[bill82]

Probably because American women are not just fat obnoxious feminists but they expect too much and take advantage of their men. They just aren't marketable. In other places in the world there are smart, beautiful, funny, loving women that want so little, just someone to love them and treat them right. I agree with this assessment http://www.singledudetravel.com/2010/11/...irls-suck/

[Duke Castile]

I don't see why your preference of who you like to fuck should give you special considerations. Hate crimes are bullshit. Special laws pertaining to any "group" is always a blow against individual rights and individual freedom. It should be the same laws across the board. If you want to get real, marriage was started by religious institutions, the state should stay the fuck out of it.

[oldnemesis]

(01-14-2011 12:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Wow, you actually believe credentials matter?

Ask yourself, would you read a book about how to talk to chicks on streets written by Mixx or Roosh?
Now would you read the same book written by the author who identifies herself as a prominent feminist? Would you have the same expectations as in former case?

Yes, credentials matter, especially if this is the only information you have.

Quote:

Not only does Randy Engel's book look thoroughly documented, but, in general, it's findings seem to match today's "sudden explosion" of gay rights. The timeline:
- Sexual revolution occurs in 1960's
- Homos fuck young men who grow up to be homo's
- 40 years later of much ass pounding, there are "gay-rights" everywhere, gay-right parades, statistics of 1 out of 10 men in America being gay...

Well, Randy Engel who probably got her degree from Roman Pedophilic Church might not know it, but you obviously know the world existed long before United States were even formed. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece come to mind easily, and those periods are relatively well documented. Your 1960's "sexual revolution" didn't come even close to the level of debauchery in Ancient Rome. Do you know about homosexual practices in Ancient Greece? Or in Japan? Have you ever heard about shudo?

Quote:

You think this shit is a coincidence? Never before in American history have fags even held a modicum of worthy discussion or consideration. Suddenly, gay's are everywhere?

Same could be said about atheists - there is a lot of people in America who are atheists, but they were too afraid to come out because of various reasons. They are coming out now. FFRF boosted its membership significantly in 2010, and if you read their publication, most people who joined in 2010 stated that they didn't believe in god for a while, but did not want to come out because they feared the backlash. I'd speculate it was similar for gays.

[oldnemesis]

(01-14-2011 02:56 AM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

Please - the proponents of Prop 8 did not do the best job in beating up the plaintiffs and it appears they failed to call a number of witnesses

They planned to call four more witnesses (p 35). Two of those witnesses were deposited by plaintiffs and their testimony supported plaintiffs’ claims. (p 36). And I wonder whether two other witnesses withdrew themselves because of similar reasons.

However after thinking about it I cannot really come up with a single logical argument against gay marriage. I can come with some arguments against gay sex acts in general, but this is not something which is discussed in that case - and SCOTUS already had its say that government cannot outlaw them. So gay sex is ok, gays having a relationship is also ok, but gay marriage is apparently not ok. Why?

Quote:

Look out your window if you are American - under the expert guidance of the American Psche Associaton and others - this society has become what it is. The Judge who ruled on this case is himself a bone smuggler and by ruling he conferred a benefit on himself in a clear case of a conflict of interest.

Have you seen any credible source? So far I only heard speculations about it, and I was not able to find any evidence where Walker identified himself as homosexual. And I looked for it.

Also, if you think a homosexual judge would have conflict of interest in hearing such a case, why wouldn't a straight judge have the same conflict of interest? After all, several millions of straight people just voted for Prop 8, so their interest in the case is very obvious, and a straight judge could be as biased as a gay one. Now who should hear this case, a bisexual judge?

Quote:

The rise of poofter rights comes as a consequnece hand in hand with the decline of the power and influence and strenght of American society.

This decline started long time ago, and has nothing to do with gay rights. It is mostly about wasting money in useless wars and the entitlement attitude of the general population who wants to have more in benefits and to pay less in taxes.

[Samseau]

(01-16-2011 04:47 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Wow, you actually believe credentials matter?

Ask yourself, would you read a book about how to talk to chicks on streets written by Mixx or Roosh?
Now would you read the same book written by the author who identifies herself as a prominent feminist? Would you have the same expectations as in former case?

