Strange thing about Iraq

[Mechagodzilla]

I think you will find most Democrats hate Bush as much as you do.

In Stern's case, I can't see how that's possible.

 

[CptStern]

How is that hilarious?

because it's true

Would it be hilarious if I took a picture of an overweight person and then put a picture of a cow next to them for comparision? Maybe because I am attacking the fat person to help them feel bad so they loose weight?

your analogy doesnt suit this particular case

A political cartoon should be making fun of the way Bush speak or his stances on certain issues.

actually it's a banner from an anti-war protest

I don't want to debate this, how does Bush, the US and the oil companies benefit from the Iraq war? The Iraq war has caused nothing but problems for all three parties. Even before the war started, nobody thought there would be short-term benefits involved. Most companies are not smart enough to think long-term (after 5 years). I think it is a stupid political cartoon (if you can call it that).

haliburton? Cheney led National Energy Policy Development Group of 2000? ring a bell?

here's an excerpt from the report that was only released because of the freedom of information act:

"Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group.

They included maps of Middle East and Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," detailing the status of their efforts. "

source

 

[Neutrino]

Around and around they go, where they go, nobody knows!

Quick 2 cents. I do not want gays to be married. In my definition, marriage is a sacred thing between man and a woman. Having something that is important to my belief cheapened is not the way to make friends with this subject.

Alright, I have a question. There are many different religions in this country and many different subsets of those religions, most of whom support and practice the institution of marriage. Now even though I highly disagree with it, I do not think any religion should be forced to support gay marriage. However, what do you say about a religion or church that does support gay marriage. I'm not talking civil union, but the religious ceremony of marriage. So if this religion/church believes that gays should be able to marry aren't you treading on their beliefs by saying they can't be? By living in a country that has freedom of religion I think that means we need to respect everyone's religion, and not single out a specific one. How exactly is someone trying to tell you and your religion to accept gay marriage any different than you telling someone else and their religion that they cannot? I just think that's a bit of a double standard really.

To carry that further, how is allowing a gay person with a different religion thany your own marry, "cheapening" your beliefs? Just because that person disagrees, has different beliefs, and acts on those beliefs somehow lessens the value of your own beliefs? I'm sure that there are a multitude of other religious beliefs and practices in the world that you disagree with. Do all of them "cheapen" your own beliefs as well, since they don't do things the same way?

I'm sure you people must have several beliefs that you want to try to defend, right? I'm sure whatever it is, you will try your best to defend it.

Actually, I usually try to stay away from anything that looks like a belief, but that's for another discussion.

However, I am for civil unions or call it whatever you want as long as it isn't the term "marriage". Give them all the tax benefits (more work for me ), medical benefits, and whatever else married people get. Don't infringe upon my beliefs because it is the politically correct thing to do. They should compromise some too by calling their "marriage" some other term. After all, compromise is what makes the world go around.

Just to perhaps give a different point of view on this I just wanted to say that there is a reason many gays would not be very happy with just a "civil union." Yes, that is a big step in the right direction as they would then be granted equal legal rights. Heck, I myself would be happy enough with a civil union with my future wife as I don't feel any need to be religiously married. And for gays who think like me I'm sure it's not really a problem. But think of this. There are gay people who are religious. It may be a different religion than your own, but that doesn't make it any less important in this country.

Now as I understand it many christians consider marriage to not only be a union between two people, but also a union between those people and God. Now hard as it might be, try to put yourself in the position who believes wholeheartedly this but happens to be gay. Yes, I realize that you may not consider them true christians by being gay, but that just means their religion is a bit different than your own. I'm sure you consider other major religions to be wrong too. So try to think about what it would be like for this gay person that wishes to enter into a holy union (by their standard, doesn't have to be by yours) of marriage with God and another person. But what's this? They're not allowed to call this marriage, they have to call it a civil union. Do you propose that during the wedding ceremony they must censor the word marriage in their Bibles and insert civil union? I don't know about you but I would say that would indeed be interfering with "cheapening" their beliefs don't you think?

In the beginning you said: "In my definition, marriage is a sacred thing between man and a woman." Alright I can definitely respect that. However, it is your definition or the definition of mainstream christianity. But so what if another person with a different religion, even if it is a variant of christianity has a different definition? How can you impose your own definition of a religious word on someone of another religion or belief? Some words have different meanings to different religions. I don't think that this shows disrespect to anyone. People are people and they intrepret things differently. But trying to make other people conform to your own intrepretation (even if you are sure it is right) is a bit disrespectful in my opinion.

