Drix D'Zanth

Listen, as a Christian let me tell you something that I hope you really open your mind to for a moment. I also hope that fellow Christians listen up. "Am I going to hell?" This is the answer I give anyone who asks me, my being a follower of Jesus- a man who's life was about [i]forgivness and grace[/i], whether you consider him God or not. [b]No one can tell you if you are going to hell![/b] I can't. I don't know your heart. I don't know your faith. I believe that is between you and God. I am not God, and I cannot hold your soul to any judgement. No Christian can. So don't take that kind of crap from anybody, okay? :) "Do I just worship "satan" in disguise?" Well, do you worship satan? I didn't think Wiccans believed in him? We both know you aren't worshipping the same thing I am. So, since you are asking Christians, I'll tell you that I believe that any action of worship that is not to my God is considered sinful. [i]Guess what?[/i] I'm just as sinful as you are. Every Christian is. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" right? 'Am I "evil?"' No. Christians believe that every human is created "good" because God cannot create something that is "evil". Whether you are "evil" or not is really up to you. Even if you consider yourself "evil", it really doesn't matter how bad you get. My faith claims that you are always capable of being forgiven for anything. Redemption is always possible. "Do you think that I should convert and believe in what you believe in?" Sure. Why would I ever want to deny anybody that possibility? It's as if we all live in a desert, perpetually thirsty, and I find an oasis- I would want to tell everybody and bring everyone to it! Listen, I wouldn't want anybody to become a Christian because they feel backed into a corner, against their will, or to get a 'get out of hell free ticket'. I would want someone to become a Christian because I believe we were all put on this earth for a purpose, and part of that is to have a lasting loving relationship with our creator. If you have that desire, then any Christian would be more than willing to help you recieve Christ.

Code Name / Call Sign: [color=olive]Otakubot (Real name: Adam Jebrenski)[/color] Gender (If Applicable): Male Location: Gatorsville, Florida (born and raised) Age: 15, but he?s way mature for his age. Waaay mature. Personal Appearance :[u] [URL=http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=otakubot3je.jpg]Behold![/URL] [/u]Few people have escaped Otakubot alive, and fewer still have captured his immortal face in a picture. This rare image displays the elusive hero. The man who took this picture is relearning how to speak. Personality/Behavior: [color=olive]Because of his odd obsession of anything Anime, anyone close to Adam knows that he has adopted almost every cliché anime characteristic to date. He is fairly quiet and reserved, but all of this is vulnerable to change. At the drop of a pin, his mood will shift and Adam will be prepared with furious rage (ADHD). He often waits for his friends to start the fight and stand back ?powering up?. He doesn?t have any qualms letting his friends and allies take the fall, claiming his retributive rage increases his ?power level?. He is a man of many talents, talking for hours without blinking, and producing a 15 mL drop of sweat on the side of his forehead when embarrassed. Curiously, he is incapable of smiling without closing his eyes. Occasionally Adam peppers his monologues (Ah yes, he almost only speaks in monologues or in very succinct phrases, nothing in-between) with Japanese phrases like ?nani? or ?baka?. Unfortunately his dedication to the art of Anime has left little time free and poor Otakubot has a body odor worthy of his abilities list. Anyone who irritates Otakubot is subject to hours of taunting, and a stare that would make a shark?s eyes water. [/color] Personal History: [color=blue]Adam discovered his powers outside his house on his porch, on one of those sweet Gatorsville nights. ?I was taking out the garbage early so I could catch Full Metal Alchemist and I noticed a piece of firewood had been left on a picnic table,? he commented in a rare interview, ?I focused my chi, and the log fell right off the table, no joke. I gotta powa.? Before recognizing the quality of his new super condition, he would usually spend time homing his encyclopedic knowledge of anything Anime. He spent hours ?training? his skills to tapes of Naruto, Full Metal Alchemist, Cowboy Bebop, and the holy grail of all training tapes: Dragon Ball Z. Following his second year of training, he took it upon himself to share his knowledge with the world by heading an Otaku webring from his headquarters (basement). The following summer he carved a Kendo sword from a stick he found in the nearby woods. The forest echoed with the furiousness of his ?training?. One day, in the forest, Otakubot encountered a deer. He drew his sword and began to power up. The deer shat itself, out of [i]fear[/i] before fleeing in terror. "I was so close to sending him to the next dimension," he later remarked. Surely, Adam knew he was something special, no matter what his social studies teacher said. He decided to join a group of likeminded heroes. Setting out on the dim night streets, sword in hand, he scoured the (sub)urban landscape for crime. Obviously, the inexperienced hero found nothing more than an occasional piece of litter, and a dog chained to a tree (of which Adam swears he will have his revenge). Finally, a member of his elaborate webring pointed him towards a group known as the ?Hero Patrol?. Taking up the call of duty, Adam knew Otakubot was ready. The only question is: are you ready for Otakubot? [/color] Special Skills or Abilities (If any):[color=olive] ?Roundhouse? Kick- Despite claiming otherwise, Otakubot has never taken any martial arts. Anything he ?knows? is from episodes of Cowboy bebop or similar series. Because of his lack of his experience, his primary kick (a move where he flails wildly before turning his back to his opponent, jutting his leg out, and twisting back around to wobble his balance back) actually falls around a more ?belt buckle? altitude. This means that he inevitably kicks any of his opponents in the groin. Adam doesn?t know this, all he knows is that following this move his opponent is often crumpled to the ground [i]crying[/i]. CHARGE UP!- Before almost every engagement, Adam feels the need to power up. He braces himself and begins to scream, protruding as many neck veins as possible. For a solid five minutes or so, he screams- occasionally pausing to announce his newest (and legendary) ?power level?. Of course, this doesn?t really do anything to assist him. Force Field- Otakubot has recently discovered that he has a permanent force-field surrounding his body. Melee attackers quickly realize this as soon as they close in for close combat. Actually, as described above, this is due to his abstaining from deodorant? or soap, for that matter. Super ?Sayjin? Transformation- Otakubot?s second level of ?CHARGE UP!?. Upon the discovery of the Plasma of Destiny [/color]([URL=http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=1964704][COLOR=Navy]Paul Mitchell Hair Gel[/COLOR][/URL]),[color=olive] Otakubot realized his true potential. When unleashing this technique, he will often run wildly until finding a secluded spot. When his enemy least suspects it, Otakubot will step forward his hair in brilliant spikes, held up by pure chi. Currently, Otakubot has reached Sayjin level 2. Kendo- Despite having no ?official? kendo training he still owns a ?blade?. At the slightest provocation, he will go to town on the nearest dead tree? beating it without mercy, as a display of power. [/color]

[quote name='sweetie_rei']well I don't like hosptials either, I try to advoid them at all possible costs. [/quote] I hope you stay healthy ? forever. [QUOTE=sweetie_rei] In fact a new study that just came out said that the average ER room for the United States doesn't rate any better than a C-. [/QUOTE] HAHA! This is the biggest load of **** I?ve read all day! I mean, I?m not one to flame, but if the United States is getting a C-?. what exactly is getting an ?A?? Can you even support this broad, fallacious claim with any sort of quantitative evidence? [QUOTE=sweetie_rei] If the Us were to have a major problem or a national emergency the ER rooms would never be equipt for it. Of course the blame it on the lack of money...so yeah...I will try to advoid them at all possible...it ridiclous what they do....oh well.[/QUOTE] What? It?s not an issue of money at all. The reason Emergency Rooms are full is because of a few things that I?ve seen first hand: 1) On the first couple shifts, on average, half the emergency room might be filled with patients who [b]don?t[/b] have an ?emergency?. People simply are ill-informed when they could simply arrange an appointment with their dentist, family doctor, specialist, or clinic to take care of their trivial problems. By law, however, everyone is treated with equal care and concern when they come to the emergency room- so long waits for the people who may really need help. 2) Drug seekers are quite common these days. ?I?m allergic to everything but Demerol.? It?s a big problem that has no easy solution because our legal system actually supports their habits! I?m not going to get into detail with this, however. The healthcare in the US is the [i]best[/i] in the world. World Political leaders come to the US to have their checkups and surgeries. Our doctors are the best trained, and our technology sets the benchmark every year. Americans are able to live horribly unhealthy lives and still expect to live to ripe old ages! The privatized system not only is less expensive for the patient (hard to believe, but when it comes to specialized procedures- it pays off) but ensures rapid, comprehensive treatment to anyone. Take Detroit Receiving: 1/4th of the patients in the hospital are Canadians who have crossed the boarder and pay, without the benefit of local insurance, for procedures. As for my personal opinion- I love hospitals. I work as a paramedic level emergency clinical support specialist (ER tech for short). That is, while I might hop on an ambulance or chopper for fun, I work (and prefer) within the department. I perform everything from ACLS, to blood draws, CPR, ECG?s, triage, etc. Every day I work I see amazing things being done in Emergency and amazing doctors and nurses who care for their patients. I value the work that I do now, and seeing it first-hand, I?m excited to become a surgeon. I mean, just over this last break I worked four shifts for a total of around 40 hours (*shrug*). Over the four shifts (two 12-hour, two 8-hour), I assisted with 13 ?codes? (short for code blue- roughly, it means cardiac arrest, but we?ll call a code whenever it looks like someone is circling the drain). 10 of those thirteen people are alive today. That?s 10 loved ones who would most certainly be dead if it weren?t for the amazing skill, dedication, and technology to save their lives. I attended a hip replacement surgery. This person is walking today. I watched a cardiac catheterization in which the gentleman had a nearly entire blockage of his left main coronary artery (it?s nicknamed ?the widow maker? because if it is totally blocked the heart loses two thirds of its blood supply). We wheeled him into emergency open heart surgery. He was discharged in time to celebrate the New Years with his wife and children. I was in the room with a 60-something year old gentleman who was chatting pleasantly with his wife. He suddenly began having difficulty catching a breath, complaining of a severe chest ?pressure?. He passed out and his heart went into an arrhythmia called ventricular fibrillation, where the muscle?s interrupted charge begins ?fluttering? the muscle (retroactive to any blood flow). Almost immediately we were able to defibrillate him, snapping him out of arrhythmia and back into consciousness. This man was able to continue his conversation not 5 minutes after cardiac arrest. I don?t know about you, but there?s nothing less than [i]miracles[/i] going on in that place. Sure, you can see horrible things there, but that?s the point. Hospitals are an emotionally extreme place- from the miracles of life and health, to the horrible tragedy of suffering and death. And the most terrible problems that you cannot handle, the extremely harshest and most violent bits of the human condition are always welcome to pass through our doors. Why? Because the people who work in healthcare give a damn.

