Let's take a look of what being gay can mean in Iran

[dmp]

And yes, I was born gay, thank you.

You say that to comfort yourself. You say that to help you sleep at night. You know good and well you were NOT born with the desire to have sex with other men. NOBODY is born with a 'desire to have sex'. Sexual desires and thoughts happen MUCH later in life. You fail yourself; sell yourself short. My heart REALLY goes out to you, however.

 

[Kagom]

You say that to comfort yourself. You say that to help you sleep at night. You know good and well you were NOT born with the desire to have sex with other men. NOBODY is born with a 'desire to have sex'. Sexual desires and thoughts happen MUCH later in life. You fail yourself; sell yourself short. My heart REALLY goes out to you, however.

No, I tell myself that my mother was a good mother to help me sleep better at night. I tell myself that not everyone in the world is devoid of intelligence and logic so I can sleep better at night. But I know most of it's bullshit.

No, really, I don't do any of that.

Yes, sexual desires happen later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that we're born with them. It's a human characteristic and apart of our make-up.

 

[Reneer]

You say that to comfort yourself. You say that to help you sleep at night. You know good and well you were NOT born with the desire to have sex with other men. NOBODY is born with a 'desire to have sex'. Sexual desires and thoughts happen MUCH later in life. You fail yourself; sell yourself short. My heart REALLY goes out to you, however.

I just love it when people can mind-read over the Internet. :

And actually, people are born with the potential 'desire to have sex.' It just isn't (usually) biologically activated until puberty. And then it is all up to how the human brain developed as to how the person feels about any particular gender.

 

[glockmail]

...... I was born gay......

So your parents were gay? How does that work?

 

[Kagom]

So your parents were gay? How does that work?

My parents' sexuality has nothing to do with whether I'm gay or not. It may have been things she did while she was carrying me in the womb that affected me or chance in biology. I'm not saying that just because you're born gay necessitates it's genetics.

 

[archangel]

Uh huh. You know, I'm kinda glad you've written yourself out of my life. Thanks. And I'll bet there are a lot of combat vets who wouldn't give a damn if I 'understood' or not, but would simply be content with the fact that I support them and the military.

your life anymore than you were in mine...and you support combat vets...How? or any vet for that matter...when was the last time ya cried when your bud was hit in front of you...or dug a foxhole outta fear...or tried to comfort your loved ones that what you were doing was your choice...and for them not to blame 'Uncle Sam' for your decision...talk is cheap and very shallow...I am done for the night!

 

[Reneer]

your life anymore than you were in mine...and you support combat vets...How? or any vet for that matter...when was the last time ya cried when your bud was hit in front of you...or dug a foxhole outta fear...or tried to comfort your loved ones that what you were doing was your choice...and for them not to blame 'Uncle Sam' for your decision...talk is cheap and very shallow...I am done for the night!

Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who can't understand what he's getting at.

I had a Vietnam vet as a high-school teacher. Aside from that I've had no direct contact with combat vets. I can't be in the military (medical condition) so I'm not going to on the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan. And I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to get at - except to somehow try to show that I'm not really supporting combat vets.

But you know what? I do support them, both economically and in my thoughts and actions.

 

[KarlMarx]

I have to disagree with this, simply because it would be basically impossible for the United States / their allies to 'lose' this 'war' in a traditional sense. If we (and by we I mean U.S and allies) 'lose' this war, we don't lose territory. Our government won't be taken over. There will not be a mandatory curfew.

After 9/11, the idea of traditional warfare is out of the window. Look at Europe, where a large number of Muslims live, you will see that Muslims are causing a lot of problems. The cities in France didn't suddenly catch on fire this spring, those fires were started by disgruntled Muslim youth. The violence in the Middle East and Iran's nuclear ambitions exist because many Muslims see this struggle in the way you seem to deny. This is a war and one that stretches back over 1,000 years.

But maybe I'm looking at what you are saying the wrong way - even if we 'win' this war and kill every single terrorist, it will most likely not save one homosexual from being killed in Iran / Iraq / other countries that practice Sharia law. Unless we can make other nations understand the benefits of the separation of church & state (a.k.a removing Sharia law) then it will not help gays. Going and killing terrorists is probably not going to stop people from believing in Sharia law.