/leaves thread

I know you say you left, but I'd appreciate a response to this if you have the time.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Quick 2 cents. I do not want gays to be married. In my definition, marriage is a sacred thing between man and a woman. Having something that is important to my belief cheapened is not the way to make friends with this subject. I'm sure you people must have several beliefs that you want to try to defend, right? I'm sure whatever it is, you will try your best to defend it.

Well, some people believe a woman should never be seen outside her home. Some people believe that all modern technology is bad and should be kept far away. Some people believe that religions in general are bizarre.

But, they're not going to make eveyone wear a burquah. They're not going to make the entire united states adopt an amish lifestyle. I'm not going to try and force you to believe in the Bible less.

And yet, to the same extent, people can still wear a burquah, join the amish, doubt the Bible, if they want to and no-one can or should stop them with laws. Even if another religion doesn't like their practices, they should still be allowed to exist.
That's the essence of freedom.

Now, let's look at the gay marriage situation under that same example.

There are people who are gay and wish to marry. They're not forcing everyone to have gay marriage. But why can't they marry?

Are they not allowed to have their own interpretations of the Bible? The bible commands many things that are and aren't put into effect. It says that it's okay to beat your slaves, but only until they lose an eye. Are gays not allowed to disregard the anti-gay messages of the bible as much as they disregard the pro-slavery one?

It's just like the difference between catholic, protestant, baptist, etc., etc. Each uses the bible, and yet each is slightly different.
Now, I think we should all agree that catholics should never pass laws to limit protestant beliefs, nor vice-versa, no matter how much many amoung them might want to. That's pretty obvious, right?

But here, the straight are passing laws against the gays, forcing them to modify their lifestyle into one more suitable for straight folk. They want to change the US constitution to say, basically, "my beliefs supercede yours".

_______

I'm glad you're for civil unions, but shouldn't the people who are actually getting the union decide what to call it? That would be like me telling you to call your marriage a civil union because the entirety of Christianity is against my beliefs.

I do not want gays to be married. In my definition, marriage is a sacred thing between man and a woman. Having something that is important to my belief cheapened is not the way to make friends with this subject.

In my definition, marriage is a not really a sacred thing between man and a woman or two women or two men. I don't believe in sacredness. Having something that is important to my belief cheapened by calling it "sacred" is not the way to make friends with this subject.

I do not want soccer to be called football. In my definition, football is an American sport with a brown, ovoid ball.

I do not want "tomato" to be pronounced "to-MAH-to." In my pronunciation, "tomato" is spoken as "to-MAY-to".

See the similarities? I'm not going to force you to change your belief system to make it more acceptable in my eyes. Just like I won't force anyone to pronounce tomato differently. Why do the same to others? As long as you adhere to your belief system, who cares what everyone else does?

I'm sure you people must have several beliefs that you want to try to defend, right? I'm sure whatever it is, you will try your best to defend it.

Of course I'll defend my beliefs. But I draw the line at forcing those around me to be subject to them. Hence the separation of Church and State.

When America is literally made up of hundreds of religions, each with countless variations in interpretation and personal opinion, not to mention non-religious personal philosophies, would it really be wise to make Christianity, and only one facet of Christianity, universal law?

If I became president, would you really want me amending the constitution to change your religion so that you'd be more like me?

I wouldn't want that either.

Edit: Whoa, that's a long-ass post. :dork:

 

[blahblahblah]

I know you say you left, but I'd appreciate a response to this if you have the time.

I would if I could, but I am really pressed for time for the foreseeable future. Maybe later tonight, but that is uncertain right now.

If I do post, I want to take the time to create a proper post and not some 3rd rate defense.

Its funny how slow paced my life is then have it jump to light speed 10 minutes later.

Edit: Whoa, that's a long-ass post.

yes, it is.

 

[Neutrino]

I would if I could, but I am really pressed for time for the foreseeable future. Maybe later tonight, but that is uncertain right now.

If I do post, I want to take the time to create a proper post and not some 3rd rate defense.

Its funny how slow paced my life is then have it jump to light speed 10 minutes later.



yes, it is.

Alright, whenever you get around to it would be great.

