Well yeah, that's the goal, right? The real question is if only 1 in 5 supports/disputes show up in your activity feed, how can you be expected to keep up with all the people responding to your shit without going through (in your case) thousands of your old posts? I only bring this up because I remember an instance in which you didn't ever get back to me (although by this point, maybe you've replied and it's my turn to post, but I'll never know if it doesn't show up in my activity feed because that debate is long gone.)

Absolutely not offended, just pointing out that you based liberals and thus by extension bashed my beliefs, something you denied which led us to having this discussion.

I think if liberals had to go a day without bitching

So there.

That's not true. I'm a liberal Republican and I would rather do something about it over bitch about it, though ideally I would rather do neither.

I saw a meme that said that because women are not allowed to sweat, fart, burp, and the like, they pretty much have to bitch otherwise they will quite literally explode pent up shit.

Not really. It wasn't very hard for liberals to fight the uphill battle against the religious right and the government to get the practice of marriage to include heterosexual couples of mixed race. In terms of civil rights issues, the conservative side has been on the retreat from day one. They really dig their heels in sometimes, too, but they inevitably loose to greater personal freedom, as they always have.

Not that I think the conservative platform should be silenced. It's important to have this metaphorical ball-and-chain dragging us down and preventing us from achieving progress and civilization too quickly. This gives all the delicate Republicans who are afraid of change time to adjust to new ideas without their hearts exploding and their brains hemorrhaging.

Gays can call their union a marriage. Trust me, they won't go to jail. Name one gay couple who has ended up in jail for calling their union a marriage. Just one.

Well yes, and you can call your marriage a "Fonfon Ru" if you'd like, and probably not go to jail for that, either.

As far as the government defining the word "marriage" .... Think of it this way.

I'm not against the government defining something that the government regulates; I'm against Christians using their religion as an excuse for bigotry and unequal treatment.

In any case, your example with gas stations would work better like this: Chevron has a massive chip on it's shoulder and thinks all other gas stations should not be allowed to sell gallons of gas because they sell gallons of gas.

So..., if you don't want the government to regulate your marriage, then all you have to do is NOT register for a marriage license and tell people you are married. Trust me, you won't go to jail.

So all you have to do is not get legally married? This sounds like it defeats the point.

I don't think "persecution" is too strong, I think it's perfectly applicable in this context; they're denied equal treatment and are the subject of a substantial portion of the hate crime in my country.

And no, someone who is zealously religious would have a problem with gay marriage and with civil unions and with homosexuality in general because it is an "abomination." In any case, it's not like the US, or Republicans, or Christians have claim on inventing marriage as a term or as a concept. Who are they to define and regulate marriage for everyone just because their religion, like many, includes marital practices? Marriage as an idea isn't theirs to police and control; if gays want to call their "union" a "marriage" (perhaps they are religious themselves?) who are born-again Republicans to say they aren't allowed to? They are free to feel as offended as they like, but their opinions regarding other peoples marriage shouldn't be considered any more valid than other people's opinion of Christian marriage, and they shouldn't be allowed to regulate and enforce the marriages of others any more than others should regulate Christian marriages.

No, I'm implying that zealously religious, right-wing nutjobs are the main source of homophobia in the US, and without their influence the gays wouldn't need to do something like start their own country to escape this persecution.

And I'm a liberal, and I like women waaaaayyyy too much to be gay. So I would never imply something like that.

I don't know about genetic disorder, but it's defiantly a mental illness. Like all phobias it is characterized by an unconditional fear or hatred of something without any logical reason for feeling that way.

I'll let it play because it's funny.

Racist .

You probably wouldn't have disputed me if that's really what you thought I meant, especially if you found it true and funny.

What I meant is that born-again Republicans are, from what I've seen, the greatest and most frequent source of homophobia in my own country, and without them around homosexuals wouldn't even need to start their own country, flag or no fag.

They wouldn't need to if born-again Republicans broke off and started their own country. They could call it... Alabama.

I celebrate every day I'm alive .

This is the longest, most troll-free post I've ever seen from you, joe. I'm flattered to receive it.

I didn't know about their "don't ask" policy. I based my opinion on the issue on you frequently calling it a "heterosexual organization" in the debate description, but if what you said is true it alleviates much of my concern. If an emphasis of sexuality of any sort is absent from the Scouts, it is not a gay or straight organization, it just is, and I have no problem with it.

I would like to point out, however, that if they do have a "don't ask" policy, the Scouts and the masters are already dealing with homosexuals in the organization - they just don't know it.

but I'm sure I must be homophobic for entertaining such notions ;)

Not at all. Not any more than having a negative opinion about Israel's politics makes anti-Semitic, or resisting radical Islam makes me a racist Islamophobe.

The wouldn't the implication be that they couldn't possibly turn/train a gay boy into a gay man? Or that to be gay is not to be a boy or a man?

I guess I always assumed that the requirement to join Boy Scouts was that you must be a boy. So it makes sense girls were not allowed to join and so they made their own organization. But it's not called Heterosexual Boy Scouts (and I doubt they would change their name if Homosexual Boy Scouts became a thing), and the implication here seems to be that to be a boy is to be heterosexual, and to be a gay boy makes you unwelcome in a group made for boys. If it was in their charter from day one that you must be a heterosexual male that's one thing, and I think it warrants a name that implies that (Straight Boy Scouts, or what have you). Like if the NAACP only ever supported and argued in favor of colored males, and refused to serve females in this regard, it would be their right to do so but the the "Colored People" aspect of their name would be misleading and giving a false implication, as they don't fight for colored people, they fight for colored males. To the best of my knowledge you can be male and also be gay. So if the requirement for Boy Scouts if to be a boy, they should let in gays; if the requirement is to be a heterosexual boy, they ought to call it Heterosexual Boy Scouts.

