warri0r45

So the argument is that homosexual acts are consentual therefore ok while beastiality is not consentual therefore not ok thus killing animals for food is not ok as it's without consent, if you look at it that way? So we've established, for us meat eaters that don't want to be morally wrong, that the consentual nature of a homosexual act dosen't automatically make it right? Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

Actually he was the Pope which is far from king. Not everyone believes we evolved. And there's nothing wrong with it I just don't see why one theory can be embraced by the government while the other is shooed away by "separation of church and state". Drago, the government has nothing to do with it. It's the scientists and the weight of evidence that sees us favour evolution over creationism. Not only is creationism not science, it's evidence is miniscule and often purported by groups who are too blind to see that they are biased by thier religious motivations. Evolution is not a matter of belief; it's a matter of accepting it as it has the weight of evidence, objectivity, use and explanatory power. In America there is a separation of church and state. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I know, mate, I was just saying that the goverment dosen't decide what is science and what is not. You're getting the cart before the horse. Make it science first, then the government will step in and shoo it away as a seperation of church-state issue.

Actually he was the Pope which is far from king. Not everyone believes we evolved. And there's nothing wrong with it I just don't see why one theory can be embraced by the government while the other is shooed away by "separation of church and state". Drago, the government has nothing to do with it. It's the scientists and the weight of evidence that sees us favour evolution over creationism. Not only is creationism not science, it's evidence is miniscule and often purported by groups who are too blind to see that they are biased by thier religious motivations. Evolution is not a matter of belief; it's a matter of accepting it as it has the weight of evidence, objectivity, use and explanatory power.

I can't say I'm surprised that this has turned into 'who can misrepresent evolution the most.' People, it's necessarily a theory. The theory part is necessary. It's necessary. Don't you see? You can't have science without theory. It's necessary. Facts are useless without explanation enlightened via a theoretic underpinning which itself is based on tests. Oh and theories don't become facts. Pure hogwash. You can watch a diamond turn into carbon dioxide and the theory of evolution still won't be a fact in the sense that you require. Dosen't happen. As for the guy who said it's a religion - sorry, it's not. It's a scientific theory. If you want my opinion, anyone who worships Darwin or evolution is a tosser and they need to get thier head out of thier rear end. If anyone wants some evidence of common descent, see my post on page 2.

Coming right up. Watch this space. Amazing what you can learn when you look at data. This link takes some time to get through and comprehend correctly. It shows molecular vestiges of sorts which are neutral in effect and have conspicuously exact locations when lined up with a chimp genome. The above is in reference to the DNA sequence coding for an amino acid protien chain. Seeing as the genetic code is redundant (i.e. differences in DNA sequences can still result in the same protien being produced) one would expect a similar DNA sequence for the gene mentioned if common descent were correct. Turns out, the DNA sequence is conspicuously similar between us and chimps when there could have been any number of different gene sequence arrangements to yield the exact same result. A little more on the previously mentioned. Here we go; SINES. They have no demonstrable function and skip about freely through the genome. Conspicuously enough, us and chimps share 7 Alu elements (an important SINE making up 10% of your genome) all in the same locations in a particular gene cluster.

When it comes to hitting nerves, you've just tapped my spinal cord. But only because I've read into the creation-evolution 'debate' so extensively. As Insane states, Creationism is not science. It invokes supernatural causes and thus is untestable and unfalsifiable by our feeble natural senses. Science must be testable and falsifiable or it's as baseless as any old postulation. Besides not technically fitting any frame of what would be considered conventional science, Creationism carries a theological burden which is subject to wipe all semblance of accountability, which science strives hard to maintain, out the window. In your post you seem to come across as upset that creationism and evolution don't have 'equal time' in the science classroom. This is folly because when it comes to science, it's not about being fair; it's about going with the weight of evidence, which I can assure you evolution holds comfortably, thus why 99%+ of all scientists accept it. In another point you say you get offended by evolution. Evolution is a naturalistic theory just like all others; it's purpose is not to offend you. If you don't like the natural evidence-based explanation of life on earth, then feel free to ignore it and have faith in what it is you believe. You have that right, but I ask you to think why it is you are getting offended by it.

