true, i didn't really think about that case.

but see, here's the thing, nobody should have to think of any cases because there is no acceptable reason why gay marriage is illegal

---"jebus sez it's a bomaration"

marriage was invented and become a common practice long before christianity came around. it is a matter of the state and concerns legal, medical, and tax issues and has jack shit to do with your imaginary friend, you didn't invent it, you don't own it, fuck off

---"marriage is all about makin babies to stimulate the economy and grow the population and all the benefits are rewards for that"

then why are infertile couples allowed to get/stay married? people who have had a sex change can also get married despite not being able to bear children. marriage is two people legally declaring their intention to function as a unit, the benefits serve that purpose, to allow them to better work together towards their goals. there are further benefits for having children, and unmarried people can receive those benefits. you aren't being rewarded twice for the same thing.

there's several other common bullshit excuses even less reasonable.
half the rhetoric of anti-gay enthusiasts is the same shit spewed by anti-women's rights and anti-black rights people. how many times to we as a society need to make the same mistakes before we learn from them?

I mean, i'm not gay, but it doesn't affect me if someone else is. i have lots of gay friends, and even have lived with a gay guy.
It's in the bible, even. "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

that's good, i have no problem with religion, it's cool and all but when people start thinking that a book was penned personally by the hand of god and that every word contained in it must be obeyed exactly as it is written(except the parts about peace and love, fuck those) then it kinda becomes a problem. god should never be used as an excuse to hate. I am religious, i just create my own religion that grows and changes as i do, my concept of god is constantly evolving with every new thing i learn. in my opinion that beats the hell out of following a stagnating god who lives only on the pages of a book, never changing.

yeah, it's definitely true that it wasn't written by god, just by men. they were followers of god , and there were many other writings considered to be in the bible that they left out. one that i want to look up is jesus as a kid, because it only mentions that once really in the bible.
i also believe that in the new testament, many of the requirements were dropped with the coming of Jesus (such as kosher food and not mixing cloths) because Jesus was sent to forgive our sins, you know?
basically i believe that it's best to commit as few sins as possible, but as long as you believe in god ans that Jesus died for you, then you go to heaven.
no one's perfect, so if someone went to hell only because they sinned (i.e. being gay) then all of us would be in hell after we died.

i don't have a problem with gay marriage really. they're going to be gay whether or not they get married.
i'm christian, so in my mind God wouldn't want them to commit two sins (being gay, and sex out of marriage) so why not take one of those two out of the equation by letting them get married?

You clearly don't understand your religion very well. No remaining Christian denominations, save for certain select Pentecostal churches or more conservative Baptist churches believe that the sin lies in the nature of homosexuality itself. Now some of them argue that Homosexual sex is a sin, and that is the root of the current debate, but being gay in itself is nearly universally tolerated by the church. This includes the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox churches, and nearly all of the Protestant churches. Hence the phrase “Hate the sin, not the sinner,” used by the Catholics. If you’re going to try to enter into a debate like this, at least try to be well informed on your side. I’m an agnostic, I disagree with the idea that homosexuality is wrong, and I still know enough to realize that you have no idea what you’re talking about

i'm not in a debate. i'm in a conversation.
no one here is trying to prove themselves right but you.

the phrase "hate the sin not the sinner" is not only used by the catholic church, and more closely means that God hates sin, but he loves all people and so we should "hate the sin, not the sinner"

and also, many churches think of homosexuality itself is a sin, and some even offer therapy to people to try to "cure" their homosexuality so they can "get into heaven."

however, what i believe is basically what you said, that homosexual feelings may not be a sin, but the act on those feelings.
i feel like homosexual feelings are the temptation, and temptation isn't a sin. even Jesus was tempted.

if you'd actually read the conversation and/or paid attention to what was said, maybe you'd realize i'm neither debating nor judging people.

Your profile pic was so relevant

was that in Majora's Mask or Ocarina of Time?

both

awesome thank you

Then you find out she has a penis.

Wrong meme

Sorry i thought he meant it as a responce

Haha i just tought that you can put steves face on it and write MINECRAFT!

