2005-06-27 [Stray Kitty]: I fail to see why religion had entered this. The way I see it is, if you say the abortion should be illegal becuase you're killing souls, I see that as imposing your religion on me. And that would be a violation of the first ammedment to the Constitution.

2005-06-27 [Blaze the Nameless]: Well I can see what it has to do religion.

2005-06-28 [Roc]: If you're wondering why all of the most recent comments have been deleted, it's because they strayed quite far from the topic of abortion.

2005-06-28 [Blaze the Nameless]: All I have to say that when it comes to religion, it really depends if you're going to be pro choice or not. I doubt that most of the time religion has anything to do with it.

2005-06-28 [Expensive Fidelity]: Considering the main religion in the country (probably christianity, catholic), it will have almost everything to do with religion. SIMPLY because the majority of the voters will think it as murder and it will soon become illegal. I think it should be pro-choice for the sole reason that women will have illegal abortions with unsanitary equipment used by unlicenced people and might die in the process, therefore losing one more life than needed.

2005-06-28 [Blaze the Nameless]: The woman has a good reason for killing the baby. Not because she simply doesn't want it.

2005-06-28 [Expensive Fidelity]: Wether she has a valid reason, or simply doesn't want to go through childbirth, doesn't want to have to give it up for adoption, whatever. It /is/ the woman who's carrying the baby's choice and no one elses. and it will sadly stay that way legal or not. If it becomes illegal, then abortions in back alleys will happen more, and some won't be so lucky as to live or walk away the same. maybe screening the appointments would work, though there are doctors with different opinons. So that may not work. My opinion firmly stands pro-choice and nothing else for more saftey reasons than any other. "but now it can't grow up and make a difference in life..." blah blah blah... well, I go back to the fact

2005-06-28 [Expensive Fidelity]: of stemcell research and the using of aborted fetus cells. Who knows, maybe someone's aborted fetus will make it to where someone else can walk again... who knows. But that's my opinion and it stands unwavered, now and forever.

2005-06-28 [Stray Kitty]: Yes and what's funny is the pro-lifers don't support the child that the pro-lifers "saved". The pro-lifers just "save" it. Then the mother is most likely a single mom without a really good way to support the life some pro-lifer person "saved". I think that if you're pro-life than you should support the life that you "saved" Otherwise that poor child is going to end up on welfare, a drop out, in prison, or in a situtation where they might be needing an abortion.

2005-06-28 [Roc]: [Stray Kitty], I would ask you to revise the statement. Please abstain from using the terms "they" and "those people."

2005-06-28 [Stray Kitty]: Does that help? Or did I just make it a lot more confusing?

2005-06-28 [skizheart]: i completely agree with Stray Kitty's opinion on helping the saved....i am completely pro-life...even if there's someone that's raped, because that person may want that child...and look on the bright side of things...most people wouldn't but you never know....neways....there should be something...like programs for people that have thier children young and can prove that they can't live on thier own with a baby...

2005-06-28 [Blaze the Nameless]: Yes there should.

2005-06-28 [Stray Kitty]: Or even with the baby. Parents should be mature and older.

2005-06-28 [Blaze the Nameless]: I agree. However, one of my friends said if she ever got pregrant, she'd keep the baby. I admire her for that but she'd have to drop out of school.

2005-06-28 [skizheart]: yay....something we all can agree on...however these programs...should have a limit...because then people could just keep having babies and get more money and stuff...like some ppl on welfare....and also...where would the money for the programs come from...if i were pro-choice...then i would not want to pay someone for having a baby....i think that the people that are pro-life could do gigantic fundraising things or something. However, if more people are keeping thier babies then that's still a problem on population

2005-06-28 [skizheart]: yea that's what i'm sayin...by helping them ...they would have to REALLY help them...at least at first...like finding daycare or babysitters or anything...

2005-06-28 [Blaze the Nameless]: That's a good point as well. They could probaly have to keep a close eye on them.

2005-06-28 [Roc]: [Stray Kitty], I asked for a revisement as to refrain from using generalizations.

2005-06-29 [Morfeaohtarawen]: like a teacher on how to be a parent? that sounds good.

2005-07-05 [Roc]: End of abortion debate

2005-07-05 [Roc]: .........................................................

2005-07-05 [Roc]: Begin Social Services

2005-07-05 [Roc]: Social Services examples: social security, public defenders, welfare, health care, Department of Transportation, etc...

2005-07-06 [Gypsi]: I don't see why anyone would have a problem with the DOT... I admit it has a bad reputation, but that's only because people are generally only looking at the customer's point of view. It is at least as bad, if not worse, for the people that have to do the work.

2005-07-06 [Fizban]: i simply believe we need the seemingly unatainable reviewing programs for such things as welfare and other social help programs, to make sure that the people who truly need it arent being denied it for legal reasons, and the people who don't need it cant get away with money they shouldn't have...

2005-07-06 [Fizban]: not to say there arent programs to review the people before handing them services and money...but simply to say that there not working well...at least i dotn believe them to be...

2005-07-06 [Blaze the Nameless]: I really don't see the problem with wanting to keep people safe.

2005-07-06 [skizheart]: i have a problem with social security for the simple reasons that: it means we're numbering people, and i don't think it helps people...i do think that most americans are ignorant or just lazy...and that's what it is for...why can't someone just keep money away for themselves...then we wouldn't have the problem of the money we're going to get RUNNING OUT!

2005-07-06 [skizheart]: i don't believe in welfare at all...first of all i believe that if i'm giving money to someone because they're poor...i want to be able to know these people...and truly help them out...get them started, maybe with some funded shelters and see where my money goes...i wanna be able to know these people....for real..and get to trust them..

2005-07-07 [Roc]: One problem people often have with welfare and social security is those who take advantage of the system...what are your feelings toward that?

2005-07-07 [Morfeaohtarawen]: are you an american [skizheart]?

2005-07-09 [Fizban]: that all depends on the nature of the question...are you asking her if she is born in america, or if she feels she herself if an american, having patriotic feelings in relation to that...those are two different questions, and for some, contain two different answers...

