AzureWolf

[quote name='Manic']...and I love the taste of beef.[/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]You know, it has always been my dream to build a steakhouse right outside this one Indian professor's office, but that's another story... Manic, while I do respect your stance, I really dislike the whole "every religion is right" idea. That borders on the whole "Jews for Jesus" religion, which just doesn't make sense. If there are any Jews for Jesus reading this, I would really love to know what makes you guys different from Christians. Of course a lot of the ideas are the same: they are even stated as such, like the whole Moses thing and the pillar of fire. [quote name='Baron Samedi]Is Azure...Catholic?[/QUOTE] Haha, no Baron. As Dagger mentioned, Catholicism is like a subgroup of Christianity. Even if it wasn't, I'm not that bloody nit-picky when it comes to religion.[QUOTE=Dagger IX1']Haha, I could have sworn you were Catholic (Baron, Catholics are Christians too). In fact, I was absolutely positive that you were some kind of Christian. Now I feel sort of sheepish, because I'm not quite sure what gave me that impression. ^_^;;[/quote] Heh, I was actually referring to people who try to flame me. I didn't know other people also thought I was Christian, but now I really want to know why I give off that feeling. Of course I'm not going to ask the people who are trying to insult me, haha. *thinks back* I think the most recent one was where ChibiHorseWoman was trying to get me back for saying something about Wiccanism, and lo-and-behold, she starts using Christianity in her hypothetical example.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Godel, I've always seen religion as a belief system. With Atheism, you have chosen not to believe in God. In other words, you believe there is no god. The only thing that would not be classified as a religion would be the agnostic group. That's actually a lack of a belief system, and therefore a lack of a religion. They can't bring themselves to believe in anything, God or not. As for my religion, I want to see how long people mistake me for Christian, so my lips are sealed. It's so funny how NO OB member has guessed correctly and I've been labelled as a Christian by so many. It's almost too funny. So, here's to keeping the fun going.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Dagger IX1][size=1]I certainly didn't dislike what I saw of Angel Sanctuary (I think the first time I encountered it was in a Viz manga sampler). I read the excerpt, thought "Hm, that's kind of cool," and made a mental note to pick up volume 1. I remember re-reading it a couple of times when I ran out of other manga, but still kept forgetting to continue the series. This wouldn't be a case of me forcing myself to spend money on something I found distasteful.[/size][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Ok, see, that makes more sense than this statement, which is why I was confused.[QUOTE=Dagger IX1][size=1']What's funny is that I love pretty much every single other manga Kaori Yuki has created (her shounen-ai one-shots are amazing!), but I've never been able to get excited about Angel Sanctuary.[/size][/quote]It sounded like you never enjoyed it. *shrugs* Anyway, I was at Barnes & Nobles in Hoboken the other day (the one on Washington Street). They just got a manga section and lo-and-behold, Angel Sanctuary volumes 1 and 2 were there for sale. Unfortunately, I used up all my money on celebrating the end of exams. I'm not bringing this up to boast about my manga adventures, but the fact that something like Angel Sanctuary was available in a place like Barnes & Nobles made me wonder. Annie, is Angel Sanctuary pretty "disturbing" in your opinion? You know, something that even adults could be shocked at? I'm asking because Barnes & Nobles had Angel Sanctuary and Chrono Crusade in the same section. B&N has an adult section, so I was wondering if it's tame enough to be sitting alongside other, less controversial manga since it wasn't placed separately. From what I've seen from the OAV, while there wasn't anything that crossed the line blatantly, it really looked like Angel Sanctuary was going in that direction. [quote name='Dagger IX1][size=1']By the by, I'd still love to talk about Naruto and Bleach and all that jazz. Would you like to make the thread, or shall I? :)[/quote]o_O Geez, what's the hurry all about?! Everytime I turn around... Anyway, apart from my connection dying while the post was being uploaded (and hence everything I wrote was lost), the problem is that I don't know where the thread should go. There's the Bleach thread, but again, I don't want to sour the discussion there. The Naruto thread is dead and too long, IMO. I would prefer to have a big "Naruto & Bleach" thread separately, but I don't know if that's allowed. *shrugs* You're the mod, Dagger, so you know better where the discussion should be handled, so either direct me by PM, or initiate it. ("by the by" = heh, to steal a page from Sara)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]That 'twisting' comment was right after my last quote [ie. from your post] and said something like 'You can twist these comments around to fit your purposes' [or something, lol] and I was saying that I thought your comments were very twisted, because you didn't look at all the facts. But now I feel awful, because I felt vindictive when writing my previous post, but you were so cool So, in the name of good sport: Reply.