RPGDot Network    
   

 
 
Pirates of the Caribbean
Display full image
Pic of the moment
More
pics from the gallery
 
 
Site Navigation

Main
   News
   Forums

Games
   Games Database
   Top 100
   Release List
   Support Files

Features
   Reviews
   Previews
   Interviews
   Editorials
   Diaries
   Misc

Download
   Gallery
   Music
   Screenshots
   Videos

Miscellaneous
   Staff Members
   Privacy Statement

FAQ
Members
Usergroups
Do you accept same-sex marriage?
  View previous topic :: View next topic
RPGDot Forums > Absolutely Off Topic

Do you accept same-sex marriage?
Anti - homosexual; sinful, unmoral & unnatural
27%
 27%  [ 16 ]
ambivalent - undecided, unsure, mixed feelings
5%
 5%  [ 3 ]
laissez-faire - noninterventionist, tolerant
27%
 27%  [ 16 ]
Pro - deeply believe in freedom & equality
39%
 39%  [ 23 ]
Total Votes : 58

Author Thread
Lintra
Elf Friend
Elf Friend




Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES
   

quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
... (although, neutrinos can move as fast as light, at least in ice, and gravitrons if they exist).


I am always forgetting those little neutrino buggers. In my book they are just photons with a few quantum numbers tagged onto them, but then I am a good 25 years out of date on this stuff, so my understanding may be out of date.

With a grinding crashing noise TheMadGamer rips the topic back on track ...

Civil disobedience is sometimes required to get laws changed, but for a city to condone it is not a good precedent. Not at all.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless=
Post Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:36 pm
 View user's profile
goshuto
Wanderer
Wanderer




Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
   

Lintra, if anyone complains, I'll just say you made me crosstopicban. Yep. It's all your fault.

quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
One can construct a series of experiments to asymptotically (sp???) approach zero degrees Kelvin in a scientifically measurable fashion.


You still can't reach zero Kelvin, can you? If you did you'd be contradicting science itself, which says that it's not possible to observe the state of entropy in zero Kelvin. If, on the other hand, we're going to accept those approximations you mention, then several experiments have shown that the third law of thermodynamics to be invalid in several systems.

quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
Can you say the same about god?


He's not a molecule!

quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
Anyway, you are incorrect to label it an hypothesis as absolute zero is a name given to a boundry of an open set ... or a limit point if you will.


I didn't express myself clearly enough. I meant the fact that there's no movement of particles (no entropy density) in zero Kelvin.

quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
I have heard many descriptions of different gods, but never have I heard it/him/her/them called a boundry of an open set, a limit point or even an accumulation point (and yet another name for the same concept).


If you do hear of a deity being described in such a way, don't forget to tell me about it. I'd be interested in seeing it!
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
Post Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:46 pm
 View user's profile
Lintra
Elf Friend
Elf Friend




Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES
   

quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
Lintra, if anyone complains, I'll just say you made me crosstopicban. Yep. It's all your fault.


Gee thanks. And there I was hoping I could dump the blame on Sauron

quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
One can construct a series of experiments to asymptotically (sp???) approach zero degrees Kelvin in a scientifically measurable fashion.


You still can't reach zero Kelvin, can you? If you did you'd be contradicting science itself, which says that it's not possible to observe the state of entropy in zero Kelvin. If, on the other hand, we're going to accept those approximations you mention, then several experiments have shown that the third law of thermodynamics to be invalid in several systems.


This I find hard to believe since every system is, at some level, quantum, there is no evidence that a quantum 'step' would not be encountered at some point between 0 and the lowest temp observed ... in fact by definition that would have to be the case.

PS - for those that don't know:

quote:
Originally posted by Some web page
The Third Law of Thermodynamics
A postulate related to but independent of the second law is that it is impossible to cool a body to absolute zero by any finite process. Although one can approach absolute zero as closely as one desires, one cannot actually reach this limit. The third law of thermodynamics, formulated by Walter Nernst and also known as the Nernst heat theorem, states that if one could reach absolute zero, all bodies would have the same entropy. In other words, a body at absolute zero could exist in only one possible state, which would possess a definite energy, called the zero-point energy. This state is defined as having zero entropy.



quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
Can you say the same about god?


