Be aware that a lot of Gore's alleged lies are really media misinterpretations and taking things out of context. And once you've acknowledged that, you'll note that Gore and Bush both seem to mis-state facts at about an equal rate (Bush actually just a bit more often). Funny thing is, nobody really falls over themselves trying to report Bush's lies and screwups. Why? Because most people are just so proud that he managed to say a complete sentence. Or at least an intelligable one. Or at least pronounced a few words properly. Or managed not to show up with white powder all over his nose... (never mind his year AWOL from the... oh, forget it. Nobody cares, cause he's just so NICE, right?)
...not to mention illegal search (which you mentioned) and seisure (which you didn't). If you own a car or a boat, and a single joint is found on it, the government can seize it. Take it from you. Even if the joint is not yours, and you have no idea how it got there. Even if a friend admits he brought it on board without your knowledge. Boom. Vehicle is now government propery, sold at auction.
I won't even begin to discuss random traffic checkpoints, who basically stop everyone under suspicion of guilt, to weed out the guilty from the innocent. This isn't a police state (well, it's not supposed to be).
The war on drugs is not only an utter failure in every respect, but is also shredding our constitutional rights more and more, day by day.
NO vote is 'throwing your vote away'. In ALL cases, your vote is registered, your opinion noted, your feelings charted.
Voting is not betting on a horse-race. The point is not to vote for 'the winner'. The point is to vote your heart and mind, to vote for the candidate that best represents your viewpoints and ideals. This is what *representative democracy* is all about.
If you don't like the two big guys on the ticket, there are (depending on your state) up to three, four, or even five other guys to vote for. Do a little reasearch, figure out who best represents your positions, and vote for that person.
Personally, I think our voting system stinks. I think we should vote like the Austrailians do (multiple party candidates, not just two, and each person RANKS the candidates, rather than just being forced to pick exactly ONE).
The problem with our voting system is really easy to show. Say there are three candidates: A, B, and C. Now say that 30% of the voting population likes A the best, then B, and considers C to be dead last. Another 30% of the population likes B the best, then A, and considers C to be dead last. The remaining 40% of the people like C first, A next, and B last. Now, a SENSIBLE method of voting would note that the general consensus is that candidate A is the best (30% first place, 70 percent second place), while B is second (30% first place, 30% second place, 40% third), and C is the worst candidate (40% first, 60% last). OUR system of voting elects guy the least people want to see win. How much sense does THAT make?
The Austrailian method of voting gives better results, and works better in multi-party situations. The more parties there are, the better any given candidate will match someone's beliefs, and the better the voter turn-out is.
Our political system sucks. It is becuase of it that we have two duds to choose from (and McCain is nowhere in sight). We need to start reforming it from the ground up, starting with the system of voting, going on through smashing the two party monopoly, and figuring out a real campaign finance reform strategy.
And please refer to the references I pointed you to in this other message... it will help give you background and understanding that you obviously lack right now, on both sides of the issue.
I fight for this so strongly becuase this affects my LIFE. I KNOW that I didn't 'choose' homosexuality, that no one 'made' me gay (other than God), and that my feelings, loves, and relationships are every bit as meaningful and valid as anyone else's. I pay taxes and I vote. I am a law-abiding citizen, and a helpful and productive one. Expecting equal treatment under the law is not too much to ask for or expect, and does not infringe on your religious beliefs in any way.
This is really twisted thinking. The earth being flat and two plus two equaling five can be conclusively proven to be false, and have been. The existence of God cannot be proven by mortals, and therefore it is a belief which is totally subjective. Science will never tell us the answer.
Sorry you misinterpreted this. I was refering to your belief that homosexuality is unnatural (for homosexuals... obviously it's unnatural for heterosexuals) and is a sin worth singling out moreso than any sin you're guilty of. I was not attacking your religion or belief in God in any way. Just your thinking of homosexuality as a disorder and as unnatural... which are both provably false.
Sexual behavior does not take place in your pants, it takes place in your mind.
EXACTLY. Therefore, homosexuality is obviously not 'just behavior', right? This just proves my point. It's not just about what you do with your genitals, it's about love, passion, romance, attraction, desire, and so much more.
Gay animals? Are you kidding me? No, I'm not gonna take your word for it on this one.
No, I'm not kidding you, and you don't have to take my word for it. There is plenty of evidence, and I even cited (and provided an URL) for you to read up on it. I had a friend with a gay dog in High School. Most people involved with animals are well aware of some animals that show no signs of interest in mating with animals of the opposite sex, but that do attempt to mount same-sex animals. It's natural. If you are ignorant of this simple fact, all you have to do is check out the resources I've already provided.
You're saying homosexuality is nature's way of killing off or decreasing population? That must make you feel proud of yourself.
Talk about twisting words. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying nobody knows why or how, and that there are any NUMBER of good explainations. For example, freeing up a small percentage of the population from putting so much energy into child production allows much of that energy to go into other areas, whether it's helping to raise children (gay uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, providing extra childcare for families), or for directing towards arts, philosophy, etc. And if part of the reason is population control, of course I'd 'do my part' with pride -- helping to propagate and ensure the health and survival of the greater species... what's not to be proud of? No 'killing' involved, just not excessive reproduction like so many heterosexuals do...
This is perhaps the only statement you make here that doesn't boggle my mind. And according to God, it is intended to be shared between a man and a women who are married. Again, simply a matter of belief so there's no use in arguing this.
Your mind is aparently easily boggled by simple facts. But be that as it may, of course there's no use arguing simple matters of belief. My whole point in this discussion is that YOUR beliefs should not trump MY rights, any more than MY beliefs should trump YOURS. Yet you somehow feel that your rights should be enshrined into civil law. What you and your church members choose to believe and how you choose to act is all well and good, and I support you in following your faith. But please, let me follow mine, and the truth as I have come to know it. God works in mysterious ways, so do not assume you have ALL the answers, and that you are absolutely, infallably right, and that for that reason, your beliefs and actions should be forced onto me.
Look in the book of Genesis. Doesn't it mention that Adam and Eve were naked? When they ate the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they became aware of sin and that's when Man started clothing themselves.
According your your particular version of your particular mythology, you accept this as fact. Most Christians I know actually accept this as fable/allagory. And you seem to refuse to acknowlege that there are as many creation myths as there are religions. I'm sure my Hindu and Budahist friends would differ with you on this point.
Lot, the only righteous man left, was told to get the hell out and take his family away before it was destroyed.
Wait... this Lot guy was the same one that offered up his daughters right? How noble and without sin that is. Interesting some of the things the Bible approves of...
Unclean animals and such do not apply anymore.
And maybe lots of the other condemnations don't apply any more either. Like working on the sabbath, wearing clothes of two fibres, or homosexuals being able to be true to themselves and live happy lives without persecution or being murdered.
I don't think divorces are good. They're horrible.
You missed my point... that being that if you read the bible as a whole, it seems that God hates divorces a whole lot more than homosexuals. It's talked about over and over, while homosexual references are very few and far between. Divorce (in the form of adultery and coveting) are mentioned in the ten commandments. Narry a word about homosexuality there, or even from Jesus's own lips. Aparently not a huge problem or priority. So why the disparate emphasis on the sin of homosexuality v.s. the sin of divorce or any of the numerous other sins?
No, the United States is a representative Republic. I'm amazed at how many people do not know the government system of the country they live in.
I'm fully aware that we're a 'representative democracy', but that doesn't nullify the statement I made or the point I was making. The constitution was designed to help prevent the opression of the minority by the tyranny of the majority. The constitution was designed to prevent religious persecution. Civil law should not persecute me as a person because my religion recognizes homosexual relationships, and doesn't single homosexuals out as any type of sinner above and beyond any other human being.
There's such a thing as a gay religion? Whatever. Anyway, I am a Christian. I do not have a religion..... No dogma here!