2005-07-09 [Fizban]: but the taking advantage of the system is what i was talking about before hand...i feel that the programs that are used to get the money to the people who need it, and not in the hands of those who dont is not doing its job well...

2005-07-09 [Axeman08]: Well, social security, for example, basically puts a little more money in your hands every month, ideally, to help pay off your prescription drug bills, etc., after you're retired. It is NOT meant to be your only source of income/savings/retirement basket. One problem with it is that the payout includes millionnaires and people otherwise wealthy enough to retire on their own savings accounts. So, after Bill Gates turns 63 or whatever the age is, he can start collecting social security benefits (assuming there's any money left in there at that time).

2005-07-09 [Roc]: Social Security is meant to run out in 2036.

2005-07-10 [Axeman08]: That's an estimation, of course, but you can do the math. So, one of the solutions to ensure that only those people who need it receive it could be receipt of funds based on your assets. Of course, like tax evasion, there could be people trying to get money they don't deserve, and auditing could prove expensive, but it's one solution (not to say that this solution alone would make social security solvent). I suppose it would be like welfare, but much more inclusive.

2005-07-12 [skizheart]: i was born in america...i do not believe in everything that this country stands for though...i do believe it is one of the best...only because it allows the most freedom....however...too much freedom leads to crap so...um i don't knwo why you're askin anyways

2005-07-12 [Fizban]: i suppose a system, less money to those more able to pay, more money to those less capable to pay...but yes, how would they know?? if one truly wished, simply take all the money out of your bank accounts, and they will believe you to have no money...far to easy to determine weather or not you are entitled to money...hmms i mean, easy to fool the system

2005-07-12 [skizheart]: well i guess so ....about the reciepts....but i'm not completely understanding the whole thing your'e talking about....help?

2005-07-12 [Fizban]: lols i mean, like with taxes...they have a progressive tax set up, the more you make the mroe they take, so for this it would be like, the more money you have saved the less money we need to give you..for someone like bill gates that would be nothing, for someone like my dad that will be probably a good amount...but people can get around that by taking all there money where the system could find it out, say a savings account...remove the money and then the people wont be able to say, hey you have enough money left we dont need to give you lots of social security to help you along you're capable on your own...

2005-07-12 [Roc]: True, but I can guarantee someone would file a suit on grounds of economic discrimination.

2005-07-13 [Fizban]: if its explained in a fashion relative to the progressive tax, then i think that will reinforce the idea and i dotn think they would win...however hey, i wouldnt know i dont know much about the law

2005-07-13 [Roc]: It would probably lose in the district court, but it would be appealed probably all the way up the Supreme Court.

2005-07-14 [Axeman08]: Well, one could make the argument that taxes, especially sales taxes are economic discrimination, so I'm not sure how well that argument would hold up.

2005-07-14 [Roc]: I'm just saying it could be.

2005-07-14 [Morfeaohtarawen]: I know a lot of people who need it, people should be more honest. as my neighbor says, we do have a royalty, money

2005-07-15 [Axeman08]: This is not directed at anyone in particular, but I would appreciate it if everyone started using punctuation. It's often very hard to understand the point of your comment without proper punctuation. Anyway, privatizing social security is certainly not the way to do it. That's like gambling the money away.

2005-07-15 [Fizban]: oy vey...this country is going to destroy itself...the higher you build everything up the easier it is to topple it...

2005-07-19 [Roc]: End Social Services Debate

2005-07-19 [Roc]: ................................................................

2005-07-19 [Roc]: Start Gay Marriage Debate

2005-07-19 [Gypsi]: I completely and wholeheartedly support gay marriage. Love knows no bounds, and is fully capable of transcending gender.

2005-07-19 [Fizban]: i believe that the perameters of marriage do not restrict the gender of the 2 people who wish to bonded together in holy matrimony. Althou i most undoutable agree that it stipulates 2 people only , it is not the gender of those people that matters.

2005-07-19 [Fizban]: althou the one obvious problem, and only real valid reason for its rejection i ever see in anyone that is brought up (i am not talking about the thousands who feel that because they say they dont feel comfertable with it and dont agree/like it that means that they shoudl have the right to choose how everyone lives as thou becasue you dont like what there doing that they should) i mean, that it is seen and looked upon not as liberal expansion to many, but cultural degredation.

2005-07-19 [Fizban]: And althou due to the way in wich america was created, we dont so much have a rich cultural backround of history to rely on as much as a society that we are dependent on to say as to what is and is not acceptable...as comically as to be expected, the old are more rooted in to the old way of thinking, the younger the more liberal...intill one day the young are the old, and the old are gone, yeilding a new generation of people to whom dislike change and favor the so called stability of the cultural choices of the society they heralded to when they were young, and then we have a mass of people to whom think that the same liberal expansions that occoured during there generation were fine,

2005-07-19 [Fizban]: but the liberal expansions that will and as history is tending to show, will most likely again continue and repeat itself by happenening will not be okay, and will be seen by a different group as the culture degrading, and by the younger at this time to simply be expanding upon there liberties in there society of choice.

2005-07-19 [Fizban]: but then again who am i to talk?? i have followed suite just as much as so many others, possible more so...and i am just waiting to be thinking to myself some day "what is wrong the people these days??, they are far too extreme" let alone the fact that i favor balance yet am, i feel to be more to an extreme. But that seems to be the same boat many are in, i would value the opinouns of those who hold gay marriage in contempt more, if more of them had reasons instead of simple feeling or statments of disquietude, without thoughtout explanations as to why they hold those feelings or opinouns...

2005-07-19 [Fizban]: well i believe i have filled my quota as ranting god for the week, i will leave the debate till others are on instead of rambling on like an arrogant teen as i am now...more would prolly be on right now, if it wasnt 4:00 in the morning...

2005-07-19 [Axeman08]: Well, from the *legal* perspective of this, there isn't really an argument against gay marriage that would (or should by proper American law) hold up in court. Everyone who is against gay marriage is against it for religious or cultural reasons.