He's not a molecule!


Hey, not fair! You're the one who drew the analogy to start with. Mom, he's cheating, make him stop

Please note, I am NOT holding you to this, since the next step would be something along the lines of: "Oh, so he's not a molecule. Very interesting, then what is he if not part of the universe?" ... or some such (Sauon would do a better job of it) ... I got the point!!

quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
Anyway, you are incorrect to label it an hypothesis as absolute zero is a name given to a boundry of an open set ... or a limit point if you will.


I didn't express myself clearly enough. I meant the fact that there's no movement of particles (no entropy density) in zero Kelvin.


Yeah, I do have to admit that it is a bit of an artificial construct. Best illustrated by this mini play:
Smartie pants lab coat - "Yeah, I got this system here with NO energy, pretty cool eh? But don't measure it, cuz as soon as you do, it won't be zero energy anymore".
Hick from Missouri - "Oh yeah, PROVE it's at zero energy. Show me man, show me".

quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
I have heard many descriptions of different gods, but never have I heard it/him/her/them called a boundry of an open set, a limit point or even an accumulation point (and yet another name for the same concept).


If you do hear of a deity being described in such a way, don't forget to tell me about it. I'd be interested in seeing it!


I will, I promise!!

Edited: I'd left out a couple of pretty critical letters
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless=
Post Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:07 pm
 View user's profile
sauron38
Rara Avis
Rara Avis




Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum
   

quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
Easy my boy, easy. Absolute zero is an ideal ...


I threw out (literally) the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for fun - the fact that "zero-point motin" exists destroys my entire argument about it! And I knew it from before I started!!

quote:
(Sauon would do a better job of it)


Those da_n "____'s" a_en't that c_itical letter wise, ya know. I'm afraid, master Lintra, that I cannot come up with any non-fallacious train of questioning re: God being or not being a molecule.

quote:
The sun might even still be rotating around earth


Myrthos, I must ask, does the moon orbit the earth? Since this is rhetorical in a sense, I will tell you it does not. If you want me to, I post pictures from a gravity simulation program that clearly demonstrates that the moon orbits the sun while being drastically influenced by the earth's gravity. And, more to my point, the notion that the earth orbits the sun is absurd - the earth and sun both orbit the origin of the galaxy (which likely orbits some other origin, ad infinitum) in a dance that is complicated such that it appears only as if we were in orbit of the sun.

& Believing has nothing to do with it. My saying that gravity does not exist (which, although a true statement in higher physics, is false in classical physics) does not make me immune to its effects.

@Hexy

Ooh, I'm bleeding now. No wait... never mind... As you could have guessed, I threw out Heisenberg for fun - it's actually groundless.

quote:
You didn't know that hibernating animals such as bears have to wake up every once in a while during their hibernation (maybe a week between) to pass out waste and perform other bodily functions?


Yeah, they do. But in a week, we, and every other life form should be nitrified. The man who told me this, by all definition, is brilliant. Advice: concede this one... I might be prodded into doing some research.

quote:
What's so second about it? Science is based upon using the best means possible to prove something.


Mm hmm... and flinging H's at each other C x .999... and hoping for direct contact begetting smaller particles is the best way to do this? That's like crashing cars to identify the type of screw heads inside the engine. Quite crude, I must say. Many scientific practises are much less advanced than generally though, ya know.

You seem to misunderstand what a proof is. A proof is the one, the only; a truism; a completely accurate and incontestable statement, or support of a statement through contradiction or any other mean. Secondary (+) observations, at best, provide some evidence to support a guess. A guess.

What happens if by observing a result, the result is changed? As in the case of a 0 energy system, or measuring the path or location of a particle? It's almost as accurate as trying to measure base temperature of a broomcloset after you've been doing jumping jacks in it for several hours. Perfect Science may be an end to be worked towards and not a state of being.

quote:
As for the "resonance throughout the dimesions" ... I have no idea where you got that from.


