|
Post by Basse on Dec 5, 2007 13:54:14 GMT
I hope you dont mind me making this week's poll Jadeseeker First time in along time, possible of all time, that we have a non-AoK-related poll question here.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 5, 2007 14:43:04 GMT
Non-related? Arghh!
Nevertheless, I care not for politics and so my views are really all non-specific.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 5, 2007 15:48:17 GMT
I'm centre right (British Conservative Party). Approximately Margaret Thatcher, although with more modern views obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 5, 2007 19:19:53 GMT
I'm right conservative, more conservative than most people I know. Not that it's hard to be conservative here, all major parties are more or less liberal For example, I'm against abortion, against homosexuals getting a blessing in church before marriage, against homosexual adoption, positive to earlier grades in school (right now students only get grades in the last two years of school, before going to High School), positive to giving teachers in school more power and rights to bring higher moral to the students. The list is longer but these are some of the major points
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 6, 2007 19:08:23 GMT
Might I ask why?
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 7, 2007 21:05:18 GMT
You sure may.
I'm against hyomosexual adoption because I believe every child has a right to grow up with both a mother and a father, to be grow up with both of the sexes around them. Many who are against me say that uncles/aunts and other relatives could be the male/female source in a childs growth, but that doesn't convince me. The parents are those who are around you most of the time and if you are only influenced by either males or females, you wont get a normal childhood. This and a simple yet often forgotten argument; humans were not created to be able to get children through male-male or female-female relations, only male-female relations. So why should be go against the laws of nature?
Concerning the grades, students only get grades here in the two last years of compulsory school, which is far too little. You have two years to fix any problems you might've had in the past, get mature and realise your grades actually are important. Many of those I know dont care about their grades until the last year and by then it's already too late. If grades come two years earlier, students have two years more to improve their workability, realise that their future education and work is at risk if they dont start working and overall get better results. I'm also positive to having reports of how you learn in school from the student/child's 7 years old until he/she gets his/her first grades. By this I dont mean any harsh grades or obsatcles for the children, but reports to the parents and teachers so they all know what the student needs to improve, what he/she's good at etc, to make education easier and more precise.
Earlier grades also gives students something worth fighting for, and I'm tired of this communist crap that judging youngsters is wrong; they do it all the time in real-life-jobs, so why not prepare students for the life after school?
|
|
|
Post by jon. on Dec 7, 2007 21:23:27 GMT
I agree with Basse with this one.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 7, 2007 22:38:08 GMT
Not many people agree with me over here in Sweden. I'm happy someone does Sweden is really corrupted in several ways. A baker once helped out a guy that was close to being kicked to death on the street, and then his ensurance-company didnt want to pay for his injuries because he "deliberately had put himself in a risk of danger". They didnt change their reply until it all was aired on TV. Crappy Lagomland
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 8, 2007 10:45:41 GMT
Ah, I was going by the English system which is of course different. Here we start giving grades to children at the age of 11 (Year 7 or whatever you want to call it), which I think is early enough (giving a 7 yera old an E could be rather upsetting). But obviously it's not that way in Sweden.
|
|
|
Post by jon. on Dec 8, 2007 14:38:57 GMT
And yet most of the world dislikes the United States rather than Sweden. I'm not saying that I hate Sweden, it's just that more people hate America.
Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 8, 2007 15:21:48 GMT
That's because we dont declare war upon anyone. In fact, laws against violence in Sweden pretty much stops people from defending themselves if anyone's breaking into their house
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 9, 2007 9:09:57 GMT
Why do you hate America? [q]The parents are those who are around you most of the time and if you are only influenced by either males or females, you wont get a normal childhood.[/quote] Well, what would it matter whether it was normal or not? So long as the child has two parents, it seems fine to me, and to hell with what people think of a male-male, female-female relationship. That's purely who they are and is their business, not anyone else's. If they want a child, it's only normal - any couple who is caring and loving enough would want a child. [q]This and a simple yet often forgotten argument; humans were not created to be able to get children through male-male or female-female relations, only male-female relations. So why should be go against the laws of nature?[/quote] Who said it was against the "laws of nature" for gay relations to not be able to have children of their own? There are no signs in nature telling homosexual people that they can't have children, by means that they can't go over and adopt a child. Only people tell people what they can and can't do because of their own bias. Besides, we have news ways for homosexual couples to have children. They don't have to get it through sex.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 9, 2007 10:31:30 GMT
That isn't an issue I'm going to touch (religious sensitivities and so on) but I don't see any reason why they should not enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Besides, if you always follow nature you end up like these guys.
|
|
Von
Stormwind Member
VonCorgev
Vene, Vidi, Verse.
Posts: 818
|
Post by Von on Dec 10, 2007 0:43:29 GMT
I'm pretty conservative, and concerning the gay marriage/adoption discussion, I would just like to add this point for consideration:
Left to themselves, can a same sex couple beget children? Left to themselves, can a male-female couple beget children?
Left to themselves, which of the two couples line would continue, and which would not? One is clearly natural, the other clearly has no natural basis for survival.
