Okay, first off, I want to say that I most definitely disagree with this US on this one. HOWEVER, all of you are so quick to forget that the EU (or whatever governing body it actually is) also has their own versions of this, and most of the population lives in areas where their government blatantly censors many websites. Honestly, you're blinded by anti-Americanism, and it's disgusting. You can not blame the country as a whole for the actions of a few individuals, and you know what, so what if we're narcissistic? We are still the only super power left, and we did pay to rebuild virtually all of Europe, as well as have provided the most major technological advancements since our founding; we also provide the most humanitarian aid of any country. And, you know what, it's your descendants that make up our country, so stop trying to play it off as if we're some evil nation made up of all former British colonists. My point is, stop blaming the entity as a whole. We're a great country which holds many more freedoms than most of your own. We're not perfect, but neither are you.
Secondly, websites like Megaupload are not shut down by U.S. agents, their governments agree to help. I'd also like to know where you got information that "all .com and all .net domains are subject to US law," because not only is the statement false (again, cooperation between nations), but it seems oddly specific.
To be perfectly honest, I think that a belief in Evolution or Creation is irrelevant, it's the acceptance of other people's beliefs that is the real issue.
Yes, just what we need another one of these topics. Oh well, politics change by the minute.
Let me see here.
Santorum- The one of the most corrupt senators in 2006 and 2007, a back to back winner. Believes what I am is a sin and I should be at least tossed in jail for that sin, if not out and out hung for my crimes. I am gay, but he does not care as long as I spend the rest of my life in prison for being what I am. So I got to say no to santorum. http://www.truthwins...g/bradlee-dean/
Gingrich- If Gingrich gets elected I will see you costa rica. He is one of the most hated politicians in the history of politics. He had to resign from the house to avoid corruption charges. He is one of the biggest liars in Washington. He is hated by his own party that I would not be surprised if he was impeached the day he got elected.
Romeny- Oh yes we need a wall street fat cat that will destroy the poor while offering huge tax breaks to the rich. We need someone that was in charge of the company that would systemically destroy the working class.
A little movie about mr romeny.
Ron Paul- Ron paul is like an insecticide. 98% of it is inert gas, but the 2% is what really kills you- dave mustang.
Obama- Lied his ass off to get elected. He flipped around on almost every issue. He has no backbone. But if it was not for him, we would have been a lot worst off. But compared to the rest of the field, he is a complete angel.
So I have to vote for obama.
Lol, I agree with most of your reasoning, besides Romney. He's the embodiment of what it means to be a capitalist society, I just wish that he didn't change to become more socially conservative. He wasn't that awful as governor.
Still, Obama does win out, but he does have backbone. He was simply not able to deliver many of his promises, not that he changed them. For example, referring to gay rights, he's done more than almost any other American leader. He has been instrumental in removing DADT, he's planning on giving more funding than ever before to AIDS programs, he's told the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA, he's established government ambassadors to the LGBT community, and the State Department now globally supports gay rights.
From what I've read of your posts is that you think that the Government should do what you think is right. Which is the basis of democracy. It's good, it's healthy, but unfortunately, many politicians see religious morals (and, more importantly, want to be seen seeing religious morals) as a legitimate source of right. Is it not up to them to do what they feel is right? Or do you think they should bend to what you think is right?
Democracy is also based off of what the majority thinks. You have to accept that the majority of voting Americans are uncomfortable with homosexuality, and want it gone. Deal with it, and keep trying to change their opinions.
Religion and state are separate. I'm not sure how much more I can stress this-I made a post concerning this issue earlier. Please seek it out and facedesk.
I hope that you don't honestly think that the government is going to force everyone in society to accept everyone else. Land of the Free doesn't mean that the people have to accept you for being different.
Firstly, the United States is not a democracy, nor has it ever pretended to be one. One part of being a representative democracy and a republic means that there's always a degree of separation between what the majority thinks and what the government does, in order to better protect all members of the population. This is of course balanced out by the popular elections; if your legislator does something you don't approve of, the solution is to vote them out next term. The Constitution and later court cases in the 1900's are quite clear the the government has a responsibility to protect minorities. You could debate on whether or not gay people should be a legally recognized minority, however if you apply the literal definition, it's obvious that they are such and ergo deserve protection derived from the government and the same rights as the rest of the country.
Secondly, the government is in no way trying to force acceptance of homosexuality, but they are trying to change government and change public opinion to recognize that their fellow human beings, regardless of sexual orientation or other classifiers, deserve the same respect, rights and benefits as most people freely enjoy, which is now a basic tenet of American philosophy. The current government is not telling you that you should accept homosexuality, they're trying to get you to accept people as citizens who are equal socially and legally.
In reply to the semantics of marriage vs. union, the concept of marriage was a legal one prior to being a religious one. It was a way to guarantee property rights were passed on. I can't be bothered to find the source material right now, but I'm sure a simple Google search will suffice. Therefor, I would say that it was religion which hijacked the term marriage, not the other way around, and because of that it should be up to the government to define what it the term "marriage" means. Also, why should gays and lesbians have a new class of relationship be created almost exclusively for them? In order to achieve the goal of true equality, something which can not be argued, homosexuality has to be completely irrelevant, and that means adopting them into the mainstream marriage institution. Also, it's personally humiliating to try to explain to someone who may not follow gay rights issues very closely that you have to apply for a "domestic partnership." It sounds like you're applying for something business related, and without the connotation of emotion derived from marriage, that's basically all it is. It does not represent the true value and depth of what the relationship is or should be considered.
