Kbzon59

Ok. Thanks for anwering mu question, Phi.

And again nad again and again, "debater"

Homosexuality has been scandalous thru many times in history. For example, in the time of LongShanks (king of england), his son was almost killed (several times) becuase people "caught" him. Only his royal status keopt him alive enough time to ascend to the throne. That is just one exmple. Oscar wilde is another, remember his trials and such. Reianldo Arenas, Nazis and the pink triangles, Stonewall, etc. I read Alexanders bio, and made some reserarch of my own(in the web). I asked if the discussion incvluded bisexaulity because of thee naem of the thread. In the roman empire, homosexual lovers were commonly slaves, who were always in the "receiving end" of the relationship. Homosexuality was used by patricios as a way to denigrate "lesser" people. In japan, homsexuality was realted to Bushido, I think. (I read such in hagakure's book about Bushido). And you were not expected to have male and female lovers. You could have them.

Sumthig taht shocs about American "gun control" programs is the fact that, mostly, they consist of checking the buyers credit. Not teh crime hsitroy, but the credit $. Now, I persoanlly thinmk taht people who want a gun should pass an IQ test, with 120 as teh minimum score to get a gun. Also, psich profiling, and checkin the buyers house for a good place where to keep the guin. If thee guy is gonna keep the gun in teh table, then he should not get a gun. However if the guy is smart, not crazy and is keeping the gun in a safe, then and onkly then, he might get a gun

gay people should be given the right to get married. I don't undersatnd why they dont have the right. The current limitations for heterosexual weddings are enough to keep the institution of marriage from becoming even a bigger joke (some anti-gaymarrigers have said that allowing gay people to get married woukld make a joke of the institution since, the "locas" would divorce and marry everyday, becuase they are voluble and dont' have determination -they say-). One of the basic points against homosexual marriages is the publicvity taht the wedding brings: let's face it, most parents dont want their kids to see two man kissing. But teh law should not take that in reckoning when legislating about such theme. Now, I have a question about american law (i am a mexican law student). Is there a way to get all the rights that come with marriage without getting married? Saying no to gay weddings is disknowing realtionships and lifelong companionship. Free union (concubinate) should also be recognized for gayu people. people who are agaisnt gay weddings have, I think, a mindset like this; If they legally cna do it, tehy will do it. Since the law allows it, our children will be queers. AHHH!!!

Nullum penae sine lege. What I mean is that Saddam cannot be executed, not even trialed, if teh criems he comitted were not recognized by the law as crimes by the time they were comitted. Since Saddam made the laws that will be used against him, I seriously doubt that there is anything in them taht can actually be held against him.

You actually think taht society has always viewed gay relationships in the same manner they are seen now? Please!. They used to be scandalous, stuff that could end someone life (at least socialy and professionally). Currently the answer of most people is "so what?" Extending myself in the Alexander and the like leaders homosexuialuity, their homosexual relationshiops were always deemed secondary, maybe not by tehm, but by everybody else. I know what you will say, that their heterosexual marriages were only to bring peace, to bear children or to form alliances. Besides, was Alexander really homosexual? Or was he bisexual? Given some book I have read on him, it's the latter. Does bisexuality applu to this thread?

Lemme guess: you are actually thinking that I said that homosexuality did not exist in the past, right? Well, then re-read. Sayo, what I said is not supposed to help my sayings, it is just a statement: don't ask foer facts in a thread that is naturally fact-less. You have bnot contributed any facts and I have not contributed any facts. We have all expressed our opinions. Now, just because I don't take the time to disguise my opionios as facts, just like you do, does not mean I can't post or anything likhe taht. As I said before, I never said tghat homosexuality did not exist thru time. I said that the social conception of hiomosexuality has been evolving from... well, I already said it, so read back.

Right back at ya. No one has given facts in this thread. It is quite impossible. The closest thingh to facts is the constant rant about Alexander's homosexual partners and the like. That is not enough base for any conclusion.

Indeed they would be smarter than us, since tehy would be older. They would not look human, but they would not look all that weird. They would be similar to some animals

By the way, I took the aformetioned test with the same result as Sayo3

You say that like if anyone could thorow evidence or proofs in this debate. the truth is that we all are just giving opinions

Took the test My data suggest slight automatic preference for STRAIGHT PEOPLE relative to GAY PEOPLE.

By tghe way, homosexual life is not the same as homosexual love or homosexual sex or homosexual couple.