[/size][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I quoted you? O_o Are you referring to the bold text in my edit, where I state the [B]"Homosexuality is right because animals are homosexual"[/B] and the [B]"Why must you come between two people's love"[/B] comments? I wasn't quoting anyone specific (or else I would have used quote tags). I was just showing the only two arguments pro-homosexuals have presented, and demonstrating why they are flawed. And if I did quote you, I seriously don't remember and apologize if I was harsh. I didn't really notice anything vindictive. Baron, maybe you are just too nice a person and your definition of "mean" is rather PG compared to other people's. :p The only reason I even played around with the quote tags when quoting you was that I formatted Sara's text but not yours, heh. ANYWAY, I'm removing myself from this discussion (thanks anyway Baron: the invitation is appreciated). No, I wasn't forced into a corner (I really wanted to talk about the scientific angle a little more, heh), but other discussions beckon. This thread is just too active and fast to keep up with, haha. I had fun, and I'm very thankful that everyone (except Lunai) was very curteous in their responses to me. In closing, I would just like to reiterate my stance: [i]There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual, but trudging along that path and committing homosexual deeds (i.e., guy-on-guy action) is wrong. I know a lot of people prefer to use "nicer" examples when relating to homosexuality, such as two heterosexuals or Martin Luther King Jr., but I see homosexuality along the lines of, say, alcoholics. In other words, the biggest problem lies in the first step: admitting something is wrong. After admitting that, I would have liked to have seen where this discussion would have went, but the "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality" stance would not budge, even though I still feel a sound reasoning behind the stance was never developed (at least as of this writing). Most importantly, I'm a huge fan of using your gut instinct (or even your religion) to determine if something is right or wrong. However, it's just not something that a discussion can use. So, if you, some heterosexual, feels that homosexuality is right just because it "feels" right or "should be" right, that's cool with me, heh.[/i][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Dagger IX1]Maybe I'll buy the first few volumes once Koi Kaze starts coming out on DVD and have myself a little private incest-fest. XD[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Why would you have any kind of fest with something you dislike?! [QUOTE=Dagger IX1']i suppose I have no choice but to eventually start purchasing and reading Angel Sanctuary--[/quote]You are confusing the hell out of me. If you don't like it, why buy it?! You, one person, don't have to inconvenience yourself in the hopes that one day the stuff you like will come out. Really, it's not going to make a difference on what comes out and what doesn't. I know I'm missing something that you didn't state clear enough, so that's why I'm asking, because you aren't the type to buy like that (are you? O_o). To jump off-topic even further: I really hope no anime fan makes purchases like this. Don't buy something that sucks just because it's an anime/manga. Please.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Lore][size=1][color=purple]Azure, can you read my post and tell me what you think? I'd like to know if you thought that made sense. (Not necessarily that you agree with it, but that it makes sense.)[/color'][/size][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I can't believe you would even THINK I skipped over your post. Of course I read it. :p Anyway, [QUOTE=Lore][size=1][color=purple]If... male + female is the defining criterion for marriage, as many people make it out to be, then any incestual (or otherwise, there have been other examples in this thread) relationship is okay. The fact of the matter is, "male + female" is not the single, defining criterion for marriage, as evidenced by the fact that certain male/female relationships are not accepted. I think...that's all I'm going to try and say at the moment. Does that make sense?[/color][/size][/QUOTE]Yeah, it makes perfect sense, and I agree 100%. You are right that "male + female" is not the only requirement for a legitimate marriage. I've been trying to point out the absolute differences between all possible types (and sub-types if you want to call it that) of love, so I'm with you there. Why did you bring this up, out of curiosity? Does it support homosexuality? If so, how? What are you scheming?! O_O [quote name='Lore][size=1][color=purple]Side note: "Anime sexuality." Heh.[/color'][/size][/quote]Ack... You know, when proofreading, I saw "animal," and for some reason, I actually "corrected" it to "anime"... o_O [QUOTE=Lore][size=1][color=purple]In the past (not in this thread, that I've seen, but eh) one arguement I have seen [i]often[/i] against homosexuality is along these lines. "It's unnatural. No other species engages in homosexual activity." So when people bring up evidence of homosexual activity in animals, I didn't view that as "Animals do it so it's okay!" It seems more that they are presenting evidence against a common (and by this point in time, almost [i]implicit[/i]) arguement against homosexuality.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]Thank you, Sara. This little bit of history clears up why people have been making a point to stress the animal fact. It works perfectly as a rebuttal, but doesn't really work as an opening argument. Because the reasoning before against homosexuality was that other animes don't practice it, of course the fact that they indeed do would be a huge blow. However, I can't take responsibility for previous threads. At the same time, I understand the point people were trying to make and so there's no need to pursue the animal angle any further. Indeed, both sides were at fault for relying on it in the past. [quote name='The Baron-ator!']What do you mean? Are you saying that being sexually involved with another species is acceptable? That risking malformed offspring is acceptable? That taking advantage oif a child is acceptable? That desecrating the dead is acceptable? You tell me where it's acceptable. Go on. Which of those is acceptable?