Uh-oh, is Megan pregnant?
Hell, even if the sun isn't up it should be open. Not everyone lives in daylight hours!
I say it should never be open. But that's just me, and I'm going to get yelled at for posting this.
So you don't want Planned Parenthood open ever because roughly 3% of what they do is abortions and the rest is helping people?
My God, you call yourself Christian? Yes, abortions are morally wrong, but to say they should be closed just because they offer abortions to people who want them is just bad, they help so many people.
I love how you use the Lord's name in vain, and then accuse me of being a psuedo-Christian in the same sentence.
To put this in perspective, if there was a private charity organization that gave poor people food, water, shelter, and money to help them get off their feet, I would support them. However, if 3% of their budget went to killing homeless people, I would not support them. Yes they may help people, but I will not support an organization that is murdering people, and in my view, abortion is murder.
So if a woman was raped and got pregnant, you would tell her to keep the baby because, "abortion is murder,"?
You really got to look at it from the womens perspective. Yes, some of them should just be more responsible and learn to use contraceptives, but some just don't deserve that.
I know adoption is a brilliant idea, and I would personally do that if I had an unwanted pregnancy, but sometimes it's just impractable.
@1249050 (Pigeon): It's always difficult to address the problem from a rape standpoint. But that is an extremely rare situation. Less than .5% of abortions are done because of rape or incest. That means over 99.5% of abortions are done for convenience.
Convenience? You really think 99.5% of all abortions are done for convenience. There are a lot of other reasons why women get abortions.
You are really really dumb. For real
And if you knew that baby would be gay, would you fight for it to live?
What other reasons?
Yes. Of course I would. I'm not homophobic.
Perhaps the life of the mother or other unforeseen circumstances that neither you nor I could possibly be able to predict?
BS you're not a homophobe. Then why don't you want gay rights? Or at least why are you against it? How would gay rights affect you, or anyone else that isn't gay, in anyway? If gays were allowed to marry, the consequence would be that gays could marry, the world wouldn't explode and the zombie apocalypse wouldn't happen. Gays would finally have the rights that every straight person has.
Or perhaps I have better things to do than debate anonymous all day.
Or perhaps you are a homophobe and don't wish to admit it.
Yeah, that's clearly it.
So what do you call yourself then if not a homophobe?
I don't call myself anything.
So a homophobe, as you do not want gays to have any rights because you don't want them being equal to you, ok.
A homophobe is "a person who hates or fears homosexual people." I neither hate nor fear gay people. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's what I think marriage is. I am not against "gay rights." That's word play. Am I against gay marriage? Not exactly. I'm somewhat undecided. But jerks like you really push me towards illegalizing it. Overall, I think it should be a states' issue, and my state would likely illegalize it anyways.
So you don't hate gay people, but you don't want them to have rights?
That makes sense, not hating them and hating them at the same time.
What makes you think you're better than gay people? Who says their love isn't legitimate when yours is? How does their marriage affect you in any way?
You are clearly not reading what I am posting, as I just said I am not against gay rights.
Do you think polygamy should be legal?
Yes, I am clearly reading what you are writing.
"I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."
If that is not against gay rights, I don't know what is.
And you never answered how gay marriage would affect you. And if it doesn't, then why are you so against it?
Just like all relationships, so long as all partners are consenting and there are healthy relationships, there is nothing wrong with it.
Children, animals, or objects cannot consent, so those marriages should not occur.
How is that against gay rights? That's having a personal belief. I think you are against my rights to have a set of beliefs.
One problem I have is the freedom of religion. There are several cases where gay couples sue people for refusing to participate in gay weddings or things like that. For example, a church was sued for not allowing a gay marriage to take place in the church. A photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding. And there was a school sponsored field trip to a teacher's lesbian wedding in California..... For Kindergarteners.
Fair enough. But what do you think of pedophiles? Do you think it's disgusting for a person to, say, masturbate to pictures of children, so long as he doesn't touch them? People say that you are born gay, but I think you could say people are born being attracted to children.
Yes, it is a personal set of beliefs, and your beliefs are against gay rights.
How do you possibly have an issue with freedom of religion?