2005-07-19 [Fizban]: wich, despite the protests of many again, shoudlnt hold up, however as can be seen culture and the opinouns of the people are more like a co-pilot than a backseat driver if you take my meaning...

2005-07-20 [Roc]: Okay, how does religion play into each of your opinions?

2005-07-20 [Fizban]: religoun?...well, that depends,...does it in the bible say that being gay is wrong?? and does it not also say to be tolerent?? i dunno never read it, and i dont particularly follow it...or believe much in it...i dont think god really cares abotu who you are, such as your preferences,...i simpley believe that if your a good person...just in general or whatever god would consider in a person to be good, woudl therefore be good...i dont think he would mind who was getting married if someone was getting married...but i mean there is no difference between guys who have sex with a whole bunch of girls uncaringly and guys who do the same thing to other guys....i am sorry, but i am guessing thats a

2005-07-20 [Fizban]: sin...

2005-07-20 [Gypsi]: Religion doesn't play into my opinion at all, simply because I'm not really an avid follower of any particular religion.

2005-07-20 [Fizban]: either way...due to the fact that despite this is more of a christian nation, it has no bounds in this secular country on the judgement of gay marriage due to the fact that not everyone believes in christianity so what right do you have to tell someone they cant get married because its against what they believe and such...when religoun isnt law it shouldnt have a say in the law...

2005-07-20 [Gypsi]: I agree.

2005-07-21 [skizheart]: hmmms...this is going to be difficult to explain my view...because i do believe that one can choose who and what they love.....but hey that's just me...i love my gay friends...they so great...i just do not believe that they should have sex....and if a gay person is gettin married..then it prolly means that they're gonna have sex. This is because i believe sex is for love and reproduction only...which i think i've previously stated when we were talking about abortion...but oh well...i don't think that it's following the rules of nature...let alone God...but i don't know what God wants...having sex to not reproduce...is not natural...whether or not you're staright or gay or bi

2005-07-21 [skizheart]: it doesn't matter...because either way you're still not being natural...which is what i believe what God wants anyways(to be as natural and kind as possible...but aside from that...nature is being tormented...So anyways...so if gay ppl are prolly gonna have sex while they're married....and gay ppl can't reproduce...i don't really thinkn that they should...only because i think that lifestyle is un natural...However we live in America where we have freedom of choice...I think that it should be left up to the individual states

2005-07-21 [HellzHalo426]: Well most points I agree with but the sex thing im not too sure. As you yourself stated "sex is for love and reproduction only" IF people can have sex just to reproduct dont you think they should be able to have sex just for Love? As for its not natural Many things are not natural that humans do anyways. For example Piercings Tatoos Dying your hair None of those things are natural yet a good majority of the population has done at least one of those things.

2005-07-21 [skizheart]: no

2005-07-21 [skizheart]: love and sex only....

2005-07-21 [skizheart]: you need both to have sex...what the hecks the point with having sex without love...it makes sumone one feel more secure...and it feels better...and also ....then you wont have freggin RAPE!!!!!! gurrr.....see it kinda solves all problems....but it's to perfect and i don't think ppl in general....are that strong...or smart as a whole...to make an improvement....  :( sorry...sumtimes i'm a pessamist about America

2005-07-21 [skizheart]: i don't have any piercings...not even my ears!....i don't like tattoos..and i've never died my hair...ever and will never and wont get my ears pierced.....and of course the majority of ppl do...because it's just like us to try to make our selves feel better by dressing ourselves up...and putting on make up...i do admit...i have worn make up but after i realized it wasn't good...i stopped and new i was just trying to impress ppl...and i have not worn make up for the past 2 yrs

2005-07-21 [HellzHalo426]: But people DO have sex without love! Prostitutes, College guys with a boner, Girls trying to get back at their parents!!

2005-07-21 [Gypsi]: And boys. People will have sex just for pleasure, and not love or reproduction. Even dolphins have sex for pleasure.

2005-07-21 [Fizban]: and if you didnt know, dolphins also being proclaimed as the second smartest specie,and have realized they can have sex for pleasure, but what you prolly didnt know...was that they are also the only specie besides us...that rapes i think that in itself is saying something...and your not getting it right hellz...she isnt talking about what people DO...she is talking about what people SHOULD DO...and excuse me scarred witch, but i take offense to that, i admit that most guys may be, however i am preferably and most decidedly NOT...as you have described, so dont group us 'guys' as a whole if you dont want to be grouped as a 'whole' with every other girl stereotype...

2005-07-21 [Fizban]: just as some girls can be very slutty...not all guys are led around by there dicks...but further on...what kabamarama, i believe was stating that what she doesnt do is whats un-natural, it can be said with able evidence that sex for pleasure is a waste of the means by wich it was created...naturally it was created for us to reproduce...and idealy, as with many animals prime examples being whales and lets just say penguins, they have the same mate for there entire life...that i believe is the effect that love was intended to do...but either way...we arent supposta naturally be having sex without the intent to create off-spring...and that is as stated best done when in love...

2005-07-21 [Fizban]: going on something else that may then be relevent to natural...studies have shown, that 5-10percent of all animals are gay...for us i believe that may be the same...but up it to about 15-20 percent...also, there is a differnece..because, lets take this...homosexuality can be caused by a mix of horemones...causing whoever to be attracted to the same sex...basically by an accident of nature...however...than that for them (being gay that is) is what is natural...because what is natural for them is different than that of the majority...this of course only accounts for people to whom are born gay...not to those who are in my opinoun retarded in that they are just gay because the only thing they..

2005-07-21 [Fizban]: ...care about is sex and not where it comes from...and think they can get it easier from other guys who think the same...

2005-07-21 [Fizban]: so the difference between that is...that anyone can love anyone...but not everyone can be in love with anyone...what many people refer to as the spark of there relationship is the attraction between them that helps to strengthen bonds and such...a little attraction if not alot is needed...irrelevent if a gay person tries to love a girl...they may, but i think the fact that i am guessing if there gay they cant be attracted to girls,...soo yeah, that is why i dont believe anyone can just be in love with anyone kabamber,...that and no one (cept you apparently;) can just choose to fall in love...(in all this gay was in reference to guys, all would have obviously also applied to girls)

2005-07-21 [Axeman08]: I think part of the human experience is having sex for purposes other than reproduction. Think about this. Do you really want the government telling you what you can do, and with whom, in your own bedroom? (P.S. Canada legalized gay marriage. *sings Canadian national anthem*)

2005-07-21 [fallen_flutterby]: alright this seems like a cool place and i have lots to say about this topic so give me something to work w/.