[/quote]Sorry I'm not formatting your text, Baron. Anyway, to address your point, you are now treading on another facet of sex: making love with infected or reproductively-unsound persons. Why should two people who genuinely love each other be forced not to make love because one of the partners has, say, HIV or Huntington's? Ignoring that discussion, though (since it has nothing to do with the thread - yet), I would say you are implying that the only redeeming quality of homosexuality is that it bears no disgruntled offspring. I'm willing to ignore the genomic and biological aspect of the argument and agree that homosexuality has a saving grace because it doesn't result in an unnatural "love child." Yes, that takes care of the heterosexual versions of incest and bestiality. Now, what about homosexual incest and bestiality? I know I said I'm willing to ignore it, but based on your response, I may not be able to disregard the genomic and biological aspect this time around. *shrugs* [quote name='The Not Red But Still Cool Baron']Nobody said homosexuality was right because animals do it. It might not be right, but it shows that it is not entirely unnatural. I'd say that humans are a lot diferent to a horse and a donkey though, wouldn't you? In terms of, oh, you know, intelligence and cognitive ability? And in terms of realising "Oh God, this isn't Lisa, its my dog".[/quote] Yes, Sara has pointed out why people have been stating the whole animal thing, and so we won't have to go into an argument about whose interpretation is right, haha. Sara is indeed awesome. While we don't need to argue the point any further since I was in the wrong (but only because the point was wrongly stated :p), I should point out that this paragraph seems a little hypocritical: you are saying that animal sexual behavior demonstrates how something is not entirely unnatural, and then you turn around and say that the animal sexual behavior between a horse and a donkey is too different to be applied to humans...[QUOTE]There is a victim in this. The children who may be born. I'm hardly the one doing the twisting here Azure. In fact, I'd have to say that your points are doing a helluva lot of twisting. And mis-managing.[/QUOTE] "Love child" argument again, huh? I'm not doing any twisting, and I don't recall saying that you specifically made any twisting of any sort. If you want, change the "brother and sister" to "brother and brother," but my point still stands: the points presented just aren't logically sound. Just one last point: if it's about having kids, well, homosexuals aren't the only ones who have ways around that. ;)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='James][color=#811C3A']So really, this kind of logic could chase its tail all day. As human beings, surely we have the ability to make key distinctions (as has been made about beastiality and so on -- the comparison there is something I actually find quite shocking). I just wanted to make that addition, because I think that you have really understood one of the key problems I have with that type of argument.[/color][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]No, you are ignoring what I've been saying. I already addressed this: [QUOTE]In fact, we have been arguing quite the opposite: there IS a difference between homosexual and heterosexual love, and there IS a difference between different types of heterosexual (and homosexual) love/sex. Yes, we have been saying just "heterosexual love," but everyone knew it meant heterosexual love that is outbred. The arguments we've supplied show that, and there's little point to argue otherwise since what we've presented doesn't contradict this stance. If you want, we'll make a distinction from now on, saying that there is a difference and that we only condone heterosexual love that is outbred. It's nitpicking now.[/QUOTE] Look, from the get-go, both sides knew that we were not talking about incest in any form, or bestiality, or etc. Even for your side of the argument, there was homosexuality that was outbred, and outbred heterosexuality. HOWEVER, when you look at our arguments, the difference is obvious. We ARE saying there is a difference between all types of love. ON THE OTHER HAND, on your side, your supporting arguments are such that the logic could be applied to what we were not originally talking about: that is, incest, bestiality, etc. Take any logic we've been applying and see how it doesn't work with incest because we've been trying to say the reason homosexual acts are wrong is they aren't natural and different from the norm. Take your arguments and notice how they do apply to incest and the like because you are talking about any two people being allowed to love if that's how they feel and they are forced to feel as such. Again, burden of proof is on your side to explain why your support is exclusive to homosexuals and not anything more. If you want, by all means, show how ours logic that we've used to support our claim supports anything further than outbred heterosexuality, but I doubt anyone will get far with that. I don't know how to make it any clearer. The point I'm trying to show is that your arguments for why homosexuality is right/ok/whatever is flawed because it can be applied to things like incest. Now, if you actually approve of incest and the like, then we can leave this point and move on. And again, if you feel we've been making an equally flawed argument, I strongly welcome you to show me. So, I could understand the whole slippery slope argument since you (meaning people arguing for homosexuality) haven't presented a good enough reason to not believe it. If homosexuality was legitimized on the grounds mentioned in this thread, there's no reason other versions of various sex interactions couldn't be legitimized.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] EDIT: To illustrate and clarify: [B]"Homosexuality is right because animals are homosexual."[/B] [i]"Animals also do other species (see mule), so beastiality must be right as well."[/i] Notice how I don't even need to go out of the realm of animal SEXUAL behavior to make my point. I'm not making an extreme case about it at all: sticking with the sex acts. Was I even the one to bring up anime sexuality? Nope. [B]"Why must you come between two people's love?!"[/B] [i]"You are right, we shouldn't come between this brother and sister."[/i] Again, based on logic presented, hardly a farfetched thought. I thank Boba Fett for addressing my point. If you want to take any one of the reasonings we've presented and twist it as such to show an error, there's no one holding you (the opposing side) back.

