I am sick of the "I'm a POW" hype

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

There will be no stopping 2 ladies or 2 men to legally "unite" just so the other one could have health care. There is already enough of that going on between a man and a woman, why encourage more of it?

Why not outlaw marriage or unions between everyone? That would stop people from taking advantage of health care benefits. Besides, a lot of times both partners in a would-be gay marriage have well-paying jobs that provide healthcare. Why should they be denied marriage when there's a straight couple where only one of them is receiving any types of benefits?

Another argument I've heard is that the point of marriage is to produce children. As sexual minorities cannot reproduce, they should not be married. My question is should sterile heterosexual individuals be prohibited from marriage as well? Certainly they won't be reproducing either.

Because marrige is already defined as between a man and a woman. I'm not taking away anyone's right here; if someone wants to marry someone of the opposite sex, go ahead.

Concerning your other argument, I think they mean that 2 men or 2 women won't be fit to be parents because they're missing a father/mother figure (depending on how you look at it). Yes, there's the single-parent argument. But that's just it, single. It would be too confusing on the child to be bought up by 2 men or 2 women. If 2 sterile hetrosexual people want to have kids, then they should adopt.

catbox_9 wrote:

That all said, while I'm pro-choice, I don't at all think that people should be able to get abortions at something insane like 8 months.

It's called partial birth abortion and it's disgusting. Let me make myself clear, I am strictly for abortion in the 1st trimester, unless the woman's life is in danger.

gs78 wrote:

How about moving to Easter Island?

Why do you keep insisting on Easter Island? I would love to visit there, those heads are very interesting

bobrob2004 wrote:

[confusing on the child to be bought up by 2 men or 2 women.

Says who? I cited 5 scientific studies that have said otherwise. So far nobody has cited so much as one study that says these children are worse-off. Xenophobia is not science.

SoulRat wrote:

gs78 wrote:

How about moving to Easter Island?

Why do you keep insisting on Easter Island? I would love to visit there, those heads are very interesting

So I can be the first Olympic Athlete from there

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

But why is it more people vote for crap on American Idol that political elections?

People of any age can vote for that show whereas they have to be 18 year old US citizens and non-felons to vote.

You can vote as many times as you want on American Idol whereas you get just one vote in Presidential elections.

American Idol Sucks!

And people can be lazy and vote on the couch for AI with their phone, lol. And people are usually more sure of who they want to win Idol than who they want to win for president

iluvpudge7 wrote:

And people can be lazy and vote on the couch for AI with their phone, lol. And people are usually more sure of who they want to win Idol than who they want to win for president

Yeah


But it still sucks!

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

[confusing on the child to be bought up by 2 men or 2 women.

Says who? I cited 5 scientific studies that have said otherwise. So far nobody has cited so much as one study that says these children are worse-off. Xenophobia is not science.

That wasn't my own personal argument, but theirs (the ones that say people get married to have kids). Frankly, I could care less what group of people raises a child (well, obviously serial killers won't make good parents, but you get my drift :haha:).

bobrob2004 wrote:

Frankly, I could care less what group of people raises a child (well, obviously serial killers won't make good parents, but you get my drift :haha:).

:haha: Not only should serial killers not raise children, they shouldn't have them. Studies show that children of serial killers are more likely to turn out bad than parents who are law-abiding. I'm not able to cite any studies about serial killers actually raising the kids, but I'd imagine they'd turn out terrible, too.

Studies (twin studies) do show genetics play a larger role in whether kids end up as criminals than does the environment, but they both play some role. Ideally, both the biological parents and the people who raise the child, should be non-serial killers.

Lastly, anyone who disagrees with that last bit might want to reconsider having kids until they take some basic schooling first.

Catbox, I am a firm believer in the morning after pill. I think every active female should have one on hand just in case. It's not having an abortion since nothing has implanted yet, but it's still a safety net in case something happens that you didn't mean to happen. No more harmful then the pill and insurance covers it.

kharmon wrote:

Catbox, I am a firm believer in the morning after pill. I think every active female should have one on hand just in case. It's not having an abortion since nothing has implanted yet, but it's still a safety net in case something happens that you didn't mean to happen. No more harmful then the pill and insurance covers it.

Good post. My sentiments exactly. This is no more harmful than using condoms. Some would say condoms should be outlawed, but that just seems crazy to me. I have a reply to people who say that but I won't post it here - you know it anyways

Didn't they try that in Africa and said they don't have any effect on the spread of AIDS? Well, we see how that has turned out.

gs, Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore. They haven't for over 100 years. You're thinking of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. They broke from the Mormon church when the Mormon church stopped the practice of polygamy.

kharmon wrote:

gs, Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore. They haven't for over 100 years. You're thinking of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. They broke from the Mormon church when the Mormon church stopped the practice of polygamy.

It still is wrong,though

gs78 wrote:

kharmon wrote:

gs, Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore. They haven't for over 100 years. You're thinking of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. They broke from the Mormon church when the Mormon church stopped the practice of polygamy.

It still is wrong,though

Says who?

And don't say God or the Bible...

The First Amendment wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere does it mention God or the Bible. While it is perfectly reason to argue in church that polygamy is wrong and cite the Bible, we're talking about society and in the United States, the Constitution is the Bible.

Since Mike Huckabee will not be elected President, he will not be able to commit what I'd consider treason and repeal the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I say it is wrong


Just from spreading AIDS and other diseases

gs78 wrote:

I say it is wrong


Just from spreading AIDS and other diseases

But if you have say 3 people who are all disease-free they can't spread diseases they don't have. Or consider this...

If a person has AIDS should they be allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex? They would be at a much higher risk of spreading AIDS than a couple people who don't have AIDS being married simultaneously.

