meol

Of course you don't have to be bisexual to say that. I'm just saying what my biased and skewed experience has been thus far. :P Now this is something I deeply disagree with. The fact that you (not specifically you, just in general) are too close-minded to go against your religion or what your family has taught you does not mean nobody will ever change opinions. And there's also a lot of people that don't have a fixed opinion yet. At least, it would be for them that these debates are most useful, even if you are unable or unwilling change yours.

As I'm sure you know, the topic isn't about internet facades. So please gay it up or take it to PM. Good thing you did -it took me a while to write this-. -- Now, returning to the topic, self-identifying as "bi" might be a step of sorts for some people, not as part of a transition "towards", but during self-discovery and acceptance. When the fact you like people of the same sex stares at you in the face and is unavoidable, claiming you are bi allows for some honesty while people still try to cling to a false heteronormativity ("If I am bi, maybe I can still marry a woman", etc). Sadly, that makes people doubt about the real bisexuals are there. That being said, experience tells me that people who say "bisexuality is more natural" or "everyone is a little bit bisexual" are usually the bisexuals themselves. :P

They are if you're in a swimsuit ;) Context, context, context.

On a moral level, I feel it is wrong to let someone die if you have the ability and are realistically faced with the opportunity. It is still not murder, since it lacks some of the "evil" elements of murder, but I still see it (personally) as a crime, generally speaking. (Of course there will be exceptions, but you don't build an argument on exceptions)

^It's just that a lot posters who find homosexuality wrong just come here and throw a one liner without ever backing it up. There are some good exceptions, of course. There's one thing I still wonder about. Do people actually choose to be homophobes?

^What's up with the scare quotes and the "supposedly"? :-| What the left usually argues -and I dislike using such terms- is that the government (or other people) should, by default, have no say about the private affairs of people. "By default" being crucial, since that stops as soon as there is an appropriate reason to meddle -like with rape.

You are missing a huge point, Zierro. You can't simply say "correlation doesn't imply causation" and then disregard all statistics someone can give to you. Comparing real studies with your heads/tails experiment is only ridiculing the work of plenty of social scientists and statisticians. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but causation necessarily implies correlation, and that's what you are missing to see. If stronger punishments were a deterrent, we would necessarily see it correlating to some extent or another to less crime. If there is no such correlation, we can know that stronger punishments aren't a deterrent. -On a side not, I removed quite some posts from the first pages. Flamewars and name calling won't do any good to anyone.

I was just about to bring up Sam Harris on the issue of rejecting Moral Relativism. :lol: He speaks quite nicely about it in . Though one must be cautious not to take it to the other extreme, he makes a nice point against it (and against the necessity of religions to define morality, but that's completely another issue).

Fun fact: crewbies are in charge of the main website, not of the forums. But yes, kind of. I'd just ask of you guys not to jump to hasty conclusions and blindly attack other users.

They aren't in the thread, presumably because of how violently people here tend to attack non-liberals :razz: Which is probably worse than the whole homophobia thing. How are they supposed to be tolerant when the people who claim they are tend to be even less so? The only difference is that instead of disagreeing with homosexuality they actively hate anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. It matters to some people, but it shouldn't matter to others whether or not it matters to them. Does that get any point across? :razz: Of course it matters if it matters to you, since people with strong feelings about this will most probably want to change current legislation one way or the other. Be it with making homosexuality a capital crime or making their marriages unconstitutional, as examples. Then there's the issue that some people feel it's somehow so evil and depraved that gays deserve an eternity of the worst possible suffering, just for expressing their sexuality. How can that be simply tolerated and shrugged off? "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."

http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/49216 Diablo Swing Orchestra is some kind of eclectic metal influences with an operatic voice. Although I prefer their second album "Sing-Along Songs for the Damned and Delirious", this one's great too. And free.

:razz: It's still good news, though. If the Executive doesn't have the initiative and the Legislative is blocked by Republicans, at least the Judicial power can ensure some justice. Does anyone know if the ruling will get appealed?

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM LOVELY SPAM, WONDERFUL SPAM.

After a simple and smooth payment, I started playing Minecraft. And sure enough, I had a heart attack when I heard the first growl. D:

So I've been thinking about actually buying this game. Is it worth it? Will I get bored after a few days of messing around digging caves and stuff? What can you tell me about the multiplayer system?

First, that also means God created humans he knew wouldn't be able or willing to overcome it, and would then not only punish them, but mercilessly and eternally. That's actually one of the main reasons I left Catholicism. Then, everything you said somehow presupposes homosexuality is inherently evil, a burden that must be overcome. But in the end you are right, that isn't per se a sound argument. I'm just explaining the point of view "the God you present to me is cruel, therefore he doesn't exist".

Premise: God, if she exists, being an omnipotent creator, must be loving and caring, possibly beyond human comprehension. God chooses to create gay humans, and -according to some religions- then sends them to an everlasting, infinitely cruel punishment without the possibility of parole or redemption for acting on those desires -something as simple as having sex. Clearly not merciful or loving, even by human standards. Accepting the premise, it follows that no such God exists -some dogma of the religions must be wrong. It is not an entirely logical reasoning and it's certainly incomplete, and it only speaks against conservative versions of Christianity (and Islam and Judaism), but that's more or less the argument. And I'd personally say that forcing someone to choose between unwillingly being celibate for your whole life and facing eternal punishment is not "loving the sinner".

Get a new boss then... heh. And if you can't? I'm not saying I think God is a mean ass boss, but I don't see the logic in people simply "ignoring" he's there because they don't like them. Because that implies they knew he existed, but then decided he wasn't good enough for them. That's fine. But that doesn't make him... *not* exist. I know what you are saying, but it's that I can hardly believe such a childish God exists in the first place, not that I think he exists but I choose to ignore him (though I can't speak for the others).

Funny thought, but if it was it would go extinct anyway because Homosexuals have no children to pass their genes on to. Actually, that wouldn't necessarily be the case. It seems that male homosexuality correlates with female relatives having more children. So, even if the genes weren't passed by sons, they still could get passed through nephews and nieces. [1]