TimeChaser

There are so many songs I'm passionate about, but for the sake of time I'll just start with a few that stand out. [B]"The Glass Prison" - Dream Theater[/B] The First part of an ongoing suite written by drummer Mike Portnoy about his rehabilitation from alcoholism and dedicated to Bill W of AA. The song is broken down into three parts, with a build up and fast instrumental intro followed by the main body of the song, then a prolonged instrumental section trading back and forth guitar and keyboard solos before reaching it's conclusion (accompanied by the sound of glass shattering). A song that perfectly encapsulates the Dream Theater style. [B]"Xanadu" - Rush[/B] Inspired by the poem [I]Kubla Kahn[/I] by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, about a man's quest for a mythical place known as Xanadu. The song begins with a slowly building 5 minute instrumental section before transitioning into the narrative. I had a professor who loved the original poem, so I have read it, and I feel Rush's music enhances the experience. This song is a true classic. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH_PPzcpeBw"]Here's a video of them playing the song live, with a couple of minutes shaved off the intro.[/URL] [B]"Arriving Somewhere But Not Here" - Porcupine Tree[/B] My favorite PT song. It combines all three elements they play with: atmospherics, rock, and metal. I'm not quite sure what the lyrics are about, since they like to stay mostly vague and allow the listener to make their own conclusions. To me, it sounds like a song about turning points in people's lives, not ending up where you expected to be. [B]"Hands" - Everon[/B] An upbeat rock song about the many things hands can do, from writing a book, pulling the trigger of a gun, building a house, to holding a loved one. Just a wonderfully infectious melody.

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]I don't really know the member in question, though other than a few people I don't really know anyone. However, based on their post in the thread about what your avatar and signature says about you. I'm quite sure this is at least fairly close to the member in question. [CENTER][B]TimeChaser:[/b] The[I] real[/I] companion [IMG]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1472/goin2tardisb12844890236mh8.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER][/FONT][/QUOTE] You hit the nail on the head first time, Nathan. Good job. :animesmil Here's another one of me: [IMG]http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6387/128334129674375000dontbco4.jpg[/IMG]

[quote name='Miss Anonymous']I still stand by my earlier statement that if the majority of a population leans towards one religion, then naturally the laws will reflect at least some of those views. The issue is whether those views are very clearly biased towards said religion (such as any mention of God in a law). From what I can understand, you're basically saying, "Why should I follow a law I disagree with?" Well, if you disagree with it, there are ways to change it.[/QUOTE] But in a nation as diverse as ours, even if there is a majority opinion, why should that one religious view have any more precedent over any other? We are well-served by our secular laws without intruding religious belief on them. I still consider it a violation of the Establishment Clause. I still say allowing gay people to marry is a human/civil rights issue. Those are rights we are all guaranteed in this country because we are all human beings. Those sort of rights are not a matter for voting. How can you vote away people's natural rights? [QUOTE=Crimson Spider] What I am not talking about, and never will argue against is love. I am talking about sex, which is what this whole issue is about.[/QUOTE] Sex can come about as an expression of love. To deny it is to deny human nature.

A humorous stab at Doctor Who fans. Yes, that includes me, but I'm nowhere near as bad as the guy they portray here. :animeswea [YOUTUBE="Doctor Who Fans"][/YOUTUBE]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="DarkRed"] Crap. I really didn't want to get back into this debate.:animeangr Answer me this......................how the heck could you get over what you were taught for your whole life?! Disregarding the fact that there is proof that it's true!!! I believe it's true, anyways, there's some people who don't agree with me...........anyway, As for holding the truths that men that died thousands of years ago....................don't you think that almost all of their teachings are still held today??? Don't lie, don't kill, don't steal. I don't mind modern ideals, I'm just about all for that, but almost all of our modern ideals are a basis for stuff we do today. For example, the concept that America is free and that you'll go to jail if you kill someone. That was something that men who died centuries ago said.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Well, since you asked... It is possible for people to come to realize that things they were taught as children are wrong or untrue, and to move past them. It's not always easy, but it's not impossible. And we can still have morality without having it dictated to us by religion. But yes, this discussion does seem to be slipping a bit.

I love this series so much. Angel Sanctuary was my first serious attempt at reading manga (after an abortive try at X/1999), and I was blown away by it. The story, the artwork... I became a devoted Kaori Yuki fanboy. I think one reason it appeals to me is that it takes our traditional ideas of Heaven and Hell, Good and Evil, and twists them, saying "Things are not as black and white as we assume." I truly got caught up in Setsuna's quest to reconcile his destiny with his simple desire just to be with Sarah.

