Elder

The divorces are certainly not traditonal, they are a new development, kinda like these gay marriages. I personally believe that divorces are certainly harmful and if they can be avoided then by all means they should. However, if two people want to leave eachother, if they want to stop being family, that is their right. Gay unions is a different situation in that you don't often hear of them wanting a family (unless one partner already has children). A divorce can be healed (remarriage), gay unions would probably end a little more painfully than a divorce would. Funny, something that a lot of people seem to forget about marriage is that it's more than just a little union where you can have all the sex you want with someone you love and get tax benefits. It's loving, honoring, cherishing for richer or poorer (do you really want me to do the whole marriage sermon?), being there for your loved one when he or she is in need, having a family together, loving that person more than you love yourself, complimenting him or her as he or she compliments you. A man has certain attributes which a woman doesn't, and a woman has certain attributes that a man doesn't. Neither being superior to the other, they make the perfect team, their skills complimenting eachother. You don't have that in a gay union. Gays have every right to enter into marriage, but marriage is this special union between man and woman, and always has been. Same sex urges can be overcome (seen it done), and I've seen two people who both love eachother very much break off relationships because they knew that it wouldn't work, that they couldn't have that family together, because they couldn't fulfill the work necessary for marriage. This is called responsibillity.

If you will read the post, you'll see that I clearly outlined the advantages in a traditional family, including a parent team of father and mother with skills that compliment one another, and the simple fact that even those of broken homes agree that that they'd rather have a traditional family. Out of mild curiousity, and you don't have to answer this (they are rhetorical questions meant to stimulate thinking), do you have a family? How would you rather your own children raised? Bottom line, reread the post.

Please do back this statement up. By the way, if you'd like to do more than "drop a few loonies in the jar at Safeway" just send some charity organization a check. They won't mind. There are about a thousand ways the average citizen can contribute to world-wide charity. Look it up on-line. There are plenty of charities that are dying for your money, and they aren't forcing it on you like a socialist government would. Go find a blood drive (of course that would be really wierd if the government forced that kind of chairty on people). Of course, if you'd rather the government did it for you.......... This is how a private politician can contribute, they write a check. I was commenting on how it would be interesting to see which politicians contribute more personally, the socialist or the capitalist. I'm willing to bet that if everyone in the Socialist movement shut up for a second and actually did their own contributing, they'd beat any socialists charity efforts hands down. I am a capitalist. I am currently a very poor capitalist. I live in a neighborhood that could easily be compared to downtown L.A. with cramped living spaces surrounded by neighbors who blast ghetto rap and who I really would rather not cross. I eat well, and for that I'm grateful. I contribute what I can (after I pay my dues), and what I can't give in cash, I give in service. However, I have both the freedom and the abillity to contribute as much as I can afford (and I have the freedom to expand that). I have the freedom to give of my own, because I have enough that I can give. I have time to go over to my neighbors and help them with their problems. I have access to public services. I get what I earn, I use what I need, and I give what I can.

There are 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to couples in a heterosexual marriage: Here's a few: Access to Military Stores Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner Social Security Survivor Benefits Sick Leave to Care for Partner Tax Breaks Veteran’s Discounts Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison As for semantics, my question is this: what's the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"? Since marriages are only legal when recognized by civil authorities, then aren't all marriages civil unions. therefore, wouldn't gay civil unions be considered marriages? You have to ask yourself, why do we give the traditional family these benefits? Because the traditional family is the best place for creating a family, for contributing healthy members of society. Whether they are the majority or not has nothing to do with it. We want to encourage these kinds of families. The father has ceratain necessary skills and abillities that the mother doesn't, and the mother has certain skills and abillities the father doesn't. This doesn't necessarily limit them to these roles, but it's where nature (or, in my oppinion, God) intended them to be. Look, I'm no psychologist, but anyone can tell you that men and women are different, both in mind and body. You can say that the non-traditional family is on the rise (mostly due to divorces, I'm sure) but anyone from a broken home or a widowed home with only one parent (thus only one gender in parenting) will tell you they wish that they had a nice traditional family. I'm sure they can do it, but they still wish for the traditional family. The traditional family is the most effective family, and those from non-traditional families seldom argue. Wouldn't it be nice if we could encourage more of these traditional families. Oh wait, we do. We give married couples benefits!

Amen Hugo! I would like to pose one question. How much good to think a Capitalist could do compared to a Socialist. I also think it would be interresting to see which has bigger and better charities, Capitalist Nations or Socialist nations. I think the problem with those on the left is that they want the government to be charitable instead of them being charitable themselves. I could be wrong. You'd have to check the politicians records to see how much that particular politician actually contributed out of his or her personal funds. It would be worth looking into. I don't know, I haven't checked yet.

