It's not necessarily the media that says that global warming is happening, so much as every major scientific institution in the entire world. The fact that a number of Republicans have chosen to deny science has nothing to do with the media.

Let me break this down for you:

1. Our planet is currently warming faster then at any other point in recent history.

2. The primary cause of this warming is from Greenhouse gasses, the most common of which is CO2.

3. Humans activity has caused CO2 levels to rise much more than is natural.

Jake there is no other valid explanation for global warming than that greenhouse gasses are causing an unnatural change in the climate.

Let's not make this a political issue, even though it seems to have become one. The evidence points to global warming, yet for some reason many conservatives don't want to accept this. Perhaps it's because stopping global warming would require government intervention, and Republicans don't like that. Perhaps it's because it would hurt the oil companies.

I don't know, and really I don't care.

What I do know is that global warming, is happening, and that if we allow petty political arguments to get in the way of stopping it then our planet is seriously screwed.

What I find most depressing about your argument is that you provide no evidence, and don't even mention the issue at hand. What you say can't even be considered a statement, but instead an implication that has very little (if anything at all) to do with the science of global warming.

1. Well we both know Bush has never been all that keen on politics...Cheney has been pretty damn loud though. I'm not sure I've heard Bill telling him to shut up.

2. That was my point...he talks about dumb tabloid issues as if they're real news. My main point was that he consistently misrepresents the facts for the right.

3. If we don't get rid of the system completely we will continue to lose troops. Considering the fact that we are in two wars right now, that seems kind of important. The reason Obama isn't doing anything about it right now though is because he doesn't want to tick off the officers, who, as the link I posted earlier shows, tend to be more conservative then the enlisted men.

4. The fact that he was an attention whore was only a pretense to get upset with him.

Hatred towards atheists is common in the real world.

5. Say what you want, but global warming is super super cereal.

1. He was still president of the United States...or does that mean anything anymore.

2. Like when he got really angry about Jammie Lynn Spears pregnancy. That was really gritty. Or how about when he lied about Churchill to try and discredit Obama. That certainly wasn't about politics.

3. First, no one is going up to kids saying, "hey I'm gay!" as O'Reilly would like you to believe. However, I don't see that there's anything wrong with explaining to a kid that you like boys instead of girls, or girls instead of boys. Obviously don't go out of your way, but what if the kid asks "why aren't you married?" then you don't really have much of a choice. As far as students (one of the people O'Reilly told to shut up was a gay high school student), who doesn't discuss sex with their friends? "Yo Bobby, why don't you have a girlfriend?" seems like a pretty fair question in a school environment. How about starting an activism group like the Gay Straight Alliance? Should highschoolers not be allowed to do this either? An organisation that attempts to have an open discussion about our differences in order to create a healthier and open atmosphere? I guess not.

As for the military: don't base arguments on stereotypes...you might end up looking dumb. Turns out a study checked to see what the ideologies and party affiliations of the military were...turns out they aren't all the southern conservative "homophobes" you make them out to me. The Officers are more conservative and more religious (in fact I've read accounts of atheists who were passed up for promotions because they weren't "religious enough) then the general population; however the enlisted men are not at all. Also, let's give our armed men and women some credit here: do you really think they won't appreciate the service of men and women risking their lives for our country just because they're gay? No offense, but look at your argument...doesn't it sound similar to an argument against letting blacks serve with whites in the military? Because it might cause some unnecessary animosity?

As far as the whole fighting force thing...it's not just the ones that are on the front lines that are being kicked out. 55 soldiers that knew Arabic have been kicked out, among the 11,000 total removed from don't ask don't tell. If you want to see how unjust the system is, read this guys story. Or this guys. It's not about making our fighting force "open minded", but about taking advantage of every resource we have regardless of sexual preference. This is how we can make our force better...not by firing people who are trying to serve, while at the same time extending the stay of others. That just doesn't make any fucking sense.

4. I have nothing to add to my previous statements. Christians, Jews, Muslims...they will push their religion on you given the chance. The fact that an single incident with an Atheist gets attention says more about our society then about the kid. Don't forget, he did get kicked out for being an Atheist, and honestly, I'm not sure I would have said the pledge had I been in his place. When I go to Church, I usually stay silent the whole time.

When I'm asked about my views I say, I was raised Catholic but I'm not religious... people don't always respond well when you say you're an atheist (refer to the Dane Cook video).

5. Except for global warming

Make sure you read the article

...he was referring more to the people who bring nothing new to the debate. Just critics to be critics.

I guess President Jimmy Carter was being a critic just to be a critic. I guess a former U.S. president didn't bring anything new to the debate.

He's also attacked advocates of the death penalty and plenty of corrupt CEOs. He is, as well, an environmentalist.

Great...his views aren't perfectly in line with every conservative...that still doesn't mean he's not an idealist. I agree with Keith Olbermann on a lot of issues...that doesn't mean he's not an idealist.

He invites guests on the show to yell at them. He rarely listens, but instead interrupts and tells people to shut up. In fact, he wants anyone with different views then him to shut up. Let's take the gay issue. Do you think it's alright for people to be openly gay? I wonder what Bill thinks?

