HeyYou

We already have hard and fast laws, it just seem that our government chooses not to enforce them, and corporate america buys new ones, for the cheap labor they can get.

Either that, or get Wrye Mash.....

I suspect that UK isn't going to be a member state for much longer....... We don't even have a "north american union", and our borders might just as well not even be patrolled, for all the good it does. Even when the feds CATCH illegals, 9 times out of 10 they are released again, and told to "show up for your hearing", which less than 25% do... the rest are still here..... The US needs to take a hard line on illegals, and start deporting them wholesale. No hearings, no catch and release, nada. Just a bus/plane ticket back to your country of origin.

Does that also apply to children of illegals in most countries?? Edit: Looked it up, about two dozen countries have unrestricted jus soli. A few more have restricted versions. (one parent must already be a citizen, or, at the very least, in the country LEGALLY) And India completely abolished it because of...... illegal immigration..... Imagine that.

Oh really? http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466039/Illegal-Immigrant-Mohammed-Zulfiqar-fights-deportation-on-human-rights-grounds It seems that the UK does. It's a much used exploit in order to stay here in the UK and screw the benefits system. Ask Abu Hamza now that you have him over there...we're still paying his wife and kids. Wow. Another country with politicians as stupid as the US, I must say, I AM surprised....

have a look here.

No other country grants citizenship to babies born within their borders to illegal immigrants. We have tried amnesty in the past to 'solve' this particular problem, each time, the number of illegals coming into the country ROSE. We need to actually adequately control our borders, take a much harsher stance on illegals, those that hire them, and those that shelter them. If you are here illegal, and you get caught, you get deported. End of story. No welfare, no free health care, no drivers license, nothing. A bus ticket out. That's it.

Heheheeh. I would tend to agree with you, but, please note, I did NOT mention sex purely for pleasure. I don't think modern science has come up with an alternative for that yet. :D

With surrogate mothers, artificial insemination, and a host of other medical procedures, we can actually render sex for reproduction obsolete today......

Provided neither have it when they are married, they don't exhibit behavior conducive to contracting it, (unprotected sex outside of the marriage, intravenous drug use, etc.), and don't pick it up from a dirty needle in a doctors office, unscreened blood transfusion, etc. That would work. Of course, that goes for just about every STD......

Just because someone holds a high position, does not necessarily imply that you should take whatever they say as fact. Blind worship is just as much a fallacy as questioning everything, regardless of who is saying it. (of course, when it comes to politicians, you should ALWAYS fact check what they are trying to pass off.) comparing a dogs mouth, to a humans, is apples to oranges. Yeah, dogs do indeed have some truly disgusting habits...... but, they have a different set of bacteria in their mouths, with some overlap with humans. "Cleaner" is a relative term. :D In all reality, I would rather kiss my dog, than a fair few people I have met. Edit: Also, this is one of those 'hot button' topics that there are two distinct spheres of thought. Of course it is going to get emotional. Right up there with climate change, gun control, and creationism/evolution.

Mine isn't there once I load a game....... What version are you running?

Where was it? Some high-powered items are static in the world, and not from a leveled list.