I just wanted to kind of summarize and clarify something based on another post I read in a different thread. I'm definitely not saying you can't support the union between a man and a women. If according to your belief true marriage is only between a man and a women then that's your belief and deserves respect and I do not think a religious body should be force to grant marriage between gays if they do not want to. The only thing I'm trying to say is that supporting your own belief is fine. But trying to extend that support by saying others cannot believe or behave differently is where I disagree. I think they have just as much right to support their own version of what they think marriage is.

Basically, I think any law saying gays cannot marry (and I do mean marriage) is tantamount to interfereing directly with a religious practice. I truly see no difference between that and the government telling you that you are not allowed to attend church on Sunday, which I think you would agree would not be right.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm definitely not saying you can't support the union between a man and a women. If according to your belief true marriage is only between a man and a women then that's your belief and deserves respect and I do not think a religious body should be force to grant marriage between gays if they do not want to. The only thing I'm trying to say is that supporting your own belief is fine. But trying to extend that support by saying others cannot believe or behave differently is where I disagree. I think they have just as much right to support their own version of what they think marriage is.

Damn you! You've comfortably summed up my huge post into one concise paragraph!

 

[Neutrino]

Damn you! You've comfortably summed up my huge post into one concise paragraph!

Nah, you bring up a lot of good points and go much more in depth. Just tack mine on at the end and call it a conclusion paragraph.

Also, sorry BlahBlahBlah for making you respond to us two long-winded individuals. But I think the length was necessary to make all the points I wanted to include.

 

[seinfeldrules]

haliburton? Cheney led National Energy Policy Development Group of 2000? ring a bell?

Cheney doesnt work for Haliburton anymore. Do you know that Kerry owned stock in Haliburton as well? Maybe he voted for the war so he could get greater dividends!

Basically, I think any law saying gays cannot marry (and I do mean marriage) is tantamount to interfereing directly with a religious practice. I truly see no difference between that and the government telling you that you are not allowed to attend church on Sunday, which I think you would agree would not be right.

I agree 100%.

 

[blahblahblah]

/me takes a deep breath

Seriously, after this post, I am bowing out on this subject. This specific topic is getting very long winded and obtuse.

I think it is kinda of cool that a couple of random people on the internet can have a civil discussion about volatile topics.

Alright, I have a question. There are many different religions in this country and many different subsets of those religions, most of whom support and practice the institution of marriage. Now even though I highly disagree with it, I do not think any religion should be forced to support gay marriage. However, what do you say about a religion or church that does support gay marriage. I'm not talking civil union, but the religious ceremony of marriage. So if this religion/church believes that gays should be able to marry aren't you treading on their beliefs by saying they can't be? By living in a country that has freedom of religion I think that means we need to respect everyone's religion, and not single out a specific one. How exactly is someone trying to tell you and your religion to accept gay marriage any different than you telling someone else and their religion that they cannot? I just think that's a bit of a double standard really.

As you may have heard, several Christian denominations have embraced homosexual relations as a proper form. This goes against what the bible says and what my specific beliefs say. So I am against those specific churches that are for gay marriages. For reference, I firmly believe that being homosexual is on the same level as commiting adultary. It is wrong.

If those specific Christian churches want to support homosexual relations, are they really Christian? Or have they a different religion? I believe they are a different religion if they are adopting doctrines that are not of the bible. This is the same reason why Mormons and other sectors are not recognized as Christians. They do not follow bible doctrine and therefore should not be classified as Christian. They should make their own religion.

I am for equality, but at some point you need to stand up for your specific beliefs. You can only accomadate somebody so far before you say, 'hey I need to have my voice heard'. There is a difference between being respectful to a person's belief and being walked over.

As for my attempts to force my beliefs, can you really blame me for trying? Detaching one's beliefs and forming an unbiased position is iffy at best. Do you really think all of your personal beliefs are seperated from your political beliefs? Are you opposed to evolution in public schools because some people do not agree with it? Double standards exist everywhere.

To carry that further, how is allowing a gay person with a different religion thany your own marry, "cheapening" your beliefs? Just because that person disagrees, has different beliefs, and acts on those beliefs somehow lessens the value of your own beliefs? I'm sure that there are a multitude of other religious beliefs and practices in the world that you disagree with. Do all of them "cheapen" your own beliefs as well, since they don't do things the same way?

No, other religions don't "cheapen" my beliefs. They cheapen my beliefs when they use marriage in the context of Christianity to get married. I don't see a Muslims that get married using Christianity as a backbone for the wedding, do you?

