HeyYou

Ok, so, we postulate that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, so by extension, that would indicate that pedophilia, beastiality, etc, aren't mental disorders either. So, why should we not accept the latter, if we are supposed to accept the former? Because it isn't socially acceptable? As has been pointed out, homosexuality is only barely accepted now, if you could even call it that. One could argue that beastiality harms no one, (unless the dog bites you....) so, why should it not be 'accepted' as well? In some societies, pedophilia, by western definitions, isn't a crime, girls are married off at a very young age. And yes, this still happens today, in supposedly 'modern' countries. Of course, in some of those same countries, homosexuality is considered a crime, and is punishable by death..... Although, I gotta admit, we are wondering WAY off the stated topic here. :) I will accpet my share of the blame for that.

The thing about mental illness is that with homosexuality, it's counter-indicative to mental illness. The same argument can also be applied to heterosexuality. All I know is, I'm gay. If people wanna change that, they gotta do it over my dead body. :tongue: It is? How so?

interesting point, so, if homosexuality isn't a 'choice', should we therefore accomdate the rest of what some consider to be 'deviant' sexual behaviors? Do we treat it as a mental illness, that homosexuality was once considered?

There is a big difference between sexual preference, and love. I can have sex with someone, without loving them, and I can love someone, without having sex with them. They are two entirely separate issues. Love may not be able to be 'manufactured', but, gays can be. (example already given.)

Hormones don't become a factor until puberty, then they become a raging drive...... Before that age, there is no physiological sexual component. You are both incapable, (for the most part) and lack understanding. You aren't going to convince me otherwise. To much data to back up my side of the argument. :)

This is not underestimating anyone. This is a child that seemingly determined that he both knew what being gay was and was indeed gay. I don't think a child that young would know the difference between liking and sincere affection which is love. He would have to be coached by someone that knows what being gay is, for him to make that comparison. This was initiated by another person or group and spread by them without regard to the child. Okay, I see your point. Yes, I do agree that a child can have a remote understanding of whether or not they like boys or girls (or both). Affection, a.k.a love? Most likely not, because as you said, they would be too young for that. Makes sense to me. HeyYou: You're wrong. A child at that age is too young to understand sex and what love really means, but they can show signs of their sexuality from a young age. Granted, I did not know what sexuality was at the time, but by piecing together clues from my the memories that I still have, I was bisexual then as I am now. I knew that I liked both, but I didn't know what to call it. I'm not the only that I know who had a fondness for both boys and girls at that age. I completely disagree. children that age are not sexual beings. They have no clue what its all about. (love, or sex) You may see what you believe are 'indciators' of your future sexuality while looking back, but, I would more attribute that to looking for a question that you already know the answer to. Your perspective isn't exactly unbiased, you are falling into the same trap that psychologists have in the past. You already know the result, so, it is easy to look at things and say "See this was an indicator." With absolutely zero basis in scientific fact. Children, by their very nature, are incapable of determining their sexual orientation at so young of an age. They have no understanding of sexuality in general, let alone, what it all means.

One person is being held hostage by a minority in the house. By extension, they are holding the entire country hostage. Yes, our government is indeed dysfunctional. If it weren't for rampant spending, we wouldn't even NEED legislation for a debt ceiling, and this entire situation would never have come about.

It isn't a full shutdown either. A fair few government services are still up and running, and congress, in their infinite wisdom, have reopened some others. The republicans are now saying that the shutdown is inconsequential, and it is impossible for the nation to default on its soverign debt, that the government has the money to pay it. They seem to think that there is enough revenue for the fed to pay its bills. My question would be, if that is the case, why are we continually going further into debt? According to the republicans, we have plenty of money........ So why are they screaming from the hilltops that we need to cut spending? If everything is 'ok', what's the emergency? Why shut down the government at all? This is just more political BS. The republicans are now pissing on my head, and trying to convince me it's raining. Our dysfunctional government has become even MORE dysfunctional than it was. Something I didn't think was even possible. I know, lets get the popcorn, and peanuts, and pull up a front row seat to watch the end of our country as we know it. Maybe it won't be such a bad thing....... especially if we see some major changes in government on the other side. Provided there IS the other side.

