Mecatchfish

Male
from Norwich, CT

  • Activity

    • Red ring of death

      8 years ago

      Mecatchfish

      It took 4 years, but finally happened. What do I do now?

    • 8 years ago

      Mecatchfish
    • Wow.

      8 years ago

      Mecatchfish

      And, I thought Jon Stewart ripped Bush good. It looks like the previous administration was just a warm up for this guy. I almost feel sorry for our dear leader . . . almost.

    • Ground Zero Mosque

      9 years ago

      Mecatchfish

      Would we be so angry about this if the Twin Towers had been rebuilt already? Would we be so offended if there were two gigantic symbols of America's will to rebuild overshadowing the mosque? Wouldn't we say "Sure. Go ahead. You might actually be able to see it from the observation deck. <snicker>"?

      Just a thought.

    • BOO HOO HOO HOO! WAAAAAAAAH!

      9 years ago

      Mecatchfish

      I sold my 3rd Generation Model 22 Glock today. The reality is just starting to hit me.

      Hopefully my 4th Generation model 17C Glock will be able to console me.

    • Obama: Muslim or not?

      9 years ago

      Mecatchfish

      We'll never know for sure. Obviously we can't read his mind. So, who can really tell what he believes?

      My question is this: Why would he deny it? This guy is as far left as you can get without actually being Karl Marx. And, one of the overriding opinions of anyone on the fringe left is that Christianity is just as bad as Islam some of the time and even worse for the rest of it. If he is a Muslim, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it better to have a member of the religion of peace in the White House instead of that war-mongering Christian that he replaced?

      Liberals, explain yourselves.

    • It has begun

      9 years ago

      Mecatchfish

      The people on the left swore up and down that death panels were just a right-wing conspiracy theory. Years from now, we'll know that it began here.

    • House hunt

      9 years ago

      Mecatchfish

      I haven't really shared the details of my search for a home to buy. It hasn't really been interesting . . . until today. I was looking at an old home trying to figure out what the siding was made of and started talking to the next door neighbor. He was very helpful (to me, not the seller). He pointed out a few things wrong with the house. The decision maker was when he told me the siding was made of asbestos. There's no way I'm buying a house with asbestos. I also asked him about the rope across the entrance to the driveway. It turns out that the owners got sick of people parking in their driveway, getting out, and walking around their yard to take pictures. I was puzzled until he pointed out the historical marker in the front yard.

      For those of you interested, the birthplace of Benedict Arnold is on the market for the bargain price of $119,000.

    • 9 years ago

      Mecatchfish
    • 9 years ago

      Mecatchfish
  • About Me

  • Comments (1310)

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      LOL, where did I ever say that I want Republicans dead? I have many friends and family members that are Republicans. In fact I'm one of the few liberals in my whole family. Believe it or not I do, in fact, make fun of the Mexicans for being Catholic. There is a big difference between making fun of those who you disagree with and wanting to kill people who you disagree with. I thought you were smart enough to understand that difference. At any rate you never addressed my comment. Why is it so bad that Mexicans are coming here illegally?

      Post edited 5/18/10 11:57PM

    • islandkitty

      9 years ago

      On some level, I know I am. But it's just incredibly frustrating to watch someone you care about be so stupid.

    • Atheist_101

      9 years ago

      I expected good service, and I got it.
      Of course Canada has had this health care for a while, so ours has gotten better :P

    • Haylbays FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      9 years ago

      Dude, I was actually doing the moustache thing to look like one of my bosses. He however found it hilarious, but I could totally see that happening

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Jeggsimmons said

      if im not mistaken, states can declare the bill unconstitutional can't they? and they should. the federal gov. is gaining WAY to much power. thats how the civil war started. thats how the next one may start.

      and can the next wave of congressmen overturn it, they can do that, right? (since its obvious a lot of republicans and conservative independents will be voted in.)


      When I made a comment refuting it you deleted it.

      Post edited 4/07/10 10:28PM

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      The only reason I deleted you comment is because you deleted mine.

      Post edited 4/07/10 1:02PM

    • pgw_chaos FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      9 years ago

      You can get the X-Com complete pack (has the X-Com games) on Steam for around $15, or just X-Com: UFO Defense for 5. I ran it on my PC and laptop (windows 7) without that much trouble

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Cool, have you fired it yet?