I agree with what Basse has written. In parenthood both Father and Mother have different responsibilites, yet no less important. How can two 'parents' of the same sex perform the duties clearly instituted for a Male and a Female.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but in my opinion, same sex couples are just plain wrong. And as for who said it was against the laws of nature for gay couples to have children, I would like to refer you to Genesis Chapter 2:18, 21-24. Therefore the simple answer is, God.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 10, 2007 6:31:45 GMT
If you are referring that God said same sex couples can't have a child of their own (not through sex, of course) then he hasn't told me that they should be denied children, nor since the spirit dwells in me have I ever thought wrongly of them. So then how could I take on such a belief that we must restrict others from having children? You know not some decades ago it was black people who weren't allowed to have children. Why should I now take up the belief that gay couples (who are human too) should be denied their rights to having a child as well? Why would it be wrong? If it is true that people are born gay then it can't possibly be evil or wrong. Oops, sorry to take this off topic. Yeah politics is just plain boring.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 10, 2007 6:51:14 GMT
A homosexual couple cannot replace a mother and father. Every child has a right to have both a mother and father and get a normal childhood with influences both from the male and female sex. This, as well as my religious reasons, is why I believe homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. As for 'people being born gay' I must add that many "gays" are only gay because it's now accepted in soceity (at least up here). Magazines and media tell people to experiment with everything, to "find out" if they're gay or not, that everything is right and accepted etc. This is anotehr reason why Sweden's corrupted. We strictly want to defend our rights about free speech, yet, when you say what you truely believe you're charged with breaking a law against discrimination. No really, if it isn't allowed to say anything against homosexuals, why is it allowed to speak against christians? The entire christian system isn't based on that God is a hobby, as many seem to believe, being christian is a lifestyle. To further add to the discussion, let me just show three Biblical verses from the New Testament: Romans 1:24-28Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 1 Timothy 1:8-11We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
|
|
Von
Stormwind Member
VonCorgev
Vene, Vidi, Verse.
Posts: 818
|
Post by Von on Dec 10, 2007 11:40:07 GMT
Yes, I was referring to the fact that through intercourse, it is utterly impossible for homosexuals to procreate. In fact, efforts in trying to have only resulted in AIDS. If any still don't understand proper functions of the body, I suggest a diet of 1kg of prunes per day for a week.
I have never heard (and I doubt you have) of animals in nature having homosexual parents. If homosexual parenthood was so common, why then do we not see this in nature??
Homosexuals are purely selfish. They pervert their own bodies to their own pleasure, and it is this for what they care for, pure and simple. Their own pleasure. If they truly cared for the welfare of the child, they would not adopt one.
Would any of you like to replace your mother with another father, or replace your father with another mother? He hasn't specifically said that homosexual couples should be denied children. But then He doesn't have to, since clearly homosexuality is an abomination to Him. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 10, 2007 14:42:55 GMT
Like I said, I'm steering well clear of this, but that is a catchy line.
On a purely scientific basis, how is it that the gene that causes homosexuality has survived?
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 10, 2007 16:18:07 GMT
I dont know. Proabably some of those who carry the gene didnt get it activated, and thus it has survived through the generations.
I have a theory though that being homosexual could be one of the challenges set up for a person. Since God proclaims that being doing homosexual acts is just as bad as killing someone, it could be a obstacle for them to overcome. Others face different obsatcles in life where they need to stick to what God sais until the end, no matter what, or fall into blindness (not literarily). For everyone God has a purpose, and with every purpose there comes obstacles. Perhaps the obstacle for homosexuals is to maintain a normal life, and therefor God created this gene to bring the obastacle to those he chose. While other have drinking problems, faith problems etc. these people have the urge for homosexuality.
Having this said, I must point out that this only is my theory, nothing I've been learned from a pastor or anyone else. This is, as far as I know, only my theory.
And now, to go very off topic:
I read a thing yesterday. I might not got that much to do with the subject, but this is still the place where it suits best.
While walking on the fields in Sweden, or somewhere else up here, you come across a runestone. You can see it's a runestone from the inscriptions carved in it, even if they're very hard to see. You might even have to fill in with colour and extend them to see they're actually letters. But you're still absolutely convinced it's written language, not just erosion or natural phenomenons that has caused the hacks in the stone.
But if the same person looks at the most sofisticated and important language in the universe, made up of billions of "letters" that in billions of different ways can produce pretty much whatever, he's absolutely sure that this language - DNA - was created by coinsidense.
A primitive and very hard-to-identify text is thus surely made by a intelligent source, but anything really complex is caused by coinsidence. Where is the logic in that? Correct, there is no logic.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 10, 2007 16:40:29 GMT
If you don't mind Basse, I'll make a thread on religion somewhere, so we can have a more on topic and tightly defined place for such discussions. None of this really fits in here.
|
|
Von
Stormwind Member
VonCorgev
Vene, Vidi, Verse.
Posts: 818
|
Post by Von on Dec 10, 2007 21:47:34 GMT
Yes sorry for keeping this off-topic. I don't want to cause an argument, so I'll finish up there as well. That's about the first time I've really had a decent input into a debate like this.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 11, 2007 1:44:59 GMT
Yeah, lol, sorry about that. And Vonnie, you won't cause an argument, they're just different viewpoints. [w]I know that the primary thing homosexuals do to one another is lust and nothing but, but I just can't get in the position where I deny a human being his or her rights to something.[/w]
|
|