2005-07-21 [Fizban]: you have lots just read everyones comments and make your own in reference to theres and your own thoughts^_^...and your forgetting something...axe...no one is saying that the gov't should be able or allowed to in any way tell you what you can or cannot do...we were discussing morals...this are appliacable to the person individually...the governmetn cannot enfoce things such as these...

2005-07-21 [Axeman08]: Well, I think the most important part of any issue, though, rather than what SHOULD be done, is what CAN be done practically. Ultimately, what will decide these things is how applicable they are on legislative paper. Therefore, when challenged, how well it holds up in court is what decides whether it will stay or go.

2005-07-21 [Fizban]: that is of course for us to turn back to the legalities involving gay marriage...but also seeing as culture gets added into law simply by the judges deeming the info take upon there opinouns...wich is why this is linked to law. but now on, people are becoming more and more non-chalant and uncaring about wheather or not being gay is a big thing...not to say the majority has accepted the fact that there has always been and most predominnantly will forever be gay people..simply saying that everything is interconnected. How have people so far been denyed the right to marry?? i think another state is allowed now or someting...other than massachusets but i am not quite sure, so dont trust that

2005-07-21 [Gypsi]: In response to [Fizban]'s earlier comment: I meant no offense to males, and it wasn't my intention to stereotype. I just meant that guys can use sex to get back at their parents as much as girls. Apoligies, I should have been more clear.

2005-07-21 [Axeman08]: Well, I think Connecticut and a couple of other states allow civil unions, but I think MA is the only one that actually has legalized gay marriage. Of course, Canada just became the 4th country in the world to legalize it nationwide.

2005-07-21 [Gypsi]: And for that, I am very glad.

2005-07-21 [Fizban]: wowsers lol...i have to apoligize to you scarred witch i didnt see the connection to the boys thing to the previous comment made before i diddnt realize you were talking about getting back at parents...wow there doesnt seem to be anyone here to argue for the opposing side...

2005-07-21 [fallen_flutterby]: well i think that gay marriage is both good and bad. its kinda up in the air for me because i have a lesbian friend who is getting married. or at least wants to get married. this kinda makes me feel weird i mean i can't hate her because shes my friend but i don't believe that the church should ordain it. the church is based off the bible and in the bible it says marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. our government is also run by christians so ofcourse the united states would be aginst it except for a few libral states.

2005-07-21 [Gypsi]: No need to apoligize, [Fizban]. ... I don't believe that just because the US is run by Christians means the US would be "against" gay marriage. I have hard-core Christian friends that are pro gay marriage.

2005-07-21 [fallen_flutterby]: well when i said the US i ment the goverment. you see im still very confused about it. i meani'm glad that my friend is happy and i know other gay couples who are really happy . but i don't think you need to be married to be in love. marriage dosen't effect the way you look at a person and you just know that you were ment to be together. marriage is just something to make it offical with the government.

2005-07-21 [HellzHalo426]: Well I think that Marriage is a thing that shows people that your so much in love you cant live without your spouse and thats why people who are Bi Lesbian or Gay should be allowed to get married.

2005-07-21 [fallen_flutterby]: i don't know what i believe yet, i think you can live with a person and have a need to be w/ them w/o a marriage licence.

2005-07-22 [skizheart]: yes...marriage shows that you love them and blah blah blah...but it has many other benefits....it gives you privilages that ppl that are single or under a civil union can't have...like you know..hmms

2005-07-22 [skizheart]: taxes...are lowered...and sometimes insurance for cars and such

2005-07-22 [skizheart]: this is a hard subject for me to debate on...because my beliefs are not like most...like i hate sex...and i don't think ppl should have it...so if it were not for the sex part...i'd be fine with gay marriges...just like straight marriages....it's the actual marriage that i don't like, so i'm sorta pro gay marrige but not...for complicated reasons...so yea.....but i still do think that it should totally be left up to the states, not the federal govn't

2005-07-22 [fallen_flutterby]: well sex is only one aspect of marriage. i know alot of couples that go w/o having sex. yes marriage gives you benifits but you shouldn't get married because of them. you get married because you love someone not because you get lower insurence rates. personaly i don't think you need to get married to show you love someone. and even though i believe all humans are equal and every should get the same rights i think that if you really truely love a person that much you shouldn't need a licence. that goes for straight couples too. 

2005-07-22 [Fizban]: its not about that simply flutter...the point is that striaght marriages get benefits, irrelevent of love or otherwise, if your gay you should be allowed to get the same benefits that everyone else is getting in a marriage...its economics....its like saying, oh so just cause we aren't a straight couple we dont get the same benefits guarenteed to them?? what does that make them better?? its saying that...we dont have the right to deny them that...also you have to take into account that marriage has other applications outside of love...however most would prefer it for love...there are other porpouses irrelevent of weather or not they should be taken advantage of...everyone is entitled too...

2005-07-22 [fallen_flutterby]: okay i'm totally for them getting the same rights, in a way i guess even though i've dreamed about it since i was a lil girl i just don't think that marriage is that important. the fact that you love someone is important . so why can't we get the same benifits if were dateing for a certain period of time or if were living w/ the person we love but we arn't married what about those relationships.

2005-07-22 [Fizban]: becuase dating is unofficial and so flighty...you can be going out and then not and then again like its nothing...marriage is so much more permanent...finalized

2005-07-22 [Artsieladie]: As far as gay marriage is concerned, it goes against my belief in God....but everyone has 'free will' & their choices are what they have to live w/ & my choices, I have to live w/. The part that troubles me the most is gays expecting to use the term, 'marriage' for it is holy in God's eyes. To call it 'marriage' is an INSULT to God! If they want to call it something else...fine, but NOT THE HOLY BONDS OF MATRIMONY, nor SHOULD THEY EXPECT TO BE ALLOWED TO BE "MARRIED" IN A CHURCH...THE HOUSE OF OUR LORD! I also know that our God is an understanding God, even when He's deeply hurt by His children's actions.

