DigitalShadow

It's like they're trying to say "Here, you throw this away."

I'm sure that are some people with that agenda who are gay, but I don't think there are enough of them for it to be fair to call it the "gay agenda" any more than it is fair to call the extermination (by killing) of gays the "Christian agenda" because I have heard some Christians who strongly advocate that.

Thank you. I hadn't thought of it that way before. I still don't agree on the topic of marriage, but that was a very insightful comment.

But as far as I know there is no precedent for legislating a religion has to "accept" certain members and even if that is what some people want, there is absolutely no way it could happen. Arguing against same sex marriage because it is a part of an imaginary slippery slope does not make sense to me.

One word... spermcicle. I'll leave it at that Definitions of everything change over time (if you don't believe me, look at the entire history of the word marriage). Denying rights just to keep a specific definition of a word doesn't make much sense to me.

I have heard that argument used as justification before but it doesn't make any sense to me. Why would a same sex couple even want to be a part of a church or be married by a church that thinks they are going to hell and committing a huge sin? Why do so many people perceive allowing same sex marriage as an "attack" on their religion? I really do want to understand this point of view and I'm not saying this just for the sake of argument.

They could just as easily do it the "old fasioned" way if both couples really wanted a family, no "technology" needed Would you care to comment on my other part of my statement?

Just for the sake of being a pain, I would like to point out that same sex families could happen without the help of heterosexual unions. If a gay couple and a lesbian couple both wanted a kid, the gay couple could artificially inseminate the lesbian couple fairly easily and then each of them keep a baby. I would also like to point out that marriage is not just about procreation. If it is, should people who are sterile for any reason be allowed to get married? Every statement you just made could be just as eaily applied to a heterosexual couple where one or both are sterile.

I don't rule out the possibility of ghosts and spirits but in general I don't believe they exist because I have not seen any evidence of them, but I have seen many fraud "psychics" who exploit people's grief to make a quick buck. I do really live sci-fi and shows that deal with paranormal stuff though because I think it would be cool if they did exist :)

I think that's the same model as the first computer my family owned :)

One thing I would like to clarify. I don't think sexual orientation is genetic either, but I also don't think it is a conscious choice. I don't know about you, but I didn't sit down one day and decide that I would like to be attracted to the opposite sex and I imagine it is much the same for most homosexual people (this is supported by every gay/lesbian I've asked about it).

Ever since around Jr. High and probalby a bit earlier, talking about and pursuing the opposite sex has been a significant part of social interactions. If I did not feel the same way about the opposite sex as my peers, I can see how that would be awkward and easily lead to "not fitting in." I would be really curious to see some statistics on that. It sounds more like a myth that people easily latch on to so they can explain homosexual behavior to themselves. But then again I am not an expert on the subject. I've felt different all my life, not because of my sexual orientation though, but because of the way I look at and think about things. I haven't really noticed any temptation as a result. Maybe a bit of depression, but I know people deal with things in different ways. I honestly don't know many gay people (or maybe I do, Utah is not exactly the most gay friendly place so they may not make it public), but I've never met anyone who "decided" to be gay later in life. I have known people who decided to make it public that they are gay even after having a wife and kids; they simply hid their sexual orientation for years because of the strong pressure to conform. From my personal experiences, the vast majority of people seem to either be attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex throughout their entire life starting at the point when kids usually start to notice the other sex. Homosexuality generally refers to sexual orientation which is generally defined by which sex you find to be physically attractive and arousing. Anger is a temptation that everyone has to some extent, homosexuality is not. I don't think that calling yourself homosexual as a term to describe the sexual attraction you feel is the same as defining yourself by your temptations.

I don't see how that has any basis in reality, and furthermore I don't even think that is what "liberals" want. Churches can (and do) refuse to perform marriages based on whatever criterea they want. Why would a homosexual couple even want to get married by a church who thinks they are going to Hell and commiting a horrible sin on a regular basis? Frankly, this whole slippery slope argument about how the government is going to force religions to change their views is pure paranoid fantasy that is used to justify things like prop 8. The only real reason churches are in danger of losing their tax exempt status is becoming a political tool of a certain party which many churches are already dangerously close to.

The founders of this country are long dead. People can post carefully mined quotes and research back and forth all day about how the founding fathers agree more with their particular theology (I've seen it in other forums), but the facts are that they founded a nation where people are free to practice whatever religion they choose and where people are free from the opression of any particular religion. Does it really matter how many of them were "Christian" and to what extent?

