mreiland
-
Posts
305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mreiland
-
-
The majority of Americans approved of giving blacks equal rights. The majority of Americans also approved of giving women equal rights. Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans do not think gay/lesbian couples should be able to marry.
1. That's not what I learned in school
2. We aren't a true democracy, majority does't always win.
The government is supposed to reflect it's societyNo, the government is supposed to make sure everyone in our society is safe, and treated equally.
Not while they are in prison.So their marriages are annulled when they go to prison? Interesting, I never knew that. I also didn't realize that they were never allowed to marry again for the rest of their lives. That's seems a bit harsh to me.
There is also precedence for people getting married while in prison. google it.
As a final note, know what you're talking about before you post Cougar.
-
My refusal to ever be average in anything that I do.
To me average means loser, and I know I can do better than that.
-
By this logic, murderers are a group, thieves are a group, etc
You catch on quick svede
The fact is you can classify people who commit a certain type of sin, but it doesnt give them rights...in fact government has the right to remove rights when a sinful or criminal act is taking place...the fact that the government is even allowing them to practice I find quite degrading for the USANo, the government has the right to remove rights when an unlawful act has been committed. Sin has absolutely nothing to do with it. But regardless, the last time I checked, murderers and thieves have the right to marry whomever they want(hetero, of course). It puts it into perspective though, doesn't it? A murderer can marry who they want, but an upstanding citizen, who happens to be homosexual, can't.
They're both sinners according to your doctrine, Svede.
PS
As a side note, Svede, I find your method of argument to be slightly dishonest, as I alluded to in a previous post which was deleted. What you're doing here is taking my argument, and trying to attach a very negative connotation, the result being that a lot of people will automatically become defensive against. Not wholely unethical, but as I said, I find it to be slightly dishonest(not the first time I've seen you do this).
I would ask that you quit doing this, and rely on the argument itself, not subtle, and subversive, methods. If you can't do this, then I'll be forced to conclude that your argument is weak, and you really don't know why you feel the way you do.
-
Tonto: As with most things, it's all a matter of PoV, so it's inane to argue about it.
They are just like you and me, with only one fundamental but imo unimportant difference.Unimportant is probably the most important word in that sentence.
Blacks are a race, homo's are people that live a lifestyle. The two are different. But, if you don't see the difference, homosexuality is a lifestyle, whereas being black is only being a human being; they aren't renowned for some great sin, unlike afforementioned curved people.In this context, the difference is about the same as the difference between a shotgun, and a pistol. ie, they're not the *same*, but they're both weapons that can kill.
African Americans are a group of people. Homosexuals are a group of people. The only difference is the traits that put them into that group. For African Americans, it's their skin color, for homsexuals, it's their sexual preference.
So now I must ask you, should our government extend the same rights to all groups of people(bipartisan), or should the government reserve some rights for certain groups. I await your reply.
-
Don't get me wrong Mythos, I would absolutely *love* to see that suggestion put into action, but you must also take into account the economic consequences of doing that.
I think something more feasible would be for the current utility companies to pay for this(find a way to make it relatively inexpensive). If a household produces more than it uses, that electricity is stored somewhere else( electricity produced by the solar panels on the house aren't owned by the owner of the house, they're owned by the owner of the panels).
If a house uses more, they can pay extra for more electicity, which is gotten either form excess in some homes, or other methods, but they pay dearly for it.
Probably not feasible, but you see where I'm going with it.
-
The problem is that a minority is trying to impose their agenda on the rest of us. Why should the majority of America be forced to accept a type of lifestyle we don't approve of?
The same reason that the majority of Americans were forced to accept blacks as equals.
We aren't preventing them from living a homosexual lifestyle, but they are trying to make us accept it as "normal".No, but you are preventing them from having the same legal rights as hetero's.
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. You can't stop a homosexual from being homosexual, for whatever reason, choice, genetics, it doesn't matter, they're going to do it regardless of what you think. The point isn't to force you to accept homosexuality as anything. The point is for our government to accept homo relationships in the same vein as hetero relationships. This has nothing to do with you.
Let me ask you this:
If homo marriages are legalized, and it becomes 'normal', will you turn gay?
-
Thank you ThugAmish, that's all I asked for.
PS
Look up plagiarism at Dictionary.com, and you'll see that it does, indeed, fall under Plagiarism.
-
ersonally I know not a single christian who does that... not one. My parents claim to know one though, but I don't That means, my entire family (excluding my sister and me, as we aren't christians ), and most everyone in the church I go to/used to go to. Of course, the US and Sweden seem to be different in how religion is expressed in many other ways, so I don't see why it couldn't differ here too...
Yeah right... I believe that. No really, I do...
Don't get me wrong Tonto, you seem pretty open minded for a christian, I just don't believe that an entire church is that way, when I've only met *two* in my entire life, and I grew up in the church.
Alright ThugAmish Just remember that there's precedence for people getting sued for doing exactly what you just did(over the internet, in forums, no less), so I suggest you watch what you say in the future. Plagiarism is a big deal. And don't try that at whatever Uni you decide to attend, you'll quickly find yourself looking for another school(being an intellectual institution, plagiarism is not accepted).
I'm also dropping a note to Tim asking that this be added to the Community Guidelines(yes, plagiarism is that big of a deal).