[QUOTE=Lunai]OK, wait just a moment. I personally do not understand how burden of proof comes in to play when you are talking about the emotions and relationships of two consenting adults of the [b]human race[/b] (note the bold type, please). We are not discussing bestiality. Or any situation in which one party is unable to say "no" or make the decision to stop. We are talking about 2 people, over the age of 18, whom are of the same sex and wish to get married.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Alright, that's fine, but this incorporation leaves consanguine (i.e., incestuous) relationships possible, so all I ask is that your argument doesn't consist of such. Unless, that is, you actually agree with incest. Also, I was merely pointing out the error in people's current argument, since, by just based on their support for why homosexuality is right, you could also condone things such as beastiality.[QUOTE]Honestly, I don't give a rat's *** if the whole of Otaku Boards believes that sexual acts between two men together or two women together are disgusting. And how can anyone ask if a homosexual couple would be productive to society? Aren't the majority of law abiding citizens productive to their current society? What does whom they sleep with have to do with that? When they are adults?[/QUOTE]With all due respect, who said I cared what you thought? However, it's usually a nice thing to have some type of logical justification for your beliefs. A solid philosophical foundation is what I thought we were testing in this thread. I don't recall saying anything about homosexuals being unproductive except in a genomic sense, so I don't know where you are going with your argument. However, I should also point out that a person being homosexual is not the reason they are productive.[QUOTE]My argument does not justify anything in which there is a [u]victim[/u]: a person who suffers from a destructive or injurous action or agency. My argument is regarding consenting adults.[/QUOTE]I don't recall ever having said otherwise.[QUOTE]Some members, I would image, need to get out of high school and into the real world with the rest of us.[/QUOTE]Again, with all due respect, in the real world, people aren't going to accept "I don't care what you think" as an argument if you are debating with them. If you are creating a product line, trying to convince the buyer by saying "I don't care what you think" isn't going to cut it. This example is in the same vein, since a solid, supporting foundation is what is essential in both cases.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='James][color=#811C3A']Nobody is talking about having family members marry or polygamy or anything. All we're talking about are two consenting adults, who are in a stable relationship, who want the same rights that other couples have. That's a pretty simple concept. I mean, if marriage is between a man and a woman...what's stopping me marrying my sister? Or having a marriage of opportunity between myself and my female college roommate? The issues are all the same on both sides.[/color][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]While we realize no one is talking about incest or polygamy, the reason these... "possibilities" were pointed out were to show the flawed argument people have been using. I don't recall saying that marrying a consanguine person is the same as marrying an outbred person, and I don't recall anyone on the same side as I saying anything that could be interpreted as such. In fact, we have been arguing quite the opposite: there IS a difference between homosexual and heterosexual love, and there IS a difference between different types of heterosexual (and homosexual) love/sex. Yes, we have been saying just "heterosexual love," but everyone knew it meant heterosexual love that is outbred. The arguments we've supplied show that, and there's little point to argue otherwise since what we've presented doesn't contradict this stance. If you want, we'll make a distinction from now on, saying that there is a difference and that we only condone heterosexual love that is outbred. It's nitpicking now. The burden of proof lies on your side of the fence: you are trying to show how homosexual love is just like heterosexual love, but at the same time, your arguments are justifying other types of love you wouldn't approve. It's hypocritical, really. Do you really have some argument that is specific to displaying how human-human homosexual love is the same as human-human heterosexual love without pulling in all the other variations possible?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Let's face facts people: gamers were just not meant for the telly. Why do you think we are a bunch of people sitting behind computer terminals and closed doors? We are just not social creatures, and the terrible acting and speech-giving skills displayed in these award shows are all the proof any (somehow) doubtful person needs.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Well, to just jump off-topic momentarily, I must say that if Angel Sanctuary was released any earlier than it was in the US, it would not have been as welcomed, as your mention of the love affair points out. To be honest, I have only seen the Angel Sanctuary OVA, which I heard was only the first volume (geez, it really ends at a cliffhanger!). I didn't know the manga was being released in the US, so I'm glad you told me. I'll be sure to check it out and see where this whole fiasco goes. I personally saw the two dilemma's you mentioned as one thing: [SPOILER]God's disapproval of Setsuna's love and how he must handle it.