Just to perhaps give a different point of view on this I just wanted to say that there is a reason many gays would not be very happy with just a "civil union." Yes, that is a big step in the right direction as they would then be granted equal legal rights. Heck, I myself would be happy enough with a civil union with my future wife as I don't feel any need to be religiously married. And for gays who think like me I'm sure it's not really a problem. But think of this. There are gay people who are religious. It may be a different religion than your own, but that doesn't make it any less important in this country.

I think I answered this statement/question above. To recap, I don't believe those people are Christians. If they create their own religion, fine. However, there is atleast a significant minority that will try to use Christianity as their religion. That is where I have my problem. It would be mocking Christianity from my perspective.

Since, I am a Christian and can't/don't want to declare a holy war against those specific people, preventing marriage (while allowing civil unions) for gays is the next best alternative.

I know you say you left, but I'd appreciate a response to this if you have the time.

That is the best you are going to get from me. My mind is on other things. I'm not skirting the issue, but I can't focus on the issue at hand. I'm supposed to be watching the RNC (for homework), doing other homework, while worrying about my grandparents, my train of thought is not all here right now. Forgive me, I tried my best. I'm not editing this post, so if something may seem inconsistent and/or confusing its because of that.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I am for equality, but at some point you need to stand up for your specific beliefs. You can only accomadate somebody so far before you say, 'hey I need to have my voice heard'. There is a difference between being respectful to a person's belief and being walked over

Wow, very well put. That is exactly how I feel.

 

[Ghost Freeman]

I am so tempted to tell you all what I think about Bush and his cronies, and my two cents on that Kerry fella too, but you know what? Discussing politics is the last thing I ever want to do on a forum.

I'm suprised these forums haven't had a complete crackdown on political topics, too.

 

[blahblahblah]

I am so tempted to tell you all what I think about Bush and his cronies, and my two cents on that Kerry fella too, but you know what? Discussing politics is the last thing I ever want to do on a forum.

I'm suprised these forums haven't had a complete crackdown on political topics, too.

For the most part, the people who participate in political debates in this forum are quite civil and respectful. I can't remember the last time somebody insulted my beliefs in a political or religious debate thread.

PS - Did anybody see the govenator's speech at the RNC? It was absolutely hilarious.

 

[Neutrino]

For the most part, the people who participate in political debates in this forum are quite civil and respectful. I can't remember the last time somebody insulted my beliefs in a political or religious debate thread.

PS - Did anybody see the govenator's speech at the RNC? It was absolutely hilarious.

I hope I'm in the list of the civil and respectful people. I do try to be most of the time. Though I do admit I may get a little over zelous on a few topics which I don't have a lot of patience for, such as wild conspiracy theories.

Nope, didn't see Arnolds speech as I don't own a TV, but I'll read about it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

PS - Did anybody see the govenator's speech at the RNC? It was absolutely hilarious.

Yes, I just watched it. I thought it was an excellent speech, while also being funny.

"Economic girlie men!"

 

[Phraxtion]

Not that matters to most the people posting in this thread, but for myself and millions more..

Lev. 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

This next one is directed mostly at you Innervision. This goes to a point I was trying to make in a different thread.

Rom. 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto Vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom. 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

If people choose to have gay sex, thats their choice. I do not hate gay people, I just disagree with that lifestyle. Thats one of the great things about the country we live in.

Im sure everyone knows the definition of marriage by now, so I wont repeat it. Given what it mean for so many people, I dont understand anyones reasoning in this debate. If two gay people can have a union, with the same benefits as a married couple... whats the real problem?

 

[Letters]

Leviticus says a lot of things...

If a priest's daughter "plays the whore" she shall be burned alive (21:9)

It forbids eating fat (7:23), letting a woman into church until 42 days after giving birth (12:4-5), and seeing your uncle naked (also called an abmination) (18: 14,26)

A beard must have square corners... (19:27)

We may purchase slaves from neighboring states (25:44)

And more... (Thanks goes to James Rachels for pointing those out )


Yeah, that's something we sure should live by! :rolling:


Anyway... saw that Leviticus thing there and had to comment.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Economic girlie men!"

Huh? I thought Arnold was with the democrats?

I guess he's not but, crap, that means us lefties are probably stuck with Jean-Claude Van Damme or something. :/

 

[Phraxtion]

Leviticus says a lot of things...

