MonteZuma

Let me rephrase to help you understand: Governments prefer to have a massive military, tactical and technological advantage over their enemies when they go to war. They don't choose to wait until their opponent "is equal to our might". But I'm sure you know how ridiculous your statement was. Shall we move on? If you are implying that most people in the US military have great knowledge about diplomacy and conflict resolution, and great analytical skills, you are sadly mistaken. If I wanted to be brainwashed, the first thing I would do is join the military. You shouldn't be so !@#$%^&*sure. You think that a 2000 year old quote gives your statement credibility? It isn't a quote. It is a statement. Huh?

I've not mentioned any rules of engagement. ...But, fwiw, most civilised nations do follow rules. One of those rules is the Geneva Convention. Most uncivilised regimes will follow some sort of code when they are faced with compliance or oblivion. Who is th"em" and who is "us"? Sometimes. But sometimes he who doesn't have a sword gets reamed by he who does. Yes.

Exactly. Even if the plan could work, the cure could be worse than the disease.

Genetic variability is important, but it isn't the key. And depending on what indicator you use, Australia is more biodiverse than most of Europe. What makes small Australian mammals vulnerable is that they haven't seen a fox or anything like a fox. If they had, they would have become extinct in prehistoric times. If Australia was connected to Eurasia in the time before European settlement, there might be less species extinctions today, but there might also be less biodiversity.

I don't think that they are afraid of an unprovoked nuclear attack. But I think that they feel that the US and Israel tries to exercise too much control and influence in the region. I think that they feel that if the US or Israel decide that they disagree with some Iranian policy or action that the US might decide to conventionally attack Iran and/or remove the current regime (the way they did in Iraq). I think that Iran would like to have nuclear weapons to deter such an attack. But this is all hypothetical. Maybe they just want nuclear power? Probably. But the problem with inductive reasoning is that it can slap you in the face. If farmer Brown enters a chicken coop every day and always leaves his axe hung up on the wall of the coop the chickens eventually learn by inductive reasoning that they have nothing to fear from Farmer Brown or the axe. But if a chicken used deductive reasoning, it might come up with a different conclusion. Farmer Brown has an axe, Farmer Brown eats roast dinners on Sunday nights. The coop next door is now empty. Wtf? The chickens get nervous and decide to get hold of a nuclear weapon to deter Farmer Brown. That sounds good in theory, but Iraq was a big lesson in how far the US is prepared to go to eliminate a 'potential' threat. You and I might think that nukes might only be used as a last resort, but it isn't you and me that needs to be convinced. In any case, I don't think that Iran wants nuclear weapons to protect itself from other nuclear weapons. I think they want them as a deterrent to protect and preserve their regime - from conventional attacks. Maybe that too. I think most nations want that.

That's debatable. Bah. A dog is a dog even if it ASSS on the carpet and bites its owner. A human is a human even if he/she commits a crime. This is silly-talk. I'd say that reaction is animalistic. Even so, I don't think you need to be a civil servant to feel those emotions. But, I think those emotions aren't particularly helpful. If we are to be civilised, retribution needs to be fair and measured. Who is advocating that we mess around with it? In any case, the system will never be perfect. Innocent people will be convicted of serious crimes.

I think they do. Middle Eastern countries obviously feel threatened by Israel - and the US. I think that Iran would not strike at Israel with nuclear weapons out of fear of US retaliation. I do agree though, that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. But the problem is, they think that the US and Israel can't be trusted with them. Iran wanted the US to build nuclear weapons?

Yeah. No country or land mass whatever the size, is protected from the impact of introduced species. Australian plants have established themselves as weeds in the US, Africa and Europe, despite their larger size. I don't think it is size that is the issue. I think it is isolation.

Dunno. Nuclear energy is one thing, but I think it is important that Iran does not have the capacity to make nuclear weapons. But, if Israel did not have nuclear weapons, I think that Iran wouldn't care to have them either. I have no idea what should be done about Iran and the nuclear reactor.

The death penalty is barbaric and I don't support it. My reasons: * Anyone that commits a crime that is so das!@#$%^&*ly that it warrants the death penalty must be sick in the head. A civilised society doesn't kill sick people. * It is a proven fact that the death penalty isn't an effective detterent. * It stuffs up the legal system. An innocent person might plead guilty to avoid a potential death penalty. * Innocent people get convicted all the time no matter how hard we try to make the legal system perfect. The risk of innocent people being executed is ever-present and impossible for me to accept. * There are alternatives. Life imprisonment and solitary confinement. There are a few other reasons that spring to mind, but those are the main ones.

