[NOLF2 & CJ Complete Soundtrack]

Nice! Good job

[US Presidential Election]

...and can I just add...what was the big deal everyone made about Hillary crying?

 

Ignorant Republicans fall back on making a big deal about such things when they don't have anything else to criticize about her.

 

 

I guess Rudy Giuliani has the best shot at being elected president. Giuliani might be appealing to Democrats since he is quite liberal as far as Republicans go and allegedly he still is his party's favorite, isn't he? Also, John McCain seems to be back on track, but I still see Giuliani leading the race.

 

I doubt Mitt Romney stands a chance, he is too much of a flip-flopper and the other candidates don't appear really appealing so far.

 

Still, I doubt the GOP will win this election, too much went wrong over the past couple of years. As far as Hillary and Obama go, I guess Hillary is the more experienced politician and Obama the more progressive. Haven't made up my mind yet who would do a better job.

[US Presidential Election]

Not to mention he had a shot at taking Osama Bin Ladin out. He was warned that Osama Bin Ladin was one of the biggest threats to the US. He had a undercover ready to pull the trigger on that f*cker and he aborted. I'm not sure the exact details but it's something very close to that. What a pathetic President.

I would be intrigued to know the details of that exact set events.

 

Is there even the tiniest chance that this is a rumor? Allegedly, the CIA could have prevented 9/11 (under Bush mind you) and yet they didn't...rumors, rumors, rumors.

 

Anyway, there seems to be very little doubt that Bush is the most pathetic president in the history of...the universe? He is a moron who plunged the US in an illegal war (funny how on the one hand some undercover agent once - allegedly - had the chance to blow Osama's brains out and yet the CIA seems unable to tell whether or not Iraq had WMD's, that just makes no sense) sacrificing thousands of soldiers...for what?

 

Oh, and on the note of supporting the troops: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200303/s819685.htm

[New Tag]

He is an old school nolfer...

[The Russian Rampage roof glitch]

1stly as I said I am not making this mtopic to change server rules.

 

Ok, so why on earth do you want to discuss it? If not to change the server rules this topic is utterly pointless.

 

As for this being the same as the woods, I highly disagree. 1 simple fact is that you can't get under or off the map on that roof. And honestly, I think that. There ain't no stairs on the trucks on that map, why r u going up on them? Isn't getting on a truck's front be considered a glitch?

 

You cannot be serious. Now you compare jumping on a truck to using a glitch? Come on, you have to admit that that argument holds no water. Besides, if you go into the woods right next to the tower you cannot go "under" the map or shoot through walls etc. It is exactly the same as with the roof, how can anyone possibly fail to see the connection.

 

Roof = hard to reach, cannot go under the map, cannot shoot through walls, cannot walk "behind" enemy base

Woods next to tower = yadda yadda yadda

[The Russian Rampage roof glitch]

Not everyone knows how to get there and frankly it's not that easy. If we allowed this glitch to be used we'd have to tell every single new player how to get there. Why are we even discussing this, I recall that the glitch issue was resolved two or three years ago with the outcome that NO glitching whatsoever will be tolerated.

 

1st The way that you get there ain't that strange though there are no stairs to help you, howso ever I don' see by anything that the creators of the map didn't want anyone to be there.

 

I'm really going out on a limb here, some might even call it a stretch, but do you think it is even remotely possible that the map creators did not put stairs in there simply because they didn't want anyone to go up there? It's not at all different from going into the woods next to the towers...

[Nature vs. Nurture]

The "gay men hump everything" is silly since, as KNIX already pointed out that applies to almost all men, not just gays

 

Theres a saying that men will go as far the women lets them...

Not to sound sexist, but whose fault is it then?

[Nature vs. Nurture]

If you have ever been horny and aspired to have an orgasm, whatever floats your boat will supercede any mocking that may be inflicted on you.

True, but then again that suggests that the person in question is (was born) bi-sexual.

 

About the depression thing, maybe if homosexuality was accepted as "normal" (whatever that is) less people would suffer from depression caused by their sexuality?