Name: Reknar the Vast Age: 42 Gender: Post-op male Race: Vampire Class: Biter ?Aperence?: Reknar the Vast is difficult to miss. He is the man that has to buy two airplane tickets per flight, the person hailed as ?el hinchado? by several cultures as he blots out the sun. He is simply a gargantuan, unwieldy wom?er? man. You see, deep down Reknar (formerly Matilda) knew he was a ?he? despite his birth? becoming a vampire gave him the opportunity to have the operation (no blood loss/vital organs=cheap surgery). The following week the diminutive Reknar began his celebration with a feast. I suppose the feast just? didn?t stop. He usually spends his time hidden from other people, his favorite clothing a sweaty wife-beater that he calls ?Raphael? after his favorite renaissance artist. He doesn?t like to wear pants, but if he does travel outside, he will throw on a pair of unwashed sweat pants. He has a long black jacket (scarred with patches from being re-sown) that he wears over the wife-beater if it?s cold out. He carries an old swiss army knife that he stole from his neighbor?s son, but doesn?t really use it in combat. Instead he waves it around to provoke his opponent into melee before withdrawing his trusty magnum (usually tucked comfortably in his pants near his buttocks) to shoot the ?stupid head?, as he so derides them. Back round: I guess I covered most of it. He was a she. He is a vampire, and he usually spends his time on Zudeskayyama?s various web chats trying to meet his one and only soul mate. He also enjoys foosball.

I hate to cop-out (haha pardon the pun) but I can't think of a better source for layman's explainations: [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest]Wikipedia: Citizen's arrest[/URL] To move the thread forward a bit: -Does anyone have a story of citizen's arrest? -What are your thoughts about it? Is it effective? Haha, i forgot to press "submit" before going off to watch a show on comedy central. I had linked the same thing :D

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy] Fair enough Jordan. Actually I was waiting for you to reply to what I posted. I read in one of my pregnancy books that near the end of the second trimester the fetus could survive on its own outside of the womb. Ok granted that this on its own would be on an incubator until it's life was stablized, but life could be sustained. [/color][/font][/QUOTE] Using this logic you are telling me that when we become ?human? is limited to medical technology. So thirty years ago, when medicine was incapable of supporting a second trimester birth, it wasn?t human then, but it is now? That doesn?t sit right with me. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy] Until around the fifth month the embryo is still forming. After the fifth month it's just growing.... Does that make sense?[/color] [/font] [/QUOTE] Yeah, but really the process is the same: growth and differentiation. It never stops, it just slows down and becomes more and more subtle. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy] Well I did think that maybe someone may think they were cruel. I'm glad you don't. I just hope this reply is well thought out (I'm in the middle of making dinner so it's rushed) [/color][/font][/QUOTE] It?s a fine reply, really :). [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy] 1.) Well, yes I have found out that everyone dies at one point or another. For example my parents' friends just lost their 28 year old son last week, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that in terms of gestation the 1st and at times 3rd trimester are the most hazardous. Once we're born it's fate whether we live long or die young. [/color][/font][/QUOTE] So it?s fate if we die during any period following our birth, but it?s not fate if we die before birth? Btw, sorry to hear about that loss- I worked around death during the holiday season at the ER I?m a medic at? I experienced one of the most horrible scarring deaths I?ve ever witnessed (and participated in the failed resuscitation). Believe me when I give my condolences. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy] 3.) Man I really have to think for this last one. I'm just saying that at the first trimester you can't make distinctions (at least not that I know of since I'm not in the medical profession.) Between sex or what may be happening with the embryo. Around the second trimester distinctions can be made. And by the third the fetus looks as he or she will when born.... [/color][/font][/QUOTE] So as long as it ?looks? human, that?s enough to constitute it as being human? What features do you think make us human? When we get fingers? When our heart beats? When our brains develop? When we can speak? When we can think? I?m interested to hear what you think [quote name='Retribution][size=1]You're right - as long as you're not something like a rock, you're technically alive. However, I don't consider a red blood cell which is alive, worthy of human rights. I wouldn't consider the zygote (the correct word, I hope) a [i]human[/i'] until it gains self-awareness. Until then, despite the possibilities, you're just a collection of cells to me.[/size][/quote] Now, is there any way to understand when self-awarness begins? It certainly seems possible that it could begin before complete development of long term memory (that is, we wouldn?t remember when it begins). When?s your earliest memory of being aware? Two years old? Three, maybe? But you make a good point, and give a reasonable answer to when you think we become ?human?. [QUOTE=Anime Elf]As for what makes us human, in psychology, I believe that it's the cerebral cortex (the top 1/4 inch of the brain) that's what separates us from animals. The rest underneath is the more "animalistic stuff" and basic survival instincts. Also, our brains are pretty big when folded out, bigger than a monkey's (general term there), though I doubt brain size is the deciding factor. Oh, and some consider language to be a determinant as well, as humans are the only beings deemed to have language (not just a system of communication). Not to mention that whole "DNA" thing, but I'm sure we already knew that part.[/QUOTE] Top ¼ inch? The cerebral cortex is a huge portion of our brain. The cortex covers almost the entire outer portion of the cerebrum (which means practically the entire brain) and is divided into various functions that may or may not be considered ?primal or not?. The cortex is responsible for everything from general sensory tasks, to personality development, to certain memory functions. From chewing, to blinking, to hearing. All mammals and most reptiles have a cerebral cortex. Just wanted to clear that up. Now, you already said that the brain isn?t a deciding factor? so I?ll withhold my arguments. *nods* So do we become human when we finally develop language? Mitch, good points. I agree with you. I would also put the plot of the Island in spoiler tags for those of us who haven't seen it ;).

Well, I can see this going bad quickly. This isn?t an attempt to equate homosexuality to pedophilia, or even justify pedophilia. So, try not to read into that idea as we continue this hypothetical discussion. [QUOTE=The Newfie][COLOR=SeaGreen] There is a reason that pedophilia is wrong; and it's quite simple, really. For the most part, once somone reaches, say, 18 years of age, they're capable of making their own decisions - that is to say, they know what they're doing and the consequences of their actions. If a kid is, say, 10 years old, they don't have any bloody idea what they're doing or what they're getting in to, and that alone should be enough to prevent pedophilic marriages. I'm not an expert on this subject, really I'm not, but I don't see how this applies to gay marriage: they're completely different subjects. One is a union of a party with possibly less-than-noble intents and a party with no comprehension of the situation - as opposed to the union of couple of self-aware and functioning human beings who just happen to share the same sexual organs. I don't see the co-relation. 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Good point, and I agree with you. However, our nation can legally change when it acknowledges a person as being an ?adult?. In more ancient times, a person was considered an adult at 13 years of age. Furthermore, early marriage laws in this nation permitted marriages between men and women as early as 12 years of age. Today, states permit marriage with parental consent as early as 12 years of age for a young girl (Massachusets, Kansas) and in some states 14 years of age for a young boy. Consider how we perceive homosexuality today. It is considered just as normal as heterosexuality. Yes, some people still treat those who are gay with intolerance and hate, but the overall opinions of homosexuals seem to be shifting to that of support for their lifestyle. Twenty and thirty years ago, homosexuality was ?unheard of? and homosexuals were ostracized (an un-Christian like behavior, if you ask me). Today it is more and more an accepted fact of our culture. Now entertain this idea (Aristotle would be proud) without accepting it for a moment: take the idea that children around the age of 10 are incapable of a loving (not necessarily sexual, but romantic) relationship with an adult. For the purposes of this argument, people have seen some of these pedophilic couples enjoying their lives, and there are few regrets from either of the participants (as per the NAMBLA website?s arguments). This convinces enough of the nation to accept the relationship that they have while socially awkward, is really a loving one. You choose to discriminate based on age. When it comes down to the polls it is really a matter of subjective opinion as to whether or not marriage is allowed for any consenting couple? without discriminating against age? Again, this is isn?t a comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. Here?s an example that?s easier to swallow: marriage doesn?t require the parties to be in love, have children, and for that matter- have sex. Sometimes marriage is just about the benefits for some people. If we shouldn?t discriminate based on sexual organs, should we discriminate against blood relatives? How can we discriminate against friends from getting civil unions? Why shouldn?t one just acquire a civil union to receive the benefits? Why shouldn?t my friends and I who share an apartment get a civil union (because it doesn?t seem fair to discriminate between monogamy and polygamy, is love restricted to two people?) for the benefits to accommodate our (pretty meager) living? [quote name='Mitch']On a side-note to Alex: you're honestly one of the best people at written rhetoric I've ever met. Although this can be a curse to the one who falls under your hand, it's still pretty undeniable. Even if I do disagree with you some of the time,, I can still respect it. [/quote] Yeah, even though I might disagree with Alex on some issues, he is fun to debate with- and worth debating. [QUOTE=Mitch] I hope that eventually people will outgrow their immense need to fling the bible as a reason to their inbred hatred and also their absolute thinking that says there is no way but their way. Because, in truth, I find that few things are absolute and also that everyone - despite their differing views created by the person they are - are right in their own ways, just so long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy, after all.[/QUOTE] I agree! There shouldn?t be any hatred towards homosexuals! Absolute thinking? well.. that?s obviously debatable on a philosophical level (I mean, Socrates was an ?absolute? thinker). And please understand that I respect your democratic right to vote to legalize homosexual marriage as much as you should respect my right to simply vote against it, my reasons notwithstanding. With that, I?m just going to take my leave from this thread. As for Alex, well, you've earned it:[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/4481/seal1rk.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[QUOTE=Swedish Chef]Perhaps... or he gets off on it. Oo But in all seriousness. I saw the movie but can't help but notice a predictament at the end. [Spoiler] the part when the asian girl (whats her name I forgot lol) commits suicide cause of her burnt face, thus giving the male a chance to board the train while the police are just watching her. What I mean is. Had he not saved her when she was being tortured he would not have had that moment to get on the train unnoticed and survive the whole ordeal. Makes you think that he saved her so that she could kill herself to save him. [/spoiler](dunno if I am making sense at this point....)[/QUOTE] I don?t mean to be sardonic, but are you kidding me? I don?t think the gears were churning really hard in that guy?s brain. [spoiler]I mean considering he wasn?t really expecting their presence at the train indicated by the fact that he was taken by surprise, hiding behind the nearest box. Not only that, he almost blew his cover by trying to call her over. [/spoiler] This movie was really a good idea gone wrong. I think Eli Roth had good intentions but it just seemed sloppy to me. I think given a more talented director, combined with an appealing theme, this movie would have been up there with my numero-uno ?horror? film: se7en. [spoiler] The message I think this movie was trying to project was highlighted in the first half of the movie through the Amsterdam/early Bratislava sequences. In those scenes you had the young men pursuing their lusts and the rush of passionate/easy sex. Early in the movie one of the characters said, ?Paying a woman to do whatever you want to do to her seems wrong to me.? This clumsily-delivered line derives the idea of a ?rush? often sought by our ever-licentiousness culture. The idea is that when we shed our social inhibitions concerning the consequences and seriousness of sex (often it is the cultivation of a long relationship, an expression of love) the human animal takes over. Hostel tries to take that one step further down the rabbit hole by exploring the human fascination and glorification of violence and death. The rush of murder is just a more vicious expression of a quality that is (unfortunately) deeply embedded into our history, and perhaps our biology. Violence without consequences at a price, and the ability to experience this makes the factory of torture in Bratislava the ultimate ?Amsterdam brothel?. I thought another interesting focus was the use of masks by the torturers. It gave the torturer safety and anonymity, I thought, and could have been a well-utilized metaphor.[/spoiler] The acting was mediocre, the torture scenes were sometimes unbelievable, and the message was lost in the hype behind a movie featuring unmitigated torture. Hype the move really didn?t live up to. The plot was unconvincing, the kids so stupid that you almost [b]wanted[/b] them to die, and it really didn?t make an effort to frighten you at all? just gross you out with gore. [spoiler] However, nothing beats the gang of devil children. I?ve never laughed so hard at a horror movie in my entire life, those kids were hilarious. It was way to ridiculous to be taken seriously and watching them fight? it?s like watching a squad of dwarves beat up a watermelon. Terrible idea for the movie, wonderful dry/black humor.[/spoiler]

