This is directed to the comments posted to donkey vs elephant's post on gay marriage.
In addition to my post below:
By the way guys, both of you who disagreed and criticized his point, did not agree to THE POINT! He is against MARRIAGE OF GAYS, not being gay! Come on, read man. Just because he didn't get the point out clearly doesn't mean his is flat out wrong about what he's saying, granted some I do not agree with myself. Nevertheless, the point is GAY MARRIAGE, which he is against, as am I. Are you?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
#8: Gay Marriage
Alright, seriously people, think of an argument, establish a point, and stick to it. Every blog/comment I've read is widespread and not really pointing out good/bad/pros/cons of gays being married. I've seen opinions, good, but no straight forward yes/nos with reasons...
This is dsteed's post:
"On Election Day all 30 states which voted on the gay marriage ban supported the ban. Even though Obama is a progressive liberal, which in general support gay rights, the vast majority of his supporters voted for the ban to pass. I think this is good. I personally do not agree with gay marriage. Children who are raised by gay parents face hardships that children with strait parents don’t. Some include being ridiculed and mistreated by others, which potentially can have long term effects, also children may either lack a father figure or mother figure depending on if it is two men or women that are married. Children need both a maternal and paternal influence to be healthy. I have no problem with gay people living together and being together, but when marriage and children become involved then I have a problem. One other claim that I cannot stand is that gay people are the way they are because of genetics. There are no genes that determine one’s orientation. Every person that I have met that is gay has been able to explain to me why they are gay. Not one of them said they were born that way or that they didn’t know why. In fact, every one of them had a story and very profound reasons why. I don’t necessarily agree with the choices they have made, but I do not hate them for it. Being gay is a choice people make for whatever reason and all choices have consequences. One consequence in my opinion should be that gay people cannot be married, for the reasons I have stated above."
Not bad man.
I've got an opinion here, and may I first say that I have nothing against gays/homosexuals or the PC term "homosexual community." My good friend was indeed raised normally with a natural father and mother, however by the time he was 17, his father realized he was not attracted to his mother, but other men. He left wife for another man and life moves on(details may have been excluded).
First, why does a gay couple need/want to be married? Emotionally, the couple wants to excel their relationship to the next/final level, which is marriage, and live out life devoted to each other under the oath of law, and ultimately, God. Legally, there is not much to be needed, besides proof of unity/devotion/"marriage" itself. In all sense of legal terms of a couple(gay or straight), there is no difference between being married or at least living together under mutual funds. All of your credit cards, bank accounts, loans, insurances, phone bills, and all that good stuff can be done under a single name, whether it be a last name shared through marriage or an individual of the couple, and has no advantage/disadvantage based on "marriage." This is mainly why I support NO gay marriage...you can be gay(happy) being gay, but you don't need to be married. Mutual partnerships, absolutely, go for it.
Second, why must it be known that you are gay?! The military has a good view on this, which is "don't ask, don't tell." This means, don't ask a guy if he's gay because it looked like he was staring at another guy's balls, and don't tell anyone if you yourself stared at another guys balls!!! Seriously, it makes no difference in life if you are gay or not. Imagine this, you are at a social gathering and you start to make conversation with another man/woman, but you can't tell if they are gay because there aren't any signs(gay voice, limp wrist movement, gay slang, etc) so you don't bother, you just continue to carry on a conversation, but what if after the gathering, you are told by someone that the person you talked to ever so casually, was gay?! What would you think?! OMG?! Ya ya ya...the point is, you couldn't tell, and it didn't make a difference because they are people too!!
Third, what the hell is up with gay rights? Aren't gay people trying to defend the fact that they aren't any different from normal straight people? Well then explain to me this, why, if you are just the same as a straight person, do you need your own set of rights? The answer is you dont! At work, if someone supposedly accuses you of being gay or jokes about your gayness if you are in fact gay, don't assume that you must enforce your "gay rights," because you have none, that is called harassment, right?!
Fourth, don't use the idea that a child must be raised by both parents to be normal or "healthy." There are far many worse cases out there than a kid raised by two men who are sex partners. Shit happens man.