[Nature vs. Nurture]

1. I expressed my opinion on this topic in several posts, but I can give you the short version:

 

Homosexuality is not a choice. Why I think that?

a) gay people told me that they didn't chose to be gay

why would anyone want to invite hate, humiliation and social marginalization into his or her life?

c) there are people who actually suffer from depression, because they can't accept their sexuality (being gay)

d) why would a senator go to some gay-toilet-meeting-place-thing and jeopardize his reputation if he had a choice not to do so? (this is in no way meant as an attack)

 

Of course, this is my opinion and you should feel free to disagree, but if you do, please make some sense and don't waste my time with your incredible far-fetched arguments that defy all logic.

 

2. Checkmate, you got me.

3. I never said you shouldn't post, but whether I ignore your posts or not is entirely up to me.

4. It's still pointless?!

5. Ah, well.

 

 

Ok, I am getting sick of my 1., 2., etc

[Nature vs. Nurture]

1. Spare me the bad energy crap. I am mocking you, not being angry.

2. There's no reading between the lines in a discussion. If you are unable to express your opinion clearly then that's not my fault.

3. If you don't want to be quoted, don't post.

4. I was merely pointing out that your apparent obsession with anal sex has nothing to do with granting gay people the right to marry, adopt, etc.

5. Sarcasm is great.

[New X-Files Movie!]

Apparently the script is already done and imdb says the movie is in pre-production!

 

http://imdb.com/title/tt0443701/

 

The truth is out there!

[Nature vs. Nurture]

And THAT's the problem with liberals. They CANNOT distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral. Everything goes. I'm sorry to break it to you, but there IS a difference between right and wrong. It has nothing to do with opinion.

 

You are quite caught up in your "the liberals were sent from hell to stick foreign objects up your butt", aren't you?

 

AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease.AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease.AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease.

 

Stop acting like a sullen, homophobic redneck, it's silly.

 

Just curious -- If AIDS is not primarily a homosexual disease, how come there are so many gay groups involved in AIDS activism? Seems to me, they shouldn't have any more interest in the issue than straights! Huh. I must be missing something...

 

Since that is no argument, I'll just turn it around and say: There aren't many heterosexual groups that are involved in AIDS activism and yet many heterosexuals have AIDS. Maybe it's the lack of activism that should be appalling?

 

On that note, in Germany we have this huge ad campaign, it's been going on for years now and it tells everyone (I perceive the campaign as more heterosexual oriented) to use condoms to prevent HIV infection.

 

 

 

Being gay is a choice, lifestyle, preference.

 

I can totally imagine this 17 year old, insecure boy, who suffers from ridicule every single day who goes like "Hmmm...I wonder how I can invite even more hate and humiliation into my life!" What a great choice, isn't it? There are people out there who are gay, but don't want to be...do they have a choice, too? I wonder if anyone of the "gay is a choice"-people ever thought about that.

 

They can practice anal sex all they want, its their lives and if theyre enjoying, go ahead knock urself out, but im just saying anal sex is bad for ur health.

 

This has nothing to do with granting gay people the right to marry, etc. What happens in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of your damn business. Furthermore, there are plenty of heterosexual people who like anal sex.

 

Lets say a little boy watches little mermaid a lot, he may want to be like that character, ignoring the fact that hes a boy and hes supposed to enjoy boy stuff. Again theres many reason why this is happening, its funny how some ppl have girls and they let them play with boy stuff like soccer balls, boyish videogames and play other boyish stuff and when boys play with girls stuff, its a red flag rolleyes.gif Nothing wrong with girls being tomboy, cause we girls are as good as u guys, but i hope u get what i mean ^^

 

You are by far the funniest person in this thread (Sorry, Knix)! I really am amazed by your posts and I wonder how you come up with this stuff.

I guess you've seen it on TV and as we all know: the telly never lies.

 

 

 

Anyways, I fully support kitty's general opinion here that being gay is nothing natural or anything you are born with. Humans meaning of life is reproduction and that is not going to work with gay- or lesbian-love.

 

My Opinion: I frikin hate gays, in my eyes they are just a "bug of nature" and should be banned from society and locked down in a dark cave where they can touch and **** each other as much as they want, without us "normal" people (atleast in sexual regard) having to watch them.

 

For a straight guy that hates homosexuals you sure seem to see a lot of gay sex. I suggest stop surfing the internet for gay porn.