I guess that depends which dictionary you use. The dictionary on my computer gives 4 definitions and none exclude same sex unions. Marriage: 1. The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) 2. Two people who are married to each other 3. The act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony 4. A close and intimate union In any case, I think a perfect compromise would be to have marriage (for m/f relationships) and civil unions (for m/m or f/f relationships). The only difference between the two would be the name. Maybe that would prevent society from collapsing? Maybe, but I suspect that homo erectus were beating each other up because one tribe looked different, or because they behaved differently or because they came from somewhere else or because they had garlic breath long before the idea of marriage was ever invented. The family is not under attack. I don't see any evidence that gays want to be the dominant means of reproduction (whatever that means?). Most gays I've met aren't interested in having kids. But nobody got shot in Europe? If Billy and Bobby want to get married, it won't affect my life one little bit. But it might make them a bit happier. Let them do it. I think you are stretching the imagination by comparing this to same sex marriage Life still goes on in Vermont. The government hasn't been overthrown. Lambs frolic in the fields, moms and dads take their kids to play in the park, and Billy and Bobby can have a civil union and get all the benefits !@#$%^&*ociated with marriage.

You are probably right, but the ingredients are only one part of the environmental problem. I've never investigated this issue, but the environmental footprint of fur manufacture might actually be larger than for polyester if you take into account the energy and resources required to make the product. On a separate note, I'm not sure that polyester is a replacement for fur. Because of the difference in quality and price, I'm not sure that fur will really be subs!@#$%^&*uted for polyester or vice versa. Most people that buy polyester would probably never have been interested in fur - and v.v.

Actually you did. To point out the bleeding obvious, when I asked how European society was collapsing, you replied: Anyway...If you have any examples as to how Europe is collapsing socially, please give us some. How? Will it lead to more unwanted pregnancies? Will fathers desert their wife and children and run off with another man? Will women stop having babies? Will kids at school be teased because they their parents are heterosexual? How will anything change if you allow same sex unions? Many European countries permit same sex marriage or union. If anyone thinks that society will collapse because of it, then why not look at Europe?

My post was not a personal insult. Try not to go overboard with the editing Aileron.

Whatever gave you the impression that Europe is dying? Ecomomic growth (annual % increase in GDP over the period 1998 to 2002) was equal to, or higher than the USA, in Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary, Greece, Iceland, Finland, Spain, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden. Portugal, France, The Netherlands, UK, Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Norway had GDP growth less than 1% less than the USA. Only 2 or 3 countries had GDP that was more than 1% less than the USA. What evidence do you have to support your opinion that these countries are 'dying'? In any case, how you link that to same-sex marriage is beyond me. The average income of homosexuals is This isn't just about tax breaks. If you think it is, then you haven't been following the discussion. According to one website....Same-sex couples want the right to make medical, legal, or financial decisions on behalf of their partner should the need arise. They want to be able to visit their partner in intensive care units and other hospital departments. They want the right to make funeral arrangements, and to assume ownership of property (even jointly owned property) when their partner dies. Of course this is in addition to wanting to be able to marry to formalise a union between two people that love each other. This is all evry basic stuff. Basically they want the same rights that you or I enjoy, but don't even need to think about. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you feel threatened? And how will same sex marriage cause the loss of "another barrier between children and a total lack of morality"? I keep hearing these wild claims that same-sex marriage will cause economic and social devestation, but there is no evidence that it will do any such thing. Next, you'll be standing on a street corner waving a placard proclaiming that 'The End is nigh". Trust me on this one. The sky won't fall in.

Translation: "Eeek! I can't defeat that argument. I'll just blow it off and hope nobody notices. I won't try to refute it, because I can't." Your posts would add much more to the discussion if you stated an opinion and backed it up with some logic and some examples.