I contend that a five year old has zero understanding of sex/sexuality, therefore, cannot possibly know if they are gay or not.

Back when I was younger...... riding my bike home from school, no hands..... and just as I was reaching down to grab the handlebars to turn into my driveway, the neighbors little yappy dog came chasing out after me.. I was distracted by the dog, and didn't see the 2 inch piece of board in front of me.... which of course, I hit, and it immediately dropped me onto my side.... I slid about six feet on the right side of my face. Needless to say... most of the skin was shredded. I left the bike, staggered into the house, watched my mom's eyes about pop out of her head. She ran next door and grabbed a neighbor. He came in, cleaned my wounds (PAINFUL!!!!!), and got me reasonably well cleaned up. The entire right side of my face was one big scab..... and I had to go to school the next day. My first period teacher took one look at me, asked if I was ok... I told him I was fine, for the most part.... his response? "Ok scarface, take yer seat." And that's how I was known the rest of the school year... I gotta admit, it looked HORRID. Healed up though, and barely left any scars at all.

Yeah, Think I need to run for office...... :D And the republicans don't ever mention that... although, I thought all spending bills were to originate in the house? Does that not include the budget? I keep seeing the R's whining and complaining about 'no budget for five years', and various other things of that nature. I still see them calling Obama a muslim, traitor, not born here, various racial slurs... it really isn't any wonder that the R's refuse to cooperate/negotiate/compromise with him at all... unless they are held at gunpoint. Now, the R's are holding the entire country at gunpoint, jumping up and down screaming "MY WAY, OR WE WILL CRASH THE ECONOMY!".... wonderful. As we all here (at my residence) rely on socail security for the bulk of our income..... we could be in a world of hurt in short order should the government default...... makes me a little nevous. Of course, I don't want to see the dems in control of all three branches at this point either. They have some ideas that just REALLY rub me the wrong way. Not to mention I don't think they have a clue how to fix the economy either......

What you suggest certainly gives the tea party an "out", should things go wrong, and they start looking for someone to blame..... Really wouldn't surprise me at all. Saw Obama on the tube today..... and ignored him. More politicking going on there, suggesting that the dems actually asked the repubbies to the table several times, and were turned down, and several more times to discuss the budget, and were also turned down. Any truth to that? I sure don't know. I have given up (long ago) expecting to hear the truth from a politician.

I think you are stretching the point there colour. :) But, that isn't what the debate is about. Lets just stick to the point, eh?

How so? He is posting an image, and inviting debate. Would it have been better to simply link to the image? Or what? This isn't the first example of children announcing their sexual preferences..... how abut the six year old wanting to be a girl? Identifying as such, and wanting to use the girls restroom, etc.? I may not be paying enough attention, but, I have only really seen this happening here in the states...... have we become so liberal, and deluded... that we think kids even have a clue about this type of thing? At this childs age, he has zero interest in women/girls. I can see how that might lead him to believe that he is gay...... and like someone else previously mentioned, wonder if that is still going to hold true in 5 or 6 years. Will he suddenly discover that he is straight? Parents exploit children. Not all of them, but, enough of them to make it noticeable in american society. Politicians do it on a regular basis. (and they aren't even their kids....) Parents do it as well. (Jean Benet-Ramsey anyone?) Look at some of the crap on television, if that isn't child exploitation, I will eat my hat.

Is it possible? We don't know, that is why we experiment and test theories. Perhaps with our current technology, we cannot do it, but, who is to say that we achieve some breakthrough, and suddenly, things that were once 'impossible', now become 'possible'. The only way to know, is to try it. If it works, really cool, if it doesn't, well, at least we tried, and we can move on to something else. For my part, I applaud this research. I would love to see them come up with a workable FTL drive.