2005-07-22 [Gypsi]: I'm sorry, but I don't see how that would offend "God." I thought Christianity was based on love and understanding, and caring. People are who they are. Why should gender make any difference as to wheter or not marriage is "holy"?

2005-07-22 [Fizban]: as well as teh fact that althou the institusion of marriage was created by the christians (i believe, but it could possibly have come from judaism, which coincidently is where christianity first originated, it came from judiasm lols...) is why churches are allowed to refuse to provide survice for gay marriages...however, that deosnt mean gay people cant have there own beliefs...that doesnt include the ideals of those who thikn that they insult god...

2005-07-22 [ArchangelGabriel]: If churches refuse to allow marriage then i can see that veiw point. But Gays should be allowed to marry poutside of the church.

2005-07-22 [Gypsi]: Actually, I don't think marriage was originally a Christian thing... I think it was originally brought about by a Pagan ceremony called "hand" something or other... I can't remember the exact name of it, but Christianity, Judaism and all that were formed from Pagan religions.

2005-07-22 [ArchangelGabriel]: Certainly chritiansit. Easter and Christmas where just timed to allow the celts to keep celbrationg old festivals for new reasons

2005-07-22 [Axeman08]: Well, I am fine with churches refusing to perform same sex marriages. Forcing them to do so would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause (separation of church and state), which is really what this is about anyway. Legally, a religious argument would (or rather SHOULD not) hold up as a reason against gay marriage due to that very clause. As far as the religious part of it goes, it may be against your God, Artsie, but it may not be against everyone's God.

2005-07-23 [ArchangelGabriel]: You should be allowed too have gay marriage though outside of the church.

2005-07-23 [HellzHalo426]: If any of you havent seen this yet Rist-It-All-For-Love These two men were so deeply in love that they killed themselves together. I think their Love is the one of the biggest points to support gay marriage. If you love someone that much you should be able to marry them

2005-07-24 [Axeman08]: Yeah, and having it be recognized as an actual marriage. If I got married (I'm straight), I personally wouldn't give a hoot about whether a religious body recognizes it. To me, it's whether the state recognizes it that counts. However, that's my belief. To many, a church endorsed marriage may be important.

2005-07-24 [ArchangelGabriel]: I'm with Axeman on this point. Coming from a complelty unreligios background i wouldn't want to be married under the church any way.

2005-07-24 [Axeman08]: But...we digress we bit. The point is that churchies should know their limits and that they have no place in trying to influence legislation based solely on religious beliefs.

2005-07-25 [Dark Lullaby]: Many people who arn't Christians get married in churches. So I don't see why gay people can't get married in some churches. Also if the government doesn't allow these people to get married, they should allow some sort of bonding for gay, bi, and lesbian people. They should also get the same benefits as married people.

2005-07-25 [Axeman08]: Yeah, that's where the key to this lies, I suppose. Because of the religious nature of the American populace, it is very difficult to convince enough people that GLBT people are entitled to benefits. Even if there is enough support, with the situation as it is right now, it would be political suicide for any prominent politician to go about advocating benefits for GLBT people.

2005-07-25 [Gypsi]: True. But one would hope that if several politicians banded to-gether, the advocating of benefits would not hold so many politically suicidal tendencies.

2005-07-25 [Fizban]: then again thats still a big risk, because politicans arent well known for there trust...axeman places a very good point...then again in response to ones closer to my last post, scarred witch, i believe you are correct, seeing as polytheistic religouns came much before christian ones or any monotheistic ones have...so it was prolly hand...also from that lobsang you are infuriatingly correct (not angry at you just at the truth in the point you brought up) jesus wasnt from the way i have been recently been hearing it born IN FRIGGEN DECEMBER...or winter for that matter...so i dont believe we can call it celebrating the birth of christ if its not on his friggen bithday...it would be pointless..

2005-07-25 [Fizban]: ...to celebrate anyone elses birthday 6months later than they were supposta..i have been hearing that it was used to cover up a paganistic celebration...wich is even more wrong what right has anyone to try to do that..its disgusting...that and halloween is really hallows eve...hallows being an old name to call saints...but druidic pagans had a celebration where they dressed up to scare away evil spirits, wich is where the current celebration degraded came from...along with hallows eve being changed to halloween...grr another thankfully practically failed attempt at erasing the past by the catholic church...grrr...i dont care what religoun its the attempt at cultural genocide...and that is

2005-07-25 [Fizban]: simply wrong...

2005-07-25 [Gypsi]: I looked into it, and the ceremony was called handfasting. And yes, the celebration of Christ's birth in the end of December was to "cover up" the Pagan celebration of Yule (or Finn's Eve). At the time, sometime in the Dark Ages I believe, the Inquistion and the Church were trying to eradicate Pagans and Pagan beliefs, and "covered up" the Pagan holidays with Christian ones to nullify them. But we are getting off topic, I fear...

2005-07-25 [Fizban]: however that doesnt revoke the validity of all this...grr, this is all so angering to me...however yes we are now that i think of it far far off track...

2005-07-25 [fallen_flutterby]: but to have a real coversation we need to talk about all aspects of a topic. but i do agree this is a lil far off the subject.

2005-07-26 [Roc]: Yes, Christmas was an exuse to overlook the Winter Solitice; this is true. Also, as far as religion is concerned with marriage...Originally, marriage was merely a contract of property between to families. There was no religion or love involved; it was strictly about money.

2005-07-26 [fallen_flutterby]: that is true. marriages were set years in advance to expand land holdings.

2005-07-26 [Axeman08]: Well, I'm not sure how relevant that is at this point in time. The strongest benefit of legalized same-sex marriages is not money or property. It is benefits. I'm not sure where else we can go with this. There aren't enough opposing viewpoints.