The first manga I ever read was Vol. 1 of [B]X/1999[/B]. Sadly, it gave me a negative first impression. While I am a fan of the X TV series, and the art of the manga is very pretty (as usual for CLAMP), the translation was poor. I didn't pick up any more and almost gave up on manga entirely. Later, in the summer of that same year, I became interested in [B]Angel Sanctuary[/B]. Kaori Yuki's artwork instantly grabbed me, and the translation was much better this time. This remains my favorite manga series.

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I remember your name from theO, TimeChaser. Welcome. :catgirl: As always feel free to send a PM if you need any help etc...[/font][/QUOTE] Thanks very much, James. :animesmil

[quote name='Miss Anonymous']The problem that often comes about when people use the separation of church and state argument is the implication that people who happen to be religious are not allowed to hold their own points of views if those views also happen to be something their religion teaches. Everyone has their own set of morals. Everyone has an idea of what they think is right. To deny someone else that right to vote for what they consider is right would be discriminating. From there, it's a decision of whether or not what we're voting for or against may not be discriminatory in the first place.[/QUOTE] I maintain what I said in my first post in this thread: The rights of people are not up for vote. Again I turn to the example of African American rights, as well as Womens' Suffrage. Both of these were denied in the past, and religion was often used as a justification African Americans finally won recognition of their rights by law. It wasn't something people were given the choice to vote on, because their rights were recognized as fundamental because we are all human beings. You can still be free to disagree and see things from the way your beliefs tell you to, because that is your right. Allowing other people to enjoy their rights is not an absolute restriction of your opinion. But why can that opinion be translated into laws for all of us, when we don't all believe the same thing? Why should I respect a law based in a certain religious viewpoint, when I am not of that religion? Making laws based on any one particular interpretation of religion is a dangerous step back toward theocracy. I don't think we'll ever be able to come to an accord on the question of whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong", on the grounds that everyone does have their own opinion about it. Given that, what's really important is the issue of civil rights. And to address Crimson Spider: [B]"Love is love, sex is sex, love =/= sex."[/B] I see a flaw in this. When two people are in love and emotionally intimate with each other, that intimacy can be expressed through physical means, i.e. sex. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Hands down, I would have to say [B]Phone Booth[/B]. I saw this a few years ago when a friend of mine had rented it to watch on his birthday. I found it utterly crass and tasteless. It was nothing but an excuse to insert the F-word or some other such epithet every five seconds. While I have nothing against swearing (for the most part), I feel that a story that is riddled with that many curses is just displaying the scriptwriter's lack of imagination.

At the moment, I'm listening to the album [B]A Sense Of Purpose[/B] by [B]In Flames[/B]. Everything that's happening in the world today gets me angry, so I help my frustrations out by listening to some heavy music. In Flames is one of several melodic death metal bands from Sweden that I enjoy. This new album is their best one yet (IMO) as it hits the perfect balance between blistering heaviness and nice melodies.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The question that I asked that helped me define this stance was the following: If love and sex are independent, then why doesn’t male person (a) just fall in love with female person (b) and marry in that relationship, rather than the relationship between male person (a) and another male person (c)? Homosexuals already do marry members of the opposite sex, and have a relationship with that spouse. So, for what reason would they re-define the objective definition of marriage? And even more, what reason would the common man agree with them over it? The answer I came to was the one that I fight against today: That the romantic connotation of marriage is being applied as an expression of freedom and acceptance towards the practice of free intercourse. That is what the whole issue is about: Freedom, and your freedom being condoned. Same-sex marriages will only be marriages under one condition: The thousands of years of the historical meaning and purpose of marriage and definitions for sexual interaction are cast aside for pathological fulfillment in both sexual desires, and freedom from criticism. At nearly every point in this conversion, I disagree with the purpose for doing so.[/QUOTE] So - and correct me if I'm wrong here - it is your understanding that two people of the same gender cannot be in love with each other because, from what you say, whatever they think they feel is only a justification of lust? You have gay couples who have been with each other for decades sometimes, in stable, committed relationships. Do you think they are deceived by lust? The only reason they can't marry is because the law won't allow it. Living together that long, they would already be defined as a common law marriage, except they can't even have that recognition because they are both of the same gender. Lust is a condition that can affect anyone, no matter what your orientation is. Heterosexuals can lead wild, lustful lives as well. To say what all gay people are feeling is only lust cheapens and demeans the emotional connection between two people. If anyone who has come out as homosexual has been in a marriage with someone of the opposite gender, it's usually because they were trying to hide their nature from themselves, family, friends, the community, etc. They were trying to conform to society's expectations. Many have come out after living those lives for many years. And people are too quick to apply this "traditional definition of marriage" defense. Marriage has also, for many thousands of years, been about enhancing social status and gaining more power, back when women were considered property, and the idea of love was not always considered.