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Guess what passed? smiley0.gif

      In celebration of the house passing healthcare I will never again try to argue politics with you.

      I still think that you're a good person and I still would like to have discussions with you. I know you like guns and this my come as a surprise to you I like them to. In fact I have a little jealousy towards you because of you new baby. So how awesome is it?

      Post edited 3/21/10 10:25PM

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      1. He insists that the U.S. Supreme Court isn't bound by the limits of the Constitution. This is a point we can't reconcile and I told him I wouldn't waste my time on him if he continues to insist so.

      That's not what I said. I said that the tenth amendment gives power to the people and the states when the federal government does not have a stance on an issue.

      2. He's basically said that for him to concede I have to prove a negative. That's impossible.

      No, you make accusations that the American Association of Pediatrics is lying without any evidence of them lying. If you don't have any evidence of them doing something you can't really accuse them of doing it can you? And if you think you can't prove it, then why do you believe it? You're not refuting the statement, just the source.



      Post edited 3/21/10 5:01PM

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      I'm not wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court (being a branch of the United States federal government) falls directly under the authority of the U.S. Constitution. Did you seriously believe the the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't part of the government? Did you really think that this didn't apply to them? (By the way, if you answer "yes" to this, I'm done arguing with you. If you really think so, you're a waste of my time.)

      You're still wrong. According to my professor of political science, that amendment means what ever federal government doesn't talk about is left up to the states until the federal government wants to talk about it.

      Once same-sex "marriage" is affirmed, then other forms of "marriage" will likewise have to be affirmed, i.e polygamy, endogamy (the marriage of blood relatives) and child marriage. Homosexual marriage is just one step along the path to the legitimazation of all forms of sexual immorality and deviance.

      Really? Because Canada and Massachusetts have had gay marriage for over half a decade and that's not happened. And why shouldn't polygamy be legal, as long as everybody is consenting I don't see what the big deal is. There are several states where it is legal to marry one's cousin. And children cannot legally consent to things like marriage so that augment doesn't hold water. And why are those things "immoral?" Because you say they are? That's your opinion on the matter. I think that is wrong for a man to marry a "mail ordered bride." I think it's disgusting when a 20 something woman married a rich old man for his money, but I'm not whining to the government that someone somewhere is doing something I think it is gross so nobody should do it. The reason I'm not is because I don't have a right not to be disgusted, nobody does. And who am I to tell them that they can't? It's not my life, it's not my business so why should it be banned because I think it's wrong?

      And, it didn't start with them. I believe it started with the social acceptance of adultery.

      Right becuase people totally didn't hate Tiger Woods for cheating on his wife.

      And, don't think that gay marriage will be the end of this. Rest assured that other sexual deviant groups are watching this intently. If gays get their "right" to marriage, then NAMBLA will start pressing for something similar.

      Even if they do, so what. They won't win so why shouldn't they be able to advocate changing the law.

      No. I'm saying that their findings are not indisputable facts.

      Then why don't you try disputing their claims instead of calling them liers?

      And, what you're doing is asking me to prove a negative. That's impossible.

      No it's not. You find out when somebody is lying by finding the truth.

      Fine. Even a homosexual is a human being with a mind that can think and decide. A human being is greater than the sum of their sexual urges.

      And why are those urges bad?

      They don't have to win . . . in court. If a church goes bankrupt due to frivolous lawsuits, then their opponents have still gotten their way.

      Once again, that just the cost of freedom.

      Fine. Atheists taking charge of a country ends in mass murder almost every time. Or, could it be that this atheist is only one person and he has religiously inclined folks to keep him under control? (That question is rhetorical.)

      Or it could be that he didn't have absolute power.

      The black plague killed 25% of the population of Europe. This amounted to around 3 million dead. This is because the human population on this planet was much lower back then. Christians in the dark ages could not have out-murdered the atheists of the past century, because there simply were not that many people around to kill. As for your graph, I can make pretty drawings, too. Maybe I should make one with a big hole in it created by the Stalinist and Maoist purges.


      Wrong. Mid eval Europe was way more populated than that. But the number of people who died on which ever side is irrelevant. The the point I was trying to make it that being a Christian doesn't stop people from doing evil things. The argument should be against absolute power because that's what gave both parties the power to do evil things. Nobody was there to stop them from doing it. That is way the president to two other branches to deal with, that is why he must follow the same rules as everybody else.


