The point is you dismiss it because its liberal.
No, I've listened to the Liberal arguments many times, and they haven't held water.
The Nader supporters, the LaRouche supporters, even socialists and communists have tried to explain to me how right they are.
Unfortunately history doesn't support their claims.
Jimro
If everyone submits to that kind of attitude, they'll never prove history wrong.
As long as people stick to the idea that they can't change the way things are (ah, conservatism at its finest, if that's the right word), so there's no point trying, then they'll prove themselves right every time.
Anyway, what liberal arguments exactly do you have a problem with?
Advocation of peace and diplomacy?
War only ever as a last resort?
Good international relations?
Gay rights?
Freedom of speech?
All of the above?
I'd have called them pretty liberal concepts myself. Is it they that draw your disdain? If not, would you care to be a little less vague?
Advocation of peace and diplomacy? Worked really good for France twice in the last century.
War only ever as a last resort? Quoting Woodrow Wilson here? There is a time to talk, and a time to act. The key is knowing which time is which.
Good international relations? Trade is going fine, the rhetoric is pretty nasty tho. International relations are best gauged economically, so far none of our "neighbors" have cut off trade.
Gay rights? Don't confuse rights and privelidges. Gay's aren't denied any rights. Rights are intrinsic, inalienable, privelidges are not.
Freedom of speech? Yup, that's a conservative ideal. Right there in the 1st Ammendment.
All of the above? Just explained myself.
Jimro
Advocation of peace and diplomacy? Worked really good for France twice in the last century.
Yeah, that was back when the enemy actually had the intention to attack them. Last time I checked, Iraq was never poised to attack anyone, let alone the United States.
Saddam had a history of attacking.
Iran and Kuwait ring a bell? How about SCUD attacks on Israel?
And if Iraq had no WMD's how come the inspectors had such difficult time?
Jimro
Iran? That was the 1980's.
Kuwait? That was 1990.
If Iraq had done anything in recent years, I'm sure we'd know about it.
Saddam Hussein wasn't a nice man, part of me is glad he's been removed from power. But I do not think that he was ever fool enough to attack the USA, let alone with weapons of mass destruction.
I don't think anyone stupid enough to start a nuclear war yet has possession of nuclear weapons, thank goodness.
Quote:
There is a time to talk, and a time to act. The key is knowing which time is which.
Which Bush proved himself a complete novice over, considering no evidence of these weapons have been found since the invasion of Iraq. He should've left the inspections to continue until some hard evidence was found... but then he wouldn't have got the war he wanted so badly, would he?
Quote:
Gay rights? Don't confuse rights and privelidges. Gay's aren't denied any rights. Rights are intrinsic, inalienable, privelidges are not.
Oh, I've heard that conservative nonsense before. Do gay couples have the same rights as straight ones for co-habitation in every state? No. Are they allowed a legal union with the same benefits as marriage in straight couples in every state? No. Is Bush trying to prevent them from ever getting the latter by writing a ban against gay marriage into the constitution? Yes.
Quote:
Freedom of speech? Yup, that's a conservative ideal. Right there in the 1st Ammendment.
Depends on how you look at it. To contemporary critics, freedom of speech would've been a new, radical idea. Even in 19th century Britain, books written by radical authors (like Oscar Wilde) were often banned for questioning or criticising society. I see freedom of speech as more liberal than conservative, though truly it ought to be neutral. But don't forget that your favourite president once said that "freedom should have limits" after visiting a website that criticised him. And then there's those hatriots who reckon anyone who questions Bush should be viewed as traitors...
Conservative nonsense? There is no way for a man to be a wife. There is no way for a woman to be a husband. How the heck can that be a marriage?
Sooner or later gays will get "civil unions" where they are allowed all the PRIVELEGES of marriage, but hopefully it won't be "marriage".
If you didn't notice, political correctness is not one of my finer points.
I've already discussed slander and libel, as well as using the old crowded theater yelling "fire" analogy.
Jimro
So we're arguing over a word? Why do the conservatives even care if homosexuals get married? It's not like they're ruining the 'scared act of family'. No, that's the job of the gold diggers, the cheaters, the bigomists and the druggies. Homosexuals are doing nothing to marriage compared to those odious groups.
Saddam had a history of attacking. Iran and Kuwait ring a bell? How about SCUD attacks on Israel?
Yeah, see, the thing is, Bush and Blair implied and even flat-out claimed that Saddam was planning to attack the United States and Britain. He wasn't. Nor did he have the means to do so. Comparing that situation to the years leading up to the Second World War is nothing but self-flattery.
Quote:
So we're arguing over a word?
