Calm down. Netscape 6 hasn't hit 1.0 yet, and AOL is not going to incorporate unstable code into their software. I'm sure they will take their sweet time, but it would be stupid for them not to switch to Gecko once its ready.
Since Netscape 6 is built for Linux, how
difficult a port would this be?
Netscape 6, or Mozilla, is not built for anything in particular. Mozilla was specifically designed to be very cross-platform, and so it isn't actually native to any operating system. I know there there already is a Mac port, but since it uses a cross-platform toolkit, it won't use Aqua like a native Max OS X app. If you really need pretty widgets, I'm sure sooner or later someone will write a native frontend for the Mozilla browser, such as Galeon for Gnome and K-Meleon for Windows.
Alternatively you might as well just go here and download the latest Mozilla builds which is better in all
respects (unless you need AOL IM integrated with your browser)
Actually, all you need to do is locate the aim.xpi file (which is somewhere on their server) and install that and Mozilla will be able to use AIM. In fact, there are.xpi installers for pretty much everything Netscape 6 includes, so there's no excuse not to use Mozilla instead:)
Now ask yourself this question: would they still be doing this is Napster, mp3.com et al didn't exist? I seriously doubt it. Napster and mp3.com etc got there first, and forced them to pay attention to the online music market. I'm sure they'd much rather stick to their comfortable CD cartel, but in a capitalist society if there's an itch, it will be scratched no matter what.
Amen to that! I really want to play with OS X, but theres no way I'm getting a cube, or one of those fscking iMacs... If I get anything, it will be a G4 tower. One that can be opened, with parts that can be replaced. In fact, I'd like to build one myself if that's possible.
Yeah "Choice Good". Maybe in some fantasy world where no two people need to be able to talk to eachother. Yeah, you can sit in your room and have the most customized OS/Office Suite/Theme of all, but what good is it if no one else can look at the documents you create.
We certainly need standard document formats, but explain to me how what office suite you use has anything to do with that? Ideally, everyone should be using one or two different formats that are supported by everybody, and owned by no one, so that the office suite is interchangeable. This means that Microsoft doc files definately can not be the standard, and that's just fine with me:)
Yes, yes, this is YOUR churches interpretation of YOUR bible and YOUR God's word and desire and plan. Other churches (even Christian churches) have different views
Look, truth is not a relative thing. SOMEBODY is going to be right, and everyone else must be wrong. If I am a follower of Christ, and I believe in what He says, then it doesn't matter to me what other people think. If He is right, then anyone who disagrees with Him is by extension wrong. Now, whether or not Christ is the one true God or not is a matter of personal belief--but neither of our opinions make a single difference to reality.
Interestinly, I'm not doing that: you are. You are saying your personal beliefs should be codified into law and then forced onto me. I am NOT saying that my beliefs should be
forced on to you.
Yes you are! You are forcing your beliefs on me by trying to make everyone recognize gay marriage as legitamate. There is no middle ground. As a Creationist, I have gone for my entire life having Evolution pushed on me as fact, even though it is a matter of personal belief (and Evolution's still just a theory--the origin of the universe is beyond our realm of perception, so its all just speculation for the most part). And yet atheists still have the gall to whine about Christians pushing our beliefs on Everyone believes in something, and your beliefs are in direct opposition to mine. That's a sad truth, but we cannot both be happy with the world at the same time.
You make a judgement that my love and relationship isn't worthy of any legal protections based soley on my 'status' and the 'status' of my partner
I'm not judging anything. I am following God's word, nothing more. Bear in mind that ideally, Christians are nothing more than sheep, following our master. I know this may sound rather derogatory, but it is true--you don't have a problem with me, you have a problem with my God. Don't agree? Fine--deny that He exists and live your own life. God would rather send you to Hell than take away your free will. But would you be willing to bet your life on it? Have you ever been wrong about anything before? I know I have.
So I think you'd best be getting out there and getting laws passed to prevent anyone from working on a Sunday. That's an abomination. And you had better get campaigning to
get shellfish off all menus, and to ban the use of two fibers in any cloth. And the Bible says quite clearly that it's okay to sell women into slavery, so better be working to
make that legal.
That's such a twisted statement, I'm going to have to challenge you to give me the exact verse that says this. Where, exactly, does it say it's okay to sell anybody into slavery?
My POINT in this, which you seem to keep missing, is that you idea of 'morality' is very arbitrary, and does not match everyone elses (or even most people's).
Morality is not relative. There are certain sets of right and wrong that are absolute, and it is to those absolutes which I subscribe.
So how does my having a civil union affect or harm you in any measurable way?
It harms society. Saying an immoral thing is okay is wrong, I cannot do it. I know you don't agree, but whether people agree doesn't have any effect on my beliefs.
In otherwords, the government should provide the same benefits
and services to all their citizens.
Is that all you think of marriage? Well, that is all it will be if same-sex marriage is recognized. We don't take marriage seriously enough in this country as it is, and to tell you the truth, I just can't bear the idea of people redefining the very basis of what marriage is. Marriage is an honored tradition going back to the very beginning of recorded history, what makes you think you have any right to screw with it? Normally I'd wouldn't mind just leaving you alone, but this is a pretty personal attack.
Yes, I think I'd better elaborate on what I said earlier.
When I said that there cannot be a middle ground here, you misunderstood what I was talking about--we cannot both be happy with the state of marriage at the same time. It is unfortunate that parts of the church have further muddied the water around this issue and support gay marriage, but this is not a real union in the eyes of God. His plan is quite simple; one man, one women in a lifelong commitment--no amount of semantic postulating will change this. People have been reinterpreting the Bible in all sorts of different ways to justify their beliefs for ages, but Jesus was not nearly as interested in the letter of the law as you'd think. You don't believe in God, and that's fine--it's a free country, and that is one of the greatest freedoms given to us. However, if I were you, I wouldn't presume to go around telling people what their beliefs mean. The mere fact that you have gay friends who say they are Christians doesn't matter at all to me. Do you know there are a lot of people who call themselves Christian and really aren't? Whether or not someone is truely a Christian is an argument that only God can settle, since we can only judge by outward appearances but He can look straight into the heart.
