Originally posted by Darth SexyYou said it yourself; it's too lenient. While I certainly wouldn't look forward to being euthanized like an animal, I think I'd take it over a lifetime of inescapable solitude in a stone cell. And that's exactly where I throw the worst of the worst; in a stone cell somewhere in the middle of the Pacific on a manmade island, preferably with biodegradable clothes and several tons of unwrapped twinkies.
Do me a favor and explain this. I for one believe that in certain cases, you deserve to die for your crimes. I don't want to say "an eye for an eye", but I sure as hell would prefer to give someone the needle, over letting them chill in prison. My only exception to this is child molesters and rapists. The reason is for them, life in prison IS a death sentence, giving them an actual death penalty is too lenient. But this second part is just a personal opinion of mine and in no way follows any kind of American law.
This is probably my most liberal one out of all my beliefs, and it's enhanced greatly by the fact that I love animals more than I love humans in the fact that animals are empty. I have murderous rage to animal abusers and I think there should be strong penalties enforced for animal abuse.Good.
I'm not ultra conservative here in the sense that I do believe in background checks, waiting times, and some sort of control. But I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I believe we as citizens have a right to arm ourselves in the confines of our homes. Look at Israel. Soldiers walk around with uzis, the majority of households have guns, yet we don't see them shooting each other.America isn't Israel. This country has enjoyed an abnormally high crime rate for decades.
And again, the Second Amendment also calls for militias organized by either the state or local governments. I guarantee you that 99% of American gun owners would be worth dog shit in a gunfight against the military.
I'm into the idea that if you want to come into this country illegally, then you should learn our language and be assimilated into our society.Maybe. It's a deep issue.
Conservative on this issue for reasons stated in previous posts. I thought proposition 8 was good for banning same sex marriages, but bad because it will affect heterosexual domestic partners as well.Gay rights are the civil rights movement of the decade, and I sincerely hope that people look back upon this era with the same disdain that I look at the early-mid twentieth century with. It's inhumane to deny people the ability to get married.
Yes, the Bush administration made a lot of errors in dealing with 9/11. Nuclear weapons? That's an iffy one, not really sure about that.I see no reason not to get rid of them, at least as far as the public can tell. People in power are so damn daft sometimes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSNJpoUmJcg
My childhood returns.
You said it yourself; it's too lenient. While I certainly wouldn't look forward to being euthanized like an animal, I think I'd take it over a lifetime of inescapable solitude in a stone cell. And that's exactly where I throw the worst of the worst; in a stone cell somewhere in the middle of the Pacific on a manmade island, preferably with biodegradable clothes and several tons of unwrapped twinkies. [/quote]
You have to understand though, most of the criminals on death row or who have life imprisonment, get a break by living out there days eating 3 meals a day, conversing with people, etc. We're not talking about people like you and me, for whom 1 day of jail time is already hell. You are giving these people the chance to resume life in a more conservative setting, after they took the life of someone else.
America isn't Israel. This country has enjoyed an abnormally high crime rate for decades.
And again, the Second Amendment also calls for militias organized by either the state or local governments. I guarantee you that 99% of American gun owners would be worth dog shit in a gunfight against the military.
Gay rights are the civil rights movement of the decade, and I sincerely hope that people look back upon this era with the same disdain that I look at the early-mid twentieth century with. It's inhumane to deny people the ability to get married.
I see no reason not to get rid of them, at least as far as the public can tell. People in power are so damn daft sometimes. [/B]
If my responses seem at all simple, it's because I just finished an LSAT practice test and my mind is fried.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You have to understand though, most of the criminals on death row or who have life imprisonment, get a break by living out there days eating 3 meals a day, conversing with people, etc. We're not talking about people like you and me, for whom 1 day of jail time is already hell. You are giving these people the chance to resume life in a more conservative setting, after they took the life of someone else.
Originally posted by Me
And that's exactly where I throw the worst of the worst; in a stone cell somewhere in the middle of the Pacific on a manmade island, preferably with biodegradable clothes and several tons of unwrapped twinkies.