Yes, credentials matter, especially if this is the only information you have.

You just proved my point. Roosh has zero cred, by nearly any standard: he only made a name for himself through blogging. Bang happened to speak the truth, and only in that way did his name spread. It's not like he had a degree in pussology to make anyone believe what he wrote.

Conversely, the feminist with 5 degree's, a Ph.D. and all sorts of other bullshit cred, will tell you nothing useful about the sexes.


Credentials mean nothing. Judging each case individually, and ignoring a person's background, is the most rational course of action.

Quote:

Quote:

Not only does Randy Engel's book look thoroughly documented, but, in general, it's findings seem to match today's "sudden explosion" of gay rights. The timeline:
- Sexual revolution occurs in 1960's
- Homos fuck young men who grow up to be homo's
- 40 years later of much ass pounding, there are "gay-rights" everywhere, gay-right parades, statistics of 1 out of 10 men in America being gay...

Well, Randy Engel who probably got her degree from Roman Pedophilic Church might not know it, but you obviously know the world existed long before United States were even formed. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece come to mind easily, and those periods are relatively well documented. Your 1960's "sexual revolution" didn't come even close to the level of debauchery in Ancient Rome. Do you know about homosexual practices in Ancient Greece? Or in Japan? Have you ever heard about shudo?

All of this homo-profilieration came about in the decline of their respective civilizations. You aren't making a good case for homo-rights.

Quote:

Quote:

You think this shit is a coincidence? Never before in American history have fags even held a modicum of worthy discussion or consideration. Suddenly, gay's are everywhere?

Same could be said about atheists - there is a lot of people in America who are atheists, but they were too afraid to come out because of various reasons. They are coming out now. FFRF boosted its membership significantly in 2010, and if you read their publication, most people who joined in 2010 stated that they didn't believe in god for a while, but did not want to come out because they feared the backlash. I'd speculate it was similar for gays.

The atheism is a logical conclusion of rejecting all of our Christian beliefs. This includes, but is not limited to:

- The mindless pursuit of worldly things (money, sex, fame, etc.) and ignoring of community sponsored events (aka church communities)
- The trivilization of crimes against the family (no shame for adulterers, no-fault divorce, children development being overlooked in favor of women's rights, etc.)


And with the loss of Christianity, people stop questioning whether or not homosexuality is bad, and also convert to Atheism. And with the loss of Christ comes the loss of American hegemony and freedom. Seems pretty logical to me.


But regardless, the point still stands: Homo's breed homo's by socializing young men into sodomy. After their first sodimization, they become homo's for life. Homosexuality is a social sickness.

Cruatha Wrote:

The idea that homosexuality is a choice is pushed exclusively by the religious right. Do you agree or disagree?

Neither. Homosexuality occurs naturally in a small, small percentage of men (if I had to guess... <4%), but they can spread homosexuality into future generations by sodomizing young boys.

[thekiller]

(01-16-2011 05:21 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote:

The rise of poofter rights comes as a consequnece hand in hand with the decline of the power and influence and strenght of American society.

This decline started long time ago, and has nothing to do with gay rights. It is mostly about wasting money in useless wars and the entitlement attitude of the general population who wants to have more in benefits and to pay less in taxes.

You are correct that this decline started way back and isn't solely tethered to gay rights. Gay rights are just a further weapon the progressive Left uses to break down the Nuclear family. The Left wants a European style socialist America. The only way they're going to get that is to split America apart, and they started at the core level of the family.

Strong Nuclear families generally are self-reliant and do not need or want Government help and the intrusion that comes with it. So the Left inserted itself into education and started teaching all sorts of moral equivalences. First you didn't need a Father, the Murphy Brown movement. Then both genders were replaced by either 2 moms or 2 dads, or some other combination. Now, nothing it taboo or outrageous.

Every racial group or minority is pitted against every other, and we have a nearly 50/50 split now in America of those that support rugged individuality and free markets, and those that want the nanny state.

[oldnemesis]

(01-16-2011 08:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Credentials mean nothing. Judging each case individually, and ignoring a person's background, is the most rational course of action.