Don't take my opposition to gay marriage as persecution. I don't judge you (or at least, I try my best not to); indeed, I have no place doing so since I'm every bit as bad. However, I do have a moral obligation to do my best to prevent society from deciding an immoral thing is okay. That doesn't mean I will always succeed, but to do otherwise would be going against my faith.
No, fair use is not a basic right. Neither is copyright--they are opposite sides to the coin called Intellectual Property. Copyright and fair use balance each other so that neither the copyright owners or the customers have more control than the other. Then, of course, the copyright owners got greedy and convinced Congress to abolish fair use and give them total power. (That's not how they put it, but that is effectively what happened.) Copyright was great while it lasted, but tipping the balance of power too much in either direction can only end in disaster.
As a side note, the sermon I referred to is available online, it's a good summary of my ultimate opinion of this, and put better than anything I could do. (not that I expect you to listen to it:)
This is mostly a load of malarky. There are no facts to back up that homosexuals 'can change' into heterosexuals. Even most of the so-called "ex-gays" have reverted over
time to their natural ways. Most 'successful' conversions weren't homosexual to begin with... if pressed, they'll admit to being attracted to women the entire time, and that
they're still attracted to men, they're just ignoring that. In short, they were bisexual, and now they're "back in the closet".
I do not think either of us could authoritatively say whether those who have been saved have been conpletely delivered from homosexuality. Surely many still struggle with it, thats normal. Christians are in no way perfect, or even better than anyone else--just forgiven.
In short, it comes down to torturing people in many cases (electrodes on testicals, shock therapy, aversion therapy) and other classical conditioning methods, and even with
that, the 'change' is not at all guarenteed or permanent. Many men who go through this are driven to suicide, their own self-loathing intensified. Many others find an inner strength through the program to come out of the closet again, as stronger and happier people -- but still gay.
Forcing people to change is wrong. And using the methods you mention is horrible. Thats certainly not would I would advocate. Giving your life to Christ is completely voluntary, otherwise it would not mean anything. I think some of the escapades of the Church throughout history illustrates this point nicely.
I'm not here to debate theology at all. I'm just here to say that not everyone follows your (or my) specific theology, and
therefore, such theological matters should not be codified into civil law that governs everyone.
The problem is, there is no middle ground here. Either this country supports your worldview, or mine. Either marriage will be Holy Matrimony, or it will be a legal union between two people--but it cannot be both.
Or maybe it's telling us things we've already found to be true? I don't need a scientific study to tell me whether or not I'm a sociopath, thank you very much.
Interestingly enough, my pastor's sermon this Sunday was about homosexuality. If nothing else, God certainly has an impeccable sense of timing:)
Allow me to restate some things that I have not made clear enough, or have changed my mind on in the last couple of days.
While technically homosexuality is a behavior, there is a psychological dimension to this that I was not taking into account as much as I should have. Emotion and feeling are still mysterious things, and most of the time we're just along for the ride. While it is a behavior that can and is being changed in people, emotionally you feel that you have no choice. I can appreciate this--if you're a smoker and try giving up the habit cold turkey, the physical addiction will be out of your body by 72 hours, but after that they still have to overcome the psychological addiction which many times is even harder. (Don't take this to mean that I'm equating homosexuality to an addiction per se, I'm just illustrating the power our psychological makeup has over us)
I don't believe that people are born gay, however many are certainly born with the predisposition of being easier to convert than others. In some cases, sexual abuse as a child has also been a factor which eventually led them to homosexuality (this is not conjecture, it is the personal testimony of many former homosexuals).
Also, don't think that I'm singling gays out or anything. In the eyes of God, we are no different; we're both sinners. Gays, and specifically gay marriage, has simply been a bit of a pressing issue lately due to DoMA being up for vote soon and the ever increasing proliferation of the gay agenda in the media. I don't consider myself any better than you, and if you got that impression I apologize.
Anyway, this isn't really the place for theological debate, and it was pretty much a stalemate from the beginning. I'm not even really qualified to debate this either. So let's just end this here unless you have anything else to get out of your system:)
What product are you referring to? If your argument is that one could check a cd out from a library, or borrow it from a friend, and use it to gain access to music on my.mp3.com, it would be equally as easy to pirate the music from the cd in the first place. For this reason, my.mp3.com does not increase the likelyhood of piracy at all. There should be a point where mp3.com's authentication is good enough that they could give people the benefit of the doubt. Other than providing the original media, what other conceivable proof of ownership could they rely on? Given the nature of CDs, Beam-it is the best they could be expected to do.
If you're running Linux, all you have to do is open up options in xmms and change the output plugin to disk-writer:) I've done it, it works fine. A little slow, and it outputs to wav. But you can easily compress it to mp3 once you get to that point. Of course, that only applies to mp3 streams. I'll have to check out paudio. Is there any way to save video streams in RM format?
What if anyone were allowed to make a CD and sell it to you if you had a version of the album on cassette or
vinyl without giving any money to the owners of the music?
Exactly who is doing any selling here? Selling copyrighted works without permission is certainly wrong, but that is completely different. We're talking about streaming files, for free, to people who have already purchased the cd. I think you're just confused.
This also resulted in artists touring again to sell CD's of their old albums.
Why should anybody have to buy the same album twice? That's just plain stupid.
I have to say that I think the owner of the music should have the rights to commercial distribution of the works in any medium. (mp3.com is not a charity, it is a for profit
company.)
Mp3.com is not giving copyrighted music away to just anybody. They are providing a service to owners of CDs for free. They are making CDs more conveniant to own. How is this bad for the artists? It in no way replaces having to own a CD, it merely compliments it.
This has nothing to do with p2p music sharing or making mp3s yourself from your CD collection. But if someone is going to make money distributing music, it should be the
owner (and hopefully the artist).
As I said before, Mp3.com is not broadcasting any music that the listener has not already paid for... so this argument is moot. Also, artists that distribute their music through mp3.com are paid from a pool of $20,000 every month depending on how often their music is listened to. And they still get to keep the rights to their own music!
In each of these situations, you could also make mp3s of the CD before returning at as well. Yet mp3s are not illegal, and never will be. They are simply too useful, and if they have at least one legitimate use, they can't be banned.
It seems that when you're confronted with a differing viewpoint you degenerate to name-calling. I was hoping you could be open-minded enough to try and see it from my perspective, but I guess that's asking too much. And if you missed it the first time, I don't really have much interest in arguing with you over this. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.