And ya shouldn't, it's a novel adaptation of the hypothesis that because of how gravity might be unbound to our hypercube, it could be possible for sufficiently advanced civilizations to send and receive messages coded in "gravity signals." But you'd need two advanced-enough civilizations to do that, and so far as we can see, the arrangement doesn't exists right now.

quote:
But that's what so nice, the fact that science doesn't claim to have definite answers, unlike many religions, and instead is an ever-evolving process.


Ahaha (different from the first laugh). Religion is far from stagnant, as you make it out to be. It's amazing you didn't see the flipside ramifications of what ya said:

i) A specific law of science claims that D = M/V. Any given religion claims that it is wrong to do _________.

ii) Science, at one point said that elections are orbiting their nucleus at speeds so great that they form a basically solid surface. This was retracted as soon as it was figured out that it was impossible for it to be so. Numerous older pagan religions sacrificed people to their gods. After further Revelation, this practise was found to be displeasing, and it is no longer practised.

In your anti-fervour, what has happened is that you have equated Science, as a whole, which is developing, to a single religion, which has set precepts and is supposed to be stagnant. That's like calling Science stagnant because a single of its laws has not changed for a hundred years: In exemplified terms, that's like saying that Science of Ancient Greece as the Science today. It ain't. In order to be more fair, you must compare & contrast Science as a whole, to Theology/Religion as a whole, both of which, after observation tempered by the critical element of thought, have developed leaps and bounds since their respective foundings. In fact, many single religions of the current age have made it quite clear in their doctrines that it is only through further Revelation and positive change can there be Religious developments.

quote:
And, by the way, when did I ever state that light has to be clearly defined as either or?


Of course you said so... by not saying it! The trend that is starting to appear is that you must not believe in anything if you are without proof. Since light cannot be proven/defined in toto at the moment, you should not believe in it. You are sitting in the dark!!

quote:
I suppose that's why you're religious.


Since (I suppose) that you lack a Faith to place your faith in, you have chosen Science to be your vessel to attach firmly to and believe in blindly - regardless of the true state of waters that surround it. I, through moderated Belief, and moderated Understanding, am not bound to one single viewpoint, at an end of a spectrum, but rather to a point that lies midway between two fluctuating points, and am thusly with less, but no lack of, biassed persuasion towards either extreme.
_________________
Make good choices.
Post Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:39 pm
 View user's profile
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Spoiler of All Fun




Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland
   

I must admit I didn't read your post as it's by far too long to keep me interested for that period of time it takes to read it. But is there anything in there that actually debates the question this topic is about? Or are you just in here for the fun?
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Post Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:56 pm
 View user's profile
Drake14
Brigadier General




Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Posts: 1310
Location: Around
   

i say that it shoudn't matter to the government wether or not gay couples get married, its their choice isn't it, i don't think the government should mess with them because it's the couples choice to get married...
_________________
Inhale Life, Exhale Pain
Navy, Accelerate your life
Post Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:06 am
 View user's profile
sauron38
Rara Avis
Rara Avis




Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum
   

The reader's digest version of events is this:

I state opinion with evidence ->
Someone quoted me and asked for clarification ->
I clarify, then see something of interest in a post and reply to it ->
My question was returned -> A second person replies
I reply to both ->
Someone criticises my rhetoric on scientific grounds ->
I take a stance opposed to the criticiser ->

One person gives his opinion on my new stance; One makes a post that I do not understand, but has a question in it; One refutes a point of my post concerning the integrity of my arguments

-> Poster defends science by refutation
-> I refute select points that are causing me trouble understanding


So, yes, I have found that the outcome of the side digression will help to determine the validity of the forces behind my original opinion.
_________________
Make good choices.
Post Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:17 am
 View user's profile
Hexy
High Emperor
High Emperor




Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
   

quote:
Originally posted by sauron38

Believing has nothing to do with it. My saying that gravity does not exist (which, although a true statement in higher physics, is false in classical physics) does not make me immune to its effects.



