seximofo2k
-
Posts
300 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by seximofo2k
-
-
Originally posted by mrmatas2277
has he not done this before?? its their MO....i hope this treaty does work...but i am sure it will fall through...
btw-- one or two nukes in the hand of the N. Koreans is too many....
It was the Bush administration that actually was the first to pull out of the treaty. They stopped the aid going to North Korea, which i basically blackmail by the North Koreans aid to stop us from goin nuclear, but it ultimately led to the North Koreans restarting the fuel rod shit... I feel the scariest thing about this situation is that you have a crazy lunatic dictator of a country on the brink of disaster who seems to have nothing to lose with the nuclear capability for bombs to hit the west coast of the united states. Look at the drama that 9/11 caused in this country imagine if San Francisco was wiped off the map. Its such a tough situation I really dont know which is the right way to solve it: to be stern and not give in to their demands or to give in a bit and to reinstate aid to the country??
-
Originally posted by skince55
I guess the Bishop isnt supposed to be having sex anyway. So maybe the church is just looking at it like, OK he is gay, just as long as he doesnt take on a homosexual partner:confused:
About the religion thing, I think its okay to accept parts of it as opposed to believing in every aspect of the religion. As long as your only accepting what you truly believe and think is right. Obviously this case is a little different because the church is completely contradicting themselves.
Actually he lives with his male partner and was previously married with two kids in this religion i believe it is allowed for bishops to marry. I agree with you that a person can practice their religion the way they see fit. The bible, which is the framework of christian religion is even said to be writted by people, not the lord himself so hence it can be flawed.........
-
I feel in a wartime situation the US should cater to the needs of the US troops before any others including civilians thats just the way i feel. I dont know the details of the reasoning behind the use of napalm but for them to use it byt their must have been just purpose. logic says they would not simply drop the weapon to torcher soldiers every action by the government recieves stark criticizm. So hence if it saved american lives i have no problem with it.
On the subject of Hiroshima n Nagasaki i remember having this debate previously on this site forgot with who though. If u really want to know what would have happened if we didnt bomb read up on the subject, ask historians etc. Dont just simply make bold claims that the atom bomb was uncalled for and did not need to be dropped. I've also heard it was used to intimidate Russia too.....
-
Originally posted by misticminister
Only if it had a good plot, nice dialogue, and many midgets
:laugh: -
Arnold schwarzenegger.... i seriously laugh at the mere sound of that austrian speak
-
This shit is just hillarious click on the picture in the link
-
Originally posted by sassa
nice try? i don't know what you're talking about.
again, did he clearly label himself as a liberal? i really could care less about him being a former fuckup president's son, but it's would be quite ironic if he really was.
He is in fact a liberal while covering on the Buchanan and Press show he did make many statement which i viewed by beginning "we liberals". It's really wierd how your father can be the poster president for conservatism but u end up being a democrat. Well the ragin cajun married a republican so????????
-
I am for one
:( -
Originally posted by acmatos
oh come on now, you are just too sensitive. Lighten up! This is not about us personally, if you think that me insinuating that you're gay is an attack, then that's you're issue not mine. I was just bringing some sarcastic humor into the conversation, not implying that its a bad thing if you were gay. What I was referring to was the fact that you totally disregarded my previous answers.(this is the first time I've heard you give me credit albeit only to sound somewhat fair b4 you slammed me) Then you say that the only explanation that I had given was the obvious moral reasoning. If you check the posts you'd see that I didn't even mention anything about religion or morality until after your false comments.
I was in no way trying to trash you, at least no more than you had already trashed me(even if it was indirectly by blowing off my comments). Another thing, if you have forgotten, same sex marriage is illegal. You're the one that has to be giving the "strong arguments" as to why it should be made legal. The reality is that the majority of the population agrees with me, regardless of reasoning, and it is you that should be bending over backwards to prove your point to me, not demanding answers.
Also, just because I believe in the biological/evolutionary theory doesn't translate into being totally against gay relationships. I think that people should be able to do whatever they want, and be with who they want to be with. That is why I am not against civil unions.
