I consider myself perfect, but I haven't seen anything that says the Old Testament doesn't matter any more--because if it doesn't, we're missing out on some important things here (creation much?).

Indeed. The Old Testament still matters. However, as I understand it, the New Testament takes precedence when it conflicts with the old one.

My views on gay marriage bassically boil down to the fact that it's disturbing how many straight couples aren't even married, so I don't see why gays make such a big deal over it. There are countries out there that do permit gay marriage, so if they're that devoted to each other, than hey, go for it. It's not that I'm against gays, just gay marriage.

Let me ask you this: Does anyone ever ask your Dad if his still married to your Mom? In normal circumstances, I would imagine not. The question he would get is more likely to be "How's the wife and kids?". That's because it's a given in our society that the relationship between a man and a woman is thought to be permanent. Meanwhile, a same-sex relationship is often considered meaningless. For instance, Lesbian couples are often hit on by straight men, as if it were merely an act to attract men. If gay marriage was legal, it would mean the government officially acknowledges that homosexual relationship are just as real and meaningful as heterosexual ones. That's a big part of why it is important to gay people.

[quote author=arek link=topic=2625.msg32648#msg32648 date=1186808974]
My reason for being against homosexuality is by doing a comparison with the collapse of other great empires I have noticed when the rise in homosexuality occurs there is a drop in production and so forth. It happened in Greece, It happened in Rome, it even led to the fall of the Babylonians (that and after the death of Hamurabi Babylon was left with weak rulers.) (The neo-Babylonians of Neckebnezer were different but were also called Babylonians. In fact America currently has a lot in common with the collapse of Rome. Illegal immigration anyone. Sure our illegal immigrants are coming for jobs and not staying a short while then coming back with swords.
[/quote]

That's very interesting. Just how are you able to correlate the rise in homosexuality with the fall of these empires? Where can I find census data from before the birth of Christ? And exactly what about homosexuality directly led to the fall of these empires?

I technically see marriage anymore as a way for the state to make money by selling a marriage licenses. Also the bible is clearly for polygamy but the state outlaws that hmm, they could make some extra money off that. God also smite quite a few cities in the old testament. And here in Corinthians 1 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, and 1CR 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I suppose this is no help to my argument whatsoever, but I don't see the word "homosexual" among that list. Sure, the word "effeminate" is in there, but doesn't directly translate to "gay." You don't have to be gay to be effeminate, and you don't have to be effeminate to be gay. In fact, I'd say this mainly excludes women.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

My reason for being against homosexuality is by doing a comparison with the collapse of other great empires I have noticed when the rise in homosexuality occurs there is a drop in production and so forth. It happened in Greece, It happened in Rome, it even led to the fall of the Babylonians (that and after the death of Hamurabi Babylon was left with weak rulers.) (The neo-Babylonians of Neckebnezer were different but were also called Babylonians. In fact America currently has a lot in common with the collapse of Rome. Illegal immigration anyone. Sure our illegal immigrants are coming for jobs and not staying a short while then coming back with swords.

Global warming is caused by traditional, sea-worthy Pirates.
How?
Well, think about it.
The rate of Global Warming has gone right up, yet there are no Nautical Pirates any more.

 

[Orangen]

@ Gardevoir Master: I wasn't referring to divorced straight couples, but straight couples who are living together that aren't married. The point was that gays in this country are at least allowed to live together even if they can't get officially married, and I don't mind that.

 

[arek]

Well in the times of Alexander the Great homosexuality was rampant and Alexander himself was homosexual (most would say bi-sexual but he really had no desires for women). His most trusted adviser was apparently his lover. The conspiracy theory even says that Alexander's adviser helped poison him, due to the fact Alexander went out to reproduce an heir with one of his concubines. The united Greek state fell with Alexander's death as the struggle for power continued among his top generals. The Greek armies became enamored with their fellow soldiers and no longer had the will to fight. The long campaigns led to the development a male seeking male campaign as opposed to pressing forward.

With Rome quite frankly they suffered the same inner struggles among its military men. The long campaigning led to homosexual relations. Also Rome became to enamored in sex and not much of anything else.

I'll find the book I read this in later, I'm sure it's in the college library yet, , in fact I think I was probably the last person to check i out in 10 years. (The book was wrote in the mid 60's by the way).


The works of Marx, I was very fascinate with communist ideals for the longest time, then I've realized you can't have communism the way it's meant to be because hum ans are too greedy. I also studied Friedrich Neitzche for awhile and the principles of Nihilism. Very fascinating subject. I've now moved on to reading Ayn Rand's materialism books, for no Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Very nice fictional novels to get her ideas across.

But I sometimes believe Plato had it right in The Republic we need a just philosopher king.

 

[Gardevoir Master]

@ Gardevoir Master: I wasn't referring to divorced straight couples, but straight couples who are living together that aren't married. The point was that gays in this country are at least allowed to live together even if they can't get officially married, and I don't mind that.