[/SPOILER] On the other hand, I haven't seen/read as much as you, so I could be absolutely wrong. They really handle the love affair well. You can't help but get pulled in and feel sympathetic, only to have your conscience slap you in the face. In the back of your mind, the whole situation bothers you. I was indeed impressed. Ultimately, though (and again, this is by just seeing the small fraction of the story the OVA conveys), I didn't really side with Setsuna, and I didn't sympathize with him. Alright, I do kind of sympathize with him: [SPOILER]what a shame it would be to have a girl that hot to be your sister[/SPOILER]! My only gripe is the concept of God. Where did the creator's concept of God come from? There are a few attributes of God that the creator seems to forget about, and, at the same time, assumes everyone knows what/who God is. I look forward to finally seeing what happens next. Oh, and OAV ends where [SPOILER]Setsuna stabs himself to enter Hades and retrieve his bride to be[/SPOILER].[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE]I love the fact that it's based on Alchemy. I don't think it has ever been tried before in an anime and that's what makes it different from all the others. Ever since I started watching in on Adult Swim I've been interested in Alchemy and been reading up on it.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]The alchemy angle is a little vague, IMO. Alchemy was the study of creating gold from other elements. While I have noticed that the characters tend to rely on the side-products of this search (such as the flexible manipulation of various compounds and fundamental structures), I'm beginning to wonder if the whole thing was just by chance. Again I ask, how can one be an alchemist of fire? O_o[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Siren']I honestly don't think there's evidence that concretely supports one or the other, and as far as I'm concerned, there's something more to it than pure psychology and/or biology.[/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I'm not filling in for Drix: he will answer whenever he does, but since he and I are in a similar major and agree on this particular topic, I think his answer would be something like mine. There are a group of scientists who claim that homosexuality is due to a mutation (well, they call it an allele :rolleyes: ) on a particular gene located on the X chromosome, which is repsonsible for some-such part of brain development. There has yet to be any data produced that supports the claim. The group is still working on it apparently. *shrugs* However, it has been the geneticists' experience that, for humans at least, even the simplest things don't seem to be exclusively genetic. Take eye color, for example: a phenotype which has been found to be based to various unrelated genes on different chromosomes. Something as simple as that, is indeed determined by not only multiple genes, but also the environment or random noise (random noise = the unexplainable factor in genetics/genomics, clearly not from genes or environmental factors). Identical twins, should their experiences in life be different, usually end up with different shades for their eye color. So, the weight, without any more word from the "allele" weirdos who claim homosexuality is X-linked, is towards environmental conditions or random noise. [QUOTE]I actually can't quite find the point here, Jordan, lol. Maybe you could help me?[/QUOTE] I think he was trying to point out the absurdity of not homosexuality itself, but the marriage benefits James was talking about. If two men can get benefits for being married, you can bet there will be few poor fathers who are not married to their college-bound sons, haha.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green]As far as bestiality and homosexuality, the difference has been clearly stated previously by Siren. Gay relationships are between consenting sentient individuals. Others, including bestiality, aren't.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I'm not sure how bestiality can't be consenting. Are you saying that every instance of bestiality is rape? The mere existence of rape means there AT LEAST exists consentual sex on the theoretical level. And what of times when the animal is the one who initiates the act of sex? Dogs do hump humans all the time... [QUOTE']Incest, while I suppose there are cases between consenting individuals, is biologically counterproductive. While gay relationships aren't necessarily productive with regard to progeny, children of incestual relationships are much more likely to have genetic problems.[/quote]Alright, now you are debating on a genomic angle. Inbreeding is a lot more conservative than homosexuality on the basis that the human gene pool still has a greater probability of keeping the parental genes within the human populace. Granted, there are a lot of lethal, recessive traits that are activated due inbreeding, but even these factors don't put homosexuality's rank above incest on the genomic level. So, as you can see, homosexuality is quite biologically counterproductive (and quite selfish): to knowingly knock one's genes out of the bank is quite the doozy when it comes to being productive, at least using a genomic angle.[QUOTE]I guess the second argument isn't as solid as the first; deal with this was you will.[/color][/QUOTE] It's not a big deal, really. Any argument where your gut instinct gives you an answer is worth arguing, IMO. *shrugs*[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] EDIT: I thought I'd point out that Drix and I were making our posts at the same time, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: the pro-homosexual points really aren't solid enough to be specific for homosexuality. I thought that was neat.

