warri0r45

I think you have a good point. The reason why "2 consenting gay adults who are married or have a civil union or whatever shouldn't have sex" originates from the Bible and I don't really have a solid argument against that particular case. But a law against homosexual sex would prevent homosexual promiscuity and lower the STD frequency. I knew I would regret bringing up that story. But let's try to stay on topic. A law against sex before marriage for hetrosexuals would prevent hetrosexual promiscuity and lower STD rates. Why single out homosexuals? They make up a lesser fraction of the population. More STDs in hetrosexuals = more money needed from the health system and more of a burden on taxpayers. Or is your argument just an overall 'promiscuous sex is wrong'?

I'm a supporter of nuclear for a source of base-load power. I think this is what I'll judge my vote on in Australia's federal election towards the end of this year because one party endorses nuclear and the other does not (we currently don't have commercial nuclear power, only 1 research reactor, to my knowlege). In my opinion it's a huge step forward if we exploit all the energy sources we have that don't pollute as much as coal. Having said that and gone on that little political tangent, the point I was going to make to you is that a solution to coal dominated energy production should be a collection of all non-polluting energy sources be they established, as nuclear is, or in thier infancy, such as geothermal, so we can all progress and ween ourselves off of nuclear too, which should be the intermediate step between non-renewables and renewables, in my opinion.

(1) Would we even be alive if these different practices were normal? (2) Agreed. However, if murdering someone for looking at your ear was a normal occurance recognized throughout the ages then no one would debate that as an issue either... Would that make it right though? (3) But that is why we have minds so we can use our real world experiences to filter through what we learn to constantly analyze the knowledge we have learned to determine it's validity. Sure it's not the perfect solution but it is pretty darn effective when rigorously applied. (1) Assuming reproduction is part of this odd world and for the purposes of the hypothetical situation, sure. (2) That's right. I've not brought up issues of right or wrong yet but judging by our sense of right and wrong in this reality, it would be wrong. But that's murder. How would homosexual unions for example be wrong in this reality if they were considered normal practice? (3) Yep. The ideas I'm suggesting are that we learn and accept these concepts because we're socially 'expected' to do so. It's a valid route to take in accepting these notions so as to remain an accepted memeber of society, if that's what you desire, which most people do because we are a social species.

What would the human race be like if marriage had never been invented? It would be different to you or me. But thinking about it, you or me in a different word would think these different practices to be normal. The point I was making was not whether it's a correct concept; it was that it's just a concept whose normailty is solely dependant on the fact it's familiar and not alien. If homosexual unions were accepted and thier normal occurance recognised throughout the ages, no one would be debating an issue such as the acceptability of homosexual unions. It's all pretty self-evident and dosen't really require me to tell you this, but it's worth thinking about. As I said, it's an interesting thought that what you know is in fact learned and not necessarily true, right or wrong.

Haha, so true. The first assumption is that the claimant is attractive enough to be hit on by a gay man and the second assumption is that they often do openly hit on guys, which I doubt is true considering the social stigma towards homosexuals.

Haha, people are probably shocked that two people on opposite sides of the religion fence agree on an issue, especially one as contentious as abortion (assuming you're a christain, sorry if I'm wrong).

The roughly 200 million plus sperm males ejaculate every orgasm didn't do anything wrong, why should they be denied the right to an egg for fertilization because someone choses to pleasure themselves? did you seriously just make that comparison? a sperm alone cant become a fetus, rubbing one out is not the same as an abortion. We're probably not on the same wavelength here. My comparison was between sperm and a zygote (combined sperm and egg). The idea in comparing these two is that some against abortion often cite the zygote as the beginning of life. I want to know why this line in the sand is the one chosen when you can track life's potential back to sperm and eggs and even prior to that. Every of the 50 trillion cells making up you codes for your entire body and thus has a potential to make one 'you'. The argument about life's potential to me dosen't hold much water. With the right tools and an understanding of genetics, I could mix, match and manipulate the genes of a few organisms with various DNA-ases and give you a human being. Let me take this in a different direction; what's wrong with terminating the life of an unborn foetus not yet with a developed nervous system (i.e relatively early on in the pregnancy) when it's mother hasn't got the financial capacity to care for it. In other words, who's hurt here? Now compare that outcome to the mother refusing an abortion, ending up in financial difficulty and not being able to provide for her baby. Who's hurt here? In the first scenario the mother has the ability to pursue what she would have otherwise done with her life, which could include any number of careers or ending up as a mother but in a much more financially secure position to provide for her child. In the second scenario the mother is burdened by the child and both mother and child have less opportunity in life than they otherwise could have if the mother had the child while in a financially better position to do so. You present a good argument, but thats where Adoption comes in, if someone is not financial secure enough, or emotionally ready for a baby i dont think an abortion should be the first thing that comes to mind. I believe there are grey area's where abortions should be considered, like if the mothers health is in danger, or some inbred hick father decided to rape his daughter and get her pregnant. but if the girl just had sex without a condom and got pregnant she should have to cary the burden of pregnancy as a reminder that if your not ready for a child, then your not ready for unprotected sex. im not saying keep the child, just put it up for adoption so someone who can provide the proper care for the baby, can. I just dont believe abortion should be the first thing that comes to someones mind when they find out they are pregnant and arent ready for that kind of responsibility. It's hard to disagree with any of that, so I won't. :P Adoption is another great option and I'd tend to agree you shouldn't jump straight for abortion. This issue always demands careful consideration and consultancy.