So there's this thing called a bike lane. You often see it along the side of roads. It is designed very similar to a road a car might ride on in that it has painted lines designating where the car/bike in the lane should be. Motorists for the most part seem to get how this works. Bicyclists, particularly those with road bikes with dinky little tires, seem to be compelled to ride on the line close to the real road of these lanes instead of riding in the middle. Imagine if a car centered itself on the double yellow line when driving - imagine the problems that would create, and that's the way most people with bikes ride. While I understand the reason for doing this (any small pebble is liable to destroy the tires of these wimpy bikes) I think all things considered getting a flat tire is more desirable than riding halfway on the real road and getting run over for it. I don't need to look for or attempt to run over any bicyclists; they seem to have that death wish all on their own.

Then I'd really hate having to hold a picture frame up to every girl I'm considering petitioning for sex.

What is it you always say, joe? Oh, I remember...

;)

Racist .

If this is a question, yes. Your ";)" kind of seems to serve as an all-purpose punctuator.

No, you can ask me anything. Just don't expect a straight answer.

I hope so . . . . .

What? You asked .

No. Not Chet. But that's usually what ends up written on my cup should I ever happen to order something from Starbucks or Jamba Juice.

True.

I've been curious to see what happens when we get around to electing a full black president; Obama's admin has already made claim on being the first black president, so will this new, hypothetical president be campaigning as the first real black president? Or will Obama be remembered as the first half-black president?

Aaaaaaand no longer. Thanks for reminding me, I've been meaning to swap it out for a while now.

This isn't it, but perhaps I'm a particular way on Sunday and that's where the name comes from? "I am Chad on Sunday" is not the only possible interpretation of "ChadOnSunday." Perhaps I discuss Sunday, as in "Dr. Chad On Health?"

And the picture is from 1984 ;)

I could never have

Standing here with you

One regret

One mistake

Nothing we could do

After this is done

You can go your way

Don't forget

This is how

Everything should be

Don't you ever go

True.

I actually like facebook because it reminds me why I don't deign to interact with most human beings.

I liber .

I could never have//Standing here with you//One regret, one mistake//Nothing we could do//After this is done//You can go your way//Don't forget//This is how//Everything should be//...Don't you ever go

I hope so .

I thought so .

It's great, isn't it ?

You're welcome =D

No, you, I insist .

Well I can't let you win this debate, then .

In all seriousness, though, to an extent you have a point. A lot of really trite debate topics already have a slew of talked-out debates on this site. However, when it comes down to deciding if you want to resurrect a dead debate or start a new one with the same topic there are a lot of factors to consider. Often times these dead debates are hundreds of days old - sometimes over a thousand days old - and most the people who participated in them are no longer active members of this site. Starting to post, support, and dispute on these long dead debates almost never yields further participation from anyone else, so in that sense if you want a lively, active discourse with fresh ideas from current members it's better to start a new debate. Personally I avoid debates when the last chunk of activity they received was over a year ago; provided there wasn't any newer, similar debates and I wanted to discuss the topic, that would be the point I create a new one.

"Helpful tip/some advice" videos, for example... they've been done. ;)

And some want it to go faster, indeed... namely women and homosexuals.

Some of them, probably, yes. Which makes sense. If there is some aspect of your physique that you are proud of, why shouldn't you enjoy showing it off? This is similar to guys who work out a lot going sleeveless or wearing tank tops.

By the same token, men who cant stop ogling or harassing women who flaunt it are just as infantile, shallow, and perverted as girls who swoon and flirt over some buff bro who always feels the need to take his shirt off everywhere he goes.

Care to share? If everything posted on youtube is suddenly considered indisputable video evidence... well... I need to rethink reality, because there's a lot of bullshit people have captured on film.

Of course. Why else would the Catholic Church spend boatloads of other peoples money training a squad of exorcists?

I think the conservatives be having a pretty bad time in their liberal-free "heaven." Who would they blame all their problems on, what with all the homosexuals in the closet and all the atheists in denial?

Congrats, Joe, you are a heterosexual male.

There are lot's of people I look at and wonder why anyone would tap that under any circumstance - but people do. I've concluded this is simply a matter of personal preference, one I can accept because if all males and females based their sexual preference on the values of heterosexual males I think I would find myself striking out, forever.

The pyramids were the result of oppressive slave labor. Hardly a pleasing monument to their contractor's stay on Earth. And, eventually, even the pyramids will turn to dust, or else be consumed by the sun, fall into a black hole, or be obliterated by a planetary collision.

I'm one person of billions on one planet of billions on one solar system of billions in one galaxy or billions in one universe out of of a lot of universes. I might relish the challenge of making an impact on all that that actually matters, but it's an impossible challenge nonetheless.

Telling people that they will suffer eternal torture for not sharing your beliefs is a form of psychological assault, and should be outlawed and ridiculed like other hate speech.