I'm suprised you continually flaunt your ignorance at me like that. If you've done any reading or ANY research or even paid any attention to the news or the topic of homosexuality at all, you'd know about religions like Unitarianism (which have supported and performed same-sex unions since the 70's), and churches like Dignity and Metropolitan Community Church, as well as the Reform Jewish faith which embraces gay people as human beings, and recognizes same-sex relationships without condemnation. Not to mention pagan and wiccan religions (which have NOTHING to do with Satan worship, given that they are non-Christian and do not have a concept of 'satan' in them).
I've got news for you; this is a Christian country. It doesn't matter that a lot of people living here aren't, it was founded under the principals of Christianity by devout Christians.
Again, more ignorance. The 'Founding Fathers' were primarily Diests and Humanists, as well as Christians. Many were agnostic. This nation was founded on the belief of many things, including religious tollerance and the "right to persue happiness". Well, living a heterosexual lifestyle makes homosexuals deeply unhappy, while living a homosexual life makes them happy. Do not abridge their constitutional right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, please.
Homosexuiality does affect me. It affects everyone. The more we approve of it, the more prevalent it becomes. Homosexuality is antithetical to my beliefs, and the beliefs of every other Christian in this country. Approving of it would be denying my beliefs.
Name ONE way it directly affects you in any negative way. The government is not in the business of affirming your beliefs (it already doesn't with respect to creationism, for example). And your 'the more we approve of it the more prevalent it becomes' is totally bogus also. It's always been around (approved of or not) in about the same percentage. It just may be more or less 'visible' to you, that is all. Straight kids to NOT 'become gay' just becuase they see, hear, or respect gay people. This is just paranoia, not based on any fact. And keep in mind, YOU don't have to approve of it, but the government has no right to weigh in either way, and its laws should be based on secular fact, not religious dogma. No one is forcing YOU to approve of it. But if you're a manager, you should have no more right to fire someone for being gay, than YOUR boss should ahve the right to fire you for being christian (or straight, for that matter). A gay person should have the right not to be beat up JUST because someone doesn't approve of their partner. A stable, loving, gay couple should NOT be denied adoption rights for kids that desperately need homes, JUST because they're gay (nor should they be granted those rights JUST because they're gay). One's sexual orientation should be irrelavent. One should be judged only on one's character and ability.
It is a direct threat to Christianity.
No, it's not. Really. There's no threat what-so-ever. I cannot IMAGINE what threat you could possibely perceive by simply treating me as an equal human being, with equal civil rights. You aren't directly affected in any way other than you simply should acknolwedge that gays do exist (which they do, and no amount of religion will ever change that simple fact). Just like athiests exist, jews exist, muslims exist, transexuals exist, hermaphrodites exist, hindus exist, blacks exist, whites exist, latinos exist, tall people exist, short people exist... we're all just human beings.
Be being treated equally to you in the eyes of civil local, state, and federal law does not tear you down or hurt you. It strengthens us as a nation, and puts actions behind the words of our constitution. It is the right and just thing to do.
It provides abstractions for mutexes, threading models, standard libraries, etc. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well. And it's free, open source, and cross-platform. Does this fit your bill?
I love C++. Well, call it a love/hate relationship, but it's more love than hate (at least when I'm not maintaining someone else's brain-dead code...)
I really hated C though. Annoyed the crap out of me for the longest time. It wasn't until I 'found' C++ that I understood why... C++ just seemed like a natural fit to my brain. Go figure.
But what syntax would you approve of? Frankly, the only other syntax I know of that has anywhere near as wide-spread a knowledge base is COBOL, and that knowledgebase is growing older and beginning to fade. The main reason for all these C/C++ variant syntaxes is that so many people already are familiar and comfortable with them (even if everyone still argues about bracing and indenting styles;-)
I sure as hell don't want a BASIC-like syntax to take over. UGH. And (Object) PASCAL? Not really into that either, though it's an improvement over VB, that's for sure. Maybe you mean something more Objective-C-like? I hope not LISP-like... gads, I get lost in parenthesis;-)
Strictly speaking, 'subset' is the wrong term. Managed C++ extends C++ in several ways (such as adding garbage collection), and has the ability to declare 'unsafe' blocks of code so you can do your own memory allocation or whatever if you want.
All of the above are links to amazon.com books, so feel free to safely click them, and peruse the reviews and summaries. Note that I did not just provide solely 'gay propaganda' by any means... I chose serious books, many of which contain balanced view-points (i.e. not just my own). I think that before you make you next appearance in a debate regarding homosexuality, it would behoove you to check out a few of the above sources.
And finally, regarding homosexuality in nature, I offer up the following (which I mentioned in a previous message, but erred remembering the exact title):
Heh. I meant left-handed desk. Like in high school and collage, where the desks and chairs are one unit, with the 'desk' part on the right hand side, and you slide in on the left? A left-handed person needs a mirror image of one of those things...
Other examples are left-handed scissors, left-handed can-openers, left-handed mice (with the buttons reversed), etc.
The assumtion here is that hetero and homosexual relationships are the same. That is the point of debate, I think. The difference, I would say, is that homosexuality is unnatural. You know what? Do whatever you damn well please in the privacy of your own home or wherever, but leave the children out of it. Personally, I would not want to be the test case of what being raised by two men or two women would do to me mentally, and I pity any child that has to go through that.
This smacks of 'chicken little syndrome'. But mostly of ignorance. Lots of kids are growing up and have already grown up in same-sex households. There have been numerous studies on the effects of such a household on the kids. And you know what? Gay parents actually turned out to be BETTER parents on average than their straight counter-parts! Why? Because with a gay couple, there's no such thing as an unwanted child. Lesbian couples need to jump through a lot of hoops to conceive a child naturally. For gay male couples, the bar is even higher (surogacy and/or infant adoption) with a HUGE cost. These couples love children as much as you, and provide very good homes, and sacrifice a lot for the welfare and well-being of their kids. I feel that if it becomes more commonplace, that any differences woudl simply go away. The only issue that ever came up was 'teasing' by classmates (and what kid DOESN'T get teased... if it wasn't for this reason, ti would have been for another), and difficulties the parents had with people like yourself, who didn't understand and weren't willing to learn.
The kids were no more likely to grow up gay than the parents of straight couples. The kids turn out just fine.
But try to see it from my perspective: homosexuality is a sin. Putting a child in the middle of that would not be cool.
Okay, but at least be consistent -- athiest couples and mix-marriage couples shouldn't be allowed to have kids either then... after all, being an athiest is 'sinful', no? You wouldn't want a child to be raised non-Christian, would you? (keep in mind most of the gay couples I know ARE Christian). I'm thinking of all the straight couples I know of, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is guilty of sin. Including the sin of sodomy (since 'sodomy' includes oral sex, as some heterosexual couples DO practice anal sex). So what, you want the government to take away all the kids? Where are you gonna put them?
The universe was created aproximately six thousand or so years ago by God.
And you believe this in spite of all the huge amount of evidence to the contrary. That's okay. A few hundred years ago you would have believed that the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun traveled around it. It only took the church a few hundred years to asknowledge it was wrong in that case.
Oh, and I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong. But for there to be 'wrong', I believe that someone must be hurt. If nobody is hurt in any way, no wrong was comitted. My adopting an unwanted child would not hurt you, the government, or the child. You can argue some metaphisical harm based on your religious beliefs, but you cannot prove such harm, and you cannot and should not legislate your religious beliefs, since this is a free country with freedom of religion.
And for the record, I do not believe I'm just an insignificant boil on the face of an insignificant planet somewhere in the universe. I marvel at the wonder of life and the miracle of our existance. I don't have to believe in your particular homophobic dogma to have a sense of wonder and amazement at the miracle of life and the beauty of the world around me.