What exactly do you mean by 'free rides?' Could you be more specific? Living standards cannot be an accurate measure of a country's overall prosperity. The US has high living standards because it has enormously rich business tycoons like Bill Gates and Hollywod filmstars, whose worth, if added up will probably be equal to the GDP of all the African nations put together. Just the other day I read somewhere that the worth of corporations like Microsoft and Sony is more than the entire GDP of some countries. However, that makes only the top layer of society in the US immensely rich, whereas the bottomost layer lives in abject poverty. Thus, when you take the average standard of living, it turns out to be comparitively high. In the case of Canada, the majority of the people have the same, fairly comfortable standard of living. There are neither super rich people nor extreme poverty as in some parts of the US. Canada, therefore trys much more to reduce the rich-poor gap as much as possible, unlike the US, which seeks to widen it. Obviously. What do you expect? Canada spends more on healthcare and welfare programmes, it doesn't just go around the world like the US, fighting meaningless wars which have no connection to the american people whatsoever. Yup. How else do you finance welfare and healthcare and other pro-people programmes? We certainly don't want to 'emulate' the US in this regard, do we? Canada has a smaller economy, what do you expect? That's an absolute non-issue. Which country in the world has wages as high as those in the US? That's just an illogical opinion from a conceited american. what kind of reply do you expect? My word, d4dev, please do try to keep up. Craig posted that information a long time ago. Did you bother to read the rest of the arguments here? Also for clarification, Craig is not a "conceited american" (I believe I'm just about the only "conceited American" on this forum thank you kindly, which is why I don't post on this one very often), he's an upset Canadian. Check his profile. Oddly enough, just about everyone on this thread posting on behalf of the "conceited American" side is Canadian. That doesn't say anything about the Canadian system does it? Please do be careful what you post. By the way, I would like to see you back up your statements on the financial wellbeing of both the U.S. and Canada. By the way, When Craig said that Canada rides off the U.S. Military he was pointing out that Canada doesn't have the Millitary necessary to defend their country from a real threat. They don't worry about it too much because they know that their U.S. Neighbors will rush to their aid if their freedom is ever martially threatened. I really don't know the truth of this statement, but I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

Capitalism promotes independence. Independence is good, but if overstressed can lead to greed. Capitalism is power, and as with all power, it must be used responsibly, and in my oppinion, helpfully. A capitalist can do far more good of his own volition then a socialist can under force of law.

Yes Hugo, that is my belief as well. They all acted out of selfishness. Not a stereotyped selfishness but a selfish need to help others. I know that every anti US type here has seen this ad in the states (as it is all over the interstates on billboards) as they travel so extensively there and so get their US insight. It pictures famous people like Winston, Mohamed Ali, Cristopher Reeves and Mother Theresa. The caption on all of them reads "reaching beyond yourself." And yes, all were selfish, otherwise they would have delegated or faded away into their own pain. If you define selfish as putting what you love first, then I agree. We all have our own priorities, and to these great historical figures the people around them were priority number 1. If you look at it as putting your first priority before anything else, it could be considered selfishness. Otherwise, I'd call it pure and simple love. They loved others more than they loved themselves. Honestly, If you want to define this sort of thing as greed, then I hope you are the greediest person alive. I'm not so sure if I agree with the definition, but I know what you are talking about, and it doesn't sound as evil as thelonius makes greed out to be. It appears you Hugo and KK are talking about something completely different than what thelonius is refering to. Healthy ambition and a desire to make a difference is a wonderful thing. When you add in a complete disregard to the rights and other possessions, then there is a problem. I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of the words "greed" or "selfishness" KK. I usually use them to describe the darker side of self-interest. However, I do know what you are talking about, and I don't disagree with the statements you have used them in.

I agree with you on that. I think scripture crosses political lines. Amen! It does not matter what political leanings you have, right or left. I like the capitalist system because with it, people who are Christians act by Christian ideals because they choose to act by them, where as in communism, it is forced upon you. I firmly believe that we should have the right to choose between right and wrong. We also have to learn to be responsible for those choices. I'm sure there could be a wonderful communist Christian (however, I'm not aware of many examples, since most of the times that communism is in power, religion is thrown out. That's my main problem with the left), but I think that God wanted us to have the right to choose whether we'd be Christian in our actions.