I wasn't referring to other countries, but our own. The "benefit" of separation of church and state is more of an opinion than a fact. Our constitution doesn't have a separation of church and state clause. That was a construct of a liberal judiciary. The verbiage in the First Amendment prohibits the founding of a state sponsored church, as in the Church of England, not the prohibition of the public practice of religion (the prohibition which IS in the First Amendment).

Now let me also say this: I think the 'war on terror' isn't necessarily a bad idea. I think it has been poorly outlined and poorly orchestrated, but I don't think the general reasoning behind it (well, some of it) is bad. If I was in charge, would I have done things differently? Yes. Would things be better? I can't say.

Yes, I'd take a different approach, too. For one thing, I would have been a lot more aggressive in Iraq. Invading Syria and taking military action against Iran would be high on my list too. And... I would be pressing charges against the NYT reporters that spilled the beans on those classified wiretaps...

And in regards to removing terrorists' rights and whatnot, I think that is a reprehensible idea because it sets a bad precedent - suspending all of a person's rights, no matter what they have done, allows for horrible things to be committed in the name of democracy and freedom. Should they lose some rights? Probably. If you commit a crime, you may lose certain rights. But that doesn't mean you should lose all of your rights.

I'd like to know which rights you're referring to? The Writ of Habeas Corpus? The right to be judged by your peers? The right to a speedy trial? The right to appeal?

This talk about "terrorist's rights" is a joke, just like the need for "diversity" (which is totally unnecessary given that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already protects people based on race, national origin, creed, sex and so forth). The Geneva Convention already covers many of the issues voiced by advocates for such legislation. We should not be treating foreign combatants as citizens of this country. We simply have to observe the Geneva Convention, but only those parts that were ratified by our own Senate. The Constitution is very clear about that. Knowing how these things go, eventually prisoners of war will not only be able to vote in our elections, but will be eligible for Social Security benefits, too.

 

[Reneer]

After 9/11, the idea of traditional warfare is out of the window. Look at Europe, where a large number of Muslims live, you will see that Muslims are causing a lot of problems. The cities in France didn't suddenly catch on fire this spring, those fires were started by disgruntled Muslim youth. The violence in the Middle East and Iran's nuclear ambitions exist because many Muslims see this struggle in the way you seem to deny. This is a war and one that stretches back over 1,000 years.

I live in Michigan. We have Dearborn. The Arab population in Dearborn is over 30%. Mind telling me why Dearborn isn't burning to the ground?

I wasn't referring to other countries, but our own. The "benefit" of separation of church and state is more of an opinion than a fact. Our constitution doesn't have a separation of church and state clause. That was a construct of a liberal judiciary. The verbiage in the First Amendment prohibits the founding of a state sponsored church, as in the Church of England, not the prohibition of the public practice of religion (the prohibition which IS in the First Amendment).

I love how you ignored the gist of that paragraph and honed in on the idea of separation of church & state. Sharia law is Islamic law. The 'war on terror' is not going to convince nations that are under Sharia law to give it up for something more secular. That's all I was saying. You can leave your diatribe on the separation of church and state for another thread.

Yes, I'd take a different approach, too. For one thing, I would have been a lot more aggressive in Iraq. Invading Syria and taking military action against Iran would be high on my list too. And... I would be pressing charges against the NYT reporters that spilled the beans on those classified wiretaps...

So calling out the government when they practice illegal wiretapping should be illegal now. They had a system designed specifically to make wiretapping legal. And they didn't use it.

I'd like to know which rights you're referring to? The Writ of Habeas Corpus? The right to be judged by your peers? The right to a speedy trial? The right to appeal?

This talk about "terrorist's rights" is a joke, just like the need for "diversity" (which is totally unnecessary given that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already protects people based on race, national origin, creed, sex and so forth). The Geneva Convention already covers many of the issues voiced by advocates for such legislation. We should not be treating foreign combatants as citizens of this country. We simply have to observe the Geneva Convention, but only those parts that were ratified by our own Senate. The Constitution is very clear about that. Knowing how these things go, eventually prisoners of war will not only be able to vote in our elections, but will be eligible for Social Security benefits, too.