Believing that the earth is flat, or that two plus two equals five, are both just different beliefs than me. They are also IGNORANT beliefs.
This is really twisted thinking. The earth being flat and two plus two equaling five can be conclusively proven to be false, and have been. The existence of God cannot be proven by mortals, and therefore it is a belief which is totally subjective. Science will never tell us the answer.
Um...no. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. By your definitiong, there could be no homosexual virgins. Yet there are. I realized I was gay around the age of eleven. I didn't have sex until the age of twenty-two. For eleven years, I was a homosexual virgin. I was not a confused straight boy, I was not a straight boy at all. I was gay. Homosexual. And it had NOTHING to do with 'just sexual behavoir'. And I had many friends of both sexes during that time. Friendship, and romantic love relationships are very different.
Sexual behavior does not take place in your pants, it takes place in your mind. You had a mind when you were eleven, right?:) How often you think about sex, who you're attracted to, what type of preferences you have are all linked to your sexual drive. Whether or not you are actually having sex is irrelevent. I am a virgin, and I most deffinately have a heterosexual behavior.
The only problem I have is with other's people's unwillingness or inability to simply accept me as I am, without wanting to fire me, beat me up, vandalize my things, call names, pass laws outlawing my relationships, etc. I'm not the one with a 'problem' here, any more than a left-handed person's 'problem' is their left-handedness. The 'problem' in their case is a simple lack of easy, common-sense accomodation by society.
I accept you, I do not accept your sin. God loves you, but he hates your sin. And mine. And everyones. This is the point I'm trying to make; this whole discussion is a disagreement of belief, and not of fact.
Um, in case you didn't get it the first time, let me try again: Homosexuality is a natural phenominon. This is a statement of fact. It exists in nature. Homosexuality is found not just in humans, but anywhere you care to look in the animal kingdom (yes, from lower life forms up to dolphins, and obviously humans). There are references I can direct you to (try "Natural Exuberence", search for it on Amazon). And as I've already explained, and which you can't seem to grasp, it's NOT 'just sexual behavoir'. There is a hell of a lot more to it than that. There are whole issues of gender identity involved too (with transgendered people, who face many of the same issues). Human sexuality isn't a simple black and white thing here, dude. Gender can be very fluid (effiminate males, butch females, irrespective of thier gender attractions).
Gay animals? Are you kidding me? No, I'm not gonna take your word for it on this one.
Maybe it's a population's response to over-crowding? Who knows? Who cares?
You're saying homosexuality is nature's way of killing off or decreasing population? That must make you feel proud of yourself.
The fact is, the number one reason people have sex is becuase they have a sex drive, and a desire ro feel pleasure.
Think deeper than that. Why is it so enjoyable? You said it yourself, "if people ONLY had sex for procreation there'd be a hell of a lot less sex going on". Doesn't that prove my point? Sex is enjoyable as an encouragement to reproduce more.
The fact is, sex serves another function that you ignore -- pair-bonding. It's an expression of deep love and comittment with a life partner. A sign of caring and affection that goes far beyond 'friendship'.
This is perhaps the only statement you make here that doesn't boggle my mind. And according to God, it is intended to be shared between a man and a women who are married. Again, simply a matter of belief so there's no use in arguing this.
Oh, but it does. You dismiss it far to quickly on far to flimsy evidence. Not to mention that things like wearing clothes is definitely UNNATURAL from a secular/biological standpoint, yet no one has a problem with that, so why have a problem with homosexuality?
Look in the book of Genesis. Doesn't it mention that Adam and Eve were naked? When they ate the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they became aware of sin and that's when Man started clothing themselves.
Anyway, most studies, most scientists, and most psychologists/psychiatrists believe that homosexuality, whatever the root cause, is inherent within a small percentage of any given population, has always been so, and always will be so. It is a NATURAL occurance. Most of these same people believe it is either inborn, or in some way 'fixed' by a very young age (most cite 2 years of age).
Sin is a natural occurance. It is our nature. Are you getting my point yet? We define what homosexuality is differently. How we define it is a matter of belief.
Well, thanks for showing your ignorance here:-) The story of Soddom was more about inhospitality than homosexulaity.
Okay, yeah, a group of gays trying to rape a couple of angels would be a major hospitality faux paux. However, that is not why the city was destroyed. Soddom was destroyed because is was completely overrun with sin. Lot, the only righteous man left, was told to get the hell out and take his family away before it was destroyed.
And in those same places where homosexuality is called an abomination, so too does it call the eating of shell-fish.
You're referring to clean and unclean animals, right? Take a look at which animals were in fact deemed unclean; they were the types of meat that would spoil quite easily and there were no refridgeration methods at the time that would ensure their freshness. Not eating these animals was quite wise, at this time. This was all part of the old covenent. In the Old Covenent, people also had to sacrifice sheep and other animals. When Jesus died on the cross, he did away with the Old Covenent and formed a new one, where all you had to do was to give your life to Him and let Him come into your heart. Much easier. But some people, the Jews for instance, have ignored the New Covenent and still cling to the Old one. Unclean animals and such do not apply anymore.
The bible condemns divorce a lot more than it does homosexuality, yet I don't see you advocating laws against divorcees...
Don't tell me what I believe in! I don't think divorces are good. They're horrible.
Which brings me to the fundamental point. You believe a particular mythology is true (much as teh Greeks believed just as fervently in THEIR mythology, the vikings had their Norse mythology, and even todays Jews and Muslims and all have their current mythologies).
And I think you engage in a life of perversion and sin. Name called will get us nowhere.
The United States is not a theocracy, but is a pluralistic DEMOCRACY, with a constituional right to freedom of religious expression.
No, the United States is a representative Republic. I'm amazed at how many people do not know the government system of the country they live in.
My religon recognizes and celebrates same-sex unions just as it does opposite-sex unions. So why should YOUR peculiar religion's dogma be enshrined into secular law where it can forbid me and my partner form enjoying the same rights as you and YOUR partner?
There's such a thing as a gay religion? Whatever. Anyway, I am a Christian. I do not have a religion. Religion is a very bad thing, at times; it causes us to focus more on doing good things to get into Heaven than to have a personal relationship with God. That's why the Church has done so many bad things in the past. No dogma here!