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Alright, first thing's first: Xander Harris, I tip my hat off to you, for being one of the few people I've ever met to know about the huge "pseudo-facts" that surround homosexual debates and ideas. There's just not enough study/resources, and guess what, there's not enough study to know if homosexuality is something environmental or genetic, and if both, to what degree each factor plays. X-linked allele/mutation or not, there's no solid evidence (and if there was, it WOULDN'T help homosexuals in arguing they are right). Next, I shake my fist at Dagger for pointing out a VERY good point (because I was SO going to point it out), and for Adahn for forcing the point out: every argument people have made for homosexuality in this thread... well... it can be applied to incest and beastiality (among other things). Rather than stand their in stupor at how such a comparison can be made, look at your argument and tell me how such an idea could not have been derived. Within a debate, "I can't believe" or "how dare you" are not valid rebuttals, and don't justify your side of the argument. So please, unless you are being hypocritical, tell me why the arguments supplied are exclusive to homosexuality. I am truly shocked at the flawed comparisons people who are for homosexuality have made.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]DerelictDestiny, it's cool with me if your reason for supporting homosexuality is by gut instinct. Heh, I tend to use mine quite a bit actually. Anyway, [QUOTE=Rhian]Another thing: do all you(who don't like homosexuality) really think we have control over who we're in love with, and who are body is attracted to? Can I help it that I fell in love with another girl? DO you really think we have a choice?[/QUOTE]I don't recall saying one had a choice, and I miss why having a choice matters. However, I have mixed feelings about the whole argument. There are some who are gay/bi, and then there are those who are gay/bi out of some sort of pressure, as mal has pointed out. It's the latest fad for gays and bi's to be in and accepted. If you support homosexuality, you are accepted among your peers. If you are actually one of the people your peers sympathize with, well, you get quite a bit more respect and attention. The human mind is quite the powerful thing. You can convince yourself you are something you are not, or something that doesn't exist to be the most realistic thing in the world. I'm not saying that's the case for every homosexual, but it definately exists. [QUOTE]Oh and heterosexuality may be "natural" but so is homosexuality, scientists have obseved it in almoast every animal. They have even observed it in chimps and other types of monkeys, wich are our closest relitives ( just ask Jane Goodall).[/QUOTE]Again, let's not go into this angle. There are quite a few things observed in other animals that you wouldn't condone when applied to humans. Before I actually mention what other shocking things exist between humans and animals, though, I want to know if that's everything you have laid out to support your claim. So some animals have homosexual tendencies? Other animals have "trial and error" sorts of behavior when it comes to sex. If you want to argue with this angle that homosexuality is natural and among other animals, that's fine with me. However, I urge you not to.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]To answer your chronology question, Meggido, the second movie occurs after SAC. The reason is very apparent near the beginning of the movie, but I'll keep this post spoiler-free. :) IMO, while I disliked them all, I would say that Innocence (the second movie) had the most substance out of everything GitS I've seen.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='DerelictDestiny][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]People already have been saying what's right with it, but I can add to it. Research shows that homosexual couples have a more even gender roles, meaning they don't fall back onto the traditional female/male roles of bread winner/house wife as easily.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]What's wrong with asymmetry? Are you saying that it's somehow inefficient? I'm not seeing how that makes homosexuality good (or bad). [QUOTE=DerelictDestiny][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]I see adoption of children by them, can only really be a win/win situation since you'd give a good home to a child that doesn't have one.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]That really doesn't make homosexuality right. All this statement tells me is that there's some chance that a gay couple will adopt, and that'll make everyone happier. Again, the same problem with the first argument: doesn't really show how homosexuality is good (or bad). Anyone can adopt - or choose not too. [QUOTE=DerelictDestiny][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]Oh and the funniest one. In New Zealand it has been proven that there are indeed, gay/homosexual male sheep. There's about a 12 sheep per person ratio here, so.. it's really funny to think how many of the rams are homosexual xD[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]So... you are now comparing animal behavior to homosexuals... What does animal behavior have to do with human homosexuality? Some animals eat their babies... I don't see how that is helping any scenario, especially since animals will do it with a rock. The more intelligent ones tend to remember and play with rocks over and over.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]BIG caveat, people: in Christianity (and most religions for that matter), it is not a sin to be a homosexual. Rather, homosexual ACTS are sinful. Now, to play Devil's Advocate (ironically)... What's with thrusting the burden of proof on the other side? Why does anyone have to tell you what is wrong with homosexuality? Instead, why don't you explain what is right about it? Is it possible that you are unsure of your stance and know that to prosecute is certainly easier than to defend? C'mon, start the ball rolling: it's in your court![/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] EDIT: As for Mirokyu, I say you should sitdown and talk with your parents (if nothing else) instead of shunning them.

