Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Carolina in 2010?

[Mike Duquette]

Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code prohibits any form of male to male sexual conduct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_na...

[waco1909]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>I note not a single conservative has condemned the words of this person.

Well..I did...but....i'm not a conservative.....not a liberal....hmmm....

[Mike Duquette]

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
This also may help you understand my confusion early on about different terms for crimes against nature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_na...
It does include bestiality, which also I found quite often and shocking, children do try to nail the family dog or any farm animals. Pretty much I learned if there's an orifice a child experimenting will give it a whirl.

I see only eight states including NC have these laws on the books today. And I did not see anything about sex with children. I guess that is not a crime against nature?
Your whole argument was it being a crime against nature, but it is not listed here? Did I miss something?

[Makin bacon]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>I see on the list, interracial marriage,also known as miscegenation.
Again, I would bet you are guilty of at least on of these "crimes against nature".
I say this only to point out how draconian some of these laws are. Of course I do not think it draconian to outlaw sex with children, necrophilia, and bestiality.
I see incest is on the list. Seems Noah broke that crime against nature. Incest has very high likelyhood of abnormalities of offspring, so I think that is a problem also.
Sexual practices that have historically been considered by some to be "crimes" against nature include homosexual acts, anal sex, bestiality, incest, miscegenation and necrophilia. Other less common examples include heterosexual fellatio and cunnilingus, even between married couples. The term is sometimes also seen as a synonym for sodomy or buggery.[2]

Don't kill the messenger. Just trying to show you that you don't know everything you think you know, draconian or not.

[Mike Duquette]

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes Allen, I spoke out against interracial marriage and there was only one Adam and Eve. With that being said, have you ever heard of people of middle eastern descent? Have you heard of Native American Indians? Have you heard of people of slavic descent, asian descent? Do you think all these people would like to forget their heritage? Would you not agree this would take away from the diversity of all peoples and their heritage if everyone were brown? What's wrong with saying everyone should look asian? Why does everyone have to look brown? Is brown now the color of diversity? As you said red, yellow, black and white You're confusing diversity with my stand on marriage. You're a woman and so am I, but in the work place many times they strive for diversity through equality of hiring practices of different sexes. Diversity is not always about race. IMO, it would be boring for everyone to look alike and I don't care what color or descent they are.

As usual, you did not answer any of the questions, and just nit picked for a diversion.
Diversity is not just about race, and neither is culture. So in answer to your question, it would not take away variety in culture.
DNA evidence can show we are all related.

In a country with a veriety of races, it is natural to interbreed. The only reason races should exist naturally is due to geographic distances.
Religion has often tried to artifically make for inbreeding of like race. Hitler carried on that tradition in an extreme way.
You are against interracial marriage, so it looks like you are more in line with Hitler on that subject.

[Mike Duquette]

waco1909 wrote:

<quoted text> Well..I did...but....i'm not a conservative.....not a liberal....hmmm....

Which is evidence the extreme conservatives are refusing to condemn this outrageous behavior.

[Mike Duquette]

Allen wrote:

<quoted text>
A foreign land in those days may have been just a few miles down the road;) Depending on whether you believe the Garden of Eden was in Africa or the Middle East the first people were black or at least olive complected, as I believe Jesus was. So where would one think that white people came from. Maybe a group of people who just adapted to living in the dark (caves) for a long period of time, until they began to display traits of albinos?

White people evolved lighter skin due to the region they evolved in over time being of lower sun compared to the regions of high sun. Lighter skin has higher absorbtion rate of the sun, thus vitamin D.
Estimates are around twenty thousand years for a species to be in such a geographic area to change from black to white, or vice versa.

[Makin bacon]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>I see only eight states including NC have these laws on the books today. And I did not see anything about sex with children. I guess that is not a crime against nature?
Your whole argument was it being a crime against nature, but it is not listed here? Did I miss something?

Mike, after this last explanation, let's drop this. In the brief I was preparing the term "crimes against nature" was used and not to specifics. As there were no animals mentioned, I went and asked to make sure I knew the correct definition. I was then given the language specific definition the attorney meant and was also given a short lesson on the other meanings. The child was forced to be an unwitting partner to such acts, thus it was child abuse, actually sex abuse.