Yes, for SOME people. There are some who wouldn't stand for "civil unions" either. But I'd wager for the majority, that yes it's just calling it "marriage" that bothers them.
You'd think that Arnold Schwarzenegger would cool it with the dubious homophobic imagery after he was criticized for calling California's Democratic lawmakers "girlie men" back in July. But no, when the Groping Austrian Beefcake took to the Convention stage on Tuesday night - purportedly to distract the public with his allegedly moderate leanings - Arnold busted out his new favorite cliche once more. This time the remark was reserved for critics of Bush's fiscal policies; Schwarzenegger referred to them as "economic girlie-men." Got that, naysayers? If you think it's bad that we've lost a million net jobs since Bush came to power, if you think that a record high budget deficit and a record national debt are not a good thing, if you think it sucks that 1.3 million more people have descended into poverty in the last year alone - well hell, you must be GAY! That wasn't the only dumb thing Arnie came up with on Tuesday though - his recollection that while growing up in Austria, "I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes," didn't go down too well with historians. According to CNN, "The Soviets already had left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war..." Meanwhile retiree Franz Nitsch said "Let me tell you this: As a boy, I lived for many years across the street from where the Russians were based in Vienna - and honestly, I never saw a Russian tank there. He said it all on purpose - and that's bad." And as usual, the muscle-bound man-mountain's speech was liberally peppered with references to his movie career, which, to be honest, is getting so incredibly lame. I mean, it was bad enough when we had to suffer through all those groan-inducing "Running Man" and "Total Recall" puns, but on Tuesday night Convention viewers were treated to the Democrats' "True Lies" (whatever that means), and let's not forget the weakest pun on a Schwarzenegger movie quote in recorded history, "America is Back." Aaaaargh, my brain.
Here's my one beef with homosexuals that isn't coming from scripture (I have a lot) but is homosexuality natural? Think about all of life and what makes up a pair...not a man and a man or a woman and a woman but a male and a female.
Besides if you let gay marriage happen (civil unions my foot), you could open the doors for a lot of other things to be allowed. These same critics who argue for gay marriage might turn around and approve of incestous marriage...or a host of other ones I'm too tired to list. Maybe tomorrow morning...
Here's my one beef with homosexuals that isn't coming from scripture (I have a lot) but is homosexuality natural?
Does it have to be? American law makes a lot of "unnatural" things legal. You know, things like cooping pigs up in sties smaller than my bedroom closet and farming them assembly-line fashion, at a tremendous cost to the environment and to the quality of the end product. Things like damming up the "Mighty" Columbia River so much that less than a thousandth of a percent of its water ever actually makes it to the ocean. Things like fishing for tuna with massive nets and dredges that destroy sea-floor growth and kill dolphins. Things like large corporations altering the genetic code of an organism and then patenting the end result.
Besides if you let gay marriage happen (civil unions my foot), you could open the doors for a lot of other things to be allowed. These same critics who argue for gay marriage might turn around and approve of incestous marriage...or a host of other ones I'm too tired to list.
Uh, no. You can take it from me, a certified critic who argues for gay marriage, that we won't do that.
Now, if some cockmongers hadn't backed their stolen pickup truck into the front window of my store and stolen ten thousand dollars worth of equipment last night, I would probably write a Goddam dissertation on this, but they did so I'll just give you the jist of it.
You have no right to say that two men or two women are not allowed to get married just because it doesn't fit your definition of "natural". First of all, it's none of your business whatsoever. And second of all, dismissing someone's love for someone else as unnatural and sinful is not only inconsiderate, but it is also unbecoming of a Christian and goes against everything the religion stands for. Christianity is supposed to be about love. How about making a good impression on us non-Christians and do everything you can to maintain that image?
Quote:
Here's my one beef with homosexuals that isn't coming from scripture (I have a lot) but is homosexuality natural?
Yes it is. Unnatural implies choice. One's sexuality is not a conscious choice. It develops as part of one's subconscious. You cannot willingly change it whenever you like; it's the way you are. Ergo, it must be natural.
And exactly what Cycle said.
Is television natural? No.
Is industry natural? No.
Is walking on the Moon natural? No.
Is sending a mission to Mars natural? Hell no.
Doesn't mean the government will ban it. Hell, Bush (and his dad, strangely enough) have both shown interest in making the latter happen. To claim to want to ban gay marriage as it advocates something 'unnatural' would be complete hypocrisy.
And believe me, with the sister I've got, I'm the last person who'll be campaigning for incestuous marriage to be legalised. The suggestion that gay-marriage supporters will also advocate incest is ridiculous.