Saying that gravity does not exist is most certainly false in most kinds of physics, except the most radical theories. Due to the fact that gravity still can be observed.

quote:

Yeah, they do. But in a week, we, and every other life form should be nitrified. The man who told me this, by all definition, is brilliant. Advice: concede this one... I might be prodded into doing some research.



Uh... it's really not that hard to see. They use a minimum of energy and nuitrition, while sleeping in low temperatures. This affect the rate of how slow the urine is made. Being full after one week is certainly not hard to see. But please, show me some evidence from your research, if you do any.

quote:

Mm hmm... and flinging H's at each other C x .999... and hoping for direct contact begetting smaller particles is the best way to do this? That's like crashing cars to identify the type of screw heads inside the engine. Quite crude, I must say. Many scientific practises are much less advanced than generally though, ya know.

You seem to misunderstand what a proof is. A proof is the one, the only; a truism; a completely accurate and incontestable statement, or support of a statement through contradiction or any other mean. Secondary (+) observations, at best, provide some evidence to support a guess. A guess.



Crashing cars? Pretty bad analogy if I may say so myself. Especially since you can use actual light to prove their existance. What now? You're going to claim that we shouldn't trust light either? (although light and electrons have several common things). Maybe you're going to claim that you can't trust what you see in binoculars either? Since they are a so-called second observation?

As for contradiction! = proof. Which is hardly more than a little evidence to support a guess. A guess. I suppose that's how you must believe, since that's really all you can do, isn't it? Point out holes and vagueness in science TODAY, while filling it out with something even more far feched and proof-less than most of today's theories; a god.
Falling back on human uncertainty hardly shows anything.
Science at least gives you a logic/experienced/observed way to explain things, based on what humans can do right now.

quote:

What happens if by observing a result, the result is changed? As in the case of a 0 energy system, or measuring the path or location of a particle? It's almost as accurate as trying to measure base temperature of a broomcloset after you've been doing jumping jacks in it for several hours. Perfect Science may be an end to be worked towards and not a state of being.



That's where probability and patterns come in to place. Probability can still be measured, and you can still see how this relates to waves and particles and that most things are a little of both.

quote:

And ya shouldn't, it's a novel adaptation of the hypothesis that because of how gravity might be unbound to our hypercube, it could be possible for sufficiently advanced civilizations to send and receive messages coded in "gravity signals." But you'd need two advanced-enough civilizations to do that, and so far as we can see, the arrangement doesn't exists right now.



Wait... can I do the little laughy-thing you just did? Because really, all this shows is that you try to take un-proven, not widely accepted scientific theories to prove... nothing.
Put Calabi Yau dimensions aside will ya?

quote:

In your anti-fervour, what has happened is that you have equated Science, as a whole, which is developing, to a single religion, which has set precepts and is supposed to be stagnant. That's like calling Science stagnant because a single of its laws has not changed for a hundred years: In exemplified terms, that's like saying that Science of Ancient Greece as the Science today. It ain't. In order to be more fair, you must compare & contrast Science as a whole, to Theology/Religion as a whole, both of which, after observation tempered by the critical element of thought, have developed leaps and bounds since their respective foundings. In fact, many single religions of the current age have made it quite clear in their doctrines that it is only through further Revelation and positive change can there be Religious developments.



Actually, most religions refer to their old text for all the answers. Which hardly is the same as Science reviewing old experiments to make sure they still fit.
Scientific laws have not in the past hundred years? Uh... right. Hello, Quantum physics.
Religions change as society evolves with science, to desperately fit in. However, always trying to act as if they know the truth.

quote:

Of course you said so... by not saying it! The trend that is starting to appear is that you must not believe in anything if you are without proof. Since light cannot be proven/defined in toto at the moment, you should not believe in it. You are sitting in the dark!



This is one thing that is wrong with your logic. Light has been proven to exist, although not in a definite momentual form. That does not mean it does not exist.
God has not been proven to exist, and certainly not in any kind of form. There's a SLIGHT difference there... can you see it?