Fifth! Well, I could keep going on with this, but you get my point by now, right? Ah well, fuck it, my assignment is done and I don't have to see you guys anymore so I'm good.
Everyone, have a good break, a wonderful Christmas, a happy New Year, and good luck with life! I...am...OUT!!!
This is dsteed's post:
"On Election Day all 30 states which voted on the gay marriage ban supported the ban. Even though Obama is a progressive liberal, which in general support gay rights, the vast majority of his supporters voted for the ban to pass. I think this is good. I personally do not agree with gay marriage. Children who are raised by gay parents face hardships that children with strait parents don’t. Some include being ridiculed and mistreated by others, which potentially can have long term effects, also children may either lack a father figure or mother figure depending on if it is two men or women that are married. Children need both a maternal and paternal influence to be healthy. I have no problem with gay people living together and being together, but when marriage and children become involved then I have a problem. One other claim that I cannot stand is that gay people are the way they are because of genetics. There are no genes that determine one’s orientation. Every person that I have met that is gay has been able to explain to me why they are gay. Not one of them said they were born that way or that they didn’t know why. In fact, every one of them had a story and very profound reasons why. I don’t necessarily agree with the choices they have made, but I do not hate them for it. Being gay is a choice people make for whatever reason and all choices have consequences. One consequence in my opinion should be that gay people cannot be married, for the reasons I have stated above."
Not bad man.
I've got an opinion here, and may I first say that I have nothing against gays/homosexuals or the PC term "homosexual community." My good friend was indeed raised normally with a natural father and mother, however by the time he was 17, his father realized he was not attracted to his mother, but other men. He left wife for another man and life moves on(details may have been excluded).
First, why does a gay couple need/want to be married? Emotionally, the couple wants to excel their relationship to the next/final level, which is marriage, and live out life devoted to each other under the oath of law, and ultimately, God. Legally, there is not much to be needed, besides proof of unity/devotion/"marriage" itself. In all sense of legal terms of a couple(gay or straight), there is no difference between being married or at least living together under mutual funds. All of your credit cards, bank accounts, loans, insurances, phone bills, and all that good stuff can be done under a single name, whether it be a last name shared through marriage or an individual of the couple, and has no advantage/disadvantage based on "marriage." This is mainly why I support NO gay marriage...you can be gay(happy) being gay, but you don't need to be married. Mutual partnerships, absolutely, go for it.
Second, why must it be known that you are gay?! The military has a good view on this, which is "don't ask, don't tell." This means, don't ask a guy if he's gay because it looked like he was staring at another guy's balls, and don't tell anyone if you yourself stared at another guys balls!!! Seriously, it makes no difference in life if you are gay or not. Imagine this, you are at a social gathering and you start to make conversation with another man/woman, but you can't tell if they are gay because there aren't any signs(gay voice, limp wrist movement, gay slang, etc) so you don't bother, you just continue to carry on a conversation, but what if after the gathering, you are told by someone that the person you talked to ever so casually, was gay?! What would you think?! OMG?! Ya ya ya...the point is, you couldn't tell, and it didn't make a difference because they are people too!!
Third, what the hell is up with gay rights? Aren't gay people trying to defend the fact that they aren't any different from normal straight people? Well then explain to me this, why, if you are just the same as a straight person, do you need your own set of rights? The answer is you dont! At work, if someone supposedly accuses you of being gay or jokes about your gayness if you are in fact gay, don't assume that you must enforce your "gay rights," because you have none, that is called harassment, right?!
Fourth, don't use the idea that a child must be raised by both parents to be normal or "healthy." There are far many worse cases out there than a kid raised by two men who are sex partners. Shit happens man.
Fifth! Well, I could keep going on with this, but you get my point by now, right? Ah well, fuck it, my assignment is done and I don't have to see you guys anymore so I'm good.
Everyone, have a good break, a wonderful Christmas, a happy New Year, and good luck with life! I...am...OUT!!!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Lost Comment!