Yes you can change if you are homosexual because I know examples of them. Homosexuality isn't something you're born with (Despite what some of the experts argue for) but a lifestyle. There is no...er gay gene (for lack of a better word). Homosexuality is a lifestyle...one that most people consider morally corrupt but a lifestyle nonetheless...you want examples? I can give one that is very personal to me...but I choose not to, for her sake.
But a lifestyle also isn't really a choice, it's the way you live based on your likes and dislikes, I could just as easily say that being heterosexual is just a lifestyle; what's more you don't choose who you fall in love with or who your attracted to, it's just how you feel.
Edit: I'd just like to add this thought, if people are against gay marriage because they consider it unnatural then it brings up the fact that marriage on a whole is unnatural, it is man-made, no other creature gets married, they my stay with there mate but it isn't same thing. Sex is natural, marriage is just traditional, a way of saying/proving that two people ARE together. Love is also natural, and neither sex or love require marriage to happen, essentially, all those against homosexuality just want to keep two people apart, which is completely unfair.
Also, recent scientific study has shown that homosexuality exists among animals, creatures included are chimpanzees and, funnily enough, hedgehogs (maybe that's why Sonic doesn't want a girlfriend), so if anyone says "animals don't do it..." are wrong.
I think my cousin, Damien, wouldn't take too kindly to being told he can decide to be straight whenever he likes.
Unless you actually are gay, like Damien, you cannot possibly understand just how impossible it is to change your sexuality.
Your conscious mind is something you can change at will. Your subconscious mind is not. Sexuality is in the subconscious.
I didn't even mention genetics.
The only people who actually do have any kind of 'choice' are those who are bisexual. But that choice is only the direction they'd prefer to go in (and even then, they can't really choose who they're attracted to or fall in love with, as Robobotnik says). No one can choose to be heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.
Sexuality is not a choice. It's the way you are. You can't change it, you can only supress it. But why should you have to?
Cycle is right. If Christianity is all about love, then some of its followers are doing a good job in misleading outsiders.
Except homosexuality is not another gender...it's a lifestyle...ah, I keep going in circles. This argument isn't going anywhere...
What do you mean? No one said it was a gender.
When he mentioned sexuality in a way, I assumed he meant homosexuality is another sex as well...of course I could have been wrong...
Yeah, you were wrong.
If I want someone to get a point I usually make it clear enough for them to understand. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that homosexuality is another gender.
It's sexuality. Sexuality is not a conscious choice.
That was my point. I stand by it.
Good, end of discussion for me at least...
Though his point isn't perfect, tornadot does have one - gay marriage (oh, come on, who's going to call it 'civil union') could open the doors for a lot of things.
As for sexuality, well, being gay definitely isn't unnatrual, but the male and female bodies weren't designed for it, and that is what people who aren't bible-bashing religious zealots have a problem with.
As for Bush, well, to it my way, I can't wait for the day when the American public realises that thanks to the Republicans, the only people with jobs are soldiers and politicians.
I look at it this way:
Nature has lots of ways of keeping the population of a species at a sunstainable level.
Homosexual couples cannot naturally reproduce, so they cannot contribute to a population rise.
I believe that homosexuality is a natural way of keeping population from spiralling out of control.
Humans aren't the only species that have it. I heard somewhere that 1 in every 10 sheep are homosexual. But then, I wouldn't quote me on that statistic exactly... It didn't come from the most credible source I know.
I believe that homosexuality is a natural way of keeping population from spiralling out of control.
There's a lot of people who would disagree with you on that one (including myself), but I'm not going to argue with you because there's pretty much no known constant in the cause of homosexuality.
We can strike genetics from the list of causes.
Any gene designed to breed itself OUT of the population will eventually do just that, or become so rare that it is less than 1 percent of the population.
Jimro
Again, I never said it was genetic.
I don't know its cause and I don't know its reason. I can only speculate with the little information I have.
The only thing I know for certain is that it's wrong to discriminate against people for something they have no control over.
Eon,
Do you take everything I write personally? I was responding to Cycles observation that there is no known cause for homosexuality.
Using logic we can rule out genetics which leave nature out of the Nature vs. Nurture dabate. If homosexuality is not genetic, then it must be cultural, and therefore a learned behavior.
The same argument can be used for heterosexuality.
Why are you being defensive when no one is attacking?
Jimro
I could ask the same question of you to be fair.
Why did you come to this message board? Oh! I remember, because you and your pals took the fact that a lot of people here disagree with Bush's spending policies personally and decided to 're-educate' us liberal children, didn't you?
If that's not taking something personally, I don't know what is.