But the thing that always annoys me is that you think your particular chosen beliefs should affect me, someone not of your religion (though frankly, most of the gay couples I know of ARE Christian, and were actually married in churches). The fact of the matter is, if I am allowed civil marriage (just like athiests are, muslims are, and OTHERS that you think are 'going to hell' because they don't believe the same things you do), it doesn't affect you in the least.
I've got news for you; this is a Christian country. It doesn't matter that a lot of people living here aren't, it was founded under the principals of Christianity by devout Christians.
Homosexuiality does affect me. It affects everyone. The more we approve of it, the more prevalent it becomes. Homosexuality is antithetical to my beliefs, and the beliefs of every other Christian in this country. Approving of it would be denying my beliefs.
Homosexuality is not 'catching', isn't 'chosen', and does not pose any sort of 'threat' to you in any way. So how can granting me equal *EQUIVALENT* rights and responsibilties harm you? Why does it scare you? People all over the world do things that your Bible condemns, so why single me out for persecution?
It is a direct threat to Christianity. The enemy will use every weapon at his disposal against the followers of God. So don't expect me to ever embrace homosexuality. I'm not singling you out. I condemn all sin, even my own.
Like I said, I don't want to argue with you. This is all a matter of our beliefs, and there are much more interesting things to discuss.
I'm gonna try not to reiterate the points in my other reply.
Heterosexual couples who build a loving home together aparently have a 'special right' to adopt children. Homosexual couples who build a loving
home together aparently cannot.
The assumtion here is that hetero and homosexual relationships are the same. That is the point of debate, I think. The difference, I would say, is that homosexuality is unnatural. You know what? Do whatever you damn well please in the privacy of your own home or wherever, but leave the children out of it. Personally, I would not want to be the test case of what being raised by two men or two women would do to me mentally, and I pity any child that has to go through that. (I could bring up the fact that Clinton was raised by two women, but that would be a cheap shot)
No gay person is asking for or wants any 'special rights'... they just want the same exact things everyone else does.
You want the same things as a male/female couple, and changing is the law for a man to take the place of a women is a special right. Like I said, two straight guys would never be considered or adoption. And yes, you do make a point with the "loving household" argument, from your worldview anyways. I'm not being obtuse. But try to see it from my perspective: homosexuality is a sin. Putting a child in the middle of that would not be cool. You may think it is cool, and that's the real disagreement here, isn't it?
And if heterosexuals didn't produce so many unwanted, abused, and abandoned children, the issue of gay adoption wouldn't be much of an issue. But
since there are more children out there than heterosexuals want, why not let loving gay couple adopt them and give them a good home?
Heh heh, yeah we're all abusive worthless parents:) Good one. Seriously, though; assuming that gay couples provide the same type of upbringing as a normal family (and I definately believe that they do not) you could make this argument. Since it is biologically impossible for you to conceive, and adoption agencies are very choosy about who they let adopt--whereas any pair of drunken idiots can have a kid over in the heterosexual camp. That is kind of sad, but then again if everybody followed God's word, only married couples (heterosexual couples) would have children, and they would all be loving parents. Of course, it is in human nature to sin... I guess a perfect world is just not possible.
Two heterosexual guys are not in a loving, mutually constructive, monogamous relationship. You're comparing apples and oranges, and somehow
coming up with 'special rights' out of the deal. Your logic is totally and utterly flawed, yielding 'garbage in, garbage out'. Start with bogus
assumptions, end with ridiculous and ignorant conclusions.
Okay, now that's just name-calling. I have totally different beliefs than you--The universe was created aproximately six thousand or so years ago by God. There is such a thing as right and wrong. If this irks you, sorry. My faith is the only thing that makes me more than just as insignificant boil on the face of an insignificant planet somewhere in the universe. I'm not going to be changing my mind just because you have a different opinion.
You obviously know absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
I know more than you think. I simply have completely different beliefs than you, that is certainly not the same as ignorance.
Is your heterosexuality nothing but a 'behavoir'? Hardly. It colors everything you do... what you find sexy, who you fall in love with, what
advertisements attract your attention, what you wear, etc.
...and yet the defining characteristic of all of these things is influenced by your sexual behavior. You can have a relationship with another guy without it being sexual--I have several close friends. The single thing that makes you homosexual is your sexuality.Hence the name.
Because someone behaves differently is not sufficient reason to strip people of their rights and privileges either.
This is perhaps the only thing we can agree on. Just as I don't believe you deserve any special rights for being gay, I don't think any homosexual should be treated less than human. Gays shouldn't be treated as diseased or evil, just as humans with a problem--just like every other human being on this planet. I have problems. Everyone does. That does not mean we should all think it's okay to have a problem.
Because someone behaves differently is not sufficient reason to strip people of their rights and privileges either. Even if sexual orientation WERE a 'choice' (which 'just a behavoir' implies), that doesn't justify opression or assigning second-class citizenshipo.
Yeah, this is that gay party line of being born gay, like being born black or Jewish--bullshit. Homosexuality is defined by sexual behavior, therefore it is not an immutable condition. I have met several people who used to be gay and have since found God and have been delivered from it. You can change, it is a choice.
Homosexuality is a natural phenominon...
Oh wow, I can't believe you said that! Sorry, but that's just plain dumb and here's why:
Sexual behavior is what defines homosexuality. The name itself means having a sexual preference of the same gender. Take away sex, and being gay means nothing.
At its most basic, sex is a process of reproduction. There is no other purpose--yes, it is enjoyable but if you think about it, that's just to make us want to reproduce more. Animals don't have the higher-level thinking abilities that we do, and so instinct suffices. (except for dolphins... perhaps because they are more intelligent. I don't pretend to know)
Since it is biologically impossible to conceive a child with another member of the same gender, homosexuality is antithetical to the natural order of reproduction.
Call homosexuality what you will, but the natural argument does not hold water. And that's just from a secular viewpoint. Like I said above, we have totally different belief systems.
some small percentage of the human population (regardless of race, nationality, class, sex, religion, etc) is
and has always been homosexual. And bisexual. And transgendered. And even hermaphrodite. So it has always been, so it will always be.