2005-07-26 [Gypsi]: No, I suppose not... I may be able to find someone with an opposing viewpoint.

2005-07-26 [fallen_flutterby]: i know we may need a new topic.

2005-07-26 [Gypsi]: I think we should all encourage at least one person to visit here and add to the discussion.

2005-07-26 [fallen_flutterby]: that might help thats how i started. i second the motion.

2005-07-26 [Fizban]: loyls...i invited someone with an opposing viewpoint but she didnt stay for long...well no i dont know how well i can argue this point...on the opposing view point

2005-07-26 [Roc]: If you have suggestions for a new topic, please message me.

2005-07-28 [skizheart]: lols...well do most of you think that the power of getting married...should be under the law of the federal government...? cuz i think ppl that want to get married...that are gay or bi should go to states that have it....however...i'm not too keen on um how many states are really going to approve same sex marriages., so i can't really say much on which states....but it's just like you would have to go to MASS to get married...and live there to have the benfits of a real marriage

2005-07-28 [Gypsi]: I think it would be unfair to make people do that, move to Mass. or something similar. It's like saying, "You're not good enough to be married in this state, your HOME, go to this one instead."

2005-07-28 [skizheart]: then if they don't move...then it doesn't really seem like they care about geting married that much

2005-07-28 [Gypsi]: That's unfair. How would you feel if the only way for you to get married was to move away from your home, family, friends, job, everything familiar to you?

2005-07-28 [skizheart]: i know what you mean......but it would be like living here if you didn't like it where you were..i didn't mean it soo cold like lol...i meant like...if the whole marrige thing is so much of a big deal....but i know you're right and i'm completely wrong....it isn't fair.....but i personally love to travel and i would totally go...but i know ppl aren't like that

2005-07-28 [Gypsi]: I'm a big person on travel myself, I'm just trying to look at it from a general point of view.

2005-07-28 [skizheart]: yea i know...i was kinda just puttin it out there....i don't have anyfriends to bring here lol....:( sorrys

2005-07-28 [Gypsi]: No need to be sorry

2005-07-29 [Fizban]: yea shes an ET loser ;)...well what about the idea that if we allow this then the culture will further degrade??

2005-07-29 [Gypsi]: How would that cause cultural degradation? Personally, I think it might advance us, make us more accepting of things that aren't the "norm."

2005-07-29 [skizheart]: eck....i totally think it could lead to cultural degradation....i've gone to places where gay ppl go like clubs and stuff...and to me....in general...which may sound discrimatory....which i do not mean to be....but these are the only YOUNG gay people i've seen....mostly guys too, they were extremely mean and flaunting thier sexuality and over touchy in public...it just makes me mad....like the ppl there acted like it was an obligation to let me know that they were gay and got the best of both worlds or somthin...so it forces you to call them different and see them as something above a regular person....however i know that all gay ppl are not like that....but the majority that i've seen

2005-07-29 [skizheart]: were younger....not married people...kinda in college and stuff...so i don't know if it would be because they were soo young or whatever...i just know what some ppl act like and i don't want that the become part of the norm or whatever.....and also another view would be how far we would let marriges go...

2005-07-30 [Gypsi]: What do you mean, how far "we would let marriages go"?

2005-07-30 [~Angelo~]: I think that gay marriage should be allowed, simply becasue love is love, and two men/women getting married shouldn't hurt anyone that much, if all. I know a bunch of gay people, and they are nice, most nicer then the straight men I know.

2005-07-30 [Gypsi]: Ditto.

2005-07-30 [~Angelo~]: :D

2005-07-31 [skizheart]: lol....i don't ...i know two kool gay ppl like...outta 20....maybe it just happens to be their personalities...whatever...i'm not talking about that...i was talking about letting it go like too far...like getting married to two ppl or three...if we're allowed to marry anyone..you know...that's what fizban meant by cultural degradation

2005-07-31 [~Angelo~]: Yes, but U.S laws state "seperation of church and state" but mairriage is a religous thing, and the biggest reason people do not want same sexes married, is because of christian beliefs.

2005-07-31 [Fizban]: hey!! amber..i was going to say that...you ruined my whole thing lols..but yes thats what i was talking about...i think love is love between 2 people...but i dont believe in any form of paligamy what-so-ever....but marriage may be a religous thing...but christians cant say hey you cant do that...becuase its not just a christian religous practice its rooted in sooo many religouns it cant be denied i dont think...i think its retarded that it can be denied for thus...i dont have a prob with a church denying it in there church but there are always judges and other who can perform marriages...

2005-07-31 [Axeman08]: Just so we're clear, gay marriage has NOTHING to do with polygamy. The only reason they are lumped together is because both acts are considered immoral by Christian doctrine. I also think we've made it clear that the marriage we're talking about allowing would be at the government level. We cannot force churches to perform gay marriage if they do not wish to do so.

2005-07-31 [~Angelo~]: Yes, gay marriages would need to be done by judges, for we cannot force churches to do something that they are against.

2005-08-01 [Fizban]: i know that there not connected right now...but what i am talking about....is that right now we are going for something that we feel is right...gay marriage...but we dont, or at least right here with these people i dont think we do...but then when our generation is fine with this stuff the next will prolly be even more so...i think of this as positive liberal expansion not the destruction of morals...however what if the next next generation or so feels the same about paligamy...that its fine and not at all a problem...oh yeah lets screw everyone maritally...it will be great...i feel that is just wrong...but on the track we are goin the next generations may not...thats what i mean...

2005-08-01 [skizheart]: welll...i kinda don't care lol like if we marry one or two or more ppl....i just care about them having sex! lol soooo you could most certainly marry your dog....if this nation ever got that far and annoyingly liberal and stupid...but i just don't think you should have sex with it....that's my point....

2005-08-01 [Fizban]: to most people that woudl be retarded...cuase if your going to marry your dog...well...what are you going to do play frizbee on your honey moon?? that is just soo stupid...the idea is just soooooo stupid...i hate people...i wanna give up...people just suck...there all so stupid...i am stupid and so is everyone else...dammit all...whatever...marriage is all about sex amber...sex and sacrifice...people use it to feel like sex isnt bad cuase there married...your the only one who thinks like you do specifically...so theres no argument with that...