And I'm not asking you to change your mind (though I do wish you'd read up on things, learn a few more facts on the topic, and acknowedge that the church IS flawed and HAS changed its dogma in the past, and probably will again in the future). What I would like is for your particular beliefs that are not based on any secular facts to NOT be legislated against me. And likewise, I will not support any legislation of MY beliefs onto YOU. I do NOT believe that any church should be *forced* to support same-sex unions or adoptions or whatever. Absolutely not. But I do think that I should have the right to have a civil union contract drawn up between my partner and myself, to cover health and insurance issues, and all the other 'little things' (durable powers of attourny, hospital visitation, property ownership/inheretance) that you and your partner take for granted. And the fact is, gay couples over most of the nation can already adopt, and I'd prefer that right/responsibility not be taken away just because of your religious beliefs. I'm tired of being *singled out* like that. If you are going to argue for something based on your religious beliefs, at least BE CONSISTANT.
I know more than you think. I simply have completely different beliefs than you, that is certainly not the same as ignorance.
Believing that the earth is flat, or that two plus two equals five, are both just different beliefs than me. They are also IGNORANT beliefs.
...and yet the defining characteristic of all of these things is influenced by your sexual behavior. You can have a relationship with another guy without it being sexual--I have several close friends.
Um...no. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. By your definitiong, there could be no homosexual virgins. Yet there are. I realized I was gay around the age of eleven. I didn't have sex until the age of twenty-two. For eleven years, I was a homosexual virgin. I was not a confused straight boy, I was not a straight boy at all. I was gay. Homosexual. And it had NOTHING to do with 'just sexual behavoir'. And I had many friends of both sexes during that time. Friendship, and romantic love relationships are very different.
Gays shouldn't be treated as diseased or evil, just as humans with a problem--just like every other human being on this planet. I have problems. Everyone does. That does not mean we should all think it's okay to have a problem.
The only problem I have is with other's people's unwillingness or inability to simply accept me as I am, without wanting to fire me, beat me up, vandalize my things, call names, pass laws outlawing my relationships, etc. I'm not the one with a 'problem' here, any more than a left-handed person's 'problem' is their left-handedness. The 'problem' in their case is a simple lack of easy, common-sense accomodation by society.
Oh wow, I can't believe you said that! Sorry, but that's just plain dumb and here's why:
Um, in case you didn't get it the first time, let me try again: Homosexuality is a natural phenominon. This is a statement of fact. It exists in nature. Homosexuality is found not just in humans, but anywhere you care to look in the animal kingdom (yes, from lower life forms up to dolphins, and obviously humans). There are references I can direct you to (try "Natural Exuberence", search for it on Amazon). And as I've already explained, and which you can't seem to grasp, it's NOT 'just sexual behavoir'. There is a hell of a lot more to it than that. There are whole issues of gender identity involved too (with transgendered people, who face many of the same issues). Human sexuality isn't a simple black and white thing here, dude. Gender can be very fluid (effiminate males, butch females, irrespective of thier gender attractions).
Since it is biologically impossible to conceive a child with another member of the same gender, homosexuality is antithetical to the natural order of reproduction.
Yes, it doesn't lead to reproduction. But that doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature, and naturally. Maybe it's a population's response to over-crowding? Who knows? Who cares? The fact is, the number one reason people have sex is becuase they have a sex drive, and a desire ro feel pleasure. Gawd knows, if people ONLY had sex for procreation there'd be a hell of a lot less sex going on, and if all sex lead to reproduction, we'd be up to our armpits in babies. The fact is, sex serves another function that you ignore -- pair-bonding. It's an expression of deep love and comittment with a life partner. A sign of caring and affection that goes far beyond 'friendship'.
Call homosexuality what you will, but the natural argument does not hold water.
Oh, but it does. You dismiss it far to quickly on far to flimsy evidence. Not to mention that things like wearing clothes is definitely UNNATURAL from a secular/biological standpoint, yet no one has a problem with that, so why have a problem with homosexuality? Anyway, most studies, most scientists, and most psychologists/psychiatrists believe that homosexuality, whatever the root cause, is inherent within a small percentage of any given population, has always been so, and always will be so. It is a NATURAL occurance. Most of these same people believe it is either inborn, or in some way 'fixed' by a very young age (most cite 2 years of age).
the book of Genesis has a story of a city named Soddom with a lot of homosexuals.
Well, thanks for showing your ignorance here:-) The story of Soddom was more about inhospitality than homosexulaity. Lots of the association with homosexuality actually derives from mistranslations from the original texts into English. And in those same places where homosexuality is called an abomination, so too does it call the eating of shell-fish. Ever eat any crab or shrimp dude? Ever work on the sabbath? Frankly, the bible doesn't have a lot to say on the subject, especially not when compared with divorce. The bible condemns divorce a lot more than it does homosexuality, yet I don't see you advocating laws against divorcees...
Which brings me to the fundamental point. You believe a particular mythology is true (much as teh Greeks believed just as fervently in THEIR mythology, the vikings had their Norse mythology, and even todays Jews and Muslims and all have their current mythologies). The United States is not a theocracy, but is a pluralistic DEMOCRACY, with a constituional right to freedom of religious expression. My religon recognizes and celebrates same-sex unions just as it does opposite-sex unions. So why should YOUR peculiar religion's dogma be enshrined into secular law where it can forbid me and my partner form enjoying the same rights as you and YOUR partner?
Some good sources for you to check things out: "What the bible really says about homosexuality", and "Homophobia: A History". You'll find not only that not all Christians believe the same things you do regarding homosexuality, you'll find some of the roots of current Christian beliefs in this area.
But the thing that always annoys me is that you think your particular chosen beliefs should affect me, someone not of your religion (though frankly, most of the gay couples I know of ARE Christian, and were actually married in churches). The fact of the matter is, if I am allowed civil marriage (just like athiests are, muslims are, and OTHERS that you think are 'going to hell' because they don't believe the same things you do), it doesn't affect you in the least. Homosexuality is not 'catching', isn't 'chosen', and does not pose any sort of 'threat' to you in any way. So how can granting me equal *EQUIVALENT* rights and responsibilties harm you? Why does it scare you? People all over the world do things that your Bible condemns, so why single me out for persecution?
You obviously know absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
Is your heterosexuality nothing but a 'behavoir'? Hardly. It colors everything you do... what you find sexy, who you fall in love with, what advertisements attract your attention, what you wear, etc.
You're absolutely right, nobody deserves special rights or privelages simply because they behave differently. So why do heterosexuals have all these special rights simply because they behave differently than homosexuals? See how circular and clueless your 'reasoning' is?
Because someone behaves differently is not sufficient reason to strip people of their rights and privileges either. Even if sexual orientation WERE a 'choice' (which 'just a behavoir' implies), that doesn't justify opression or assigning second-class citizenshipo. If someone likes country and western, should they have fewer rights than someone who likes rock? If someone is a muslim, should they have fewer rights than someone who is Christian? If someone is left-handed, should they have fewer rights than a right-handed person?
Homosexuality is a natural phenominon... some small percentage of the human population (regardless of race, nationality, class, sex, religion, etc) is and has always been homosexual. And bisexual. And transgendered. And even hermaphrodite. So it has always been, so it will always be. These are people with human feelings, cares, and loves. Just like you. They are not second-class citizens who 'deserve' fewer rights and less respect than the average citizen.
Also, it's wishful thinking to assume that our "robust economy" won't be in need of a stimulus next year after the Fed's increased interest rates collide with an unanticipated oil shock/war in the Middle East. Whether it's Dubya or Algore that gets the job, the President might well have to deal with an impending recession.
This is exactly why I favor Gore's approach... reserve some of the surplus (that no one is even sure will materialize anyway) rather than give it all away up front, and pay down debt asap to help releive some of the interest burden. Eventhough I'm not into all of Gore's spending plans, having looked at both, I feel that Gore's approach is more fiscally conservative, more fiscally sound, and addresses current needs more directly while leaving 'slack' to help buffer any unexpected shocks to the economy.
