My Barack Wish List

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by ddthetide

i usually try and keep my mouth shut in here.

Me too. Credit to Bob, I had a full response typed out...but deleted it.

You almost sucked me in Bob.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

the same as I said to Danzig applies to you too !

oh go fucl< yourself!

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

* Full rights for Gays to marry
Full rights for Gays to Marry what?
[b]

Whatever person they want to marry. Why shouldn't they have that right? Because you don't like it? Because your religion doesn't like it? Because of your bigotry? For way too long we've let the religion of some dictate the rights of others. We've allowed rights to be taken away because of one's sex, race, and sexual orientation. Why are we getting rid of just some of that? This guy comes in talking about equality this n' that, and yet he is against a member of society being able to have the right to do something others get the right to do(marry another person.) I think it's absolutely hypocritical, and I would tell it right to his understanding face. Many of us may not like the visual created when two members of the same sex marry. That's a really piss poor reason to deny them the right to do it. If you look at the reasons given to justify denying them the right to marry, they are all really awful. They are all based on sexual discrimination of one kind or another. You can't marry this particular person because they are this sex, and you are that sex. You can't have the society this guy was talking about yesterday(free and equal etc.,) and continue to discriminate based on one's sex. I really think the argument against gay marriage requires the use of discrimination based on one's sex, or the acceptance of another person's religious views. I don't think either should be condoned any longer. I think the arguments against gay marriage are based on crap. It amazes me that he is gunna possibly work on the gays in the military issue instead of the gay marriage issue. The gay marriage issue really has no impact on people who aren't gay(other than they often don't like 2 gays marrying.) Straight people don't like the visual. So what? When it comes to gays in the military, I think straight people have a real argument to make. Not whether gays should be able to join the military. They certainly should not be kept from being able to help protect their country. How are they going to do that? With who? Under what living conditions? I don't find it unreasonable that straight people don't want to shower in the same area(at the same time) as gay people. That's a lot more reasonable objection than wanting to keep two gay people from marrying each other.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Whatever person they want to marry. Why shouldn't they have that right? Because you don't like it? Because your religion doesn't like it? Because of your bigotry? For way too long we've let the religion of some dictate the rights of others. We've allowed rights to be taken away because of one's sex, race, and sexual orientation. Why are we getting rid of just some of that? This guy comes in talking about equality this n' that, and yet he is against a member of society being able to have the right to do something others get the right to do(marry another person.) I think it's absolutely hypocritical, and I would tell it right to his understanding face. Many of us may not like the visual created when two members of the same sex marry. That's a really piss poor reason to deny them the right to do it. If you look at the reasons given to justify denying them the right to marry, they are all really awful. They are all based on sexual discrimination of one kind or another. You can't marry this particular person because they are this sex, and you are that sex. You can't have the society this guy was talking about yesterday(free and equal etc.,) and continue to discriminate based one's sex. I really think the argument against gay marriage requires the use of discrimination based on one's sex, or the acceptance of another person's religious views. I don't think either should be condoned any longer. I think the arguments against gay marriage are based on crap. It amazes me that he is gunna possibly work on the gays in the military issue instead of the gay marriage issue. The gay marriage issue really has no impact on people who aren't gay(other than they often don't like 2 gays marrying.) Straight people don't like the visual. So what? When it comes to gays in the military, I think straight people have a real argument to make. Not whether gays should be able to join the military. They certainly should not be kept from being able to help protect their country. How are they going to do that? With who? Under what living conditions? I don't find it unreasonable that straight people don't want to shower in the same area(at the same time) as gay people. That's a lot more reasonable objection than wanting to keep two gay people from marrying each other.

I got lost about halfway through but this still deserves a

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by philcski

I got lost about halfway through but this still deserves a

If somebody writes it more concisely, then I will substitute it in.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

It's nice to discuss these wish lists of things but right now gay ruleings, stem cell research, et all should not even be on the table. If you think the economy is bad now wait 6 months.

Exactly how strong does the economy need to be before it will be okay to consider providing homosexuals with the same rights as heterosexuals? Must equality of rights really wait for the GDP or unemployment or home ownership to reach a certain level? I'm not sure I understand that logic.
In reality there is no way the federal government will have the courage to tackle the issue of gay marriage anyway - regardless of the economic environment - but I think the argument that they shouldn't concern themselves with the issue now just because of the economy is seriously flawed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

oh go fucl< yourself!

what she said...

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

You don't think stem cell research is necessary? I think you might want to learn a bit about it, your opinion might change.

I don't think embryonic stem cell research is necessary.

The reason I want to argue that sexual preference is not genetic is....

I am pro-life and if people can determine that their baby is going to be gay or something they may "choose" to kill "it"

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And he'll be head and head with Cynthia Mckinney in the polling, undoubtedly

"what sin could a man commit in a single life time to bring this upon himself"


Glen Manning

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

I don't think embryonic stem cell research is necessary.

The reason I want to argue that sexual preference is not genetic is....

I am pro-life and if people can determine that their baby is going to be gay or something they may "choose" to kill "it"

Nobody mentioned embryonic stem cell research. We were discussing stem cell research. Why don't you think it's "necessary" ? (or you think stem cell is okay, but embryonic stem cell is not?) Obviously you must know the great promise stem cell research holds for human (and animal) health? And you don't think that is "necessary" ???

BTW - Sexual preference being genetic or not has nothing at all to do with anybody's opinion on abortion. One can argue abortion any way they wish, but won't remotely affect whether sexual preference is genetic or not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

I am pro-life and if people can determine that their baby is going to be gay or something they may "choose" to kill "it"

Now people can choose to "kill" their babies if they are going to have sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. Where is the line drawn?

What about people who purposely fertilize eggs via in-vitro fertilization, then store them, then decide they don't want to implant them, so those fertilized eggs are just thrown away?

BTW, Bush says it's okay to throw these discarded fertilized eggs away, but not okay to use those discarded fertilized eggs for embryonic stem cell research.

Three situations, all involve the same thing (fertilized multi-celled but undifferentiated eggs) why should they be viewed differently?

These are not easy questions.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://tapespace.com/view/The_Christian_Gene

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://tapespace.com/view/How_Not_To_Shoot_A_Gun


ONE FOR ZIG!!

[Riot]

Well done, Scuds!

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://tapespace.com/view/Revenge_Of_The_Tuba_Player

Who hasn't wanted to do this?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

http://tapespace.com/view/How_Not_To_Shoot_A_Gun


ONE FOR ZIG!!

so much for the cameraman at the end...luckily, i've never experienced any of that! maybe because i know what i'm doing.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Riot

Now people can choose to "kill" their babies if they are going to have sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. Where is the line drawn?

What about people who purposely fertilize eggs via in-vitro fertilization, then store them, then decide they don't want to implant them, so those fertilized eggs are just thrown away?

BTW, Bush says it's okay to throw these discarded fertilized eggs away, but not okay to use those discarded fertilized eggs for embryonic stem cell research.

Three situations, all involve the same thing (fertilized multi-celled but undifferentiated eggs) why should they be viewed differently?

These are not easy questions.

Like I care what Bush says
he isn't a conservative

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

http://tapespace.com/view/The_Christian_Gene

that's almost funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8