So, basically, you don't mind gays as long as they don't officially commit to each other, right? The whole spectrum of homosexuality, and this is the one thing that bothers you? That sounds to me a bit like not being afraid of clowns as long as they're not making balloon animals.

[quote author=arek link=topic=2625.msg32858#msg32858 date=1186880230]
Well in the times of Alexander the Great homosexuality was rampant and Alexander himself was homosexual (most would say bi-sexual but he really had no desires for women). His most trusted adviser was apparently his lover. The conspiracy theory even says that Alexander's adviser helped poison him, due to the fact Alexander went out to reproduce an heir with one of his concubines. The united Greek state fell with Alexander's death as the struggle for power continued among his top generals. The Greek armies became enamored with their fellow soldiers and no longer had the will to fight. The long campaigns led to the development a male seeking male campaign as opposed to pressing forward.
[/quote]

So, basically, jealousy caused the fall of the Greek Empire. Clearly their gayness was at fault, as jealously is purely the domain of homosexuals.

With Rome quite frankly they suffered the same inner struggles among its military men. The long campaigning led to homosexual relations. Also Rome became to enamored in sex and not much of anything else.

The moral here: every nation needs a co-ed military. I'm sure the fall of Rome had nothing to do with an economy and living conditions so terrible the government promoted blood sports just to distract from it.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Honestly, all the post said to me was "Queer-bashing."

Homosexuality might be getting more common nowadays, but it's still a minority. There are, what, 10 straight people for every one gay person? Yeah, I totally see humanity coming to an end. :

 

[NonAnalogue]

Plus, we have a problem with overpopulation anyway. P: Also, gay people might - and this is just a theory, mind you - they might want to get married because they love their partner. Plus, there are all sorts of legal rights one gets upon being married, like being able to visit your significant other if they're in critical condition at the hospital. Things like that.

 

[ZeroKirbyX]

As well as tax breaks and the like.

 

[Chibi Tai]

And I counter, "Well, homosexuality is getting more common these days."

Last time I checked, people didn't really have a choice when it comes to their sexuality. So just what is causing this increase in homosexuality then? Obviously it must be some sort of gay gene that's been passed down through each generation that...oh wait.

I doubt that homosexuality is increasing much. It's just that it's more acceptable now than it was in the past.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

As far as I knew, bisexuality is getting more common, what with all the screaming emos deciding to suddenly declare their bisexuality... But even then, that doesn't exactly mean no more babies.

 

[Gardevoir Master]

I think the only reason there's more gay people in the world is that there is simply more people in the world. The ratio remains the same, but the numbers don't.

Also, it may or may not surprise you to know that one's sexuality is not necessarily constant. It's still all about the genes and hormones and brain chemistry and stuff, but there are straight people who become gay later in life and vice versa. They even transition through a bisexual period. It has nothing to do with environment.

Speaking of, earlier today I thought of another reason arek's comment about ancient military men becoming gay is utter bull-hockey. It's two words: "Rape" and "Pillage." You don't send lengthy military campaigns to the middle of nowhere. In all likelihood, they'd run into a town sooner or later just on the basis that this was most likely their destination in the first place. It is also not uncommon for the spoils of war to include any survivors among the enemy's women, and violating them has long been a psychological tactic. If ancient Greek and Roman soldiers who were straight to begin with were so starved for human sexual contact that it would alter their perceptions of what's acceptable, then I think they'd be more likely to take it out on the enemy than each other.

 

[Goemon2057]

My views on gay marriage bassically boil down to the fact that it's disturbing how many straight couples aren't even married, so I don't see why gays make such a big deal over it. There are countries out there that do permit gay marriage, so if they're that devoted to each other, than hey, go for it. It's not that I'm against gays, just gay marriage.

I'm not really a religious person...so i can't really argue many of the other points,but this one kind of bothers me.Yes its true.Many straight couples are not married...but the question shouldnt be "why do you want to?" it should be the other way around,rather "Why can't you?".If its such a non-issue why stop the people who really want to go to that extent?

Marriage to some is the only point upon which you are actually related to each other as far as i've seen it. I'm sure thats most of the reason they want to Marry,so that on an official basis they are considered a family. If theres a reason to not allow it i don't really see any reason to allow two straight people to marry either. Of course it may be because as far as i'm aware marriage is mostly a religious thing, so its probably on a religious level that people are against it. But on the political level i see no reason two gay people shouldn't marry. (let me stress my lack of religious knowledge.So i may even be wrong as to marriage's ties.Sorry but past mythology it has no place to me,so if you want to correct me on some parts be my guest)

Let me ask you this: Does anyone ever ask your Dad if his still married to your Mom? In normal circumstances, I would imagine not. The question he would get is more likely to be "How's the wife and kids?". That's because it's a given in our society that the relationship between a man and a woman is thought to be permanent. Meanwhile, a same-sex relationship is often considered meaningless. For instance, Lesbian couples are often hit on by straight men, as if it were merely an act to attract men. If gay marriage was legal, it would mean the government officially acknowledges that homosexual relationship are just as real and meaningful as heterosexual ones. That's a big part of why it is important to gay people.

