TimeChaser

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]More accurately, I'm familiar with the laws governing the treatment of slaves?the majority of which were designed with the slave, and not the owner, in mind. And no, not that you [I]will[/I] twist the context. Rather, I think it's a poor idea to try and use someone else's reference point to argue against them if you're unfamiliar with it, which you just admitted. So my impression is that you heard there were sections in the Bible about slavery and assumed that that was the same institution as the one that rooted itself in the Southern states.[/FONT][/QUOTE] Regardless of what the Bible says concerning ethical treatment of slaves, and how that might have been twisted down the centuries to the form of slavery we are familiar with in American history, I'm sure you will agree that it is morally wrong to have slaves in the first place. That is not something we can learn from the Bible, but is what we know from our objective view of morality. Anyway, just kind of wanted to get that point out there. I am of the view that we are far better with an objective moral framework that does not appeal to scripture.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial] And yet this decision was made because of the continual push from the Negro community, as well as backing from the Northern states. The federal government did not arbitrarily say "oh, we think you should have rights"; in fact, several times it denied blacks their rights before finally conceding to their wrong. And that brings be back to my point about the will of the people. If there had been no push for justice in African-American rights, there would have been no concession.[/FONT][/QUOTE] Which basically says in the end this will go on until that day that the government takes the same kind of action it did with all other civil rights. I only hope I live to see that day. I think, though, that whether it's pervasive or not (depending on your view of how far religion reaches in today's society, and I happen to believe it still reaches very far), action will not be taken until we can uncouple homosexuality from the concept of "sin" and other religious convictions. It is this, more than anything else, I believe, that continues to hold back progress. It rather presumptuously says that the "will of the people" is backed up by "the will of God". And I do appreciate that you agree with me on things I've said previously.

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Can you provide a specific, recent example? I believe that the will of the masses is what decides someone's fate and to say it is always been a negative thing is rather Locke-ish. The Masses have decided many important things throughout history and not all of them have been negative, I wouldn't even think the majority of them have been bad. But if you can prove me wrong, please do[/FONT][/QUOTE] Not directed at me, but I'll take a stab at this. Example: African-American civil rights. Just like gay rights today, the "will of the people" was very much divided on this issue. You had people fighting for rights, but you also has many (particularly in the South) that were against it. You had Jim Crow laws and other legislation in place that was specifically meant to curtail the rights of blacks. Due to this division, the federal government finally bypassed the people and passed civil rights legislation, which, while not ending the conflict, finally made rights constitutionally protected on a national level. There's also the idea of civil unions or domestic partnerships being separate-but-equal. If that were really true, then I say some of those who oppose marriage rights should enter into such unions, and see if it really is just as equal. The idea of separate-but-equal is a myth that was long ago disproved.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]I find this faulty; for instance, although servitude is established in Judaic law, there are multiple clauses protecting the slave from oppression, and much of the Southern plantation slavery ran completely counter to that. In other words, American slavery is condemned by Christian doctrine, and yet it pervaded our country from colonial establishment until some time after the Civil War.[/QUOTE] Slavery was something that took so long to resolve partially because those who supported and believed in it got their justification from scripture just as much as those who fought against it. [QUOTE]Yes, homosexuality is not accepted within Christian doctrine. But that is our sphere, and the rest of the issue is social, not religious. Likewise, racism was a social issue, women's suffrage was social, and slavery was a financial and economical issue; none were religious.[/QUOTE] I think it's important to acknowledge that there are some denominations that do not discriminate against homosexuals, so we then get into muddled territory again when it comes to it being supposedly a "religious issue". This is one reason I consider it a social issue, and not a religious one at all. And the rights of women and minorities, and slavery could also, at one time, be considered religious issues because people's beliefs told them that A) women were in a subordinate position to men and had to defer to them, and B) for many centuries, people considered all non-Christians "barbarians" who either had to be subjugated or exterminated. Now, I said "considered a religious issue", because we know now that they aren't religious issues at all. And just because we didn't know that back then doesn't mean they were ever religious issues. Anyway, just throwing in some historical context for understanding. [QUOTE]Like I said to [COLOR=DarkRed]Kataki[/COLOR] above, matters of civil rights have [I]ultimately[/I] been decided by authorities beyond the direct influence of the people, but the issues themselves sat at the common level for years before being reconciled. Women's suffrage was an issue before the Revolutionary War, even. How long was it before they received acknowledgment of the right to vote, again? This kind of change doesn't happen overnight. And perception of time is greatly distorted by history books, where you can read in a matter of minutes what took years to achieve.[/FONT][/QUOTE] Sadly, I agree with you that a fight for rights takes a very long time, but there comes a time when the rights must finally be acknowledged by the government beyond the popular vote and all of that. African-American civil rights would never have been as resolved as they are if the federal government hadn't passed those bills and other legislation. I'm not saying the fight is over, of course, because we still have people in this world who hold on to their stupid prejudices. What I am saying is there comes a point when it has to be constitutionally recognized and no longer up for a popular vote that will never resolve the issue.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Democracy is about rule based on the will of the people, to protect both the majority and the minority from oppression by the other. So what you're saying is that state policy should not be decided by state inhabitants? Help me here.[/FONT][/QUOTE] But we're talking about a matter of civil rights, which historically have not been put to a popular vote. If the rights of women and minorities were finally recognized by the government, then why now are we saying the rights of this particular group are a matter for the voters to decide? It's hypocritical, unfair, and unconstitutional.