I took piano lessons through my jr. high and high school years, but stopped due to lack of practice and the need to save money. There are times when I wish I had kept going though. Piano is my favorite instrument; I could spend a lazy afternoon laying around, listening to a CD of classical piano music. I also played alto saxophone for a number of years, and this is what led me to picking up on the piano. I would transpose my saxophone music to piano and just mess around.

[B]Color:[/B] Brownish. I was very blond as a little kid, but it's darkened over the years. [B]Have you ever dyed your hair?[/B] No, although I've thought about it. [B]Length/ Style:[/B] I prefer keeping it quite short, it's much easier to manage that way. I just put some spray gel in it and make it tastefully messy.

My "style" has changed over the years, but now it's pretty much settled into a basic mode: - Blue jeans: The only type of pants I enjoy wearing, and since I don't like shorts, I wear pants all the time. A belt mainly because I'm skinny and I need it to keep the pants from sliding down my hips, but also as a place to hang my keys. - Button-up shirts with the collar open and the sleeves rolled up, sometimes a T-shirt underneath. Longsleeved shirts in the winter, as well as a heavy blue jacket. - Shoes have never mattered much to me as long as they fit and I like the way they look. Currently I have a pair of black and white Converse (inspired by David Tennant's style in Doctor Who). I don't really like bright colors. Mainly blues, black, white only if it looks good, green or red only if it's the dark kind.

Starting at the top... My avatar is David Tennant as the Doctor from [I]Doctor Who[/I], which is the single longest fan obsession I've had in my life (23 years in fact). The Doctor has always been my one true hero, and Tennant portrays the character so wonderfully. My title is inspired by something George Carlin once said, that he was Catholic until he "reached the Age of Reason." While he had his problems in life, Carlin was not only a great comedian but also a great philosopher and spokesperson for truth and honesty. Part 1 of my signature is a quote from a classic [I]Doctor Who[/I] episode. I think it is one of the great quotes of all time and a very apt statement. Part 2 of my signature is a banner for RichardDawkins.net. Dawkins is a great proponent of truth, reason, and science, all of which are things I fervently believe in.

Some people around here already know me, but I figured I'd introduce myself for the benefit of the general population. I joined OB some time ago, but haven't been on in about a year, which is why it still says "New Member" under my name. :animeswea I spend most of my time on theOtaku.com, but I finally decided to get my butt back over here and become a more active member. As for things to know about me: - 27 - Dude - Womb-to-the-tomb Doctor Who fan - Anime fan (around 51 shows, OVAs, and movies in my collection) - Progressive music fan - Bookworm

My grandparents always drank coffee (grandma still does), but the smell has always been more of a turn-off than a turn-on for me. My hot drink of choice would either be a white tea (preferably a flavored kind) or hot chocolate.

While I haven't read every post in this thread in detail, I have read much of it. Although there are some views to which I would like to reply to, mainly on the psychological issues that have been brought up - the medical community has long since removed homosexuality from it's list of neurosis - I'll just get on and express my opinions about this topic. First, I'm going to take the social angle: Everyone deserves all of the same rights and protections under the law guaranteed to all citizens. Denying people their rights, and writing discrimination into law is an affront to the ideals of freedom, individuality, and self-determination. People claim that allowing homosexuals to marry would be making a special exception. I see this the other way around: DENYING them their rights is making an exception. Also, I do not understand why "the will of the people" get to decide what is clearly an issue of civil rights. The people were not given the choice to vote on African American civil rights in the 60s and 70s; those were the natural rights of people as human beings and were acknowledged as such by the law. If the "people" had been given the chance to vote, it's a good bet those rights would not have passed. How do other people get the opportunity to vote on the rights of private individuals? Next is what I think of the religious argument. I'm not going to debate the finer points of what the Bible (or any other holy book) might or might not say. This country was established under the banner of religious freedom as well. Despite claims to the contrary, the Founding Fathers did not establish the United States as a Christian nation: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - US Constitution "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - Treaty with Tripoli Since most of the argument against homosexuals being allowed to marry is couched in religious belief, I see this as a clear violation of the separation of Church and State. You cannot make laws that are clearly biased toward a particular religious view. Again, for much of this country's history, religion was used as a defense to deny African Americans their rights. If you want to use religion as a justification now, then you cannot be allowed to forget how it was used in the past. Here's another point. This isn't about marriage only. Other issues that are at stake are partner benefits, joint health care, health care for their children, inheritance, and many other things. I remember recently reading about a lesbian couple who were vacationing here in Florida. One became deathly ill and had to be rushed to the hospital. They would not allow her partner to visit her or be there to give vital medical information to the doctors. The ill woman died, and it could possibly have been prevented. How would you feel if your loved one was on their deathbed, but you weren't allowed to see them because you weren't their legal spouse? Boiling it all down: - I believe everyone deserves the same rights. - Denying them their rights is the exception, not giving it to them. - Rights that people are entitled to as fellow human beings are not up for vote. - Because our laws are meant to be separate from religion, using the religious argument to deny rights is a violation of those laws.