I like how Gardivoir said this...it also comes down to the fact that its not really taken seriously in some cases.

Sorry for the lack of input for birth control.But its really somthing i don't care about.Given the choice of its position i'd probably just allow it. It's probably because its hard to consider somthing that really isn't born yet murder. Until then its preventing the birth.While i wouldnt say its a birth control, its in the general area.Though it should definatly be treated as a last resort, the lack of this is probably why it's banned in the first place.

 

[depiro27]

I myself don't believe polititians do anything good for anybody. I'm against the system and I always will be. don't try to change my views cause seriously it won't happen

 

[mike]

Ok, well firstly I should say that my family is quite rich and therefore my view could be a bit right..

I think mothers should be able to say NO! to a child, when being pregnant and it is ONLY her decision whether yes or not....

Taxes: I think people should have the same percent of taxation...Why should the ones who worked hard be supposed to give not only in cash but also more percent to the government??

Social Insurances: Well, I really do not like the way of insurance in America nor in Germany...America has none, Germany does not motivate people enough to work, they get enough money without working at all..and investors are closing a lot of things there(like Nokia did) because the people want a lot of money for doing nothing...

I don't know exatly who, but someone mentioned the Greek Way
Well, it wouldnt be that profitable either, when you would inform yourself before saying this kind of stuff, you wouldnt end up looking uneducated..The greek(also the roman way) was that the rich people mostly where the one's able to candidate, the poor guys really had nothing from it. Women nor slaves were able to vote!

 

[pyrobomber]

I would consider my self on the same point as Sean Hannity/Ann Coulter (which is about as right as right gets.) "Leaning way to the right "does not make one a facism. Also, because I am American, I will be posting things they may or may not pertain solely to American politics.

George W. Bush: Does not deserve the criticism he gets. I can't say I agree with him on everything, but he is still a good president/person.

Next President: I don't like any of them to a good enough extent. My favorite, uhhh....not certain. Probably Romney.
McCain- Green, against Bush tax cuts, amnesty
Huckabee- Fair Tax
Romney- I am unsure about him being a flip-flopper and he is a MormonD: (which isn't too big of a deal but sort of bothers me)
Giuliani- Supports Gay Marriage and not too much against Abortion (I heard him say he would want to decrease it though)

Iraq War: In short, I just tend to think how everyone has forgotten 9/11.

Gay Marriage: Is very wrong and should never be practiced. For starters, no one can say it is genetic because being gay means having no genetic children. The only exception would be some sort of test tube baby, which are modern. Being gay is a lifestyle choice. Having two dads/moms is just not right. A child should have a mother and a father.

Abortion: Although, I cannot prove to you with science that birthcontrol is wrong, I can say killing a baby is. If you say, well it doesn't really have memories or whatever so it doesn't really matter, try thinking about that again. At that point, you are saying why don't you just kill your baby and call it a late abortion?

Illegal Immigration: Why don't you just let everyone in the world come in? Don't like your country? Well, America wants you to come in and make everyone else speak your language. We want the country to be flooded with poor possibly diseased/drug smuggling people. Becoming legal? You don't have to worry about that.

Evolution: Is a ridiculously flawed theory to be taught as a fact in school. It is basically story telling that has been labeled science. I can argue many points of evolution, because so many parts of it are just plain crazy. Lets see... no life... life...? Not only is that crazy to think about, but there can't be any complete facts behind it. Life is far too complex to say just happened. Fishes do not just hop out of water with lungs and become frogs/monkeys or whatever. The flagella is impossible to evolve, because it has too many working parts. If one part were to not work the entire thing doesn't work. If I were to tell you that I randomly picked letters out of a hat and wrote a dictionary, would you believe me? There has to be a creator.

Global Warming: Is exaggerated. The earth is going through a cycle. Make an aquarium and model it after earth (including the gases in the atmosphere), and use a heating lamp as the sun. Add a very small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere and see if the temperature actually rises. Do you think the temperature is going to go out of whack? Move the lamp closer. Do you think that will change the temperature? How about you use a stronger lamp?

 

[mike]

Dude, when someone is 13 and was raped, should she keep the baby? When a family knows, the child would have to go to and orphanage because of financial problems, should they keep it?

9/11: Exactly what I was expecting from you...it was the first time America was actually attacked and now they are all going mad! I am not saying the Irak was in unnecessary but maybe you guys should think a little about money?

Gays: Dont really care, they should do what they want and they can adopt children, even when they are not married.

Bush: horrible guy...(nice statistic: 270something times lied to the americans about irak)

The rest of the presidents: Dont care, have no idea how they are

 

[pyrobomber]

Dude, when someone is 13 and was raped, should she keep the baby? When a family knows, the child would have to go to and orphanage because of financial problems, should they keep it?

9/11: Exactly what I was expecting from you...it was the first time America was actually attacked and now they are all going mad! I am not saying the Irak was in unnecessary but maybe you guys should think a little about money?

Gays: Dont really care, they should do what they want and they can adopt children, even when they are not married.