Point is, guns don't kill people, stupid people do.I think the idea of picking and choosing what aspects of the amendments we want to adhere to is cheating. Either do what it says or get rid of it.Ok. This still doesn't justify the need to disallow citizens to arm themselves after going through proper channels.
I don't agree. I have to bring up ancient civilizations again for this purpose. If you're having relations or intercourse with the sex, where does it end? Why is a same sex relationship fine by you but not beastiality, necrophilia, coprophilia (sp?), or sex with inanimate objects?Because a woman aren't quite the same as horses or a pile of shit. I mean, are you seriously telling me that you look away when you see women hooking up (among other things)?
I just brought up the sex example to make a point. If you allow gay marriages, where does it end? Why can't I marry an animal then, or a cardboard copy of Darth Vader? The sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman was created to separate us from the past civilizations that had no such morals, and who aren't here anymore as a result. Why should we change the idea of marriage just because our society is moving towards the left, towards more acceptance?This sounds like something a white supremacist would have said fifty years ago, to be honest. And this is a perfect reason why we should have absolute separation of church(/temple/mosque) and state; tens of thousands of people are essentially being forced to conform to the ideals of someone else's religion.
Eh I think the idea was useful during the decades of the Cold War, that's about it.I don't see how they were useful then either, but nuclear weaponry shouldn't be necessary now. It's the hypocrisy that gets me, especially because no one else seems to recognize it.
Hence, this:
I think the idea of picking and choosing what aspects of the amendments we want to adhere to is cheating. Either do what it says or get rid of it.
Because a woman aren't quite the same as horses or a pile of shit. I mean, are you seriously telling me that you look away when you see women hooking up (among other things)?
This sounds like something a white supremacist would have said fifty years ago, to be honest. And this is a perfect reason why we should have absolute separation of church(/temple/mosque) and state; tens of thousands of people are essentially being forced to conform to the ideals of someone else's religion.
I don't see how they were useful then either, but nuclear weaponry shouldn't be necessary now. It's the hypocrisy that gets me, especially because no one else seems to recognize it. [/B]
Well, I agree with you in a way. It was useful back then and now it's used as a scare tactic. But you won't see anyone destroying them because of fear of other countries that still possess nuclear capabilities, or are on their way. Ideally it would be nice but it's unlikely there will be a global decision to get rid of them.
Originally posted by Darth SexyThen we shouldn't ignore the aspects of it that people find inconvenient.
Well, as you've often heard, the constitution is a living and breathing being. I think we have no right to change it.
Does that make it right? I love me some lesbians like any normal man.So it's cool to watch them, but they're really just entertainment?
And what you just said? Tell that to the ancient Greeks and Romans who apparently used other men purely for sex.I'm defending homosexuals because I enjoy watching them, DS. I'm defending them because they're unjustly having their rights taken away.
Tell that to the proponents of bestiality.You're seriously comparing people who like other people to those who fantasize about ****ing animals?
And wait; does this mean you're against heterosexual anal sex?
To me, intercourse with the same sex sets a dangerous precedent in terms of how far we can go. First it'll be same sex, then it will be an animal of the same sex, then an object. Why go there?You understand that it isn't illegal to have "intercourse" with inanimate objects, right? Sex toys, much?
Why not maintain the values of marriage we've had for millennia?The values don't change. These people, many of them spiritual or religious, are looking for the same binding oaths of eternal love and trust, the sanctity of a recognized union, that all heterosexuals have access to. The principles are the same, I just want to extend access of those principles to everybody.
Why a white supremacist who was primarily concerned with race? What does this have to do with it?You're selectively denying a group of individuals who have done no wrong basic human rights.
I am concerned about the betterment of society.So no anal sex for anybody?
It is counterproductive to society's improvement to institute some of the rights and privileges that were predominant in ancient times.Like organized government, democracy, and legal systems?