Again with taht? I have already explained it a lot of times. The society did not conceive back in time the idea of two men aging togethere. Tha did not mean it did not exist. Before, man taht lived together were seen as outcasts or such, or just plain singkle, but not as a gay couple. Has any of you read "The Count of Montecristo" by Dumas? Of course that the main cgharaacter or theme of teh book is not related to homosexuality, but there are a couple of frmale characters that are hinted as lesbians (Armilly and Ms. Danlars). One of the male characters hints other of this fact, but the other dont seem to see anything wrong in their relationship, supposing they are only firends. That is kinda of what I meant, gay couples have existed for a long time, but that thought was never really one of the first in the mind of the outside viewer. Just read carefully.

A married couple The guy: Honey, have an aspirin the girl: an aspirin? But i dont have a headache huy: well, then lets fuck!!

A man see a new brand of condoms called "Olympian" Buys a pack and goes to his girlfiend an shows them to her sdaying: look they come in gold, silver and bronze Which one will you use today? Gold of course Really? I was hoping I could come beofr you this time

A sadic, a masoquist, a necrophyic, an assassin, a pyromaniac and a zoophlic see a cat and go like this: zoo- lets fuck it sadic- lets fuck it and beat it assa- lets fuck it, beat it and kill it necro- and then lets fuck it again pyro- ok, so we fuck it, beat it, kill it, fuck it again and then we set it on fire maso- MEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Atomic is talking about the revisionist, who say that it is impossible taht teh nazis woluld kill 6 million jews, based on the "fact" that killing 6 million people, would make jews dissapear. Also, they say that if 6 million had been killed, Europe would currently be deserted. the revisioniost say that the 6 million "lie" was invented by the Sionist society opr some shit like taht. They say that since it wasnt 6 million, we should not worry, and becasue of that lie, governmetes should crumble Oh, and they say that probably, it was obnly 3 million, so it was unimportant

By teh way, how are they going to judge him? What law system will the use? Common Law? or roman germanic-canonigan? I prefer the latter, since it is closer to Aristotles principle of passionless. The jury of its peers system would be a liability, because Saddam was in the military, and the crimes he comitted were comoitted while being in the army, so he would be jufgwed by soldiers, right? Who would apoint the jury? Who would be the judge? What I meant with the counterpart thingy back in time was that a person cannot be judged by someone who benefitted by the incarceration of the defendant.

Jordan said a good point: He would be trialed by people who hate him. Whether we like it or not, it is his right to have a fair trial. Is there such a possibility if the trial is in Iraq? By the way, what is Saddam accused of? I mean it, because "crimes against humanity" s pretty vague.

Saddam has only two differences with many prersidents and leaders in the world: One, he was a dictator, two, he used chemical weapons (sparingly, i may add) I am not denying that Saddam is a bad seed, and I apologize for making my feeling towars Death Penality a "reason", but you gotta remember that for Saddam to be executed, death penality muist be taken into the law of the new iraqi state. That is teh forst obstacle towards his execution. I persoanlly hope that such thing does not happen. becuase it would mean mass execution of iraqi soldiers. By the way, Saddam does not go beyond a normal criminal. He is a criminal. Period. I understand your point, but Saddam should not be seem has a welcome exception just becuase he is badder than others.

By treh way , I only check this site out about once a day, so It might take some tiome to answer.

the idea of homosexual life, with one couple, did not exist in ancient civiloization. Many african tribes used homosexual sex as a rite (young man with old men), but never as a legitimate way of life. If memory does not fail, only one ancient tribe in Africa or Ocenania had weddings between women, and that included the buying of the bride. of course that the idea of love between a homosexual twosome is old as tiem itself, but taht is not what I meant. I think that you are confusing teh time when society realized that homosexual relationships existed and the time when society realized that homosexual "married-like" couples existed. With "married like" I mean, living together, raising children, growing together, etc. Again ,homosexuality has been referred by many ancient cultures, but the above hasnt. By the way, If you have any question about what I have written ( I am not saying it is too deep or anything like taht orr that you cant understand it ) I would apreciate if you ask me, instead of asking around. I am afraid that some of you are thinking that I am homophobic, If you think so, then you atre wrong, and probably dont understand what I have been trying toi say. You don't seem to understand that Im taljking about society, not individuals like Wilde.

I have several reasons for Saddam not to be executed: 1) There has not been a formal law process against him 2) I am against death penalty in any case (someone sholud start another thread about this) 3) Who would execute him? USA, new Iraqi government? Whatever the case, he would be executed and, (if) trailed by those who benefited from his demotion. What I mean is that your counterpart can't be the executioner at the same time. 4) Strictly, Saddam cannot be accused of a lot of things, since most of what he did fits as war happenings or such. In other words, what he did is not different from what W is doing. 5) Executing Saddam would set such a precedent, traht evry president could be trialed. I am not saying that Saddam was a great man, by teh way Besides teh above reasobn, executing him would cheer many terrorist groups 3