What better way to kill a thread than to give an answer that is so well thought out, so profound, so devastating, that nothing more needs to be said?

Haha...I love skrum.

Is that a proposal thrax? Good thing you don't live in NC ;)

The thing that annoys me the most about conflict is when the two sides choose to pick out the most radical/ignorant voices from the other side, and claim that those people are the epitome of the opposing viewpoint. if it's a large conflict, the mainstream media will latch on to it, and blow it up even more, because catchphrases sell viewership. But what reflects poorly on us as a society (especially the sector that owns their own brains) is when we choose to believe that stereotype because it makes us feel superior, since we can throw the opposition under the bus as ignorant fools.

in reality, there is great discussion to be had here, and i appreciate hearing all voices of pro-homosexuality and anti-homosexuality. i choose not to label the entire anti- movement as deaf stubborn walls like skrum. i choose not to label the entire pro- movement as the stereotypical gay community (circa 1980's) as the anti- people like to consider them.

not to say this entire thread has been complete pollution. verm's transparent remark was excellent, as it was a pleasant sight to see someone trying to just offer up some truth without bias one way or the other. thrax and jpc's discussion was fun towards the end, when they verified (to those of us who have seen them go back and forth over the years) that they still have a lot of respect for each other despite large disagreements on stance.

anyways, can someone bump the ron paul thread. im sickened by what went down in the AZ and OK state conventions. and 99% of you probably didn't hear about it since the mainstream media refuses to report it except for minor articles with massive spin to cover up the travesties done by mitt romney's followers. i'm so sickened by mitt's organization that 99% chance i write in 'ron paul' on the ballot in november. and 1% chance that i vote for obama out of spite.

Don't worry Joe, I'll convince you to vote for Mitt by then.

you realize that RP is about to take VA's delegates, right? the RP supporters swept your Norfolk district up and down this weekend. apparently cuccinelli of all people is defending them. well, hes not taking sides with RP, it just appears he is a zealot for fairness, so he made an appearance down there to make sure nothing shady was going on by the romney people. i used to be more skeptical of that guy, but he's growing on me.

anyways, current picture of the VA delegates:
49 total delegates in VA
33 chosen at the 11 district conventions, of which 8 are completed, where RP got 15 to 17 of the 24...so far.

13 at large delegates to be chosen at the state convention in june, along with 3 party leader delegates.

i'll convince you to vote for RP before november, no worries thrax.

I will not vote for anyone that is clearly unable to unseat Obama. If Obama is up 15 points by November I'll simply avoid the 4 hour wait I had last election.

Yes, this is what the two-party system does to politics in this nation.

@ Monte (The thing that annoys me the most about conflict is when the two sides choose to pick out the most radical/ignorant voices from the other side, and claim that those people are the epitome of the opposing viewpoint.)

True and actually a lot would be resolved if everyone had respect for the ideas and practises of the other side. If religious people don't want euthanasia, abortions, gay marriage, no sex before marriage etc... no problem with that. It's their club , they can make up their own rules for their own club members. I won't be forcing them into either of the 4 examples I mentioned but I think they should respect other people's fundamental rights as well.

But it's in the nature of all religions to try and impose their dogma's on everyone. They are right and everyone who doesn't believe the same thing is simply wrong in their eyes.

I always like to compare fanatic religious people to the Borg from Star Strek: there is no room for compromise and their quest is to either convert or kill everyone everyone else.

"euthanasia, abortions, gay marriage, no sex before marriage"

I wouldn't put abortions in the same category as the rest of those things. Certainly, abortion is a hot button issue in politics and religion, but it has more to do with when you believe a person is a person rather than your religion. Without getting into an argument about abortion itself...
I think gay marriage should be legal- what gay people do with their lives is their thing. Abortion, on the other hand, can be seen as murdering another person. That's a much bigger deal than gay people loving each other and earning the same rights as straight people. Abortion is the woman's rights impeding the child's (if you believe that a fetus in the womb is a human person). They belong in separate categories.

yeah totally understand and agree jurg. i'm definitely a christian (at least in theory... i doubt a 'good' christian would ever play as much kdice as i have over the years, hehe). i'm definitely close-minded when it comes to homosexuality: i think it's wrong. but i'm also pro-liberty: homosexual people should have as much right to marry as i do. i actually like the way that yall do it across the pond: separate the religious ceremony (if you even want one) from the government-approved ceremony. that just makes sense.

however, in america there is a conservative-christian group that insists that the nation was founded as a christian nation (a dubious claim, imo), instead of founded as a freedom-of-religion nation (i tend to believe this, but tbh ive never done a ton of research on the matter.) so this leads to a lot of ugly battles where the extreme cons/christian group wants to enforce their beliefs on everyone, and everyone else is like wtf, just calm the fuck down.

the good news is that, generation by generation, the young people are becoming more tolerant and less "my way or the highway" in their relationships with each other, so i think the reactive who-can-yell-louder phase of the argument is dying down slowly, and is being replaced with the more empathetic discussion where we're all trying to understand and appreciate each other.

sorry if that doesnt make much sense, i'm still trying to figure out exactly what my stance on everything is. cheers :)