{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/17/2013 1:28:44 AM
15
-For legalization of Marijuana.
-For Certain firearm bans (I'm all in favor of gun control, but no outright ban on certain guns).
-For Same Sex Marriage.
-For cutting Military Spending.
All of these are immediate deal breakers. If I see a candidate support these they're off my "To vote for" list.
English
-
[quote]-For Same Sex Marriage.[/quote]
-
All but possibly the second and last ones are silly disqualifying factors.
-
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana http://hawaiiccw.com/gun-myths/assault-weapon-myths/ -Summoning the Green Genie is harmful for you. -There is less than 1% of deaths annually from assault weapons yet they are now banned from executive order. -It's a genetic defect, no reason to welcome a living flaw. -No reason for arguments on last factor.
-
[quote]-It's a genetic defect, no reason to welcome a living flaw. [/quote] No it isn't. Homosexuality has nothing at all to do with genetics. Even if it did, that's like preventing redheads from getting married because red hair is a genetic defect. The moment you start arguing genetic superiority, you start going into Hitler/slavery/genocide territory. Homosexuality is a mental thing, it has to do with the person's mind and personality, which aren't genetic. Twins have the same DNA, but they can have very different personalities. Alternately, one twin can be gay, and the other straight. The current controversy over gay marriage will end before too long, just as the controversy over interracial marriage did. It doesn't damage the sanctity of marriage. Christianity didn't invent marriage, and even if it did, the government can't force those christian beliefs onto everyone in the country. Religious institutions seem to be the only real voices against gay marriage, which gives the government no real case to continue to disallow it. Also, marijuana is one of the least harmful drugs out there. You can't overdose on it, and it's not nearly as bad as cigarettes or alcohol. While I personally think it's stupid, it shouldn't be illegal. If we replaced cigarettes with marijuana, there would be a lot less lung disease and cancer. If banning assault rifles prevents even 1% of gun deaths, it's still worth it. An assault rifle is not a self defense or hunting weapon. They are specifically designed to kill as many humans as possible, and have been illegal in most states for a long time anyway. The only people that should even want an assault rifle are gun collectors. Our military spending is a massive chunk of our nation's budget. We spend more on our military than most of the other big military powers combined, which is ridiculous. We are slowly making our way out of a war. It only makes sense to cut military spending, as we don't need an incredibly pimped out standing army. We spend way too much on a military that doesn't even need or want it. There are tons of expensive, multi-billion dollar jets and other vehicles that are just not being used. With the debt we have, spending so much on our military seems foolish. It's the easiest and most logical place to make cuts, we could easily defend ourselves with a much smaller army and military budget. Just thought I'd provide my two cents.
-
[quote] -It's a genetic defect, no reason to welcome a living flaw. [/quote] lol
-
>Thinks I'm joking. >No scientific evidence that being a non-heterosexual is normal. Yes, Lol indeed.
-
No one knows what causes homosexuality. Some studies point to genetic differences (not "defects"), some say environmental factors cause it, and some other studies contradict those ones. If you're going to try to argue that homosexuality is a "flaw" using science, I don't think you're going to get very far.
-
What's the point of a species? To reproduce and continue their existence. Homosexuality offers nothing to that. Modern science from the Lilin have offered such things as artificial insemination. However, homosexuality in other species is not only scarce but not as huge as it is with us. Animals with Homosexuality die off, you don't see hundreds of rabbits trying to nail other male rabbits. Remember that "Homosexual" Penguin couple a while back? They hate each other now. Until I see proof of Homosexual being a normal part of Biology that offers positive improvement, I don't see any justification for them.** **This is all the Devils Advocate, I would favor Same-Sex Marriage if online activists weren't such Dicks trying to shove it down my throat.
-
So your opinions are so weak that "online activists" are enough to change them? That's kind of pathetic. The Devil needs a new advocate, apparently. [url=http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx]Homosexual behavior is quite common[/url] among other species. Us humans aren't the gayest species at all.And in many species, it does have a clear benefit.