Yes they have, actually since the Fall of Man. So has sin... the book of Genesis has a story of a city named Soddom with a lot of homosexuals. Obviously thats where the word sodomy came from.
These are
people with human feelings, cares, and loves. Just like you. They are not second-class citizens who 'deserve' fewer rights and less respect than the
average citizen.
As I said above, we do agree here.
In case you havn't figured it out yet, I am a Christian and the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. You're not going to change my mind;) And I realize I'm not going to change yours, either; only God is able to do that. So lets just agree to disagree.
Doesn't matter. Homosexuality is nothing more than a sexual behavior (a deviant one at that). Nobody deserves special rights or privelages simply because they behave differently.
Here's a counter-example. Take a look at all the crap going on over DeCSS and all the power the MPAA is gaining lately. The Hollywood crowd is very a elitist bunch of liberals--if a Republican was elected President, they would lose a lot of power. Remember, the Clinton administration is responsible for the DMCA which makes reverse engineering illegal in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Calm down. Netscape 6 hasn't hit 1.0 yet, and AOL is not going to incorporate unstable code into their software. I'm sure they will take their sweet time, but it would be stupid for them not to switch to Gecko once its ready.
Or you can just go to edit->preferences->advanced->images->do not load any images.
Well, I'm using M18 (right now in fact) and while a little sluggish from time to time, it has never crashed on me.
Either that or COBOL... I'm not sure which would be worse :)
Netscape 6, or Mozilla, is not built for anything in particular. Mozilla was specifically designed to be very cross-platform, and so it isn't actually native to any operating system. I know there there already is a Mac port, but since it uses a cross-platform toolkit, it won't use Aqua like a native Max OS X app. If you really need pretty widgets, I'm sure sooner or later someone will write a native frontend for the Mozilla browser, such as Galeon for Gnome and K-Meleon for Windows.
Actually, all you need to do is locate the aim.xpi file (which is somewhere on their server) and install that and Mozilla will be able to use AIM. In fact, there are .xpi installers for pretty much everything Netscape 6 includes, so there's no excuse not to use Mozilla instead :)
Now ask yourself this question: would they still be doing this is Napster, mp3.com et al didn't exist? I seriously doubt it. Napster and mp3.com etc got there first, and forced them to pay attention to the online music market. I'm sure they'd much rather stick to their comfortable CD cartel, but in a capitalist society if there's an itch, it will be scratched no matter what.
Amen to that! I really want to play with OS X, but theres no way I'm getting a cube, or one of those fscking iMacs... If I get anything, it will be a G4 tower. One that can be opened, with parts that can be replaced. In fact, I'd like to build one myself if that's possible.
We certainly need standard document formats, but explain to me how what office suite you use has anything to do with that? Ideally, everyone should be using one or two different formats that are supported by everybody, and owned by no one, so that the office suite is interchangeable. This means that Microsoft doc files definately can not be the standard, and that's just fine with me :)
Look, truth is not a relative thing. SOMEBODY is going to be right, and everyone else must be wrong. If I am a follower of Christ, and I believe in what He says, then it doesn't matter to me what other people think. If He is right, then anyone who disagrees with Him is by extension wrong. Now, whether or not Christ is the one true God or not is a matter of personal belief--but neither of our opinions make a single difference to reality.
Interestinly, I'm not doing that: you are. You are saying your personal beliefs should be codified into law and then forced onto me. I am NOT saying that my beliefs should be forced on to you.
Yes you are! You are forcing your beliefs on me by trying to make everyone recognize gay marriage as legitamate. There is no middle ground. As a Creationist, I have gone for my entire life having Evolution pushed on me as fact, even though it is a matter of personal belief (and Evolution's still just a theory--the origin of the universe is beyond our realm of perception, so its all just speculation for the most part). And yet atheists still have the gall to whine about Christians pushing our beliefs on Everyone believes in something, and your beliefs are in direct opposition to mine. That's a sad truth, but we cannot both be happy with the world at the same time.
You make a judgement that my love and relationship isn't worthy of any legal protections based soley on my 'status' and the 'status' of my partner
I'm not judging anything. I am following God's word, nothing more. Bear in mind that ideally, Christians are nothing more than sheep, following our master. I know this may sound rather derogatory, but it is true--you don't have a problem with me, you have a problem with my God. Don't agree? Fine--deny that He exists and live your own life. God would rather send you to Hell than take away your free will. But would you be willing to bet your life on it? Have you ever been wrong about anything before? I know I have.
So I think you'd best be getting out there and getting laws passed to prevent anyone from working on a Sunday. That's an abomination. And you had better get campaigning to get shellfish off all menus, and to ban the use of two fibers in any cloth. And the Bible says quite clearly that it's okay to sell women into slavery, so better be working to make that legal.
That's such a twisted statement, I'm going to have to challenge you to give me the exact verse that says this. Where, exactly, does it say it's okay to sell anybody into slavery?
My POINT in this, which you seem to keep missing, is that you idea of 'morality' is very arbitrary, and does not match everyone elses (or even most people's).
Morality is not relative. There are certain sets of right and wrong that are absolute, and it is to those absolutes which I subscribe.
So how does my having a civil union affect or harm you in any measurable way?
It harms society. Saying an immoral thing is okay is wrong, I cannot do it. I know you don't agree, but whether people agree doesn't have any effect on my beliefs.
In otherwords, the government should provide the same benefits and services to all their citizens.
Is that all you think of marriage? Well, that is all it will be if same-sex marriage is recognized. We don't take marriage seriously enough in this country as it is, and to tell you the truth, I just can't bear the idea of people redefining the very basis of what marriage is. Marriage is an honored tradition going back to the very beginning of recorded history, what makes you think you have any right to screw with it? Normally I'd wouldn't mind just leaving you alone, but this is a pretty personal attack.
When I said that there cannot be a middle ground here, you misunderstood what I was talking about--we cannot both be happy with the state of marriage at the same time. It is unfortunate that parts of the church have further muddied the water around this issue and support gay marriage, but this is not a real union in the eyes of God. His plan is quite simple; one man, one women in a lifelong commitment--no amount of semantic postulating will change this. People have been reinterpreting the Bible in all sorts of different ways to justify their beliefs for ages, but Jesus was not nearly as interested in the letter of the law as you'd think. You don't believe in God, and that's fine--it's a free country, and that is one of the greatest freedoms given to us. However, if I were you, I wouldn't presume to go around telling people what their beliefs mean. The mere fact that you have gay friends who say they are Christians doesn't matter at all to me. Do you know there are a lot of people who call themselves Christian and really aren't? Whether or not someone is truely a Christian is an argument that only God can settle, since we can only judge by outward appearances but He can look straight into the heart.
