US election poll

[Judge Hades]

Another thing Craftman, we are talking about laws and equal rights. Traditions and values are secondary. Separation of Chuch and State must be absolute and complete. Bigotry on the basis of religion doctrine has no place in State and Federal Law.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Also, I don't see a problem with homosexuals raising children.  Its biological, so these children's sex drives will not be confused.  They will be straight, homo, or bi depending on their genetics and these children, once reaching adulthood, have every right to explore their sexuality as they see fit.  Its their life, let them live it.

 

Traditions and values are meaningless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That ones a bit more difficult. I have a major problem with people raising their children to be gay. Same sort of problem I have with people not accepting that their children are gay.

 

Everyone should be raised to primarily be hetrosexual. But at the same time if they do choose to be homosexual they shouldnt be punished for it.

 

The more samesex couples raise children though the more evidence you will have for nature/nurture. Or the "gay" gene vs socialisation.

[Judge Hades]

As long as the sexuality isn't forced on the children I have no problems with gays raising kids. There is no homo or hetero way to raise kids, at least there shouldn't be. Kids should eb raised to respect their elders, obey the laws, and the such but still be free to make their own choices and become a fully developed and productive member of society, whether be gay or straight.

 

One's sexual drive is biological so it has no bearing on the parents own orientation.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

One's sexual drive is biological so it has no bearing on the parents own orientation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As far as I know that is so far unproven.

 

Perhaps in the cases where you remove the female members of society such as prison but not in the general populace.

 

I fully intend to raise my kids to be very adept gamers.

[Judge Hades]

I plan on not having any children. I think it would be cruel to bring kids in a world as f**ked up as this one.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I plan on not having any children.  I think it would be cruel to bring kids in a world as f**ked up as this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is no different than the world at any other period in history. It's hugely preferable to the two world wars if you ask me.

[Judge Hades]

Wait for the third that is just over the horizon.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Wait for the third that is just over the horizon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People have been saying that since the 50's. Very little point living in fear of something that may not happen.

[deganawida]

One's sexual drive is biological so it has no bearing on the parents own orientation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As far as I know that is so far unproven.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct. They only provable results that have been reached in the multitude of studies regarding homosexuality is that there is a correlation between homosexuality and some abnormal brain structures. However, this is correlative, not causal, so no further conclusions can be safely made.

[Judge Hades]

Wait for the third that is just over the horizon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People have been saying that since the 50's. Very little point living in fear of something that may not happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not living in fear. I'm hoping.

[taks]

Yes, many of those christians like he have so much 'tolorance'. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

tolerance does not mean acceptance. you're applying a double standard. it's OK for you to believe one way, but if someone else disagrees with you he is "intolerant?" just because you accept someone else's view on religion is valid, doesn't mean they are required to accept yours.

 

i personally find ALL religion flawed, and pointless. yet i tolerate everyone's right to worship as they please. nowhere in the definition of tolerance does it say i have to accept such opinions as valid, however.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And you dont think to move forward its going to require more? Looking as us now becoming stagnet as a people certainly isnt getting us to where we need to be. When the guy in the whitehouse flat out states my religion isnt such I think we still have a ways to go in understanding, tolorance and acceptance. And saying 'well to bad in essence' just is not good enough, for me at least. As I know we can do better then that. But we are certainly not going to get their being complacient.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

exactly what does that have to do with anything i said in my (included) quote?

 

you do this often... you need to take a course in logic theory. this is known as a fallacy, particularly a Straw Man argument. this is the 2nd time in two replies you've made to me that your counter argument has absolutely nothing to do with what i said.

 

if you want anybody to ever take you seriously in life, perhaps you should learn the basics first. sorry, but i have a very hard time accepting any argument when it's based on such obviously flawed logic. most colleges offer introductory logic classes, and, if you're not old enough for college, i would recommend doing some web research. try more than one site since it isn't always obvious what constitutes a fallacy based on a single example.

 

taks

[Rhomal]

> exactly what does that have to do with anything i said in my (included) quote?

*snip fluff*

 

All you had to say was you disagree and leave it at that, or better yet, nothing at all. Rather then dive in a tirade of a self superior, 'I am better then you' speech.

 

Your lack of tact, trying to belittle someone certainly speaks volumes.

 

When I care what some stranger on the net thinks of me or my way to debate I will let you know. I am certainly not going to loose any sleep over it though I hope it made you feel better about youself.

 

I stand by my previous comments.

[Vincent_Valashar]

I am voting for Kerry because I don't like being lied to.