 

But yeah, I mean homosexuals cannot procreate so we should just stick them into a dark cave (no pun intended), like 10 miles underneath the ground. While we're at it we should also lump all the unfertile people in there, too, since they aren't able to procreate either. Ah, heck, let's just whack all the retards in there, too. Hm, and why stop there, also put all the blacks, latinos, asians and whatnot down there as well, since they are in the way of the advance of the white race. Oops, I kinda got carried away...well, maybe not in your eyes. (Oh i know stupid and unfair use of *HYPERBOLE*, but at least it was fun to write )

[Remembering 9/11]

Actually that is a picture of Heatman and not sugsen

 

 

Anyway, I obviously (?) started this topic in order to remember the day that quite literally changed the world and cost thousands of lives. Whether the USA had it coming or not is irrelevant for this topic. I suppose 9/11 is bound to not be remembered as vividly as it has been in recent years, which is understandable considering that people want to move on. Still, not to remember at all deprives the day of all its meaning.

[Remembering 9/11]

"Everybody needs his memories. They keep the wolf of insignificance from the door."

- Saul Bellow

 

 

Remember the moment and cherish the selfless heroes, for they devoted themselves to the highest virtue of all - compassion.

 

 

[Nature vs. Nurture]

Again I don't see the advantage of giving such privledges to people who's behavior is not condusive to the progression of society.

 

Progression of society = making babies? There is more to the progression of society, as Goo already pointed out, like philosophy, culture and science. There are ways for e.g. lesbian couples to give birth to children with the help of sperm donors as you already pointed out. The argument that homosexuality is not contributing to the "procreation" of society fails.

 

Back to you goo (and anyone in the viewing audience), give me reasons why we should not look into causation, strive for treatment, or the advantages of providing these privledges. I haven't seen one written yet.

 

Treatment. That word again. Homosexuality isn't a disease, homosexuals aren't disabled or mentally ill (I know some beg to differ). As far as causation and treatment goes, sure look into them as much as you want to, but don't you agree that money should be spent more reasonably? Research into cancer treatment, a cure for Aids or non-polluting energy generation, to name a few.

 

Marriage certainly isn't needed for procreation or founding a family, so what are the advantages of granting heterosexuals the privilege of marriage? Tax benefits? Are there any other rational arguments in favor of straight marriage that couldn't be used to argue in favor of gay marriage? I doubt it. Where's the problem in granting homosexuals the same social benefits heterosexuals enjoy?

[Nature vs. Nurture]

I may tolerate homosexuality, but I may not accept it as being moral

That's all I asked.

 

 

Wow, it took several unnecessary posts to establish THAT? To me, RXS' point of view has been absolutely clear right from the beginning...

 

I don't think homosexuality should be perceived as immoral, but at least RXS tolerates them

 

 

The question is of course, whether gay rights should be granted based on tolerance or acceptance.

[Nature vs. Nurture]

its just not natural.

 

Prove it and no, opinions or moral values do not count as proof. Your claim is that homosexuality is not "natural", with that statement you enter the realm of science. Now the burden of proof is undeniably on your side. Gay people claim they were born gay and even if that wasn't true homosexuality still is a part of human nature. Since you claim that homosexuality is unnatural you now have to give us scientific proof that it isn't.

[Nature vs. Nurture]

Which brings us right back to RXS's question. Why not let two people who happen to be brother and sister get married and raise children?

 

You just do not get it do you? We are NOT talking about incest or pedophilia. I answered your question in a previous post but just in case you missed it or just WANT to miss it, here goes:

 

What is ethically right or wrong is decided through discourse. The outcome of such a discourse is usually accepted by a huge part of the population of a country, several countries or "the whole world". Through discourse it has been decided that incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and all other kinds of sexual behavior are ethically wrong. When a sufficient amount of people challenge the status quo a new discourse is needed to determine whether to adjust ethical standards.

 

 

 

And caip, theres no one to blame, get over it. lets say i wasnt raised around gay ppl, then one day, i have a gay roomate, how will i react? I would be a little uncomfortable, but nice anyways. but guesss what??? Not everyone has to be like me, every1 is different and unique, so that means u cant make ppl feel the same way as u do. So stop it.