Bush: horrible guy...(nice statistic: 270something times lied to the americans about irak)

The rest of the presidents: Dont care, have no idea how they are

I forgot to mention that... If someone is raped at a young age and the family is poor, then having an abortion might possibly be reasonable. That is not exactly the most common situation, though. The other would be if the mother/baby were to die because of a certain condition. I really doubt those make up the number of abortions each year (about 1.3million or something to my knowledge.)

America was attacked before 9/11. Now, I wasn't too old, but I believe there were attacks in 1993 and 1998. A great amount of progess has been made in Iraq.

For a start, you don't even live in America, so I really question your sources. Propaganda is bad enough in this country, let alone how distorted it must be elsewhere.

--If you are going to argue politics in English, I suggest you get a better understanding of English. Sentences such as "I am not saying the Irak was in unnecessary but maybe you guys should think a little about money?" destroy your credibility.

 

[leehage]

Gay Marriage: Whatever floats your boat. You aren't harming anyone by getting married and with the high divorce rate of today, it isn't exactly a holy sacrament anymore. I'm not gay, just open minded.

Abortion: I'm a guy, so I have no right to make laws about a woman's right. A fetus has no thoughts until the second trimester or so. And its a choice. Sometimes abortion is better than the alternative; adoption, abandonment, etc.

Bush: He may not seem like a good president but look what he was dealt with. 9/11, anthrax, Katrina, Iraq. I think he did a good job. No more attacks on american soil and he stated before the war "We may be in Iraq awhile"

 

[mike]

Great no attacks in America, but now there are attacks in Europe....

you know, sorry I dont speak perfect english, im not english(or american), i speak 3 languages fluently and a bit of french...i think that is good enough!

And i really dont mean to criticize America, I actually really like it, I want to go to University there one day, and even stay there one day...but i dont like bush, at least i dont love him...

 

[pyrobomber]

Great no attacks in America, but now there are attacks in Europe....

you know, sorry I dont speak perfect english, im not english(or american), i speak 3 languages fluently and a bit of french...i think that is good enough!

And i really dont mean to criticize America, I actually really like it, I want to go to University there one day, and even stay there one day...but i dont like bush, at least i dont love him...

Europe should do something about those attacks, then. America is spending enough in Iraq.

Not trying to be mean, but you should know. You are debating in English. Other languages don't matter when you are trying to sound smart but failing because you write like you're in elementary school.

 

[Gardevoir Master]

Gay Marriage: Is very wrong and should never be practiced. For starters, no one can say it is genetic because being gay means having no genetic children.

That's not entirely true. Lesbians can still be artificially inseminated, and some homosexuals manage to have traditional families before discovering they are gay (or even after, depending on how closetted they are). Homosexuality does not equate to infertility. That being said, there is still no reliable predictor of homosexuality.

[quote author=pyrobomber link=topic=2625.msg46554#msg46554 date=1202021327]
The only exception would be some sort of test tube baby, which are modern. Being gay is a lifestyle choice. Having two dads/moms is just not right. A child should have a mother and a father.
[/quote]

Your conclusion is culturally biased. It's like saying Scientologists shouldn't have children (which they probably shouldn't), or left-handed people. I think it's even less moral to deny people the rights and privileges the rest of us have for being "normal". This sort of thing makes them lesser than us, and may be considered a form of oppression, and oppression just isn't right.

[quote author=pyrobomber link=topic=2625.msg46554#msg46554 date=1202021327]
Evolution: Is a ridiculously flawed theory to be taught as a fact in school. It is basically story telling that has been labeled science. I can argue many points of evolution, because so many parts of it are just plain crazy. Lets see... no life... life...? Not only is that crazy to think about, but there can't be any complete facts behind it. Life is far too complex to say just happened. Fishes do not just hop out of water with lungs and become frogs/monkeys or whatever. The flagella is impossible to evolve, because it has too many working parts. If one part were to not work the entire thing doesn't work. If I were to tell you that I randomly picked letters out of a hat and wrote a dictionary, would you believe me? There has to be a creator.
[/quote]

There is a saying that, given sufficient time, a monkey randomly hammering away at a typewritter will eventually, at random, type out the entire works of Shakespeare.

You may be right that a fish doesn't just hop out of the water with lungs, and that a random mutation could spell doom for an unlucky creature. Evolution happens a little at a time, and new species generally don't take hold unless they can find some niche, like how worms process dirt and debris into soil. Offspring tend to be slightly different from their progenetors, and at times develop means to be slightly more suited to their environments. Having lungs may not benefit a deep-sea creature, but it may be of use to something lives in the shallows. It could allow it to escape predators, or eat something close to the shore.

I think it's a mistake to assume that evolution is perfect, that every creature it produces is able to thrive upon creation, or that new creatures or even parts thereof appear suddenly without warning, like in the comic books. Evolution is a trial-and-error process. Sometimes it produces a more efficient or attractive model, and sometimes you get disabilities. Some genes get passed on, others don't. It's not a straight line from paramecium to human, it's a fluidic process that expands into every nook and cranny it can find.