Something that is especially important for younger people in relationships is not to submit to any kind of peer pressure. Only you can decide when you feel comfortable doing something, even if it's deciding when to finally go for a first kiss. Don't let others tell you what you should be doing. The relationship is the sole domain of you and and your boyfriend/girlfriend.

I tend to spend a lot of time hanging around (or at least monitoring) the Anime Pulse forums - makes sense though, since I am a moderator there. TheOtaku.com, of course. I'll probably be coming around here to the OtakuBoards more often now (haven't been here in months). Fanfiction.net is about the only other place I spend a great deal of time.

Being on theOtaku and Anime Pulse makes me feel old. So many of the members of both sites are teenagers, it makes my 26 years seem ancient (at least in anime-fan terms).

Music is half of what keeps me alive and sane. I can't go for too long without listening to something, otherwise I get the bends. I don't think I've ever had any terribly profoun musc experiences, though there are times when I heard a song or album for the first time and it blew me away. When I was in university, one of my favorite CDs to play on car trips home/back to school was [I]Operation: Mindcrime[/I] by [B]Queensryche[/B]. It was the perfect length for the hour-long ride. It was always better on the trip home, and driving at night. Something about listening to that CD at the end of a long week, driving in the dark... it just purged all that had built up on me from the previous 5 days. It was a release. Recently I purchased [B]Queensryche[/B]'s "Mindcrime At The Moore", which is the full concert/stage performance of both Mindcrime I & II albums. Seeing it done that way added a new layer to the expreience and helped me understand the story even more than I had previously. Plus their encores were killer.

I am a self-confessed music snob, which means I have to post here. After skimming through the rest of the thread, I came across a statement to the effect: There is no such thing as progressive rock anymore. I am here to say this is catagorically untrue. Progressive rock & metal are my favorite genres, and I know that they are alive and well and thriving. They may not have mainstream popularity, but that counts for nothing in the world of true music anyway. Some of my favorite bands include: [B]Ayreon[/B], [B]Dream Theater[/B], [B]Genesis[/B], [B]Kamelot[/B], [B]Nightwish[/B], [B]Pain Of Salvation[/B], [B]Pink Floyd[/B], [B]Porcupine Tree[/B], [B]Queensryche[/B], [B]Rush[/B], [B]Spock's Beard[/B], [B]Symphony X[/B], [B]Threshold[/B], [B]Vision Divine[/B], and [B]Yes[/B]. One of the best aspects of progressive is the concept albums. Some favorites are: [B]Ayreon[/B] - Into The Electric Castle / The Human Equation [B]Dream Theater[/B] - Metropolis, Part 2: Scenes From A Memory [B]Genesis[/B] - The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway [B]Kamelot[/B] - Epica / The Black Halo [B]Pain Of Salvation[/B] - Remedy Lane / BE [B]Pink Floyd[/B] - The Wall [B]Porcupine Tree[/B] - Deadwing [B]Queensryche[/B] - Operation: Mindcrime / Operation: Mindcrime II [B]Shadow Gallery[/B] - Tyranny / Room V [B]Spock's Beard[/B] - Snow [B]Symphony X[/B] - Paradise Lost [B]Vision Divine[/B] - The Perfect Machine One place I go to to listen to this amazing music (and more) is Progulus Radio. [url]http://www.progulus.com/samPHPweb/now-playing.php[/url]

Lately, I've been listening to the new CDs I've bought so far this month. A bunch of killer Progressive Rock & Metal: [B]Black Bonzo[/B] - [I]Sound Of The Apocalypse[/I] [B]The Flower Kings[/B] - [I]Paradox Hotel[/I] [B]The Flower Kings[/B] - [I]The Sum Of No Evil[/I] (Great rock bands with a retro-70s style) [B]Darkwater[/B] - [I]Calling The Earth To Witness[/I] [B]Transmission[/B] - [I]ID, Ego & Superego[/I] [B]Spheric Universe Experience[/B] - [I]Anima[/I] (Great, technically procifient metal bands from Europe - Sweden, Germany, France) [B]Epica[/B] - [I]The Divine Conspiracy[/I] (Beauty & Beast Metal - dark and symphonic, with both clean female vocals and male grunts)