 

I certainly do not want to make anyone feel the way I want to, that is a ridiculous statement. But if someone harasses gay people then this person is to blame for doing so. Wouldn't you blame someone for harassing blacks? This is not about your "everyone is unique and different" this is about tolerance and basic human decency, but you obviously don't get my point (oh and before you throw that back in my face: I do get your point, but I think you miss the bigger picture)

 

[Nature vs. Nurture]

Traditional. One loving, biological father. One loving, biological mother. No abuse, no neglect, no divorce. Stability. No molesting uncle. Am I so weird that I think that's the normal, ideal environment in which to raise children?!?!

 

Some traditions are worth having, others are not. What you describe is a concept, an ideal, as you said. Sometimes traditions should be replaced or in the case of families have to be broadened. What about adoption? Adoption is certainly not "traditional" and therefor unnatural, not normal. not acceptable?

 

What I'm saying is that no one can prove homosexuality is wrong! This is not a math problem! By way of emphasizing that you can't prove it's wrong, I asked you all to prove that incest is wrong, and no one could do that either! But I'm somehow sure that we all know it's wrong, anyway!!!!!!

 

Funny, I pointed that out in an earlier post. I also said that it is a question of moral values and of where to draw the line and that this line can only be drawn in the course of a discourse (no pun intended). The only argument people, who are against gay marriage, gay parents etc have is that they think being gay is unnatural which they cannot prove. Homosexuality has always been a part of human nature, so why is it unnatural?

Tradition is a rather weak argument since mankind evolves and in this process always challenges the status quo.

 

Incest is wrong, this is the outcome of discourse. As long as this outcome isn't being challenged (by enough people of course) incest will, for a large part of mankind, remain ethically wrong. Anyway, incest is not the topic here, but merely a desperate attempt to come up with any argument that supports your opinion, since you don't seem to be able to come up with some real ones...

 

Yeah, well, sometimes sheep are born with 2 heads. Is that natural? Or is it evidence that something has gone horribly wrong?

 

What the hell kind of argument is THAT? Oh I know, another useless *hyperbole*... Again, what about some real arguments?

 

 

theres no one to blame. this is not a blame game where we point fingers whos fault is it.

 

If ignorant people harass gay people there is no one to blame?

[Nature vs. Nurture]

why they want it legal?

 

Why do straight couples wanna marry? Gay couples want to be allowed to marry to show their love and to have the same social benefits straight couples have. They want to be treated as equals and not as social outcasts. We are not talking about religious marriage, keep that in mind.

 

Sonic, yes we didnt come to this world just to procreate, but we can for a reason.

 

And that reason would be? = What's your point?

 

 

Would you mind to reply a question I asked in a previous post?

Its true u have to accept urself as who u are, but imagine what every child has to go thru for being gay, all the humilliation because of ignorant ppl

 

So who's to blame? Gay people or ignorant people?

[Nature vs. Nurture]

Well I agree with u Trig, is not like gay ppl should be our #1 concern right now, but we cant forget about this issue either. BUT KNIX has a point. About the world being over populated is kinda true, but doesnt someone die every 5 seconds? While some are born, others die, its the way of life.

 

The Lion King told us about the circle of life, thank you. What's your point?

 

According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, I know) the top factors affecting a country's mortality rate are:

 

* Age of country's population

* Nutrition levels

* Standards of diet and housing

* Access to clean drinking water

* Hygiene levels

* Levels of infectious diseases

* Levels of violent crime

* Conflicts

* Number of doctors

 

 

Other thing, child molestors, if u realize, they can be gay. Example: I have seen many news of men 'molesting' young boys, for some reason, they enjoy molesting children from the same sex as them. Why? Is it possible that they have this gay "fantasy" or "urge"?

 

Again someone connecting being gay to molesting children...step off that slippery slope already. Gayness and pedophilia are not the same.

 

imagine u growing up with gay parents, u would see it like something ok, natural, and even maybe be gay urself

 

Many people think being gay is ok, without having gay parents. Anyway, as long as there is no definite prove that you CANNOT be born gay your argumentation fails. At least we who claim that a person is born gay are backed up by gay people who claim that they in fact were born gay.

 

Its true u have to accept urself as who u are, but imagine what every child has to go thru for being gay, all the humilliation because of ignorant ppl

 

So who's to blame? Gay people or ignorant people?

 

If not, then wth causes some1 to be gay? Could it be how the person was raised? experiences? curiosity that led to that?

 

Fuzzy pointed this out to you earlier in this topic: curiosity is NOT a cause. Curiosity is simply a way of figuring out whether you are gay or not.