There are 2 main arguments to the pitt defense side. One is amount of dogs, and the other is blaming the owners. The first can be addressed simply by looking up registered breed statistics. The second can be negated by pointing out that bad owners exist, but they are spread out across the breeds equally. Pitt bulls would not magically have a ridiculously higher amount o bad owners versus other breeds, even figuring in dog fighting owners. I am not saying that Pitts are a bad dog, my neighbor owns one and it is a nice friendly dog. But the statistics themselves do not lie. Pitt supporters like to say that statistics are wrong, and are lies. Why? What benefit does a company or organization get out of blaming pitts and making them look universally guilty? The fact is they just plain have a higher chance to cause injury. It sucks but its a fact. I have nothing against the breed and I am sure there are some statistics on othr sites that say pitts are less likely to attack. Thats great, but why take the risk? Any breed can cause damage but some do it more.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-recent-dog-bite-statistics.php http://blog.dogsbite.org/2012/01/2011-us-dog-bite-fatality-statistics.html http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/01/2010-us-dog-bite-fatality-statistics.html http://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/03/us-dog-bite-fatalities-january-1-2005.html http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/8689-dog-bite-statistics-breed.html www.forbes.com/sites/cateyhill/2012/05/30/11-riskiest-dog-breeds-for-homeowners-and-renters/ www.blanelaw.com/library/dangerous-california-pit-bull-dog-bite-statistic s-fatal-dog-pit-bull-attacks.cfm www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/ I will aslo explain my view on it in the next post.

Hey, Cheif!

Holy shit, I nearly spat my drink out

If I may touch on one point you made:
"raising their prices to the breaking point. " "work their employees 80+ hours a week for $0.10 an hour"
If people have no money to spend, how can companies sell goods with prices at this "breaking point?" This utterly false idea of capitalism you're describing could never exist because corporations can't exist without profits and no one would be able to buy anything with 10 cents an hour. Corporations would naturally naturally lower their prices to encourage more people to buy, and would increase wages for workers to attract the best and brightest in their field and put their competition out of business. How can the max prices min wages economy you're describing possibly exist? (except of course through the use of force, which would not be capitalism.)

this man has his head on straight

sometimes I hear what people say and wonder if they are even listening to what it is they are saying. It gives me a headache.

yea I completely agree with you. Have you listened to obamas speach about how he built the small business?

Hey you want some other theories? how about the creation myth of every other religion, too! we can't forget about those, because they are equally valid to the judeo/christian creation myth. Personally I like thinking that I am a midguardian, and that when I die I can forever do battle in valhalla

Alright first off we should realize that fossils don't always tell the truth. A group of people found some fossils that made 1 complete set and showed it to a bunch of different artists. Using their sketches of the original animal, they could construct an entire evolutionary chain so fossils, by this logic, don't necessarily count.
Now I didn't say evolution wasn't real or wasn't happening. I should have been more careful. I mean that we as humans have no actual traceable origins using our technology. Keep in mind, at one time we believed that the sun went around the earth! This is no different. Believing that it is is idiotic.
Also I do wonder, although off topic, when did sex come along? If it started as cells duplicating then where did the idea of such an inefficient system come from?
Anyhow, it's a lot of evidence, and all of it should be considered carefully, but none of it can actually lead one to say without a shadow of a doubt that we originated from primates in the local area of northern africa (or wherever they say it is, I forget). Also we came from fish, which came from amoebas which somehow evolved.

Sorry, but fossils always tell the truth.
>>>That said, fossils often tell the truth vaguely and incompletely.
>>>>>>It is then a matter of the inferred part of the truth that will vary between truth and falsehood. Depending on the person studying the fossils, the inferred portion may be greater than the truth the fossil told in the first place.

Example: A pig's tooth tells that it is a tooth belonging to a pig. However, in 1922 in the eyes of Dr. Henry Osborn, the tooth was from Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, the Nebraska man.

im not saying that it is 100% certain that we humans are the result of millions of years of evolution from amoebas to fish to lizards to birds to mammals to primates to us.
I'm not saying the evidence of this is absolutely bulletproof, every piece of the puzzle is in place, and no possible argument could be made against it.

