Romy

You give no credit to psychologists by saying this. The test is designed to evaluate his brain's system of processing. Its not like they have a big list of right/wrong answers and 80% means man, 90% means woman. Psychological evaluation is more complicated than that. Its like you hearing of something that a particle physicist is working on and being like "Well what if the wind came and blew the electrons around?!?!?!" Just an unwarranted jab at the legitimacy of the study. Also even if it varied as simply as you are suggesting, why would that matter? "Men" would still be expected to do better than "women" on the spacial evaluation, regardless of their level of education. All they are concerned about is how his aptitude in certain areas compares to his aptitude in other areas. So how does education play a role in this? A test like a synonym test is directly related to knowledge of vocabulary, hence education. And what was the rest of the test? Mind reading? Psychic ability? Ability to run long distances? All of the criteria were intellectual evaluation and his absolute score would probably have something to do with education. It isnt about how high he scored on language aptitude, its about how high that score was in relation to other things. So how does education have anything to do with how good he is at one subject in relation to another? All I'm saying is that in any test there are extenuating factors. Do you honestly think that every woman has exactly the same spatial capabilities regardless of experience and education? I'm not saying the test was inherently flawed - I'm saying there's room for error, as there is in everything. There's a proven line of thinking that accounts for most women as women, and most men as men. I don't see where you're coming from.

Wishful thinking. 43 HP.

In terms of marriages, they are. They're related to hetrosexuals too. Stop thinking every single objection to homosexuality is negative and coming from bigots. It's not any objection, it's pedophillia, quite commonly expressed as rape, or manipulative abuse of children's innocent minds, followed by their bodies. It's a monsterous thing to do. Gay sex is not, it's just 2 adults who happen not to be attracted to the opposite gender. There's nothing monsterous about that.

Also still playing devil's advocate, and kinda seriously, how do we know its not a choice? I'm not gay so i don't know. The only people who would know are gays who could lie about it. So who is to say it isn't a choice? Well, I doubt anyone is dumb enough to choose it, considering the inequality, the inability to reproduce with ease, and the blatant hatred around the world. There's even less of a reason to choose it when you're religous, etc, and yet there are religous gays that have gone "against' what they believe in. Other than that, you said you're not gay. Go ahead and try to become attracted to men. You will not succeed, because you can't choose these things, pretty much.

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 disagree. But whatever, let's not argue over this- What about gays? No bi-sexuals, gays. Those that can't choose. Should they simply ignore it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c&feature=player_embedded

I make it listen to this song for 9213980532 times on loop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SlKA2Rgq20 47hp.

:shame: 358.

Exactly so. Other than that, homosexuality does not even border any of those. Other than asexuality, which is technically a sexual orientation, the rest are either one-sided perversions, or cultural preferances. The fact that certain religions defined marriage as uniting a man and a woman, does not make them own the term. Other religions (shamefully, not very popular today) did support gay marriage. Neither Christianity, nor Judiasm, nor Islam, have a veto over marriage. And the point of this? Explaning that gay marriages are not crossing any borders - none at all. Homosexual/lesbian marriages are not a precedent to any other type of marriages. If polygamous marriages will be largely legal (which is not something I disagree with), it'll have nothing to do with legalizing gay marriages. If beastial marriages will be legalized (which is something I disagree with), it'll have nothing to do with legalizing gay marriages. Same for the other types.

Yguy, we already discussed this. You know there are gay animals that are not attracted to the opposite gender, I don't see why you even bothered to bring it up after the debate we had.

I'd go with French/Spanish.

Actually, it's red.

First, it does not matter how. It's a risk that no one should be taking, especially when the reason does not involve self-gain. Second, it's illegal, whether you get caught or not. Some people find it unacceptable. Some find it so unacceptable, that, surprisingly, they'd rather not donate. Third, it's a [bleep]ed up policy. Because of bigots, gay can't donate blood, and the world will have to handle less of it.

I never thought of that one, but me too. I hate hot weather. As my signature implies, me too. ;)

3644. Guys, feel free to use the report button for double posts and the like. Otherwise, it could really screw up the count. :P

Who microwaves ice-cream :shock: :shock: ??

-100/10 A replaced signature... :shame:

326. You guys are bad at this. *Chuckle*

Why should they commit an illegal act, that could technically harm them, only so that a bigotted society could enjoy their donation? Not everyone is willing to commit illegal acts, much less when they have nothing to gain.

I kind of feel sorry for her. ><"

Actually, they are. :rolleyes:

Fixed for me too.

Lying about it is pretty much illegal. Also, I showed a source in this thread somewhere, and I'm pretty sure one exists in the topic post- If gays were allowed to donate blood, we'd have much more of it. Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) does NOT own marriage. Seperating church and state is what should be done. Everywhere. A church doesn't want to marry a couple? Fine, so be it- But who are they to say they cannot marry at all?

Congratumalations Mr. Cow! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Das, LOVE your new signature!! <3: <3: <3:

Post of the year: You can't have been in very many relationships. Sometimes you need to go through a lot of people before you can find one you can stand. Girls do like nice guys, they just don't like the male interpretation of 'nice guy.' They don't want you to put them on a pedestal, buy them things, suck up to them, eliminate conflict and just generally be a [kitty]. They already have one of those. I've been there, I'm sure most guys have been there. You can change the way you present yourself, and 'be your best self' instead of just 'being yourself' Imagine yourself in this scenario. You're a hot girl. You can't go anywhere without dorky guys drooling over you and hitting on you. It's flattering in a way, but it's also [bleep]ing annoying. You don't have time to date them all, you need a way of checking their suitability in stages. You knock back 90% in the first 10 seconds, then slowly disqualify them as time goes on. Unfair? Sure, but what else is she supposed to do? You have to wade through the crap for a while before you can find someone you can be with. It's like applying for a job. Send in a bad looking resume, it gets thrown out before they even read it. The same thing happens if you approach her wearing the same thing every other dorky guy wears, have nervous body language and then ask her to buy her a drink. (ps, buying a girl a drink is code for "I'm not worth your time, so I'm trying to buy a couple minutes with you via $5) That's what the [bleep] shield, and lots of other stuff like that is for. You don't have to like it, but use it as an excuse to avoid them and your genes get unsympathetically removed from existence. It's nobodies problem but your own, and only you can do something about it. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, not survival of the guy-who-won't-be-a-man. Keep using your excuses if you must, but I guarantee you that you're wrong. There are plenty of girls you would be perfect with, you just have to find them. Quote of the year: I applaud you dear sir. =D>

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: No, I said most wouldn't live there, for obvious reasons, as an answer to Soma's assumption that children to gay parenst are going to have a lousy childhood, supposedly as a result of the way their environment will react to their parents being gay.