"My thesis, you may know, is that nobody should ever talk about their sexuality in any—in any regard ever. You should not define yourself that way. It just makes life a lot rougher. So, therefore, I would probably say, if you're a gay celebrity, shut up."

—March 21, 2001

"I am in favor of having equal treatment for everyone. But I'm also in favor of having everybody in the military shut up about their sexuality. All right. Not discuss it, it's not germane. It's irrelevant."

—Dec. 20, 2000

"You can do whatever you want. Just shut up about it. Little kids don't need to know whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, a cross-dresser, whatever. Don't discuss it. That's reasonable."

—Sept. 28, 2000

"I don't want the Scout master to tell my boys if he's gay, if he's straight, if he's a bigamist, if he's anything. I don't think that has any place in Scouting, so therefore I don't think the Scouts are wrong in saying shut up. We just don't want to hear about this."

—Aug. 29, 2000

"Why didn't you just—why—why didn't you just not say anything? This—I never can get this for you guys, and I—and I don't mean to be arrogant or anything like—I just don't get it. Just shut up about it. Who cares what you do? That's what the Air Force is asking you to do. Shut up."

—June 8, 2000

"If I were Rosie O'Donnell and I didn't want to get married, I'd shut up. The same thing with Madonna. Have the kids if you—you know, obviously, they have money. They can support the kids. But I'd shut up."

—Dec. 14, 1999

"I'm asking you to shut up about sex."

—Sept. 23, 2002

O'Reilly: "I don't go running around telling everybody about my sex life, and I don't think you do either, do you?"

Hugh Downs: "No, you don't have to—"

O'Reilly: "So just shut up about it."

Bill wants us all to go back to puritan times where no one discusses sex ever...which is kinda funny looking at all the times he talked about gay people.

seriously... do you actually watch his show?

Occaisionally. I find him far too obnoxious to watch on a regular basis.

the atheist was just a little attention whore. He was in the middle of a Boyscouts pledge and in that there's a mentioning of serving God and country and the kid said "o, i'm an atheist".

I don't know when the kid became an atheist, but he was an eagle scout so clearly he went a long time in scouts without mentioning that he was an atheist. He speaks up once and suddenly he's an "attention whore". Please.

Now, I personally have been very quite about my atheism...almost none of my friends know that I'm an atheist, and I haven't told them because a couple are fairly religious. However, I will absolutely defend the right of anyone who wants to be open about their beliefs. Christians put Jesus fish on their cars, build tremendous churches, and knock on peoples doors trying to convert them...but one little atheist mentions that his beliefs...perhaps at a slightly inappropriate time, and he gets crucified. Turn on your T.V. right now and tell me how many atheist channels you can find.

I'll wait...

None? Wow... you'd think that those attention whore atheists would want to announce it to everyone. Now how many Christian networks did you find? The T.V. in my room only gets about 25 channels, but I'll be damned it 3 of 'em weren't Christian based...not that there's anything wrong with that, people have a right to free speech; however don't tell me that it's atheists who are the attention whores.

Refer to Dane Cook on Atheist Attention Whores.

Eh..south park did a better job making fun of atheists. (And for the record, I say bless you)

Edit: Forgot to include a great criticism of O'Reilly that is much more articulate than mine.

"From your tone I can only assume you are homosexual or you are close to someone who is."

Nope...nice try though.

"Well in any case the web sites in your response i've already read and like all the rest they are full of "psycho babble.""

Hmmm...."psycho babble" you say. That's pretty interesting since not a single one of the sources I gave had anything to do with psychology. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

Source 1 was about a BYU professor who presented evidence that homosexuality is biological.

FTA: "To prove his statements, Bradshaw offered data ranging from clinical evidence, brain anatomy, birth order and genetic studies."

Are any of these psychological? No. Are all of these biological and objective? Yes.

Now, other psychological studies were mentioned, but I'm not sure what causes these to be considered "psycho babble". Is it because they contradict your views?

Source 2 did just what it's title suggested. It discussed an evolutionary rationale for homosexuality.

Once again, this is not psychology.

Sources 3 and source 4 both talked about physcial studies of the brain. These are facts, and as you said: "The key elements in finding the truth are knowing the facts".

Now maybe all this isn't your fault. Maybe you just didn't read the articles, or, possibly, you just don't know the meaning of the word psychology.

"Now lets examing some facts, Homosexual sex is only engaged in for the so called pleasure of the participants and nothing more. Whereas heterosexual sex is not only done for pleasure but also for producing children. Therefore marriage was created for the rearing of these children."

Have you ever heard of birth control? More often then not, heterosexual sex is for pleasure as well.

In addition, marriage is more then just an institution to raise children, but also as a way for two individuals to express there love for each other, and make a lifetime commitment to that love.

What I fail to see is how any of this proves why homosexuality is not biological.

If all homosexuals where seperated from the rest of society in less than a hundred years they would cease to exist. This is why we have the modern homosexual movement, and organizations such as manbla so that new souls can be brought in.

