[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Flipside
Uncomfortable HotSnoJ?

No, I want it to DIE!!!


/me sees thread is still twitching.
/me fires another volley at it.

[jdjtcagle]

Uhhh... *runs away*

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Flipside
Also, the very real risk of STDs IS present in polygomous relationships, to a far far greater degree than people percieve for Gays.

Not really. Why is a man with two wives more likely to catch an STD than a man with one wife?

The significant variable here is how likely anyone in the relationship is to cheat/How promiscuous they were before marriage. Not how many wives the guy has.

[Rampage]

You liberal atheists...

You're right, homosexuals are on their way to get their "rights" in Massachusetts, but Mass with its Ted Kennedy (The man with TWO seats in Senate.) and John Kerry will lose the support of other states.

Personally I'm a strong states-rights conservative.  If states want their own thing, let them have it.  If they want to go to hell, let them go to hell.  The federal government has no right to "redefine" marriage because it's already defined by God in Genesis where a man will be with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.  It's already specified.

I wouldn't be surprised if polygamy and beastiality becomes legal in the hands of liberals pretty soon.  And since this board is a liberal board (with all you Europeans), I wouldn't be surprised if you guys support it too.

I'm a Christian and a staunch conservative (pro-family) by my own right, and you're a liberal by your own right.  Let's keep it at that.

Oh, also, I am also anti Clinton gun-ban.  I abhor it.

Cheers,

Rampage

[jdjtcagle]

Ok,  I want an answer from somebody...
IS IT GENETIC??

[an0n]

Originally posted by Rictor
anon: the world did not get this "good" because of white, male, Christians waging bloody war and conquering the peoples of far away lands, as you would like me to believe. It got this "good" despite that.

Intolerance to race, religion, sex, age, gender, nationality or anythng along those line is detremental to the welfare of mankind. Most people can live quite peacefully with gays and Blacks and athiests, and if certain people find that threatening, tough ****.

I bet you're one of those people who goes around spouting nonsense like "Violence never solved anything".

In the end, lasting peace can not be had at the end of sword or the barrel of a gun. People have to want it, and they're not going to want it if they are oppressed.

Who the **** said anything about peace? If you've got them under armed guard, they don't need to want peace. They'll take whatever the **** you tell them to take.

Peace never solved anything. The only thing in all the universe that keeps mankind going is the "I'm right and I'm going to prove you're wrong" mentality.

[Rampage]

Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Ok,  I want an answer from somebody...
IS IT GENETIC??

Homosexuality - Yes
Liberalism - No (maybe yes)

[an0n]

Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Ok,  I want an answer from somebody...
IS IT GENETIC??

It doesn't matter.

If it's genetic, then the kids get it.

If it's environmental, then the kids get it.

[jdjtcagle]

I got what you were saying in that one big post Rampage.
Man and Wife becomes one flesh, but then how if he's a Homo??
Gay Man and Wife becomes friends and learns to love her, or something??

[Flipside]

Originally posted by karajorma


Not really. Why is a man with two wives more likely to catch an STD than a man with one wife?

The significant variable here is how likely anyone in the relationship is to cheat/How promiscuous they were before marriage. Not how many wives the guy has.

Because the kind of Polygomy you quote is not true polygamy, true polygamy is not just where a man can have several wives, a Woman might have several husbands. And some of those men may have other wives. So faithfulness never really becomes an issue.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Flipside
Because the kind of Polygomy you quote is not true polygamy, true polygamy is not just where a man can have several wives, a Woman might have several husbands. And some of those men may have other wives. So faithfulness never really becomes an issue.

It's still polgamy. The old muslim or mormon system of having several wives is still polygamy.

I'll agree with you that when both partners in the marriage have multiple spouses that there is an increased danger but that kind of situation is even rarer than the kind I was talking about (which is rare enough as it is).

Besides simply saying that you can't marry someone if both parties are already married stamps that danger out.