I don't think it excludes the idea of a creator, either. I think it just means the way He made us is way more complex than previously stated. Do you know exactly how the computer you're using or the monitor you're staring at works, down to the smallest particle? If you do, do you think you could explain it to the Ancient Romans and have them understand it? Probably not. You don't give little children every detail of where babies come from. Likewise, we probably weren't told exactly how life was created in literal terms. We were probably given a simple explanation, and then we had to interpret it, perhaps coming up with misconstrued details. For all we know, He used Evolution to create us, instead of magically making everything appear out of nowhere. To say we know His exact process would be to say we know how He thinks, that we could read His mind, which I think would be a pretty audacious claim.

 

[mike]

In some points I agree with Gardevoir Master.
@pyrobomber Evolution: You know, nobody says the fish jumped out, is was this weird kind called Styloichthyes i guess... and those were able to go with their flappers on the ground, later they went to the land and developed into amphibians....and so on and so on, you got thousands of fossils as proof. And you really sound like a strict catholic to me, just one question? the bible says something about the world created in 7 days, but nothing about dinosaurs, how do you explain that?

 

[pyrobomber]

@Gay Marriage

Being gay has been around since... pretty much ever. There is a part in Genesis of the Bible. Artificial insemination has been around for how long? If being gay were actually a gene wouldn't it have been weeded out forever ago?

Wow, you are quick to play the opression card, aren't you? Being gay is a lifestyle choice, i.e. one can choose to not be gay. Now, if I were to say a certain race should not be allowed children, I can see where the problem would be, considering one can't choose to be a certain race.

@Evolution

"Offspring tend to be slightly different from their progenetors, and at times develop means to be slightly more suited to their environments."

If you mean offspring picking different genes from the gene pool, yes. However, I really doubt that is exactly what you mean. What you say there is that a mutation happened in the germ cells causing a mutation in the offspring. The glaring problem there is that the mutation would have to be incredibly -- I mean insanely precise -- in which it occurs. Another obvious problem, lungs aren't much help to something in the water.

For something to come out of water, there would need to to be many different things happening at the same time. The fish would need lungs and the ability to move on the surface. Lungs are not built little by little. A piece of a lung is not useful and possibly life threatening. It passes that chunk of organ down because why exactly? The fish would also just flail about on the surface... OK, I'm not sure you are getting the entire picture here.

According to atheists/evolutionists, the Earth was just a molten ball. When that molten ball cooled down there couldn't have been anything but liquids, gases and land. No plants and no life. According to atheism again, life magically happened in the water for stupid reasons.

Lets see... water... rocks... gases... lightning boom life? Hm, water... heat and rocks... life? Impossible. Life needs more than carbon to be alive. DNA is necessary. DNA is extremely complex. Amino Acids then DNA? No, something would have to arrange the amino acids into DNA. The whole "Well, it slowly happened" idea is really getting old. Saying something just happened falls under story-telling more than science. Pointing to gapped fossil evidence doesn't exactly help either.

Anyways... getting sick of explaining that. YOU explain how the woodpecker evolved to me. The woodpecker is designed as a woodpecker. The bird sees a bug go in a tree. The bird pecks the tree and can't get in... OK. Lets say the bird has a beak that allows it to poke into wood. Bird flies up the the tree and knocks its (bird's) brains out... OK. So lets say the bird has the beak and brain-shocks... flies up to the tree and has nothing to grab onto the tree with... OK. The bird has to have the brain-shocks, beak and right claws to latch onto the tree evolved all at once. Like I mentioned earlier, certain things can't be slowly evolved. "The flagella is impossible to evolve, because it has too many working parts." You never did try to explain that. There are too many cases of "mouse-traps" (all pieces working at once) in the world to say everything slowly came to be.


"I don't think it excludes the idea of a creator, either."

Lol. Yes, in fact it does. I'm pretty sure the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days.
Evolutionists only try to promote evolution because they are trying to prove God doesn't exist. Bible=Word of God I'm not claiming I read His mind or anything here.


"the bible says something about the world created in 7 days, but nothing about dinosaurs, how do you explain that?"

Sorry, I don't have my Bible handy, but I do believe there is something that says something along the lines of "Created all of the land creatures."

 

[mike]

To be exact it says he created those 2 guys.....but humans came A LOT OF MILLION YEARS AFTER.....
and it is easy, with that bird you were talking about, exactly he fell and the next time he wouldnt and i think u should read, what i said before again, because i explained the evolution of the amphibiens.

 

[Doctor Oak]

one can choose to not be gay.

This is one of the most fucking ridiculous things I've ever read.

 

[StellarWind Elsydeon]

Ignorant twats are sadly everywhere. What can we do?

 

[Gardevoir Master]

Ban them?

@Gay Marriage

Being gay has been around since... pretty much ever. There is a part in Genesis of the Bible. Artificial insemination has been around for how long? If being gay were actually a gene wouldn't it have been weeded out forever ago?

