Defense and law enforcement.

So Government is ok for some things but not others?

Yes.

SO you dont mind the government going and spending billions of dollars on war for YOU, but you think its wrong for them to intervene and assist in finding a child a home?

Someone else other than the government (and better than the government) can find a child a home.

Nobody other than the government is allowed to fight wars on our behalf.

That wasnt the point I was trying to make

If you were trying to make a point, why were you asking me a question?

If you were trying to ma

What I mean is I dont think you understood my question

I understood it perfectly, and I answered it.

No, I don't mind that that the government is spending billions on a war, even of it means not spending any money on poor children.

The former is the federal government's primary responsibility; the latter is not.

Even though half of the country is against it? What should the governmnet be allowed to do? IF everyone disagrees should the government still be able to do as they please?

That's what we have elections for.

If everyone disagreed with the government, it would've been voted out, not given a larger majority.

So you think we should leave decisions like this to the people?

Who do you propose we leave decisions up to?

The blue whales?

No, the purple whales

That might not go over well with the anti-homosexual crowd.

There are no purple whales.

Krem, you forgot another job of government. Protection of property. Perhaps you mentioned that with police/millitary. I just thought it needed to be expanded upon.

I think property protection is iffy.

That's what the security firms and guns are for. The government should worry about the criminals, not necessarily try to prevent the crimes.

It was a joke

I mean as an arbitrator in property disputes and the like. Also, enforce capital crimes like theft and murder. I like your idea regarding private security companies but I still want the government to make laws and enforce them to curb any vigliantism which might arise from your private companies.

Also, re-write the constitution to add a Liberty to Contract (like in the Lochner era).

I dont get it....seriously

Do you guys want to pick and choose what the government can or cannot do? :?:

Yes.

Don't you?

I suppose...

What's the problem then?

Could we get back on topic please?

• Please, PLEASE be more judicious in the quoting. My scrolly finger is done worn out. And by that I mean, PLEASE DON'T QUOTE THIS ENTIRE POST IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER. Just quote the part you're answering.
  
• The whole "___ parents tend to raise ___ kids" argument hinges on one difference. Religion, politics, agression, etc are all learned behavior. Sexual orientation is genetic behavior -- classic nuture vs. nature. For example, the only reason that one can equate the liklihood of being Muslim with the liklihood of being gay or straight is that the line between nuture and nature appears blurred. For example, the boy who was dressed up in dresses may appear to act gay, and he may have learned to think he was gay, but did the parents teach him to be genetically gay? Of course not. He learned to repress his genetic straigtness. Similarly, a genetically gay person brought up in a straight environment will learn to repress his genetic gayness and only realize he is gay years later.
  
• Keep in mind that all the kids so far are relatively young -- teens and twenties. They could think or act gay or bi because it's the "in" thing to do, when in genetic reality they are genetically straight but either don't know that for sure yet, or don't want to know that for sure because they are having too much fun "experimenting." Until all of these young people are fully mature and fully understand of their sexuality and are done dating and experimenting, you can't get any accurate read on what the genetic makeup is. So far, I would think that the studies on "genetic" makeup are tending to skew towards gay and bi, simply because the sample pool is young and horny and because it's now ubercool to accept gay people. Check back in 20 years, and you may have a totally different (and more accurate) answer. But of course nobody is willing to wait that long.
  
• Another monkey wrench: People are not all gay, or all straight. There is a continual gray area of bisexuality in between. So not only are the studies blurry, the genetic makeup itself is blurry. If somebody is on the straight side of the equation but is slightly bi, a gay environment could "feel" right to them. In this case, you could argue that the environment determined the behavior. However, you could not say that the environment determined the original genetic makeup.
  
• Yes, 44 is a laughable sample size -- I alluded to that before. HOWEVER, you cannot say "Well 44 is a small sample, therefore the original hypthesis is wrong and the other side is right." This means you, NCAR. You cannot say that. Because the sample size is small, the study could have very easily come to the that kids are NOT well-adjusted, and that conclusion would be just as invalid. HOWEVER, I'm positive that if such a study, invalid as it is, was published, the anti-gay groups would jump on such a study as proof -- and mighty quick. If anti-gay groups are not educated enough to recognize the blurry difference between nuture vs. nature, do you really expect them to seek out and evaluate the sample size of a study, especially if the study says what they want it to say?
  

These are arguments against Krem's devil's advocate. However, there is no way to convince the Krem's example of close-minded groups. Somebody says the word "science" to them and they get bad flashbacks of science in junior high and crawl into a corner. "God said so" is much easier. The argument I just posted takes work. (really, hands up, how many of you slogged through it? ) They'd rather run to the "Osmosis" because it's got this magical sound to it. Don't you worry, folks, we sciencey people in the lab coats got it all figured out so you don't have to wrack your brains. It's *drum roll* Osmosis. What a catchy talking point! The arguments against Krem's side doesn't even get IN, much less analyzed inside.

I would rather my money to go to adoption programs and social welfare agencies than an unjust war that I dont even agree with, along with half of America. Or fuckin space travel???