This is not true. I wouldn't read a biology book written by an author who identifies himself as Catholic scientist. This is because from my past experience I know that being a Catholic he won't write anything which contradicts with the bible, and therefore it would have nothing common with science.

Quote:

All of this homo-profilieration came about in the decline of their respective civilizations. You aren't making a good case for homo-rights.

What do you mean? So far there was only one human civilization, we're not really different from Ancient Romans.

Quote:

The atheism is a logical conclusion of rejecting all of our Christian beliefs.

Not always the case. For example, as the majority of people in this world, I never had any christian beliefs.

Quote:

- The mindless pursuit of worldly things (money, sex, fame, etc.) and ignoring of community sponsored events (aka church communities)

And there is a good reason for that. Why would I donate money to a church who'd use it to settle with the victims of sexual abuse of their clergy? Or restrict someone's rights?

Quote:

- The trivilization of crimes against the family (no shame for adulterers, no-fault divorce, children development being overlooked in favor of women's rights, etc.)

The whole definition of adultery is incredibly stupid. And it is not the government's business to monitor one's morality.
And no-fault divorce didn't really change anything, before that people just lied in court. This was one of major reasons to provide no-fault divorce.

Quote:

And with the loss of Christianity, people stop questioning whether or not homosexuality is bad, and also convert to Atheism.

What always amused me is that homosexuality is only banned on Old Testament (Leviticus 18:6). And the same Leviticus is full of other things modern Christians consider abandoned, like getting tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, and eating pork or shellfish. I found it incredibly illogical.

Quite a lot of Christians said they lost their faith after reading the bible themselves, without using "helpful" interpreters. Did you?

Quote:

But regardless, the point still stands: Homo's breed homo's by socializing young men into sodomy.

What if they just do handjobs?

[oldnemesis]

(01-16-2011 09:20 PM)thekiller Wrote:  

You are correct that this decline started way back and isn't solely tethered to gay rights. Gay rights are just a further weapon the progressive Left uses to break down the Nuclear family.

How? I am a married man, me and my wife have been together over ten years now. Could you please tell me how exactly gay rights affect, not to mention "break down" MY family? Please be specific.

Quote:

Every racial group or minority is pitted against every other, and we have a nearly 50/50 split now in America of those that support rugged individuality and free markets, and those that want the nanny state.

I doubt there is anyone in America who in their mind supports truly free markets - without antitrust laws and any kind of regulations. Bernie Madoff Investment anyone?

What I see now in America, however, is that pretty much everyone spends all the time blaming others for the country problems, instead of working on solution. And indeed, the country becomes so polar that I didn't even join any party when registering to vote. For example, I do not agree with Republicans on gun rights, their hypocrite "family values" and military spending. I do not agree with Democrats on taxation, welfare-to-death programs and nanny laws. Libertarians are such a joke so nobody with a working brain would even consider them. That's a major problem which would be very hard to solve.

[Samseau]

(01-17-2011 01:16 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

samseau Wrote:

But regardless, the point still stands: Homo's breed homo's by socializing young men into sodomy.

What if they just do handjobs?

I'm not sure. However, by the time one of your illegitimate sons reaches high-school age, I'm sure homosexuality will be rampant in most high schools. You can ask him if he prefers handjobs or blowjobs

[oldnemesis]

(01-17-2011 01:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm not sure. However, by the time one of your illegitimate sons reaches high-school age, I'm sure homosexuality will be rampant in most high schools. You can ask him if he prefers handjobs or blowjobs

I see, you do not have any rational arguments either. No surprise though.

[Duke Castile]

Oldnemesis,

Did you know that everything you say is usually related to Libertarian principles? It always involves you preferring to make your own choices and life live the way you wish.

In regards to Madoff, that's sort of unlike you to use him as an example of what happens in a "free" market when this is a mixed economy.

[Samseau]

(01-17-2011 11:27 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(01-17-2011 01:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm not sure. However, by the time one of your illegitimate sons reaches high-school age, I'm sure homosexuality will be rampant in most high schools. You can ask him if he prefers handjobs or blowjobs

I see, you do not have any rational arguments either. No surprise though.