[QUOTE=shinji172]I just want to elaborate on a point you made in your last post. You use some of the texts on NAMBLA.org. I can see your point of view as, in [I]some[/I(this being the key word)] of the texts i looked at, tries to justify sex at a young age. among other things it says... If this was an attempt to lower the consent law for homosexuals to "express themselves" I.E. from 21 to 18-the same age as for hetrosexual couples (this statistic varies) then i would probably agree. As far as im concerned, hetro/homosexual couples deserve the same rights. However, when the party involved is [B]twelve years old[/B] (if anyone doesnt believe me check the site) we begin to enter the relm of the pedophilia. As we all know, that is very wrong. [/QUOTE] That?s because the members of NAMBLA [i]are[/i] pedophiles! You say pedophilia is very wrong. How do you justify that claim? (Obviously, I?m playing devil?s advocate here) I want you to look at this from a moral perspective for a moment, why do you think the pedophiles of NAMBLA are ?wrong?? Is it a gut feeling? Because it sounds like their man-boy relationships are mutual and consensual. Can you justify calling their private behavior wrong? If so please, give us a reason. Now, if you [i]can?t[/i] prove to me that it is ethically immoral, and you expect the institution of marriage to no longer discriminate between heterosexual unions and homosexual marriages- why can we expect the definition of marriage to discriminate against [i]any[/i] relationship- such as the pedophilic relationship of NAMBLA? Why shouldn?t [i]they[/i] be allowed to get married? [QUOTE=shinji172] However, you are also making the assumption that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I now you to this info (fromhttp://www.answers.com/topic/pedophilia)... As the info shows, there are more hetrosexual pedophiles than homosexual. for this reason, i find your view, which seems to be condeming all homosexuals as pedophiles to be very short sighted.[/QUOTE] I?m not making any assumptions. I never said homosexuals are pedophiles, lol. You drew that conclusion from an [i]analogy[/i] which deals with the ethical issue, not the technical details. Yeah? wasn?t saying that homosexuals are pedophiles? lol.

Interesting points Raquel, I appreciate your edit too, I think the name of this thread should be changed because there?s no debating when ?life? begins. Maybe change it to ?what makes us human?? [QUOTE=Raquel] For me, I guess humanity would start at the same point as long term memory. That's memory of stuff, not trained reactions like "Bad dog, no peeing on the carpet!" and "You did a trick, heres a biscuit." [/QUOTE] Dogs have memory. Their recollection of trained facts is similar neurochemically to ours. They are less able to overcome/deny their instincts, less capable of learning (opening new synapses), and have a more limited memory (that we know of) in comparison to our species. But don?t confuse yourself, when a dog or cat feels hunger, immediately memories of being fed most likely drive it to the food bowl. This may form a habit over time, driven by discipline/encouragement of the owner, to the point where the animal is trained. Memory is a factor in this. Our understanding of memory is limited, but we know that short term memory and long term memory are part of the same pathway. We know that frequently repeated instances are better committed to memory and that memory degenerates? etc, I?m babbling. [QUOTE=Raquel] On the topic, I think that being alive is just not being a rock. [/QUOTE] You are absolutely right. In fact there is a scientific definition for life, which makes the next post confuse me. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy] I believe that life doesn't begin inside the womb until after the first trimester. My reasons for this are the following: [/color][/font][/QUOTE] Huh? Your reasoning aside, I think you should clarify. So you think the embryo, between conception and the beginning of the second trimester, is dead? Because, it is a living independent organism. This as much a scientific ?fact? as any (it is a medical truth). [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy] 1.) The first trimester is the most hazardous for the embryo. Most misscarriages happen within the first trimester 2.) Legal abortions can only be performed during the first trimester. 3.) Your first ultrasound isn't done until around the fifth month of pregnancy. And trust me, it's hard enough figuring out what you're looking at in the fifth month. [/color][/font][/QUOTE] Your ideas here aren?t cruel, Meg. I do have an issue with your logic. But I look forward to hear what you think of my criticism. 1.So? Here?s what makes that idea moot. It?s a lot safer as an embryo than it is as a born human. I got some bad news about that. It turns out, according to the most recent data, we all die- life is hazardous. Using your logic, why bother living? 2. This might be better worded as ?We have legally decided that when a human becomes a human is following the first trimester.? 3. So what? We can look at a paramecium underneath a microscope and observe each unique organism without any qualm or question. Why does that become such a problem with humans? We [i]all[/i] started out a unicellular embryo or blob-like blastocyst. Look at us now? Our bodies never stop changing. The genetic code that is responsible for this is the [i]exact same[/i] from embryo, to zygote, to brain cell, skin cell, nerve cell.

Yes, as much merit there may be to a discussion of the Bible it?s relevance to the discussion at hand is degenerating. The problem our discussion is going to have is that we view the bible from different perspectives. I see it as a truthful, factual text, written by people under the direction of God. You see it as a subjective, flawed text, written by tribal leaders of an age both passed and morally outdated. It doesn?t really matter how other people look at the Bible, nor how much they attempt to convince me that it is [i]wrong[/i]. I have faith that even though the text may have been misinterpreted by its followers, and some of it has been lost, the Bible we have is sufficient and intended by God. As far as verses are concerned, homosexuality is adequately covered for me to make a decision that it is (according to me) immoral. [QUOTE=Brasil]Oh, no worries. I shant be staying long, because Guild Wars calls me. Probably this reply and that's it from me. The number crunch came from me, actually. Jordan, dearest, do you really think I'd be having this discussion (and proposing this thesis) if I hadn't familiarized myself with the Bible, read it extensively, etc? Go through the Bible and find the actual truth, and make sure it merely isn't ideological discourse. For example, stories about unyielding faith are entirely subjective; they do not utilize unchanging truths. Recommitting to God's path, also subjective. [/QUOTE] Once again, you are taking the entire text subjectively. When God talks about how one should have ?faith? or how one should ?pray?. It seems laid out simply and easily. Your idea of actual truth is ?understandably? some sort of objective fact (time, place, date, and artifact) that we can point to. When Jesus came to earth he didn?t carve his name into a rock. He didn?t establish a government. Hell, he didn?t even seem to have written a single thing down. He spoke on metaphysical things: grace, forgiveness, love, justice; intangible things. I hold ideas like forgiveness, sin, and God as just as true as the keyboard I type on. I don?t expect anyone who doesn?t have faith to really understand this. [QUOTE=Brasil] I'll tell you what [i]is[/i] an objective, unchanging truth in the Bible: that there once may have been two cities in the ancient Middle East that were engulfed in what some archaeologists believe could have been a massive subterranean gas reservoir ignition spurned on by an earthquake. When there's mention of environmental disasters (fires, floods, etc), that's usually a key that something actually happened. All else is basically ideological conjecture. The rules, subjective and conjecture. The discourse on love, money, etc., primarily subjective ideologies. [/QUOTE] That?s interesting. How is your example of an ?unchanging truth? any less based on conjecture than mine? We have a certain amount of evidence to draw your conclusion? We don?t really have any ?proof? however, do we? There?s a possibility that we may have discovered the ancient city of Troy (which was supposed to be completely demolished in the legend, I believe). Does that mean Achilles was practically invulnerable and that the Illiad is true? Probably not, but I respect the ancient Greek?s right to believe in their mythology. I?ll disagree, but I can?t expect to really understand their faith- I?m going to look at their text from a different perspective. [QUOTE=Brasil] When you really look at the stories in there...not much is actual truth. When you really examine the stories within the framework of the Bible (Bible is considered what? Survey says? Guidelines for moral principles), you tend to see that significant portions (I'd think around 85-90%) are quite subjective, with "unchanging" truths that are far, far, far from unchanging. [/QUOTE] In the Bible it is written that God spoke to Moses and instructed him in the creation of the Ten Commandments. The morals of these commandments are relatively subjective. Some people find no moral qualm in killing someone, or lying. However, when I claim that the Bible is objective and unchanging- I mean that murder is wrong. There isn?t debate or discussion. There isn?t a grey area here, it says in the Bible that murder is wrong. This doesn?t change with the passage of time, the translation of the bible, or how I would [i]like[/i] to interpret it. [QUOTE=Brasil] I chopped a bit out here and there, because I wanted to isolate the crux of the issue. In the above excerpt, you essentially said that the vengeful, wrathful God of the OT is actually entirely incorrect, and any interpretation that leads to that conclusion is utterly wrong and truly an uneducated assumption about the text." But I say to you, look toward Exodus 20:5-6: [color=red](for some reason this verse didn?t copy it, but I know it)[/color] Sure, there's line 6 that shows love to a thousand generations of those who love God and keep His commandments, but what about line 5? Does that not seem just the least bit...mean-spirited? [i]God himself[/i] is saying he's jealous. For all intents and purposes, with the prominent characterization of Israel as God's wife...God is the suspicious, jealous, violent, sociopathic husband. The kind of husband who sets fire to villages he deems inappropriate for his wife to even talk with. OT God wasn't vengeful and wrathful?[/QUOTE] Once again, you are taking scripture out of context. If anything, you are supporting my argument that the God of the OT and NT are one in the same! This is a scripture that explains how much he wants to have a personal relationship with each of his creations! The analogy between curse and blessings shows me that his blessings are a thousand fold of his curses! Think about it, for a God who has (rightfully) judged and destroyed some, he has the capability to [i]bless[/i] us with so much more! Now, as far as God being jealous? Well the verse pretty much explains it: he yearns for us to choose him, but he will [b]not[/b] force us to choose him. And we will be held accountable for our actions. [QUOTE=Brasil] But why need the Bible? I don't really think you've answered the question. If anything, I think you're more supporting my conclusion, that most of the Biblical scriptural rule-sets are outdated. Those ancient rules were necessitated because those ancient peoples lacked basic common sense and possessed a less than adequate cognition. Today, however, barring the monkeys on typewriters of local newspapers and nearly every single political/religious leader...I think our overall public cognition has improved tremendously. Regarding adultery...who needs the Bible to know it's a bad idea? If you cheat on your significant other, that person will be hurt, because he or she will feel there's something wrong with what he or she is doing, or that you don't respect him or her enough to remain loyal. Maintaining a healthy relationship does not require one to be religious. It requires one to be respectful and mature and generally, maintain a reasonable level of decency.[/quote] Because common sense pits one man?s will against another. There isn?t a right or a wrong- whoever has the muscle calls the shots. Killing someone or committing adultery seems immoral to you or I because we understand the consequences of the actions. We both know that it is the wrong thing to do! But other people feel differently, murderers feel differently. Whole societies have historically thought differently. Common knowledge really isn?t all that common unless the society has an established moral foundation. Historically, that moral foundation was a Judeo-Christian philosophy in our country. Don?t get me wrong, I?m not saying that our country is a Christian state, but it certainly was built on some Christian principles. Why? Because pretty much everyone who lived here [i]were[/i] Christians. [QUOTE=Brasil] The Idolatry clause: [color=red](likewise)[/color] Jordan, my point was that the Idolatry clause there is so vague that it can be applied to anything. And think back to 1999-2000. Remember that Pokemon craze? Where children were reported to be beating each other up over them? Stealing? Manipulating? Cheating? Seems to me that was their focus of attention, rather than behaving and honoring their parents, good values, etc. They were ignoring everything else in their lives and questing for that rare Mew Limited Edition Silver Lined Gold Pack card...a false idol. Think about that. There are a lot of rules in the OT we just don't go by anymore, including the punishments. Why do people still pick and choose then? Or why do people still say certain rules are still applicable when it's clear to me and most people that religion on the whole is largely outdated?[/QUOTE] Often scripture mentions when rules are no longer applicable (for instance, Christians can eat pork) or when rules are misunderstood (?eye for an eye? was to prevent taking both eyes or all teeth for a single crime. It was a verse about just punishment). I think when you look at it, Christians shouldn?t have a problem with the gay community. I don?t, they are no worse than any sinner. But I understand that not only is biologically abhorrent, I consider it immoral behavior. Privately, we have the liberty to do anything that doesn?t infringe or affect the lives of others. However, gay marriage is a public issue. This?ll probably be the last I speak on the Bible in this thread, as it?s moving far off topic. [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]So an unmarried man or woman in their sixties is treated no differently than a married person of the same age? There is definitely a social stigma attached ? especially to women ? to those who don?t marry. More importantly, married people are eligible for all sorts of government and private organization benefits that single persons cannot obtain. To discriminate against people of different genders applying for marriage is to deny them these benefits, and serves to further stigmatize them.[/color] [/QUOTE] The social stigma that people make for marriage is not going to change by changing marriage to include new parties. As for the benefits of marriage, I wrote earlier that I have no problem letting anybody share certain rights (such as hospital visitation) and [i]do[/i] through power of attorney. But if we aren?t to discriminate between a heterosexual union and homosexual union, how can we justify making any discriminations in the future? One benefit of marriage is the transfer of assets. If a husband dies, he can give up to 1.5 million (depending on state laws, I?m speaking for my own) tax free to be inherited by his spouse. A gay couple, even with an attorney cannot do this- their assets are taxed from the first cent. Now, it seems like this isn?t fair. So let?s hypothetically remove this restriction from homosexual couples? I might not get married, but I?d like my best friend to have my money, so why don?t I get a civil union with him? But he does want to get married. Oh, who?s discriminating? He can go ahead and get married to his wife and we?ll keep the civil union! Maybe if my wife dies, I?ll have a civil union with my children so I can share the benefits of marriage with them? Why not my sister? Why not my college roomie? If you don?t want any discrimination, Dave, then all bets are off. There?s no valid reason to allow homosexuals these rights and not other (more controversial *gasp*) groups. Let?s take a gander at NAMBLA.org. Read some of the stories on the website. There are some men who can?t have sex unless it is with a ?boy?. Why shouldn?t they be granted civil unions with their loved one? Read the ?boy?s account?- does it sound like these are physically, emotionally abused children? Sounds to me like we have to mutually loving people who simply have a more unconventional relationship. Why shouldn?t they get married? [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]With regard to discrimination, your examples are of ?The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment,? while gay marriage falls into, ?Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.?[/color] [/QUOTE] There isn?t a prejudice here, there?s no civil policy to treat gay couples any worse than heterosexual couples. It is simply the preservation of what I, and the majority our democratic nation see as what constitutes to marriage. [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]Then let the government marry whomever it pleases, if it is at the alter that marriage truly matters.[/color] [/QUOTE] I agree, it is the alter where I?ll consider myself spiritually married. [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]The definition of marriage wasn?t fundamentally changed with Vegas drive-through weddings?[/color] [/QUOTE] I can?t really control whether or not a man and woman get married for the right reasons. I can?t control that without restricting marriage for those who [i]are[/i] getting married for the right reasons. I [b]can[/b] prevent a further devolution of marriage. Seeing the newest post?ees, I can see that this discussion really isn?t being added to much more than people cut-and-pasting their own opinions without responding to where the discussion has already gone (I?m looking at you KKC and Zenriek). So, I think this might be a good time for me to let the discussion die down unless someone decides to quote me, asks me to reply, or I see something simply too outrageous to ignore. It?s been good debating both Dave and Alex. He really should have the last word, though: [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green] I?m going to leave this discussion on this: I think, Drix, we both agree that the government should stop marrying everyone and hand out civil unions to any people that want to be recognized in the eyes of the state as partners. Religious establishments can choose to marry whomever they please. ... or at least something roughly to that effect.[/color][/QUOTE]