[Flipside]

Exactly, I do agree that Polygomous marraiges wouldn't work in the way I stated (edited from badly worded previous statement), but An0n is right in a strange way.

We have the power of choice, so if we choose to act like frightened barbarians, worshipping our Thunder Gods and hating another herd because they are not part of our herd then yes, we may as well nuke ourselves out of existence right now. Prejudice and Fear DO have a place in our genetic makeup, they are vital survival tools, but we need to choose to use it when we need to, and not make it our first, only and above all favourite option.

[an0n]

No, what we need to do is decide what harms the advancement of mankind and annihilate it.

You may ***** and moan about homosexuality having little effect on birth rates, but it's still having an effect.

Same with AIDS. If we killed everyone with it, it'd be gone. No more AIDS, ever. But no, preventing billions of people from contracting it in the future isn't worth the lives of a few hundred thousand people who're too stupid to use a condom.

Anyone who catches AIDS from having unprotected sex deserves to die. The universe has said so, and to contradict it would not only be blasphemy but also a denial of simple logic.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by an0n
You may ***** and moan about homosexuality having little effect on birth rates, but it's still having an effect.

You make that sound like a bad thing. There are too many human beings anyway. Reducing birth rates is a good thing. It has a positive effect on mankind.

As for the rest. Typical an0n stupidity.

[Flipside]

Or possibly the challenge set to us by the universe in the case of Aids and HIV is to find a cure? We always learn fastest when we are surfing the razor blade of survival.

Mankind is an anology of life itself, we have evolved and adapted to fill every diversity we can. That, in my opinion is the key to survival, not the ruthless culling of anything that doesn't fit into the 'mold' as it were, but the facing of challenges, both to our science and to our beliefs. Much advancement to mankind has been made by people who were incidentally Gay as well.

[an0n]

While I am, on occassion, willing to admit that I have been misinformed, I have a certain dislike for having my opinions refered to as 'stupidity' by someone who couldn't find their own ass with two hands and a subscription to Finding Your Ass Weekly.

It's people like you who make the world a ****-hole. *****ing about how killing is wrong and tollerance is good with abso-****ing-loutely no understanding of realism.

Most of the time, killing people is a very effective method of achieving your goals. It's been used as such for thousands of years. So unless you're telling me that people like Caesar, Churchill and Sun Tzu are morons, then you should probably just shut the hell up.

[Singh]

Well, they were in a way.
At least, Ceaser was, the other 2 were quite brilliant (but with some flaws - for churchill at least, not sure about Sun Tzu).

Tolerance is good - it gives your enemies an illusion that you like them, allowing you to backstab em later

Killing IS wrong. Yet it is necessary in some cases - what determines these cases is entirely upto the person with the gun. Be carefull what you wish for an0n, you may just get it.

[an0n]

Tollerance is only good while you're working towards changing your 'enemy' or while there's a bigger threat that you need to work against.

But the enemy of my enemy is NEVER my friend.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Rampage
Personally I'm a strong states-rights conservative.  If states want their own thing, let them have it.  If they want to go to hell, let them go to hell.  The federal government has no right to "redefine" marriage because it's already defined by God in Genesis where a man will be with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.  It's already specified.

There's something eating at me about this whole post... damn, what is it... I know it's there...something about the government being... wait no, don't tell me... uhhh, ... oh, it's on the tip of my tongue... oh yeah...****ing Secular? Genesis and all the other bull**** in any religious book should have nothing to do with government. It was one of the founding principles of your friggen country, and you ignore it because, up until recently, it didn;t mean much. Well, if they ****ed up the whole right to bear arms bull**** (which you obviously support with your "anti gun ban" stance... in a country with probabbly the worst gun crime problem in the western world) they seem to have been able to hit the nail on the head with this one. So respect it. Twit.

[an0n]

America has second worst gun-crime rate in the world......second to Iraq.

The rough figures were:
UK - 100 deaths a year.
Germany - 200 deaths a year.
America - 12,000 deaths a year.