Yes. Rational thinking belongs to the guy who said this:

Quote:

What do you mean? So far there was only one human civilization, we're not really different from Ancient Romans.

Why don't you go back two posts, reply to me in earnest, and we'll continue from there.

[Rocco81]

OldNemesis, I am pretty much in agreeance with you about hands off government as well.

However I do see the point that some others have made about the general decline in certain aspects of civilization. Women's lib, nanny state, hyper vigilant anti-descrimination laws, gay rights bieng pushed on kids at a young age is all part of the larger scheme to equalize everyone under the same guise of equality and trust in government as the ONLY judge and jury of behaviour.

Of course this is all philosophical at some point, but if you take away culture, religion and family structure (which the far left has started and continues to chip away at) you have removed most of what builds a society. What we are seeing now, is the Gov't replacing the father, familial structure and overall traditional culture as the new religion. Now I am not here to say that "religion" has to be one that you guys are discussing above (ie Christianity or Islam for example) only using religion as one term that shows unification and common bond amongst a people.

[oldnemesis]

(01-17-2011 11:45 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Did you know that everything you say is usually related to Libertarian principles? It always involves you preferring to make your own choices and life live the way you wish.

This is utopia, like Communism - it sounds very good on paper, but it requires perfect people to implement it. That is why so far every attempt to implement it failed.
And I do not believe in self-regulation and self-organization. Indeed, a village with the population of 2,000 can self-regulate itself. However a country of 300M cannot.

[oldnemesis]

(01-18-2011 11:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  


Why don't you go back two posts, reply to me in earnest, and we'll continue from there.

You probably missed my reply; look up, it is there.
But in any event my sons should be fine, as they are not going to Catholic school and it is where the most pedophiles seem to be now.

[oldnemesis]

(01-18-2011 01:08 PM)Rocco81 Wrote:  

However I do see the point that some others have made about the general decline in certain aspects of civilization. Women's lib, nanny state, hyper vigilant anti-descrimination laws, gay rights bieng pushed on kids at a young age is all part of the larger scheme to equalize everyone under the same guise of equality and trust in government as the ONLY judge and jury of behaviour.

The thing is, what you see as a decline, others see as progress. Women liberation, for example, was definitely a progress. So were anti-discrimination laws. And nobody pushes gay rights on my kids. If they're happen to be gay, they would be happy they have those rights. And if they're happen not to be gay, why would they care?

Of course trusting the (Federal) government is dangerous, but the question is WHO to trust instead?
State or Local governments, like one in Alabama which bans selling sex toys, or ones everywhere but Nevada which ban prostitution between consenting adults, or one in Kansas which wanted to teach kids in schools about how the world was created in seven days?
Supreme Court which consist of 6 Catholic judges and 3 Jewish judges, and votes largely by party lines? I always found it amusing that the interpretation of Constitution can somehow depend on which party you're in.
Churches which have been knowingly covering pedophile clergy for ages while lying about them to the rest of us?
Elected representatives who take "campaign" money for their votes?
General population, which expects more and more services but wants to pay less and less taxes and swing votes for those who promises them the most while asking them to contribute the least? Hypocrites talking holier-than-thou talks about "sacred marriages" and then having 50% divorce rates?

If you look on all that, Federal government doesn't look that bad as a trustee comparing to the rest of the bunch. At least by shifting more power to feds from states we'll get better unification of laws.

Quote:

Of course this is all philosophical at some point, but if you take away culture, religion and family structure (which the far left has started and continues to chip away at) you have removed most of what builds a society. What we are seeing now, is the Gov't replacing the father, familial structure and overall traditional culture as the new religion.

You cannot take away culture, it evolves. Old things go away, new things come in. Sure, you might not like those changes (for example I found hip-hop just disgusting), but it doesn't mean the culture goes away. Same with "family structure" - it does not get away, it evolves. Religion is different though - my opinion is that last twenty years the religion has been pushed so hard into the people here in US that a lot of them now literally throw it up, and come out. Which is a good thing.

Quote:

Now I am not here to say that "religion" has to be one that you guys are discussing above (ie Christianity or Islam for example) only using religion as one term that shows unification and common bond amongst a people.