Now, having toast in my opinion is different. You need to spread heaps of butter on while the toast is hot so that your piece of toast is smothered in butter. Then you smear over the vegemite in little patches. =Yum Indeed, but I prefer english muffins for the molten butter effect. Soaks it up nicely. Yummo (and a future heart attack waiting to happen :XD: )

I've had 3 vegemite sandwiches today. 8-) It's an artform to make a good vegemite sandwich. The spread of both butter and vegemite must be equal and to the very crust. To achieve an equal spread and avoid clumping, take the desired quantity of vegemite on the knife and scrape on the lip of the jar to soften prior to application. Spread equally onto the butter and ensure a sufficient combination of the two to again avoid clumping and to assure an equal spread. There ya go, condiment application processes 101. :XD: :P

Call me crazy, but besides plugging the peripheral issues, I don't seem to recall anyone answering (or rather in any way justifying) thier opinion that there is something wrong with consentual homosexual sex between two responsible adults behind closed doors. As always, I'm happy to be corrected here if I ignorantly brushed past said justification. I recall hearing one 'it dosen't help society' but that's as much justification against watching television as it is against consenting homosexual sex. I want to hear, if anyone is willing, the justification of homosexual sex being wrong based on it's detriment to you and the greater populace.

Your personailty and tendancies towards masculinity or femininity are biologically based. Anyone who thinks you're wierd is ignorant of two things: 1) That you are not 'wierd' or a 'freak' because your femininity is not some sort of disease and; 2) That there is no such thing as normal when it comes to people. The societal mind-rape of making you think you ought to fit into what the 'median person' should look like is an utter [rooster]suck. It's an aspiration to fit physical people into a conceptual archetype. But what can you do about the discrimination of sorts and wierd looks? Sorry, not much apart from grin and bare it. The collective conditioning program we call society is a powerful beast influenced only by itself (short of a gentle nudge by many of the great minds over time) or anything bigger than it, which is nothing. If we think collectively, we make a permanent change through society. If we think individually, the change only lasts in those who think. Society dosen't think or no one makes it think, society remains ignorant and dosen't change.

I had a peek. Not bad. Not the coolest thing ever but worth a look.

If I've learnt anything in life it's that how terribly nervous you are about something never matters as it never seems to materialise into how bad you expect it to be. So basically, your brain prepares for the worst in all situations even though the worst often never comes true. Just relax and get through the first few days to start. Easier said then done, I know.

Is anyone else like me in that they find the drum fill and subsequent change-up @ 10:32 of Opeth's 'Blackwater Park' to be filled with copious amounts of pure win? =P~

Whether we all exist in what we think is real, you all exist in my mind or I exist in one of your minds, we all exist. Whether we are real in the conventional sense is irrelevant in this case. ... I think.

Bright as bright can be!!! :P :XD: Yes, I love vegemite. Great source of vitamin B. Don't reccomend it for those on a low sodium diet. It could kill you. :lol:

Awesome dude! When I write music I'm a bit of a perfectionist about it. It's always got to be better and whenever I come back to a piece I thought was beyond cool when I wrote it, I'm looking for ways to make it better because it's somehow lost it's charm. Either I suck at writing or the fact that it always needs to be better is all in my head. :XD: I've got another thing that makes me feel great. Some people may find this a bit counter intuitive - I feel great when I realise I don't (or rather can't) know the answer to something. I accept ignorance but don't revel in it. It's the feeling of being totally honest within myself I suppose.