      Post edited 3/04/10 4:23PM

    • armeav8r

      9 years ago

      In reply to Mecatchfish, #19:

      Drowning her sorrows after they lost Mass to a Republican?


      Perhaps, but still not the responsibility of taxpayers to pay for it. They're VERY casual with their expenditures because somebody ELSE is paying. It's not coming out of their pocket so it's "FREE MONEY" to them. That's wrong, and it has to stop. It's criminal.

    • simplymonica

      9 years ago

      GRANDPA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Please vote for me !

      DO ET

      And if you would like, you will get a lovely valentine card from me! =)

      smiley12.gif Millie

    • DadHavoc

      9 years ago

      I hope that was not your place that blew up. You OK??

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      That's cool, good luck with that.

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Wrong. Do you know what the Tenth Amendment says? If you did, you would know that the U.S. Supreme Court has no business making any statement on gay marriage; be it for or against.
      Yes, which is why I believe gays should be able to marry. I told you that I don't think any church should be forced to marry any couple they don't want to. So if that is not an issue than why can't gays get married?

      Hmm... let's at the tenth amendment, shall we?
      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
      It doesn't even mention the supreme court, so you're wrong.

      If they agreed with you, they wouldn't be threatening churches in Massachusetts with lawsuits.

      Let's say hypothetically that this is no londer an issue and the churches can bar whoever they want from marrying in they church, would you still be against gay marriage?

      I do have an example in the lies confessed to by the University of East Anglia to show that scientists are not necessarily trustworthy. And, I really don't know what gain they have to get from it. Maybe they're looking for more grant money from the government. Showing results favorable to the current party in power would help them get such a grant. Of, course this leaves a question to you: What do you have to gain for arguing their case?

      Then you really can't trust anybody can you? Anyone can lie. Just because we were lied to by a few scientists doesn't mean all scientists are liers. I've been lied to by Christians so maybe I shouldn't trust anything you say. It's not enough to say that some can lie, you have to prove that they are. What you are doing is called ad hominem. You're not disputing the evidence, you just don't like were it comes from. You can't even come up with a reason not to trust the source nor can you come up with a motivation for them to lie. The argument that they are seeking grant money is ridiculous. As a party the Democrats have not showed support for gays in America. I won't answer your question until you tell be why homosexuality is a choice without using the bible.

      How do you know what Jefferson thought? Can you read the minds of dead people? Didn't you just admonish me for the same thing? I suppose it's okay for you to attempt to infer people's thoughts.

      I know that Jefferson was not a Christian because he said he wasn't. I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson had the the Bible edited so that it had no mention of Jesus being divine or a miracle worker.

      Furthermore, the key phrase in the First Amendment is "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." When homosexuals in Massachusetts were given the right to marry they began harassing churches. (Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.) Being threatened with legal action for refusing to do something against your beliefs is hardly free exercise of religion.

      That is the cost freedom. Homosexuals being able to threaten legal action is not that big of a deal, the churches can get over it. I doubt the homosexuals will win.

      Belief in and acknowledgment of God does not constitute a theocracy. Nor does doing so force others to accept it. By saying that this is a Christian nation, I am stating that this country has a Christian history and was founded on Christian principles.

      Well, in point of fact, they aren't. Where in the constitution can you find it saying that this is a Christian nation? Nowhere. In fact the supreme court stated that United States laws must be secular in nature in Lemon v. Kurtzman. So banning gay marriage because it is a against the bible is illegal.

      I never said anything about their motivations. I just said that they were atheists. So, yes, you are one of them.

      Just because I share a belief with them doesn't mean that I am one of them. Eric Robert Rudolph was a Christian that killed people and I'm not lumping you in with him.

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this "Kwaniewski" guy. Can you produce some article so I can read up on him? Just so you know, even if you're telling the truth about this guy, it doesn't prove anything. If one atheist who behaves himself can exonorate the entire belief system, then I can make the same argument. One Christian group (the Amish) have never even dared to retaliate against anyone who wronged them. Using your logic, this completely removes any blame placed on Christians for killing anyone.