[quote name='Onazuma']Before I Answer this, I would like to know if any1 is under 11 years of age, because i don't wanna explain something mature to under aged kids...[/quote] Well, I think you should be able to get away with the gratuitous details of subject matter for 11+ year olds. *chuckle* It?s kind of absurd to debate when ?life? begins because we have an objective, empirical, proven beginning. It sounds to me when you are arguing ?humanity? begins. Here?s an easy way to tell if an organism is alive: is it dead? If not, it?s alive. Comatose people (while perhaps not ?human? in a philosophical sense) may still be alive nonetheless. From the moment of conception, there is a living and unique organism. And, logic would argue, it has the same genetic makeup required to classify it as a member of our species. In fact, the DNA in each of our cells is no different than the very first cell of our conception. We are merely a larger, more complex assemblage. Biologically speaking, brainwaves and such are products of the increased complexity- not some magical ?alive? line that people cross in-utero. So to sum it up, life begins at conception. With that in mind, what do you think makes us ?human?? Baron gave his ideas. When do you think we gain ?humanity? outside of the natural realm?

Well, the basic unit of something that is ?alive? would be a cell. As organisms are a single or multicellular being capable of metabolizing and reproducing on its own, I suppose we can refer to the ?organism? as the primary designator of what we consider living or not. Some amount of cells and tissue may die of some multicellular organisms and the may be still considered alive. Also, a skin cell (or even the skin) isn?t really capable of being alive on its own. In fact, by biological definition viruses aren?t alive. They are dead little balls of protein that rely on other organisms to metabolize and procreate. Cool huh? I suppose when we are talking about when a human becomes alive we can examine it from a few different aspects. In the sake of objectivity, I?ll give you the biological facts. While the gametes themselves are not technically living organisms, the union of a sperm and oocyte to form an embryo is the real beginning of ?life?. This is when an entirely new and (mostly) unique organism is created from two different progenitors, in the case of Humans. The embryo has entirely unique genetic material through an assorted combination (and rearrangement) of the parents? original genetic code. Being iteroparus and K-selected, ecologically, Humans are a type I (survivorship, and fecundity) population. Our offspring benefit from an extremely high survivorship rate because of the long term pregnancy and long rearing time before our children are independent of their parents. Biologically this ensures the best chance for genetic material to be passed down, at the expense of the energy needs of the parents (in fact, producing milk to raise a baby is actually a higher energy demand than the pregnancy itself!). As with all organisms, we require a source of oxygen and energy to metabolize. Because we are genetically hard wired to be dependent on our parents, an in-utero pregnancy ensures the growing organism a proper source of nutrients. Pretty neat, yeah? As far as when humans cross over the barrier from ?ball of cells? to humanity is a philosophical dilemma. It puzzles me really, because we are all just more complicated balls of the same types of cells that we started from *shrug*.