It is a natural human activity. The proof is in the history records that date back to Roman and Greek times where it was normal for men to have young male lovers. But you just have to look around. Men and women are in same sex relationships in every country in the world regardless of race or creed. If you want proof then I suggest you go to University and study Psychology or medicine or social work but posting links from the internet from obscure web sites just to support your idea of normal is an activity I can only laugh at. You can find anything on the internet if you look long enough. Link something from a reputable university and maybe then I will find the time to continue this discussion It is a natural human activity. The proof is in the history records that date back to Roman and Greek times where it was normal for men to have young male lovers. But you just have to look around. Men and women are in same sex relationships in every country in the world regardless of race or creed. If you want proof then I suggest you go to University and study Psychology or medicine or social work but posting links from the internet from obscure web sites just to support your idea of normal is an activity I can only laugh at. You can find anything on the internet if you look long enough. Link something from a reputable university and maybe then I will find the time to continue this discussion I was going to stay out of this but Hey You needs a University degree for his opinion to have validity? Talk about dismissive elitism, OK then, I have a Bachelors, a Masters, took Psych courses and agree with the carefully selected snippet you decided to respond to from his overall posts. One caveat I would add is that treating anyone poorly for their opinions, predilections, lifestyle or sexual orientation because you do not agree with it, is simply bad manners...something I was always taught / raised not to do. Ya Aurielius you know what, you should follow you first instinct and stay out of this if you are unable to control your emotions. You are now make accusations that have nothing to do with the topic. If you continue to insult people then I will report you. Please I welcome your input but conduct yourself appropriately. This is already a heated topic and there will be many different opinions. However opinions are different than facts. You can express your opinion even if it is not true but what we are doing here is having a discussion. If you continue to insult people here it only make yourself look bad. So where are those good manners you were raised with huh? I am not liking the direction of this thread so I am happily leaving it alone. I am going to enjoy the rest of the evening with my elitist family :laugh: But just to reiterate; homosexuality is normal human behaviour. The burden is not on me to prove it to anyone but theirs to dis-prove it to the rest of the world. Good luck with that :thumbsup: I note you cleverly edited out the part in your post where you felt it was ok to insult me, and then have the audacity to take A to task for supposedly similar behavior?? (I would point out, the unedited text from your post is quoted in his.) I don't see where he is tossing insults..... (but then, I am not a mod, and therefore, my opinion doesn't count. :) ) Also, no, you cannot simply make a statement, and then declare that you are correct, and people have to prove you wrong. You would be laughed out of the scientific community if you tried to pull that stunt. You are just expressing an opinion otherwise. Terribly sorry, just doens't work.

I do not have a degree, but, I did have a minor in psychology while in college....... Not that I think I need a degree to read the works of others, and see what conclusions they drew from them....... If you need to attack me personally in an attempt to discredit my arguement, what does that say about YOUR arguement? To date, there is NO scientific consensus on the gay lifestyle being anything other than an aberation. We have had murders, rapes, wars, genocides, etc, throughout history as well. Are those to become acceptable behaviors also? And what about pedophiles? At one time, it was accepted for adult men to have sex with very young boys. Is THAT a behavior you want to bring back as well??? (or, at least, make it legal) Are we discriminating against pedo's by putting them in jail?? Which behaviors do we allow, and which do we not?? Where do we draw the line? If you go back far enough, you can find a time period where just about anything was 'normal'. Does that mean it is behavior we should accept? Hardly. Trying to use animal behavior to justify a human behavior is also somewhat less than scientific. Not like you can ask a pair of female albatrosses WHY they pair bonded. Shortage of males? Seemed like the thing to do at the time? Other? That said, I don't have a problem with gays. They can live however they choose. Some of my friends are gay. I don't care. It isn't a criterion that I use to measure them by any means. What I DO have a problem with, is the various gay organizations screaming to high heaven about their 'rights', and 'discrimination'. It seems that today, gay rights trump the rights of freedom of religion, in that a business owner cannot refuse service to someone because they are gay. So, for instance, a very religious business owner cannot refuse to provide wedding cakes for a gay wedding, even though that goes against his religious beleifs. He is forced to provide the service even against his objections. So, it would seem that somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% of our population, have more rights than the other 97%. What ever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for ANY reason."?? Does business no longer have that right? You MUST provide service to EVERYONE that walks thru the door, regardless of how objectionable you find them? Does that mean that "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is ALSO a form of discrimination? and should be illegal??

Please show me where it has been proven to be a "natural human activity". So far as I know, the jury is still out on that one. It was removed from the mental illness list because of politics, not because of any scientific proof.

Here is an article that goes against the rationale that 'animals do it, so, humans should do it as well'. You may draw your own conclusions.....

Homosexuality in animals is almost always an expression of pathology or extreme environmental turmoil. And i dont think we will ever find "Sick" Animals in the normal beauty of nature by itself. Good Job humanity your not only killing yourself with certain life styles but our friends the animals suffer too if not worse. :smile: (ps im not refering to homosexuality captain obvious) Never doubt humanities ability to come up with newer, faster, more efficient ways of killing their fellow man. It is what we are best at.