2005-08-02 [Roc]: End Gay Marriage Debate...kinda

2005-08-02 [Roc]: ..........................................................................

2005-08-02 [Roc]: Begin Forms of Gov't Debate

2005-08-02 [~Angelo~]: (about prior note: I happen to agree with Amber, to a point. And I do not think marriage is about sex.)

2005-08-02 [fallen_flutterby]: on the new subject i believe that the united states government is the best to a point. the problem is that its controled by money. alen greenspan controls the united states because hes in charge of the stock market. other then that the policy of checks and balences is a great idea.

2005-08-02 [skizheart]: i think that the united states go to far....we suck...the only reason why i like america is because we have freedoms(of course...that we take for granted >:/  ) and i think we are controled by money which...and we also try to control other countries and stuff..it's annoyin....i thikn the ppl here have too much freedom and don't use it right or for any good cause...and i can understand why any country could hate us.

2005-08-02 [Roc]: Directing the debate: What do you all want a government to do? To provide (both tangible and intangilble)?

2005-08-02 [arafel]: To do? Other than govern? Well, me personally, i would like our government to stop telling other countries how to run theirs. Don't get me wrong, i'm not turning this into a discussion about the war in Iraq. But I find it presumptuous that the US will go over to a country and say "We don't like how you're running this thing". Then some conflict, some resolution and 20 years later we'll apologize and say "Oh sorry about that little business. We're bossy sometimes. By the way, it's ok if we just leave a couple thousand of our troops posted over here, right?"

2005-08-02 [skizheart]: yea i agree...and to go along with that...i believe ours or any government should also work on internal problems before anything else...we have SOOO many problems...and then we go off and have a war or some kinda of foreign affair of any sort.... we have our own poor ppl to worry about and our debt that increases every second and we can't cut the debt down unless we stop spending money...and soooo much goes to our army...of course because we think we need to be the police of the world.

2005-08-02 [arafel]: Very true. The U.S. Government does tend to forget that it's first priority is the U.S. and it's internal affairs. Our debt and unemployment are too large to keep ignoring like this. Rather than offering some skittle-based color coding system for terror, how about we return to regulating monopolies and such. Oh, and when will I be allowed to bring a nail file onto an airplane with me again?

2005-08-02 [Gypsi]: Ha! I agree. Personally, I'm sick of Bush and his cronies unloading all this money into the war/armed forces.

2005-08-02 [fallen_flutterby]: the united states is trying to create a safe world so 9/11 doesn't happen agian. look at what happened recently in london. it was caused by the same people. if we don't ask other countries to change their ways then we might as well give our cells up to those god damn son of a bitchs.

2005-08-02 [Gypsi]: I believe we're just causing more problems with all this. Why not put all the money towards something USEFUL? Space programs? Medical advancement?

2005-08-02 [fallen_flutterby]: maybe its just the fact that i was part of a military program in school, but id rather know my country isn't going to get bombed leading to the deaths of someone who could be close to be..... with out protection we can't even begin to start working on medical advancement or space programs.

2005-08-02 [Roc]: Okay, let me clarify my last question: What are the duties of a government (not just the US government)? What is their job? What is it they must do to be considered a proper and benevolent government?

2005-08-03 [arafel]: They should ensure that the neccessary needs of its citizens are met....like taking care of all those Medicare issues, and unemployment and such. Its shocking that one of the world powers (if i can still use that term) actually has so many people with basic medicine/work/poverty related problems. Although I dont deny that most Americans are extremely well-off as compared to other countries. But how about doing something like Canada, which offers health insurance to everyone in the country paid for by the government.

2005-08-03 [fallen_flutterby]: government should have freedom of speech which america has. the right to follow what ever religion you want, another thing america has, a form of checks and balences.

2005-08-03 [Roc]: [fallen_flutterby] raises an interesting point: freedom of speech. In your responses to my previous question, I would like to incorporate this as well. How far should the freedom of speech go? America has the most free speech in the world, limiting speech only when it puts people in harm's way (e.g. "Fire!" in a movie theater). However, Germany forbids Nazi speech.

2005-08-03 [arafel]: I personally think that our freedom of speech is perhaps too loose. I appreciate our rights on the subject and that everyone can express themselves, but sometimes it becomes to hateful. At my college, 2 years ago, there was an Anti-Semitic rally. A specific group of people (not going to say) held a rally putting down Judaism and its followers for a day. Me, being Jewish, I felt very unsafe and angry. But when several students complained the rally was merely stopped from going on for any more days. No one was reprimanded in the least, because it was freedom of speech.

2005-08-03 [fallen_flutterby]: i think that its wrong to put down your country's miltary and government....if your not going to risk your life for your freedoms then don't put down people who are...

2005-08-04 [Fizban]: NO!! your right fallen, i dont think you should put down the fighters, risking there lives for what they think is you...a reason (one of the many) i despise what america, both the govt, and the people did during vietnam...great, just make up the golf of tonkin problem, go around the necessary prerequisits to a war and thus make it the vietnam conflict...ooh, and then when 60,000 people die for a lost cause started by nothing with the idea that they were helping there country, when in realty they didnt help anyone and accomplished nothing...so yeah those who come back from that then get shunned by society for getting caught up in it. i havent a problem of putting downt he GOV'T cause they..

2005-08-04 [Fizban]: are the ones that lie and screw up and cause 60,000 deaths and tons of money,...for oops nothing. I cant trust those using and controlling the laws created by the govt so i can i trust that living in this country is safe at all either way...and, in a public place where the words really can cause harm, i mean what if you were to go and confront them???(arafel now lols) that would potentially be dangerous to you...you cant even go into a public area, simply because you might get hurt i mean i would be soo scared and those words can rally actions that cause harm...i am scared for you if that was to happen around here and i was jewish.

2005-08-04 [Fizban]: its the times when war doesnt have anything to do with your freedoms that you should question weather or not you should have to join in it.