EDIT: Missed this little gem:

quote:

i) A specific law of science claims that D = M/V. Any given religion claims that it is wrong to do _________.



A religion may claim it's wrong to steal or to kill, which doesn't really have ANYTHING to do with the religion, but rather to human psychology/society/pack instincts. Religions just repeats this by putting it black on white.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance


Last edited by Hexy on Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:54 pm; edited 2 times in total
Post Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:51 am
 View user's profile
Danicek
The Old One
The Old One




Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic
   

quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
Hexy said basically what I meant about the truth not being a universal concept.
Take 10 persons and let them watch an event and let them all swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. If truth was truely universal then they would all say the same thing. My guess is that they don't.
What you see is interpreted by yourself and translated into your own personal truth. Your interpretation is based on many factors, amongst which are your upbringing, your social status, your morals, your education etc. etc.


There are so many events that will not suit in your form Myrthos. Basicaly all simple events will be described as same by every people that will observe them. But when things get more complicated, there will be more and more differencies.
This simple example leads us to different conclusion than yours or does it not?
Post Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:03 am
 View user's profile
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Spoiler of All Fun




Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland
   

@Sauron. That's a very odd answer to my question. I've reread my question but I still don't see where I asked for a summary. I guess that means the answer is no?

@Dani. I think it suits all events. They probably will all have the same basis, but especially if you ask them after some time then they will have added their own interpretation and beliefs to it and maybe even their own judgement about good and bad.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Post Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:21 am
 View user's profile
vaticide
Put food in here
Put food in here




Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction.
   

I find it disturbing that so many people oppose marriage of homosexual couples. How can you deny a group of people the same rights you allow yourself merely because they are different? Like I really needed another reason to be ashamed of my country. (Although I can see that it is not just U.S. residents that are opposed, it is because of us that the issue is in the news.)

-vaticide
Post Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:27 pm
 View user's profile
Kayla
High Emperor
High Emperor




Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 2114
Location: Australia
   

quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
quote:
Originally posted by cfmdobbie
I firmly believe in the sanctity of marriage

I thought about this one, but it's probably beyond my scope. What do you mean with 'sanctity' in the context of marriage.
Where I come from marriage is a legal institution and it sets some legal bases, requirements and benefits that one has from being married AND in addition to that there is the emotional concept of having a bond with another person that goes beyond having 'only' a relationship.
In my country you can be married to someone of the same sex or the opposite sex. There are no differences. It was only a small step from the 'registered partnership' we had before that and basically defined that as legally being equal to marriage from the perspective of the state.

As there are no differences between the 'registered partnership' and marriage as seen from the state, the only thing left was the emotional side of 'being married'. There is no valid foundation in my opinion to deny people of the same sex those emotions.


I wish Australia was this open minded.

I think anyone who is brave enough to "come out" and have to bear the stereotypes and religious sermons on how they are unnatural is not tolerant and not a modern concept. I reckon good on anyone who knows what they want and are not ashamed to be who they are and not be miserable living a life with wife, house and 2.2 children and be miserable. If someone wants a same sex partner, they are in love and they are happy, good on them.

Life is too short for regrets, and if I was a lesbian I would want to die knowing I had found my life partner and I had experienced true happiness.

Until recently it was a criminal act to be in a same sex relationship (I think there are still laws in Tasmania making it a criminal act). How right can the law be though when a judge rules a woman wearing tight jeans cannot be raped, a wife couldn't be raped by her husband until 20 years ago, and where it has only been since the mid 1980's that when a woman was beaten by her husband that the police paid attention and didn't just send heer home for more and probably make some stupid suggestion like "have dinner ready for when he gets home and keep the beer flowing. Make him happy."

The law is not always up to date, and despite wishing to, if you are not religious, I am not aware of an athiest bonding ceremony- it is still called marriage- even if neither of you believe in God, or the church or the bible.