A successful marriage, IMO is a relationship which will ultimately produce a family structure. This is something that is unnatainable by homosexual couples.
As to your point of view, if a marriage is just about two people in love making an official, long-lasting bond, then why is a civil union not acceptable? If that's what you think, then it shouldn't matter what it's called. Why is it so important that it be called a "marriage?"
Something you should think about is that not everything is ok just because someone does it. You have to draw the line somewhere. This major difference of opinion is why I think we are having such disagreement on this issue. I believe that there is wrong and right and its not open to be modified everytime we feel like it. Some cultures practice human sacrifice and cannibalism. Others practice habitual female castration and torture. But its still wrong to kill and eat people, and its definitely not ok to treat women like animals and torture people. Life might be easier to handle when you live in the grey area all the time (provides a false sense of security maybe, I don't know), but things are a lot more black and white than people think. We could argue this forever, however I'm not willing to believe that just b/c someone else enjoys something or thinks it ok, that it really is. There are some absolutes in life.
I still dont see the harm in gays marrying like u do, prob never will. Difference in views well we agree to disagree then. I'm pretty chill im just aint a fan of the trash talk in a current events room where u would expect maturity but maybe i took u wrong. You get ur invite to my wedding now:tongue:
-
has o'reilly commented on this add yet?
-
Originally posted by acmatos
First of all, what makes you the foremost authority on whether an argument is acceptable?
Regardless, marriage IS to most people a religious affair so it is totally understandable that civil unions be ok and not marriage.
I have not dodged your question, but apparently your inability to see anything you disagree with has made me seem as though I have. My initial response was, in fact, a completely biological reasoning, as Sassa's was. But since you didn't like it, I guess its easier to pretend that it makes no sense.
btw be sure to send us all an invitaton to your wedding
Your original response on the matter was real biological:
Originally posted by acmatosthe only reason homosexuals want to get married is for tax breaks and other financial loopholes. It totally undermines why most decent human beings get married(love and procreation)
btw that article is totally biased.
Then u came back after my comments with this response:
Originally posted by acmatosIf you want to totally stray from moral issues then think about it from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe nature has figured out, over thousands of years of trial and error, that the best way for the human species to survive and reproduce is in a family structure. I know it sounds strange, but think about it.
U have a point in some way on this issue (wait i have inability to see anything i disagree with) Read back if you want see my reply on this matter again.
You can try to trash me and call me gay cause i am supporting their civil rights but the fact is if you really dont make a strong argument for why their marriage should be illegal. Believing in this evolutionary idea, which you do, yet you say that civil union is ok but marriage no. Why you condone civil unions and not marriage u still have not made clear to me.
Pretty sad that you had to stoop to derogitory comments in this post, think its wrong when its done to sassa and others it simply shows ignorance on your part. If you want to continue this debate maturely then i have no problem.
-
-
Originally posted by sassa
i think that a person's answer to this question would be based on how they feel about homosexuality as a whole.
biologically speaking, it doesn't add up. you need two counter energies to create a new one. there is yin and yang, wrong and right, light and dark.
religiously speaking, it's not right. homosexuality is even cited in all three major books (torah, new testament, and the Quran) as being wrong.
socially speaking, it's never been accepted, until the 20th century, and even then a great majority of the world condones it.
personally, and this is shocking even for me, i agree with bush when he stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman. i have nothing against someone if they choose to live that life, but in terms of making it legal, i am against it.
there is such a thing as having too much freedom, and sadly, we have reached that point in society once again. i say once again because during previous fallen civilizations, such as rome, babylon, judea, etc, there were huge increases in homosexual and indecent behavior going on. strange how they all collapsed when it became a recognized thing.
to each their own. civil unions, ok. but marriage, and legally? no.
maybe some laws could be worked out in terms of benefits and leaving one's wealth to one's partner after their death. but otherwise, no.
Of the 3 reasons u state i see only the biological viewpoint as holding some water. I dont go by religion, neither does the US government, social reasoning... well 50 years ago half the country was segregated. On the idea of biologically it doesnt match well yeah that is true but I really dont see how letting a minute minority of the population marry is going to destroy the human species????? And if you are going by these standards then why is a civil union ok but marriage no???