Don't take my opposition to gay marriage as persecution. I don't judge you (or at least, I try my best not to); indeed, I have no place doing so since I'm every bit as bad. However, I do have a moral obligation to do my best to prevent society from deciding an immoral thing is okay. That doesn't mean I will always succeed, but to do otherwise would be going against my faith.
No, fair use is not a basic right. Neither is copyright--they are opposite sides to the coin called Intellectual Property. Copyright and fair use balance each other so that neither the copyright owners or the customers have more control than the other. Then, of course, the copyright owners got greedy and convinced Congress to abolish fair use and give them total power. (That's not how they put it, but that is effectively what happened.) Copyright was great while it lasted, but tipping the balance of power too much in either direction can only end in disaster.
This is mostly a load of malarky. There are no facts to back up that homosexuals 'can change' into heterosexuals. Even most of the so-called "ex-gays" have reverted over time to their natural ways. Most 'successful' conversions weren't homosexual to begin with... if pressed, they'll admit to being attracted to women the entire time, and that they're still attracted to men, they're just ignoring that. In short, they were bisexual, and now they're "back in the closet".
I do not think either of us could authoritatively say whether those who have been saved have been conpletely delivered from homosexuality. Surely many still struggle with it, thats normal. Christians are in no way perfect, or even better than anyone else--just forgiven.
In short, it comes down to torturing people in many cases (electrodes on testicals, shock therapy, aversion therapy) and other classical conditioning methods, and even with that, the 'change' is not at all guarenteed or permanent. Many men who go through this are driven to suicide, their own self-loathing intensified. Many others find an inner strength through the program to come out of the closet again, as stronger and happier people -- but still gay.
Forcing people to change is wrong. And using the methods you mention is horrible. Thats certainly not would I would advocate. Giving your life to Christ is completely voluntary, otherwise it would not mean anything. I think some of the escapades of the Church throughout history illustrates this point nicely.
I'm not here to debate theology at all. I'm just here to say that not everyone follows your (or my) specific theology, and therefore, such theological matters should not be codified into civil law that governs everyone.
The problem is, there is no middle ground here. Either this country supports your worldview, or mine. Either marriage will be Holy Matrimony, or it will be a legal union between two people--but it cannot be both.
Or maybe it's telling us things we've already found to be true? I don't need a scientific study to tell me whether or not I'm a sociopath, thank you very much.
While technically homosexuality is a behavior, there is a psychological dimension to this that I was not taking into account as much as I should have. Emotion and feeling are still mysterious things, and most of the time we're just along for the ride. While it is a behavior that can and is being changed in people, emotionally you feel that you have no choice. I can appreciate this--if you're a smoker and try giving up the habit cold turkey, the physical addiction will be out of your body by 72 hours, but after that they still have to overcome the psychological addiction which many times is even harder. (Don't take this to mean that I'm equating homosexuality to an addiction per se, I'm just illustrating the power our psychological makeup has over us)
I don't believe that people are born gay, however many are certainly born with the predisposition of being easier to convert than others. In some cases, sexual abuse as a child has also been a factor which eventually led them to homosexuality (this is not conjecture, it is the personal testimony of many former homosexuals).
Also, don't think that I'm singling gays out or anything. In the eyes of God, we are no different; we're both sinners. Gays, and specifically gay marriage, has simply been a bit of a pressing issue lately due to DoMA being up for vote soon and the ever increasing proliferation of the gay agenda in the media. I don't consider myself any better than you, and if you got that impression I apologize.
Anyway, this isn't really the place for theological debate, and it was pretty much a stalemate from the beginning. I'm not even really qualified to debate this either. So let's just end this here unless you have anything else to get out of your system :)
What product are you referring to? If your argument is that one could check a cd out from a library, or borrow it from a friend, and use it to gain access to music on my.mp3.com, it would be equally as easy to pirate the music from the cd in the first place. For this reason, my.mp3.com does not increase the likelyhood of piracy at all. There should be a point where mp3.com's authentication is good enough that they could give people the benefit of the doubt. Other than providing the original media, what other conceivable proof of ownership could they rely on? Given the nature of CDs, Beam-it is the best they could be expected to do.
If you're running Linux, all you have to do is open up options in xmms and change the output plugin to disk-writer :) I've done it, it works fine. A little slow, and it outputs to wav. But you can easily compress it to mp3 once you get to that point. Of course, that only applies to mp3 streams. I'll have to check out paudio. Is there any way to save video streams in RM format?
Exactly who is doing any selling here? Selling copyrighted works without permission is certainly wrong, but that is completely different. We're talking about streaming files, for free, to people who have already purchased the cd. I think you're just confused.
This also resulted in artists touring again to sell CD's of their old albums.
Why should anybody have to buy the same album twice? That's just plain stupid.
I have to say that I think the owner of the music should have the rights to commercial distribution of the works in any medium. (mp3.com is not a charity, it is a for profit company.)
Mp3.com is not giving copyrighted music away to just anybody. They are providing a service to owners of CDs for free. They are making CDs more conveniant to own. How is this bad for the artists? It in no way replaces having to own a CD, it merely compliments it.
This has nothing to do with p2p music sharing or making mp3s yourself from your CD collection. But if someone is going to make money distributing music, it should be the owner (and hopefully the artist).
As I said before, Mp3.com is not broadcasting any music that the listener has not already paid for... so this argument is moot. Also, artists that distribute their music through mp3.com are paid from a pool of $20,000 every month depending on how often their music is listened to. And they still get to keep the rights to their own music!
Yeah, everyone knows musicians didn't exist before the recording industry came along.
</sarcasm>
In each of these situations, you could also make mp3s of the CD before returning at as well. Yet mp3s are not illegal, and never will be. They are simply too useful, and if they have at least one legitimate use, they can't be banned.