This was a comment from a fellow classmate which was misplaced. It should have been posted within comments of Blog Stage 7!
Political Rampage #2
Here we go again fellas. Another chance to ramble on about our government's flaws. I'm excited, how about you? :D
Okay, so this time I'm going to talk about the "war" in Iraq. Actually the war against world terrorism, mostly focused in the middle eastern countries(Iraq especially), the war in Iraq has been a long and drug out plan to retake the countries of Iraq and Iran from the rule of terrorist cells. I read an article somewhere that spoke of Congress' main objectives in the war. I believe there were 9 main objectives, but there could have been as many as 13...no matter. There was a set number of goals our government had laid out to be accomplished and after so many years, there hasn't been any results. I'm not sure who is at fault for our lack of progress, but I know for a fact that it is not our military leaders, it is, however, those whom they take orders from. Our military is one of the most highly trained in the world, and is armed with the most advanced weapons known to mankind. The guns are fine, the soldiers are trained...it must be the guys telling them what and when to open fire. Our leaders are not the brightest people in the art of warfare, because we could have had this war over and done with years ago. Now, however, we have a new leader who will step in fairly quickly and will most likely fuck everything up. We went there for a reason, we had a set number of reasons and goals to accomplish. Did we get the job done(all goals achieved)? Not yet...so why the hell should we pull out?! When you get in bed, you don't get out until the job is done, eh pops?
I've got an opinion on what will happen if we get out of Dodge. I think that once we get out, the governments we fought for to regain control will not yet be stable enough to support themselves from future attacks, and they will be overtaken, and now we will have another foe on our hands. Plus, who's to say that once we get all the terrorists and whatnot out of the land, that they won't just come back to reclaim what they say is rightfully theirs, eh? I think it's nothing but more trouble if we get out. I say stay in and get it done. Don't fuck it up either.
Okay, so this time I'm going to talk about the "war" in Iraq. Actually the war against world terrorism, mostly focused in the middle eastern countries(Iraq especially), the war in Iraq has been a long and drug out plan to retake the countries of Iraq and Iran from the rule of terrorist cells. I read an article somewhere that spoke of Congress' main objectives in the war. I believe there were 9 main objectives, but there could have been as many as 13...no matter. There was a set number of goals our government had laid out to be accomplished and after so many years, there hasn't been any results. I'm not sure who is at fault for our lack of progress, but I know for a fact that it is not our military leaders, it is, however, those whom they take orders from. Our military is one of the most highly trained in the world, and is armed with the most advanced weapons known to mankind. The guns are fine, the soldiers are trained...it must be the guys telling them what and when to open fire. Our leaders are not the brightest people in the art of warfare, because we could have had this war over and done with years ago. Now, however, we have a new leader who will step in fairly quickly and will most likely fuck everything up. We went there for a reason, we had a set number of reasons and goals to accomplish. Did we get the job done(all goals achieved)? Not yet...so why the hell should we pull out?! When you get in bed, you don't get out until the job is done, eh pops?
I've got an opinion on what will happen if we get out of Dodge. I think that once we get out, the governments we fought for to regain control will not yet be stable enough to support themselves from future attacks, and they will be overtaken, and now we will have another foe on our hands. Plus, who's to say that once we get all the terrorists and whatnot out of the land, that they won't just come back to reclaim what they say is rightfully theirs, eh? I think it's nothing but more trouble if we get out. I say stay in and get it done. Don't fuck it up either.
Colleague Critic: Numero Uno
Well said my friend. Hypocrisy is a problem no matter where it is, and here is where it's worst. Even in our everyday lives we meet people who are ignorant and are hypocrites because their actions do not follow their words, and if you can imagine what sort of problem this will cause if we have hypocrites running our country, holy shit, man. Game over. We're screwed.