 

The primary reason why we wnet to war in Iraq is because of WMDs yet none were found. Sure he had those nasty things when he was in power and used them, but at the time we invaded they were gone and I bet they were gone for a good long time. Also I don't like how Bush tried to cover his butt by saying that Hussein had AQ connections when it was found out that he lied again. The last straw is the fact that he doesn't even acknowledge his mistakes.

[deganawida]

I am voting for Kerry because I don't like being lied to.

 

The primary reason why we wnet to war in Iraq is because of WMDs yet none were found.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some quotes to add perspective to this "lie".

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times

since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18,1998

 

"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others, Oct. 9,1998

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

 

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

Those in bold are particularly relevant to this year's presidential election. So, that leaves us in a bit of a quandry; the Senate received the exact same intelligence briefings that the Bush Administration received. If, then, Bush lied about WoMD, then so did all these other elected officials, many of whom have no desire to aid Bush. If, however, the intelligence, though now revealed to have been faulty, was convincing enough that all these current and former government officials agreed with the Bush Administration that Hussein had WoMD and/or was rebuilding his programs, then Bush did not lie. You decide.

[Gorth]

 

The sad bottomline: Don't trust politicians at all

[Vincent_Valashar]

Bush then might not have lied but he depended on false intelligence and he is liable for those reports. Someone needs to be held accountable and that needs to be the president. Besides its time to give someone else the chance to screw up.

[Commissar]

I'm curious what you think you're proving there, deganawida. That a lot of people, myself included, believed that Saddam was pursuing a weapons of mass destruction program?

 

A lot of people believed that for a long time. Not everyone did, however. The State Department's intelligence analysis unit, for example, stated that there wasn't a threat from Saddam. Most of Europe agreed. And the more things fell apart just before the war - defectors who couldn't quite come up with all of the details, the inclusion of forged documents in a presentation to the UN Security Council, our inability to ever actually pinpoint any of these supposed stockpiles - the more a lot of people, myself included, thought that maybe we ought to wait and see. But we went in. I obviously don't think it was the right decision now, though I did support it at the time - you're talking to a guy who voted for Bush in 2000 - on the condition that a threat was proven to exist. I said then, back on the old boards, arguing with Yrkoon, that if we went in and found absolutely nothing, which is the case, then I would be pretty damn angry. And I am.

 

I look at it this way; if I'm captain of a ship and I've got the majority of my guys telling me, "Hey, Captain, there's no reef up ahead. We can go full steam ahead with no problem," and I've got one or two other guys telling me, "You know, there could be a reef up there, we might want to verify that," and I decide to go full steam ahead and run my little ship aground, who takes the responsibility for it? I do, the captain. Bush is the captain of this particular ship, and he's done nothing but try and shirk responsibility or twist the issue around - we went into Iraq to free the liberty-loving Iraqi citizens, that's the line now.

 

I don't think he lied, but I do think he made a horribly bad call, and I think at that level of decision-making, people ought to be held responsible for their bad calls. Kerry's not my first choice, but the more I hear from him and the more I learn about him, the more I respect him. He's changed position on issues, but then again, so have I. I've never had the astounding lack of humility to believe that I'm always right - I thought I was right in 2000, for instance, and I learned otherwise.

[TentamusDarkblade]

i don't care that bush lied....its the fact that he can't admit he was wrong that pisses me off.

[Commissar]

One's sexual drive is biological so it has no bearing on the parents own orientation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As far as I know that is so far unproven.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct. They only provable results that have been reached in the multitude of studies regarding homosexuality is that there is a correlation between homosexuality and some abnormal brain structures. However, this is correlative, not causal, so no further conclusions can be safely made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So tell me, exactly, why someone would choose to be a homosexual? Especially someone in a state like Mississippi?

[deganawida]

I'm curious what you think you're proving there, deganawida...

I don't think he lied

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Just that, The accusation is often made that he, and he alone, lied. I am merely attempting to present evidence that might lead others to consider that maybe he was just mistaken.

[Commissar]

Just that,  The accusation is often made that he, and he alone, lied.  I am merely attempting to present evidence that might lead others to consider that maybe he was just mistaken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Over 1,000 American soldiers dead is not "just" a mistake.

