Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2004 14:17:05 GMT -4
I agree, we had to retaliate somehow. But bush's retaliation on Iraq is just plain stupid...how did they get involved? they didn't bomb us, in fact...we've been bombing them steadily for the past 10 years. They have no connection to Al Quida or anyone that was responsible for 9/11 so the attack on Iraq was nothing more than an excuse to try to get oil, and bush did a great job making the American people beleive that we were fighting a "war on terror"....BS
I'm not going to argue with the bible or christian beleifs for the most part, because I am a realist and live life as I see it. Not as anyone tells me to, but I have two comments:
Gay people just want to get married, I'm sure there's a few that want gay TV shows, etc like you suggest, but for the most part they just want the same financial benefits that a man and women get when they are in love. Love is love, I don't see what is wrong with this.
God created all people...correct? In that case, why did he create gay people if he hates them so much? I see this as something that was taboo when the bible was written (whenever that was) so gay was put in there as a crime, a sin, whatever. But now our society has woken up to the realization that some people are gay, and there's nothing we can do about it. But for some reason the christians hate these people for something that they cannont control. If the bible told you to hate black people, would you become racist?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 9, 2004 16:34:10 GMT -4
Well, frankly I dont care if gays do get married. A piece of paper from the state does not make marriage. However, I've seen this before. Like Hitler at Munich, your assuming that will be satified with that.
Christians dont believe anyone is born gay. Like laziness or a tendency toward alcoholism, people are born with sins, but that doesnt mean alcoholics are better off with a bottle. And if they want to teach how to open a bottle and form drinking clubs at schools, we would object to that too. You see, once they get people to believe kids are born gay then they will try to "find" the gay kids in schools and help them grow into a gay "lifestyle". Christians call this temptation and we dont like it because there are plenty of temptations around, we dont want more. Especially an attack on children. That is the issue. We see this as an attack on the helpless.
Thats why this is clearly a religious issue. We see this as a deliberate attack on all children with a false idea. Non-Christians see us as oppressing others. This issue cannot be reconciled.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Nov 9, 2004 17:32:03 GMT -4
Im a christian, so I have to support bush I'm a Christian as well, and if I was of legal voting age, I definitely would not have voted for Bush.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2004 17:40:51 GMT -4
its actually a proven scientific fact that the brains of gay males (not sure about females, we just studied males) are physically different than the brains of straight males. There is a piece of the brain, I beleive near the hypothalamus that is slightly but consistantly bigger in range for gay males than straight males.
This study was presented to me by a pysc teacher in my first year of college, so its been a few years since I've really taken a close look at it, and I don't know all of the details, but to me this absolutely proves that being gay is a physical thing that cannot be changed, unless of course you get ahold of someone's brain and somehow physically alter it back to looking like a staight person's brain.
another question: why would anyone want to be gay with all the ridicule and general outcasting by society?
Also, the bible was written so long ago, did god know that the world would eventually turn out the way it did? with industry and sim basketball leagues and such? If so, why didn't he just plop us down into a metropolis? There's just too many question marks to base all of your opinions on a book written thousands of years ago in relation to the world as it is today. Today's world is infinite times different than the world of Jesus, and we should adjust to it as such.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Nov 9, 2004 18:20:20 GMT -4
I agree. The Bible is a history book. People used to have different ideas about the world, and things weren't all Scientifically Proven.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 9, 2004 19:50:48 GMT -4
its actually a proven scientific fact that the brains of gay males (not sure about females, we just studied males) are physically different than the brains of straight males. There is a piece of the brain, I beleive near the hypothalamus that is slightly but consistantly bigger in range for gay males than straight males. This study was presented to me by a pysc teacher in my first year of college, so its been a few years since I've really taken a close look at it, and I don't know all of the details, but to me this absolutely proves that being gay is a physical thing that cannot be changed, unless of course you get ahold of someone's brain and somehow physically alter it back to looking like a staight person's brain. another question: why would anyone want to be gay with all the ridicule and general outcasting by society? Also, the bible was written so long ago, did god know that the world would eventually turn out the way it did? with industry and sim basketball leagues and such? If so, why didn't he just plop us down into a metropolis? There's just too many question marks to base all of your opinions on a book written thousands of years ago in relation to the world as it is today. Today's world is infinite times different than the world of Jesus, and we should adjust to it as such. About the ridicule thing, is there anything chemically different about people with mohawks? They put up with alot of ridicule too. Lots of people do odd things even though it gets them ridiculed. That is not evidence of anything. I dont buy that there is something chemically different about gays at birth. And like cancer research, theories go up and get shot down as inconclusive or being tainted or just plain poorly done. And yes, the Bible is old. But people are the same. Technology is irrelevant. The nature of people never changes. We still do the same things we did then. Besides I dont believe people wrote Bible I believe the Lord wrote through the hands of men. Thats a question of faith and that's your free choice to believe or not believe, but there is not "new" anything that changes anything. There were lots of gays, lots of abortions, lots of the "enlightened" then too. As it is written there is nothing new under the sun. Nothing. There are no question marks. What about science. The Bible writes that water falls upon the earth and into the sea and back to the sky. But science only discovered this in the last hundred years. The Lord gave the Israelites rule about cleanliness that they considered to be a ritualistic requirement. A Jewish surgeon in the 19th century was appalled at the death rate in all European hospitals and he applied the cleanliness laws of God to the hospital. Those that operated on the sick and handled dead bodies were required to wash after touching them. The death rate at the hospital dropped staggeringly. But he was reviled and others took over, the death rate climbed back. Needed to work on his social skills, I guess. His dying words were "wash, wash, wash". There is more science in the Bible than you know. Science that was known. David even called the world a globe. But this is not going to convince anyone of anything. Its a matter of faith.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Nov 9, 2004 21:08:06 GMT -4
Food For Thought.