Also, if one of the people in 3+ person marriage has AIDS, so what? I mean if they spread it to everyone else in the marriage that doesn't affect you either. While AIDS is contagious, the fact that some random people gave each other AIDS won't give you AIDS. Also, if you go back quite a ways I made it clear that in such a marriage you shouldn't be allowed to have one person with health care giving everyone in the marriage health care. I think there should be a universal healthcare, but that's not what we're arguing. For the sake of this argument assume each person in this marriage has their own job and their own insurance.

AIDS isn't the only disease out there


Even if I believed in such a practice

I be worried about catching stuff

Condoms aren't 100 percent safe


They can break

I didn't say they were 100% effective. Still, if the people are in a committed relationship, the odds of getting diseases don't go up much if it's 2 vs. 3 people.

Regardless, this issue isn't the least bit important. I can't recall any major Presidential candidate ever being in favor of polygamy. It's such a non-issue that I don't think McCain, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. ever even took a stand on polygamy.

catbox_9 wrote:

I didn't say they were 100% effective. Still, if the people are in a committed relationship, the odds of getting diseases don't go up much if it's 2 vs. 3 people.

Regardless, this issue isn't the least bit important. I can't recall any major Presidential candidate ever being in favor of polygamy. It's such a non-issue that I don't think McCain, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. ever even took a stand on polygamy.

catbox_9 wrote:

kharmon wrote:

Catbox, I am a firm believer in the morning after pill. I think every active female should have one on hand just in case. It's not having an abortion since nothing has implanted yet, but it's still a safety net in case something happens that you didn't mean to happen. No more harmful then the pill and insurance covers it.

Good post. My sentiments exactly. This is no more harmful than using condoms. Some would say condoms should be outlawed, but that just seems crazy to me. I have a reply to people who say that but I won't post it here - you know it anyways

I guess I would have to agree with it then. Even though my religion strongly disagrees with birth control, I see nothing wrong with it. Every once in a while the church asks us to give money to foreign countries because they're too poor to raise their 8 children, and they don't use birth control. I refuse to give them money. Modern science has made it possible, so why not use it? That's one of the main problems about the Catholic Church, it takes them forever to get modern. I mean, look how long it took them to use English during mass instead of Latin.

bobrob2004 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

kharmon wrote:

Catbox, I am a firm believer in the morning after pill. I think every active female should have one on hand just in case. It's not having an abortion since nothing has implanted yet, but it's still a safety net in case something happens that you didn't mean to happen. No more harmful then the pill and insurance covers it.

Good post. My sentiments exactly. This is no more harmful than using condoms. Some would say condoms should be outlawed, but that just seems crazy to me. I have a reply to people who say that but I won't post it here - you know it anyways

I guess I would have to agree with it then. Even though my religion strongly disagrees with birth control, I see nothing wrong with it. Every once in a while the church asks us to give money to foreign countries because they're too poor to raise their 8 children, and they don't use birth control. I refuse to give them money. Modern science has made it possible, so why not use it? That's one of the main problems about the Catholic Church, it takes them forever to get modern. I mean, look how long it took them to use English during mass instead of Latin.

The Catholic Church should be more concerned about the poor in this country.

I don't mind traditional masses.

But why do they continue to have missions in nations; especially in ones that don't appreciate them in the first place

gs78 wrote:

The Catholic Church should be more concerned about the poor in this country.

I don't mind traditional masses.

But why do they continue to have missions in nations; especially in ones that don't appreciate them in the first place

What's wrong with other countries? They aren't the US Government, their responsibility is not Americans, but rather people. Why should Americans be given preferential treatment. People didn't choose to be Americans so it seems unreasonable to focus solely on Americans.

But like bobrob said, I really think they should permit birth control. I mean most people don't want 8+ kids and without birth control that's what is going to happen because people do things...let's leave it at that.

Going back to another issue, condoms are a lot better form of birth control than abortion. If people used birth control properly you wouldn't need or have abortion.

catbox_9 wrote:

Going back to another issue, condoms are a lot better form of birth control than abortion. If people used birth control properly you wouldn't need or have abortion.

bobrob2004 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

Going back to another issue, condoms are a lot better form of birth control than abortion. If people used birth control properly you wouldn't need or have abortion.

But I still don't take the conservative view there

Morning after pill = absolutely

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

The Catholic Church should be more concerned about the poor in this country.

I don't mind traditional masses.

But why do they continue to have missions in nations; especially in ones that don't appreciate them in the first place

What's wrong with other countries? They aren't the US Government, their responsibility is not Americans, but rather people. Why should Americans be given preferential treatment. People didn't choose to be Americans so it seems unreasonable to focus solely on Americans.

But like bobrob said, I really think they should permit birth control. I mean most people don't want 8+ kids and without birth control that's what is going to happen because people do things...let's leave it at that.

Going back to another issue, condoms are a lot better form of birth control than abortion. If people used birth control properly you wouldn't need or have abortion.

Let's keep giving money to third world nations that hate us

Be it the Church or the State.


Makes a lot of Sense

NOT!

gs78 wrote:

Let's keep giving money to third world nations that hate us

Be it the Church or the State.


Makes a lot of Sense

NOT!

So the Catholic Church should move out of those countries? According to the Catholic Church, non-Christians are going to go to hell so basically if you aren't an American you should go to hell?

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

Let's keep giving money to third world nations that hate us

Be it the Church or the State.


Makes a lot of Sense

NOT!

So the Catholic Church should move out of those countries? According to the Catholic Church, non-Christians are going to go to hell so basically if you aren't an American you should go to hell?

I don't want my money going to aid terror Catbox!


Be it the Church or the American Government


This has nothing to do with people going to hell