[quote name='Dan Rugh']So far, I haven't really seen anything that's wowed me and convinced me that this anime was a must-watch. It's kinda boring and all those colonels and whatever are boring characters, also. Will it get better than this?[/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]It would be really helpful if you provided more details about what you dislike about the show. That way, it'd be easier to explain or discuss. Is it the characters? You don't think they are colorful enough? Maybe not the supporting characters (but I haven't seen enough to determine that), but the two main characters are quite the pair. Is it the premise? What is it?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] EDIT: Oh, right. Don't worry Dagger, if I needed to hate you, you'd need to do much more than something so unoffensive. And Media Factory letters = too much worry over too little spilt milk. :p

[quote name='Dagger IX1]However, I don't understand [i]why[/i'] it would be so horrible for other people to find out that Ed and Al tried bringing their mother back to life. After all, at the time they had both been very young--surely it's acceptable for children to make mistakes, right? Is there just an incredibly huge stigma attached to human transmutation, one which might plague them for the rest of their lives? I guess that would make some sort of sense--in the first two episodes, Ed showed a great deal of reluctance about telling Rose what had happened to him and Al.[/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]This entire statement shocks me, to be honest. I guess with future generations being more "liberal" (if that's the word for it), this concept doesn't seem like a big deal. Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to forgive them too, but that's not something to just brush aside because they were kids. I even applaud the two for feeling bad about it, meaning that old ways aren't completely dead. Even for kids, there are taboos, ones that distinguish the mentally unstable from the stable, or just plain evil from the innocent. "Black Arts" falls into that category. Call it psychology if you want, but there's a limit to how much you can get away with, even with ignorance/innocence.[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Well, I'm all for discussing this. Would you prefer to talk about it in the Bleach thread, or in a new "biggest knock-offs" topic? ~Dagger~[/QUOTE]Oooo, Dagger be callin' me OUT. Seriously, why are you so confrontational lately? O_o Anyway, I'd be more than happy to discuss it after this Wednesday. I think it would be better to do it outside the Bleach thread, because I don't want to sour any discussion there.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Sounds like a fun request. I'll give it a shot, provided you can wait until AFTER Wednesday which is when my toughest exams will be over with. Either way, if I do it or someone else does it, it might take a while, so just sit tight. I bet I'm not the only one with finals. ;)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Are you annoyed by the fanservice, or by the fact that it didn't lead anywhere? ;) Also, now I'm curious... which set of character designs did you like more--or dislike less, heh--those found in the movies (I guess in this case one ought to use the first movie as a main reference) or those found in SAC? I really like the consistent, clean shading and the fact that there's a lot of visual depth. Artwork is a highly subjective topic, of course, but it is worth noting that SAC's actual animation is superior to that of virtually every other anime series out there. It certainly puts every other 52-episode show to shame.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I personally preferred the movies' artwork over SAC's. In the movies, the proportions made sense, but in the anime, everyone's just bulky and it looks very unnatural - even for anime. Granted, I'm not totally fond of either, but relative to one another, the movies definately have a more... innate(?) style about them. I'm not going to argue about the animation, since that would be a gripe that comes after good artwork, which, IMO, SAC doesn't have. It's really hard to notice good animation if it's for something ugly. Good example: naked old hairy guy doing a dance flawlessly while a well-dressed, beautiful girl does the same dance only decently. What's this "visual depth" you are referring to, out of curiosity?[quote name='Dagger IX1']Even if this was a Laughing Man episode, it's still too early for the viewer to comprehend the over-arching meta-story; moreover, your enjoyment of the plot would have been severely hampered by being tossed right into the middle of it. As for the stand-alone segments, some are simply much better than others. My mileage has varied, although if I get bored with a stand-alone episode's plot, I'm always quite happy to lose myself in the insanely great production values. The excellent acting (in both languages) does help.[/quote]I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you insulting my capacity to understand generic GitS storylines? You quoted my hacked brain thing, but I don't see what it has to do with what you said. :confused: [QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Due to the nature of the show, the characters are gradually and subtly given depth. For example, in episode 10 both Batou and Togusa (he's the "by-the-book" guy, ne?) have to face some extremely wrenching situations. The way they react to these dilemmas reveals a lot about them with a minimal amount of dialogue and exposition. And let's be fair; if I watched a single episode of Naruto, I'd probably come away thinking, "Hoo, boy! There's the useless chick, the annoying outcast protagonist, the cool rival... Gee, where have I seen this before?" A randomly chosen episode will rarely reflect well on an anime when taken by itself.