[quote name='Matt']It really is a simple reason. America is just, quite simply, not ready to place homosexual marriage on the same stage as heterosexual marriages. Even more so, America is not ready to be comfortable around gays. You have to remember, a good deal of our sense of morality stems from the Christian idea. Guys, tell me, would you be comfortable in a locker room with a man who proudly declared himself to be gay? Of course not! Because there is the idea that gays will instantly latch themselves onto ever man they see. America is just not comfortable with homosexuality. It is not ready for it. And it won't be for a long time.[/QUOTE] We need to stop treating this as a case of two separate things, labeling one "homosexual marriage" and the other "heterosexual marriage". What we're talking about is marriage, period. It is the union of two people who love each other and want to solidify that commitment, regardless of each person's gender. Other than that, there is nothing that calls for a differentiation. And it's unfair to say "America" is not ready to be comfortable around gays. It's a person-by-person thing, not the entire population. And there are plenty of religious people who support gay rights. It's a rather complex issue.

The Venture Bros. parody G.I. Joe. This is another reason why I love this show... [YOUTUBE="O.S.I."][/YOUTUBE]

Prop 8 is, of course, the big amendment that was voted on this year. But people seem to pass over the fact that the same amendment got approved in other states too. Here in Florida, Amendment 2 got 62%, just over the 60% margin it needed to pass. What I don't get is how the rights of one group are considered a subject for popular vote, when every other recognition of rights in our history was passed by the government without resorting to a vote by the people. If popular vote was the way it was always done, you can bet that the rights of women and minorities would have taken longer to pass. Then there's the incredibly stupid idea that allowing people to marry each other, regardless of their gender, will mean the collapse of civilization as we know it, which is absurd. The fact is that you have people that are just as human as everyone else, and who love and care about each other, some of whom even have children together. It doesn't send a positive message to those kids to tell them their families do not deserve the same respect and rights as their friends who have a mom and a dad. To say that a family of two gay parents is not as capable of raising kids as well as a family with heterosexual parents is also absurd. There are some single-parents families who manage to raise kids to be healthy and happy and productive. It's all about the love and care those kids receive from the parents, not what gender the parents happen to be. What it boils down to is that we have far still to travel to be a truly equal society. When we can get to the point where we all acknowledge that it is a misuse of our laws to deny people their rights, then we will be much better off.