First off, I'd like to point out a couple flaws I have seen in people's ideology in voting for Sen. Obama. For one, few people I've asked mentioned that they would like to see a black man as president, so they voted for him(I'm assuming since they said they would). Another couple reasons some say they voted for Obama is because he seems like a nice guy, he knows what he's talking about(which is absurd to say; maybe everything he says is total BS, who knows?), he's younger; the list goes on. Basically, everything that I've heard outside of factuall evidence backing their decision, is so dumb, it's amazing. Why in the hell would you vote for a man to run our country because of his race or age, or better yet, because he speaks better?! The point of our elections is to place the better man in position. Obviously, our forefathers did not foresee the American public as being so politically retarded that we vote like children in a candy store, "Ooh, that one looks nice, I'll take it. :D"
Many of the poeple I asked who they were voting for, or who they did vote for, they were hypocrits, and I honestly wanted to bitch slap each and every one of them. Whether or not my arguements were correct, I strongly suggested that they base their decision on the possible futures between the two. My arguement against Obama was about the second economic stimulus package. I said hell no to it, becuase more money given to me now means more money I have to pay back. TINSTAAFL. If you know what this phrase means then I applaud you. If you don't know the phrase in its abbreviated form, here it is. "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Live by it.
First off, I'd like to point out a couple flaws I have seen in people's ideology in voting for Sen. Obama. For one, few people I've asked mentioned that they would like to see a black man as president, so they voted for him(I'm assuming since they said they would). Another couple reasons some say they voted for Obama is because he seems like a nice guy, he knows what he's talking about(which is absurd to say; maybe everything he says is total BS, who knows?), he's younger; the list goes on. Basically, everything that I've heard outside of factuall evidence backing their decision, is so dumb, it's amazing. Why in the hell would you vote for a man to run our country because of his race or age, or better yet, because he speaks better?! The point of our elections is to place the better man in position. Obviously, our forefathers did not foresee the American public as being so politically retarded that we vote like children in a candy store, "Ooh, that one looks nice, I'll take it. :D"
Many of the poeple I asked who they were voting for, or who they did vote for, they were hypocrits, and I honestly wanted to bitch slap each and every one of them. Whether or not my arguements were correct, I strongly suggested that they base their decision on the possible futures between the two. My arguement against Obama was about the second economic stimulus package. I said hell no to it, becuase more money given to me now means more money I have to pay back. TINSTAAFL. If you know what this phrase means then I applaud you. If you don't know the phrase in its abbreviated form, here it is. "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Live by it.
Friday, October 31, 2008
"Get off my dick!"
Please excuse the title as I thought it was necessary for this blog entry. The phrase comes from a good friend of mine who I went to high school and played tennis with who would say these words to whomever would get in his business and would not leave him be. Used strictly for comic relief of stress on the court, the phrase became widely used between the fellas and I, and so I use the phrase in reference to our National Government in the sense that they are way into our business and need to lay off. Like a pair of stingy parents, our government heavily snoops into our lives and plays a much larger role than to protect and serve the people. It is my belief that our government's only purpose is to play a much similar role as our local police authorities, where they (should) merely patrol our homeland, keeping the crooks and thieves in order and protecting the commonwealth, and to serve the people as needed. "To protect and serve." Sound familiar? This viewpoint of mine has become known as being very conservative, which I must say should be the viewpoint of all "Americans," and I leave it to this reason alone. I ask you, how many of you (as children and/or adolescences) grew up wanting to live your lives with little to no interference/help/assistance/whatever-you-may-call-it from your folks and request that they merely provide you with the two basic levels of needs(based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs), which are your basic life needs(clean air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, etc.) and your safety needs(protection, security, limits, stability, etc.)? If you are like myself then you will realize that our national government should play a very similar role in our lives as we do with our parents. I'm sorry if it has to be a "conservative viewpoint," but I honestly don't give a shit. Sorry.
Right now, the way I see it, there are too many needy and dependant people in MY country that don't know how to survive in life if they don't get their Welfare check in the mail next Monday. (Yes, that is an example) OUR government needs to lay off, let US deal with the day-to-day bullshit, make YOU get off your lazy ass and get a job(how about hire you, make you a government employee, eh?), and stop being so G*D Damn generous by shovelling millions of dollars into the "Daddy's little girls" who get what they want whenever they ask, I say fuck that shit! If you agree with me when I say our government should be opperating more efficiently, then DO NOT accept the money if you DON'T NEED IT!!! Get a job!!! I'm Thomas Adkins and that's what really grinds my gears! - Courtesy of Peter Griffin the Family Guy.