Most of the literature I read use the terms interchangeably. :) So, since we live here, experience it directly, participate in it, and defend it, we must have too much information to form an unbiased opinion. :D

Yep that would be exactly right , that's the whole point. You don't need them. So strange listen to people belly ache about how things are messed up in Washington , then show there is actually a way provided to them to whap Washington up side the head by their founding fathers only to have them slide right back into the belly aching as to why that can't be done . Forgive me if I point out (once again) the methodology of your argument ignores the process that amendments must surmount. The flaw that I have yet to see being addressed, is how you get thousands of individual state legislators to vote against their own interests. These are the same people that voted for mandatory health care for you but reserve their privilege of private congressional care for themselves. Sorry, but I am too old in the ways of the world to believe in the altruism of politicians, the gun to their head that you postulate isn't loaded and they know it. . Well how many rep's are in the California State Legislature , 100 - 200 ? somewhere and yet they went against their own interests as you put it . So why did they do this , because its being done on the local level , the guy who represents you locally , who lives down the road or across the way or where ever in your area and instead of petitioning Congress you can bang on his door or call him on the phone or whatever . So when the moment comes and just as in the California Legislature when the speaker stood and asked does anyone (reps) want to stand and speak out against this , no one did because they knew they would be committing political suicide on a local level . That's how its done. No it has not been done on a fairly regular basis , only twice in American history and its got nothing to do with Congress . Them providing themselves with preferential healthcare or ignoring what the majority wants has nothing to do with it , because they (Congress) have no say in this , I'll repeat that, they (Congress) have no say in this. In an Article V Constitutional Convention what Congress , the President , the Supreme Court or any of their lobbyists or donors say or want is irrelevant and using arguments based on that is likewise irrelevant . The only people to which this applies is you and your local representative. Its the safety valve the founding fathers put in the Constitution in order to save the Republic from itself. And once again, never happen. If you look, you will see that no matter which way this goes, it either has to originate in congress, or be requested by a two thirds majority of state legislatures. Currently, there are TWO states that are considering this. Neither has accomplished it yet. Also, if you actually READ what I posted, you will note that I stated "Bills of this nature.....". That is, in fact, correct. There was one just recently, within the last two months. It went nowhere. (not a surprise.) In all reality, the elite do indeed own the government, and the Supreme court is making rulings that ensure that their hold will only get stronger. Citizens United decision was only the first in a series of dominoes that are falling, leading us to a plutocracy, that pretends to be a representative democracy. The voters voice means absolutely nothing here.

Not like this is new. Bills of this nature come up in congress on a fairly regular basis. 99.99% of them never even make it out of committee. Aurielius, and TRoaches have both already demonstrated why this legislation has zero chance of getting anywhere. You are asking the very people that benefit the MOST from the current system, to end it. Terribly sorry, that is NEVER going to happen. How many of the voting public are actually in favor of this is irrelevant, as congress has already more than adequately demonstrated that what the majority wants, doesn't figure in to their votes in any way, shape, form, or manner.

What's happening in Iraq is EXACTLY what Bush senior used as reasoning NOT to topple Saddam when he was there the first time. We KNEW this was going to happen, yet in we went anyway. I am real curious what "Victory" we had in Iraq as well. We overthru a legitimate, if distasteful... government, that denied terrorists a region to operate from, and turned it into yet another huge terrorist training camp, complete with real americans to shoot at. This was a war based on lies. Not just from OUR government, but from our 'allies' as well. Israel even ADMITTED that they 'may have overstated the threat'...... The relatively complete withdrawl of american forces from iraq was NOT because of OUR government, it was because the Iraqi's didn't like the 'immunity' clause for american troops on Iraqi soil. A sticking point they seem to have gotten over, as the current crop of 300 have that included in their conditions of being there. I think Elmer Fudd would be an improvement in our government at this point...... :D

Do we really want to become everyones air force? We spent the better part of a decade training the Iraqi army..... and this is what they have to offer? Our guys get a max of 8 weeks training, and off they go. These guys get ten years, and run at the first sign of trouble.... There ain't no fixin' that. We are not the worlds police force. We cannot become involved in every civil war. We can't afford it. I will grant you, that we are indeed DIRECTLY responsible for the situation in Iraq, but, at some point, the government there is going to have to take ownership of their internal issues.

I never really cared what people thought I *should* be doing, or what I *should* be like. I was my own person, albeit, not a very nice one.... (I was the kid your parents warned you about......) Took getting married, and a couple years in the service for me to sort out my life. I think I finally got it figgered out when I was around 25...... That was 28 years ago. I am happy with who I am, but, not particularly happy with my situation, but, it is what it is, and nothing to be done about it now.... (I am medically disabled... so, no work, no school, no "real" job for me.) I still don't really care what other people think. :D But, I am a much nicer/better person now, than I was when I was younger. And just as poor. :D

I agree. Justice, and revenge are simply two sides of the same coin. The ONLY difference being who is performing the act.