Wow, you are quick to play the opression card, aren't you? Being gay is a lifestyle choice, i.e. one can choose to not be gay. Now, if I were to say a certain race should not be allowed children, I can see where the problem would be, considering one can't choose to be a certain race.

Acting gay and being gay are two different things, though they do often go hand-in-hand. I knew a guy who said he was fine with gay people as long as they don't act gay. He said you can be gay, but choose not to "act on it." I agree this is true, and I also believe homosexuality arises biologically, in neurochemical and hormonal ways. I also believe that, if my previous sentence is true, that people cannot be truely happy if they deny who they are. You may be fine hanging out with people the same gender as you, maybe even feel a deep emotional connection to them, but you wouldn't want to have sex with them. If you had to be gay if you really weren't, you wouldn't like it. The same would be true of a homosexual was forced to be straight. Unfortunately, in a society that rejects them, being gay can be hard, so it becomes a sort of Catch-22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Since one of our country's (by that I mean the USA. No disrespect to everyone else) founding principles is the pursuit of happiness, everyone has the right to be happy with who they are and where they live. Say what you will, but if society was more accepting of gay people in the first place we wouldn't even be having this converastion.

But let's say you can choose to be gay. Why would you? In a world that hates and fears them, what's the advantage? I don't see one, yet many people "choose" to be gay. Can you explain that? Unless you can give a convincing reason why you should be gay, I'm not going to see it as a real choice.

[quote author=pyrobomber link=topic=2625.msg48045#msg48045 date=1203016593]
@Evolution

"Offspring tend to be slightly different from their progenetors, and at times develop means to be slightly more suited to their environments."

If you mean offspring picking different genes from the gene pool, yes. However, I really doubt that is exactly what you mean. What you say there is that a mutation happened in the germ cells causing a mutation in the offspring. The glaring problem there is that the mutation would have to be incredibly -- I mean insanely precise -- in which it occurs. Another obvious problem, lungs aren't much help to something in the water.

For something to come out of water, there would need to to be many different things happening at the same time. The fish would need lungs and the ability to move on the surface. Lungs are not built little by little. A piece of a lung is not useful and possibly life threatening. It passes that chunk of organ down because why exactly? The fish would also just flail about on the surface... OK, I'm not sure you are getting the entire picture here.
[/quote]

You don't get a "peice of a lung." You get a precursor to a lung. Ever hear of an air bladder? Many fish have this organ in order to change their bouyancy. A creature in shallow water could have this as a vestigial organ, and one fateful day a misprint in the genome allows oxygen to pass from the air bladder and into the bloodstream, and then you have something similar to a lung.

[quote author=pyrobomber link=topic=2625.msg48045#msg48045 date=1203016593]
According to atheists/evolutionists, the Earth was just a molten ball. When that molten ball cooled down there couldn't have been anything but liquids, gases and land. No plants and no life. According to atheism again, life magically happened in the water for stupid reasons.

Lets see... water... rocks... gases... lightning boom life? Hm, water... heat and rocks... life? Impossible. Life needs more than carbon to be alive. DNA is necessary. DNA is extremely complex. Amino Acids then DNA? No, something would have to arrange the amino acids into DNA. The whole "Well, it slowly happened" idea is really getting old. Saying something just happened falls under story-telling more than science. Pointing to gapped fossil evidence doesn't exactly help either.
[/quote]

People said flight was impossible, too. Someone in ye olden days would presume you mad if you believed a giant hunk of metal could take flight. Even today, it boggles the minds of people who don't know how it works. Yet, it happens all the time, and safely, thanks to aerodynamics. Ye olde peasant, upon seeing such a sight, would believe it to be sorcery, but it's all scientifically possible. Everything that made that airplane possible, from the physics that keep it aloft to the matter that makes up its structure and systems, existed before the vehicle came to be. One could look at a hunk of ore, a puddle of burning oil, and a bird in flight and still not imagine this technological marvel coming to be, and yet it did. Everything needed to create life existed, the acids, the carbon, the water, the scientific principles, and all that they needed to get the whole thing going was a catalyst. Sure, it may seem complex, it may seem unlikely, it may seem as contrived as a Mary-Sue fanfic, but that doesn't mean it was impossible, and it doesn't mean it would never happen.

[quote author=pyrobomber link=topic=2625.msg48045#msg48045 date=1203016593]
Anyways... getting sick of explaining that. YOU explain how the woodpecker evolved to me. The woodpecker is designed as a woodpecker. The bird sees a bug go in a tree. The bird pecks the tree and can't get in... OK. Lets say the bird has a beak that allows it to poke into wood. Bird flies up the the tree and knocks its (bird's) brains out... OK. So lets say the bird has the beak and brain-shocks... flies up to the tree and has nothing to grab onto the tree with... OK. The bird has to have the brain-shocks, beak and right claws to latch onto the tree evolved all at once. Like I mentioned earlier, certain things can't be slowly evolved. "The flagella is impossible to evolve, because it has too many working parts." You never did try to explain that. There are too many cases of "mouse-traps" (all pieces working at once) in the world to say everything slowly came to be.
[/quote]

It's my understanding that a woodpecker lives in the holes that it makes, and it can take generations to sufficiently hollow out a tree like that. And have you ever heard a woodpecker hammer away at a tree? It's like Iron Man crawling through an air vent in comparison. Any bug would hear that and know exactly what was going on. But that's beside the point.

