bullets13

Could you direct me to the "straight" chromosome. I just personally believe it's a trait people are born with. And every homosexual I've talked to has said they've known since they were little. Why would such s large group of people make a choice to be discriminated against, ostracized, and even hated by some people. Personally, the thought of sex with a man disgusts me. I know it is not something I could ever choose to like.

This is a completely moronic statement.  those aren't homosexuals.  those are pedophiles.  There's a large difference between two adults participating in consensual sex and someone raping a child. 

i'm not acknowledging that at all because it's not.  i was curious, since you clearly do believe it's a choice, if you could tell me the moment you made that "choice".  of course, you can't, because it wasn't a conscious choice you made.  it's just how you always were.

they've been doing so in different parts of the world for several years now. 

How old were you when you chose to be straight?

There has always been craziness. Used to when a guy was banging his horse in the sticks, it wasn't plastered all over the Internet. Stuff like this isn't anything new.

I can see both sides of the coin on this one. If as a father there's a boy in your daughter's room, and she says she doesn't know him, then you're immediately going to think "rape". I don't know many fathers who would walk in a room where it looked like their daughter was being raped and not do the same thing. That being said, you also have to feel for the boy's family as he was invited into the house and wasn't armed. I snuck into a few bedrooms in my time, and I can't imagine being shot for it. I don't really think you can blame the boy or the father in this case, if everything is being portrayed properly in the media. The boy was doing what high school kids do, and the dad also was doing what you'd expect him to do. I'm not sure if the girl can be held legally accountable, but she's the one who's most responsible here. Not only did she let him into the house in the middle of the night, but then she lied about knowing him, which in the end was probably the deciding factor on whether or not the dad shot him.

Perhaps there are two separate problems.

So is it your viewpoint that the father was wrong in this instance?

[Hidden Content]

I'm saying that people who are not straight are unable to be added to their partner's healthcare for that reason.

I'm not a fan of Obamacare. It's also a different issue than what you and I are talking about on this thread.

Yup. I make a distinction between someone who wants to marry an animal and someone who is unable to get health insurance because of their sexual orientation.

"It was obviously a mistake," said SPSCC's Dean of College Relations, Kellie Purce Braseth. Braseth said the group that put out the email last week apologized the next day and canceled the event. She said the college believes the best way to celebrate and discuss diversity is to include everyone. "If you want to come you should be able to come, that just makes a richer conversation," said Braseth.

It would appear that this was the work of a single person, or a small group of people, and that the college reacted properly when they became aware of the situation by canceling the event. She SHOULD probably have been fired, but that's easier said than done. i know nothing about the college itself.

This is a tough one for me. If he did in fact dam up a stream, does it have any negative effects on his neighbors? Could he possibly flood the neighbors land upstream? I'm generally in favor of a man being able to do what he likes on his own property, but I'd definitely be curious to see how this affects people living around him, IF he did in fact dam up an existing stream.

Obviously she's nuts. But I could care less. I'm more concerned about people getting the rights they deserve. Why didn't you post the link to the guy who wants to marry his goat?

Very damning.

[Hidden Content] This list actually shows more transgressions on the right than the left over the last two decades, although various arguments could be made about the severity of different scandals, what was or was not included in the list, etc. etc. realistically, the list just shows there are plenty of bad people on both sides of the aisle.

The results wouldn't affect me one way or another. I think you're right in your assertion that some things that a certain group would consider "scandalous" would have little or no beating in the eyes of a different group.

I don't mind at all. I attended East Texas Baptist University.

I honestly don't think so. I remember one particular professor that was very liberal, and maybe one or two more that pushed their beliefs, and about the same with the conservatives. For the most part they just taught the class (syllabus, read the book, turn in your homework, take the test, here's your grade)

I'm sure we could go on forever. What would be the point? I was merely suggesting that while the right still wildly criticizes Clinton, Newt has somehow re-emerged as a respected politician even after cheating on and leaving TWO wives after they were diagnosed with cancer and MS, respectively.

I agree. But I think the different dirtbag scales has much to do with the different ideologies. And when a large pillar of the right's message involves family values and Christianity, it really is important for them to live that lifestyle, especially when they're pushing legislation to enforce those beliefs. It's MY opinion that republicans will always be held to a higher standard in these types of matters because of what they say they stand for. I think in a way people in our country have come to expect political scandals, but they'll still backlash against someone they view as a hypocrite.

Beat me to it. Also not defending either, but gas went from about $1.50 to almost $4.00 under bush, then dropped back down long enough for people to say "When Bush left office, gas was under two bucks!" before going back up to where it was before.