Sorry, but the guy who sat back and stuck it in a grapefruit all day never brought down a nation.
Well, I agree with you in a way. It was useful back then and now it's used as a scare tactic. But you won't see anyone destroying them because of fear of other countries that still possess nuclear capabilities, or are on their way. Ideally it would be nice but it's unlikely there will be a global decision to get rid of them.Very little gets done without idealists fueling the fire.
Originally posted by Publius II
Then we shouldn't ignore the aspects of it that people find inconvenient.So it's cool to watch them, but they're really just entertainment?
I'm defending homosexuals because I enjoy watching them, DS. I'm defending them because they're unjustly having their rights taken away.
You're seriously comparing people who like other people to those who fantasize about ****ing animals?
And wait; does this mean you're against heterosexual anal sex?
You understand that it isn't illegal to have "intercourse" with inanimate objects, right? Sex toys, much?
The values don't change. These people, many of them spiritual or religious, are looking for the same binding oaths of eternal love and trust, the sanctity of a recognized union, that all heterosexuals have access to. The principles are the same, I just want to extend access of those principles to everybody.
You're selectively denying a group of individuals who have done no wrong basic human rights.
So no anal sex for anybody?
Like organized government, democracy, and legal systems?
Sorry, but the guy who sat back and stuck it in a grapefruit all day never brought down a nation.
Very little gets done without idealists fueling the fire. [/B]
Originally posted by Darth SexyYou don't find that the least bit screwed up?
For me? Yes. Beyond that I think it's wrong.
What people do in their bedrooms is their business but when they open up publicly and want a legal ceremony, I tend to get a little irritated.As I'm sure all the white supremacists did in the sixties.
I assume you meant not for the first statement.lol, yeah.
And what do you mean rights taken away? The right to marriage is between a man and a woman. Please tell me where there was ever a defined right for two people of the same sex to get married? They're not getting anything taken away because it was never a right to begin with.That's exactly what Proposition 8 did, DS.
I'm making a comparison in terms of precedent. First you have sex with the opposite sex. Then you have sex with the same sex. It only goes down from there. Again, ancient civilizations had sex with everything. Please explain to me then, if you are not opposed to same sex marriages or even intercourse with the same sex, then what's wrong with incest? What's wrong with having sex with a minor? How are you going people don't have the right to have sex with little kids, or their family members, but it's somehow ok to have intercourse with the same sex. Where do you draw the line dude? This is my problem with this particular line of thought.Bull. Sex with minors is illegal because minors are, for the most part, stupid or vulnerable. They can't look out for themselves, and thus they are prone to being taken advantage of. Gay people aren't looking for the legal right to rape one another.
Same thing with incest. Most cases involve an older relative and either a minor or someone who is unwilling; it constitutes child or sexual abuse. Incest between consensual adults is exceedingly rare, and technically shouldn't be illegal anyway because the social taboo would be "punishment" enough. Another big issue with incest is that, in the case of closely related men and women, it's inbreeding.
I'm sure many people I know have tried it but I haven't, nor do I have any desire to. Maybe it's cause I'm huge, or the fact that I find the idea of sticking my manaconda into the pooper, disgusting....
I'm assuming your repulsed by the idea of blowjobs, too.
Marry an inanimate object. Marry an animal. Have sex with an animal. Commit incest. Have sex with little boys and girls.None of which would be consensual, with the exception of a few rare cases of incest.
The spirit of marriage though has always been between a man and woman and I think we should adhere to that. And again, where does it end when you start "extending principles" to suit people's needs. I don't see you saying we should allow adults to have sex with little children, or a brother and a sister having sex with each other. Is it disgusting? If so, why is that disgusting and not same sex intercourse?Again, you're drawing completely invalid comparisons.
I prefer to call it maintaining the values and principles that we have prospered with.Like the white supremacists did for two hundred years. Try telling a black woman that she shouldn't have the right to vote, or that she can't eat in the same restaurant as you, because it's against the values and principles that most Americans this past century had grown up with.