Believing that the earth is flat, or that two plus two equals five, are both just different beliefs than me. They are also IGNORANT beliefs.
This is really twisted thinking. The earth being flat and two plus two equaling five can be conclusively proven to be false, and have been. The existence of God cannot be proven by mortals, and therefore it is a belief which is totally subjective. Science will never tell us the answer.
Um...no. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. By your definitiong, there could be no homosexual virgins. Yet there are. I realized I was gay around the age of eleven. I didn't have sex until the age of twenty-two. For eleven years, I was a homosexual virgin. I was not a confused straight boy, I was not a straight boy at all. I was gay. Homosexual. And it had NOTHING to do with 'just sexual behavoir'. And I had many friends of both sexes during that time. Friendship, and romantic love relationships are very different.
Sexual behavior does not take place in your pants, it takes place in your mind. You had a mind when you were eleven, right? :) How often you think about sex, who you're attracted to, what type of preferences you have are all linked to your sexual drive. Whether or not you are actually having sex is irrelevent. I am a virgin, and I most deffinately have a heterosexual behavior.
The only problem I have is with other's people's unwillingness or inability to simply accept me as I am, without wanting to fire me, beat me up, vandalize my things, call names, pass laws outlawing my relationships, etc. I'm not the one with a 'problem' here, any more than a left-handed person's 'problem' is their left-handedness. The 'problem' in their case is a simple lack of easy, common-sense accomodation by society.
I accept you, I do not accept your sin. God loves you, but he hates your sin. And mine. And everyones. This is the point I'm trying to make; this whole discussion is a disagreement of belief, and not of fact.
Um, in case you didn't get it the first time, let me try again: Homosexuality is a natural phenominon. This is a statement of fact. It exists in nature. Homosexuality is found not just in humans, but anywhere you care to look in the animal kingdom (yes, from lower life forms up to dolphins, and obviously humans). There are references I can direct you to (try "Natural Exuberence", search for it on Amazon). And as I've already explained, and which you can't seem to grasp, it's NOT 'just sexual behavoir'. There is a hell of a lot more to it than that. There are whole issues of gender identity involved too (with transgendered people, who face many of the same issues). Human sexuality isn't a simple black and white thing here, dude. Gender can be very fluid (effiminate males, butch females, irrespective of thier gender attractions).
Gay animals? Are you kidding me? No, I'm not gonna take your word for it on this one.
Maybe it's a population's response to over-crowding? Who knows? Who cares?
You're saying homosexuality is nature's way of killing off or decreasing population? That must make you feel proud of yourself.
The fact is, the number one reason people have sex is becuase they have a sex drive, and a desire ro feel pleasure.
Think deeper than that. Why is it so enjoyable? You said it yourself, "if people ONLY had sex for procreation there'd be a hell of a lot less sex going on". Doesn't that prove my point? Sex is enjoyable as an encouragement to reproduce more.
The fact is, sex serves another function that you ignore -- pair-bonding. It's an expression of deep love and comittment with a life partner. A sign of caring and affection that goes far beyond 'friendship'.
This is perhaps the only statement you make here that doesn't boggle my mind. And according to God, it is intended to be shared between a man and a women who are married. Again, simply a matter of belief so there's no use in arguing this.
Oh, but it does. You dismiss it far to quickly on far to flimsy evidence. Not to mention that things like wearing clothes is definitely UNNATURAL from a secular/biological standpoint, yet no one has a problem with that, so why have a problem with homosexuality?
Look in the book of Genesis. Doesn't it mention that Adam and Eve were naked? When they ate the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they became aware of sin and that's when Man started clothing themselves.
Anyway, most studies, most scientists, and most psychologists/psychiatrists believe that homosexuality, whatever the root cause, is inherent within a small percentage of any given population, has always been so, and always will be so. It is a NATURAL occurance. Most of these same people believe it is either inborn, or in some way 'fixed' by a very young age (most cite 2 years of age).
Sin is a natural occurance. It is our nature. Are you getting my point yet? We define what homosexuality is differently. How we define it is a matter of belief.
Well, thanks for showing your ignorance here :-) The story of Soddom was more about inhospitality than homosexulaity.
Okay, yeah, a group of gays trying to rape a couple of angels would be a major hospitality faux paux. However, that is not why the city was destroyed. Soddom was destroyed because is was completely overrun with sin. Lot, the only righteous man left, was told to get the hell out and take his family away before it was destroyed.
And in those same places where homosexuality is called an abomination, so too does it call the eating of shell-fish.
You're referring to clean and unclean animals, right? Take a look at which animals were in fact deemed unclean; they were the types of meat that would spoil quite easily and there were no refridgeration methods at the time that would ensure their freshness. Not eating these animals was quite wise, at this time. This was all part of the old covenent. In the Old Covenent, people also had to sacrifice sheep and other animals. When Jesus died on the cross, he did away with the Old Covenent and formed a new one, where all you had to do was to give your life to Him and let Him come into your heart. Much easier. But some people, the Jews for instance, have ignored the New Covenent and still cling to the Old one. Unclean animals and such do not apply anymore.
The bible condemns divorce a lot more than it does homosexuality, yet I don't see you advocating laws against divorcees...
Don't tell me what I believe in! I don't think divorces are good. They're horrible.
Which brings me to the fundamental point. You believe a particular mythology is true (much as teh Greeks believed just as fervently in THEIR mythology, the vikings had their Norse mythology, and even todays Jews and Muslims and all have their current mythologies).
And I think you engage in a life of perversion and sin. Name called will get us nowhere.
The United States is not a theocracy, but is a pluralistic DEMOCRACY, with a constituional right to freedom of religious expression.
No, the United States is a representative Republic. I'm amazed at how many people do not know the government system of the country they live in.
My religon recognizes and celebrates same-sex unions just as it does opposite-sex unions. So why should YOUR peculiar religion's dogma be enshrined into secular law where it can forbid me and my partner form enjoying the same rights as you and YOUR partner?
There's such a thing as a gay religion? Whatever. Anyway, I am a Christian. I do not have a religion. Religion is a very bad thing, at times; it causes us to focus more on doing good things to get into Heaven than to have a personal relationship with God. That's why the Church has done so many bad things in the past. No dogma here!