I would have to agree with what other people have said. You are young, you have many years ahead of you, so it's very early to start making absolute decisions about who you want to spend that life with. I wouldn't call him weird, but everyone has different priorities. His don't seem to match up to yours, so you would do better to let him go and keep your options open until you DO find that guy who is going to share your hopes and dreams for the future. You've got time. A bit more growing up and things will be different.

Listening to [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU8BCURTXcM&feature=related"][U][B]Building A Wall[/B][/U][/URL] by [B]Starbreaker[/B]. Been waiting for their new CD to become available in a cheap copy (as opposed to an expensive import) and my patience was rewarded today.

I've got nothing to blue about, since this was the first time the candidate of my party won since I started voting. And if anything, I think I'll feel a bit less stressed knowing the country won't continue to be steered in the direction of "totally tanking".

Been in a major mood for some [B]Saga[/B] lately, currently listening to [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx7XbV82JfQ&feature=related"][B][U]On The Loose[/U][/B][/URL]. One of the very few bands from the 80s I enjoy. Great keyboard-heavy music from Canada.

Basing the term "controversial" on content alone... I know Angel Sanctuary has already been mentioned in here, due to the brother/sister incest storyline, plus how Kaori Yuki plays with the traditional Heaven & Hell ideas (which would obviously be controversial to people who are of strong Christian belief). One I read about some time ago that would definitely fall under this definition is [URL="http://www.themanime.org/viewreview.php?id=847"][U][B]Boku wa Imouto ni Koi o Suru[/B][/U][/URL], which translates to "I'm in Love with My Little Sister". No points for guessing how that could be controversial.

Might as well post another. This one was the third harem I made, done after realizing my first male harem was composed entirely of good guys. I didn't want to discriminate against the excellent baddies out there, so I created this all-villains harem. [URL="[URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=MyHaremVillains.jpg][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_MyHaremVillains.jpg[/IMG][/URL]"][URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=MyHaremVillains.jpg][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_MyHaremVillains.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/URL] [B]Rosiel[/B] - The unstable Inorganic Angel, obsessed with his own beauty and with his sister, Organic Angel Alexiel. Although he's insane, you can't help viewing him with some pathos, because he knows he is falling apart but can't stop himself. While I took his picture from the manga, I also enjoy his portrayal by Crispin Freeman in the OVA dub, which is quite different to his usual roles. [B]Aion[/B] - Another villain rather conflicted by what seem to be generous motives, but twisted by his insanity and callous methods. [B]Vicious[/B] - Just as no male harem can be complete without Spike Spiegel, no villain harem is complete without his nemesis, the man casting a shadow over him from his past. [B]Gauron[/B] - Another villain who is the mirror opposite of a hero, in this case Sousuke Sagara. Utterly ruthless. [B]Chouji Suitengu[/B] - Although his methods are reprehensible, his goal to infiltrate and bring down the super-elite of Japan can be respected. He does care about those most loyal to him, and in the end he manages to redeem himself. He's also utterly cool for being able to use his own blood as a weapon. [B]Cain Nightroad[/B] - I'm not sure quite why I like Cain so much. I suppose it's his cool and almost carefree (in an unemotional way) demeanor that hides his insanity. Plus his Crusnick form is, sadly, cooler than Abel's. [B]Seishiro Sakurazuka[/B] - Last in a long line of mystical assassins and obsessed with Subaru Sumeragi. Seishiro is deadly at his craft. [B]Kazutaka Muraki[/B] - Another insane/obsessed villain (I seem to enjoy that kind the most). Muraki is possily the most dangerous kind of person, a doctor with no morality. He is also a bit of a kink, always trying to molest the protagonists of Yami no Matsuei, Tsuzuki and Hisoka.