2005-08-04 [skizheart]: i hate the fact that in a time of war....you're not allowed to be against the damn draft...that makes me so mad......it's the ppl that are dangerous..not the words...if i were in your position...and were Jewish...then i'd be scared of the ppl and such like them..wanting to like kill you or whatever...but i firmly believe that the freedom of speech should be without any limits...but that would only happen if ppl did not act upon their words or gatherings and rally's or whatever...they have the right to express their opinion...they do not have the right to go any further tho...

2005-08-04 [Fizban]: its all about national security,...if the majority of people dont want to join in some stupid war way out there in some country they'd never even thought about before and that if it was ignored they prolly wouldnt ever again, so the govt should get the message that when the people dont want to off and fight there retarded wars that maybe simply making a draft wont make it any better...just make everyone pissed off.

2005-08-04 [skizheart]: i cannot stand the draft...that is one this that's this country is "supposed " to not do...to force someone to do something they don't want to do...umm...especially when it involves their freggin life on the line.

2005-08-04 [Roc]: Though I agree wholeheartedly with your bashing of the American National Government, I would like to direct your passions to the topic at hand...How should a government be formed? What is the best form of government?

2005-08-04 [fallen_flutterby]: [Fizban] your talking about a war that happened about 40 years ago that was a different government and because of it we know what not to do in the future...the draft won't happen...its not needed...and to [Roc] comment yes we are going off the subject...i believe that a democracy is the best form of government because it gives the citizen a say in who will run their country..

2005-08-04 [Roc]: And why?

2005-08-04 [Fizban]: i dont think that democracy is the best form of govt...but thats because i think that everyone is stupid, and those who arent are corrupt. i dont have any faith in anyone so thats why i think democracy isnt the best way to go...however my form isnt one thats possible althou i believe one country claims to have such a govt. A enlightened monarchy is one of my favorites, i think that if the monarch is truly benevolant and intelligent, than the best will be done for the people without giving the people the chance to screw everything up...or be selfish and corrupt and try to use there power for themselves. of course those under the monarch could be corrupt but at least then we wont need to

2005-08-04 [Fizban]: ...waste time and energy and money with political policies. but admittenly our ability to find a competent benvolent leader is extremely lacking, so...the next best choice is democracy...

2005-08-04 [fallen_flutterby]: i say democracy because i like knowing that i have a say in what the government does even if its one small voice....monarchy is one way but what if the monarchy is corrupt...power can corrupt...if we give one person too much power they might use it to push things in their favor.......and the fact that if your the first born of the king and queen apparently your choosen by god and your word is gods work and thats not cool.

2005-08-04 [skizheart]: well we vote...and what is the damn point...we have this stupid electoral college crap that can go right over us...so it's stupid..... i think that a perfect from of government...would be a republic...or like an oligarchy...similar to an enlightened monarchy...but with a few people in charge, people would vote their representative in so they still get a say and there is not room for corrupt ppl to run the govn't...because there would be a larger amount of people, hopefully they wouldn't all be corrupt or something... and then it wouldn't be like the common ppl making retarded choices and stuff or anything stupid because there would be elected people

2005-08-04 [skizheart]: However...i truly believe that we should be "governed" by God...because I don't think that anyone should be above us but God...so i would really want a umm...crap...the damn word...i forgot it ...it starts with a theolistic...maybe i dunno oh dammit it's making me mad...but a government based on the religion and under God...that's what i really like but there's different strokes for different folks so not too many ppl would want that lol

2005-08-05 [Fizban]: a theocracy is the word i believe your looking for...lols, and no not many would want that at all...plus there would be too many interpretations, if we go on laws like that we would still need to make independent laws not involving the bible or god. plus thats why i said my government althou i feel that its the best, isnt possible...because if the monarch was corrupt then he wouldnt in my opinoun be a enlightned and obviously not benevolant...so in that idea i think mine is the best...just not possible.

2005-08-05 [arafel]: Viva la Marxism!! I'm just kidding...trying to lighten the mood. sorry, if that was misconstrued. I guess democracy is the best so far. Although it is obviously flawed when you dont have the best and brightest candidates running for the power positions

2005-08-06 [skizheart]: Marx...I thought that was economics...lol ?

2005-08-06 [skizheart]: Fizban...why is an enlightened monarch so much better than an oligarchy or a repulic like i suggested??

2005-08-06 [Fizban]: i supose its reallly not, the catch of course being that they are enlightned...or competent and capable...

2005-08-08 [skizheart]: lol...oh...mmhmmm..makes a real difference...but yea...i wanna talk about economics.....cuz that relates to government ..i believe ....so i like the good old barter system ......you know.....and i like communism ...in its pure state ...without totalitarian rulers

2005-08-08 [Gypsi]: I don't think there should be religious governments. I believe all governments should be deviod of all religious inclinations, just because there are so many religions and there would be many conflicts.

2005-08-08 [skizheart]: ..see...theres only conflicts because nobody is really religious...i will die for God but not kill....for my religion....God does not want us to kill..he wants us to be good...killing is one of the ten commandments...come on pl...God wants us to love...not hate....be understanding and compassionate, the only reasn why there would be conflicts is over crap that is so stupid ....and has nothing to do with religion...it has to do with our selfish wants or our retarded beliefs that are really...against God!..so a theocracy...would be great if ppl were in small groups,....you know....like so would communism and the barter system...  ;)

2005-08-08 [Fizban]: a communistic theocracy with the barter system as a base...lols hearing that just makes me think of some happy freako world where everyone is just so happy the birds are always chirping and everyone is soo happy and gay...givng there little eggs for bread...there, well what the hell would you give for a freakin car...or house...but yeah, it just seems so...ridiculusly impossible...lols, thats you amber...impossible;) lols...it would work if people were all labodamized, but not otherwise...

2005-08-08 [skizheart]: OH SHUSH...IF THERE WERE A SMALL COMMUNITY...AND THE PPL..WEREN'T SELFISH...OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT....OR GREEDY AND STUFF...OR WANTING MORE THAN THEY NEED...THEN IT COULD WORK...SO THERE...:)