For the field trip, students shouldn't go to a teacher's wedding (much less school sponsored) regardless of who was getting married and age of students, that is just wrong, so bringing that here is completely irrelevant
You say the other like there is something wrong happening. Services were being denied based upon sexual orientation, that is very legitimate grounds to sue
Disgusting? Absolutely. Should it be illegal? Questionable, as no one is actually being hurt. There is a big difference between gay couples and pedophiles that no one seems to be able to realize. Gay people can consent, children cannot. That is what makes the difference.
No, my beliefs are that homosexuals should not get married. In terms of whether or not I think it should be illegal for gays to get married, I'm somewhat undecided.
It's not completely irrelevant. It shows that homosexuality is being promoted in classrooms, where it shouldn't be.
No it's not. The photographer has freedom of religion. If he is a Christian, he likely believe homosexuality is a sin, and would refuse to partake in a homosexual wedding. He shouldn't be sued for standing up for what he believes in.
How can you say it's disgusting? What about pedophilia is less natural than homosexuality? Pedophiles are naturally attracted to children, just as gays are naturally attracted to the same sex. And I specifically omitted pedophiles being in actual relationships with children.
And in having that belief you are being anti-gay.
OH NO, NOT PRESENTING THE TRUTH IN CLASSROOMS???? HOW WILL THE CHILDREN EVER SURVIVE???
Yes, he does, but he still runs a business. Denying them business just because he doesn't like the sexual orientation of the clients is grounds for suing.
How is it not disgusting? The age difference and not to mention the subject material. Pedos are shunned by todays society, all of it. Gays are only shunned by homophobes like you.
And you have still never mentioned how gays marrying affects you in a negative way. Without that, you have no argument other than "I'm a homophobe". So you are still a homophobe.
Yes, I am anti-homosexuality. That doesn't mean I hate gay people.
It is teaching something that goes against the religious beliefs of most of the children.
So if a camera crew was asked to film a porno, but refused on moral grounds, could they be sued?
Gays used to be shunned by everybody too, moron. You have no reference by which to judge pedophiles with. If you accept homosexuality, then you have to accept pedophilia, provided they don't harm children.
Yes I have! I said that I don't want to be forced to participate in gay weddings if I don't want to and that I don't want my children to be subjected to homosexuality in school.
It's not really fair to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Having sex with a child in inherently wrong because children are not old or mature enough to give informed consent to sex (or marriage for that matter) and having sex with a child is essentially rape. Having sex with someone of the same gender assuming they are old enough is not a threat to society and it doesn't hurt anyone so I see no reason why people should oppose it so much.
I'll respond to you, because you are far less annoying than anonymous here :p
I'm not talking about pedophiles actually having sex with children. Just being pedophiles. The point I'm making is it's unfair to judge somebody for being attracted to children, if you can't judge somebody for being attracted to people of the same sex.
I'm being annoying? I'm sorry for making well thought out arguments you can't refute.
Typing in all caps =/= well thought out points.
Note how you still haven't refuted them
and I do suppose they aren't very well thought out. They're more common sense really.
Believe it or not, I don't wish to partake in an endless debate with a person I don't know. You can think you won this debate all you want to, but I don't want to debate forever. I've had debates on amirite that have gone on for like, 60 comments. I don't want to do that again. Anyways, have a fantastic day.
Thank you for admitting you are a homophobe. I am now content. Ish.
And why are Republicans so afraid of what is different?
Clearly a jest.
Why are liberals so determined to change everything?
Not everything, just what needs to be
And you didn't answer my question: Why are Republicans so afraid of what is different? Different =/= bad, regardless of what you think. Difference is what makes the world great. If we were all the same, the world would be boring, nothing to learn, nothing to take from life. Why so afraid of what makes the world great?
It's not that we're afraid of change. We just don't push for unnecessary changes. For example, America was founded as a capitalist nation. The left wants to push America towards socialism. I deem that a horrible change, and I'm against it. It's not because I'm terrified of change, I just don't think all change is good change.
And you still have to answer what you have against those that are different than you. Why are you so opposed to culture?
And it is NOT socialism, socialism is much more extreme than what Obama wants to do. The free market is the shittiest regulator ever, and the left sees that. If the free market was left, corporate greed would take over more than it already is and we would be in worse economic times.
I am opposed to homosexual practices because of my religion.
Ahem.... The key word was towards. You cannot deny that Obama's policies are more socialist than, say, Reagan's.