Heterosexual couples who build a loving home together aparently have a 'special right' to adopt children. Homosexual couples who build a loving home together aparently cannot. How is parity with heterosexual couples a 'special right'? What sort of twisted logic is this?
Maybe it might be more clear to you if you got rid of the stupid notion that homosexuals are just heterosexuals 'gone wrong'. That's no more true than left-handed people being right-handed people 'gone wrong'. But then I suppose you think it's a 'special right' for lefties to want left-handed desks in school, because they COULD just use right handed desks like right-handed people, right?
No gay person is asking for or wants any 'special rights'... they just want the same exact things everyone else does.
And if heterosexuals didn't produce so many unwanted, abused, and abandoned children, the issue of gay adoption wouldn't be much of an issue. But since there are more children out there than heterosexuals want, why not let loving gay couple adopt them and give them a good home?
Two heterosexual guys are not in a loving, mutually constructive, monogamous relationship. You're comparing apples and oranges, and somehow coming up with 'special rights' out of the deal. Your logic is totally and utterly flawed, yielding 'garbage in, garbage out'. Start with bogus assumptions, end with ridiculous and ignorant conclusions.
Homosexuality isn't "just behavoir". Sexual orientation is a fundamental part of who a person is, and it's not just about specific sex acts, but love, passion, romance, pair-bonding, and building a life together just like anyone else.
If a heterosexual's spouse is killed, propery and custody automatically reverts to the surviving partner without any special requirements. If a homosexual's 'spouse' is killed, property and custody revert to 'next of kin' and not the surviving partner unless careful legal work (wills, contracts, etc) are done up front, generally at great expense. The long-time spouse of a homosexual person isn't considered 'family'. This is an inequity. The 30 year relationship between two women I know is every bit as valid and meaningful as any heterosexual husband/wife pairing, yet it holds no legal standing at all. Civil (not religious) marriage grants over 1047 specific rights and responsibilities on the participants... "special rights" at only heterosexual people have the option to partake of. Extending these rights to gay couples is not granting 'special rights', but is granting EQUAL rights.
So basically you're willing to lose money in the transaction? (of course, that depends on what kind of debt load you carry with a variable interest rate, or what kind of debt you're planning on getting into). Frankly, I'd rather have lower interest rates and reduce the national Debt than get a few measly hundred dollars less taken out of my paychecks in a year or two. I'd also rather reserve some of the surplus for a tax-cut when it's much more needed, i.e. when the economy is slowing down and NEEDS a little stimulus...
But I guess that makes too much logical sense (unfortunately not enough to override the self-interested greed exhibited by so many pro-Bush people)
I shouldn't expect much educated commentary from Anonymous Cowards, but oh well...
Given all the unwanted children that breeders are always producing, I would think ANY loving, caring home would be better than nothing... or better than the abusive homes they're taken from... or better than constantly being shuttled around the foster care system.
And there is ZERO evidence that gay/lesbian parents do any sort of 'corrupting' of the children they raise in the way that you imply. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.
Educate thyself, and maybe lose a bit of the ignorant bigotry you display so willingly.
So you're claiming that the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration, the budgets that Clinton/Gore sent to congress, the lobbying that Clinton/Gore did to members of congress, the legislation that Clinton/Gore proposed and which was passed and signed by Clinton, had NO effect on the balancing of the budget and subsequent surplus?
Excuse me, but equating all homosexuals with 'the nambla.org crowd' exposes you to be not only utterly ignorant, but also utterly bigoted.
A loving heterosexual couple can adopt a child that has no other home. Why not a loving homosexual couple? How is it a 'granted right' in one case, but some sort of 'special right' in the other?
And sodomy includes oral sex in most laws (but not in Texas, where only homosexual sex is singled out... so a gay person is commiting a felony for doing the exact same thing as a straight person, which would seem to violate the equal protection clause of the constitution, and also point to a 'special right' that heterosexuals obviously have). The sodomy law in Georgia (since struck down, thankfully) applied equally to gay and straight people.
And most child molestations (by FAR) are by a family member... generally the heterosexual father onto their own child.
But aside from being totally distracted, the point remains: Bush is for legislating what goes on in your bedrooms, and for legislating who is a 'fit' parent based on sweeping and ignorant generalizations (gay parents have been shown to be every bit as fit as straight parents in many studies).
If you want the government to keep its nose out of your bedroom, vote for Gore. Bush supports the concept and letter of the Texas sodomy law.
If you dont' want the dogma of the Religious Right enshrined into Federal polocy, then vote for Gore. Bush panders to the Religious Right in a way that Gore never would. I do not trust Bush to keep church and state separate.
And further more, I will not sell these freedoms down the river for a few measly hundred dollars a year (which I would see from Bush's tax cut plan). I'll gladly take the paying down of the debt over that pathetic buyoff.
If you want corporations to have free reign to pollute and mistreat consumers and for corporations (and HMOs) to be protected from consumer lawsuits, then vote for Bush. If you think the consumers should be empowered every bit as much as the corporations (a nice balance), then vote for Gore.
Woo! Voo-doo economics rears its ugly and discredited head!
What about the shocking idea of using the surplus to pay down the debt as quickly as possible?
What about the shocking idea of not over-stimulating a robust economy with a HUGE tax cut that will only lead to a raising of interest rates and/or inflation?
What about the radical idea of providing tax relief to specifically those people most IN NEED of it, while we pay down the debt and shore up needed programs elsewhere?
George W Bush represents a direct attack on my freedom.
How come nobody is talking about his ties to the Religious Right? Or his very fervent fighting in his home state to keep Texas's sodomy law (the government regulating what you can do in your own bedroom), and to ban all gay people from adopting or serving as foster parents (upto and including removing all children currently living in such situations).
Bush represents a breech of both my security AND my freedom.
Surplus tax receipts indicate that it's now time to pay down the huge debt accumulated over the previous decades. Period.
One of the largest portions of the budget is the interest paid on the national debt. If we pay down the debt, we free up MORE money. By forgoing a tax cut now (when the economy doesn't need the stimulation anyway) a more meaningful tax cut can be made in the future--AFTER we've paid down our debt obligations!
Proposing a tax cut now is just fiscally irresponsible. Period.
But disasters and illnesses and accidents do strike. It is a civilized government that provides a safety net for it's citizens.
Aparently you've never needed such a net, or known anyone who has. Count yourself lucky. Hope you don't get stricken with mental illness, suddenly unable to work for a living. Oh, you have family and friends to take care of you? Lucky you, not everyone is so lucky.
And I wish our current government DID give equal OPPORTUNITY to everyone, but it doesn't. Nor does it equally protect the rights of its citizens. Whether it be racial profiling, denying gay people rights to petition their goverment (vis the defeated Colorado Amendment II), or share in the civil marriage contract, or be it the illegal search and seisure that is regularly performed in the name of the "War on Drugs".
Trust me, I'd much rather my tax money go for social security and medicare and welfare, to be honest. Think of it this way: At the very least, these programs contribute to social order, opportunity, and safe-guarding property rights by removing the motivation for mass riots of the 'common people' who cannot get enough food to eat, etc. Thus do the rich benefit from programs for the poor...
Slashdot Mirror
Be aware that a lot of Gore's alleged lies are really media misinterpretations and taking things out of context. And once you've acknowledged that, you'll note that Gore and Bush both seem to mis-state facts at about an equal rate (Bush actually just a bit more often). Funny thing is, nobody really falls over themselves trying to report Bush's lies and screwups. Why? Because most people are just so proud that he managed to say a complete sentence. Or at least an intelligable one. Or at least pronounced a few words properly. Or managed not to show up with white powder all over his nose... (never mind his year AWOL from the... oh, forget it. Nobody cares, cause he's just so NICE, right?)