Haha, sure. :P I see what you were saying above and I agree. "No excuses" is a great motto to live by but generally, people do make excuses. My post was going on that generality of what unfortunately often happens. In an ideal world no one would complain and we would all soldier on financial hardship or not and make all our lives awesome. All I was pointing out was that it's often the case that those who wait to have kids in a more secure setting or happen to have no 'mistakes' have a better chance at success and a fruitful life than those who do have a 'mistake' and go through with the pregnancy. This is one part of the basis for why I'm pro-choice when it comes to something like abortion. Granted I'm assuming these hypothetical outcomes with regards to the situation of mother and child but I feel it's an accurate assumption going by how society works. Fair call?

The roughly 200 million plus sperm males ejaculate every orgasm didn't do anything wrong, why should they be denied the right to an egg for fertilization because someone choses to pleasure themselves? did you seriously just make that comparison? a sperm alone cant become a fetus, rubbing one out is not the same as an abortion. We're probably not on the same wavelength here. My comparison was between sperm and a zygote (combined sperm and egg). The idea in comparing these two is that some against abortion often cite the zygote as the beginning of life. I want to know why this line in the sand is the one chosen when you can track life's potential back to sperm and eggs and even prior to that. Every of the 50 trillion cells making up you codes for your entire body and thus has a potential to make one 'you'. The argument about life's potential to me dosen't hold much water. With the right tools and an understanding of genetics, I could mix, match and manipulate the genes of a few organisms with various DNA-ases and give you a human being. Let me take this in a different direction; what's wrong with terminating the life of an unborn foetus not yet with a developed nervous system (i.e relatively early on in the pregnancy) when it's mother hasn't got the financial capacity to care for it. In other words, who's hurt here? Now compare that outcome to the mother refusing an abortion, ending up in financial difficulty and not being able to provide for her baby. Who's hurt here? In the first scenario the mother has the ability to pursue what she would have otherwise done with her life, which could include any number of careers or ending up as a mother but in a much more financially secure position to provide for her child. In the second scenario the mother is burdened by the child and both mother and child have less opportunity in life than they otherwise could have if the mother had the child while in a financially better position to do so.

That fact hasn't been ignored. Assassin brought up that issue and if I remember correctly, someone else did too.

The roughly 200 million plus sperm males ejaculate every orgasm didn't do anything wrong, why should they be denied the right to an egg for fertilization because someone choses to pleasure themselves?

What makes you think marriage itself is natural? It's a man made concept. If it happened to be the case where gay unions were considered normal and you were brought up in such a society, you'd feel the same way. But, just because you've been brought up in a society dominated by the ideal of marriage between man and woman, you see gay union as 'unnatural.' Just playing devils advocate. It's an interesting concept when you realise everything you know is in fact learned and not necessarily the truth, right or wrong.

Good point there. Of course, anyone can be gay. A propensity to be so isn't magically erased when one converts to or is brought up around Christianity. Take Ted Haggard for example. He was accused of having sex with a male prostite and ended up admitting it. Can those who suggest homosexuality is a choice enlighten me as to why on earth a guy like Ted Haggard, who is as Christian and evangelical as they get, would just 'choose' to be gay? @ Insane, I'm not going to doubt that it's possible, my issue is with those who seem to think it's an easy choice to make.

Besides whether it's happening or not and whether it's our fault or not, can I see a show of hands of those that believe we shouldn't do anything to find new and more renewable sources of energy? If any such person exists, why do you feel we should do nothing? The reasoning for my position is one where I can bypass the debate entirely and go straight to the solution and justify it without even considering global warming as the cause for doing so. Kill two birds (potentially) with one stone. So if someone would be so inclined, tell me why weeding out non-renewables starting now would be a more detrimental act than a global repression of the issue to the point where our way of life itself collapses because we didn't start planning for a sustainable future all those years ago. The idea with starting the non-renewable weed-out now is because in doing so, we could potentially kill two birds with one stone.

Wikipedia it, not all homosexuals are born that way, a lot of them develop through upbringing and psychological experiences. But there are theories that some people are simply born that way as well. Note environmental/cultural as a combining factor. Environmental factors play a role in any phenotypically expressed gene, which is all protien coding genes, as they are all, through thier translation products, exposed to an environment be it internal or external. In other words, I'm not surprised. I don't think that this makes it an easy endevour to just "switch sides." Article on how easy it is to 'convert.'