I'd say you'd start with a bird that tries to make a hole in the tree. Maybe not in the side of the trunk per se, but perhaps some concavity in which the female can lay its eggs. Quite likely, the male does this ahead of time so the female would be enticed to mate with it. Clearly, there would be an advantage to making this hole faster, as the female proto-woodpecker wasn't going to wait for her boyfriend to make their home when she could just shack up with the guy who already had one. The faster digger got more ladies, therefore making more fast-diggers possible. Any advantage would've worked. If, by some miracle, one of them managed to get a spinning drill-beak, we'd have wooddrillers today. Not saying that's possible, but that would be quite an advantage. At any rate, those that could widthstand the head-banging longer had an advantage over those who didn't, as did those with more chisel-like beaks. Of course, the faster you got through that wood, the deeper you could go, and the more likely the branch could break, so you move to bigger areas of the tree, and the better your grip the less likely you were to go flying from recoil. Plus, deeper holes mean better protection. Those that could grip wider wood could make deeper holes in the bigger parts of the tree faster and easier than those who couldn't. Eventually, you've gone from a bird trying to scratch bark off with its beak to a living jackhammer pounding its way through the wood.

[quote author=pyrobomber link=topic=2625.msg48045#msg48045 date=1203016593]
"I don't think it excludes the idea of a creator, either."

Lol. Yes, in fact it does. I'm pretty sure the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days.
Evolutionists only try to promote evolution because they are trying to prove God doesn't exist. Bible=Word of God I'm not claiming I read His mind or anything here.
[/quote]

No scientist would go about trying to definitively disprove God. It's not testable because there's no way to prove He does or doesn't. All a scientist can do is prove how things work in the physical world. They can't prove there isn't some guiding force behind it. God could've use evolution to create all living things.

Also, did you know that different planets have longer or shorter days? Sure God could've created the Earth is six days, but not necessarily six Earth days. After all, there was no Earth to measure this time by. A day in God's world could be a million quadrillion years to us. "God created the world in six of His days, which is roughly equal to a million quadrillion bajillion years to us," doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it? Furthermore, since God is omnipotent, He could've sped up time, so while it only took Him six days from His perspective, it would've been eons from ours. A sped-up process would explain why the Earth looks older than it really is, like some kid with progeria.

 

[Sem]

To further this point, since you like your biblical references, there are quite a few verses that explain that how to God, a day is a like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, pretty much meaning that time's never really an issue with him, as he's outside it. So six days could indeed mean a looooooong time.

[EDIT: I should also note that this thread is now becoming a sorta evolution-vs.-creation-ish thread. If its to continue it should be in a new topic.

 

[NonAnalogue]

To further this point, since you like your biblical references, there are quite a few verses that explain that how to God, a day is a like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, pretty much meaning that time's never really an issue with him, as he's outside it. So six days could indeed mean a looooooong time.

Along that line of thinking, "Inherit the Wind" is a good play to read if you want to see someone argue this point.

Carry on.

 

[StellarWind Elsydeon]

Also, I find it amusing that a person goes about calling evolution 'story-telling' and thinking about half the crap that supposedly happened in the Bible as almighty truth.

You want to use the bible to explain why evolution can't exist? Okay. Explain to me first how one could take a single male/female representative of each species on the fucking PLANET (which, by the way, is a LOT MORE SPECIES THAN THE BIBLE ASSUMED - since the thing was written by people living in the Mesopotamian region and for the most part they didn't know about the existence of American and Oceanian species to name but a few), stuff them on a BOAT, and then expect to rebuild the entire SPECIES from two individuals.

... It's GENETICALLY impossible. The lack of genetic diversity would lead to debilitating mutations occuring more often and eventually extinction. And don't give me the bull people say about how things were 'genetically perfect' upon creation and slowly degenerated since please. The people who wrote this (and yes, it was PEOPLE) didn't know a pair of dingo's kidneys about DNA, genetic diversity, or anything outside of their own regions. They had a certain mindset and thanks to certain organizations who decided to propagate these stories and elevate them to some degree of sanctity (even though alternative explanations to mostly everything HAVE been uncovered by modern science) - this mindset lingers to this very day by people too close-minded to look over the book for a second and open their fucking -eyes- for a moment.

That is not to say these people in the ancient past weren't as intelligent or imaginative - otherwise we wouldn't have had these epic stories about rending of the red sea and similar nonsense. And if you try to dismiss it as a 'Miracle' - well, guess what, you might as well 'miracle' away evolution. It would make more sense in a scientific manner too.