      No, it proves that an atheist taking charge of a country doesn't end a mass murders every time like you said it does.

      I didn't forget. But, you did forget about the 1 million killed by Fidel Castro, 2 million killed by Pol Pot, 25 million killed by Joseph Stalin and 60 million killed by Mao Tse Tung. If we score based on body count, you and your kind have a lead that no religion will ever be able to catch up to.

      The atrocities of the communists you named only lasted decades, the Christian dark ages lasted centuries. So I doubt these men out murdered the Christians of the dark ages. The Christian dark ages also slowed the scientific progress. darkages.gif

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      The Supreme Court has no business making such a statement. Have you ever seen the personification of justice? She's wearing a blindfold to signify that personal opinions and bias shouldn't interfere in their jobs. Upholding the Constitution is their sole responsibility. Nor should they be legislating from the bench. These people are appointed for life and never have to face the voters no matter how much they anger the public. An unelected leader, in place for life and making laws as he sees fit is the very definition of a dictator.

      And that is your opinion, which the Constitution disagrees with.

      I think it does. One of the founding principles or our country is that one individual's rights cannot intrude on the rights of another. When a gay couple threatens a church, they are trying to use their right to marriage to restrict another person's First Amendment rights. Having said that, do you agree that one individual's rights cannot intrude on another individual's rights?

      Yes, which is why I believe gays should be able to marry. I told you that I don't think any church should be forced to marry any couple they don't want to. So if that is not an issue than why can't gays get married?

      His First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution trump any state law. That law is unconstitutional.

      Your rights to religious freedom stop when you use them to discriminate against others, so no it isn't.

      Of course I don't. How can I prove what someone thinks?

      Than you really shouldn't be accusing them of it, should you?

      First of all, you say that a doctor is different from a scientist. That's right, if you mean that a doctor is someone who treats the sick and wounded. It's wrong if you mean that they're somehow different because the research they do is medical as opposed to some sort of climatology. They're both politically influenced. And it's not politically correct to say that there's no physical difference in these people and that they've made a conscious choice to engage in homosexuality. Recent events in the news show that we can't trust a scientist with a political agenda.

      What political agenda? What gain is there to be made from saying that? And you don't have any evidence to back up what you're saying.

      I've seen this already. Need I remind you that the Declaration of Independence says that our rights were endowed upon us by our Creator, that our Constitution guarantees religious freedom, that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to this as a "nation under God", that every President has ended his oath of office with the statement "so help me God" and that people in a court of law are required to swear upon a bible to tell the truth? One obscure article in a treaty that most people have never heard of doesn't cancel out a single one of those points, let alone all of them.

      Jefferson, the who wrote that document, was a deist, not a christian, and believed in the separation of church and state. But you're right, that document doesn't trump that stuff, the Constitution does. According to the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By saying that this is a Christian nation, you are establishing Christianity as this nations religion, which the is against the constitution.

      And, it's a good thing. Look at any country where you and your kind have taken over. Death on a massive scale follows . . . and it happens every time.

      That is a logical fallacy. And I've told you this a million times, I am not one of them, I am not a communist. It was communism that lead to the mass murders, not atheism. And I have looked at other countries with an atheist in charge,Poland. Aleksander Kwa&#347;niewski is an atheist and served as President for 10 years and never mass murdered anyone. Poland doesn't even have the death penalty. You also fail to remember the atrocities brought on by Christians in the dark ages, such as which hunts, the crusades, and the Inquisition.

      Post edited 1/04/10 1:08PM

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      They already have the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is not a right.

      Really, because this statement came from the supreme court. "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

      How do you reconcile this to homosexual couples in Massachusetts threatening churches with legal action for refusing to host a gay marriage? Shouldn't said gay couple search out a religion more accepting of their way of life than trying to use the courts to force it on the unwilling?

      That has nothing to do with what I said plus I already told you my opinion that matter.

      Sexual orientation isn't listed there. Yes, you do would have to paint the church under discrimination law, but that doesn't mean you be would be legally required to attend the service. That is in essence what the photographer refused to do.

      No, but sexual orientation is listed in New Mexico's state laws. But like I told you, his job requires him to attend ceremonies and photograph them. By refusing business with them on the basis that they were gay, he was breaking state law. You may not like the law, but that is your opinion.