Besides, I didn't say Obama. I said the left. Some people on the left are actually trying for socialism, like Michael Moore.
And you're a homophobe. I read that you are a Christian. Is Christianity not about loving and accepting all for who they are? Living the life of Christ? Prohibiting gay people rights that everyone else is certainly not living as Christ would. So now I ask why you call yourself a Christian?
Ah, Reagan, what a dumbass.
Michael Moore has little to no political power, so saying he wants socialism is pretty irrelevant. And the left's policies aren't all socialist. Yes, they are more socialist than the right, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing until you get really close to socialism. The free market is the shittiest regulatory tool ever, and the left sees that.
"The free market is the shittiest regulatory tool ever". Guess what? The free market is not a regulatory tool. It's not a form of regulation at all. Free market economic theory is all about deregulation so that private enterprise can grow flourish and innovate without petty bureaucratic regulations. The main problem I have with the whole "left" vs. "right" spectrum is that you can't expect to apply the same principles (more regulations or less regulations) to every single economic problem and expect it to work every single time. Every illness needs it's own different kind of medicine.
Exactly why it is the shittiest regulatory tool, it isn't one, yet the right seems to firmly believe that it is. They don't see that corporate greed would overrule everything and all the money would go to the top. Now I suppose the right believes in it because so far the only successful war they started right now is the war on the middle class.
"Corporate greed" as you call it, is not necessarily bad. Corporations do all sorts of good things to make money, like making iPods or growing food. It's silly to think that the "right" is always bad and evil and deregulation will always be bad. It's all about balance and moderation. Extremist ideologies will not get us anywhere.
Corporate greed here meaning that major corporations will take over with no regulation and suck all the money to the top and give it out as bonuses to the high ups. Of course balance is necessary.
I do love homosexuals. It's homosexuality that I disagree with. Notice the difference. I hate the sin, not the sinner.
Reagan was a dumbass? That's news to me, considering he dropped inflation from the roaring 12.5% from Carter to 4.4%, and was largely responsible for the demise of the evil Soviet Union.
You're missing my point. Some people in this country do want socialism. I'm not saying all liberals do, but Obama is more socialistic than I would like. Thus, I believe his "change" is bad change.
Bull, you're a homophobe. I hate that argument so much, as opponents of gay marriage use it all the time, but it is so fallible. if you truly loved gay people, you would want them to have rights.
Breaking News: Reagan had little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. It was the people inside. If the people inside still wanted Soviet Rule, it would have stayed. We see that now as well. In Northern Africa, the people no longer wanted the rule, so they ousted it. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they didn't want to end the rule, so it was not ousted. Yes, Reagan spent, yes, he was the president at the time, no, he cannot be credited with the fall of the whole Soviet Union. Saying anything else would be incredibly ignorant. Oh wait, you're a Republican, that's why you say it.
Nevermind that his "socialism" would actually be helping people, which is also what Christianity is about. Please stop calling yourself a Christian. You aren't.
I quite like that you get to tell me how I feel. That's cool. I wish I knew people better than they knew themselves.
I am so unbelievably sick and tired of that argument. Of course the people wanted the Soviet Union gone. But to say Reagan deserves little to no credit is absurd. The Soviet Union's dissolution happened largely because of systematic disintegration in its economy. The main reason its economy was collapsing was because they were spending upwards of 50% of their GDP on their military. The reason they were forced to spend so much on their military was because Reagan spent so much on our military, yet managed to negotiate with Gorbachev, and avoid war. Gorbachev once said that Reagan spent the Soviet Union into oblivion.
Socialism doesn't actually help people. Capitalism is what made America the greatest nation on Earth. Socialism is great in theory, as is Communism, but it rarely works in practice. Christianity is not about forcing people to help
others. It's about voluntarily helping your neighbor. Do you think paying taxes counts as philanthropy? Of course not.
And don't you dare tell me that I'm not a Christian just because my political views differ from yours. I take my faith very seriously, and for you to tell me what I do or don't believe without even knowing me is ridiculous.
I like how you don't say I'm wrong on the first point.
Yes, Reagan spent, and yes that has something to do with it, but it is mostly the people on the inside. If they wanted it, it would have been kept. When they didn't want it, they split. The amount the people inside want it is the determining variable. Without the people inside wanting out, it won't happen. To say anything different is completely ignorant. That is the bottom line and the truth.