That is exactly what I was trying to say, but I think you stated it much better. A lot of people seem to confuse culture and race.

I sincerely hope that people will "play nice" and frankly I regret not playing nice in the past. That is all I was saying, feel free to ignore it and play however mean or nice you want it. I'm certainly not suggesting we all bow down and praise the new presdient elect or try to agree with him on everything, I disagree with him on a fair amount of issues as well. Criticism is good and healthy, but there is a difference between constructive criticism and some of the name calling and bitterness I've seen here in this forum (not from you specifically) that only serves to further divide the nation.

I saw that movie... I remember the scene but can't remember which movie it was from, I want to say it was Snatch. In context, I laughed at it because of the irony of the situation and I think that was the desired response. I'm pretty sure the movie was not trying to condone their actions, but more trying to make fun of the situation.

That's exactly what I was trying to get at :)

I like Taco Bell, does that count as Mexican food? :) Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that I think you are racist, I was trying to point out that there is a big difference between making assumptions based on overall appearance and making assumptions based only on race. If I see a group of gangster looking young men walking towards me, I will go around them. It doesn't make a difference if they're black, white, brown or purple, they made their intent clear with their clothes and the way they walk and it is not racism to avoid them. On the other hand, if I saw a black man respectably dressed and minding his own business and I cowered away from him as if he were going to murder me, that would be racism in my opinion.

If you suggested he reverse his decision on the tax plan and provided compelling reasons why, I think he would take it into consideration espcially if he got enough heart felt feedback that it was a bad idea. I see no reason why he wouldn't seriously consider changing his mind if that is really what the people want. I honestly think he is reaching out to see what exactly the American public wants and that he would seriously consider what people write, even people who disagree with him and especially if there are a lot of people who speak up. If I were in his position, that is something I would do. Perhaps this is just a publicity stunt to get an early start on his approval rating, but it couldn't hurt to at least give it a try and give him a chance to live up to his promises before immediatly dismissing the whole thing.

In my opinion, stereotypes are meaningless when it comes to race. I am half Mexican, but I know maybe 10 words of Spanish, nothing of Mexican culture, hate Mexican food, and I'm horrible at home improvement projects. Would you assume I am a "stereotypical" Mexican when you see me walking down the street cleancut and dressed in Banana Republic? Would you not want your daughter to date or marry me only because of my skin color? (I'm already married by the way, to a white woman) I think a lot more can be inferred by the way people choose to present themselves than simply by the color of their skin they were born with.

It has been very interesting, to say the least, talking to people here about the election and politics in general. I personally think many of you have a few misconceptions about Obama (and even his wife), but I hope people can look to the future with an open mind and allow Obama to prove you wrong rather than look for every flaw and opportunity to dislike the man. I admit that I did not have an open mind about Bush 8 years ago and looking at reactions I've seen in this forum over the last few days, I realize how wrong my attitude was. It has been somewhat of a wakeup call for me, looking in the mirror to see how ugly my attitude must have seemed to the other side. I wish I could go back and change my behavior, but all I can do is try to make the best of whoever our political leaders are in our future. I see a growing divide in this country and it is holding us back. I used to think it was whatever politicians were in power that were simply failing to unite the nation, but now I see that it is the people who need to change, not the leaders. I think everyone needs to take a step back and realize that the other side loves America just as much as you and they are passionately doing what they feel is best for this country just as you are. Look for ways to come together and find common ground rather than point fingers and find faults. I'm not looking to change anyone's mind or argue about political views, but it is my sincere hope that the people of this forum and moreover the people of this country will be able to get over this bitterness toward "the other side" and look for ways to work together and make the best of whatever the current political environment is. Thank you all for the passionate discussions over the last couple days!

Source? I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, there are some pretty weird things that can exclude you from security clearance, but I hadn't heard this before and would like a source for it.

Making judgements (usually negative) about people based solely on race. Yes. Not necessarily. I dislike certain cultures (for example, cultures that condone stoning people in this day and age), but I still don't judge a person entirely on what culture they belong to. If you are disliking some races based solely on their race, yes you are racist... I don't know of anyone who dislikes all races, but I think that if that were the case they would simply be grumpy rather than racist. Yes. If you are automatically applying that stereotype based only on the color of their skin, then yes it is racism. Absolutely. It has certainly diminished quite a bit, but I wouldn't say that it is dead. What does that even mean? In my opinion, absolutely. I don't think it is intentionally used that way. Quite honestly, no.

Honestly, yes. Not everyone is vendictive toward anyone who doesn't unconditionally agree with them.