      They sued him and got a cash settlement. If he had caved and photographed the ceremony, he wouldn't have had to pay them damages. And, trying to force this on a Christian was their plan all along. Do you really think it was a chance meeting that they went into his camera shop?

      Do you have any evidence of this?

      So was cap and trade and healthcare reform. But they crammed those bills down the throats of the people, despite being "very unfavorable in the eyes of most Americans." Political gain was given to a select few in this.

      Healthcare reform is actually a popular idea amongst most Americans. Cap and trade is unpopular on both sides of the isle for different reasons. But neither of those things have even been passed into law. Plus those have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Doctors claiming homosexuality is not a choice don't benefit them like you have claimed it does and you still have yet to explain why you think they do that.

      You've obviously never read it.

      I grew up in a Christian house hold and went to a Christian school for three years. I have read the Bible, and Jesus said to love your enemies as yourself and to do unto others as you would like to do under you. Jesus also walked among sinners and befriended them, showing that one can accept people into one's life without condoning what they do.

      My acceptance based on faith is okay for me because it's in line with my position in this debate. You're the atheist. You have to have indisputable evidence for everything you say.


      Um... no, You have to give me real evidence to support your claim if you are to taken seriously in debate. Faith is belief without evidence, therefore I cannot accept your claim as legitimate.

      Also, this is a Christian nation with a secular government that guarantees religious freedom.

      This not a Christian Nation. Or as it states in the Treaty of Tripoli, that unanimously passes the senate and was signed by president John Adams, a founding father states: Article_11.GIF
      Because our laws are secular and not religious, passing laws based on a religious believe are unconditional.

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      I'll hear out this argument completely. Please continue.

      That's it really. Gays don't want anything more that to have the same rights as everybody else. They aren't out to hurt Christianity.

      But, if you're going to concede that marriage is a religious thing, then anything not falling under the religious definition (one man, one woman) isn't a marriage.

      That's one religions view. This country has freedom of religion, and there is more than one religions so ones religious towards marriage may be different from yours. At any rate, marriage is only religions to those that want it to be.

      This argument would be valid if he had also refused to sell them a camera or film. That would be refusing to do business with them based on their sexual preference. They sued him for refusing to go their commitment ceremony. Would it be fair to sue you for refusing to go to church because you didn't share the church's beliefs?

      This man's service is going to places and taking pictures of people. He didn't like that fact that the ceremony was gay so he refused to go to it, thus refusing to do business with them. They sued him because he wouldn't serve them because they were gay which is against the law.

      Yes he does! A man absolutely has the right to stand up for what he believes in.

      Not really... the civil rights act of 1964 states that business cannot discriminate or refuse business on the basis of race, religion, and gender. So a photographer cannot do my mentioned action. Likewise, if a I were a painter, I cannot refuse to paint a church because I don't like churches.

      No they weren't. They didn't go ahead with the ceremony until they had tried everything they could to drag the Christian there against his will.

      I don't recall seeing that is the article you sent me.

      Yes, it does . . . in a way. Those scientists came with a preconceived idea that global warming was man-made, looked far and wide for evidence and (when they couldn't find it) just made it up. If one research group had to fudge the numbers to make it look like global warming was man-made, what did the rest of them have to do?

      This is whole different issue so let's hold off on that for now, ok?

      Those corrupt scientists were doctors, too. They just weren't the medical kind. They had degrees in climatology (or something similar) instead of some medical degree.

      When I said doctor, I was hoping you were able to figure out that I was talking about Medical Doctors.

      No. Gay marriage is about a political issue as you can get.

      You missed the point. Doctors stating that homosexually is not a choice is not giving them political gain because homosexuality is still very unfavorable in the eyes of most Americans.

      I have religious views that tell me otherwise. But, you think that's all stupid and imaginary anyway.

      So basically you're telling me that you have no proof or evidence to support you're claims. Religions views are faith and faith is believing is something even if there it no evidence for it. The bible is just a book writen thousands of years ago by different people and then pieced together by a council. But it's interesting to note that Jesus never once talked about homosexually. In fact Jesus talked about how we must tolerant and shold love and kindness to others, even if we don't like want they do. But want ever the Bible says is irrelevant because the country is not a Christian nation.