"Here's a Thought:" Do you realize how many metaphors you can come up with by comparing our government to parents? Daddy's little girls? Simply genious!
(If you subtract that last little scribble of words, you'll have yourself just under 500 words.)
Right now, the way I see it, there are too many needy and dependant people in MY country that don't know how to survive in life if they don't get their Welfare check in the mail next Monday. (Yes, that is an example) OUR government needs to lay off, let US deal with the day-to-day bullshit, make YOU get off your lazy ass and get a job(how about hire you, make you a government employee, eh?), and stop being so G*D Damn generous by shovelling millions of dollars into the "Daddy's little girls" who get what they want whenever they ask, I say fuck that shit! If you agree with me when I say our government should be opperating more efficiently, then DO NOT accept the money if you DON'T NEED IT!!! Get a job!!! I'm Thomas Adkins and that's what really grinds my gears! - Courtesy of Peter Griffin the Family Guy.
"Here's a Thought:" Do you realize how many metaphors you can come up with by comparing our government to parents? Daddy's little girls? Simply genious!
(If you subtract that last little scribble of words, you'll have yourself just under 500 words.)
Friday, October 17, 2008
Go Joe - That's what's up!
Hell ya - that's all I have to say. I agree, 110%: Why should people who are successful and make fat cash be charged more taxes than everyone else?! Let's look at it from another perspective here - my mother says "with more money comes more bills." True? I think yes. Everyone has an average set income, no matter how much variability there is, and everyone sets room aside for the bills and savings, flat out. The remainder is what is left to be spent, correct? Okay, now, if you only have so many bills to pay and are saving a steady amount and you still have a fat chunk of change to be spent, won't you spend it? YES! The only difference between you and the guy making 6 figures is how many bills you have, guaranteed. How would you feel if your taxes were raised, that's how they feel, and it won't be long until Joe is right, again, and our precious government lowers the bar a little closer to your income level.
This article here discusses McCain's position on Obama's raising taxes and how he refers to "Joe The Plumber." I learned more about Joe here. I do have an argument though against Mr. McCain - Why would you attempt to call out Obama on tax raising and bring in Joe to the fight when he doesn't fall under Obama's proposal? Instead of bashing the proposal itself, why not bring it up as "the middle class POV?"
This article briefly runs through the mix with few references. It's directed toward the general public, mainly middle/lower classes as news from a fellow American's point of view. I cannot agree with anything the article itself has to offer, however I can agree with Joe, who is part of the article. I believe in his opinion and agree, like I said, 110%. I understand taxes, it's necessary and must be done, that I do not mind, but leave it as it is, don't make me pay any more than is needed when money can be drawn from other places, like McCain's proposal on cutting certain funds. "Um, yes please!" Don't touch my money!
I am Thomas Adkins, and I approved this message.
This article here discusses McCain's position on Obama's raising taxes and how he refers to "Joe The Plumber." I learned more about Joe here. I do have an argument though against Mr. McCain - Why would you attempt to call out Obama on tax raising and bring in Joe to the fight when he doesn't fall under Obama's proposal? Instead of bashing the proposal itself, why not bring it up as "the middle class POV?"
This article briefly runs through the mix with few references. It's directed toward the general public, mainly middle/lower classes as news from a fellow American's point of view. I cannot agree with anything the article itself has to offer, however I can agree with Joe, who is part of the article. I believe in his opinion and agree, like I said, 110%. I understand taxes, it's necessary and must be done, that I do not mind, but leave it as it is, don't make me pay any more than is needed when money can be drawn from other places, like McCain's proposal on cutting certain funds. "Um, yes please!" Don't touch my money!
I am Thomas Adkins, and I approved this message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)