The Bible is just as much storytelling as evolution is. That is not such a bad thing - it's just a reason to regard it as just another mythology. And mythology is good, yes. It was written to teach people about themselves, to give them some sort of moral fiber (although honestly? some of the things the Bible promotes are definitely intolerant, not to say fascistic. I don't approve of anything that claims that anyone who doesn't believe in the same invisible man as you do must be killed even though THOU SHALT NOT KILL lols. So many effing contradictions.) and to basically cluster a civilization from like minded individuals - and of course to propagate said civilization by killing or assimilating all non-like-minded civilizations.

Gotta love how hive-minded humanity can be sometimes. Resistance is futile.

But anyway.

It may help to point out that personally I think this whole 'God' thing to be effing ridiculous. I do believe in the possibility of a higher being existing (hell, it's an infinite universe, infinite possibilities, somewhere out there in the far reaches of who knows where SOMETHING must have evolved more than humanity did. XP) and I don't deny the idea that it is POSSIBLE that there is some guiding force that molded things around us in some way or another and what we see through science is merely a reflection of something 'greater'. But I honestly think such a thing would be actually beyond human understanding, and so, while it's nice in theory and philosophy, it's REALLY not quite the most uber relevant thing to our everyday existence. It may exist, it may not. None of us can understand it.

And it's starting to really piss me off when hypocritical little fucks run around and yell 'GOD IS INEFFABLE AND BEYOND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING AND YET WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT GOD HAS IN STORE FOR THE HUMAN RACE AND HOW HE EXPECTS US TO ACT! LOLS!'. None of you have been around for long enough to see the world from its supposed 'creation' to today, or had a cup of tea with an invisible man who's supposedly the great big boss of the entire in-effing-able universe. So kindly remove your head from your ass and start THINKING, not just accepting blindly what some book written by a bunch of people with nothing better to do in their lives says. Anyone can claim to have been writing things in the name of God. In fact, multiple people did. Why do you think THIS many different mythologies exist? >>;

But why exactly am I wasting energy on a creature who obviously is so set in his ways they wouldn't even allow themselves to think of other possibilities. People like this do not belong in a debate forum. And as I see that this creature here doesn't post much anywhere else...

Pyrobomber, you are the weakest link... Goodbye.

Now get the hell out of our Galaxy.

ALSO, BACK ON TOPIC, folks. This thread is Political View Points, Not Creation VS Evolution or My Religion Is Betteru. POLITICAL. Kthx.

 

[mike]

1. Woodpecker-Story:

Utter nonsense. Birds and mammals both evolved from reptiles, therefore a woodpecker has almost nothing to do with us!

2. Bible-Stuff:
Those two people had a son, as far as I am concerned, how the hell did they continue evolving?

Did you know the the story of the creation of earth, was made up like 2000 years ago as a POEM

 

[StellarWind Elsydeon]

Because clearly humans aren't mammals and of course woodpeckers aren't relevant to discussions about the evolution of woodpeckers. (nods sagely)

This is the second stupidest post I've encountered on this thread. Not only is it completely impossible to understand what the frell you're talking about - honestly I grow weary of your behavior patterns, in which you act all high and mighty intelligent LOL I SPEAK SIX LANGUAGES FLUENTLY and yet you fail to write coherently in the one language this forum DOES use.

As someone who isn't a native English speaker, and yet, his English is significantly better than yours, I find it amusing as fuck.

So yeah, forgive me for not taking your assumed claims of intelligence seriously, and forgive me for banning you for being the second most annoying thing on this thread since Pyrobomber.

Or actually don't. I don't give a damn if you do.

Now, folks, REALLY, back on topic lest I shall throw this bust of Van Buren at you.

 

[Carmen Lopez]

~Dodges evolution debate~

On the war in Iraq: I'm starting to think we're stuck. If we stay, more people and more soldiers die; if we pull out immediately, a civil war may break out and more people die still. The U.S seems to have so many enemies in the Middle East. Or at lease that's the way I see it...

On immigration: Most people enter the U.S. illegally because they want a better life for their families and I can't fault them for that. If I could enter a country illegally for my family, I just might do it. We do however need to secure our border for homeland security's sake and nothing more. I'm all for immigration because I think that's one of the coolest things about this country but I believe that we should all be united in one language: English. It would just make things a lot easier for everyone. And that doesn't mean immigrants have to quit speaking their native language or that we should quit teaching/learning foreign langauges in school or anything like that. I am determined to learn Spanish before I leave school after all.

I'll probably edit this later when I think of something else and the batteries of my laptop are dying...

 

[leehage]

There's a reason we chose to go to war in Iraq and are still in there. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria all hate us and have KNOWN nuclear weapons. Oh and they hate us. So how do we remedy this? Get a foothold in the middle east *coughIraqcough* and keep an eye on them. We need to stay one step ahead of terrorism.

On immigration, I'm against giving amnesty to all illegals in the country. It just isn't a good idea and if they want a better life, they can do what all of the other legal immigrants do and do it the legal way. I know mexican immigrants who hate being accused of being illegal. They might be deported because of it.

I'm not touching the evolution topic again, except for the fact that Mike wants to use an american education while criticizing it. So I shall bring up a new topic. Should I make a separate topic for the presidential election or just discuss it here?