Mr. Kidd, I think you slightly miss-understand me. In my oppinion, the capitalist system is the perfect system for imperfect people. Religion has always had to do with personal choices. One may choose to give to others, or one may choose not too. One always has the freedom to choose their actions (what people don't like to realize is that they are also choosing their consequences). This is why I said that this is more of a job for preachers then for politicians. A law can't make a man more charitable. A change of heart can. Oh, by the way, I was once the worlds biggest Star Trek fan, and yes, they made communism work, simply because there was no money, there was excellent supply, and little demand. If you needed food, you went up to your replicator and asked for it. Sadly, Star Trek is highly idealistic about how the future will be. It will take us quite a while to get to the point both technologically and culturally. Furthermore, when I said that I believe that God has and still does make his will known to man, I was not refering to "encoded messages" or anything like that. Check James 1:5: "If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God" (italics added). Any man can pray. I do, and I get answers. Nothing like a burning bush are a big booming voice from above mind you, but if you want to know what God wants, why don't you just ask him, with faith mind you. Also, you seem to put a rather harsh slant on God's judgement. #1. I'm glad it's God who's judging me. He knows everything, from what I've done to the intents of my heart when I did it, and I know he'll judge fairly. No one else is qualified to judge me in this manner. #2. I'm not perfect, but with the help of Jesus Christ, I can be redeemed. Thus both absolute justice and mercy are both satisfied. God will judge me, but so long as I have tried my best with what I do know and what I do have, Christ will make up the difference. And of course, this is done because he loves me. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." Honestly, some times people seem to think that religion is so complicated. It seriously doesn't have to be.

Our constitution also provide's for freedom of speech. A man has just as much right to say that he is of a faith as the atheists have to say that they aren't. For some reason, it often seems that some (some, mind you, not all) atheists seem to believe that they are the only one's who are allowed to express their beliefs. As I've stated before, so much of our culture in just about every aspect has come from religion. You take religion out of our culture, and we won't have a culture worth having, and this is from a purely objective standpoint.

Good post Pellaken. There's a lot I agree with you on. There are some things that I disagree on though. #1. I believe that God has and still does make his will known to us. #2. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. That said, I respect and admire your belief system. Love is central in God's plan, and we should try to have that love ourselves. I do believe God respects all faiths that promote virtue, and loves his children no matter what faith they turn to, and I respect them as well, but I do believe that some faiths can get you closer to knowing him than others. I believe this, yet I know that people of other faiths are trying to get to know him just as hard as I am, and I believe God respects that. Thelonius, I agree with you whole heartedly on this matter. One of the greatest threats to Christianity are those who pay lip-service weakly/weekly. There are those who seem to be Christian on Sundays, yet throughout the week they are far from the mark. I find this an insult to Christianity.

Honestly, the best way to combat pornography is to try to educate people, to make them more media literate, so that they know the strategies that are being used on them. The best place for this sort of learning would be in the home, but schools can probably help out too. This way, we don't even have to ban it. It stops being a problem. One could try to ban it, but they probably couldn't get very far. Education is one of the most powerful tools one can use when fighting for morality. Let's use it.

And I believe it will be both a great martial war and an internal war. Religion has always had a great deal with the individual and his soul. I do agree that there is a great deal of corruption in this largely profit driven world. The commandment "Thou shalt not worship any god's before me" comes to mind. Now usually one thinks of idles, or just any Non-Judeo-Christian god. However, I also think it applies to priorities. If money is more important to you than God, then money is your god. This said, I don't believe that the place for this battle between profits and prophets belongs in the political scene. The laws can't change a greedy man into a humanitarian. It just doesn't work that way. This is a job for writers to inspire people on to better things, for clergy-men to call their congregations to repentance. The media could be used in this. Many people believe that the media could be blamed for these problems. I do think that this is true, but I also believe that media can be used the other way. Why not try to get good programing on tv, get good music out. The problem is, is that people aren't educated enough about the media and what strategies it uses on us. If this were to be included in modern education, great things could happen. The answer is not to try to ban bad media, but to try to compete with it, an effort which has gone rather sadly. People give up since they don't get the ratings. Pathetic! You don't need the ratings, but let's get some more voices out there. The fact that public media is largely liberrally influenced and morals aren't heard on television programs for fear that they might offend someone is a sad excuse. Oh, by the way, I agree, morality existed before religion. Relgion certainly does spread it though. Yes, I believe that God created all things, both in heaven and earth, but I personally believe that morality came into existence at least at the same time as he did. As soon as the first conscious being (who I believe was God) came into existence.

To your question, belief, whether it be in God or not, has always been deeply involved with our actions and our culture. There are things that you do because you believe you should, and there are things you never do because you believe you shouldn't. Belief not only directs action, but it should also inspire action. My belief in God does strengthen my own moral convictions, but atheists have moral convictions too. God is more of an inspiration to me. If Christ did what he did for me, and he's perfect, why shouldn't I try to follow his example. This is something that people seem to miss a lot, including religious people. God is not just a law giver, but a source of inspiration. Some of our greates art (Sistine Chapel, Last Supper, etc.) music (don't even get me started on how empty our music culture would be if you take God out of it, oh and I'm not talking about the fads that don't last much more than a couple years, I'm talking about the classics that have lasted centuries) poetry, and literature (most literary allusions are to the Bible) has been inspired by religion. Many atheists cry for God to be removed from our culture. Without God, we wouldn't have much culture, whether you believe in him or not.