- Spryguy
...not to mention illegal search (which you mentioned) and seisure (which you didn't). If you own a car or a boat, and a single joint is found on it, the government can seize it. Take it from you. Even if the joint is not yours, and you have no idea how it got there. Even if a friend admits he brought it on board without your knowledge. Boom. Vehicle is now government propery, sold at auction.
I won't even begin to discuss random traffic checkpoints, who basically stop everyone under suspicion of guilt, to weed out the guilty from the innocent. This isn't a police state (well, it's not supposed to be).
The war on drugs is not only an utter failure in every respect, but is also shredding our constitutional rights more and more, day by day.
- Spryguy
NO vote is 'throwing your vote away'. In ALL cases, your vote is registered, your opinion noted, your feelings charted.
Voting is not betting on a horse-race. The point is not to vote for 'the winner'. The point is to vote your heart and mind, to vote for the candidate that best represents your viewpoints and ideals. This is what *representative democracy* is all about.
If you don't like the two big guys on the ticket, there are (depending on your state) up to three, four, or even five other guys to vote for. Do a little reasearch, figure out who best represents your positions, and vote for that person.
Personally, I think our voting system stinks. I think we should vote like the Austrailians do (multiple party candidates, not just two, and each person RANKS the candidates, rather than just being forced to pick exactly ONE).
The problem with our voting system is really easy to show. Say there are three candidates: A, B, and C. Now say that 30% of the voting population likes A the best, then B, and considers C to be dead last. Another 30% of the population likes B the best, then A, and considers C to be dead last. The remaining 40% of the people like C first, A next, and B last. Now, a SENSIBLE method of voting would note that the general consensus is that candidate A is the best (30% first place, 70 percent second place), while B is second (30% first place, 30% second place, 40% third), and C is the worst candidate (40% first, 60% last). OUR system of voting elects guy the least people want to see win. How much sense does THAT make?
The Austrailian method of voting gives better results, and works better in multi-party situations. The more parties there are, the better any given candidate will match someone's beliefs, and the better the voter turn-out is.
Our political system sucks. It is becuase of it that we have two duds to choose from (and McCain is nowhere in sight). We need to start reforming it from the ground up, starting with the system of voting, going on through smashing the two party monopoly, and figuring out a real campaign finance reform strategy.
- Spryguy
And please refer to the references I pointed you to in this other message... it will help give you background and understanding that you obviously lack right now, on both sides of the issue.
I fight for this so strongly becuase this affects my LIFE. I KNOW that I didn't 'choose' homosexuality, that no one 'made' me gay (other than God), and that my feelings, loves, and relationships are every bit as meaningful and valid as anyone else's. I pay taxes and I vote. I am a law-abiding citizen, and a helpful and productive one. Expecting equal treatment under the law is not too much to ask for or expect, and does not infringe on your religious beliefs in any way.
- Spryguy
This is really twisted thinking. The earth being flat and two plus two equaling five can be conclusively proven to be false, and have been. The existence of God cannot be proven by mortals, and therefore it is a belief which is totally subjective. Science will never tell us the answer.
... obviously it's unnatural for heterosexuals) and is a sin worth singling out moreso than any sin you're guilty of. I was not attacking your religion or belief in God in any way. Just your thinking of homosexuality as a disorder and as unnatural ... which are both provably false.
.... No dogma here!
Sorry you misinterpreted this. I was refering to your belief that homosexuality is unnatural (for homosexuals
Sexual behavior does not take place in your pants, it takes place in your mind.
EXACTLY. Therefore, homosexuality is obviously not 'just behavior', right? This just proves my point. It's not just about what you do with your genitals, it's about love, passion, romance, attraction, desire, and so much more.
Gay animals? Are you kidding me? No, I'm not gonna take your word for it on this one.
No, I'm not kidding you, and you don't have to take my word for it. There is plenty of evidence, and I even cited (and provided an URL) for you to read up on it. I had a friend with a gay dog in High School. Most people involved with animals are well aware of some animals that show no signs of interest in mating with animals of the opposite sex, but that do attempt to mount same-sex animals. It's natural. If you are ignorant of this simple fact, all you have to do is check out the resources I've already provided.
You're saying homosexuality is nature's way of killing off or decreasing population? That must make you feel proud of yourself.
Talk about twisting words. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying nobody knows why or how, and that there are any NUMBER of good explainations. For example, freeing up a small percentage of the population from putting so much energy into child production allows much of that energy to go into other areas, whether it's helping to raise children (gay uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, providing extra childcare for families), or for directing towards arts, philosophy, etc. And if part of the reason is population control, of course I'd 'do my part' with pride -- helping to propagate and ensure the health and survival of the greater species... what's not to be proud of? No 'killing' involved, just not excessive reproduction like so many heterosexuals do...
This is perhaps the only statement you make here that doesn't boggle my mind. And according to God, it is intended to be shared between a man and a women who are married. Again, simply a matter of belief so there's no use in arguing this.
Your mind is aparently easily boggled by simple facts. But be that as it may, of course there's no use arguing simple matters of belief. My whole point in this discussion is that YOUR beliefs should not trump MY rights, any more than MY beliefs should trump YOURS. Yet you somehow feel that your rights should be enshrined into civil law. What you and your church members choose to believe and how you choose to act is all well and good, and I support you in following your faith. But please, let me follow mine, and the truth as I have come to know it. God works in mysterious ways, so do not assume you have ALL the answers, and that you are absolutely, infallably right, and that for that reason, your beliefs and actions should be forced onto me.
Look in the book of Genesis. Doesn't it mention that Adam and Eve were naked? When they ate the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they became aware of sin and that's when Man started clothing themselves.
According your your particular version of your particular mythology, you accept this as fact. Most Christians I know actually accept this as fable/allagory. And you seem to refuse to acknowlege that there are as many creation myths as there are religions. I'm sure my Hindu and Budahist friends would differ with you on this point.
Lot, the only righteous man left, was told to get the hell out and take his family away before it was destroyed.
Wait... this Lot guy was the same one that offered up his daughters right? How noble and without sin that is. Interesting some of the things the Bible approves of...
Unclean animals and such do not apply anymore.
And maybe lots of the other condemnations don't apply any more either. Like working on the sabbath, wearing clothes of two fibres, or homosexuals being able to be true to themselves and live happy lives without persecution or being murdered.
I don't think divorces are good. They're horrible.
You missed my point... that being that if you read the bible as a whole, it seems that God hates divorces a whole lot more than homosexuals. It's talked about over and over, while homosexual references are very few and far between. Divorce (in the form of adultery and coveting) are mentioned in the ten commandments. Narry a word about homosexuality there, or even from Jesus's own lips. Aparently not a huge problem or priority. So why the disparate emphasis on the sin of homosexuality v.s. the sin of divorce or any of the numerous other sins?
No, the United States is a representative Republic. I'm amazed at how many people do not know the government system of the country they live in.
I'm fully aware that we're a 'representative democracy', but that doesn't nullify the statement I made or the point I was making. The constitution was designed to help prevent the opression of the minority by the tyranny of the majority. The constitution was designed to prevent religious persecution. Civil law should not persecute me as a person because my religion recognizes homosexual relationships, and doesn't single homosexuals out as any type of sinner above and beyond any other human being.
There's such a thing as a gay religion? Whatever. Anyway, I am a Christian. I do not have a religion.
I'm suprised you continually flaunt your ignorance at me like that. If you've done any reading or ANY research or even paid any attention to the news or the topic of homosexuality at all, you'd know about religions like Unitarianism (which have supported and performed same-sex unions since the 70's), and churches like Dignity and Metropolitan Community Church, as well as the Reform Jewish faith which embraces gay people as human beings, and recognizes same-sex relationships without condemnation. Not to mention pagan and wiccan religions (which have NOTHING to do with Satan worship, given that they are non-Christian and do not have a concept of 'satan' in them).