[/QUOTE]Although I choose to believe otherwise about your Naruto example, the two scenarios are entirely different. It's not like I saw one episode of GitS and that was it. It's more like, I saw the first movie, then saw the second one, and now am seeing this series. The first movie had the same problems as the second one, and SAC just tries to be worse than all of them. If you want to talk about character personalities, how about main character being absolutely out-of-character since she's not ripping her shirt off every five seconds in SAC? In addition, it's worth noting that your example about actions speaking louder than words isn't unique to SAC, but is also prevalent in both GitS movies. It's a great style, and the GitS people do it well, but the characters are just boring as hell. Seriously, what's interesting about them?[quote name='Dagger IX1]One of the most charming and appealing aspects of the franchise--the easy-going yet paradoxically delicate relationship between Motoko and Batou--is, like the characters' predilections and quirks, something that slowly unfolds and is never stated outright. Far from insulting the viewer's intelligence, this lets him interpret the characters' actions himself. In terms of both storyline and characterization, SAC can be genuinely profound--but it rarely spoon-feeds you its depth. If you're determined to see it in the worst light possible, you definitely will; that's true of any anime.[/QUOTE]However elegant the relationship was in SAC, they are pretty blatant about it in Innocence, which, in my opinion, is a bad thing. Fluidity should be throughout the GitS universe, not restricted to particular parts. If nothing else, they should have used different characters if they are going to behave so differently.[QUOTE']But in a certain respect, isn't this worse than going into a show with neutral expectations and then just totally dropping it out of disgust? There are plenty of people who dislike and even hate the movies, but are quite fond of SAC. In every regard except artwork and animation, I think SAC is vastly superior to both films. Perhaps you could try watching only the complex episodes, if the stand-alone stories bother you to no end. Or maybe you could try watching a stand-alone episode that seems to receive an incredible amount of praise (so you don't accidentally land on a lackluster one again).[/quote]First off, I'm not too fond of using numbers, statistics, or trends when it comes to tastes. Need I remind you about DBZ? Just because there are people who love Z and hate GT doesn't make either show hold true merit. Anyway, this goes back to me having seen the two movies. The whole "man and the machine" thing is really poorly executed. I don't see how SAC is going in any different a direction: odd happenings --> strange events --> investigation yields more strangeness --> man and machine philosophy exhausted and puts everyone to sleep. This "complex" story is going to be about man and machines, isn't it?[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]INSERT SPOILER HERE For whatever it's worth, I think it's a mistake to say that SAC has no substance. I also think I'd better stop typing now, heh--looking back, this post is really overkill. :sweat: ~Dagger~[/QUOTE]Oh no they didn't! That really crosses the line. Salinger is SO going to hear about this. My favorite book... defiled by the likes of GitS... Granted, that does sound like a very well-done and pertinent reference, and since it's pertinent, I'm forced to say that GitS isn't like Eva then, haha. Nonetheless, those types of easter eggs or whatever only augment your enjoyment/appreciation. If you don't have the enjoyment/appreciation in the first place, then something like that is useless. Again, I'm not just leaving the morning after. I've seen the two movies, and GitS:SAC doesn't seem to aim to salvage my gripes with them.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] EDIT: I'd probably be in the same boat as Ayokano.

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Not to beat a dead horse, but Albel, just let the idea go. You were going somewhere, but needed a few tweaks here and there. However I think things started to go topsy-turvy around the time you said you would move to Tokyo and become a video game designer. Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for ya, but that's quite the pipedream. Dare I say, you sound a little too arrogant about this idea. It's not the best thing since sliced bread, and if you want people to stop calling it "like Inuyasha," you are going to have to compromise some part of your idea. I'm glad you are taking the criticism, but you are missing the point about it sounding like Inuyasha: being similar is fine, but your story has to have something distinct about it. And it's not enough to be slightly different, with a soul instead of a jewel (it's also worth pointing out that, in Inuyasha, the jewel actually contains a person's soul - not a spoiler because it's back story near the beginning of the show).[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Oh man, this reminds me of the time the music professor was like, "alright, draw the music!" My friend did the funniest thing about that, but I digress... I've never had or experienced that synthaethetes, and I never heard of it until now. Thanks for the interesting tid-bit, Dagger. I would associate my lack of syntaste (it's shorter to write :p) to my varied appreciation for the arts. Music is something that art and words can't do, and the same goes for the two latter. That's been my mindset for as long as I can remember. Not saying that's right (or even healthy, now that I think about these neat associations this thread is talking about), but that's how I've always seen those arts. There are certain songs that I associate with certain things, though, but that's probably because I saw that particular song with the particular thing. Like, if I saw a movie with some cool song, whenever I hear the song, I'll think of the movie. But I don't think that's what this thread is about. So, I guess my closest experience to that is "the characterization of elements." My friend and I were talking one day about how we "feel" about particular elements. Surprisingly, we both saw Carbon as male (not masculine, but like a generic kind of guy), Fluorine and Chlorine as girly, and Bromine as very manly. The list goes on, but you get the idea. We're both in the same major, but it was still surprising. This thread is very interesting. It would be really cool to find some kind of link with this syntaste ability and interests/majors or something.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]