Amen. This is probably pretty high on my list of the world's most useless arguements.

Pity indeed. I hope one comes along soon.

Judging by the results we see now, Islam is not an ideal government. Quite frankly, I, a very religious person, am quite ready to admit that religion does not have a good track record as a political power. I am in full favor of political figures being influenced by religion. I am not quite in favor of religion becoming the government. It has worked about as well with Christianity as it has with Islam. We Christians aren't spotless in the matter, we having our own bloody roots both among Catholics and Protestants. To say that Islam as a social experiment has failed is true to the extent that it hasn't done a lot of favors government wise. As a religion, I'm sure it could do just fine. I'm quite certain if Islam were a spiritual power and not a political power in the Middle East, we'd have a lot less problems in that area.

udawg, the reasons why are quite irrelevant. It's like saying one sports team is better than another because this player, they've been together so long, and they have this coach. Does it really change the fact that one team is doing better. Now honestly, I'm not really one to say which country is better, due to the fact that I'm extremely biased. I am a true blue yank, and if you ask me I'll say the U.S. out of pure nationalism. Congratulations in your potential. In a century-and-a-half my great-great grandkids might be on this forum and they'll probably be just as nationalist without the wonderful statistics. Maybe they'll say something like "It's our great-great-grand parents fault for their over expansionism." I hope not, and it won't change a thing.

Amen! I would like to know where the heck the numbers came from myself.

We have gone way off topic here. This is not to discussed who has plagiarized what. Hardner, your post on Craigs plagiarism was true and appalling, however it absolutely adds nothing to the discussion (nor have the last I-really-don't-care-to-count-how-many posts between you and Rasputin.) Ad-hominum (meaning accusing people instead of fighting ideas) is logical fallacy that is beneath intelligent debate. We are on here to present ideas and try to make some influence, not throw around accusations. I am a huge fan of ending useless arguments. Let's please get back on topic.

This is simply unbelievable. You should never ever post again on morality given your behavior on these boards. What "grants and entitlements" forced you to steal somebody's words and post them as your own ? Moral rot indeed. Mr. Hardner, if you are going to throw around accusations, please back them up. I fail to see the problem with Craig's post. If you see one, please do back it up. Also, Craig has just as much right as anyone to post on what he likes. If you are going to make a statement, do support it.

I personally like Thelonius' definition of ambition. The main difference, in my oppinion, between ambition and greed is that greed places no regard to the rights of others, where ambition doesn't necessarily want that. Ambition can very easily be turned to greed. Stalin, Hitler, and Tito had greed for power, which is close to ambition, yet not quite. They certainly had ambition as well. The two need not be mutually exclusive, sadly enough. They wanted to have all the power, to have no peers, to take that power from another instead of earning it. These days, we usually aren't trying to usurp peoples power or take it from the, we are trying to earn it from the people. There certainly are exceptions, and I'm willing to bet a lot of them, but that's what the system is supposed to be.

No, we should not rescind drug laws (actually, I'm sure we're making a lot of progress with them). I'm just now sure if we should be having law enforcement agencies trying to tackle both drugs and porn at the same time. They have their hands full with drugs. At any rate, while cutting it could and would be helpfull, and I definitely believe there should be some restrictions, I agree with Moderate Centrist that the majority of the work needs to be done with society. You mentioned earlier that the porn industry is both a result and a contibutor of sexual corruption in society. In order to completely do away with pornograpy, we will have to handle that corruption. We can (and I believe should) put some restrictions on it now, and that will be a great step, but we're going to have to get to the root of the problem to take the rest of it. Probably the best step we can take would be an early emphasis on moral education. Keep it away from kids, and try to teach them some sexual responsibillity while they are young. This is best done by the parents in the home, but the community and schools certainly could help. I firmly believe that the problems you mentioned, rape, murder, theft, etc., can be prevented by education and moral guidance. Why not the same with pornography.

Moderate Centrist, very good post. Despite my absolute loathing of the industry, legal action against pornography would be both impossible to execute and impractical. We'd end up with the distributors finding more creative ways to get it out. We already have this situation with child porn and drugs. Law enforcement is working on these, but they can only handle so many black-market industries at once with out us making new ones. Civil action against pornography is a far better solution. Good idea Moderate Centrist. No one can deny there has to be some limits (by the way, I like your hard rule, Hugo) but in order to get rid of it, the boycott seems to be the best stategy.