I've got news for you; this is a Christian country. It doesn't matter that a lot of people living here aren't, it was founded under the principals of Christianity by devout Christians.
Again, more ignorance. The 'Founding Fathers' were primarily Diests and Humanists, as well as Christians. Many were agnostic. This nation was founded on the belief of many things, including religious tollerance and the "right to persue happiness". Well, living a heterosexual lifestyle makes homosexuals deeply unhappy, while living a homosexual life makes them happy. Do not abridge their constitutional right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, please.
Homosexuiality does affect me. It affects everyone. The more we approve of it, the more prevalent it becomes. Homosexuality is antithetical to my beliefs, and the beliefs of every other Christian in this country. Approving of it would be denying my beliefs.
Name ONE way it directly affects you in any negative way. The government is not in the business of affirming your beliefs (it already doesn't with respect to creationism, for example). And your 'the more we approve of it the more prevalent it becomes' is totally bogus also. It's always been around (approved of or not) in about the same percentage. It just may be more or less 'visible' to you, that is all. Straight kids to NOT 'become gay' just becuase they see, hear, or respect gay people. This is just paranoia, not based on any fact. And keep in mind, YOU don't have to approve of it, but the government has no right to weigh in either way, and its laws should be based on secular fact, not religious dogma. No one is forcing YOU to approve of it. But if you're a manager, you should have no more right to fire someone for being gay, than YOUR boss should ahve the right to fire you for being christian (or straight, for that matter). A gay person should have the right not to be beat up JUST because someone doesn't approve of their partner. A stable, loving, gay couple should NOT be denied adoption rights for kids that desperately need homes, JUST because they're gay (nor should they be granted those rights JUST because they're gay). One's sexual orientation should be irrelavent. One should be judged only on one's character and ability.
It is a direct threat to Christianity.
No, it's not. Really. There's no threat what-so-ever. I cannot IMAGINE what threat you could possibely perceive by simply treating me as an equal human being, with equal civil rights. You aren't directly affected in any way other than you simply should acknolwedge that gays do exist (which they do, and no amount of religion will ever change that simple fact). Just like athiests exist, jews exist, muslims exist, transexuals exist, hermaphrodites exist, hindus exist, blacks exist, whites exist, latinos exist, tall people exist, short people exist... we're all just human beings.
Be being treated equally to you in the eyes of civil local, state, and federal law does not tear you down or hurt you. It strengthens us as a nation, and puts actions behind the words of our constitution. It is the right and just thing to do.
- Spryguy
....funny?
- Spryguy
Try looking at ACE.
The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE(TM))
It provides abstractions for mutexes, threading models, standard libraries, etc. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well. And it's free, open source, and cross-platform. Does this fit your bill?
- Spryguy
I love C++. Well, call it a love/hate relationship, but it's more love than hate (at least when I'm not maintaining someone else's brain-dead code...)
;-)
;-)
I really hated C though. Annoyed the crap out of me for the longest time. It wasn't until I 'found' C++ that I understood why... C++ just seemed like a natural fit to my brain. Go figure.
But what syntax would you approve of? Frankly, the only other syntax I know of that has anywhere near as wide-spread a knowledge base is COBOL, and that knowledgebase is growing older and beginning to fade. The main reason for all these C/C++ variant syntaxes is that so many people already are familiar and comfortable with them (even if everyone still argues about bracing and indenting styles
I sure as hell don't want a BASIC-like syntax to take over. UGH. And (Object) PASCAL? Not really into that either, though it's an improvement over VB, that's for sure. Maybe you mean something more Objective-C-like? I hope not LISP-like... gads, I get lost in parenthesis
- Spryguy
Strictly speaking, 'subset' is the wrong term. Managed C++ extends C++ in several ways (such as adding garbage collection), and has the ability to declare 'unsafe' blocks of code so you can do your own memory allocation or whatever if you want.
- Spryguy
Some additional Sources for you to consider:
The Church and the Homosexual
New Testament and Homosexuality
Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality : Listening to Scripture
Homosexuality in the Church : Both Sides of the Debate
Homosexuality, Science, and the 'Plain Sense' of Scripture
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality
All of the above are links to amazon.com books, so feel free to safely click them, and peruse the reviews and summaries. Note that I did not just provide solely 'gay propaganda' by any means... I chose serious books, many of which contain balanced view-points (i.e. not just my own). I think that before you make you next appearance in a debate regarding homosexuality, it would behoove you to check out a few of the above sources.
And finally, regarding homosexuality in nature, I offer up the following (which I mentioned in a previous message, but erred remembering the exact title):
Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
- Spryguy
Heh. I meant left-handed desk. Like in high school and collage, where the desks and chairs are one unit, with the 'desk' part on the right hand side, and you slide in on the left? A left-handed person needs a mirror image of one of those things...
Other examples are left-handed scissors, left-handed can-openers, left-handed mice (with the buttons reversed), etc.
- Spryguy
The assumtion here is that hetero and homosexual relationships are the same. That is the point of debate, I think. The difference, I would say, is that homosexuality is unnatural. You know what? Do whatever you damn well please in the privacy of your own home or wherever, but leave the children out of it. Personally, I would not want to be the test case of what being raised by two men or two women would do to me mentally, and I pity any child that has to go through that.
... if it wasn't for this reason, ti would have been for another), and difficulties the parents had with people like yourself, who didn't understand and weren't willing to learn.
This smacks of 'chicken little syndrome'. But mostly of ignorance. Lots of kids are growing up and have already grown up in same-sex households. There have been numerous studies on the effects of such a household on the kids. And you know what? Gay parents actually turned out to be BETTER parents on average than their straight counter-parts! Why? Because with a gay couple, there's no such thing as an unwanted child. Lesbian couples need to jump through a lot of hoops to conceive a child naturally. For gay male couples, the bar is even higher (surogacy and/or infant adoption) with a HUGE cost. These couples love children as much as you, and provide very good homes, and sacrifice a lot for the welfare and well-being of their kids. I feel that if it becomes more commonplace, that any differences woudl simply go away. The only issue that ever came up was 'teasing' by classmates (and what kid DOESN'T get teased
The kids were no more likely to grow up gay than the parents of straight couples. The kids turn out just fine.
But try to see it from my perspective: homosexuality is a sin. Putting a child in the middle of that would not be cool.
Okay, but at least be consistent -- athiest couples and mix-marriage couples shouldn't be allowed to have kids either then... after all, being an athiest is 'sinful', no? You wouldn't want a child to be raised non-Christian, would you? (keep in mind most of the gay couples I know ARE Christian). I'm thinking of all the straight couples I know of, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is guilty of sin. Including the sin of sodomy (since 'sodomy' includes oral sex, as some heterosexual couples DO practice anal sex). So what, you want the government to take away all the kids? Where are you gonna put them?
The universe was created aproximately six thousand or so years ago by God.
And you believe this in spite of all the huge amount of evidence to the contrary. That's okay. A few hundred years ago you would have believed that the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun traveled around it. It only took the church a few hundred years to asknowledge it was wrong in that case.
Oh, and I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong. But for there to be 'wrong', I believe that someone must be hurt. If nobody is hurt in any way, no wrong was comitted. My adopting an unwanted child would not hurt you, the government, or the child. You can argue some metaphisical harm based on your religious beliefs, but you cannot prove such harm, and you cannot and should not legislate your religious beliefs, since this is a free country with freedom of religion.
And for the record, I do not believe I'm just an insignificant boil on the face of an insignificant planet somewhere in the universe. I marvel at the wonder of life and the miracle of our existance. I don't have to believe in your particular homophobic dogma to have a sense of wonder and amazement at the miracle of life and the beauty of the world around me.