Wow, I like how you backed this statement up with facts...you know, because "the truth will set us free".

First, what the fuck is "manbla" and why does it have anything to do with this debate?

Secondly, homosexuality has existed among humans for thousands of years, in numerous different cultures. How would this be possible if people aren't born gay? The "gay conspiracy" that you continue to describe would have to have started separately in different parts of the globe among widely different peoples all around the same time. This is just plain ridiculous.

In addition homosexuality is found in thousands of species of animals. Is there a gay conspiracy among chimpanzees? Lions? The clear answer is that the causes of homosexuality are in fact biological.

So you tell me...whose side do the facts really support?

Now i can back up my arguments also with scientific research.

Really? Well it's about time.

Homosexuals can change and go on to lead normal lives. Now I'm going to give out one web site that will back me up. I could give out many more but something tells me no matter how many i give out you will only dimiss them as someones opinion! So i guess this information will be for others who read this and follow up for themselves because i not asking anyone to only take my word for it but to find out for themselves and have the courage to believe the truth when they find it. The name of the website is NARTH.COM.

A website that claims to be able to convert homosexuals, straight. Well, I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that their claims of "success" have been proven fraudulent time and time again.

Here is an article about faked evidence.

Here is another article that shows the same thing.

And here is a written apology by three former leaders of a group that attempted to turn gay people straight. You will find that this letter is on a website for a support group for people who had to go through the trauma these "conversion therapies". This supposed treatment causes more psychological harm then good, and can appropriately be called "psyco babble."

You seem to be very concerned with truth, and the is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. Psychological problems only occur when people like you attempt to make people feel bad about something that is perfectly natural.

He's just saying that certain people need to shut up.

Let's look at the people he wants to shut up

-Gay kid

-Atheist

-Critic of George Bush's Policies

And then you go on to say:

...what i like about him is that he's not an ideologue. He couldn't give two shits if someone was a Republican or a Liberal...

I am work right now, so I can't exactly burst out laughing, but trust me I want to.

The guy flat out deceives people, by misrepresenting the facts, and guess which side he lies for 99% of the time? If you guessed either for conservatives, or against liberals then you would be correct.

And which group does he usually complain about? Far left-wingers, or the liberal media.

Going back to my previous point about him wanting Bush critics to "just shut up" because we are in war, don't you find it strange that he isn't following his own advice in his criticism of Obama? Of course not.

So, I disagree that O'Relly's style is "something that's hard to find nowadays," just go to any conservative blog, and find the angriest guy there...you'll see that his style is all too common.

Scientists have confirmed that temperatures before the last ice age were about 4C higher than they are now.

Could you please show me what "ice age" your talking about.

I have not seen anything about how long the rate of global warming will remain the way it is now.

Actually, the warming is accelerating, and shows no signs of stopping. The main thing that is happening is that more and more ice is melting, releasing more CO2 that is trapped either in, or beneath that ice. In addition, snow tends to reflect sunlight. As more and more snow melts at the poles, less is being reflected, and more is being absorbed. This causes more ice to melt, and thus expedites the process further. If you've taken biology, you might be aware of the term positive reinforcement system. If not you can look it up, because it applies.

I must once again though ask why your "beliefs" are somehow more accurate then every major scientific organisation in the world.

I would agree, and only add that we should guarantee higher education to anyone who can qualify.

The main reason for this is that the average number of children a woman has is inversely related to her education level. The longer women stay in school, the longer they wait to settle down and have kids.

How could you possibly agree that humans have no major role in warming the climate?

Do you know more then nearly every climatoligest, and every major scientific organization on earth?

Clearly you have been poorly educated; however I will be happy to clear up any confusion that you may have.

Do you deny that the earth is warming?

Do you deny that this warming is much greater then can be explained by natural phenomenon?

Do you deny that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is contributing significantly to this warming process?

Do you deny that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels over the past century, is responsible for excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

Which of these do you deny, because I would be more than happy to explain any and all of them.

Well, how long does it take to develop new forms of fuel?

Exactly 0 years.

We already have other forms of fuel. Coal is one of the biggest contributers to fossil fuels, and we can easily replace it with solar, wind and geothermal energy.

In addition, hydrogen fuel cell technology, and current technology for electric cars is easily good enough to replace fossil fuels within the next decade if we seriously invest in it.

If you read my arguement you would realize that I said only take parts of the Parks.

It's still cutting down oxygen providing trees. And, as a side note, who the fuck would want to cut down parks? I wanted to address that earlier, but there were too many other things wrong with your argument.

By the way, I like how you ignored the rest of my argument. Sometimes looking the other way when people prove you wrong is the best way to save face...good work!

So let me get this straight...first you want to cut down national parks to make room for more people, and now you want to plant more plants? Pick one so that I can tell you specifically why your wrong.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that you pick the plant more plants thing. While this is a good and noble idea, it's about the same as using a wet washcloth to put out a forest fire.