There was never one religion in US. America never ever was a "Christian nation".

[Rocco81]

....my quotes fucked up and I lost a whole god damned post....

[Samseau]

Quote:

There was never one religion in US. America never ever was a "Christian nation".

[Duke Castile]

(01-18-2011 04:43 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(01-17-2011 11:45 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Did you know that everything you say is usually related to Libertarian principles? It always involves you preferring to make your own choices and life live the way you wish.

This is utopia, like Communism - it sounds very good on paper, but it requires perfect people to implement it. That is why so far every attempt to implement it failed.
And I do not believe in self-regulation and self-organization. Indeed, a village with the population of 2,000 can self-regulate itself. However a country of 300M cannot.

I think you should concede that your example of Madoff is not representative of what happens in a free market. Then, I think you should consider that you're taking a lot of things for granted when you say free people can't regulate themselves. Why do you think the gov't is so good at regulating people? Liberty traditionally means the freedom to act, and the freedom to be left alone (by the gov't). That does not mean some utopia where anyone can do as he wishes (at least when it violates another's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). U.S. business are estimated to spend over a trillion dollars a year complying with gov't regulation. Jails are full of people who smoke weed. If you don't like being taxed for gov't programs and you don't like having conservatives try to regulate your morality (ie family values etc) then I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, you're a libertarian with "no brain".

[Rocco81]

Old Nemesis -I do tend to agree with many of your points but a few I think are a little skewed and others are based on your opinion.

- The USA was founded to have seperation of Church and State however, the majority of it's founders were Christian and held basic Christian beliefs. Most were protestant so you can remove any affiliation with the Catholic church as well. Technically we were not called a "Christian State" because unlike Islamist states we were/are secular. So technically we are not a Christian Nation however a secular state created by 99.9% Christian men and formed by those values.

- Cultures change but they do not always change in a good way. For the sake of your earlier discussion using Rome, one could argue that the cultural shift in the Roman Empire ie. huge influx of cheap immigrant labor, almost 100% foreign army, indulgance in debauchery (wine, food, orgies) and overall sloth and lack of "memory" in their glorious past if you wil, led to its downfall. Some would argue that is happening today in Western Europe and the USA. Just food for thought. Another idea, what about the places where culture has not changed at all? The other end of the spectrum to extreme cultural change is none at all in places like Afghanistan where you can trade your daughter for a goat. I think that is sort of like a pendulum with the happy medium bieng in the middle somewhere.

- I do not think anyone arguing that gays bieng protected from things like attacks, or illegal firings for their orientation is a bad thing. Those are basic rights no matter what you look like or who you fuck. However when two gay men get marriage liscenses and tax breaks for bieng a couple then why can't I do the same just for having a male roomate? If we do not have a standard for what you can and cannot do, then who is to say I cannot have 5 wives? I can swear I love them all right? It is like in Holland several years ago when some lobyists pushed for the age of consent to be lowered from 14 to 13...I mean come on? Again where does this end?

- I have stated before on other threads that is the overall picture of the nanny state helping to wear away a male dominated culture. Sure women needed basic rights, voting, working etc. Nobody would say that is bad. BUT, when a women get's a preference for a job, get's certain benefits and power leveradged because she is a woman, then you have further decay of the family structure. Again all supported by huge industry and by lefty welfare state supporters. Who needs a father when the Gov't will take care of you?

- Sex toys in Alabama? Who cares? You can get them on the internet now-a-days and probably for much cheaper Furthermore there are counties in the South that do not sell alchohol either (another Federal law that was repealed) but you just go to another county. Majority of the world doesn't even have clean water within driving distance, the last thing we need to worry about is sex toys in Alabama. You win some and you lose some.

[wolf]

(01-09-2011 10:45 PM)Rocco81 Wrote:  

Back to the main point here. There are a few reasons for all the hate on Feminism and Fat American women.

You will find me bieng a very big critic on feminism in its broadest sense and overly intitled whiney ugly American women. But if nothing else, I like some other posters, like to be fair and objective when at all possible.