Someone I know is very, very homophobic (refers to Gandalf the Grey as Gandalf the Pink as Sir Ian McKellan is a homosexual) and we had a "discussion" one day about homosexual marriage. In the end, she said it was alright for me and my partner to marry in a church as we are opposite sex, even though we are not religious, and the only reason we would is so we didn't have to hire a tent, and the stain glass windows look nice, but it is not ok for two people of the same sex to be bonded, but especially not in a church. These two people could be deeply in love, very devoted, live until they are 100 sitting each night on the front porch talking about the "good old times" still holding hands, they may be religious, believe in God, contribute time and money to the church- but because they are not afraid to be who they are and they have found happiness with each other they would not be accepted in "her" church.

And I don't want to start a religious war, but the idea of religion also has it's problems. You can be a good person but not believe in God and go to hell. You can be Charles Manson, and before you are executed, repent and find eternal salvation.

Every concept has it's flaws. I think people are way too concerned about other peoples business, and we should be happy for anyone who can find love and happiness with another person.

And whoever asked it- there can be gay dogs. One of my workmates male dogs tried to hump her male cat.
_________________
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.

Robert A. Heinlein
Post Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:47 am
 View user's profile
piln
High Emperor
High Emperor




Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK
   

I'm in 100% agreement with Kayla...

quote:
...I think people are way too concerned about other peoples business...


...especially that bit!
Post Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:57 pm
 View user's profile
Cm
Sentinel of Light
Sentinel of Light




Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 5209
Location: Missouri USA
   

This topic has me torn between my faith and my sense of right and wrong. I do have religious beliefs againts the marriage, yet I do believe that people have the right to live their lives as they please as long as it doesn't hurt others or themselves. And the financial aspects are very unfair for two people who have decided to share their lives forever. While I would not actively condon it, I don't feel I have the right to actively fight it either. There are too many things in the world that I do need to fight against, and this is not one of them. I think it is morally wrong, but that is between the person and his deity. I don't think anything that is based in love and mutual respect and caring can be all bad. If this comes across a wishy-washy, it is. But that is where I am. Stuck in the middle.
_________________
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Member of Worshippers of the Written Word=
A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.
Mark Twain
Post Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:41 pm
 View user's profile
Parcival
Rightful Heir To The Throne
Rightful Heir To The Throne




Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Posts: 153
Location: The Netherlands
   

Quite a topic. Although a lot has been said already, it though I might jump in and add my two cents as well.

Some have asked why a gay couple would want to marry anyway, and as Im gay, and happily maried for 3+ years now, I might as well answer the question.
I got married because I love my husband and want to share the rest of my life with him. Getting married handled most legal matters; made my parents very happy (they finaly felt I had grown up and setteled down); it was great opportunity to throw a party and take great (too expensive) and romantic vacation.
Im not a religious person and most of the time I have an agnostic view on life. Im am very well aware this makes things a lot easier. To me mariage is very important, but more because of the cultural and social significanse than of any religious reason.
I think there is no real issue on wether or not a gay couple should be able to marry; its most of the time comes down to weather or not you care at all what other people are doing and weather or not you have a relion that has an opinion on homosexuality in general.
I was happy to see that a lot people are tollerant on the matter, even if they think homoseksuality in general is wrong. Furthermore I realy enjoyed reading Roqua's posts; a delightful demonstration that sexual orientation, identity and masculinity can be very different topics indeed.
Although Ive had my share of stupid remarks on homosexuality in the past, I was a bit surprised to see there are still people who think being gay is all about anal sex and that if you are gay youll have to like any man. I hope I dont have to explain this any further.

Said enough for now, i think. Want to finish Kotor this aftenoon

Parc
_________________
Frank 'Parcival' Rieter-Lambers
Editor-in-Chief @ UltimaDot
Editor-in-Chief @ SiegeDot
Alias Parcival Dragon -=UDIC=-
Post Sat Feb 21, 2004 11:10 am
 View user's profile


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
All times are GMT.
The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:31 am



Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
 
 
 
All original content of this site is copyrighted by RPGWatch. Copying or reproducing of any part of this site is strictly prohibited. Taking anything from this site without authorisation will be considered stealing and we'll be forced to visit you and jump on your legs until you give it back.