Alex, it?s good to see you?ve joined the discussion! I feel bad; because replying to this might take up the time I would have used to reply to Dave?s thread. It was a long day at work today, so I?m going to give you a reply that doesn?t really do your intensive post justice. The few things I do end up quoting are the biggest problems I have with your ideas. Now, I hate to draw this into a Bible discussion because that sounds like we may be getting off topic. So if you want to carry this discussion into another thread or PM? by all means . And please forgive me; I have chopped up your post quite a bit to get to the key points. [QUOTE=Brasil] But I think it's relevant here, in that there was never much "truth" in the Bible, even in the so-called "word of God." If you closely examine the text, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, most of that book is completely subjective. An unchanging truth would generally imply that the said truth is objective and relevant all the time. And that's just not the case. I mean, when you really consider it...how much "truth" is there in the Bible? When broken down into percentages, most of it is either conjecture, second-hand testimony, posthumous narrative assembled from bits and pieces of scattered documentation that by today's standards of modern law and forensics would be classified as completely unreliable in the determination of facts and dates, artificial socio-cultural rule-sets transcribed by the cultural (read: tribal) leaders of the time (some of whom could barely read or write from what I've read), and so on. [/QUOTE] There are parables, and stories. There are examples of unyielding faith (Abraham, Job) and recommitting to God?s path (Nehemiah, Moses). There are passages in the bible that refer to money, love, sacrifice, discipline. Some are indeed meant in the preservation of a somewhat isolated culture, and some are deeply rooted moral laws (the golden rule, the ten commandments). I would enjoy seeing the number crunch by the people who are providing you with the idea that the Bible is an unreliable transcription. Obviously you can quantify much of life. But faith, and faith that the Bible is what it says it is, isn?t something that you can really measure. We have a truly unfortunate predicament in that you and I differ on our belief of the Bible. I would take it as it is, and you choose to believe a conflicting second-hand source. Really, until you start reading the Bible? I really mean [i]reading[/i] it rather than taking it out of context? it is really fruitless to debate it. [QUOTE=Brasil] That the messages between the OT and the NT are almost completely different. In the OT, you see that. You see those rules at work, you see them result in the complete obliteration of entire cities. You see just how dickish God can be. Unchanging truth? Not at all. Jesus represents a dramatic ideological reversal of 99% of what we heard in the OT. [/QUOTE] These three separated passages seem to represent the cumulative message of this post, I think. The life and death of Jesus represents a big change in the Bible because it is really the most significant event of all time, Biblically. The idea of God as a merciless and unkind being in the Old Testament is utterly wrong and truly an uneducated assumption about the text. The coming of Jesus was prophesied far before he was born as the moment God felt the world needed him- for whatever Gods reasons. Before the coming of Christ, God shepherded and cared for all who chose him and followed him. He saved his people on countless occasions and blessed his faithful servants. He instructed his people on how to live their lives in a truly tumultuous time (as ?common sense? was lacking everywhere in that era). The God of the Old Testament isn?t any more ?wrathful? than Jesus. Sure, Jesus didn?t destroy a wicked city (a city that God, according to the Bible, could find not a single good person in)- but if you read his story, he did draw a solid moral line between a right and a wrong (the bankers in the temple, the temple leaders). He was sent to correct a message of forgiveness that had been perverted by the people before him, however. [QUOTE=Brasil] I think two thousand years has certainly wearied Jesus' original sacrifice, because virtually nobody I see in the public arena seemingly gives two sh*ts about that anymore. Plus, one shouldn't devote themselves to a religion because of a sacrifice one man made to absolve others of sin. That is basically what The Passion of the Christ was: one huge guilt trip. [/QUOTE] I don?t devote my life only because of Jesus? sacrifice. I don?t even devote it because I?m guilty of acting immorally sometimes. I devote my life to God because I believe that we were all created to share a truly personal relationship with God, both in this life and eternally with him in the next. Ask yourself why you feel guilty, Alex? Why are you asking the movie?s message to justify your guilt? Do you feel as if though you are on uncertain terms spritually? You took away the wrong message from that movie. Here?s the kicker: -We may all be guilty of a million things, but we are all forgiven if we [i]just[/i] ask for it. [QUOTE=Brasil] Again, how many people actually quote the Ten Commandments these days, or refer to them explicitly, or even subtly draw from them? Not many. And how many of those Ten Commandments are all that relevant today, anyway? ?[/b](pardon the cut)[/b] Or is that kind of thought process more indicative of just pure, straight-up lack of common sense? [/QUOTE] Sociology is our friend in this matter. It?s true that many cultures have established moral guidelines besides the ones influenced by Christianity. But why are rules made? Because someone has broken them. And why did God send Moses the ten commandments? Because his people had and were going to break those rules. Because sometimes it takes more than a moral conscience to realize that adultery is wrong. Some people simply need to be told ?adultery is wrong?. And when I am asked why I am not a liar, I can reply, ?Because it wouldn?t be the right thing to do. I know this because it is written in his Word.? God help me, because the temptations of sex are great enough despite not being married. Sometimes God can act as the last moral witness, the last consideration before deciding not to do something- like lie, or steal. At least I have a guide. [QUOTE=Brasil] Or what about the "No Idolatry" clause? By the definition in there...we should kill Shigeru Miyamoto. We should eliminate all fanboys and fangirls. We need to have public exterminations of all things Pokemon, and stone to death every child who was obsessed over the Pokemon card craze from a while back. [/QUOTE] Last time I checked, no one is worshipping Pokemon. It?s fine to like something, but not okay to worship it. And why would I stone a pokemon loving fanboy or try to snuff out the paraphernalia? I wouldn?t do that with a Wiccan, or a Muslim. Once again, you are really taking something you know very little about out of context. Again I hate driving this topic off course, so if you really want to continue this discussion in here; please agree to disagree on our opposing viewpoints of the Bible. I am going to look at it as my ethical guideline, and you will not. *shrug* [quote name='Boba Fett][color=green]Really?[/color'] [/quote] Well, you caught me. What I?m trying to drive at is that the rights marriage does grant a couple doesn?t elevate them to a higher status as citizens. An unmarried person?s contribution to society is neither greater nor lesser than the bearing of a married person. See what I mean? [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] [color=green]I?m not sure how discrimination is ethical.[/color] [/QUOTE] You believe that you are [i]right[/i] and I believe that I am [i]right[/i]- isn?t that what ethics is about (what is right and wrong)? As far as discrimination is concerned, it is not an unjust discrimination. When I look at a homosexual couple and I look at a heterosexual couple, I see the heterosexual couple (for the purposes of this example) as ?married?, because they meet the requirements. Our government looks at a rich person and a poor person and puts them in a tax bracket. We look at a thirteen year old and a sixteen year old and see [b]one[/b] person who is allowed to drive. [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] [color=green]So what you?re saying is that homosexuals can go pretend to get married, and that should be enough? It seems to me like you should be more opposed to religious gay marriage, being that religion is the basis for your opposition, than governmental recognition of union.[/color] [/QUOTE] Don?t get me wrong. I don?t agree with religious gay marriage any more than civil gay marriage. But religious gay marriage is a private affair, and as any private affair is concerned- I reserve my judgment, I will not publicly oppose it. However, you are implying we should change a very public institution, and I am obligated to react. As far as a ?pretend? marriage is concerned, you should really ask yourself when you truly feel like you will have married that special person in your life. As far as I?m concerned, it will be at the alter, not the courthouse- I don?t need the government to tell me when I?m married. [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] [color=green]Why don?t those heterosexuals keep their marriage out of the public arena? We can just let them get married in their private lives, too.[/color][/QUOTE] A fair argument! But that?s not what the gay community wants. They want to take their private interpretation of marriage and [i]change[/i] our public interpretation. They simply want to change the entire definition of marriage, which is why we aren?t debating civil unions or specific rights. Which is one of my biggest concerns- if it is fundamentally changed now, why not change marriage to accommodate everyone?s interpretation of what it means to be married? I implore you, then, fight to remove marriage from the public arena. By all means, oppose it. A quick add on: [QUOTE=Lunox][color=darkslateblue] Although I look foolish for saying so (seeing as I have no authentic documents or anything), I agree with you. I used to think that homosexuality was a purely genetic thing, but now I've come to think that it can also be something that one will adopt because of psychological means. It could be because of past experiences or whatever, but, simply put, I think people can 'choose' to become gay. At the same time, I tend to think that this process would be subconscious rather than... you wake up one day and decide that you're gay. I also wanted to bring up something new to see if anyone was interested. A lot of studies has shown that there are animals that are gay. [/color] [I]New York -- Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either. At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born. For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said. Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world. This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic." But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean it is natural for humans? And that raises a familiar question: If homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral? The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Females have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly. Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, 'The females are very affectionate.' " Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. Last summer, the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law. In his book, Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild. Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peekaboo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex. Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said. Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, says their homosexuality "is about bond formation, not about being sexual for life." She said studies show that adult male dolphins form long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added. Scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable." But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes." What the animal studies do show, Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think." "You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate." In bonobos, she noted: "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly, you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction." [/I] - [url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL[/url] [color=darkslateblue]As of this point, my instinctive opinion on the whole thing is that since animals do it, it is a natural thing. However, I would also understand the other viewpoints. Ideas?[/color][/QUOTE] It's really good that you brought this up. Having studied biology rather intensely has really helped me with this dillema. Sex is sometimes approached in nature differently than as a purely reproductive action. Dolphins have sex for fun (often in the wake of large ships, where the sensation of churning water acts as an aphrodisiac), and some monkeys rub their friends genitals as a bonding activity (chimps) or as a sign of respect (baboons). And don't even get started on Bonbo monkeys. I have been able to work with bonbos in my ecology class and they are the horniest SOBs you'll ever meet. They have more sex than any creature on earth and would screw anything that would move if possible. Attempted rape by bonobo is amusingly commonplace by any humans interacting with them. Penguins are special because they are some of the few monogamous creatures. The sad fact is that these two gay penguins believe they have found a female. Quite simply, they are confused. It is endearing that they have been able to have raised Tango- a feat that would only be possible in captivity as it is the female who goes out to catch food while the male incubates (if both were males, and without a continuous supply of fish by the zookeepers, neither would leave the egg and the hatchling would inevitably starve). When you really get down to the nitty gritty, brass tax (haha), we can't really be expected to draw our moral guidelines parallel to even our closest known primate ancestors. And we can't conclude that because our animal friends have exhibited this behavior, it is a genetic trait in humans too. Because as far as we know (and I see that we both agree, here) it isn't genetic.

Glad to see you replied again, Dave, I like how your opinions are refining and I hope we can take something from this discussion.  [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]Why not? I?ve read all these religious arguements on the topic, but I think Alex addresses this well when he says.[/color] [color=green]We must recognize that times have changed and hope we can shed the prejudices we?ve carried for so many years.[/color][/QUOTE] John 4:24 ?God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in [b]truth[/b].? 2 Samuel 22:31 ?As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless.? I am not ignorant to the history of the Bible. And I recognize that it is not the same book as its original texts. However, just because culture and society may change, I see the truth in the word of God as unchanging. Two thousand years hasn?t wearied Jesus? original sacrifice, and thousands more have not eroded those ten commandments of Moses. I know that some of the old laws were designed to preserve and keep God?s people. However, throughout the word it has been clearly outlined that the union set for every marriage is between a man and his wife. And while you can debate cultural significance of specific verses, that principle remains throughout the Bible. But we aren?t debating the Bible, are we? This discussion isn?t really about a religious marriage. The Bible simply serves as the moral guideline that I agree with and form my moral foundation upon. You might found yours on through any other philosophy. Criticism or skepticism of [b]your[/b] philosophy?s history isn?t going to erode the fact that you are genuinely concerned over an ethical dilemma. [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]An inferior is one we say is, ?A person lower in rank, status, or accomplishment than another.? What else could you possibly be implying when you deny someone marriage, a right you afford everyone else?[/color] [/QUOTE] Marriage isn?t a rank; it isn?t a status symbol to hold as some sort of lofty accomplishment you can hold as a token of superiority. Marriage doesn?t grant any citizens special rights or privileges, or favor citizens once acquired. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This is how I identify and acknowledge marriage. Marriage is not the union of brother and sister. Marriage is not the union of man, woman, [i]and[/i] woman. Marriage is not the union of man and dog. I am trying to maintain this definition and this institution. You think I am ?denying? a right. Well the right doesn?t actually exist unless you [b]change[/b] the definition of marriage (and marriage itself). [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]That?s well and good for you to do. But this is a government matter. A government shouldn?t be in the business of deciding what a marriage is. If two people want to join in union, a government should treat them like any other two people who want to be together. If a government doesn?t do that, it is discriminating. [/QUOTE] You missed this: [quote name='Myself] Gay couples can get married in certain religious establishments and churches. They can put rings on their fingers, recite vows, and call each other husband and husband (or wife and wife). I respect that choice and I won?t interfere with it. Ask yourselves when you really consider when a marital union occurs. Is it when the government [i]tells[/i'] you that you are, or when you decide to make that mutual commitment together?[/quote] As far as their right to personal freedoms are concerned, they [b]can[/b] get married. This is most definitely a government matter when we are talking about legal and political implications. When we are talking about the state?s recognition of this particular union, and bring it from the private life to the public forum- it becomes a government matter. The government is represented by her people, and as a member of that representative body (tiny fraction as it may be) I am obligated to voice my ethical opinion. [QUOTE=Boba Fett] I?m not saying people shouldn?t voice their opinions in regard to government, but rather that they should recognize that religion and government serve different purposes and must act accordingly.[/color] [/QUOTE] If I believe in some ethical truth from a religion, and am asked how I should help shape this country, I will respect my idea of ?right? and ?wrong?. You cannot separate a man from his ethics, their source notwithstanding. [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]If laws are based in morality... I?m not sure I follow how it?s morally wrong for a 19 year old to drink or a 13 year old to drive. I drink. Am I immoral? And we earn these privileges, by aging? A ludicrous and wildly inaccurate test at best. [/QUOTE] Drinking is an action that has been regulated because it requires a certain amount of responsibility. One of the fastest killers of young people is drunk driving. This is a testament to the lack of maturity that often comes with age. Maturity doesn?t always come with age, but if it means saving a life or two, I don?t mind postponing their right to alcohol consumption until they turn 21. Sounds like a fair justification to you, right? But our age does not always define our level of maturity- that much is true. But can you deny the fact that most episodes of drinking and driving occur under, or close-to the drinking age limit? How about the fact that due to enforcement and education of this policy drunk driving has decreased 60 percent over the last 20 years? Sounds like this government policy is not only working, but in doing so, saving lives. [QUOTE=Boba Fett] How are homosexuals to ?earn? this right?[/color] [/QUOTE] A man of legal age can marry a woman. The government will then recognize this union as a marriage. I don?t earn the right to fly a plane by passing a driver?s education exam. I don?t earn the right to graduate from college by ignoring my major?s credit requirements. I don?t earn the right to practice medicine without attending medical school. It would be nice to legalize my practicing medicine after graduating from undergraduate college, but that would really change what it means to be a Doctor, wouldn?t it? [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]Can you marry? Can a homosexual marry? And there?s no disparity there? Marriage, once administered by a government, becomes service that must be provided equally to all. Don?t discriminate by gender. It?s wrong.[/color][/QUOTE] I?m not denying anybody the right to go out and find a member of the opposite sex and get married, homosexual or not (although it would seem absurd for a homosexual to join in a heterosexual union- as it would seem absurd if I received my pilot?s license without any intention of flying a plane) I will see that as fulfilling the prerequisites that we all must equally follow if we wish to participate in this institution. In this regard, marriage is a perfectly equal establishment. Besides, if they wish to get married in their private lives (as far as a cultural marriage or religious marriage is concerned) outside the [b]public[/b] (key word! key word!) arena; who am I to deny that? Cheers, Jordan