Uhhh...Jehova's Witnesses frown upon it aswell... Completely serious question I just thought of: If you guys against homosexuality - based on what the Bible says - are truely not hateful little bigot's, then why is it that you aren't also rallying for making adultery in general illegal? How about lying? Lying shouldbe illegal too. The Bible says so. And before you cop-out and say "Lawl, everyone lies...How would you control that law?" I can only then say, if everyone lies (you included), who are you to judge some dude kissing another dude? You're no better. I'm pretty sure God didn't list the 10 commandments in order of least to most severity of committence or visa-versa. What, lying is acceptable just because you partake in it, or what? Sounds like hypocracy to me, and I thought God frowned upon being a hypocrite...Meh. Oh well. But seriously, you guys are all bigots, and it's kinda' embarassing to watch you try to explain why you're not. I like to watch Christian leaders on TV... Reporter: Why are you rallying against gays? Christian d00d: We aren't rallying against anyone. We're rallying FOR marriage! *sly smile, as if he's the first one to think of it because he's infinately clever* Reporter: But, you're... Christian d00d: Nope. Reporter: You completely deny that you're rallying against... Christian d00d: Yep. Reporter: So you're for gay marriage, then? Christian d00d: No, we're for marriage. Reporter: Yea, gays want to get married. Christian d00d: Yes, and that is what we're against, because marriage should be between a man and a woman. Reporter: So again, you're against gay marriage? Christian d00d: No, we're for marriage. Reporter: *Sigh* Swear to god something like that was on CNN the other day. The reporter didn't sigh, they just cut the interview and went along. It's really embarassing to watch, the whole time the Christian dude has a stupid smug, clever smile on his face, as if he's fooling anyone. Yes Tigra, your the first one to notice us evil little christians scheming in the background. I don't know how you figured it out or how it got passed you..! :roll: Please, I know not all christians are very intelligent or come off as blind faith, but stop using sterotypes that we are all like that, stupid and hateful. Most christians (most because I cannot speak for everyone), do not hate gay people, they hate the act of it. Thats like if your mom enjoyed killing people, you would tell her to stop, not because you hate her, but because the act she is doing is wrong. Christians believe the act of homosexuality is wrong and therefor go against the act, not the person of the act. (1) Now your saying "why not just let them do it?", well maybe we should just let them kill people? Are you gay Tigra? I would say no because you have a girlfriend, but why are you vouching for people to do those things? (2) I don't want to go to a restaurant and see two guys making love moves at each other. Thats disgusting. Thats a natural reaction from my body, not just something I decided to say "Well I don't like it so i'll feel disgusted everytime I see it". No, it comes naturally, and i'm sure most men have the same reaction. And its not hating anyone, if I see two gays, i'm not out to get them, and try to make their life miserable, I just hate what they are doing. Its sickening and to say something like that is Okay and Right is pathetic IMO. (3) Every child has the right to a mother and father. To have two of the same gender as a parent is stupid IMO. You lose one role in the house such as father provider/worker or the other nuture/loving moms. This does not mean the kid will come out defective or bad, but to say he cannot have a mom/dad just because two guys/gals wanted to get with each other is wrong. (4) You can keep claiming homsexuality is right but I will keep comming back at you and say its wrong because it is and its obvious to see why. (5) You really must have to look hard in the mirror everyday and say "homsexuality is right" tons of times to convince yourself of that one. ~Defender~ (1) To make this point anywhere near valid you'd have to show how homosexuality harms like murder does. They are obviously worlds apart. Murder takes away life without consent while homosexuality is a consenting act between two people which hurts you in no way besides a childish 'yuk factor.' (2) So your only beef with gays here is with those who show displays of public affection? So can you now justify how a consenting act strictly behind closed doors makes you feel? Logically, unless you are constantly disgusted for no apparant reason, because homosexual sex is going on all the time around the world, you should have no reason to have anything against all homosexual actions on this basis. (3) So your only beef with gays here is with those who adopt children? So can you now justify those who don't? Not all gays adopt children, so logically you shouldn't be opposed to all homosexual actions on this basis. (4) You can keep broadly claiming homosexual actions are wrong with your narrow justifications but I'll keep coming back to show you where your logic is lacking. (5) Not at all, mate.

I love that song. :wink: 5 Minutes Alone - Pantera.

Playing the guitar. Writing music I'm happy with too. Man, that feels great.

I fully understand and accept the other cultures out there, we're actually asked to in the Bible. Now if I could make one thing clear out of all my posts on this thread is the fact that I accept the people and that being how they are, whether they were born like that or made that personal decision its irrelevant. But that doesn't mean I have to accept their action. There's a clear difference there, and I'm not going to point it out again considering we had this discussion 2 pages back. In today's society it doesn't. Didn't I already make that clear early on? :? Yet am I not allowed to disagree with the act due to my religious beliefs but still accept the person? Oh and Tigra well done on showing up my stupid comment. I must admit I didn't think through it clearly, and made a spontaneous comment, and will forever be hurt that my credibility on an internet forum has been destroyed. I'm sure its going to deeply affect me emotionally in the real world. Good flame, either way, I enjoyed it. :wink: So do you now accept the possibility that it's not actually a choice to be of a particular sexual orientation? You may remember my arguing you on this issue a few pages back in which I presented various quotes and sources. And thanks for the response to my (and others) queries on how homosexuality harms society.