Let's try this again, I was trying to explain to Arnold how I sometimes don't know some terms posters use and how when I first went to work I didn't understand the meaning of this term in its' fullness. I thought you would remember where I worked and would understand; however, doesn't seem to be the case. You brought up gay marriage and why I don't know and I brought up child abuse because I thought you would remember. It's over. I guess this is a case of to "assume" is to make an ass of u and me" on both our behalves. Done.

[waco1909]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>Which is evidence the extreme conservatives are refusing to condemn this outrageous behavior.

Who, besides Silvercoast, on this forum....would be considered..."extreme "?....on the conservative side....

[waco1909]

Mike Duquette wrote:

Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code prohibits any form of male to male sexual conduct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_na...

Silvercoast probably loves that....being prohibited, that is...

[Mike Duquette]

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Mike, after this last explanation, let's drop this. In the brief I was preparing the term "crimes against nature" was used and not to specifics. As there were no animals mentioned, I went and asked to make sure I knew the correct definition. I was then given the language specific definition the attorney meant and was also given a short lesson on the other meanings. The child was forced to be an unwitting partner to such acts, thus it was child abuse, actually sex abuse.
Let's try this again, I was trying to explain to Arnold how I sometimes don't know some terms posters use and how when I first went to work I didn't understand the meaning of this term in its' fullness. I thought you would remember where I worked and would understand; however, doesn't seem to be the case. You brought up gay marriage and why I don't know and I brought up child abuse because I thought you would remember. It's over. I guess this is a case of to "assume" is to make an ass of u and me" on both our behalves. Done.

Reguardless if I remembered about your child abuse work, it does not mean crimes against nature was in reference to your work. And again, the site you posted did not call it a crime of nature, so you must think I can read minds.
You just failed to articulate your thoughts as you so often do. So you blame me for not reading your mind.

You have still failed to address any of my points. Many laws are archaic and need to go. Married couples have oral sex, and it being against the law in NC is just insane. It is draconian.
We are progressing as a people, and in that progress, we can understand oral sex is not a crime against nature. And we need to understand that if someone is homosexual, it is not a crime against nature for them to have sex. We need to progress and understand it is something one is born with, and not simply some perversion. We need to honor the freedoms America claims to be a champion of and allow equality in marriage.

You failed to grant that equality, thus I call you draconian.

[Mike Duquette]

waco1909 wrote:

<quoted text> Silvercoast probably loves that....being prohibited, that is...

I am sure he does. He flees a more free country while complaining he wants more freedom. He complains about socialism, then flees to a country with even more socialism.

I read that Singapore is extremely diverse ethnically.

[Mike Duquette]

waco1909 wrote:

<quoted text> Who, besides Silvercoast, on this forum....would be considered..."extreme "?....on the conservative side....

Bacon, Pro, Taxpayer, Emlu.

[waco1909]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>Bacon, Pro, Taxpayer, Emlu.

Apparently,you need to come to Texas...and meet some REAL EXTREME CONSERVATIVES....by the way....would you say you are an extreme liberal? Or middle of the road?

[Hawkeye]

waco1909 wrote:

<quoted text> Well..I did...but....i'm not a conservative.....not a liberal....hmmm....

You're a certified SSI nonworking village idiot.

[Arnold-Ziffel]

Hawkeye wrote:

<quoted text>You're a certified SSI nonworking village idiot.

Do you really think that your opinion of any of us makes a shit?

[Arnold-Ziffel]

Where is Robert Stowe to lead us through this fiscal cliff mess? Why have we not elected him to Congress yet? Where is Taypayer and his Communist Manifesto? We have a lot of crisis to avoid in 2013 and we need their help.

[waco1909]

Hawkeye wrote:

<quoted text>You're a certified SSI nonworking village idiot.

Do you think your opinion means anything?

[Silvercoastcorks]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>What makes you a bad person (IMO) is your lack of action to ensure freedom.
You are only conserned with yourself in this situation. You fail to help others insure equality.
Interracial marriage was not allowed due to the likes of you. You had no concern for their freedoms. You are just selfish beyond belief. You do not care peoples entire lives are affected due to your personal religious beliefs.
Again, this is a perfect example of why I speak out against religion.
But I am sure you will ask me again, as you have done several times, why I speak out against religion.

Did personal responsibility wave bye bye Miley? Where is it written that we have to be concerned for everyone else? At what point does responsibility for oneself stop?

[Arnold-Ziffel]

Hawkeye...Happy Emancipation Proclamation Day.