[QUOTE=orbindo]\ But there is perfectly good reason for citizens to carry firearms, you just have to look at the crimes and crime rates everywhere: up, up, up, im sorry to say.[/QUOTE] That is simply not true. Proof: [URL] http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm[/URL] [URL] http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm[/URL] I?m with Baron Samedi on this issue. I don?t mind hunting and all. But the decrease in violent crime isn?t because of vigilante gun toting citizens. It is our ever outstanding law enforcement. If someone breaks into your house, don?t go guns blazing after him. Don?t risk yourself or the lives of your family. Instead lock your door and call the police. Besides, you all misinterpreted the constitution. The right to bear arms doesn?t mean this: [IMG] http://www.daisy.com/graphics/history_rights_sm.jpg[/IMG] It actually means this: [IMG]http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/8118/builder16bb.jpg[/IMG] Think about it? bear arms. That would be ******* awesome.

Firstly, thanks for replying. It is always nice to have some feedback, critical or not. Secondly, I am taken aback by your response to my thread! Dave, you seem to be reading my opinions with a sour taste in your mouth rather than taking them for what they are! Here, I?ll explain what I mean. [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] Any cultural change effects history and all of them are recorded in textbooks. The end of slavery in the United States, passage and repeal of prohibition, de-legalization of narcotics and the success of the civil rights movement are all social upheavels that are recorded in history textbooks. Are all right? You be the judge. There are still people on both sides of every issue. The recording of legalization of gay marriage, should that come to pass, isn?t relevant.[/color] [/color][/QUOTE] It certainly [i]is[/i] relevant. Because, as I?ve said before, if gay marriage is passed it will be regarded as the second civil rights movement and carry several implications with it. Most importantly, it will be regarded as a [i]good[/i] thing. I simply don?t see it as a good thing. [QUOTE=Boba Fett ][color=green]Gay marriage [i]is[/i] the second civil rights movement in the United States. The U.S. is discriminating against a group of people because of their gender. A bigot is, ?One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.? If you teach your kids that homosexuality is immoral, [i]your children will be bigots[/i]. Just as my children would be bigots if I were to tell them that anyone without blond hair and blue eyes was inferior. You would be teaching intolerance, Drix.[/color][/QUOTE] I think the key word you confuse here is ?intolerance?. Do I ever implicate that we should not tolerate homosexuality or even homosexual marriage (as far as privately and religiously)? No, I tolerate homosexuality just as I would tolerate any aspect of our society. I tolerate homosexuality, I endure homosexuality, and I recognize that it?s a part of our society. I do not consider a homosexual any more ?inferior? to a heterosexual (did you even read my post?). I do not consider it a morally right choice, however. Similarly, I do not consider the changing of the meaning of marriage (in public non-religious forum, of course) a good thing. Because, Dave, when the government asks us to vote on a political side, representative, or even if we end up becoming the law-makers ourselves we must discriminate (?To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely?) what we consider to be right and wrong! [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]America is a democracy, not a theocracy. Church and state both exist in our country ? each in a separate sphere. Just because the civil rights movement used biblical principles doesn?t make it right. Lack of mainstream religious backing for gay marriage doesn?t make it wrong.[/QUOTE] [URL= http://members.aol.com/klove01/promland.htm][color=navy]Promiseland[/URL][/color] Read this speech by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ?When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.? ?Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence. Every man must decide when some things are right and some things are wrong. This is [i]ethics[/i] and some people decide their ethical principles through any number of philosophies and many decide their principles through their faith. Neither of these methods is any less acceptable than the other. But, you?re absolutely right, Dave. The United States is [i]not[/i] a theocracy. Through the creation of laws, the representative body of this country begins categorizing certain aspects of our life. I was merely pointing out an irony in claiming that this was the ?second civil rights movement?. Our government tells us when we need to serve it in battle, when we should pay its taxes, our status through census, and even whether or not the family restaurant can serve wine. These laws are codified on the principle that there is a ?right? way to do certain things and a ?wrong? way. It is wrong for a thirteen year old to drive, or a nineteen year old to drink alcohol. Those are privileges one must earn. When I fill out my information for tax returns I don?t receive thousands of dollars in tax refunds like some more wealthy people do. I haven?t earned that money, I don?t meet those requirements. Some kids haven?t earned MEAP-testing scholarship money every year to help pay for college, while I have. These are privileges, institutions created around specific requirements, which leads to my next point. [QUOTE=Boba Fett] Equality is the core principle of a democratic society. We are all equal; one person, one vote. Every person is entitled to the same liberties ? and when those liberties are denied because of prejudice, that is a violation of civil rights. [/color] By allowing some people to marry and denying that privilege to others, [b]you are designating homosexuals second-class citizens.[/b][/color][/QUOTE] I?m not [b]denying[/b] homosexuals marriage any more than I am denying a nineteen year old the right to drink. They simply do not meet the prerequisites that I recognize classify what a marriage [i]is[/i]. Instead I see the supporters of gay marriage trying to change the institution at its disenfranchisement. Marriage, in the legal sense, is not a liberty- it is a privilege, and something I respect. And here?s where your claim that I am intolerant falls to pieces. Even though I disagree with the idea of gay marriage, I do not regard any homosexual as less than myself. I do not disrespect their right to change the policies of this nation by voting any more than my right to maintain certain policies. There is no second-class citizen issue here at all, Dave, and I?m disappointed that you made that interpretation from my post. [QUOTE=Brasil] And just to add a bit of humor...who says God doesn't like the gays? I mean, do you honestly believe God ([i][b]a straight male[/b][/i]) has any fashion sense whatsoever? I sincerely doubt his "look" is of his own style. He's got to rely on a few queermo angels to look good...a [i]Queer Eye for the Straight God[/i], as it were.[/QUOTE] :D And on a final note, Shinji, a very well-thought out response. Despite some colorful syntax, I think you and I share some key opinions on the issue, especially with regards to the Christian standpoint.