In order to have an effect we would first have to stop the extreme amount of deforestation that occurs in rainforests in order to make land for crops and grazing livestock. In case you were unaware (and I'm guessing from your previous comments that you are) the rainforests are responsible for producing around 20% of the world's oxygen. Therefore any reforestation would first have to replace the damage that has already been done...assuming you could stop people from cutting down the rainforests, and therefore putting lots of people out of a job...but, hey how hard could that be?

In addition, not only would we have to both stop people from working for a living, and replace all the trees we've already cut down, but we would have to actually grow more trees then were there before, because of the amount of CO2 and we are putting in the atmosphere.

I also must ask if you know how long it takes for a tree to grow? They don't spring up over night that's for damn sure. Reforestation would take decades if we began right now.

Finally, we must consider that all what I just mentioned, only deals with CO2. While that is the most significant greenhouse gas, there are others that would not be stopped merely by complete reforestation.

The amount of carbon dioxide put into the air by humans is small

Wrong. Humans put more then 120 times the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as do volcanoes.

Don't plants need carbon dioxide to live? If stop emiting CO2 into the air the plant will die.

How do you think plants lived before fossil fuels? Obviously plants need some CO2, but the point is that there is way more then the plants can possibly take up. A certain amount of CO2 is emitted naturally by all animals, and other sources (like the volcanoes I mentioned), and this is good; however the extreme amounts of CO2 we put in the atmosphere coupled with deforestation is making CO2 rise way more then is natural.

I find it very sad that you have been duped by those people who deny that global warming exists. Please, do yourself a favor and read about the subject, because right now you are spewing nonsense.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are causing the planet to warm up, and the number one cause of these gasses is human activity. These are facts, and to ignore them is just plain ignorant.

It was the user "Supremelord"...you can tell by looking at his reward points.

It is.

Telling someone to shut up, just because they disagree with you is limiting their right to free speech. It's actually a command.

Calling someone a dick, while arguably not very mature, is doing no such thing. I also gave reasons, and if you want me too I can give more. The guy flat out misrepresents the facts in order to suit his own political views. As a journalist (if he can even be called that) it should be your job to educate people. What O'Reily (and most of Faux news, with one or two exceptions) does is flat out deceive.

When you take that into consideration, I think calling him a dick was an understatement.

Oh! Just suggestions! That's much more reasonable. I know when I'm talking to someone in a debate, I often suggest that they "just shut up."

Face it pyg, the guys a dick. He reports with complete disregard for the facts, and is extremely rude to anyone who disagrees with him. I am perplexed by your continued support of this guy. Trust me, he's not worth it.

You just described social darwinism...have you ever heard of Hitler?

I personally agree with Darwin on this issue:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

I don't know about the whole mic cutting thing, but I do know that O'Reilly certainly likes to tell people to "shut-up" when they disagree with him.

Anecdotal evidence is useless in a debate. Unless you plan to back up your claims with actual evidence, then it is safe to assume that your opinions are just that...opinions. It is also safe to assume that your making all this shit up, because it has been evidenced in countless studies that homosexuality is not a choice, but that biology plays a significant role in whether someone is homosexual or straight.

Here is some actual evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, or as a result of abuse or mistreatment, but instead the result of biological factors:

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488

http://zero.poynt.zero.googlepages.com/home

http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar/sexandthebrain346/?searchterm=levay

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/06/17/ proof-positive-homosexuality-is-biological-not-political/

So next time, before you open your mouth and spew out gallons of bigoted verbal diarrhea, make sure your claims are backed up by the facts...otherwise you might come off looking pretty dumb.

This is assuming that gay people are exactly the same as straight people.

This is ignoring the scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.

This is, in essence, ignoring that homosexuality even exists.

Straight people are allowed to marry who they are attracted to, and gays aren't.

If the government outlawed insulin, diabetics would be upset, but technically (according to your definition) they aren't being discriminated against because they are being treated the same as those people who don't have diabetes.

I agree completely. There has never been a better tool for discovering and learning then the internet. There are tons of great sites out there that can change your perspective, and help you learn about a whole range of subjects.

If I had to recommend one, I would say ted.com. It is an amazing site that has talks on all kinds of topics by extremely interesting people.

Assuming what your saying is that hard work is what we want to encourage, do you agree that we need to make it more difficult to pass on wealth?

Do you agree that there is nothing difficult with about inheriting money?

Do you also agree that many people start out disadvantaged, and that often bad luck plays a part in peoples financial troubles (i.e. medical difficulties, and layoffs that have nothing to do with a persons work ethic)?

You must understand that a purely capitalist system does not address any of these concerns. You also have to understand that capitalism rewards not just hard work but also greed. Those employers who outsource to countries with cheap labor can make more money, but are actually hurting the society as a whole.

I understand that you have grown up in an environment where Smithian economics are practically a religion, but you must understand that capitalism is not the answer to everything.

(For the sake of this argument I am going to assume that this debate does not deal with personal decisions made by politicians, but instead with decisions affecting policy.)