Like Shin, I was challenged to make a male harem. These aren't guys I would go gay over. Although maybe for Abel... ;) [URL="[URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=MyHaremGuys.jpg][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_MyHaremGuys.jpg[/IMG][/URL]"][URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=MyHaremGuys.jpg][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_MyHaremGuys.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/URL] [B]Spike Spiegel[/B] - He needs no other reason than being Spike Spiegel. No man harem is complete without this anime icon. "Bang..." [B]Sousuke Sagara[/B] - I really feel for the guy. He tries his best to fit in, but he's such a sore thumb in civilized company, and always on the receiving end of Kaname's fan-slapping. [B]Brandon Heat[/B] - The best tall, dark and quiet guy to ever wield a pair of guns. Although he's a mob hitman, he has a fierce loyalty to those he cares about. [spoiler]Plus he realizes he will have to confront his best friend, and knows he will likely die from the encounter, so he sets it up to come back from the dead later. That's damn good planning.[/spoiler] [B]Gene Starwind[/B] - Pretty much for the same reason as Spike. Plus he's the captain of one of the coolest spaceships ever. And then there's that awesome caster gun... [B]Ayato Kamina[/B] - 100 times better than Shinji Ikari. My favorite mecha pilot. [B]Tatsumi Saiga[/B] - One of my favorite anime heroes. He's got some issues (too kinky to go into on here), but he's principled and can't be bought. [B]Abel Nightroad[/B] - Who doesn't love a wacky priest? Abel is just such a trip, the best goofy guy with a dark, tragedy-filled past since Vash. [B]Subaru Sumeragi[/B] - Another quiet guy with lots of inner angst. My favorite onmiouji, plus I would love to have his outfit.

[quote name='Sangome'][SIZE="1"]I realize you were misinterpreted, and that wasn't directed towards you. But, as you said, you were misinterpreted, so I was calling for the thread's closure so no one would continue a debate that wasn't even intended.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Thank you. I at least wanted to make sure my rebuttal was not lost amongst the sea of posts and people assumed wrong things about my intent. :animesigh

[quote name='Sangome'][SIZE="1"]But I agree...let's close this before it devolves into a Christians vs Atheists thread. Those are never fun and just make both sides look bad.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] That isn't what I was trying to do, I was misinterpreted. This is how I responded (reposted so it isn't buried under everything): [quote name='Ace'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]I'm gonna go ahead and say this crap is bad enough without the atheists going ahead and bashing the sane religious people along with our delightful little friend here.[/FONT][/QUOTE] I'm not bashing all religious people. I'm saying the idea that we have to be chained to that, that we don't make our own destiny is offensive. There are many Christians who don't believe in Revelation at all. You don't have to be an atheist or some other religion to reject it. Please don't jump the gun and assume I am insulting everyone by what I say.

[quote name='Ace'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]I'm gonna go ahead and say this crap is bad enough without the atheists going ahead and bashing the sane religious people along with our delightful little friend here.[/FONT][/QUOTE] I'm not bashing all religious people. I'm saying the idea that we have to be chained to that, that we don't make our own destiny is offensive. There are many Christians who don't believe in Revelation at all. You don't have to be an atheist or some other religion to reject it. Please don't jump the gun and assume I am insulting everyone by what I say.

[quote name='Kaimaster']Sangome Most Christians think the rapture will take place Pre-Tribulation or the Mid-Tribulation. We mite be on the edge of Pre-Tribulation. Only few Christians think the rapture will take place Post Tribulation. Pre-Tribulation is before the Anti-Christ be elected. Mid-Tribulation is Anti-Christ been elected. Post Tribulation is after the Tribulation.[/QUOTE] How about it will happen... NEVER! We make our own destiny. We aren't chained to some so-called "prophecy" in an ancient book. Attitudes like that are counter-productive toward building a better world for the future. Please grow up. (And I wasn't going to bother saying anything in this thread...)

It's nice not feeling as much stress now and not being physically ill at the thought of four more years of the same garbage again. Plus this is my third election, so finally having my vote count feels great. Guess third time really is the charm. I believe Obama when he says he'll reach out to everyone regardless of part affiliation, that he isn't just paying lip service. And I feel more motivated now to get out there and do my part, to find a job and work, because it'll take all of us working together to help pull the country out of this quagmire.