If a priest's daughter "plays the whore" she shall be burned alive (21:9)

It forbids eating fat (7:23), letting a woman into church until 42 days after giving birth (12:4-5), and seeing your uncle naked (also called an abmination) (18: 14,26)

A beard must have square corners... (19:27)

We may purchase slaves from neighboring states (25:44)

And more... (Thanks goes to James Rachels for pointing those out )


Yeah, that's something we sure should live by! :rolling:


Anyway... saw that Leviticus thing there and had to comment.

I suppose I walked into that one using Lev. I honestly dont have a beard with square corners... *runs to find the clipers*. But with that and the others I was just trying to point out how others feel, believe, and for the most part live by. Ive been in arguments where I was asked how I could call sex of the same gender unatural. Because physically it is. Theres not 1 gender or 3, but 2. Male and Female, which must act together in order to produce life.


Please flame me all you wish, ill not be posting in this thread again.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Anyway... saw that Leviticus thing there and had to comment.

If I remember correctly, one of the Leviticus abominations says that shellfish are never to be eaten. Lobster bad!

I guess the point is that Leviticus says a lot of stuff. Why single out the gay part as being the most important?

 

[Neutrino]

Please flame me all you wish, ill not be posting in this thread again.

No one is flaming you as far as I can tell. This thread has been quite civil I think. If you have nothing more to say then that's fine, but please don't leave just because you think you'll be flamed.

I will probably respond to your posts a bit later since you brought up the biblical side of the gay issue and I have a few opinions on that. But I will definitely attempt not to flame or insult you.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Ive been in arguments where I was asked how I could call sex of the same gender unatural. Because physically it is. Theres not 1 gender or 3, but 2. Male and Female, which must act together in order to produce life.

Well, scientifically speaking, many animals of all manner of species act homosexually on a regular basis. Some even become life partners. :O (That's most common amoung birds, but still happens with all sorts of others.) It might not be physically convenient but, mentally, I'd say it's pretty natural.

After all, if people consider nature to be unnatural, something's probably wrong. And I don't think it's the nature.

And if all sex were only for procreation, I'd bet the world would be a much more boring place. :cheese:

 

[Phraxtion]

No one is flaming you as far as I can tell. This thread has been quite civil I think. If you have nothing more to say then that's fine, but please don't leave just because you think you'll be flamed.

I will probably respond to your posts a bit later since you brought up the biblical side of the gay issue and I have a few opinions on that. But I will definitely attempt not to flame or insult you.

I would be more than glad to listen to your opinions Neutrino, but right now its getting a little late. Ill be back tomorrow afternoon to hear you out.

 

[Phraxtion]

Well, scientifically speaking, many animals of all manner of species act homosexually on a regular basis. Some even become life partners. :O (That's most common amoung birds, but still happens with all sorts of others.) It might not be physically convenient but, mentally, I'd say it's pretty natural.

After all, if people consider nature to be unnatural, something's probably wrong. And I don't think it's the nature.

And if all sex were only for procreation, I'd bet the world would be a much more boring place. :cheese:

Alot of animals tend to eat their young as well.

 

[staddydaddy]

Where was the resistance when Saddam was in charge? Now that the US is there, we've got resistance movements appearing every five minutes.

But no such resistance was around during Saddam's rule...

That's because those who resisted or who didn't agree with Saddam's religious views were gassed.

Yes, what a "pitty" it is to have the united states in Iraq not gassing the people of a Iraq. What a "pitty".

 

[Jackal hit]

That's because those who resisted or who didn't agree with Saddam's religious views were gassed.

Yes, what a "pitty" it is to have the united states in Iraq not gassing the people of a Iraq. What a "pitty".

along these same ideas, that some of my dutch friends pointed out while on vacation in holland this summer... perhaps as a scare tactic in the prison... the US coulda made saddam the prison commander. i garauntee you guys that saddam's hayday make the american torturers look like barney the dinosaur, or the teletubbies. just research some crap that went on there. i met some iraqi ladies in turkey this summer that can back that up. but basically, the insurgents know that they can get away with a lot more with the americans there. under saddams rule, insurgency was quashed violently and efficiently.

btw, sorry if i'm repeating everything... didn't wanna read ALL 13 pages :|

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Alot of animals tend to eat their young as well.

Yeah, but no-one is trying to legalize young-eating. Unless I missed the memo.

Y'see difference between homosexuality and cannibalistic infanticide is that one actually hurts someone, while the other is not harmful to anyone in any way, shape, or form.

Guess which is which.