First off let me start by saying politicians, in general should not be making moral decisions. Morality tends to be subjective, and therefore the moral decisions must be left up to individuals. For example, something should never be outlawed for the mere fact that it is considered immoral. Instead one must look at the positive and negative effects of outlawing and how it will affect the society they are ruling. By looking at laws in this way, you can see that the decisions made by politicians should not be moral at all, but instead based on reason.

In addition, by basing laws off a particular religious belief system, the state is indirectly supporting the views of a religion. This becomes a conflict in places where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state (like the U.S. for example). I must reiterate that laws that govern a diverse cross section of people must be based on reason, because not everyone has the same moral code. Otherwise, people will have their freedom restricted.

I'm pretty sure you didn't understand my point, so allow me to explain myself. Homosexuality is found throughout nature, in numerous species. Therefore, calling homosexuality unnatural would be misleading (at the very least).

You are correct that we do not have the same genes as fish. But as I said earlier, homosexuality is prevalent in nature, and therefore must be genetic in all of the species I named (including many mammals, and some primates). Therefore if humans were not born homosexual, then this would make our species an exception.

None of this matters however, because we have studied humans, and homosexuality is not a choice. It has to do with a combination of genetics, and hormone levels in the womb.

I am no biologist so my credibility only extends as far as my source's credibility. In this case my source is the video I linked to which is made by a biology student. I have found all of his videos very informative and factually accurate and therefore find no reason to doubt him. If you want to check out his page here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2

Most of his videos are about evolution and debunking creationist arguments.

You are right that today we identify first with our country, and second with our state, but that attitude has evolved over our nations history. Originally people considered themselves "Virginians" or "Pennsylvanians" as opposed to Americans. In fact, when using the United States of America, people would say: "The United States of America are..." as opposed to "The United States is..." which is what most people use today.

I assume the same would happen with a world government. Groups would still associate with their own nation first. Differences in culture would probably slow any type of homogenation, however.

Maybe what Hamas did was wrong but this doesn't mean the people should have to suffer. These are people just trying to live their lives. If you watch the video you will see the Israelis attacking people without provocation, and not only that but they have stopped international aid from coming in to help the Palestinians.

Regardless of who is "right" the violence needs to stop. Wheather you disagree with one side or the other innocents are being killed on both sides at an alarming rate. Anyone interested in this topic might want to watch this video.

what if we allowed nations freedom to govern how they wished but had a world organization that dealt only with universal issues? I think we can all agree that human rights and environmental policy are two areas where an international government would be useful, but at the same time not be imposing on other cultures. Allow the nations to keep doing what their doing except in a select few areas that affect the world as a whole. Otherwise you have nations like China who pollute incredible amounts and answer to no one, or like zimbabwe where the government has allowed thousands of it's citizens to starve to death.

Well put. I was going to respond but you basically covered everything I was going to say. I would only add that I never said he was a bigot for opposing marriage, I was talking about how he does recognize where the real discrimination is coming from.

In today's society people discriminate against homosexuals all the time. In the classroom, at people's offices, in people's own families. Right now, in many places throughout the U.S. being homosexual is something to be ashamed of. When kids think something is lame what do they say? "That's gay." I think this fact alone speaks volumes of the homophobia in today's society.

You are looking at the extreme examples at the expense of the whole picture. If someone said you could not marry the person you loved, would you be upset? Would you do whatever you could to fix what you perceived as a grave injustice? I want you to understand that I do not condone violence, but legal action is perfectly within people's rights.

People are upset, and they have just reasons for being upset. If someone tells you that you were to live in a country that promises "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but later you find out that this is a lie, wouldn't you be upset? Would you be pretty fucking pissed off? Once again, anger to the point of violence is wrong, but fighting for your rights is reasonable....hell, it's American.

As for the vote on prop. 8, the majority should never have the power to take away rights from a minority group. It has happened in our past when other groups were discriminated against based on race. People voted on laws democratically, but eventually courts overturned these laws. Such was the case in California before prop. 8 was passed. The California supreme court deemed that disallowing homosexuals to marry was discriminatory. They came to this conclusion because they had to base their decision on facts. When the issue was put to a vote, people could base their decision on whatever reasons they wanted: their religious views, their ignorance, their intolerance and bigotry etc... Just because you don't want a certain group of people to not have rights doesn't allow you to take those rights away from them. You have to have a reason. A damn good one.

So now, tallblondebigotedguy, what are your reasons? What do you find so wrong with two people who love each other being allowed to enter into legal marriage? I swear that I am listening to your reasons now. Don't hide behind false pretenses of discrimination, or that people don't respect your views, because until you can give me your reasoning, all of that is irrelevant.

The only hatred I've seen has been coming from the homosexual community

Well then your eyes are closed. Homosexuals have been discriminated against for centuries. They were even killed in the holocaust. If you don't believe that there is hate directed at homosexuals then please check out this site.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

So how does this hurt people? I have a religion that says being Christian is an abomination, does that mean I can outlaw Christianity?

The Bible says a lot of crazy shit. You can't touch pigskin with your bare hands, you can't work on sunday etc...