And I'm not asking you to change your mind (though I do wish you'd read up on things, learn a few more facts on the topic, and acknowedge that the church IS flawed and HAS changed its dogma in the past, and probably will again in the future). What I would like is for your particular beliefs that are not based on any secular facts to NOT be legislated against me. And likewise, I will not support any legislation of MY beliefs onto YOU. I do NOT believe that any church should be *forced* to support same-sex unions or adoptions or whatever. Absolutely not. But I do think that I should have the right to have a civil union contract drawn up between my partner and myself, to cover health and insurance issues, and all the other 'little things' (durable powers of attourny, hospital visitation, property ownership/inheretance) that you and your partner take for granted. And the fact is, gay couples over most of the nation can already adopt, and I'd prefer that right/responsibility not be taken away just because of your religious beliefs. I'm tired of being *singled out* like that. If you are going to argue for something based on your religious beliefs, at least BE CONSISTANT.
- Spryguy
I know more than you think. I simply have completely different beliefs than you, that is certainly not the same as ignorance.
...and yet the defining characteristic of all of these things is influenced by your sexual behavior. You can have a relationship with another guy without it being sexual--I have several close friends.
:-) The story of Soddom was more about inhospitality than homosexulaity. Lots of the association with homosexuality actually derives from mistranslations from the original texts into English. And in those same places where homosexuality is called an abomination, so too does it call the eating of shell-fish. Ever eat any crab or shrimp dude? Ever work on the sabbath? Frankly, the bible doesn't have a lot to say on the subject, especially not when compared with divorce. The bible condemns divorce a lot more than it does homosexuality, yet I don't see you advocating laws against divorcees...
Believing that the earth is flat, or that two plus two equals five, are both just different beliefs than me. They are also IGNORANT beliefs.
Um...no. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. By your definitiong, there could be no homosexual virgins. Yet there are. I realized I was gay around the age of eleven. I didn't have sex until the age of twenty-two. For eleven years, I was a homosexual virgin. I was not a confused straight boy, I was not a straight boy at all. I was gay. Homosexual. And it had NOTHING to do with 'just sexual behavoir'. And I had many friends of both sexes during that time. Friendship, and romantic love relationships are very different.
Gays shouldn't be treated as diseased or evil, just as humans with a problem--just like every other human being on this planet. I have problems. Everyone does. That does not mean we should all think it's okay to have a problem.
The only problem I have is with other's people's unwillingness or inability to simply accept me as I am, without wanting to fire me, beat me up, vandalize my things, call names, pass laws outlawing my relationships, etc. I'm not the one with a 'problem' here, any more than a left-handed person's 'problem' is their left-handedness. The 'problem' in their case is a simple lack of easy, common-sense accomodation by society.
Oh wow, I can't believe you said that! Sorry, but that's just plain dumb and here's why:
Um, in case you didn't get it the first time, let me try again: Homosexuality is a natural phenominon. This is a statement of fact. It exists in nature. Homosexuality is found not just in humans, but anywhere you care to look in the animal kingdom (yes, from lower life forms up to dolphins, and obviously humans). There are references I can direct you to (try "Natural Exuberence", search for it on Amazon). And as I've already explained, and which you can't seem to grasp, it's NOT 'just sexual behavoir'. There is a hell of a lot more to it than that. There are whole issues of gender identity involved too (with transgendered people, who face many of the same issues). Human sexuality isn't a simple black and white thing here, dude. Gender can be very fluid (effiminate males, butch females, irrespective of thier gender attractions).
Since it is biologically impossible to conceive a child with another member of the same gender, homosexuality is antithetical to the natural order of reproduction.
Yes, it doesn't lead to reproduction. But that doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature, and naturally. Maybe it's a population's response to over-crowding? Who knows? Who cares? The fact is, the number one reason people have sex is becuase they have a sex drive, and a desire ro feel pleasure. Gawd knows, if people ONLY had sex for procreation there'd be a hell of a lot less sex going on, and if all sex lead to reproduction, we'd be up to our armpits in babies. The fact is, sex serves another function that you ignore -- pair-bonding. It's an expression of deep love and comittment with a life partner. A sign of caring and affection that goes far beyond 'friendship'.
Call homosexuality what you will, but the natural argument does not hold water.
Oh, but it does. You dismiss it far to quickly on far to flimsy evidence. Not to mention that things like wearing clothes is definitely UNNATURAL from a secular/biological standpoint, yet no one has a problem with that, so why have a problem with homosexuality? Anyway, most studies, most scientists, and most psychologists/psychiatrists believe that homosexuality, whatever the root cause, is inherent within a small percentage of any given population, has always been so, and always will be so. It is a NATURAL occurance. Most of these same people believe it is either inborn, or in some way 'fixed' by a very young age (most cite 2 years of age).
the book of Genesis has a story of a city named Soddom with a lot of homosexuals.
Well, thanks for showing your ignorance here
Which brings me to the fundamental point. You believe a particular mythology is true (much as teh Greeks believed just as fervently in THEIR mythology, the vikings had their Norse mythology, and even todays Jews and Muslims and all have their current mythologies). The United States is not a theocracy, but is a pluralistic DEMOCRACY, with a constituional right to freedom of religious expression. My religon recognizes and celebrates same-sex unions just as it does opposite-sex unions. So why should YOUR peculiar religion's dogma be enshrined into secular law where it can forbid me and my partner form enjoying the same rights as you and YOUR partner?
Some good sources for you to check things out: "What the bible really says about homosexuality", and "Homophobia: A History". You'll find not only that not all Christians believe the same things you do regarding homosexuality, you'll find some of the roots of current Christian beliefs in this area.
But the thing that always annoys me is that you think your particular chosen beliefs should affect me, someone not of your religion (though frankly, most of the gay couples I know of ARE Christian, and were actually married in churches). The fact of the matter is, if I am allowed civil marriage (just like athiests are, muslims are, and OTHERS that you think are 'going to hell' because they don't believe the same things you do), it doesn't affect you in the least. Homosexuality is not 'catching', isn't 'chosen', and does not pose any sort of 'threat' to you in any way. So how can granting me equal *EQUIVALENT* rights and responsibilties harm you? Why does it scare you? People all over the world do things that your Bible condemns, so why single me out for persecution?
- Spryguy
You obviously know absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
Is your heterosexuality nothing but a 'behavoir'? Hardly. It colors everything you do... what you find sexy, who you fall in love with, what advertisements attract your attention, what you wear, etc.
You're absolutely right, nobody deserves special rights or privelages simply because they behave differently. So why do heterosexuals have all these special rights simply because they behave differently than homosexuals? See how circular and clueless your 'reasoning' is?
Because someone behaves differently is not sufficient reason to strip people of their rights and privileges either. Even if sexual orientation WERE a 'choice' (which 'just a behavoir' implies), that doesn't justify opression or assigning second-class citizenshipo. If someone likes country and western, should they have fewer rights than someone who likes rock? If someone is a muslim, should they have fewer rights than someone who is Christian? If someone is left-handed, should they have fewer rights than a right-handed person?
Homosexuality is a natural phenominon... some small percentage of the human population (regardless of race, nationality, class, sex, religion, etc) is and has always been homosexual. And bisexual. And transgendered. And even hermaphrodite. So it has always been, so it will always be. These are people with human feelings, cares, and loves. Just like you. They are not second-class citizens who 'deserve' fewer rights and less respect than the average citizen.
Al Gore understands this. George Bush does not.
- Spryguy
Also, it's wishful thinking to assume that our "robust economy" won't be in need of a stimulus next year after the Fed's increased interest rates collide with an unanticipated oil shock/war in the Middle East. Whether it's Dubya or Algore that gets the job, the President might well have to deal with an impending recession.