But the thing that always annoys me is that you think your particular chosen beliefs should affect me, someone not of your religion (though frankly, most of the gay couples I know of ARE Christian, and were actually married in churches). The fact of the matter is, if I am allowed civil marriage (just like athiests are, muslims are, and OTHERS that you think are 'going to hell' because they don't believe the same things you do), it doesn't affect you in the least.
I've got news for you; this is a Christian country. It doesn't matter that a lot of people living here aren't, it was founded under the principals of Christianity by devout Christians. Homosexuiality does affect me. It affects everyone. The more we approve of it, the more prevalent it becomes. Homosexuality is antithetical to my beliefs, and the beliefs of every other Christian in this country. Approving of it would be denying my beliefs.
Homosexuality is not 'catching', isn't 'chosen', and does not pose any sort of 'threat' to you in any way. So how can granting me equal *EQUIVALENT* rights and responsibilties harm you? Why does it scare you? People all over the world do things that your Bible condemns, so why single me out for persecution?
It is a direct threat to Christianity. The enemy will use every weapon at his disposal against the followers of God. So don't expect me to ever embrace homosexuality. I'm not singling you out. I condemn all sin, even my own.
Like I said, I don't want to argue with you. This is all a matter of our beliefs, and there are much more interesting things to discuss.
Heterosexual couples who build a loving home together aparently have a 'special right' to adopt children. Homosexual couples who build a loving home together aparently cannot.
The assumtion here is that hetero and homosexual relationships are the same. That is the point of debate, I think. The difference, I would say, is that homosexuality is unnatural. You know what? Do whatever you damn well please in the privacy of your own home or wherever, but leave the children out of it. Personally, I would not want to be the test case of what being raised by two men or two women would do to me mentally, and I pity any child that has to go through that. (I could bring up the fact that Clinton was raised by two women, but that would be a cheap shot)
No gay person is asking for or wants any 'special rights'... they just want the same exact things everyone else does.
You want the same things as a male/female couple, and changing is the law for a man to take the place of a women is a special right. Like I said, two straight guys would never be considered or adoption. And yes, you do make a point with the "loving household" argument, from your worldview anyways. I'm not being obtuse. But try to see it from my perspective: homosexuality is a sin. Putting a child in the middle of that would not be cool. You may think it is cool, and that's the real disagreement here, isn't it?
And if heterosexuals didn't produce so many unwanted, abused, and abandoned children, the issue of gay adoption wouldn't be much of an issue. But since there are more children out there than heterosexuals want, why not let loving gay couple adopt them and give them a good home?
Heh heh, yeah we're all abusive worthless parents :) Good one. Seriously, though; assuming that gay couples provide the same type of upbringing as a normal family (and I definately believe that they do not) you could make this argument. Since it is biologically impossible for you to conceive, and adoption agencies are very choosy about who they let adopt--whereas any pair of drunken idiots can have a kid over in the heterosexual camp. That is kind of sad, but then again if everybody followed God's word, only married couples (heterosexual couples) would have children, and they would all be loving parents. Of course, it is in human nature to sin... I guess a perfect world is just not possible.
Two heterosexual guys are not in a loving, mutually constructive, monogamous relationship. You're comparing apples and oranges, and somehow coming up with 'special rights' out of the deal. Your logic is totally and utterly flawed, yielding 'garbage in, garbage out'. Start with bogus assumptions, end with ridiculous and ignorant conclusions.
Okay, now that's just name-calling. I have totally different beliefs than you--The universe was created aproximately six thousand or so years ago by God. There is such a thing as right and wrong. If this irks you, sorry. My faith is the only thing that makes me more than just as insignificant boil on the face of an insignificant planet somewhere in the universe. I'm not going to be changing my mind just because you have a different opinion.
I know more than you think. I simply have completely different beliefs than you, that is certainly not the same as ignorance.
Is your heterosexuality nothing but a 'behavoir'? Hardly. It colors everything you do... what you find sexy, who you fall in love with, what advertisements attract your attention, what you wear, etc.
Because someone behaves differently is not sufficient reason to strip people of their rights and privileges either.
This is perhaps the only thing we can agree on. Just as I don't believe you deserve any special rights for being gay, I don't think any homosexual should be treated less than human. Gays shouldn't be treated as diseased or evil, just as humans with a problem--just like every other human being on this planet. I have problems. Everyone does. That does not mean we should all think it's okay to have a problem.
Because someone behaves differently is not sufficient reason to strip people of their rights and privileges either. Even if sexual orientation WERE a 'choice' (which 'just a behavoir' implies), that doesn't justify opression or assigning second-class citizenshipo.
Yeah, this is that gay party line of being born gay, like being born black or Jewish--bullshit. Homosexuality is defined by sexual behavior, therefore it is not an immutable condition. I have met several people who used to be gay and have since found God and have been delivered from it. You can change, it is a choice.
Homosexuality is a natural phenominon...
Oh wow, I can't believe you said that! Sorry, but that's just plain dumb and here's why:
Call homosexuality what you will, but the natural argument does not hold water. And that's just from a secular viewpoint. Like I said above, we have totally different belief systems.
some small percentage of the human population (regardless of race, nationality, class, sex, religion, etc) is and has always been homosexual. And bisexual. And transgendered. And even hermaphrodite. So it has always been, so it will always be.
Yes they have, actually since the Fall of Man. So has sin... the book of Genesis has a story of a city named Soddom with a lot of homosexuals. Obviously thats where the word sodomy came from.
These are people with human feelings, cares, and loves. Just like you. They are not second-class citizens who 'deserve' fewer rights and less respect than the average citizen.
As I said above, we do agree here.
In case you havn't figured it out yet, I am a Christian and the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. You're not going to change my mind ;) And I realize I'm not going to change yours, either; only God is able to do that. So lets just agree to disagree.
Doesn't matter. Homosexuality is nothing more than a sexual behavior (a deviant one at that). Nobody deserves special rights or privelages simply because they behave differently.
Here's a counter-example. Take a look at all the crap going on over DeCSS and all the power the MPAA is gaining lately. The Hollywood crowd is very a elitist bunch of liberals--if a Republican was elected President, they would lose a lot of power. Remember, the Clinton administration is responsible for the DMCA which makes reverse engineering illegal in the first place.