But my favorite is the one that says you're allowed to beat your slave to death so long as it takes longer then a day...

So you're the one who possesses all the understanding, you just can't articulate your thoughts...Riiiiiiight

So you're just saying that homosexual marriage will never come to fruition if acts like those occurring in India continue? Does that mean it hurts people? I still don't understand the argument you were trying to make.

"there will be no homosexual couples in a world dominated by the women haters"

I'm not sure I understand how this goes to prove your point. It seems like you are saying homosexuals and women are in the same boat on this one and progress will need to be made for both. If this is what you're saying then I agree with you. If you are instead saying we shouldn't achieve equality for homosexuals until women are treated as equals around the world, then I would have to disagree. Why should homosexuals suffer as well just because women are treated badly in third world nations.

I am not trying to convince you, I am trying to tear down your ridiculous arguments. If I thought you were a reasonable person I might try to persuade you, but clearly you're not...so what's the point?

Wow, you're really grasping at straws here aren't you? Because women are mistreated and female infants are killed in India, we should ban gay marriage? Is this what you're saying? Because, if it is, you're fucking stupid.

The issue in India has to do with gender inequality. Gay marriage would actually help the situation for two reasons:

1) More homosexual couples would mean more children would be adopted. This means that less female infants would be killed and could but instead could be put up for adoption.

2) It would make genders more equal. If a woman can marry a woman and start a family without a man then this empowers women. It means that they don't need men.

Honestly I'm pretty sure that I'm not understanding you. Is this a joke? Because I can think of no other reason why you would bring up a completely irrelevant article and say homosexual marriage would exacerbate the problem. Hell, this didn't even happen in America! That doesn't make it any less of an atrocity, but it does make your entire argument irrelevant.

Let's stay on subject, okay? Saying that two people who love each other can't get married because it will open the door for other groups is a ridiculous argument. By that logic we should get rid of marriage altogether, this way none of that can happen.

Just because an institution is old doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. Actually, the fact that it is so old is even more of a reason for it to change. Our thinking has advanced since then and our institutions should reflect that . Homosexuals aren't asking anyone to change their way of life...they just want the same rights that everyone else has: the right to marry who they love.

So allow me to repeat the question you failed to answer: How can gay marriage hurt any one?

Did you watch the video? Gay animals help the survival of their siblings. And to answer your question, yes, there are gay mated pairs.

So, yes, I did answer both my opponent and the topic.

What are you talking about? I was responding to the fact that truthfinder said gay marriage went against "laws of god as seen in science." I never stated my opinion as to whether homosexuality was good, bad or neither, either. I was disputing his ideas. Laws should be based on rationality. But how does gay marriage harm anyone? Truthfinder's answer was nonsensical; almost as nonsensical as your questions are.

And even so as animals is this going to function for them as a regular mated pair?

I can't even respond to that because it makes no sense! From now on, reread what you type and think "what the fuck am I talking about" before you press the submit button. Okay?

Stop trying to sound smart because you come off looking like an idiot. Homosexuality is genetic, and therefore evolved. Look at animals, many species of mammals reptiles and fish have members that are homosexual. How can something be going against nature if it can be found so prevalently in nature?

So because a homosexual family does not fit the traditional definition of family they shouldn't be allowed to have kids? Orphans who have no parents are better off than if they have two parents who happen to be of the same sex?

Trust me when I say, no kids are hurt by having homosexual parents. I know first hand and many researchers have shown that two parents, regardless of gender, are better off then one or no parents.

Also what activities are you talking about? A girl with two moms won't have a date for the father daughter dance? Is that the biggest complaint you have? If you think we should deny people rights because school functions may need to be redefined then I think you need to get your priorities straight.

Hey Gays! Want to adopt? Leave your job! Leave your friends! Leave your house! Leave everything that you are familiar with and are accustomed to!

It's not our fault. You're the one who wanted to start a family. What nerve you had! A family! Your lucky we don't throw you in jail.

I just spent the last five minutes looking through my arguments seeing if I could find where I said "everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot" and guess what? I wasted my time! Don't put things in quotes as if I said them when I clearly didn't. If you want to use quotes copy and paste, I have written plenty of stuff, I'm sure you can find something that will go to prove your point.

If I am understanding you correctly, here is your argument: People are not being bigoted just because they don't want to be around people. Am I right so far? Because I agree with this part. Next you say: some people who don't want gays to get married only because they don't want to be around them. Is this correct? Because I think you might be right that this could be some peoples reasons. No one is asking them to hang out with homosexuals, or even talk to them so I don't understand their rationale, but at least it's an explanation. So so far we agree.

Now here's where your logic decides to jump off a cliff into a pile of razor blades after having swallowed a gallon of vodka and three bottles of sleeping pills: People are not being bigoted, or intolerant when they allow their discomfort of being around gays to affect their decisions as to whether gays should be allowed to get married. Is this the basic point your making? If not ignore the rest of the argument and clarify your position, but if so keep reading.