-
f a christian cannot agree with homosexuality, why cannot he simply stay away from it (if he's not homosexual, of course)? Does he need to see every other do the same things he does? And would this be real freedom?
Such a creature does exist. There are Christians who can believe what they believe without forcing their will on others. However, they *are* few and far between, from my experience. My best friend being one of those few.
It's a question I've often asked. Why do you feel the need to enforce your way of living on someone who is hurting *noone*. I have yet to hear a real reason.
Tonto:
he did it publicly, and I'm asking for a public apology. If I thought it were necessary to keep it private, I would have PM'd him already, but simply PMing him does not undo the damage he did.
-
You're referring to this:
I think that whatever you want to call it, marriage, civil unions, etc, the same should apply to *everyone*. Having marriage for some and civil unions for others is the classic 'separate but equal'.Marriage, IMO, is pretty secular in this country. I do not see much of a need to change the name, unless it appeases the religious right... and allows for equality.
I'm not claiming the civili union's idea as my own, the idea I'm claiming as my own is the idea that the legal side of 'marriage' should be called a union(homo and hetero are equal under the eyes of the law) across the board, and the religious side of marriage can be completey separate. Being legally married wouldn't, under these circumstances, entitle you to religious marriage.
*winkity wink wink*
Please people, for the love of whatever God you hold dear, think before you post.
-
To avoid plagiarism, you must give credit whenever you use:
another person's idea, opinion, or theory;
any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings--any pieces of information--that are not common knowledge;
quotations of another person's actual spoken or written words; or
paraphrase of another person's spoken or written words.
Interesting that you came up with this "idea" after I had posted it in the same thread you're presenting it in ThugAmish
An apology can end this, mistakes happen.
-
Anyways, to conclude, I'll repeat my solution: allow 'civil unions' for everyone, and 'marriage' can go back to where it belongs: in churches. I'd like to hear some comments on my line of though here
ummmm, I refer you to post #73.
I agree to a point. Segregation is segregation is segregation, no matter what you call it. Likewise, if gays are going to have 'legal unions'(to completely separate them from religious couplings), then I believe hetero couples should *also* have 'legal unions'.
In other words, marriages become absolutely nothing more than a ceremony that have no effect whatsoever, outside of allowing two people to feel closer to each other. No legal benefits, nothing. I also believe that common law unions should cover both hetero, and homo, appropriately.
Not sure if this would be considered plagiarism or not, but at the very least, it would be considered unethical
-
not quite what I'm looking for, but I'll go with it
WINE stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator. Wine is actually a translation layer that sits between the program and linux, translating system calls. It does not emulate any type of hardware.
-
pfffft, is not.
*grabs mouse, scrolls it down to the show desktop button and clicks on it*
*scrolls mouse up to my computer... clickie*
*scrolls mouse to the C: drive icon... clickie*
That only took, uuuuuh, 30 seconds..... GUI > CLI, duh!
-
mmmmm, almost CO, but no cigar.
-
Hey, it's your life, you do with it as you will.
Remember this:
Just because you trust someone doesn't mean you should.
-
ROFLMAO
Klaas, that has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
-
I guess that's true MarkT, lol.
Sphere: I didn't know that bash was the default on Mac OS, although it makes sense, seeing as how it's BSD under the hood.
Alright, staying with the *nix theme, what is WINE(no, not the alchoholic drink).
-
Actually all Kazaa lite did was replace some dll's. I don't think that's illegal, but I could be wrong.
That brings up an interesting question though. If a program modifies execution sequences in memory, is that program illegal?
Wnat I mean is, there was a program running around that would cause your participation level to go up when you were downloading(normally goes up when uploading). I'm relatively sure all they did was flip the method calls around in memory, but the question remains, is it illegal?
Do software companies have *that* much right, to be able to specify the bit sequences of your memory, and you're not allowed to modify them? This is very similar to the dll argument IMO(changing of resources on your comp), but I think it's an interesting question.
-
strap it on.
BC is a non-issue with me. I don't trust any woman enough to put my future in their hands(ie, having a child). I don't care if they're taking 20 different types of BC, strap it on. Protect *yourself*.
-
on just about any *nix variant, including, but not limited to, Linux, *BSD, HP/UX, Sco, etc.
Unless this is a trick question, or I'm misunderstanding it(seems too easy).
I'd like to note that Linux is a clone, not a variant, but my point remains
-
But both electoral votes and popular votes are still votes...
The people choose the electors when they vote for congressmen, so the people at all times have power anyways.
I don't know about you, but that's not the only issue I consider when voting for my congressman.
The electoral system is needed about as much as oil is needed, ie. it's not, but it's not going to change because those in power are staying in power, and making money, as a direct result.
-
OK I'm going to shut up before I go on an Anti-American rant.
Yes please, I, for one, don't want to hear it.
-
The single most productive change you can make learning to stay away from the mouse. If you're hands move away from the keyboard, you're wasting time.
Same-sex Marriage Bill
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
The Purpose of Government
You'll note that nowhere in there it doesn't even *allude* to the idea that the government is meant to reflect society.
If the government is supposed to reflect society, that means society *is* the government, which means there is no need for government as we know it. I don't believe anyone in here is advocating getting rid of the government completely, therefore, his argument is useless.
It's nothing more than an attempt to refute my argument by coming up with an argument that has no basis in reality. But then the entire creationist philosophy has no basis in reality, so it's to be expected