obfuscator

His other thread gave the appearance that the HD might have been the problem, and if he hasn't replaced it he's still reformatting the same bad drive. But yeah, check the other things first.

Well, the teaching of the catholic church (which is the one I've adhered to in this particular instance) says those things are wrong as well. However, I won't be as arrogant as to say I've never done those.

Pedophilia is more of a fetish, that is true. But particularly in cases of statutory rape, consent is there, and realistically no different from consent given from an adult. There is an age,obviously, where a child is incapable of giving consent - but when a child can give consent I see that as a legal opening. I'm not arguing for anything, in particular. Although obviously these are very small facets of the population, there are people who want these things legalized. I want to know why we shouldn't do it. I further find it interesting the number of people who have just "blown off" the zoophilia and objectum issues - saying "that's so ridiculous it will never happen". This has been an attitude for many things in the past, and yet they've changed.

Indeed, but at that point you've made a choice. If you're only "slightly" attracted to the same sex you may biologically qualify as a bisexual but you may decide to live life as a heterosexual, or vice versa. I don't think they are less likely to be gay, I've just never seen one. I'm fully aware that this theory is terrible, there's no actual study to back it up. It was just an interesting thought that occurred to me. Yes, that's true, there are some cases of homosexual animals. However, (and I haven't looked into this) I'm willing to bet that the percentage of homosexual animals is significantly smaller than the percentage of homosexual humans. I think the overall point I'm trying to make there is that homosexual attraction, for the most part, is built from nurture rather than nature. Of course there will be exceptions, there always are. But looking at the large majority it seems to be the case. Another thing - right now I believe the statistic was that about 10% of the human population is gay? I'll use that as an example, even if it isn't smack on. Personally, I'd think that given the unaccpetance of homosexuals in many parts of the world a large number of homosexuals are still "in the closet" so that number could be as large as 20% ( just a figure off the top of my head). There may be instances of homosexual behavior in other species, but I've never heard of a species that even comes close to a percentile that high. Seeing as animals don't follow the same social norms as humans as well, it would be pretty hard to argue that there are animals "in the closet" as well which would affect the percentile. That was a quick summary of my overall feelings, which are long and complicated but it appears once again I'll have to explain them. It's possible to commit any act - we have the freedom to do so. However, in order to be moral the act must have validity - a valid purpose. The most basic and natural purpose of sex is reproduction - this I believe to be irrefutable. There are side effects, such as stress relief, bonding, fun, etc, but they are additions to the effect, not the immediate effect itself. Thus, when the act is committed without allowing its basic and natural purpose to occur, it is rendered invalid. I'll use an analogy I've used before: donating money to charity. The purpose of donating money(or other goods) to charity is to make a sacrifice on your part for the betterment of others. This is the most basic purpose of the act. Therefore, If I donate my $1000 vacation fund to charity I am doing a good thing, as the basic purpose of charity is fulfilled. If I rob a bank of $100000, and then donate to charity - I'm still helping a lot of people. However, since I am no longer donating myself, the basic purpose of the act is unfulfilled and the donation is invalid.

Too pricey. Besides, I'd never get away with taking the plate off. Regular HD's are the same price pretty much. But yeah, reseating the ram sounds good. To reseat the ram, take it out, and put it back in again :P

Right you are, I've removed it.

Why did you buy an external? You might as well have just purchased a new HD :/

Speak for yourself. This is utter crap. Not all men are incapable of love.

Wow that thing's huge :o

You've just admitted yourself that polygamous marriages should be acceptable. If I told you, 100 years ago, that one day gay people would be allowed to marry you'd laugh in my face. Today, if I tell you that humans would be able to marry animals at some point in the future, you'd laugh in my face, but what makes you so sure society would never see this as acceptable? This isn't about a slippery slope - I'm not here to debate the morality of homosexual marriages, but I'm simply curious to see what people think of other possible changes in the future(distant or no so).

Yes, polygamy could be seen as exploitation of tax, but since any marriage does this it's seen as legitimate. In terms of civil rights, I agree that often women's rights tend to be shafted by polygamous marraiges but if the women truly wanted such a union why does society have a right to stop them? Pedophilia - age of consent, again. A 60 year old man can not have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old, but is there really any difference between a 17 and 18 year old? The other two may not be as obvious - in India recently a man was allowed to marry a goat - I'll try to find the source.

Deal, but only if you can get everton to officiate!

Why though? If one man and three women legitimately want to get married, with no forced mentality, abuse or otherwise, why should we stop them? Same goes for the other three. The only thing I see that goes against that is that children can't give consent, but I'm sure someone would be able to argue that a child at or past the age of reason (7) can give something resembling consent.