1. To atleast some extent there is a level of jealousy and "hating" going on from dudes who just have 0 game and never get laid. This is just my estimate, but for every one observer of American culture who just calls some of the bad things about it (dating and game wise), there are probably easily 2 or 3 more that just never ever get laid here and when they go to a place like Thailand and feel like they are Dr. Golden Cock, they blame 100% their lack of action in the USA on fat feminist bitches. This is hard for some to swallow but it is none the less true in many cases.

2. Fat Chicks - I think that is pretty self explanatory. But it goes further than just bieng an asshole about weight or making fun of fat girls. I think the root here, is that particularly in the USA and parts of Western Europe, a fat girl has been told over and over again that big is beautiful and that they have a right to command a man who is chiseled, educated, worldly and handsome. Some of it might be simple insecurity but fat girls are often loud and rude and are the first to try and insult a man for petty shit.

3. Feminism - Like most things, right to vote, right to work blah blah.. back when it was needed was a good thing. But now a days women thinking they can be fucking Navy SEALS, women bieng told that we men give a shit about their degree (as if it makes them more attractive) women bieng told that bieng loud rude and obnoxious is a sign of strength and independance is just wrong. They are all confused. They have been told by bra burning feminazi's that they do not need a man at all (certainly not a strong man), that men are just sperm donor's, the American family structure is inherently bad etc etc. This is the problem we are wrestling with here in the USA...and of course it will come up again and again on a forum a out dating, game and relationships.

I fit in the #1 category, but I don't blame it on fat feminist bitches. I personally know 3 guys who are players and they do get laid, and they run into the same problem that I run into(self entitled bitches, unrealistic expectations, and etc.), except they get laid. One of them came to America four years ago and he's telling us all this and all we can do is tell him we(me and my friends) went through this already.

I don't blame myself anymore, I don't give a shit whether it's the women or the pussified men are the problem. It's funny how you need "game" to bed women. If the chick is into you you don't need game. All game is used for is to get chicks that aren't really into you. They won't stay long, couple of months, maybe a couple of years if your lucky.

I remember a foreign guy made a post on some forum several years ago about American hook up culture and dating and how disgusted he was. I thought he was kidding.

[oldnemesis]

(01-18-2011 11:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

There was never one religion in US. America never ever was a "Christian nation".

*bullshit*

Seems like name calling is the only argument you're using now. Very Christian it is!

[oldnemesis]

(01-18-2011 11:58 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

I think you should concede that your example of Madoff is not representative of what happens in a free market.

Why? Even in our not-completely-free market we did not have enough regulations to prevent it happening. How would you prevent it happening on a completely free market?

Quote:

Then, I think you should consider that you're taking a lot of things for granted when you say free people can't regulate themselves.

This is the difference between utopia and real life. Once you point out to a single libertarian-style country where free people regulate themselves well with a minimal government supervision, I'll consider it. So far the closest example is Somali - with pretty much zero government control over the majority of the country - and I'm not excited of how those free people regulate themselves.

Quote:

Why do you think the gov't is so good at regulating people? Liberty traditionally means the freedom to act, and the freedom to be left alone (by the gov't).

It is not that good. But it is indeed better than a lot of people would do. Especially if you consider that the government is not "they", it is "us".

Quote:

That does not mean some utopia where anyone can do as he wishes (at least when it violates another's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

This is a very broad definition. Insider trading, for example, does not violate your rights to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Even fraud doesn't.

Quote:

U.S. business are estimated to spend over a trillion dollars a year complying with gov't regulation.

This is good news. I assume you understand that "complying with gov't regulation" means they throw away the food which is expired and not healthy anymore; that they fix manufactured problems with their cars which lead to fatalities; that before selling the drug they need to actually test it; that employers should hire American citizens and pay at least minimum wage instead of illegal immigrants; that they must utilize the chemical waste properly instead of just dumping it into the lake our drinking water comes from, and so on. You really feel it is waste of money?

Quote:

Jails are full of people who smoke weed.

This seem to be an urban myth. For example, in California smoking weed is misdemeanor, which is NOT punishable by jail time. Do you have any credible statistics?