Denying others rights because you don't like their lifestyle is intolerant and bigoted. I may not like people with your opinions but I would never try to take away your right to voice them. Here is where the difference lies. You are allowed to be uncomfortable with how people live. I admit, I would be pretty uncomfortable around a man who wore nothing but a thong all day, but I wouldn't take away his rights. I could decide not to hang out with the thong-man. I might purposefully avoid him, but I would not take away his rights or the rights of all the thong-men in the entire state. Why? Because I know that if my lifestyle was not the popular or accepted one then I would not want people trampling on my rights.

Your metaphor is an inaccurate one for two reasons: A) there is no logic in a groups wanting to change the name of their condition; and (this is the important one) B) homosexuals aren't forcing anything on people, merely asking for the same rights as afforded to others. A change in the name of your condition does not afford you more rights. (I considered including a C that said your an idiot but I didn't think that would add anything to my argument)

And that's why we live in a secular society that bases it's laws off of rationality and not religion.

I think I may have deserved the downvote because I did not organize my last argument very effectively. Instead of getting into a long draw out thing this time, I am going to go back to my original intention.

What I was referring to as bigotry was ignoring certain facts. In this case I was talking about JakeJ, because he repeatedly claimed that homosexuality was a choice, and I repeatedly showed him the proof that it wasn't. JakeJ, and most other people opposed to gay marriage don't use your argument but instead make baseless claims (i.e. kids can be turned gay, or gay parents can't raise children). When these things have been proven scientifically, continuing to use the same arguments is dishonest.

I know that, in probably less then 50 years, the people who opposed allowing gays their rights will be considered bigots, for better or worse, and so I therefore stand by my statements.

What if I thought you shouldn't be allowed to raise kids? Would that give me the right to take away your right to adopt?

Unless you have some proof that children of homosexual parents are somehow harmed, then you are just spouting bullshit. I actually know people with gay parents. I would love to see you repeat what you just said to their face.

Okay, let me first make it clear that I never condoned violent action as a way to solve the problem. Gandhi and MLK Jr. are some of my heroes because they affected change in the most peaceful ways possible. What I also liked about them is they both recognized injustice and stood up to it without compromise. Gandhi wanted the British out of India and did not compromise on this issue. Martin Luther King wanted equal rights for African-Americans and did not compromise. There is a big difference between not wanting to compromise, and being narrow minded.

You say "Some people just don't want to be around other people." This to me is a type of discrimination. If I told you, I am not bigoted, I just don't want to be around Mexicans, you would be appalled.

Here is the definition of a bigot in wikipedia:

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own

Looking at this definition you can see clearly that not wanting to be around people who choose to be homosexual is bigotry. But that is irrelevant because no one is forcing people to be around homosexuals. This is what I don't understand about your argument. If homosexuals get married does that mean suddenly they are going to suddenly show up at your door, and when you refuse them say "Hey, you have to let us in, we're legally married now." That is ridiculous.

Of course legalizing gay marriage will not automatically get rid of bigots, I never said that and I don't believe it. When slavery was abolished, did it get rid of racism? When woman's suffrage was granted, did it get rid of sexism? No! But in the long run it helped a lot. Can you imagine anyone believing either of these issues as having two reasonable sides today? The bigots will not change their mind, but their children will be raised in a society that is more accepting, and hopefully this will have a large affect for future generations.

Being intolerant of bigotry cannot be called bigotry.

I agree that maybe gay marriage will not come to fruition in the immediate future, but that does not mean that people should stop fighting for what they believe in. Martain Luther King demanded equal rights for African-Americans. Feminists demanded equal rights for women. Asking nicely, "can we please get married, if it isn't to much of a problem for you?"

Of course what blacks suffered through in the pre-civil rights era was terrible. That does not lessen what homosexuals are going through right now. I know from seeing it at my school how much homosexuals are mistreated and outcast. This is socially acceptable, and it shouldn't be. Progress will probably be attained in smaller steps but only if people continue to fight for their rights. Obama is the perfect example of this: in order to win the presidency he had to support civil unions but not gay marriage. Lucky for me, I'm not a politician. I don't have to temper my views with the current public will. I can say what I truly believe. If a compromise were reached in the federal government that extended rights to homosexuals through civil unions I would be in favor of that, but after it was passed I would go right back to fighting for marriage. Homosexuals even lost the ability to adopt in Arkansas because they can't marry or even have civil unions:

http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/spotlight-arkansas-gay-adoption/

I also have a problem with you comparing the Homosexuals to the Nazis. First, the Nazis killed homosexuals, because they thought they were, to use your word, "vermin." What the homosexuals are not doing is killing or hurting others in any way by demanding marriage. By denying them marriage, other people are hurting homosexuals. So who is more like the Nazi's now? Don't you think its justified to loathe your oppressors? This does not mean violence, as I said earlier I am against violence.

Speaking of Bigotry though, I want you to see what homosexuals have to put up with:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Is it unfair for me to call them bigots, or am I being narrow minded?

Finally I would like to respond to this comment you made:

I have said that gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost?