When I wrote that I was thinking about domestic terrorists who are U.S. citizens. Sorry for not making that clear. And I was referring to all those rights you listed, but I was applying them only to U.S. citizens who are considered terrorists.

But in regards to the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. has ratified them, with some reservations.

 

[glockmail]

....It may have been things she did while she was carrying me in the womb that affected me or chance in biology....

What could that possibly be? Any studies or evidence?

 

[glockmail]

I live in Michigan. We have Dearborn. The Arab population in Dearborn is over 30%. Mind telling me why Dearborn isn't burning to the ground?....

Because that popolation immigrated before oil was discovered in the ME. Once they became rich, the arab power elitists decided that they should control the world.

 

[Reneer]

Because that popolation immigrated before oil was discovered in the ME. Once they became rich, the arab power elitists decided that they should control the world.

Oil was discovered in the ME on May 25, 1908. That's almost 100 years ago. Arabs settled in Dearborn to work in the Detroit auto industry, which was roughly starting to get off the ground by 1910+ (Ford was incorporated in 1903.) So mind rethinking that statement of yours?

And, also, what does that have to do with the riots in France anyway?

 

[Kagom]

What could that possibly be? Any studies or evidence?

Hasn't Reneer given you studies? Haven't you been given evidence before? And yes, I am avoiding the question, but not because you've stumped me. I just seem to remember someone actually answering this question of yours before in another thread.

 

[KarlMarx]

I live in Michigan. We have Dearborn. The Arab population in Dearborn is over 30%. Mind telling me why Dearborn isn't burning to the ground?

Dearborn is a town, Europe is a continent. More Muslims live in Europe than in Dearborn. When you have a population that exhibits characteristic "X" 90% of the time, you don't disregard it for the sake of the 10%. That's like saying, some people who smoke don't develop lung cancer or heart disease, therefore, the idea that smoking is bad for you must not be true.

I love how you ignored the gist of that paragraph and honed in on the idea of separation of church & state. Sharia law is Islamic law. The 'war on terror' is not going to convince nations that are under Sharia law to give it up for something more secular. That's all I was saying. You can leave your diatribe on the separation of church and state for another thread.

Getting snippy, aren't we? I realize what Sharia is. The war on terror is not supposed to convince nations to give up Sharia, it's supposed to dismantle the threat to our national security. One way to do that is to spread democracy to the Middle East.

So calling out the government when they practice illegal wiretapping should be illegal now. They had a system designed specifically to make wiretapping legal. And they didn't use it.

For your information, those wiretaps were NOT illegal. Bush is not the first president, nor will he be the last, to authorize warantless wiretaps and surveillance. Read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The president is head of the armed forces and has the duty to defend the country per Article II Section II of the Constitution. That gives him the right to conduct warrantless surveillance against agents of foreign powers so long as the primary intent of that surveillance is not criminal prosecution. That is how the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, and many other spies were outted. You confuse the limitation imposed by the Fourth Amendment regarding criminal cases with surveillance against agents of foreign powers (who are not covered by the Fourth Amendment).

But in regards to the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. has ratified them, with some reservations.

from Article II Section II of the US Constitution (Powers of the President)

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

The United States position on the Geneva Convention was, to my knowledge, ratified by the Senate sometime long ago. Under the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate, not all sections were agreed to. That is how the Constitution works.

 

[Reneer]

Dearborn is a town, Europe is a continent. More Muslims live in Europe than in Dearborn. When you have a population that exhibits characteristic "X" 90% of the time, you don't disregard it for the sake of the 10%. That's like saying, some people who smoke don't develop lung cancer or heart disease, therefore, the idea that smoking is bad for you must not be true.

But you are ignoring what happened in France. And I highly doubt that 90% of the Muslim population that exhibit characteristic X live outside of Dearborn / New York City. Also, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that simply because they are Muslim they will exhibit characteristic X, and you are not taking into account other variables such as society and whatnot. Which would help explain why Dearborn / NYC isn't burning.

Getting snippy, aren't we? I realize what Sharia is. The war on terror is not supposed to convince nations to give up Sharia, it's supposed to dismantle the threat to our national security. One way to do that is to spread democracy to the Middle East.