Quote:

If you don't like being taxed for gov't programs and you don't like having conservatives try to regulate your morality (ie family values etc) then I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, you're a libertarian with "no brain".

But I also don't believe businesses should pollute the environment, hire illegals, release untested drugs or sell food after the expiration date. And I am perfectly ok with being taxed for government programs - I just believe that everyone should pay taxes, not just "rich".

[oldnemesis]

(01-19-2011 02:29 AM)Rocco81 Wrote:  

- The USA was founded to have seperation of Church and State however, the majority of it's founders were Christian and held basic Christian beliefs. Most were protestant so you can remove any affiliation with the Catholic church as well. Technically we were not called a "Christian State" because unlike Islamist states we were/are secular. So technically we are not a Christian Nation however a secular state created by 99.9% Christian men and formed by those values.

A building becomes a church when it was built as a church, not just because the general contractor is Christian. The founding documents clearly showed the intentions of founding fathers - and their intentions were clearly NOT to build a "Christian nation". Even majority-Catholic SCOTUS agrees with that.

Quote:

- Cultures change but they do not always change in a good way.

This is something people say every time a significant cultural change happens. This happened when slavery was abolished, when schools were desegregated, when women started voting, when ban on interracial marriages was lifted, and so on. Today's changes are not different.

Quote:

However when two gay men get marriage liscenses and tax breaks for bieng a couple then why can't I do the same just for having a male roomate?

Marriage is not the same as having a male (or female) roommate, it is government-recognized relationship. See the bold, it doesn't matter if you or your church recognizes it as long as government does. And the government sets the rules. Some of the rules are reasonable - for example, consent is required, and your parents cannot decide who you will marry; you cannot marry someone who cannot give consent because of age or other reasons. Some rules may be justified, but their validity isn't clear - for example, in some states you cannot marry a sibling, or you cannot have multiple spouses. And some rules were plain wrong, and were struck down - for example ban for interracial marriages.

Quote:

If we do not have a standard for what you can and cannot do, then who is to say I cannot have 5 wives? I can swear I love them all right?

Honestly I don't see any valid argument why you cannot have 5 wives, or a female cannot have five husbands, assuming other rules are followed (like having the consent). So if you bring a court case, I promise to donate $100 to you attorney fund.

Quote:

It is like in Holland several years ago when some lobyists pushed for the age of consent to be lowered from 14 to 13...I mean come on? Again where does this end?

Did you read this chart? Age of consent in Vatican State is 12. Holland has a long way to go!

Quote:

- Sex toys in Alabama? Who cares?

I care - this is exactly one of the reasons I don't want local governments to have too much power. They seem to make a really crappy use out of it.

[Rocco81]

- Nemesis, no offence but you are telling me things I already know and in deed there is no argument. Your point about a building bieng a church is well understood. I AGREE that the US was not defined as a Christian Nation. It was largely influenced however by Christian values and culture. Agree or not?

- Your point again in Culture. That is your opinion. You seem to pick things that are progressive changes, however I can do the same for negative changes. I still stand by what I said that cultural change is not always a good thing and of course depending on who you ask, the answer will change. What about for example the Europeans who adopted the Slave trade? They took to this new idea from African exploration. Then moving forward South and North America and even parts of Europe were populated with this new cultural change of slavery. Was that a "good" change?

- Again I am not talking about what the Church says necessarily. But why can the Gov't not give me a tax break for living with a guy friend? Why can't I add a friend of mine to my insurance? Do I have to bang him to do so? These are questions that are not revolving around the church but around what the Gov't says I can do as a single male.

- I am with you on the 5 wives. I will be in touch when I need my cash

- I am amazed at the age of consent in the Vatican state. But no need to quote stats on the Vatican to me. If you are simply are anti-Catholic then start an Anti Catholic thread. I am certainly not defending the Catholic Church. You side stepped my point by making another point about the Vatican. Great but you still didn't get the point I'm trying to make.

- Local gov'ts and power? You mean like the Federal Gov't logging your emails and developing advanced Retnal scan technology, you mean like the Federal Gov't and its Failing war on Drugs? Local gov't has better insight into local spending and it is a large part of the successful past of the USA.