Eh between a man and a woman, possibly I don't have a hatred toward although I wouldn't do it. A man and a man? Gtfo of here.Double standard.
And a blowjob would be considered sodomy, too.
Did you not see the word <b>some</b> in there? I placed it there for specific emphasis.Decrying certain principles for the sole reason that they were present in ancient societies is stupid, especially when they themselves did not negatively affect said societies in any discernible way.
Yet all of the destroyed nations had a lot in common in terms of codes of ethics and morality.Prove it.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66Do you... WTF?
Well all i know, is that if anyone i know of has anal sex, i sure would not want them cooking my food.
Originally posted by Publius II
You don't find that the least bit screwed up?
As I'm sure all the white supremacists did in the sixties.
That's exactly what Proposition 8 did, DS.
Bull. Sex with minors is illegal because minors are, for the most part, stupid or vulnerable. They can't look out for themselves, and thus they are prone to being taken advantage of. Gay people aren't looking for the legal right to rape one another.
Same thing with incest. Most cases involve an older relative and either a minor or someone who is unwilling; it constitutes child or sexual abuse. Incest between consensual adults is exceedingly rare, and technically shouldn't be illegal anyway because the social taboo would be "punishment" enough. Another big issue with incest is that, in the case of closely related men and women, it's inbreeding.
...
I'm assuming your repulsed by the idea of blowjobs, too.
Again, you're drawing completely invalid comparisons.
Like the white supremacists did for two hundred years. Try telling a black woman that she shouldn't have the right to vote, or that she can't eat in the same restaurant as you, because it's against the values and principles that most Americans this past century had grown up with.Double standard.
And a blowjob would be considered sodomy, too.
Decrying certain principles for the sole reason that they were present in ancient societies is stupid, especially when they themselves did not negatively affect said societies in any discernible way.
Originally posted by Darth SexyYou just admitted that you're thinking like a white supremacist, for the record.
Regardless, it doesn't make it wrong.
That's not exactly a justification for why one thing is ok and the other isn't. How about all of the 17 year olds that are MORE mature than a lot of 30 years olds?Good lord.
Minors are protected because, as a group, they are dumber, less experienced, and more vulnerable than their older counterparts. The exception to the rule isn't what law is based on.
What about two willing people who happened to be related in some way? Psychological issues aside, based on your logic, what is wrong with this? Two consenting people. I think incest is illegal for the same reason same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed.Same-sex marriages are consensual; the overwhelming majority of incest cases are not.
In the rare case that a brother and sister actually love each other, their procreation would be discouraged because of the potential long-term effects of inbreeding and the fact that their children would never live down what their parents did.
It sets a dangerous precedent and where would we draw the lines?I've drawn very clear lines. What is consensual between adults and not dangerous or harmful to anyone can stay; everything else remains illegal.
Hell no, as long as it's not during Lord of the Rings.More double standards.
How is it a double standard? The sanctity of marriage has been around for millennia. I do believe that all people in general are created equal, not all cultures. I don't even understand this comparison. Allowing Blacks to vote is only a positive thing. There's nothing negative about it. Allowing homosexuals to marry each other brings up other activities one could engage in, if this is allowed.So deny certain people rights so that "worse" people can't have them? Are you kidding me?
One leads civilization down a dark path, while the other thing contributes to the growth of a civilization.That's sensationalist trash and you know it.
By whom.Georgia:
... was convicted under Georgia's 156-year-old sodomy statute after admitting in court that he had had oral sex with his estranged wife.
And the Unified Code of Military Justice:
Sodomy was defined as anal or oral sex between men or between a man and a woman. At the end of World War II, the legal definition was changed to include sexual relations between women as well.
They don't exist anymore, for various reasons. I didn't say it was the sole reason either.It wasn't a reason, period.
I said we have to separate ourselves from animals.I didn't realize chimpanzees had space shuttles.
Homosexuality leads to other things like incest, sex with minors, etc.Homosexuality itself is completely unrelated to either of those.