If it is only supposed to be dismantling the threat to our national security, then I think it's doing a poor job of it.

For your information, those wiretaps were NOT illegal. Bush is not the first president, nor will he be the last, to authorize warantless wiretaps and surveillance. Read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The president is head of the armed forces and has the duty to defend the country per Article II Section II of the Constitution. That gives him the right to conduct warrantless surveillance against agents of foreign powers so long as the primary intent of that surveillance is not criminal prosecution. That is how the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, and many other spies were outted. You confuse the limitation imposed by the Fourth Amendment regarding criminal cases with surveillance against agents of foreign powers (who are not covered by the Fourth Amendment).

So how do you know if an individual that is being wiretapped is an 'agent of a foreign power'? Terrorists by their very nature typically aren't in the employ of a foreign government.

from Article II Section II of the US Constitution (Powers of the President)

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

The United States position on the Geneva Convention was, to my knowledge, ratified by the Senate sometime long ago. Under the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate, not all sections were agreed to. That is how the Constitution works.

See here about which parts of the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the U.S. Congress.

 

[KarlMarx]

But you are ignoring what happened in France. And I highly doubt that 90% of the Muslim population that exhibit characteristic X live outside of Dearborn / New York City. Also, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that simply because they are Muslim they will exhibit characteristic X, and you are not taking into account other variables such as society and whatnot. Which would help explain why Dearborn / NYC isn't burning.



If it is only supposed to be dismantling the threat to our national security, then I think it's doing a poor job of it.



So how do you know if an individual that is being wiretapped is an 'agent of a foreign power'? Terrorists by their very nature typically aren't in the employ of a foreign government.



See here about which parts of the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the U.S. Congress.

Actually, terrorists ARE in the employ of a foreign POWER, that doesn't necessarily mean a government. And terrorists are sponsored by governments, e.g. Iran and Syria, not to mention North Korea and China...

Also, let me say this, that if we had allowed the media, and every politician in Congress to have a say in how we ran our wars, we'd all be speaking German now....

 

[Reneer]

Actually, terrorists ARE in the employ of a foreign POWER, that doesn't necessarily mean a government. And terrorists are sponsored by governments, e.g. Iran and Syria, not to mention North Korea and China...

You're correct, however, again, how do you know that they are in the employ / affiliated with a foreign power? And those wiretaps may not have been illegal, but they certainly are now (for the time being, at least.) And it has been acknowleged that the wiretaps violated FISA.

Also, let me say this, that if we had allowed the media, and every politician in Congress to have a say in how we ran our wars, we'd all be speaking German now....

Uh huh. Heaven forbid we actually use the federalist system we have to, you know, run the government like it's supposed to do.

 

[dmp]

No, I tell myself that my mother was a good mother to help me sleep better at night. I tell myself that not everyone in the world is devoid of intelligence and logic so I can sleep better at night. But I know most of it's bullshit.

No, really, I don't do any of that.

Yes, sexual desires happen later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that we're born with them. It's a human characteristic and apart of our make-up.

You are REALLY hurting inside. :-/

 

[Kagom]

You are REALLY hurting inside. :-/

I tell you, it's that damn Mexican food. Too spicy for my stomach nowadays :/

 

[glockmail]

Oil was discovered in the ME on May 25, 1908. That's almost 100 years ago. Arabs settled in Dearborn to work in the Detroit auto industry, which was roughly starting to get off the ground by 1910+ (Ford was incorporated in 1903.) So mind rethinking that statement of yours?

And, also, what does that have to do with the riots in France anyway?

I'm sure you are correct on the dates, but you missed the point completely. Since the exploitation of the ME oil resource didn't start until well after Ford built cars to actually use the stuff, then for several decades while we used our own, and then finally figured out how to get the ME oil to market via larger and larger tankers, it wasn't until the 50's or so the the ME kings became gazillionaires. So prior to the money and power, Arab immigrants weren't much different than most other immigrants, who simply desired to become part of the American Fabric. This is different than the Arab immigrants of today, many of which seek to destroy America, as well as France and all western society. And the difference is due to money and lust for power.