Best of luck. Must be an exciting thought. :)

(1) Why have sex wearing a condom? It's not going to (for the most part) create a baby. We're to the point in society where sex is not mostly for pleasure and intimacy rather than impregnation. (2) So you find it sick because it's not natural? How would you react if I said that a concept such as marriage is sick because it's not natural? You'd think I'm nuts. We should be rutting around spreading our seed with as many women as possible if we want to be a sucessful species. It's just that a concept such as marriage is socially accepted where as homosexuality, for the most part, is not. It's got nothing to do with being natural or not. That's just an excuse to deny two consenting adults consent to a private act which doesn't harm you in any way. And to add to your point warri0r, dwarfdude, saying that homosexuality "isn't natural" is just plain ignorant, homosexuality has been observed in many animal species. There's often a silly misinterpretation of Darwinism that anything that doesn't propogate your genes as fast as possible is bad for the species, when in reality it's far from that simple. So I've heard, but never personally looked into it. Pretty interesting. I'll have to give it a few minutes of googling. :P

There's all sorts of implications for the parents and new kids. Lord knows we don't need any more unloved kids in this world. Keep a wrap on it untill you actually want kids. I could only imagine being a kid with kids would be incredibly difficult. Kids, kids, kids. Kids.

(1) Why have sex wearing a condom? It's not going to (for the most part) create a baby. We're to the point in society where sex is mostly for pleasure and intimacy rather than impregnation. (2) So you find it sick because it's not natural? How would you react if I said that a concept such as marriage is sick because it's not natural? You'd think I'm nuts. We should be rutting around spreading our seed with as many women as possible if we want to be a sucessful species. It's just that a concept such as marriage is socially accepted where as homosexuality, for the most part, is not. It's got nothing to do with being natural or not. That's just an excuse to deny two consenting adults consent to a private act which doesn't harm you in any way.

A hole in the wall? :uhh: A hand not good enough for her? :lol:

'With Pitiless Blows' by A Life Once Lost. Grooooooove metal. 8-) I adore thier drum lines.

Perhaps you'd like to read the quotes I presented and explain to me how something so supposedly innate and unchangable can be wrong. it's like saying my choice to reflex when I'm about to be hit is wrong. It's not going to change easily at all. But let me anticipate your response, which will answer why this is very much a religious issue. "The science must be wrong because the bible is right." If I'm wrong, please tell me so I can apologise and retract my presumption.

From here. I don't agree that it's some sort of fluid choice and the idea that something innate and uncontrollable is somehow wrong or sinful is disturbing to me. Therefore, I don't think it's 'wrong'. It's not how you get kids, but that's not a marker for what's right.

Ouch. :P I'd do it for two weeks as long as it didn't include that time of the month. :lol:

But that's the thing, people need some kind of reason to really help out the planet. A reason that benefits them, they're family, and they're lifestyle. The severity of the eco-situation correlates precisely to everyone's willingness to give up any part of their lifestyle for the sake of the environment. If man-made Global Warming is 100% proven, that's when you're going to see the change in people's attitudes, and not a second before then. And everyone, let's be honest. The severity of the situation greatly effects how much everyone here helps the earth, no matter how eco-friendly someone is, no matter how much of a treehugger you think you are. If scientists proved that we're all going to die in the next ten years if we don't lower CO2 emissions, then we'd have people actually doing something- even the most eco-friendly people would be driven to do even more than they've been doing in the past. But until then, people are selfish, and everyone has their limits on how much of their lifestyle they're willing to give up for the sake of a big rock. Me, I'm the same. Sure, I'll recycle, but I'm not going to change my lifestyle if there's no definite proof [don't act like you know] that unless I change my ways and give up a few things it's going to hurt me. It's just how my ego works; sorry if I'm not a treehugger, but I like my lifestyle, and I see no reason to change it. Just my two cents. [-_- and no, my current lifestyle doesn't damage the environment all that much anyways. I recycle, I rarely drive (hate it), don't litter, etc.] I dont litter unless i through gum outta window. im not old enough to drive and my family recycles. global warming is still crap though. Why do you think it's crap? I'm not understanding the psychology of rejecting the notion that the earth is warming and we're to blame. What's the deal? Ego? Don't want to chage your lifestyle? Or do you genuinely want to get the science right?What is it? There's a reason besides global warming to clean up our act. It's simple. We're going to run out of non-renewables one day. Better to inject money into clean energy sources so we're not caught short. So what's the reason to not clean up our act, assuming global warming is false? It's detrimental to us as a species either way. Either stubbornly do nothing and we turn into a sauna or stubbornly do nothing and run out of non-renewables because we didn't think to do everything we could to ensure sustainability. It's almost a non-issue if you look at it this way. It's a sustainability issue either way. Anyone agree? All this besides the vested interests of oil companies to keep profits rolling in, oil being the biggest industry in the world, from memory. Because i didnt understand a word u said. Im just a highlyopinionated 14 yr old. Also i agree we should switch to a renewable clean energy source cuz oil will run out. (we should drill alaska though) Still dont believe in global warming. Opinions don't mean much when you don't have reasons for having them. But, of course, you're entitled to believe whatever you like. If at all possible, a reason beyond you not believeing in global warming would be great.