As for your question, I'm being defensive out of compassion, something a lot of people lack.
Why did you come to this message board? Oh! I remember, because you and your pals took the fact that a lot of people here disagree with Bush's spending policies personally and decided to 're-educate' us liberal children, didn't you?
I didn't come here for political disaggrement, I get that enough at my school. I come here because of one thing...and have I ever re educated a liberal? Nope...probably never. I just argue my point, feebly at best.
And I was talking to Jimro, who did come here when someone from his message board posted a link to the AID's topic in MFC2, bringing a load of people here who proceeded to bash anyone who criticised Bush or America.
The fact that I disagree with your views is irrelevant. I don't have a problem with you, Tornadot.
Ah, I see. Just needed clarification...
Eon,
You're kidding right? You seem to be saying that you don't have a problem with my posts, just a problem with me.
Am I reading this correctly?
Jimro
You got it, Tornadot. Honestly, I respect you, and I've no reason to dislike you. Though sometimes in conversations where one feels strongly about a certain issue, the mistake can often be made that the people arguing absolutely hate each other.
There are very few people that I know who I hate. 
EDIT: Wrong, Jimro. Read it again. Read what I said, not what you'd like me to have said.
Eon,
The way you emphasized "YOU tornadot" implied that you had a problem with someone else.
Have I ever bashed you? Anyone on this board?
Anybody feel bashed?
Jimro
Oh, come on, Jimro. Did Eon ever say he had a problem with you? True, he doesn't agree with your veiws and hates Bush (from what I've gathered) but that doesn't mean he's attacking you.
Oh, come on. There are over 5000 identities to attack on this board. What makes you so special?
Heh...
And some people think I'm taking things personally. 
Honestly.
If I have offended anyone, please know that such was not my intent.
Jimro
Hmm...
By "you," he seemed to mean he had a problem with Tornadot's opinion, not Tornadot himself. Right?
However, I gotta admit when I first read it I thought it was a flame for sure. Given the context, it was ambiguous, so I don't see how Jimro can be criticized for taking it "personally." You did make an issue out of Jimro in your previous post, and that was not very fair in itself.
Yes, that was all. I don't agree with Tornadot's views. That doesn't mean I don't like Tornadot.
Since I had to edit my post several times (at first it was a warning because I interpreted the "you" differently), including after you replied, please look again. Try to remember to debate ideas and not the people saying them, ok?
Harley, he basically DID say he had a problem with Jimro in the previous post, so I don't think you're being fair.
I personally think it's a lose-lose situation,
because on the one hand you've got a war-mongering
idiot whoset america back about 50 years and on the other hand you've got a guy who can't make up his mind.
If I have a problem with Jimro, that's my business, and not open for discussion here.
I've been on this message board for over 3 years; long enough to know that personal attacks are a no-no. Even if I despised another visitor, I wouldn't let that get the better of my sense of reason. If my responses to Jimro on the previous page seem aggressive (and they do) then that's out of irritation with some of the things said to me. But then, it would appear that he is also irritated by my responses.
But let us discuss this nonsense no further and return to the issue that is the American presidential election.
Here's something provocotive: go Kerry! 
Bush has been a straight shooter.
Kerry has been a fast talker.
I'll take the consistent dumb guy over the waffler, at least we know where Bush stands.
Jimro
Do we? Didn't Vec mention a list of things that Bush had changed his mind over on a previous page?
I honestly don't think we know where any politician stands on any issue.
Quote:
at least we know where Bush stands
Yeah. for everything wrong. That's exactly my problem with him. ![:]](https://www.lighthead.net/misc/mofo/smilies/biggrinshaded.gif)
Sonic,
Please explain to me what you percieve right and wrong to be?
When we play God and decide right and wrong for ourselves, we ignore longstanding cultural, historical, and religious moral guidelines.
Obviously the law of the US cannot take into consideration EVERYONE'S own personal right and wrong, moral and immoral.
So by using cultural/historical morality his position is already validated as "right", even tho your personal view is "wrong" on the same subjects.
Jimro
It seems to me that you're suggesting that Bush and everything he has done is perfectly right by some sort of divine definition and, for those who disagree, Bush and everything he has done is only wrong in their personal opinions...
That does seem awfully like belittling the views of others.
And if 'right' and 'wrong' are the decisions of God then I should tell you (though I presume you know) that every mainstream religion that I know of fiercely advocates peace as opposed to war, whereas Bush has claimed that God supports his invasion of Iraq...
If it's all right for the deity to have double standards then I'm glad I'm not religious.
Bringing hope to the hopeless.
Jimro