[deganawida]

One's sexual drive is biological so it has no bearing on the parents own orientation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As far as I know that is so far unproven.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct. They only provable results that have been reached in the multitude of studies regarding homosexuality is that there is a correlation between homosexuality and some abnormal brain structures. However, this is correlative, not causal, so no further conclusions can be safely made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So tell me, exactly, why someone would choose to be a homosexual? Especially someone in a state like Mississippi?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your argument is flawed. Assume, for a moment, that homosexuality is not a biological condition, meaning that it is not caused by genetics or exposure to chemicals, then it falls that homosexuality is a behavioral condition. Now, your argument posits that one would conciously choose an undesirable behavior while living in an environment that finds such behavior particularly deplorable. If one accepts that position, then one must conclude that being a criminal, a high-school dropout, a teen mother, a domestic abuser, a Republican or Democrat in a state that is the opposite political persuasion, etc., is a biological condition. However, that position ignores the bulk of psychological research on when behavior patterns are formed. The majority of behavioral patterns, both positive and negative, are formed in early childhood, with the next largest grouping coming in early adolescence. Further, these patterns are learned through modeling; that is, a child witnesses a behavior and attempts to copy it. There is no value judgement in this type of behavior; the child does not reason out if such behavior is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, conducive to a healthy social life or destructive. All that matters to the child is that someone important to the child is exhibiting this behavior. IF one were to use this criteria to formulate a hypothesis, one might hypothesize that parental figures and their relationships might be a contributing factor in homosexuality. Perhaps in single-parent homes, homes where there is no positive male role-model, or in situations where the male parental figure is rarely present, young boys begin modeling their behaviors, likes, and dislikes on their mothers. Perhaps there is a correlation between increased rates of male homosexuality and the types of situations described (please note, this is a hypothetical argument). Now, in none of these cases did the child actively choose to be homosexual; however, when presented with limited choices, it modeled itself on the one person who consistently was present and providing for it. Simple instinct directed the behavior, not the concious choice and reasoning of an adult.

[Weiser_Cain]

What are you people talking about?

[Commissar]

Your argument is flawed.  Assume, for a moment, that homosexuality is not a biological condition, meaning that it is not caused by genetics or exposure to chemicals, then it falls that homosexuality is a behavioral condition.  Now, your argument posits that one would conciously choose an undesirable behavior while living in an environment that finds such behavior particularly deplorable.  If one accepts that position, then one must conclude that being a criminal, a high-school dropout, a teen mother, a domestic abuser, a Republican or Democrat in a state that is the opposite political persuasion, etc., is a biological condition.  However, that position ignores the bulk of psychological research on when behavior patterns are formed.  The majority of behavioral patterns, both positive and negative, are formed in early childhood, with the next largest grouping coming in early adolescence.  Further, these patterns are learned through modeling; that is, a child witnesses a behavior and attempts to copy it.  There is no value judgement in this type of behavior; the child does not reason out if such behavior is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, conducive to a healthy social life or destructive.  All that matters to the child is that someone important to the child is exhibiting this behavior.  IF one were to use this criteria to formulate a hypothesis, one might hypothesize that parental figures and their relationships might be a contributing factor in homosexuality.  Perhaps in single-parent homes, homes where there is no positive male role-model, or in situations where the male parental figure is rarely present, young boys begin modeling their behaviors, likes, and dislikes on their mothers.  Perhaps there is a correlation between increased rates of male homosexuality and the types of situations described (please note, this is a hypothetical argument).  Now, in none of these cases did the child actively choose to be homosexual; however, when presented with limited choices, it modeled itself on the one person who consistently was present and providing for it.  Simple instinct directed the behavior, not the concious choice and reasoning of an adult.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's a hypothetical argument you put forth, and not a very good one. It does not account for the hundreds of thousands of homosexuals who grew up in homes that were in every way the idyllic heterosexual breeding ground. It doesn't account for brothers who grew up together, one of whom turned out gay and the other straight.

 

Mine's certainly flawed, too, though it was spoken more in jest than anything else. I don't believe you choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight, and I doubt it's a nurture thing, either. Homosexuals have always existed in human society; in fact, it's only with the coming of 'modern' religions that they have been abused. Ancient Greece and Rome thought nothing of homosexuality; check out some of the poems they don't make you read in Latin classes, if you don't believe me. No, only with the coming of Christianity and Judaism and Islam did homosexuality begin to be stigmatized. I have hope, regardless, since the Christian church in particular has evolved so much from its inception that the authors of the New Testament would hardly recognize it. Its doctrines are usually at least several generations behind liberal society, but they catch up in the end, and I don't doubt it will be the same with homosexuality. Probably not in my lifetime, but c'est la vie.

[Vincent_Valashar]

It appears they are talking about hetero and homosexual relationships and is one's sexuality based on genetics or environmentally learned. This is in regards to Bush's relationship with his wife versus kerry's and Edward's relationship.