Oh, I have to admit, I do love these discussions. It is interesting to see the plethora of new post?ees in this particular thread- one that has been long overdue my dear CHW. The first point I should address about most people?s unanimous support of homosexuality is that there is an overriding opinion of ?it doesn?t hurt anybody, who cares??. Certainly, [i]you[/i] all care about this subject. The fact that you are thinking of it so inductively tells me that very few of you are [b]thinking[/b] beyond the impassioned rhetoric of our ever-liberal culture (note I didn?t state how I felt about our culture becoming more liberal, but as a rule- it is swinging liberal). So, I?ll tell you why this topic is important to myself: someone opposed to both homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and in favor of homosexual couples adopting. [b][u]Homosexual couples adopting[/b][/u] Let me start by saying that if it is an untraditional family adopting a child- whether that is a homosexual couple or a single parent- no child should be denied a nurturing upbringing. That isn?t to say, however, that those companies who are adopting the child often provide that environment themselves! The family structure of any potential adopting family must be taken into consideration, just as money, current extended family, and family history are carefully inspected before a child is adopted out. I appreciate my parent?s marriage as an example of commitment and upbringing. They married for not only their own love, but to bring another generation into the world and support them in a safe, loving environment. Fractured commitments can drastically and negatively harm a child?s upbringing. The government recognizes the fact that the vast majorities of families produce children, and as a result, have legislated benefits that smooth over the expensive act of raising children. Because of this, I think it?s only fair that any couple that adopts, unmarried or not, should be granted similar governmental support (and I think they are, to a certain extent if I?m not mistaken). [b][u]Homosexuality from a Christian standpoint[/b][/u] [b]Is homosexuality a sin?[/b] Yes. Biblically homosexuality is sinful behavior. Then again, so is lying. So is adultery. So is stealing. So is lusting over women. So is breaking the law (give unto Cesar, which is due unto Cesar). So is taking God?s name in vain (ie. ?Goddammit?). There isn?t a Christian who hasn?t broken one of God?s laws. I have. No one is perfect. Therefore, taking that into consideration, I am not going to point a finger at a homosexual person and tell him that his whole life is a sin. That would be simply hypocritical, as I am no better than he/she. Instead, I don?t think we should in any way discriminate toward or hate homosexuals. I have friends who do things that aren?t ethically right, but that doesn?t mean I should abandon our friendship or think less of them. I have friends who are homosexual, and my opinion of their sexual orientation doesn?t burden our friendship. It is important to understand that, with my ethical standards lying in Christianity, I do not condone certain actions. As something I see as morally wrong, homosexual sex and relationships (that is, where two mutually cross over into a physical intimacy or romance as opposed to ?brotherly love?) are something I do not [i]accept[/i] as being okay or right. Most importantly, and here is where many people in my situation often fall short- I respect and tolerate their decision. My friend smokes marijuana. I don?t think that?s a [i]good[/i] thing, and something that might get him in trouble. But I?m not going to force his lifestyle to change because of my convictions. If he wants to change and he needs advice, he knows I?ll be there for him. That?s kind of the stance the Church should take. ?Hey, we don?t agree with that particular lifestyle choice, but you are free to make mistakes. We?re here for you anyway.? Jesus never turned his apostles away when they were guilty of great moral sins. He embraced them with forgiveness. No Christian should EVER condemn anybody, it is simply un-christianlike- and certainly a sin that I, and others like me have committed. As others have said before, it really is a personal journey. [b]But? homosexuality isn?t a choice, right?[/b] There?s a yes side and a no side to this. I almost had the opportunity to speak on this in another thread concerning homosexuality that was closed. I mentioned that there is no real, credible, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of an inherited gene responsible for homosexuality. Now there [i]have[/i] been studies. But if you check the journals, the few that have been published are both inconclusive and negative to the hypothesis of a gay gene. PLEASE prove me wrong! I really am looking for this answer personally and I would be very intrigued if it were a biological phenomena. So please, if you have information otherwise; cite it!  I don?t think it is a genetic thing, and if it is- well, the legalization of gay marriage should effectively eliminate homosexuality from the population (except for the small minority of lesbians who choose artificial insemination, where the gene ?may? be passed). So given that I don?t think there?s a biological case for it, do I believe that it is a choice? Not entirely. I?m not going to say that I was ?forced? or ?predestined? to have sex with the woman I fall in love with because she?s a woman. Neither would I diminish a homosexual?s choice to a member of the same gender as saying ?well he didn?t have much choice.? I think if we make choices that we believe are good, then we should value the decision as well as the outcome. We should pride ourselves that it wasn?t a purely animal desire that lead to the union of two people. I think the only explanation as to homosexuality is purely psychological. I think that it has to do with not only the environment, but the personal development of the child to adulthood. Hey, I never liked brussel sprouts when I was a kid. No matter how much I tried them, I hated them. I couldn?t really explain why. Finally, after I got a little older, I tried some brussel sprouts and they tasted a little better. Now, I can happily say that they are some of my favorite veggies . Excuse the trite analogy, but it?s difficult to truly explain a psychological maxim. (did I spell that right? It is ?brussel?, isn?t it?) [b][u]And the big question: Gay marriage?[/u][/b] Who cares? Why not? It?s not hurting anybody? Marriage is about love! That?s what I?m hearing over and over again. And it disappoints me to hear how few people actually seriously take gay marriage into realistic consideration. The legalization of homosexual marriage will affect the future in three big ways: 1) It will affect how it is viewed from a historical standpoint and taught to my children. 2) It affects us as taxpayers and moral citizens. 3) It affects the legalization of future alternative unions. Gay marriage will be taught as the second civil rights movement in the United States if it is unanimously supported and allowed. If I teach my kids my moral standpoint that homosexuality is an immoral behavior, they will be condemned as bigots and homophobes. I do not think this movement resembles the first civil rights movement at all because of one fundamental principle: gay marriage opposes religion?s involvement in politics while the first civil rights movement embraced Christianity as its deal-breaker. The entire case for Rev. King?s consolidation of equal rights was based on biblical principles and he had a perfectly legitimate case! Unfortunately, this cannot be used to support gay marriage because it is biblically wrong. If homosexual marriage is legalized, a certain percentage of my tax dollar will go to certain benefits allotted to the new unions. That doesn?t bother me so much really. Lots of tax dollars go to things that I don?t necessarily approve. But really, when someone is making a case for legislation, they really need to take that into serious consideration. The most important decision to be made politically is my responsibility as a citizen. I owe it to myself and to my country to vote for legislators and representatives in the government who share the majority of my moral values. If I am called to vote ?for? or ?against? gay marriage, I am going to be honest with myself and oppose it. I simply would not be ?true? to myself If I voted for it because I ?didn?t care?, would I? And people, that?s really as far as I go when it comes to the political opposition of gay marriage. If it is legislated, I?ll be disappointed, but I won?t lose much sleep over it. I do agree with the recognition of some sort of civil union, however the details are often so esoteric that it boils down to ?if they have a civil union anyway, might as call it a marriage.? But I can understand with the right for easy property transfer to your partner. And folks, gay partners [b]can[/b] visit eachother in the hospital just like any family member. I speak from experience here. Should they have the same life insurance plan, etc? Well, that takes a bit of a history lesson to understand the purpose of each. Which leads me to my final opposition of gay marriage: the slippery slope argument. The very arguments that are used in supporting gay marriages can also be used to support polygamy and incest, for starters. I mean, who am I to oppose three people that love each other unconditionally from expressing that love in a legal union? Especially if we know that marriage isn?t codified by traditional principles anymore. Why can?t a father have a civil union with his daughter to put her on his life insurance policy? Why shouldn?t I have a civil union with my apartment roommate to share car, or health insurance if we both drive it? Simply put, legalizing gay marriage ends up legalizing a lot of things that I really don?t agree with. This sort of thing breaks down a tradition in our culture that I think should be upheld under certain conditions. If I want to play soccer, I can?t expect to pick up the soccer ball, throw it in the net and call it a goal. If you want a marriage, which is a legal union between a man and a woman, that criterion must be obliged. Not only that, but when I get my future marriage legalized, I don?t consider that the point where I will look at my fiancée and call her my wife. It is the moment at the alter, when I can say before God that we are married, that I will consider us married. While I don?t expect anybody to share these specific beliefs, I?m trying to give you an idea of what [b]I[/b] consider the moment of marriage. I know that there is a need for homosexual couples to be publicly recognized. As I?ve mentioned before, civil unions accommodates this need. Again, that opens a whole new bag of discussion. Gay couples can get married in certain religious establishments and churches. They can put rings on their fingers, recite vows, and call each other husband and husband. I respect that choice and I won?t interfere with it. Ask yourselves when you really consider when a marital union occurs. Is it when the government [i]tells[/i] you that you are, or when you decide to make that mutual commitment together? [b][u]Thanks for reading[/b][/u] Some of your opinions have been nice to read, and I hope that this discussion really produces some positive insight into this very relevant topic. I hope you respect my opinions as much as I have tried to respect yours. If you want to argue any of my points; as always, I am glad to engage in civil debate  Cheers -Jordan P.S. Reading through the latter posts are really full of some heavy vitriolic between Da Newf, vick, dale, and orbindo. Really people, are we going to lose this discussion because of some heated remarks? Lets try to act at least civil. As for the idea that Jesus wasn?t real? well, then you must really regard any historical figure with equal skepticism. Honest proof and records are through both texts and to a lesser extent, census (which they have apparently found a roman census counting Jesus among Judea's inhabitants). I mean, do we have any similar evidence that Alexander the Great existed? His exploits are filled in only a few transcripts (often conflicting in details) by no more than four legitimate sources- Dorrian, Arrian, Ptolemy, and Plutarch. It is really absurd to claim that he didn?t exist, agreeing with him besides the point.

Here's a suggestion many have forgotten. Why not take up boxing? Turn that agression into something more healthy and productive like the sport of boxing. You'll get in shape and recognize your weakenesses. Because it sounds to me like your ego has been inflated by too many easy victories. Not only that, it will probably satisfy your desire to fight (which is a biologically natural desire in most men) in a mutually condusive manner. But trust me when I say this; we live in an age where brains beats brawn. If that means the kid that snaps and brings a firearm or the lawyer who will throw you in jail on assault charges- sooner or later you will lose.

The sad truth is that it really is advice that should be followed. While you don't need to fit a specific criteria; it should be a general rule of life-philosophy that when one is in his/her mid twenties, they should buck up and accept many of life's responsibilities. Similarly, when you are fifteen, I don't care what you [i]think[/i] you know; you are not ready to accept much responsibility or take on much of life's challenges. Just enjoy the fact that you are still young and that school is 'relatively' easy. Enjoy the fact that after 3:00 (or whenever school gets out) you have the whole day to yourself, and that summers are a time for you to relax. Don't worry about finding love or having sex, that will come when you are ready for it. Take your formative teenaged years to discover yourself by yourself, and make friends who will enjoy the discovery as well! Most of all, appreciate what you have- it very well be as good as it gets if you don't.

A female president? I would love to see Condi run. I'm not sure how a female [i]and[/i] a racial minority would play out, but she'd definately have my vote. I certainly wouldn't vote for Mrs. Clinton for a few philosophical and political differences. I think it's only a matter of time before more and more women come into political power. If we are to say, as rational individuals that it shouldn't matter that someone is a woman to run for president; we must also rationally eliminate the fact that a future candidate might be female as a pro. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying being a woman is a good thing or a bad thing, but indifference is certainly key. It is easy to slide from "women should have equal rights" to "women's rights have been detracted from for too long, time for men to give something back". The second argument is pretty easy to make, but I think we can all agree that gender is never really a good credential when it comes to politics?

I hate to be "that guy", but we should clear something up for the purposes of this discussion. Homosexuality is not genetically determined. There is no legitimate peer-reviewed scientific material to conclude that it is a genetically inheretable trait. Even if it [i]were[/i] a genetically-predetermined orientation, that would not really help against the case of its abhorrence. Homosexuality is a biologically abhorrent because it directly interferes with our basic natural function: to reproduce. Such a trait would be eliminated from the gene pool because of the inability for those exhibiting the phenotypical behavior to ... reproduce! "But Jordan, you can artificially inseminate a lesbian!" So what? Unless artificial insemination becomes a regular practice among lesbians (which, it is not) that merely extends the longevity of the ( probably recessive) genotype a few generations at best. As far as homosexual male couples go... well, unless you can somehow pass your genes to an adopted child... yeah. Does that mean Homosexuality is a choice? Nope. My favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate. My favorite food is sushi. I like the color purple. And I like Quentin Tarantino movies. Now, I know I [i]like[/i] these things, but I can't actually point to a psychological causality from where these affiliations would stem. I would say the same might be true (on a more profound respect) for sexual orientation. I think that it is a product of development of the psyche, early interactions (and sexual exploration, for that matter), and upbringing. So what? Does the fact that it may not be arbitrarily imposed upon those who ascribe to the sexual orientation devalue the arguments for sexual acceptance? I say no.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the modern synthesis of Evolutionary Biology. If anything, I'd classify myself as at least a theological evolutionist That's the most science-heavy version of Intelligent Design. That is; I belive evolution is the mechanism God used in his creation. However, I [i]can[/i] answer your questions. There is a benefit to having majored in biology. [QUOTE=MomochiZabuza][SIZE=1] Anyhow, the major flaw in Darwin's theory was creation itself. He said we all evolved but he has no explenation for how what we evolved from got here in the first place. [/SIZE][/QUOTE] Firstly, Darwin made few assertions on creation itself. I suppose most of the debate boils down to "well if it came from this, where did that come from? (and on and on)". On abiogenesis, the Miller-Urey experiment of Amine formation in a prebiotic soup is now understood as being quite incorrect (Free oxygen due to photodissociation eliminates this proposal). I guess the current hypothesis for abiogenesis is "we don't really know", which is perfectly acceptable in scientific terms. Not only that, all theories applying to evolution rely on the presence of life beforehand. Oh and the argument that "given the galaxies and stars, it was only a matter of time right?" isn't really that logical. For one thing, not only was the process mathematically impossible (that is less than 1: 10^27 chance of occuring) on Earth, but in order for the process to occur, a planetary sized object of similar composition must occur at the same distance from the same size of a similar star. Those chances are astronomical. By the laws of chemistry most of matter is free space. According to chemistry, there is a chance that we can walk through "solid" objects like walls. This chance is astronomically low, however. So saying that abiogensis would occur given enough scenarios is like saying I'll eventually walk through my (closed) door if i walk into it enough times. [QUOTE=MomochiZabuza][SIZE=1] And what I don't understand is if we all evolved from primates why didn't anything else evolve with us? I mean, crocodiles were alive at the same time as dinosaurs (or so they say) and they are exactly the same. And plus, genetic mutation happens in plants too. Why doesn't a plant sprout legs and walk around with us? And don't tell me that they will in 1000000 years, because I can place a bet on that.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Crocodiles are [i]not[/i] the same as they were from the time of the dinosaurs. While their evolution may appear more subtle, it appears that they have been selected as more of a stabalizing selection. That is, the crocodiles we see today aren't terribly different from their ancestors, probably because their fitness is sucessful enough despite different pressures. Scientists do think that crocadilians did not use to be as terrestrial as they are now. [QUOTE=MomochiZabuza][SIZE=1] Plus, not a single genetic mutation today has been proven to benefit or improve a species. Look it up and try to find one, a fifth leg doesn't help because extra body parts are always stunted. Same with human mutations like siamese twins. Why would that one genetic mutation change the skin color, hair growth, and brain functions for the better all of a sudden? [/SIZE][/QUOTE] Actually there are many examples of known mutations. From allelochemicals to color changes. From varying beak lengths of galapagos finches to aposematic (or cryptic for that matter) coloring. Nothing gets better "all of a sudden" It slowly evolves. For instance, limb length in invertebrates with nubs (early limbs) might still be favored for their ability to scurry away. [QUOTE=MomochiZabuza][SIZE=1] [SIZE=1]plus, they have done experiments on fruit flies, they've exposed them to different levels of radiation and such. But no matter how mangled or abnormal their eyes, bodies, legs, and internal organs had become, they were still genetically fruit flies. Unlike darwins theory that says we became what we are today from a big black furry thing and runs around on all fours.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Actually fruit flies provide intriguing investigations on the importance of genes on the evolution of new structures. For instance, manipulating body plan chromosomes can breed flies with legs on it's head inistead of sensory antennae. Discoveries like these give scientists an idea of basic body plan chromasomes and their evolutionary history. Hope that helped :).