Would Isaac Newton be have taken seriously if he didn't prove his theories?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 9, 2004 21:32:24 GMT -4
Actually, Einstein didnt believe in gravity.
Im serious.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Nov 9, 2004 21:36:05 GMT -4
Actually, Einstein didnt believe in gravity. Im serious. Then why did he include gravity in his work?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 9, 2004 22:05:49 GMT -4
I'm sorry quantum physics. Gravity string theory. Thats what he didnt believe. I was wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2004 2:31:35 GMT -4
why do gays say that the hardest thing to them many times is coming out to their parents...do people with mohawks really consider this before they get a mohawk, many of them probably do, and get one anyway just because they knew their parents wouldn't approve. Hair is aesthetic, sexuality stays with you forever. When's the last time you saw a 50 year old with a mohawk? I can somewhat see where you are coming from, but the mohawk was a very bad analogy.
as for physical brain differences. Its proven, do you not believe in friction either? or clouds?
its a fact that hasn't been proven inconclusive, shot down, or otherwise suggested to be false...a fact is a fact
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2004 17:11:04 GMT -4
this was one of my girlfriend's friend's away message today on AIM...I thought she articulated it very well:
Only in America can we proclaim equality and justice for all yet make laws against a minority group to continue their oppression and lack of equal rights... Marriage should be about love, not gender. If the majority's opinion made up all the laws, women wouldn't have the right to vote, interracial marriage would still be illegal, segregation would still exist, and women would still be property. Is it me or have we forgotten the seperation between church and state? Seems it is still "in God we trust..." Welcome to the land of oppression and subjective rights for some.
P.S. Another four years of hell, I mean Bush.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 10, 2004 17:25:29 GMT -4
The state is of the people and if those people have faith they have the right to demand the government to reflect it.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 12, 2004 17:51:41 GMT -4
I agree, we had to retaliate somehow. But bush's retaliation on Iraq is just plain stupid...how did they get involved? they didn't bomb us, in fact...we've been bombing them steadily for the past 10 years. They have no connection to Al Quida or anyone that was responsible for 9/11 so the attack on Iraq was nothing more than an excuse to try to get oil, and bush did a great job making the American people beleive that we were fighting a "war on terror"....BS Well, I would point out a couple of things. Not in an arugmentative way, but just as some thoughts on why Iraq. First off, I study alot of history and particularly military history. I have always felt that it is an enormous risk to occupy a country. And middle eastern countries in particular have a history of being a tough occupation. After the 1st gulf war people were always saying we should have gone into Iraq. But I never agreed with that because after the invasion, soldiers become targets. So I really did not think any kind of occupation was a good idea. But on the other side, in the context that a show of force for retaliation was necessary, I cannot see a better target, politically, than Iraq for a show of force. Why? Well, Iraq is a symbol of resistance to the west. Saddam, outside of Iraq, was seen as staring down the west and getting away with it. So if a show of force was necessary, and in my opinion it was, who was a better target? I see Libya, Syria, and Iran as the only other nations we could be said to have a legitimate grudge against. But nothing like Iraq. Also, there is no doubt that Saddam was a modern day monster and that he slaughtered and tortured his own people. Also, if a show of force was necessary, then a guy who is like that and also symbolizes resistance to the will of the west is the best available target. But bombing is impotent, an invasion of whatever nation was the only available show of force. On the subject of WMD I knew someone whose father worked for Air Force Intelligence in the mid 80s. We were discussing SDI (the Reagan "star wars" missile defense plan) and she told me that her father had told her that the Russians already had it, in place. Years later, its obvious that they didnt. In fact it is believed by some that launching a race to space weapons on an already strained economy brought the Russians to the table with the US. Because they could not afford it. I am not an intelligence person and I am not educated in the subject, but I have seen things that seem to indicate that the intelligence community is a very paranoid (in fact, I think that is good thing sometimes) community that not harmonious in its operations. Based on things that I have read, there are radically different takes on things all over the political spectrum. I really do not find it incredible to believe that there were two sharply divided intelligence camps on WMD. Disident Ex-Iraqis were