Sum - Meshuggah. Oh man. Climax worthy.

@ Your first statement. Thankyou I'm glad you accept my views and way of life, exactly like you accept a homosexuals way of life. I'm glad there's no hypocrisy there. @ Your question. My answer to that is I believe whole-heartedly that homosexuality doesn't contribute to the good of society in anyway, and this act increasing won't help society as a whole in anyway. Its not making society more selfish, all of society as a whole is contributing to it becoming a more selfish generation. Hopefully we change this trend in our Western Societies but I'm quite pessimistic about it. Television dosen't contribute to society either (it arguably harms, but that's beside the point). The question was not how it contributes, rather it was how it harms. I can of course accept that homosexuality is not a contributing factor to society, but so is a huge slab of other peripheral issues people seem to take no offence to whatsoever.

double post

Here's an example: You can accept a liar, and accept the fact that that is how he/she is, and that's how he/she lives their life. That doesn't mean you accept the act of lying and doesn't mean you believe its a just and moral thing to do. Lying hurts other people and distorts reality to those they lie to. Homosexuality is a biological feature of that person and it doesn't harm me or you or anybody else in the society mentally, physically, financially or any other way. The act of homosexuality hurting anyone doesn't matter, when the argument is about the fact that certain people still find the act of homosexuality wrong, if it hurts others or doesn't hurt others. Its irrelevant. We condemn the act, but we don't condemn the people themselves, we still accept them as how they are. As fellow humans its not up to us to condemn them personally (that's God's job) but it doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on why we disagree with the act of homosexuality. As stated its irrelevant whether or not you can justify to me the act of homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, when either way its still seen in my eyes and others as a immoral act. Eels, you are entitled to that view but the non-Christians of the tip it community have a hard time understanding why something is wrong just because the bible says so. Even more so when the act dosen't actually hurt anyone. That's why the argument that homosexuality harms no-one comes up. Our morals shouldn't change, just because society is more accepting of it. Especially considering that our society is going down hill, with more selfish, self centered people in this world. God doesn't change his views on how we should live, and neither should a Christian judge their morals on societies acceptance of certain acts. And for the record, prostitution doesn't hurt anyone, should I as a Christian accept that as a Godly way to live, since it doesn't hurt anyone and that society is becoming increasingly accepting of it? In fact Warrior, should I even have morals or standards, I strive to live by, in a society such as ours today? Or should I just live by what society says is right and just hope that its not going to continue to go downhill from here? This all dependant on having a Christian view of things. I don't see moral relitivism as a bad thing, rather a process for sorting out our pre-concieved notions from a more ignorant time in history. I can't deny that society seems to be getting more selfish but on the wider scale of things, I'd hardly consider society today as any worse than it was 50 years ago, for example. @ Bold, Sure, you should have morals and standards. If you don't like what society states about an issue, by all means dissent. I'm not all that fond of some aspects of society myself. ------------------------------------------------------ All of that aside, do you feel homosexulaity in particular is making society worse or more selfish? If so, in what way?

Christianity is an organization [in the way you are referring to], homosexuality is an uncontrollable mental condition [maybe my wording is incorrect, but I'm not sure what homosexually technically is]. You sir, have no point. Thanks. Now please go back and re-read the quote I replied to. Then add some thought, and you'll figure out there is a point. And just for a hint to help you out, I was mainly replying to this line by Serephurus "Let's get back to the topic: "Christiansectuality, right or wrong?" " Of course it was a joke by him, but I still was trying to raise my point about people even thinking twice that Homosexuality in anyway could be seen as a benefit to society. And no I was referring to Christianity as a whole. Its the Christians themselves who benefit society, not an organization. By the way homosexuality is uncontrollable? Yeah right, we all have free will and all are able to make our own decisions in life. Stop trying to make out that homosexuality doesn't involve any pre-made decisions with free-will involved on the behalf of the person committing the act. It's an important distinction to make that the sexual orientation one has is not controllable. As I demonstrated in some of the quotes I presented some pages back, It's not a choice yet rather a combination of uncontrollable biological and environmental factors which make one gay. But, of course, acting on this orientation is the choice. But, one wonders what the point of being dealt an uncontrollable sexual orientation is when acting on it is a sin.