    • DadHavoc

      9 years ago

      Not to beat a dead horse, but your entry about airport security sure hit a raw nerve with me. Can you possibly imagine the number of different weapons that could be easily taken on an airplane? A sharpened pencil could do as much damage as a knife for heavens sake. My favorite is watching the baggage handlers running around in and under planes smuggling contraband while passengers are hassled about not having toothpaste in a baggie. At our local airport, law enforcement gives the bums rush to those picking up or dropping off, yet taxis, buses and limos sit at the curb forever. Have you ever looked at the nationality of most cab drivers? TSA is committed to reactive security rather than being proactive. Just another big government bureaucracy to soak up more of our tax dollars to create an aura of security. Oh, and don't really get me started on the caliber of most TSA personnel. At Chicago, I watched them screaming at incoming foreign travelers. What a welcome to our country!
      **end of rant**

      Have a Happy New Year!

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Technically, they were able to call it that before, legally recognized or not. Now, they have a legal foundation with which to attack churches for discrimination, just like they're doing in Massachusetts.

      Or they have a legal foundation for equal protection under the law, which is what they were going for.

      As for religious gays, now you're putting them in a position where they can use the law to force their particular views on another religious group. Being taken to court for not allowing a gay marriage in a particular church would be an example of that.

      Um...no. I'm not putting them in any position to do anything. I'm just stating facts, homosexuals can be religious, so if marriage is a religious thing then they should be able to get married.

      I'll do better than explain, I'll give you an example. In this case, the photographer was penalized because he wouldn't go to the ceremony. Going to the ceremony constitutes condoning the sexual preference of those two women. He wasn't forced to go, but he did have to pay for his refusal. Either way it was a violation of the First Amendment. And, don't think this was some chance meeting. Those two knew that this was a business owned by Christians and went in with the intention of taking them to court. At no point was the Christian either desiring or able to stop this ceremony. He simply wanted no part of it. That couple could have simply gone to another photographer, but that wasn't good enough for them. What was the point of having their ceremony if they couldn't insult a Christian in the process?

      Private businesses in New Mexico do not have the right to discriminate against homosexuals. In other words, private businesses in New Mexico cannot refuse to serve people who a gay. It does not matter what religios beliefs they hold. Witchcraft is against the Bible as well. Let's say there was a straight couple who wanted to hire the same photographer for a witchcraft ceremony. Would he have the right to refuse because he is against witchcraft? No, because that is discrimination. It does not matter what reasoning the behind your discrimination is. And they weren't trying to insult Christianity, they were fighting intolerance and discrimination.

      Are you familiar with the scandal known as "Climate-gate"? This was an example of scientists blatantly falsifying data to backup their own preconceived notions. I'm not looking to start a debate about climate change. What I'm looking to do is to point out that you can't take everything a supposed scientist says. It's a sad thing to say, but the days of objective science are over. Science is now subject to political influence and political correctness which say that homosexuality is okay.

      Just because a few people were corrupt with the evidence doesn't mean the idea as a whole isn't true. Those people who corrupted the data were not everybody in the scientific community. And I don't believe everything scientists tell me. But the people I sited aren't scientists they are medical professionals, you know, doctors. I'm more liable to trust a doctor's analysis of a medical topic than I am of somebody who works in a power plant. And what makes you like that this analysis is based off of anything political? Most politicians and voters are still openly against homosexuality. So for a group of doctors to say homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed is actually the less publicly favored view and therefore more risky to say. And what reason do you have to disagree with their analysis?

    • Atheist_101

      9 years ago

      I try not to take any drugs (except weed,but not too much of it).

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Fine by me.

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      In my home state of Indiana, they passed a law stating that homosexuals cannot get married to one another.

      First of all they shouldn't have the rights of married people because they're not married. Two gay men living in the same house and having sex together is two gay men living in the same house and having sex together. They're not married. They'll call it a marriage, but it's not.

      Straight couples do that all the time so I don't see where you're going with that. Marriage goes beyond living in the same house and having sex. But for those gays who do get married is states like yours, they can call it marriage when they get married because they legally are.

      I'll cite my earlier argument about marriage being a religious thing and the government only getting involved because of money.


      Marriage is only religious to those who want it to be. Atheists don't get married for religious reasons do they? And why can't it be a religious thing for gays getting married? I know many gays who are religious.