This is exactly why I favor Gore's approach... reserve some of the surplus (that no one is even sure will materialize anyway) rather than give it all away up front, and pay down debt asap to help releive some of the interest burden. Eventhough I'm not into all of Gore's spending plans, having looked at both, I feel that Gore's approach is more fiscally conservative, more fiscally sound, and addresses current needs more directly while leaving 'slack' to help buffer any unexpected shocks to the economy.
That's just my take on it, though.
- Spryguy
Excuse me but YOU are the one missing the point.
Heterosexual couples who build a loving home together aparently have a 'special right' to adopt children. Homosexual couples who build a loving home together aparently cannot. How is parity with heterosexual couples a 'special right'? What sort of twisted logic is this?
Maybe it might be more clear to you if you got rid of the stupid notion that homosexuals are just heterosexuals 'gone wrong'. That's no more true than left-handed people being right-handed people 'gone wrong'. But then I suppose you think it's a 'special right' for lefties to want left-handed desks in school, because they COULD just use right handed desks like right-handed people, right?
No gay person is asking for or wants any 'special rights'... they just want the same exact things everyone else does.
And if heterosexuals didn't produce so many unwanted, abused, and abandoned children, the issue of gay adoption wouldn't be much of an issue. But since there are more children out there than heterosexuals want, why not let loving gay couple adopt them and give them a good home?
Two heterosexual guys are not in a loving, mutually constructive, monogamous relationship. You're comparing apples and oranges, and somehow coming up with 'special rights' out of the deal. Your logic is totally and utterly flawed, yielding 'garbage in, garbage out'. Start with bogus assumptions, end with ridiculous and ignorant conclusions.
Homosexuality isn't "just behavoir". Sexual orientation is a fundamental part of who a person is, and it's not just about specific sex acts, but love, passion, romance, pair-bonding, and building a life together just like anyone else.
If a heterosexual's spouse is killed, propery and custody automatically reverts to the surviving partner without any special requirements. If a homosexual's 'spouse' is killed, property and custody revert to 'next of kin' and not the surviving partner unless careful legal work (wills, contracts, etc) are done up front, generally at great expense. The long-time spouse of a homosexual person isn't considered 'family'. This is an inequity. The 30 year relationship between two women I know is every bit as valid and meaningful as any heterosexual husband/wife pairing, yet it holds no legal standing at all. Civil (not religious) marriage grants over 1047 specific rights and responsibilities on the participants... "special rights" at only heterosexual people have the option to partake of. Extending these rights to gay couples is not granting 'special rights', but is granting EQUAL rights.
- Spryguy
So basically you're willing to lose money in the transaction? (of course, that depends on what kind of debt load you carry with a variable interest rate, or what kind of debt you're planning on getting into). Frankly, I'd rather have lower interest rates and reduce the national Debt than get a few measly hundred dollars less taken out of my paychecks in a year or two. I'd also rather reserve some of the surplus for a tax-cut when it's much more needed, i.e. when the economy is slowing down and NEEDS a little stimulus...
But I guess that makes too much logical sense (unfortunately not enough to override the self-interested greed exhibited by so many pro-Bush people)
- Spryguy
I shouldn't expect much educated commentary from Anonymous Cowards, but oh well...
Given all the unwanted children that breeders are always producing, I would think ANY loving, caring home would be better than nothing... or better than the abusive homes they're taken from... or better than constantly being shuttled around the foster care system.
And there is ZERO evidence that gay/lesbian parents do any sort of 'corrupting' of the children they raise in the way that you imply. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.
Educate thyself, and maybe lose a bit of the ignorant bigotry you display so willingly.
- Spryguy
So you're claiming that the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration, the budgets that Clinton/Gore sent to congress, the lobbying that Clinton/Gore did to members of congress, the legislation that Clinton/Gore proposed and which was passed and signed by Clinton, had NO effect on the balancing of the budget and subsequent surplus?
- Spryguy
Excuse me, but equating all homosexuals with 'the nambla.org crowd' exposes you to be not only utterly ignorant, but also utterly bigoted.
A loving heterosexual couple can adopt a child that has no other home. Why not a loving homosexual couple? How is it a 'granted right' in one case, but some sort of 'special right' in the other?
And sodomy includes oral sex in most laws (but not in Texas, where only homosexual sex is singled out... so a gay person is commiting a felony for doing the exact same thing as a straight person, which would seem to violate the equal protection clause of the constitution, and also point to a 'special right' that heterosexuals obviously have). The sodomy law in Georgia (since struck down, thankfully) applied equally to gay and straight people.
And most child molestations (by FAR) are by a family member... generally the heterosexual father onto their own child.
But aside from being totally distracted, the point remains: Bush is for legislating what goes on in your bedrooms, and for legislating who is a 'fit' parent based on sweeping and ignorant generalizations (gay parents have been shown to be every bit as fit as straight parents in many studies).
- Spryguy
If you want the government to keep its nose out of your bedroom, vote for Gore. Bush supports the concept and letter of the Texas sodomy law.
If you dont' want the dogma of the Religious Right enshrined into Federal polocy, then vote for Gore. Bush panders to the Religious Right in a way that Gore never would. I do not trust Bush to keep church and state separate.
And further more, I will not sell these freedoms down the river for a few measly hundred dollars a year (which I would see from Bush's tax cut plan). I'll gladly take the paying down of the debt over that pathetic buyoff.
If you want corporations to have free reign to pollute and mistreat consumers and for corporations (and HMOs) to be protected from consumer lawsuits, then vote for Bush. If you think the consumers should be empowered every bit as much as the corporations (a nice balance), then vote for Gore.
- Spryguy
Woo! Voo-doo economics rears its ugly and discredited head!
What about the shocking idea of using the surplus to pay down the debt as quickly as possible?
What about the shocking idea of not over-stimulating a robust economy with a HUGE tax cut that will only lead to a raising of interest rates and/or inflation?
What about the radical idea of providing tax relief to specifically those people most IN NEED of it, while we pay down the debt and shore up needed programs elsewhere?
- Spryguy
George W Bush represents a direct attack on my freedom.
How come nobody is talking about his ties to the Religious Right? Or his very fervent fighting in his home state to keep Texas's sodomy law (the government regulating what you can do in your own bedroom), and to ban all gay people from adopting or serving as foster parents (upto and including removing all children currently living in such situations).
Bush represents a breech of both my security AND my freedom.
- Spryguy
Surplus tax receipts indicate that it's now time to pay down the huge debt accumulated over the previous decades. Period.
One of the largest portions of the budget is the interest paid on the national debt. If we pay down the debt, we free up MORE money. By forgoing a tax cut now (when the economy doesn't need the stimulation anyway) a more meaningful tax cut can be made in the future--AFTER we've paid down our debt obligations!
Proposing a tax cut now is just fiscally irresponsible. Period.
- Spryguy
But disasters and illnesses and accidents do strike. It is a civilized government that provides a safety net for it's citizens.
Aparently you've never needed such a net, or known anyone who has. Count yourself lucky. Hope you don't get stricken with mental illness, suddenly unable to work for a living. Oh, you have family and friends to take care of you? Lucky you, not everyone is so lucky.
And I wish our current government DID give equal OPPORTUNITY to everyone, but it doesn't. Nor does it equally protect the rights of its citizens. Whether it be racial profiling, denying gay people rights to petition their goverment (vis the defeated Colorado Amendment II), or share in the civil marriage contract, or be it the illegal search and seisure that is regularly performed in the name of the "War on Drugs".
Trust me, I'd much rather my tax money go for social security and medicare and welfare, to be honest. Think of it this way: At the very least, these programs contribute to social order, opportunity, and safe-guarding property rights by removing the motivation for mass riots of the 'common people' who cannot get enough food to eat, etc. Thus do the rich benefit from programs for the poor...
- Spryguy