And I can only respond with this quote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Who says your definition of family is correct? You think that two people who love each other should not be able to adopt merely because they are the same sex? How about single people who adopt?

Family is very important. Explain to me why homosexual parents are any less capable then heterosexual parents at raising a child.

Joe, I appreciate you compliments and I hope you know that I really do appreciate a lot of your ideas.

As for this argument, you present a very unique perspective. Allow me to respond though.

Although it is true that people often want what they can't have, this does not always mean that their demands are unreasonable. Allow me to first use the example of the American Revolution. You will often hear people say, "we defeated British tyranny over us etc..." What a lot of people don't realize is that we had it pretty good under the British. We had extremely low taxes, protection from others, and a reliable trading partner. Now a lot of stuff happened but the condensed version is, we wanted more: "Taxation w/out representation" and the like. So we had it pretty good already, but we wanted something more: liberty, inalienable rights, representative government. These are the foundations of our society today, but had we accepted what was going on at the time they may never have come to fruition.

Another example would be woman's suffrage. The common idea at the time (or at least rationalization) was that women would vote the same as their husbands so their right to vote was irrelevant. This idea seems archaic to us today, but back then it was the accepted norm. Progress eventually won out and woman gained the right that is most necessary to a democracy: the right to vote.

In both of these cases we can see how the status quo seems fine to a large number of people because it is what they are used to. Others though, see that there is an injustice occurring, and step up to fix it. I believe this explains why so many oppose gay marriage more than anything else. It is what has always been, why change it. I know you are a conservative, so know that I mean no offense when I say that conservative viewpoints have stood in the way of positive change throughout history. It is not bigotry that kept allowed slavery to continue (although that played a role) it is inaction and complacency.

Now we see the same scenario repeated. A group has been denied certain rights and now they are asking for them. You used the word militant, and I have to disagree with its connotations. African Americans were called militant when they demanded civil rights during the 60's, were they just being greedy? Or were they standing up and demanding that they be given what was promised to them as children: that all men are created equal, no different from our founding fathers who stood up during the revolution and demanded their rights.

No different then now, where a group of people want to have their love recognized under the law. They want to be part of a nation that allows the pursuit of happiness. I think that your right on one count, that is human nature. It is human nature to want acceptance, and to want equality, and to want a chance at the happiness that everyone else takes for granted.

I hope you see why I am upset at those people who prevent these people from the happiness they seek, and why I call them bigots. There crime is all too common, an inability to put yourself in your neighbors shoes. An inability to recognize the humanity of others. An inability to empathize with their suffering in a society that does not fully accept them.

Well Joe, give me one non-religious reason why people are opposed to same sex marriage. Just one.

I try to be as fair as possible in most of my arguments and usually give people the benefit of the doubt. Here though, I feel that bigotry or ignorance are the only reasons to oppose this issue. People don't choose to be gay, that is a fact. By taking away rights from people for reasons beyond their control you are discriminating against them. Plain and simple. The only difference between this and racism is that this is socially acceptable. Why? Because in some obscure passage of the Bible it says homosexuality is wrong. It also says it's okay to beat your slave to death as long as it takes a while for them to die.

I cannot be silent about my beliefs any more then those fighting for civil rights in previous generations could. There is no legitimate reason for denying happiness to another person if you are unaffected by it.

wow, repubgal, that sounded almost human ;)

I think that you hit the nail right on the head when you said homosexuality doesn't affect you personally. If more religious people took this approach then we would live in a world that had a lot less hate. I think Mark Twain put it best:

So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.

- Mark Twain, a Biography

"It hurts families, the more gay marriage the less families there will be"

Well what did you mean by this statement? How does gay marriage being legal mean less families?

HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THE FACTS!!!

Jake, at this point you are being willfully ignorant. I have shown you scientific explanations for homosexuality on numerous occasions in numerous debates. You have yet to respond to a single one. Is it because you know I'm right? Is it because you are in denial? For God's sake (and yes I use that phrase ironically) tell me what reasons you have for believing that A) "nobody is born gay" and B) they only become gay because their parents are gay?

Also you are implying being gay is wrong...by whose definition and why? Just answer me once Jake. Enlighten me with the reasons that you believe surpass science and logic. Why do you feel discrimination is okay? Have you ever even met a homosexual?

In fact there is evidence proving that homosexuality is genetic. At this point people are just willfully denying this fact because it doesn't fit into their world view. If homosexuals are born that way, then that means God created homosexuals. This is unacceptable to most fundamentalists, so they merely close their eyes, cover their ears and scream "LALALALALA" whenever someone points out the fact that they have been proven wrong.

Pyg if you think Joe's comment is kind of true, then I would suggest you use more lube ;)

Says who? Do you think making gay marriage illegal means there will be less homosexuals? Don't you think that an orphan would rather have homosexual parents rather then no parents at all? Have you even ever met a family with homosexual parents? Unlike you, I have. They were actually a lot better adjusted then most people I know who have straight parents. I'm not sure why your so homophobic Jake, but I think maybe you need to be a little more open minded.