-
Originally posted by acmatos
First of all, I haven't even mentioned religion in this whole mess. Secondly, is there any solid answer, in your opinion? Are you even willing to accept any answer I give? And finally, why is it that the "obvious moral/religious reasoning" is not acceptable other than the fact that you disagree with it?
Yeah their is solid answer in my opinion : Telling people who they are allowed to marry is simply a form of discrimination. The government should not dictate what 2 peoples concensual behavior. Their is no proof that shows that gay marriage would be harmfull in any way to others that in which it should be outlawed.
To answer the second part of your question the reason that the "obvious moral/religious reasongs" (which obviously is your sole argument against gay marriage because you have continually dodged any answering of my question). Still in effect in US law is the seperation of church and state the last time I checked. So hence because the bible says that this behavior is wrong does not constitute that hence the US government should deem homosexuality as illegal. Who is anyone to state that a certain behavior is "morally" wrong???? What might go against your morals could be morally acceptable behavior to me.
Gay marriage is between to consenting adults and is not harmfull in anyway so hence their is no reason why it should not be legal
-
Originally posted by sassa
what exactly is a liberal supposed to be?
also, how do you know this?
Well I know this because he stated it many times while covering for Bill Press on the Buchanan and Press show. whatever the definition is he labeled himself it.
Nice try though Sassa
-
I agree with some points in the article. Our global deployment of troops is still based on cold war strategy. I think that now for the future we need to keep more of our troops at home guarding our own borders not turkeys or south Koreas
-
This guy that told me about doesnt really read up on supplements and shit like that so what he took could well had been a bogus supplement but thnx for looking anyhows.
-
Originally posted by acmatos
Well what is the point of same sex marriage??
maybe we need to establish that first.
Divorce is a totally separate and complicated issue if we start throwing every different issue together, then there will never be a clear or productive dialogue.
It seems by the way you are presenting your argument against same sex marriage, that you see the only purpose of marriage as simply a unification of two people in order to procreate and raise children. I totally disagree with this viewpoint. The point of same sex marriage is the same as the point of the traditional marriage arrangement, you love a person and you want to make the ultimate commitment and spend the rest of your life with that person.
You still have yet to give me a solid answer, other than the obvious moral/religious reasoning, why same sex marriage should not be permitted. I do not see any negative impact on society from two people of the same gender being married please explain...
-
Originally posted by mrmatas2277
in the beginning God created: Adam and Eve....not Adam and Steve....
:laugh: -
Originally posted by acmatos
If you want to totally stray from moral issues then think about it from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe nature has figured out, over thousands of years of trial and error, that the best way for the human species to survive and reproduce is in a family structure. I know it sounds strange, but think about it.
How is this an argument for disallowing same sex marriage???? Should we outlaw divorce then because it goes against the evolutionary standpoint or the family structure?????
-
Originally posted by ecpolo521
You girls should take your arguements to Fox News.
OK an intelligent comment....?...????....
-
I saw a special on aids a while back where doctors said they are within 5 years of a cure i hope thats true......
-
It seems that the majority of the country is against same sex marriage but I personally havent heard reasoning why besides the obvious religious and moral dilemmas on the matter. I personally being a str8t male can personally care less who people want to marry. I'm just curious what other reasons besides the moral issues are people against same sex marriage???
-
Originally posted by acmatos
anti Bush liberals complain about the debt constantly, as if there can be nothing good happening if there is debt.
Also, i see your point( the recovery has been slower than some expected but its happening nonetheless), but in reality the American economy is one big "boom" Despite fluctuations (some quite massive), the stock market tripled in the 80's and again in the 90's. Never in history have the people of a nation become so prosperous so quickly.
I understand what u are saying as well, u need to produce some debt in order to stimulate the economy. I tend to disagree with the details of the Bush tax cut myself but eventually their will be a recovery i just dont feel we are recovered yet.
:laugh: 
:( 
song id
in Music & Media
Posted
stepped off a plane from la.... get ready to rock rock rock
????????