I voted by absentee a few weeks ago, but I do have and interesting and ironic story. Back in August or September, we had some primaries here in Florida, just some local stuff. Our local polling place is my old elementary school, and I took my grandma over there so we could vote. When we got there, they couldn't find my name in the book, which was unusual. A few phone calls were made, and I discovered that my name was removed because the voting office had it in their records that I'd moved. Well, after some more back-and-forth with the voter office, we found out what the problem was: There is someone else living in Florida whose name is exactly like mine (except for Jr. at the end of his), and our birthdays are one day different. Apparently, when he moved, they accidentally took my information and put it in his file. :animesigh Anyway, we managed to get it all sorted out in time,

Well, this will burst the bubble of those who've imagine me as David Tennant (due to my Doctor Who avatars), but it had to be done at some point. :animesmil Me hanging out in front of my anime collection. [URL="[URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=100_1864.jpg][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_100_1864.jpg[/IMG][/URL]"][URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=100_1864.jpg][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_100_1864.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/URL]

A new [strike]insanity[/strike] craze has hit theOtaku.com: creating anime harems. Here's the template: [URL="[URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=animeharemtemplatemi9.png][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_animeharemtemplatemi9.png[/IMG][/URL]"][URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=animeharemtemplatemi9.png][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_animeharemtemplatemi9.png[/IMG][/URL][/URL] So, who would you have in your harem? [B]PERAMETERS:[/B] - Manga and game characters can be used as well. - Box sizes in the template are 144x205. - Font used is Maiandra GD (unless you want to use your own). - You don't need anything more complicated than GIMP and Paint. - Mix it up a bit, don't be afraid to make female AND male harems. - If you'd like, include reasons why you picked your characters. Here's my first to get the ball rolling: [URL="[URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=MyHarem1fixed.jpg][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_MyHarem1fixed.jpg[/IMG][/URL]"][URL=http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/?action=view¤t=MyHarem1fixed.jpg][IMG]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg59/ASfan/th_MyHarem1fixed.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/URL] [B]Priss Asagiri:[/B] The coolest member of the Knight Sabres, Priss doesn't talk much, but is always intense in battle. She's also the singer of a rock band, which give her bonus points. [B]Rosette Christopher:[/B] Who doesn't like a feisty, loud, gun-wielding nun who pals around with a devil? She may grate on your nerves at times, but she is 100% dependable. [B]Kaname Chidori:[/B] Don't get on her bad side or she'll beat you with her giant fan. Another feisty girl who is quite capable of delivering a smackdown. [B]Rakka:[/B] She spends the majority of the anime feeling lost and confused, but she's quite intelligent, and in the end helps save her friend from a doomed fate. Plus she's hard to resist with that perpetually messy hair, the wings and halo. [B]Seras Victoria:[/B] My favorite Draculina. While she tries hard to maintain her humanity, when she's pushed to the edge she can become deadly. She's also good for a little comic relief. [B]Kirika Yuumura:[/B] Who doesn't love a quiet-yet-deadly amnesiac assassin? Kirikia is soft spoken and looks harmless, but she's Death incarnate with a gun. [B]Melfina:[/B] You just want to hug her, really. Cute, vulnerable, and I wouldn't mind taking a dip in her tank on the Outlaw Star. [B]Esther Blanchett:[/B] The second nun on my list, Esther is compassionate and caring, very much the kind of girl I could see myself with in real life. Plus that red hair does something for me...