swearing up and down that he was close to a nuclear weapon. I have seen film of UN inspectors being chased off by Iraq soldiers firing warning shots. And there have been many articles lately indicated that Saddam actually encouraged misinformation to indicate that he had them still. A recent documentary on TV indicated that he needed to have Iran believe he had the capability to defend himself from them. This is very consistent with Saddam. He was a paranoid person. Some recent interview information with Iraqi generals indicated they had a meeting with Saddam and were surprised to hear that had no chemical weapons. I dont know if this was confirmed by other, but like I said, I think it is credible. So I really dont find it hard to believe that intelligence was wrong and I dont think its a clear cut case of deception at all. Just my opinion, of course. I dont like occupation, its a political nightmare. Casualty-wise, its not even close to what happens in combat. Its just that slow chipping away that is nerve wracking for a soldier and the whole nation. But I honestly dont see any better target, any better (and still effective) show of force available. Im not really arguing with anyone here im just exploring the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on Nov 15, 2004 1:01:46 GMT -4
First point, I don't know about Kerry. Never saw him as president and he might be as bad as Bush.
But why give the most stupid president ever a 2nd chance? Come on, you don't need much to find that out. Every time he comes on TV you can see how dumb he is. He was the son of an ex president and like he said, that opens lots of doors. And it's funny you mention Michael Moore movie. Yeah, I don't trust everything he says. He is a bush hater so forget about what he presents as facts. Just enjoy the "live" parts. The parts where bush shows up are just hilarious. Man that great speach to the press was just too much "(serious face) We have to go after the bad guys. The world can't stand and watch. Now look at my swing. What do you think about this shoot?". Who is this guy? Does he have a clue about what that shows to the public. And the other scene where someone tell him the 2nd tower was attacked. He sat there waiting for someone to tell him what do. He is the fucking president of the USA and he has no clue on what he should do when his coutry is under attack. Shouldn't he at least know he is the nº1 target so he must leave imediatly with the secret services? The guy is a dumb fucker and he couldn't be president of Ruanda if his name was George W. Taylor or something. And the ones who elected him twice don't look smart either. Even if Kerry is also a dumb fuck. At least it wouldn't be making the same mistake again.
Politicians are all the same but at least pick someone smart.
As for the war, i'm not even going to get into that. Ok, retaliation was needed. Ok, Saddam is bad guys just like most dictactores in the world. But we all know he only picked Iraq because of the father old battle. From the moment 9/11 happened he tried to take it on Iraq. Al-Qaeda has no country. They have cells everywhere. Their main support is the Saudia Arabia. Sure that the US couldn't go to war againts the Saudi's because money is more important. I'm not saying they should pick Saudi Arabia where there government isn't exactly nice either, but why Iraq then when every evidence proves that they aren't the main supporters of Bin Laden. Because of the weapons? Come on. Saddam didn't want to destroy the World. He had no weapons. He just wanted to be filthy rich and the only weapons he needed was guns to kill iraquians that opposed to him. I'm not going to even talk about the oil because I don't even think that was the main reason. That was a plus. Bush does what he is told to do. Sure, I would trust and love to have a president like that.
Bush can't simple go to war without the support of the "educated world". That was the reason in the first place there was a 9/11. You guys keep messing with the world thinking you are too strong to be attacked. But there are crazy guys out there that are willing to die for their hate for the US. Why is that hate so big? Exactly because of that. They don't hate Canada, France or the UK. They don't hate Japan or Russia. They hate the US because everyone of them has family that was killed by the US.
It's funny you mention Clinton. He was a great president. Yes, he also started wars but to show that super power that mojo says needs to be shown once in a while to keep the world in respect. He started in on Jugoslavia and many europeans didn't find that funny. But that was needed. He started some others. But there were always reasons. Good or bad. Doesn't matter now. He had reasons. Bush had no reason at all. Still Clinton was the one that got into trouble inside his country. Why? Because he liked blowjobs from secretaries and cheated on his wife. Oh the morality in America. So nice. The nº1 country in the porno industry can't stand a man that cheats on his wife just like every other man but do stand some one who is dumber than dumb. That makes sense.
And this is just an opinion from someone that likes the USA. I'm not even close to a US hater. I must be the person I know that likes the US more.
|
|