Well as society stands today, homosexuality in part becomes more and more acceptable. Obviously this isn't the case world wide, but if recent events are to continue down their logical path I think it's safe to say the world is not far away from largely legalizing homosexual marriages. The purpose of this thread isn't to debate on the morality of such an issue (I think we can all agree there have been enough opportunities for that) but rather to discuss an unanswered question: What about the other sexualities? In Canada at least, one of the biggest reasons used by those not in favor of legalizing homosexual marriages was that the definition of marriage is between a man and a women. Since this definition has to be struck down wherever homosexual marriage is legalized, it leaves the door open for other sexualities to claim they have a right to marriage. What I want to know is, where is the line? What sexualities should be considered appropriate (allowed to marry) and which should not? Please post yes/no and reasons, I'll list a few main ones. Polygamy - The most obvious. This is a sexuality that allows men to take multiple wives (or vice versa, though that's rarely heard of) Zoophilia - Similar to bestiality, so I'll lump them together. Bestiality is sexual attraction to animals (non human) and zoophilia is the love (in a spousal form) of such animals. Pedophilia - Sexual relationships with minors, usually before puberty. Objectum Sexuality - Sexual attraction and relations to inanimate objects. Incest - Sexual attraction to immediate family members These are the main ones I can think of, I'm curious to hear your opinions. Ps. If you have any more sexualities you think merit discussion I'll add them to the first post. edit: I will be playing devil's advocate in this thread, fyi

Degrees of attraction are irrelevant. I may be "slightly" attracted to someone, but that's still attraction. This is the case heterosexually as well. You misunderstand my point. The example I gave (using autism) was as a serious mentally degenerative illness. If your degree of autism is mild enough you can write a blog that makes sense, you wouldn't qualify by the standards of this theory. The whole point I'm trying to make referred to those so seriously disabled that they cannot be structured according to the laws of society. I fail to see how this proves it. My point is that animals at large hump everything - thus the fact they may from time to time happen to participate in homosexual behavior hardly proves animals are naturally gay. I'll admit that the "laws of nature" are very wide and open to interpretation. That's basically a very poor summary of my view on the issue.

Seems like a good idea to me, although I'm doubtful as to the impact it would actually have.

No change. Thanks everyone for your posts. :) Cow Oh wow :o Good luck though :)

The mere fact you would say that, shows a clear ignorance of the subject. As alluded to in your other posts as well, you are bigoted, and have your mind set in the way you want, and nothing is going to change it. So in reality, you're really just trolling in this topic. And I for one, do not appreciate at all the message you are spreading. You do hate gay people, you and my mom have the same exact views, and yet you both say you don't hate gay people. But we all know you do; even if you won't admit it, as with most cases, the writing of one, gives away what one doesn't outright say. I'm glad that my simple attempt to understand the conditions in which a survey was conducted suddenly merits ignorance. I'm also glad that my attempts to be reasonable and debate my position are inferred as trolling. But most of all, I'm really overjoyed that you can say I hate gay people, because I'm sure you have the authority and knowledge to do so. I have several gay friends. I've had in depth arguments with one of them about my beliefs - we agree to disagree and remain friends to this day. But of course, you know that already, due to your in depth knowledge and understanding of my personal life. You call me ignorant? I'm not the one making assumptions.

Congrats Cowman, a very good choice :D Who's crew leader now?

So what, they asked people "how gay are you"?

Degrees of gayness? You're either attracted to the same sex or you're not. Degrees of gayness are merely how that attraction manifests itself in your personality. I disagree. May I point you to the Kinsey Scale? How was this testing done? It didn't say anywhere in the article.

Read back and tell me and yourself why you argue for that. Yes, because you posted that people don't live in places they are hated :rolleyes: Degrees of gayness? You're either attracted to the same sex or you're not. Degrees of gayness are merely how that attraction manifests itself in your personality. Point me to them. I realize this. Animals hump humans, fire hydrants, trees, etc. If you're going to argue that something with no comprehension of greater existence gives homosexual behavior legitimacy then I'm done arguing. I don't see why the "laws of nature" make me in favour of eugenics?

That's not my argument, I'm merely arguing that sometimes people live in places they are hated.

It's irrelevant. For example, a gay couple could live in an area near I live that's largely immigrant based (more conservative in general) I doubt they'd be in physical danger but they'd still be hated. The point I'm trying to make is it's unlikely a gay couple could find any location where no one whatsoever would be biased against them. But that's a problem with homophobia as it is with racism. Would you say Jews shouldn't adopt out of fear of hatred for their children? (And racism exists, by the ton.) When did I say anything like that?

It's irrelevant. For example, a gay couple could live in an area near I live that's largely immigrant based (more conservative in general) I doubt they'd be in physical danger but they'd still be hated. The point I'm trying to make is it's unlikely a gay couple could find any location where no one whatsoever would be biased against them.