Pure socialism, no, does not help. But there needs to be some socialism to keep the class divide small. America is not the greatest nation on earth, no matter what you say. Corporate greed runs high and there is a huge class divide. Hardly what I would call great.
I'm sorry that your political views don't match up with your religious views, but they don't. The right is against helping the middle and lower class and anyone that is different from them, while Christianity is about helping others to the best of your ability and treating others with respect and dignity. Against help and respect is very contradictory to helping and respecting. They don't match up, just ask the nearest kindergardener.
I see your point and, surprisingly, I sort of agree with it. It's rather contradictory to have a problem with (non-harmful) pedophilia but not be fine with other things. Personally, I don't take offense to either so long as no one is hurt. I don't have a problem with pedophiles as long as they don't hurt anybody (rape, child porn etc). There's no law that says you can't be a creepy weird person. Being a pedophile is not a choice. Seriously, why would anybody want to be a pedophile? So if you're a law abiding citizen, have as many creepy sexual fantasies as you want just don't hurt anyone.
Well thats where we disagree. I think its ultimately immoral (and creepy) to have those thoughts about children.
I think something can only be immoral if it's a choice. I don't think you are a bad person simply because you born with unlucky genetic code. It's not something you can change.
I think the thoughts and actions are immoral. I am attracted to women, but I can choose not to lust after them.
I have to main parameters for what I consider to be "immoral".
1) It must be a deliberate choice. While being a schizophrenic is creepy just like being a pedophile. It's not immoral to be a schizophrenic because it's a mental condition not a choice (just like pedophilia)
2) It must be harmful. Raping a child is harmful but having consensual sex with someone of the same sex is not harmful at all. Therefore, having sex with some one of the same gender is not immoral.
Are you saying you believe in parameter 1 but not parameter 2?
As a Christian, I do not think something needs to harm another person to be immoral.
Since when does being anti- something mean you don't hate it? Oh, wait, it doesn't. You just want to validate your homophobia
What??? NOT CULTURE??? YOU MEAN SOMEONE COULD BE DIFFERENT??? OH NO!! WE MUST SHIELD THE CHILDREN!!!!
No, as porno is sexually explicit, a gay marriage is not. There is no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage other than the genders of the people. Not doing a porno would be ok, as pornos are sexually explicit. He is denying the entire industry rather than just one person. If a photographer did no marriages at all and that was his/her policy, then it would be ok to say no to a gay couple, as the sevice is provided for no one.
Well guess what, pedos do harm children. Society is modernizing and gays are no longer shunned by everyone, only homophobes like you
So learning about different cultures and ideas is a negative impact. Wow, you are a Conservative.
Just a question, I'm not trying to insult your religion. Do you actually feel that homosexuality is creepy and disgusting just like you (and I) feel pedophilia is creepy and disgusting? For example: when you here a cute story about two women who fall in love and send each other romantic love letters are you grossed out or do you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
I'm really just curious. I lived my whole life in a very liberal gay-friendly area (as you can probably tell) and I'm interested to know what conservative people think.
Oh, I'm not offended. I like conversations with you, tbh. They stay respectful.
Ummm..... To be honest, yes. I think homosexual practices are gross and unnatural. I believe God designed man and woman to be together.
Which means you're a homophobe, you believe what they do is gross, you are afraid of it
You are really dumb.
What if a 13 year old gets raped? Should she just raise the child because people like you think it's morally wrong to get abortions. It's the woman's choice. Goodness. This isn't the 13th century. It's a woman's body. She chooses what to do with it.
And just why shouldn't it be open?
If you haven't yet guessed, I am pro-life.
excuse me, I'm not fully informed on this planned parenthood thing. What exactly is it?
Planned Parenthood provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services. But they are the largest abortion provider in America.
I can see why you would be upset by that, but those who get abortions would get them elsewhere, so if it's closed, one would be removing valuable resources to new mothers.
Well if it were up to me, they wouldn't have another place to go for abortions.
None of the planned parenthoods in my area offer any sort of abortion services. There's like, one abortion place I know of, and its been burned down three times. I like the idea of planned parenthood. We need it, just not to service abortions. Abortion for rape/incest, sure. For an idiot who cant keep her legs closed? R-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y.