 

[Jackal hit]

Yeah, but no-one is trying to legalize young-eating. Unless I missed the memo.

Y'see difference between homosexuality and cannibalistic infanticide is that one actually hurts someone, while the other is not harmful to anyone in any way, shape, or form.

Guess which is which.

well put.

 

[hasan]

Man, you guys don't know how much irritating it is when you see people talk about your country and they don't even have a clue :hmph:

I'm from Iraq, and let me clear some few things:
-If you think there is democracy in Iraq now, then you mistaken .. hugly mistaken.
-If you think the resistance is mainly composed of forigners or saddamist, you are hugly mistaken.
-If you think the life of the avarage Iraqi is better now than it was under saddam, then you are hugly mistaken.

These are facts, not opinions (although #3 could be subject to opinions).

Hence, any conclusion you make like "Iraqis don't know what to do with this thing called 'freedom' " is just .... totally .. kkkhh .. I don't know what to say.
it's just redicilous.

Ah, and those people who call themselves resistance and do nothing but kidnapp people and cut off thier neck .. most of these people have nothing to do with the resistance. I even suspect some of them are planted by the CIA or mosad to make the resistance look bad.

The resistance is very active against american forces, we just don't hear about them much. According to the "coalition", now the "international" forces, there is an avarage of around 50 attacks daily.
Why do we only hear about the beheadings of foriegn workers?

P.S. no one is killed in Iraq because they are white, not even the radicalls kill by the color of the skin, they might kill by nationality, but not skin color.

 

[Cybernoid]

Cybernoid you just did a double whammy!

Comparing such and such to hitler means you lose the argument.

Internet debating rules 101

I searched W3C, IETF and even RFCs but couldn't find anything by the name of "Internet debating rules 101." How odd!

Hmm, why is everyone talking about gay people.

The resistance is very active against american forces, we just don't hear about them much. According to the "coalition", now the "international" forces, there is an avarage of around 50 attacks daily.

I'm still asking: why wasn't the resistance doing anything when Saddam was around?

P.S. no one is killed in Iraq because they are white, not even the radicalls kill by the color of the skin, they might kill by nationality, but not skin color.

Nationality, skin colour, religion... it's all the same. Just excuses. There's no legitimate reason to kill civilian workers.

 

[Neutrino]

I'm still asking: why wasn't the resistance doing anything when Saddam was around?

I thought that was answered pretty well on the first page. You disagree?

 

[Raziaar]

Because he had intelligence everywhere who fit in perfectly with their society, and knew how to get to them to murder them and their families before a whole lot of hell broke loose.

I still think most of the resistance fighters are the former Iraqi armed forces. I mean come on, it was one of the world's largest military forces, centralized in a very very very very small country. They'd be everywhere.

 

[Phraxtion]

Yeah, but no-one is trying to legalize young-eating. Unless I missed the memo.

Y'see difference between homosexuality and cannibalistic infanticide is that one actually hurts someone, while the other is not harmful to anyone in any way, shape, or form.

Guess which is which.

Yes but in your post you were "scientifically speaking". Comparing man to animal.

 

[CptStern]

Yes but in your post you were "scientifically speaking". Comparing man to animal.

your point being?

 

[Phraxtion]

your point being?

He was comparing man to animal. Trying to counter me with science and nature. I was just doing the same. If the nature of man and animal are so similar.. why do we not eat our young?

 

[CptStern]

I have a dog, he's never tried to eat the neighbours puppy

 

[Phraxtion]

In response to Letters earlier post, I would have say that many parts of the old testament sound silly. But would you not agree that some people could find the notion of gay marrige just as laughable?

 

[Atomi]

. Some Finnish businessmen were murdered just for being white.

Were they really Finnish or don't I just remember such a thing?

 

[CptStern]

In response to Letters earlier post, I would have say that many parts of the old testament sound silly. But would you not agree that some people could find the notion of gay marrige just as laughable?

yes but people once thought the world was flat and the sun was the center of the universe: this was supported by the catholic church who would condemn anyone with heresy who said otherwise ...if I recall correctly, Leonardo Da Vinci was imprisoned for proving that the sun wasnt the center of the universe

 

[Phraxtion]

I have a dog, he's never tried to eat the neighbours puppy

Stern.. we were using exaples of animal nature as part of the discussion. I didnt say that every animal on the planet ate their young. Just the same for homosexuality, not every animal acts this way.

So.. is the neighbours puppy offspring of your dog? If not your post has no argument here.