      Second, you cannot force people to accept what they consider to be wrong. See, there's this thing called the First Amendment that says they they don't have to.

      You have yet to explain to me how you are being forced to accept homosexually.

      Furthermore, it seems like you're trying to say that you don't believe gays should be able to forcefully desecrate a church, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with it if they did.

      Where did I say that?

      But, the article doesn't state exactly why it isn't a choice. It just says that it isn't and this is what you should do. Also, I have my own reasons for believing that it is a choice, but you wouldn't believe them.

      Right because a power plant operator would know more about the human psyche than medical professionals that spend years studying studying human behaviors.

    • monopoly_j

      9 years ago

      1.gif

      I want to take this time to wish you a very MERRY CHRISTMAS!
      avatar-body.png

      Luke 2:1-20

      nativity-scene-thumb1713954.jpg

      barlites02.gif

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Gay marriage first than healthcare.

    • Ninjen13

      9 years ago

      I always thought you were supposed to wear black at a funeral.

      Traditionally yes. But that no longer applies. PLUS I was in the wedding party. I was a groomsman but instead of wearing a pant suit i got to wear a dress. The only colour you do not wear to a wedding is white....unless otherwise specified on the invitation.

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      He did not cite his source. Nowhere in that article did it state that there are 27,000 preventable deaths every year because people do not have insurance. Go back and read it again.

      I did and I found this.

      "The end result is that the uninsured receive a lot less care than the insured. And sometimes this lack of care kills them. According to a recent estimate by the Urban Institute, the lack of health insurance leads to 27,000 preventable deaths in America each year."

      Don't believe me look for yourself. www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      This is the link that from the American Academy of Pediatrics that states that homosexuality is not a choice.

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      First of all, they're not passing a law saying gays can't marry. They're just not going to pass a law saying that they can (interfering by not interfering, as you claim).

      Have you been living under a rock? Most states have laws banning gay marriage, like my own.

      Further more, if it's nobodies' business, why do they need government recognition and approval? Why do they need the government's support if they don't care who accepts it?

      If John and Jake what to get married, how is it your busyness? It doesn't affect you any. You can go on about you life and they can go about theirs. They need government support so that they can get the rights that come with getting married.

      The answer is that they plan to use discrimination laws against people that disapprove. This has already been attempted in neighboring Massachusetts. It's not good enough that gays can get married. Some of them aren't content to get married at the Justice of the Peace, a park, a hotel, the beach, etc. No, it has to be a church; and not just any church. It absolutely has to be one that doesn't approve of their way of life. If they can't desecrate a church in the process, what's the point of getting married?

      I am against the government forcing the churches to marry couples when they don't what to, gay or strait. But I don't think that is what going on here. I don't think gays are wanting to desecrate churches or are being anti-Christian, they want to be accepted. And why shouldn't they be?

      And, I'm taking a guess that you're referencing some sort of gay gene. This is ludicrous. Anyone with even a slight knowledge of genetics would realize that a gay gene would have bred itself out long ago for obvious reasons.

      Not if its a recessive gene. If it's recessive that it can be carried by someone who is not gay. For example midget couples often have children who are not midgets. Another example is whether one is right of left handed. My brother is left handed, yet both of my parents are right handed. Plus the [link=http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1827American Academy of Pediatrics [/link] stated that it isn't a choice. Look at yourself, do you choose to feel attracted to women, or are you attracted with a reason. And why would anybody choose to be that way?

      Lastly, I've already made my argument about the pursuit of happiness. They have the right to do what makes them happy, but they do not have the right to try to make me accept it.

      And nobody is making you. You live in a state where gays can get married and that hasn't stopped you from disapproving of them. Although I don't see why you do.

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      I didn't lie I misunderstood, there is a big difference between the two and I don't think I should have to explain it to you. At any rate I was right right about something, Medicare doesn't cover expenses for non life threatening treatments and elective surgeries.