Also, just a general comment on this thread-I'm absolutely disgusted on the blatant attacks on religion. Religious people have the same right to express their views as everyone else, and they have the gift of faith. Just because you're not religious doesn't mean you should take mocking their beliefs lightly.
It's fine to hold your beliefs, no one is arguing that. The gay rights movement is not even saying that religion as a whole is damaging; there's a difference between "attacks" on the institution of religion and the individuals within it. What's not fine is forcing your beliefs onto the rest of the population, and that includes lobbying against same-sex marriage. That's why religious people who do fight same-sex marriage are considered bigots, which is, in actuality, an acceptable name for them. I don't mean that in a personal way, however in a legal connotation, what they're doing constitutes bigotry.
-------------------- Wait List Status:--------------------
Not Started | Started | Almost Done (uploading)
thebuchiklng
Sniper1805 (V2)
the1minecraftcreator
EtherionNative
-------------------- All Completed Videos:--------------------
To add the video to your thread, simply copy and paste the "www.youtube.com/watch..." URL of the video and put it between media tags like:
[media][/media]
-------------------- Get a Trailer:--------------------
Simply post a link to your map thread* here
or
Message me on this forum account or MCMapTrailers on YouTube
-------------------- Extra Stuff:--------------------
• All trailers will be in HD! If you have any specials requests, please let me know (i.e. a certain texture pack)
• All trailers will be short and may or may not contain spoilers.
• I had not realized right away that AMVFanatic1081 has a similar thread. Please feel free to look at his thread and request one of his trailers if you like his style better!
• If you have suggestions or complaints about the videos, please private message me * If your map is unreleased, and you only want to provide me with a direct download, please provide at least one screenshot
1
Secondly, websites like Megaupload are not shut down by U.S. agents, their governments agree to help. I'd also like to know where you got information that "all .com and all .net domains are subject to US law," because not only is the statement false (again, cooperation between nations), but it seems oddly specific.
1
2
Lol, I agree with most of your reasoning, besides Romney. He's the embodiment of what it means to be a capitalist society, I just wish that he didn't change to become more socially conservative. He wasn't that awful as governor.
Still, Obama does win out, but he does have backbone. He was simply not able to deliver many of his promises, not that he changed them. For example, referring to gay rights, he's done more than almost any other American leader. He has been instrumental in removing DADT, he's planning on giving more funding than ever before to AIDS programs, he's told the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA, he's established government ambassadors to the LGBT community, and the State Department now globally supports gay rights.
2
Firstly, the United States is not a democracy, nor has it ever pretended to be one. One part of being a representative democracy and a republic means that there's always a degree of separation between what the majority thinks and what the government does, in order to better protect all members of the population. This is of course balanced out by the popular elections; if your legislator does something you don't approve of, the solution is to vote them out next term. The Constitution and later court cases in the 1900's are quite clear the the government has a responsibility to protect minorities. You could debate on whether or not gay people should be a legally recognized minority, however if you apply the literal definition, it's obvious that they are such and ergo deserve protection derived from the government and the same rights as the rest of the country.
Secondly, the government is in no way trying to force acceptance of homosexuality, but they are trying to change government and change public opinion to recognize that their fellow human beings, regardless of sexual orientation or other classifiers, deserve the same respect, rights and benefits as most people freely enjoy, which is now a basic tenet of American philosophy. The current government is not telling you that you should accept homosexuality, they're trying to get you to accept people as citizens who are equal socially and legally.
In reply to the semantics of marriage vs. union, the concept of marriage was a legal one prior to being a religious one. It was a way to guarantee property rights were passed on. I can't be bothered to find the source material right now, but I'm sure a simple Google search will suffice. Therefor, I would say that it was religion which hijacked the term marriage, not the other way around, and because of that it should be up to the government to define what it the term "marriage" means. Also, why should gays and lesbians have a new class of relationship be created almost exclusively for them? In order to achieve the goal of true equality, something which can not be argued, homosexuality has to be completely irrelevant, and that means adopting them into the mainstream marriage institution. Also, it's personally humiliating to try to explain to someone who may not follow gay rights issues very closely that you have to apply for a "domestic partnership." It sounds like you're applying for something business related, and without the connotation of emotion derived from marriage, that's basically all it is. It does not represent the true value and depth of what the relationship is or should be considered.
It's fine to hold your beliefs, no one is arguing that. The gay rights movement is not even saying that religion as a whole is damaging; there's a difference between "attacks" on the institution of religion and the individuals within it. What's not fine is forcing your beliefs onto the rest of the population, and that includes lobbying against same-sex marriage. That's why religious people who do fight same-sex marriage are considered bigots, which is, in actuality, an acceptable name for them. I don't mean that in a personal way, however in a legal connotation, what they're doing constitutes bigotry.
2
• All trailers will be short and may or may not contain spoilers.
• I had not realized right away that AMVFanatic1081 has a similar thread. Please feel free to look at his thread and request one of his trailers if you like his style better!
• If you have suggestions or complaints about the videos, please private message me
* If your map is unreleased, and you only want to provide me with a direct download, please provide at least one screenshot
1