 

 

Just because there are many many wonderfull, good hearted people in this world that happen to practice homosexuality, that heterosexuals should be looked down upon or labled as bigots for suggesting there at least be research and yes even treatement of this condition. Thereby offering opportunity for all people to be hetersexual, and to assure future wonderfull people that they will be.

 

Treatment, condition...how on earth can you claim that homosexuality is a condition that can be treated? Please explain.

[Nature vs. Nurture]

I'm saying the way he presents it could make him look that way and he might want to clarify that. Stop acting all prosecuted and come up with something other than *hyperbole* and other forms of comparisons. Give some actual reasons. What bad effects will giving gay people equal rights have? What is actually wrong with gay people? Explain. Substantiate.

 

As expected, they can't

[Nature vs. Nurture]

Are you saying there's a line we should not cross, and it's somewhere between gay behavior and goatrape, incest, and pedophilia? You're proving my point for me. Because 50 years ago, you would have said that gayness was on the same side of the line as the others. Liberals keep moving the line that divides acceptable behavior from unacceptable behavior.

 

You are so caught up in your conservative/liberal thinking that you seem to be unable to really get what we meant. We said that we believe there is a common rationality that tells us what is right and wrong or rather where to draw the line. It is hard to dictate where that line exactly goes...for this we have debates. Challenging the status quo keeps us sharp and hopefully helps us to grow both as individuals and as a society.

 

Just in case you haven't read Goo's posts I quote him: "Indy: times change and society's values with them. There was a time when it was ok to call black people animals, to publicly humiliate them."

 

Oh, and the notion that we can "prove" that homosexuality is wrong is absurd. Can you "prove" that having sex with your grandmother is wrong?

 

So the actual problem we face is not scientific but ethical, therefore, the question is "whose moral standards should be accepted?" or more plainly "who is right?" How can anyone not get our point here? We said it is an ethical and NOT a scientific question...at least up to this day.

[Nature vs. Nurture]

Goatrapers. Incest. Pedophelia. Grandmother-in-law-doing. This slope is getting more slippery with every post. Could we ask you people to please stay on topic which is gayness and gay rigths?! Saying "today we accept gayness, tomorrow we accept pedophilia" is no real argument, since society might or might not accept pedophilia some day. Without proof that accepting gayness will automatically lead to the acceptance of child molestation or bestiality, etc. you are simply speculating without being able to back up anything you say.

 

Many gay people, including Mari, claim that they were in fact born gay. Several people have argued in this and past topics that you cannot be born gay. What sort of proof do you have to back that claim up? If you don't then how can you be so sure? The burden of proof is clearly on your side of the field.

 

So far we haven't seen any hard proof that screams "being gay is wrong". All we have seen up to this point is argumentation based on personal moral values. Everyone has different moral standards, hence, we can actually never agree on anything without changing our personal beliefs. So the actual problem we face is not scientific but ethical, therefore, the question is "whose moral standards should be accepted?" or more plainly "who is right?"

 

Some people claim accepting gayness is going down a road that will eventually lead to moral decay. Proof? None. The only argument against that opinion is that we believe in a rationality that tells us where to draw the line, which is before goatrape, incest and pedophilia. If someone cannot accept this believe then our only reply can be that some people have a broader set of ethics than others do and in the end the majority will win. It has always been that way and will very likely remain so in the future.

 

- Mari and Sascha

[Nature vs. Nurture]

However if it was not, then my mistake, please forgive me.

 

It was a language thing, but I do still apologize for causing any hard feelings.

 

Did it occur to you or your friend that he/she liked the experimentation because he/she was in fact born gay? Then after he/she enjoyed it, they realised that they were predisposed to homosexuality? The experience doesn't make you turn gay. The experience makes you realise you either like it or don't.

 

Yes, I agree with you there. I should have posted that in my reply to Kitty.

 

Since you position yourself as an expert and have obviously heard of every reason why someone might be gay (except of course Kitty's), why don't you toss a couple of your ideas into the arena?

 

I have never said or even implied that I was an expert on that field, I merely don't agree with Kitty's explanation. I believe, like Mari, that people are born gay. I do, however, also think that it is possible to chose to have relationships with persons of your own sex only.

 

(as I like hot lesbian sex)

 

Who doesn't?!