It is being redefined all the time. Vows have been changed. Women often don't wear a veil or white, weddings are often held away froma church and the celebrant is often not a religious figure. Often the brides children are at the wedding...etc...etc. In any case. I don't think gays want to redefine marriage. I wouldn't be so sure about that. Oh, c'mon. You can't be serious? In any case, gays don't want to screw up marriage. Nobody is trying to ban heterosexual marriage. It is not under attack. It has been in place in one form or another in Europe for about 20 years. There is evidence of same-sex christian unions in medieval times. In any case. This is the 21st Century. Times have changed and so has the meaning of marriage. Nobody shot each other over this in Europe - and European society isn't collapsing in on itself either.

Why try to compare it with anything? This is about the right to legal, social and economic equality. Maybe these people are friends, family and co-workers of gays? In any case, I think the leaders of most gay rights activities and movements are gay. Maybe you think they are straight because they don't always flaunt their homosexuality? Get real. All people (should) have rights (call them unalienable, civil, human - whatever) - whether they are strong or weak. There are weak women and weak blacks and weak gays. There are also weak white middle class christians. Except for their sexuality, homosexuals are pretty much like every other group in the community. To assume that they have a different set of rights to women or blacks or anyone else is discrimination. Plain and simple.

I'm still waiting for one good reason why? Actually, we are. That is double talk. I do. If you present some stats we can debate them. But you seem to be relying on beliefs rather than facts. And how are births out of wedlock related to same sex marriage? I don't see the connection. How does it affect or weaken it? This is a side issue, but the only way these statistics will be meaningful is if the stats differentiate between children that grew up with both unmarried biological parents, and those that grew up without both unmarried parents. I personally believe that marital status is unimportant in respect to child rearing. The important thing is a stable and loving family.

Same thing here -Aileron

Dr. I understand your logic, but it is flawed. Here is a similar analogy to explain why: Banning same sex marriage is like banning ANYONE from praying to Allah in a mosque. By your logic, that would not be discrimination, because the law applies to everyone. But as every thinking person knows, this kind of law obviously discriminates against muslims. But....as you allude to in your next paragraph, this is not a debate about colour or religion or polygamy or gambling or turtles or sexual intercourse. It is about same sex marriage. You keep reaching for these apple/orange comparisons. Come up with one good reason why same sex marriage is problematic and lets address that. The bible's story of creation contradicts the theory of evolution. Both cannot be true. God doesn't always get what he wants. If he did, we'd be living in paradise and chatting with God and Adam and Eve right now. Christians believe that God created us free and gave us the right to choose the way of good or the way of evil. Who you elect as your president is up to you. Not God. If you want to support the bible you should read and understand it. For a starting point, Google up some discussion on the topic of divine will, man's will and the tree of life. How? Erm. Unless there has been some biological breakthrough in Scandanavia, I can't see how the two issues are related? In any case, children born out of wedlock (but with a loving father and mother) aren't any worse off than children born to a married couple. If you think that they are - please demonstrate how.

Nobody has the the right to mentally abuse anybody (except the CIA and the US military ). Why do you and Dr Brain think it is right to compare a same sex couple that want to marry with polygamists or addicts? Arguments for and against polygamy and gambling belong in another thread. They have absolutely no link with the debate for and against same sex marriage. Homosexuality is not considered a disease. homosexual relationships between 2 consenting adults aren't illegal and they aren't considered a violation of human rights.

Huh? Thanks for letting us know what we can and can't talk about. Society discriminates against homosexuals all the time. Same sex marriage doesn't have to be a good thing or a bad thing. It can just be a thing.

Of course it is discrimination. Whether it is wrong or not depends on your moral philosophy. Is it possible to believe this story of creation and also to believe in the story of evolution? Does anybody really think that evolution is an elaborate hoax concocted by God? I think the bible should not be interpreted word for word. After all, it was written (or at least translated from the word of God) by men who thought the Earth was flat. Footage that I have seen of presidential candidates at big rallies makes me wonder if these people are treated as messiahs - sometimes. And GW has said several times that he thinks God wanted him to be president. That sounds like a messiah complex to me. Those Russian and philippino women that marry lonely western men aren't doing it to have children. They do it to have a better life in a wealthy country. Many daughters get married just so that they can have sex without having their traditionalist parents thinking they are dirty ASSS. Others get married because they are embarrased to call their partner a "girlfriend/boyfriend" when they are in their 30s or 40s or whatever. Other people get married because of financial reasons. AND other people get married to prove their commitment to their parter. Anyone who thinks that marriage serves only one purpose has obviously never had a serious adult relationship.

You're not missing much