[QUOTE=Brasil]I voted war because I feel "peace through love" (particularly on a global scale) is trite and naive. Day-to-day life, on an individual level, peace through love? Absolutely. It's laughable, however, to entertain the idea of a global love for all mankind.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I agree with Brasil. I mean the bible's stuff on "thou shalt not kill" and "blessed are the peacemakers"... we can skip over that stuff right? I mean, comon' who honestly reads the Bible these days!

First, always a pleasure to talk with a fellow educated mind, Alex. [QUOTE=Brasil]Some time until my next class. Let's have some fun. It's relevant, though, because we both agree there needs to be a separation of church and state as much as possible--or at least as much as is reasonable. (Atheists getting their panties in a twist over the "In God We Trust" on dollar bills is laughable, for example). The very notion of teaching I.D. in schools is laughable--especially when said religious/spiritual concept is being proposed for science courses--because while it wouldn't necessarily be a government endorsement of religious thought, it still violates that principle, especially considering the inappropriate context of such a proposal. [/QUOTE] You?re correct, religious indoctrination is a threat to the idea of teaching Intelligent Design. I don?t so much have a problem with the teaching of religion, but how it might be taught. I learned about the main world religions in my highschool education, it?s an important aspect of our education of worldly cultures. We?ll get to where religion has a place in Intelligent Design [QUOTE=Brasil] But it does require a divine presence in the universe, Jordan. It's the entire crux of the I.D. argument: that there's some type of divine presence behind every single process, because there are some processes yet unexplained by science. To say that it "does not necessarily" define a said creator is dodging the point, I think, because the fundamental reasoning behind I.D. is absolutely identifying a specific creator figure. [/QUOTE] I think while a ?creator? or ?designer? is going to be inevitably identified by ID?s supporters, I suppose you are correct. The only difference is how we this aspect of the theorem should be handled in class. I?m referencing to an earlier post of mine on a possible in-class discussion (yes, sharing of ideas) on possible ?Designers?. Let people identify their designer, and continue with teaching the biological signatures that separate ID from macroevolutionary theory. [QUOTE=Brasil] What I'm citing is a trend I'm amazed nobody has ever noticed, considered, or conceived. I'm not a genius by any stretch, and my intellect isn't vastly superior. Teleological Evolution contradicts mainstream evolutionary theory, sure, but it is not right along the track of I.D. I won't argue that evolution is random. It fits together too well to be random. [i][b]But[/b][/i] a purposefulness of life's conception and composition (i.e., a detectable goal, if you will) in evolution neither establishes nor sets a precedent for making the leap to "Therefore there must be a creator." You see, the problem with the I.D. argument is that it derives from people figuring a purposeful process must be the work of a conscious entity who operates independently of the given process' environment. This brings me back to what I said previously about people applying a divine meaning to something grounded exclusively in the physical reality of their world, and it's why I mentioned Mesopotamia and the floods. [/QUOTE] Fair enough, Alex. In fact, except for mutation (the most basic element of evolution) evolution is [i]non[/i]random. What, then, drives mutation? if we are to entertain the idea of Teleological evlolution? What is this purpose? Or rather, where does the purpose come from? [QUOTE=Brasil] God or Yahweh isn't named, but let's be honest here, Jordan: anything that proposes a higher power is a religious doctrine. It's a spiritual proposal. It's a mythological proposal. The minute something suggests "Divine Presence" is the minute it adopts a religious viewpoint, whatever that religion may be. The very act of inserting divinity calls upon religious doctrine. [/QUOTE] You?re right. But when we?re talking about macroevolution and intelligent design, we both site ?supernatural? events. Neither can be observed in nature. ID uses the excuse that the ?Designer? worked behind the scenes. Evolution uses the excuse that it takes thousands, if not millions, of years for true speciation to occur. Evolutionists say, ?Ah, but we have evidence for macroevolution. We have fossil history, genetics, a mechanism in microevolution, population genetics (totally different from mapping genomes, I?m talking allele frequencies. You know, Hardy-Weinburg stuff), etc. Intelligent Design (or at least the one that I choose to accept) claims, ?Hey. We buy most of that stuff, but there?s a few clues that all of this evolution stuff isn?t as random as we thought. If it?s not random, it must be purposeful. Purposefulness infers a consciousness.? Both ideas are ? *gasp* supernatural. Do they have a place in discussing evolution? [QUOTE=Brasil] Disproved how? Because someone can't accept that a gorgeous system works without the hand of some conscious, divine higher power? That perhaps that system works due to say...I don't know...Natural Selection? Merely the natural progression of things? Not even the abstract notion of "Mother Nature," either. I'm talking about a realistic "this is how nature works in an evolve-or-die" type of state. [QUOTE=Brasil] We see it already, even in something as mundane as the Avian Flu that's spreading. The thing is mutating, but not randomly, because it's adapting to new environments, to new antibiotics, to new treatments. There's a purpose behind its mutations, but that purpose is not due to any higher power or divine presence. It's like "That which does not kill me makes me stronger." Adapt or die is the name of the game; it's the ultimate conclusion. Not Intelligent Design. [/QUOTE] You don?t quite understand the idea of mutation in terms of the commonly accepted notion of adaptive radiation. Drug-resistant bacteria, like TB, have arisen purposelessly according to the Modern Synthesis. The premise is; bacteria such as those that cause TB reproduce so very rapidly, and create so many generations per seconds, that after thousands of given generations some of the bacteria?s DNA is bound to mutate in ? say? a replication error or transposition. The antibiotic which previously eradicated the TB is suddenly ineffective on the few mutated copies, and they survive, their offspring sharing the same drug-resistant mutation as their forbears. There is not a possibility for a ?conscious decision?; no purpose at all. The only reason that some strains of TB are multi-drug resistant is because of a random mutation made just likely enough to occur given the prolific bacteria. Intelligent Design does not argue with microevolution. [QUOTE=Brasil] Jordan, I.D. goes from "Evolution sucks" to "There's a divine presence at work here" in under a paragraph. It's not pointing to anything objective and it's not pointing to anything quantitative. If anything, I.D. is entirely [b]sub[/b]jective and entirely [b]qual[/b]itative, which is exactly what the ancient belief structures of Mesopotamia were. We can't exactly observe micro/macro-E because they take tens of thousands of years. How does that prove (or even set precedent) for the Pro-I.D. argument? Simply, it doesn't. Like I said over AIM last week...pointing to a supposed gap--a timespan of twenty millennia that absolutely no human being could ever, ever witness first-hand--and then leaping into I.D. is jumping the gun to an absurd degree. [/QUOTE] Intelligent Design, just as any Evolutionary Theory is never to be assumed ?provable? or ?true?. It is merely the most probable explanation- until disproved, that is. In fact, one of the first things you learn about the statistical analysis of biology is you can never be 100% sure on ANYTHING. The most stimulating event in a scientific community is when an existing theory is challenged. Take continental drift, it was considered outrageous and its evidence too inconclusive when it was first proposed. In fact, scientists set out to disprove the idea of continental drift and in doing so, learned more about the world than before. Science is and adversarial study and much of its ?power? proceeds through the falsifying of hypotheses. There is data to suggest that our current hypothesis of macroevolution through natural selection based on random mutation does [i]not[/i] explain the way life is today. This change, as unpopular it may be amongst the scientific community today (recall that evolution wasn?t exactly popular when it was first proposed) it must at least encourage a rebuttal? or a change in the current theory. [QUOTE=Brasil] And these broken basic mechanics are? It seems to me that because we have thousands--possibly millions--of different species on the planet today, because over the course of 65 million years, we've seen so many different forms of life occur, looks like both microevolution and macroevolution actually do exist. [/QUOTE] Okay, I wanted to address your argument here last because I think we should move away from the ?does intelligent design have a place in our schools?? to ?how exactly is evolution disproved?? Lets start with a single argument, open for anyone interested in this discussion: Given an early earth with very specific atmospheric and environmental conditions, how did the first single-celled organism originate? Everyone feel free to answer this one however they please, my answer will follow. [quote name='Decadence][color=dimgrey'] Also test's don't check what you know, they check to see if you've been listening in class. [/color][/quote] Not quite. But I see where you?re getting at. Tests do test what you know, and if you know what has been taught; not what you believe. Does that sound right? That makes more sense considering what you mention below. [quote name='Decadence][color=dimgrey'] So you answer as the class dictates, not what you believe. If i beleaved that this world was just a creation of my mind, or that we are in the matirx (as an example) answering that would flunk me. (And get me deleted from the system) But if i answered as the class dictated, it would prove that I payed attention in class, not that I beleaved what they were teaching. [/color][/quote] YES! You are exactly right! I believe in Intelligent Design, but I have NEVER refused an opportunity to learn about Evolution. In fact, I could get my BA in Evolutionary Biology following this semester, but it?s not going to get me to med-school? so? Anyway, Evolution is something that should remain in our classrooms! I agree that it is important, considering its current monopoly and relevance in the scientific community. I understand evolution, and it makes TONS of sense. Even though I may not agree with the stand-alone theory, it makes plenty of sense- let?s say 99.9%. However, the more I learn about evolution, the more of its current challenges become apparent. Once you learn about a science?s past, you must continue to pursue the future of a theory. In order to produce a refined theory is identifying and answering the current questions of said theory. I see some pressing questions with the theory of evolutions, some of which are so dramatically contradictory to the original theory that I have decided to consider the idea of a ?Designer?. On a final note: Alex, Chabi, and kuroinuyoukai; your opinions are appreciated. But please, don?t derail this thread. I, for one, see plenty of life in it yet. It would be tragic to see it closed due to bickering alone. In fact Chabi, no offense intended, but we aren?t arguing theology here. In fact, this post will hopefully stir people into a more scientifically-relevant debate with the question mentioned earlier: [u]How did the first single-celled organism originate?[/u] So, Chabi, considering your previous history on this thread? I humbly request that you stop posting here. Please. Same goes to Warmaster, unless you are willing to provide a more reasonable argument that?s more than a single sentence per post.