What I am saying is that it is the most logical conclusion based on all available evidence.
That is the definition of science.

you could argue the same points about any scientific knowledge, that's the beautiful thing about science, we are always learning and growing, nothing is written in stone, but if you expect people to stop believing in the answer that seems the most correct, you need to at least have another answer for them to believe.

we don't really know how gravity works, we just know that it does, there are several theories about mass bending the very fabric of space itself, subatomic particles called gravitons, etc. We aren't sure what model of the method of gravity is right, does that mean people shouldn't be so quick to believe gravity exists?

but back to your original point, yes people are afraid to say we don't know.
that's human nature, we fear the unknown and try to shed light on all dark areas.
if there is anything we honestly don't know, we guess, the best we can because it's sure beats saying we don't know because that's too much like giving up on the quest for knowledge, it's better to make a wrong guess then to not even try, to just accept failure and admit that something is beyond your power to understand. the human spirit pushes us towards greatness, saying that nothing is beyond our power, and yes, we absolutely will fuck up along the way, but it beats not trying.

1) He did not mention fossils. This first section of your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Artists have no say in evolutionary science.

2) By analyzing DNA, scientists HAVE been able to trace human evolution though the subtle changes in our DNA patterns. Evolution has been and continues to go on in every living thing. We did not evolve from "fish", per say, but rather an aquatic creature that was the common ancestor for many creatures, including fish and ourselves, and our differences became more and more distinct over the course of millions of years. As the world faces us with rigorous challenges, life adapts to those challenges and survives.

3) Yes, at one point most humans did believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth. But remember, at this point in human history, we were mostly governed by egotistical religious maniacs who wanted to believe that their version of reality was the undisputed law of the universe, much as you feel about the existence of evolution. To them, the Earth must have been the center of everything, because otherwise it made them and their petty God feel very insignificant when faced with the infinite possibility of the universe. The ability of life to diversify and adapt without the aid of your all-but-all-powerful creator is quite the difficult thing to accept for those who put all of their stock into their eternal bliss after they suffer through their comparably brief time here on Earth. Our current technology does indeed allow us to know very surely our evolutionary line.

You claim that you need information that "without a shadow of a doubt" to prove the existence of these prehistoric primates we have descended from, but what is there in life that offers such certainty? Absolutely nothing.

You know nothing of logic. You know nothing of scientific theory. You know a little about evolution, but just enough to allow you to weakly argue the matter and shut out those who actually know what they are talking about. Good day to you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria_sex
That is were sex came from sir.

Also, Mercury has an extremely thin atmosphere (2E-12 as dense as earth's) which helps it radiate massive amounts of heat during it's night.

On the other hand, Venus is almost twice as far out, but it has an atmosphere 45.000.000.000.000 as dense as Mercury's. The result: Constant Temp of 870 F or 725 Kelvin.

www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/

the trademark ended when arthur no longer made new episodes, so its fine...also its public broadcasting system...meant to be watched by public...and used for that...checkmate bruh'

The trademark is still there, dumbass. They own the character and the art that is in that picture. That's like saying that Bungie doesn't own Halo: Combat Evolved because they no longer produce the game on disk. or Microsft doesn't own copyrights to the original Xbox because they no longer manufacture it. You sir, are a moron Also, Public broadcasting means nothing on the internet. It is free to view on television. The internet has its own laws and regulations for use.

I'm pretty sure that it's in the public domain now. Meaning it's legal to use it without their permission. Like Shakespeare.

Not sure how it works with TV and that sort of intellectual property, but with literature (Shakespeare) I'm pretty sure you have to wait 50 years before it becomes public domain. Plus, PBS still exists, whereas Shakespeare is dead. For that image to be public domain, you'd have to get that Republican kill-PBS funding thing through, shut down PBS, and then wait a half century.

No, you would just have to wait until the copyright expires based on what kind it is. But if it's on PBS, it's probably expired already.

I found this:
pbskids.org/arthur/
Ignore all the site, just scroll down to the bottom. Marc Brown owns the rights to all the characters. He's the guy who wrote the books the show was based on. I thought it was the other way around; show first, books later, but apparently I was mistaken. So because it's HIS intellectual property, PBS has nothing to do with it. They use the characters and other artwork with his permission.

Huh. I learned something today.

Incorrect. Yes, the internet is public to use, but by your logic, I am free to download any movie, game, song, I want.

Microsoft*

Moron.

am i the only one who thinks that it's eyes look really sad/pained?

"i became all three of them"

"can you be proud of me now?"