Something I'm also not happy about with McCain is his energy policy. He has talked about investing in 45 new nuclear plants. While this may be a quick fix (questionable even then for the time it would take to build all of those), it is not a long-term, environmentally safe solution. There is still no safe way to get rid of nuclear waste, only storage, and we're talking about stuff that has a half-life of 50,000 years. Plus, right now Bush is doing his best while still in office to quietly pass even more de-regulation that would relax punishment on companies that pollute. These people have no real understanding of the environment, and plain fact is that many don't even care. Then there's this whole attacking Obama for being "socialist" and accusing him of wanting to "spread the wealth", which is just more muckraking, paranoia-inducing nonsense. I watched an Obama rally on TV that was held here in Florida earlier in the week, and his message was positive and hopeful. What he says is that we should get back to that ideal place we were at in the 90s, when everyone was prospering. When the average people are doing well, then they buy more products and services, which stimulates the economy. You have to fix things from the bottom up, not the top down. EDIT: I've since learned that building nuclear plants would not be a quick solution, because the entire process to approve them, build them, and get them online takes a minimum of 8 years.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You are wholly correct on this. The statement isn't bigoted at all. In fact, it is one of the best stances for arguing against legalizing interracial marriages, because it is completely true, honest, and exposes the nature of the lesser arguments toward legalizing Interracial Marriages as being full unsubstantiated and bad reason for legalization. I do not think that [strike]human-animal[/strike] *[i]cough[/i]* interracial marriages should be allowed on the basis of sexual preferences toward different colored or different featured creatures, and the amount of emotional or financial comfort that they receive from their [strike]dog[/strike] *[i]wheeze[/i]* preferred spouse. It is the name for an act, an institution, a legal right, and it is not a requirement toward the happiness of the individuals who partake in this or similar acts. It is not required that someone wishes to partake in this right. What reasons do I think that interracial marriages should be legalized? As I mentioned before, there is really only one reason to change the definition of an objective act: The Ideology. Particularly, the issue of civil rights was largely an issue over the discrimination against individuals in regards to their race. The projected goal of the movement was the equal treatment of individuals of different races. The clauses against interracial marriages exist primarily as a factor to discriminate against race, and for a complete blending; they would need to be abolished. The other clauses, the decent reasons against interracial marriages, did not halt or change the nature of the purpose for legalization, and do not stand. Were there negative side-effects to this? Oh yes, there were. Not only in practice, but in endorsement. By endorsing "equality" in races by attempting to abolish the notion of purity and racial superiority, you also endorsed the idea of objectifying sexual identity based upon race. Though, this was not only a tertiary factor, but it was also a factor that was to be resolved by the culture. Effectively, an interracial marriage and a pure marriage serve the exact same functions.[/QUOTE] No matter how technical that argument is, everyone understands it isn't really a moral argument; it is wrong and those people are just crazy, because their ideology is based on the false premise of "race". Since we are all of the [I]human race[/I], we all deserve the same rights. Oh, and I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with that oddly-placed humor, but I have to say you failed. [QUOTE]Likewise, you can argue for same-sex marriages (an institution that is characterized by a statistically much higher incidence of divorce. Several older statistics indicate other dangerous tendencies) ONLY under the grounds of the ideology. Without this ideology, you have [i]absolutely no reason or grounds to change marriages.[/i] It is the responsibility of the proponents of same-sex marriages to provide these grounds, not for others to provide grounds against it, for retaining the law in absence of evidence is the standard. [B]Without ideology, as it stands, no rights are denied, no capability of access is being denied, no one is characterized unfairly, no one is discriminated against, no benefit is being denied, no amendment to attend to this, and no “issue” that cannot be resolved outside of marriage for the benefit of everyone. A whole lot of nothing.[/B][/QUOTE] What about the ideologies of those who oppose it, namely the religious ideology? Each side has an [I]ideology[/I] in the debate, the point is that human rights are a given that go beyond ideology. All the anti-gay side has is ideology with no real substance to their argument. And I question the source of of your information. People constantly argue that homosexuals are plagued by more incidents of depression, suicide, etc. What they refuse to acknowledge is that it is that way [I]because[/I] of the prejudice and hatred gay people receive.