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Right about Medicare. While it is true that Medicare denies more claims than private companies, that fact alone doesn't mean much compared to the reason coverage was denied. Let me explain, the website you had me look at didn't just show the percentage of denials, it showed the reasons for them. The reasons are listed in a number a code called Claim Adjustment Reason Codes. You can find the code here. The number one reason for healthcare coverage denial is code 109, which means that Medicare doesn't cover it. Medicare doesn't cover a lot of things that are not life threatening, so it would make sense that Medicare would have a lot of denials. Now let's look at the private sector's number one reason for denial, number 27, cost. That's right, private healthcare providers drop people because it will cost to much. Life saving surgery is often the most expensive so if you get sick, and the private healthcare companies think that saving you life will cost them too money, you're dead even though you payed money into the system. Healthcare companies care more about money than human life.

      Post edited 12/17/09 2:00PM

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Just because its an opinion piece doesn't mean it can't have facts on in it. I mean, my your logic, nobody should take what Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly say as fact either. He used facts to back himself up and sited his source. The New York Times article got the number from here.

      Post edited 12/16/09 10:20PM

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Who said it was?

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Can you prove this?

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      I didn't delete anything.

    • isharanger

      9 years ago

      yeah i know that

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      It's not. The government cannot and never has gone into someone's home and told people they can't be gay. I've already said what I think about that (pursuit of happiness). The government intrusion is someone trying to force me to accept their sexual preferences and way of life.

      When the government passes a law telling you that you can't do something, it is getting into your life. And how are they forcing their life lifestyle on you? Two dude getting married isn't your business because it is their life. I mean come on, you live in state that has gay marriage and has your life changed any? Nobody has stopped you from disliking homosexual acts have they? And what's wrong with being gay in the first place. It isn't a choice, science has shown us that.

      It was a religious thing used for political ends.

      It was a money thing.

      Would that make marriage vows a legally binding contract? Why are adulterers not sent to jail for violating the "to have no other" clause? Is it even considered a crime? No, the government does not enforce it. Oddly enough, you can sue your former boyfriend/girlfriend for breaking up with you. The legal term is "alienation of affection." I never quite understood that. But, that's for another discussion.

      A married couple has to go to court to get divorced, thus making marriage a legal matter.

      Now you're turning it into a moral issue. And, we've already had the discussion about morals.

      I'm stating facts. Gays are a contributing part of modern day society.

    • simplymonica

      9 years ago

      I want to kill the person in the next room. That is my issue.


      I may get thrown in jail if I don't plan this out. >_>

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Marriage has always been a spiritual/religious matter.

      Not really, and even if that were true it doesn't make it right. Marriage had been used as a political tool for many years, people got married not out of love but out of who their parents thought would make a financial gain. That's right marriage was set up by the parents not the people getting married.

      It had no place outside of the church/synagogue/mosque until recently. And, the only reason the government got involved in it is because someone realized they could sell a license and make some money.

      Marriage makes a legal binding between two people and the government is there to reinforce it.

      My case against gay marriage is that it is a religious matter and therefore government interference in it is a violation of the 1st Amendment (and so is the marriage license requirement).


      But it isn't a religious matter, at least not to every one. Two atheists can get married in a secular wedding so it isn't religions to them. You are forcing you religions believes onto the people and are discriminating against a group of people, the gays, that have proven themselves to be contributing and productive to our country.

      Also, I second RvBRecruit. Why is it a human right?

      Because two consenting adults should have the right to marry if they want to regardless of what gender they are. And you, you claim to be small government don't you? And yet you see no problem with the government intruding into the private lives of the gays.

      Post edited 12/13/09 11:04AM

    • simplymonica

      9 years ago

      smiley2.gif

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      We've been going in circles so I say yes.

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Why can't gays get married?

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Maybe so but I still gave you good reason for murder to be against the law. And that's why it is against the law, it's not because of the bible. If we want to go by its rules than we better start killing gays. Would you be ok with that?

      Post edited 12/10/09 11:17AM

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      No it isn't. If the murder became legal tomorrow would the country stay afloat? That is how I know murder is wrong.

      Post edited 12/10/09 11:09AM

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      If I am right and there is not god, would it still be wrong to murder and why?

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      There is also my request that you answer the question of why it is or isn't alright to kill if there is no higher being.


      I asked first.

      Post edited 12/10/09 8:51AM

    • Demon505

      9 years ago

      Ok, now would you please respond to my comments?

    • simplymonica

      9 years ago

      Ugh.. Save me dad.

  • Questions

    No questions have been answered yet