-
No, I'm simply saying that no ones view is so morally right that they have the exclusive right of acting like an ass hole. All I ever hear from them is "If you don't support X you're a bigot". Granted you get that with every view, but it is so apparent with this crowd that they believe that their morale high horse is the word of God. No view you have no matter how good it is, justifies ass hole like behavior and this group is so In your face about it. Why should I listen to them? Also, worms? They don't have differentiating sexes. They contain both Male and Female organs for reproduction. There is no sexuality with them.
-
Not denying people rights based on a fundamental misunderstanding of science is a pretty good thing to promote vehemently, I think. If someone told me that a trait that I was born with, and that didn't hurt anyone was a "genetic flaw" without giving any evidence and steadily refusing to listen to any evidence that I had, I'd be an asshole too. If they pretended that my right to marriage was somehow a threat using completely ridiculous reasoning, or just not giving their reasoning then I wouldn't be very polite to them, especially if that person then accused me of "asshole like behavior". You do realize that "the word of God" is one of the main reasons people are against homosexuality, right? I mean... that's their literal position on the issue. Also, you know, what about the other hundreds and hundreds of species that practice homosexual behavior that do have a clear sexuality? Are you going to post any evidence for your position, or are you just going to keep telling me "science" that you're just making up as you go along?
-
Edited by Gaara444: 1/18/2013 8:08:44 PMNo, if you were truly above those people you wouldn't scoop down to their supposed "level". As stated earlier, I'm all for it, I only posted no because of others peoples responses. If I was just an average Joe that didn't vote on any legislation/didn't sign any petitions, why should I be called a bigot for not supporting something when I'm not even supporting the other side? "Well if you're not against it, you're a part of it!" No, that arguments isn't going to work. I keep my nose out of others peoples business, even in Government. I'm not that average Joe I just listed above, I will sign and vote for legislation/petitions but only if they benefit me. Sorry yo break it to you, but I'm (at least what you would call) a [lonely, bitter] man. I keep to myself on everything in my life unless I am forced to do otherwise. However, the one time I feel like going outwards, the one time I choose to be help another group of people, I'm a called a bigot, close minded fool for my past tendencies. Well up theirs too. I think I'll have lunch at Chick Fil-A just to spite them. Also, as far as Science goes. Your article doesn't even have proper citation. How do we know that writer didn't just add stuff for kicks?
-
[quote]No, if you were truly above those people you wouldn't scoop down to their supposed "level". As stated earlier, I'm all for it, I only posted no because of others peoples responses. If I was just an average Joe that didn't vote on any legislation/didn't sign any petitions, why should I be called a bigot for not supporting something when I'm not even supporting the other side? "Well if you're not against it, you're a part of it!" No, that arguments isn't going to work. I keep my nose out of others peoples business, even in Government. I'm not that average Joe I just listed above, I will sign and vote for legislation/petitions but only if they benefit me. Sorry yo break it to you, but I'm (at least what you would call) a [lonely, bitter] man. I keep to myself on everything in my life unless I am forced to do otherwise. However, the one time I feel like going outwards, the one time I choose to be help another group of people, I'm a called a bigot, close minded fool for my past tendencies. Well up theirs too. I think I'll have lunch at Chick Fil-A just to spite them. Also, as far as Science goes. Your article doesn't even have proper citation. How do we know that writer didn't just add stuff for kicks?[/quote] Dude, you were just saying that being for same sex marriage was a "political dealbreaker" for you. Same thing with marijuana legalization. Now you're trying to say that you "keep your nose out of other people's business".
-
I also said the only reason I said so was to spite the people that told me off because I only did things that benefited me. I'm more than willing to do something for others as long as it's convenient for me. However, I'm not gonna bother if I'm called a close minded bigot because I didn't support them at all cause it never benefited me in the first place. I won't give them time of day. And why did my post wait until after I showered before it was submitted into the thread?
-
Our concrete separation of homosexuality and heterosexuality is a relatively new cultural convention. The Spartans all had wives and children but they banged each other all the time. It wasn't seen as "gay" because there was no concept of being "gay."