According to the latest polls, by various organizations, (including fox news.....) people are indeed laying the blame at the feet of the republican party. Every poll shows that to one extent or other. Wonder if the republicans have figured out yet that they are cutting their own throats here.

Yeah, and 'immigration reform' is going to do wonderful things for the dem demographics. I really don't understand why the repubicans are even considering that kind of legislation, since it should be obvious to even the casual observer, that it will erode their power base even faster. If they think that supporting it is going to magically make some of them vote republican, they are sadly mistaken. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a political party consciously cut their own throat.... I doubt it will be the last either. I am not entirely sure what to expect at this point. Folks are pretty disgusted with our government, both sides..... but, I have seen this before, and nothing really changes. Folks still vote along their party lines, for the most part, and nothing really changes. I suppose it depends on just how far this goes. If the government actually defaults on the debt.... that has the potential to do very serious harm to not just the american economy, but the entire global economy. Falls Rome, falls the world? THAT would have absolutely disasterous effects on the republican party. The dems would point, and scream "THEY DID THIS TO YOU!" and the american public would beleive it. (it has the advantage of being true.....) In that event, I would expect the dems to pick up a slew of seats in both the house, and the senate. My worst nightmare come true. I suppose, there is also the chance that should the government bring about a global economic collapse, maybe, finally, the american people will wake up, and take steps to take back their country from their corporate masters. It's a forlorn hope, but, a hope nonetheless.

I have seen polls ranging from 30%, to over 60% coming down against the repubbies. Who is telling the truth? We won't know until november '14. See what the election results do to the balance of power in DC.

Because, as I mentioned before, the dems are well aware of what the repubbies mean by 'negotiate'. They know what the terms are, and what the republican requirements are, and they are well aware they won't agree to any of it. So, why bother? Not like either side is going to change their tune, it has turned into staring match, and the country is just sitting back, and waiting, to see who blinks first. Hopefully, before we default on our debt.

A fair percentage of those that are required to work, but don't get paid, are the military......

The dems are willing to negotiate, just not on the same details the republicans want. The only thing the repubbies are interested in, is defunding obamacare. Not repealing it at this point mind you, just defunding it. All those requirements would still be in place, and folks would still have to buy insurance if they didn't happen to have any, there just wouldn't be any government subsidies for it. Which will basically bankrupt a significant percentage of the currently uninsured folks. How does THAT help anyone? No, this one lies squarely at the feet of the republicans. (colourwheel's numbers may be a bit inflated, but, from what I have been reading, only a bit......) If the repubbies are only willing to tie passing a budget with defunding obamacare, no budget is going to pass. I don't blame the dems for not bothering to show up. Would have been an exercise in futility in any event. So, as it stands, in around two weeks, the US government is going to default on its debts, our credit rating will get dinged, we won't have as much borrowing power, will have to pay more just to pay the interest on the current debt, so the fed will have to cut spending elsewhere in any event..... it is going to be a wicked fast downhill spiral, which has the potential to tank the entire world economy.

So who are folks going to blame if the economy goes belly up because the US Government defaulted? The president? The Dems? The Repubbies?? George Will? From most indicators I have seen, it is the repubbies that are going to bear the brunt of the ire. That will basically end them politically. If there is a country left to govern. Should be interesting.

The Free Syrian army is reportedly around 50,000 fighters. Syrian Liberation Front is around 33,000, Syrian Islamic Front is around 17,000. Both of the latter two forces are Islamic based, al-queda aligned. They are also some of the most effective fighters in the opposition forces. Once Assad is overthrown, (provided that ever actually happens...) there is going to be yet another war for control of the country, between the Non-sectarian free syrian army, and the assorted islamists. Just getting rid of Assad isn't going to solve anything there, all it will do is open the next chapter of the civil war. In all reality, Assad is the lesser of the evils here.

Turn off the windows side bar.

Are those the Beth high res packs? If so, replace them, there are modder created packs that are better, without quite the performance hit. Does your frame rate slowly drop as you play, or does it tank immediately when you step outside?