[Borek]

I've read a book on superstring theory which claims we live in more dimensions than we can sense. If that is the case, then maybe science will never be able to have true explinations, but only theories. Perhaps, some of what happens occurs in ways we can't measure or percieve.

We are surrounded by things that we can't sense, but which were researched to the limits.

[Donaldson Tan]

Don't fool yourself. Science will always boil down to military power. Every advance in science has been exploited by government to advance their race, people, system, etc...

Unfortunately, alot of scientific research are defense-motivated or motivated by selfish reasons. Scientists are paid handsomely to make the best weapons, invent a new way of killing people, etc. People are paid to perform a job, not a duty that requires self-sacrifice. Seriously, it hardly matters why a particular research is carried out. It is more important what research is carried out. Science is a double-bladed sword. It can injure opponents, and still cut the hand that welds it. You are suggesting that a double-bladed sword should never be used at all. I am not surprised if you are not against banning / restricting stem cell research in the United States.

I am refering to love to family love and love between a couple (hetero- or homo- sexual)

I would not group those two together. One is normal and the other is a disease. It was only through a political process that the second was removed from the DSM as a disease (the DSM is the clinical handbook of psychological disorders).

On what grounds should homosexuality be labelled as a disease? The anicent greeks regard male homosexuality as the most perfect and holiest of sex FYI. Just because a bunch of Catholics were the first authors of the DSM, doesn't make homosexuality a disease. The world has evolved into such a state whereby the people who don't have sex (the Pope takes a vow of celibacy) goes round advising (and condemning) people how to have sex. It is totally absurd.

There is the Gestalt viewpoint, that we are more than the sum of our parts.

We are more than sum of our parts. The very fact that you can post your opinion on this forum proves that you are more than the sum of your parts. Borek's description of the simple diffusion process is a good example of how anything in nature is greater than the sum of its components. It does not have to be alive to even validate this fact. Diffusion takes place in our body cells. Diffusion occurs in the direction of the concentration gradient. In fact, there is also an electrochemical gradient that will affect the diffusion flow. All this occurs due to interactions between individual cells and its environment.

[Baseball_Fan]

Don't fool yourself. Science will always boil down to military power. Every advance in science has been exploited by government to advance their race, people, system, etc...

Unfortunately, alot of scientific research are defense-motivated or motivated by selfish reasons. Scientists are paid handsomely to make the best weapons, invent a new way of killing people, etc. People are paid to perform a job, not a duty that requires self-sacrifice. Seriously, it hardly matters why a particular research is carried out. It is more important what research is carried out. Science is a double-bladed sword. It can injure opponents, and still cut the hand that welds it. You are suggesting that a double-bladed sword should never be used at all. I am not surprised if you are not against banning / restricting stem cell research in the United States.

I am refering to love to family love and love between a couple (hetero- or homo- sexual)

I would not group those two together. One is normal and the other is a disease. It was only through a political process that the second was removed from the DSM as a disease (the DSM is the clinical handbook of psychological disorders).

On what grounds should homosexuality be labelled as a disease? The anicent greeks regard male homosexuality as the most perfect and holiest of sex FYI. Just because a bunch of Catholics were the first authors of the DSM, doesn't make homosexuality a disease. The world has evolved into such a state whereby the people who don't have sex (the Pope takes a vow of celibacy) goes round advising (and condemning) people how to have sex. It is totally absurd.

There is the Gestalt viewpoint, that we are more than the sum of our parts.

We are more than sum of our parts. The very fact that you can post your opinion on this forum proves that you are more than the sum of your parts. Borek's description of the simple diffusion process is a good example of how anything in nature is greater than the sum of its components. It does not have to be alive to even validate this fact. Diffusion takes place in our body cells. Diffusion occurs in the direction of the concentration gradient. In fact, there is also an electrochemical gradient that will affect the diffusion flow. All this occurs due to interactions between individual cells and its environment.

Geodome, please don't put words in my mouth. Did I ever post that I am against stem cell research? I am for research that can cure disease and save people. There is enough stem cells right now to do a whole bunch of research on many topics. I'm also in support of animal research, if we can find a cure to cancer or paralysis.

As for your question on homosexuality, it was considered a disease by modern scientists for a very long time. It is not a normal process. It is abnormal. They can't produce offspring, which is the reason for mating. They are the people who created AIDS, and the proof is that AIDS was exclusive to only gay males for a long period of time. I suspect the gays organized and purposefully spread it via drug needles to try and get AIDS into the mainstream. And ALL governments that allowed homosexuality eventually died. Rome is the best example, they were powerful, then they became gluttonous and perverted , and thier civilization crumbled. Homosexuality is no more normal than pedophiles. If pedophiles could organize and spend money to fund political candidates, they would probably be doing many of the same things gays are attempting to do to society. Would you say that alcoholism is not a disease? Is it a choice? Homosexuals and alcoholics are very much alike in their disease.

Edit- I wanted to also address the following statement by geodome: "Seriously, it hardly matters why a particular research is carried out. It is more important what research is carried out".

I would add that it is more important who is carrying out the research. For the past 1000 years, where did most of the advances to science come from? Culture and power go hand in hand. Would we want a violent part of the world to get the double-bladed sword, for example letting Iran get nuclear bombs.

[Donaldson Tan]

Geodome, please don't put words in my mouth. Did I ever post that I am against stem cell research? I am for research that can cure disease and save people. There is enough stem cells right now to do a whole bunch of research on many topics. I'm also in support of animal research, if we can find a cure to cancer or paralysis.

I am not surprised if you are against stem cell research. I am not putting words in your mouth. In fact, I am surprised that you support stem cell research and animal research. Btw what is animal research? Are you refering to animal testing actually?

As for your question on homosexuality, it was considered a disease by modern scientists for a very long time. It is not a normal process. It is abnormal. They can't produce offspring, which is the reason for mating. They are the people who created AIDS, and the proof is that AIDS was exclusive to only gay males for a long period of time. I suspect the gays organized and purposefully spread it via drug needles to try and get AIDS into the mainstream. And ALL governments that allowed homosexuality eventually died. Rome is the best example, they were powerful, then they became gluttonous and perverted , and thier civilization crumbled..

I try not to laugh. Ridiculous is an understatement.

[Baseball_Fan]

geodome, it is all true. If you remember history, there was only 1 group that was stricken with that disease in the beginning. Why? They must have been doing something wrong. Smokers get lung cancer, non-smokers don't get lung cancer in the same numbers. Alcoholics get cirrhosis in higher numbers than non-alcoholics. What is so surprising that a bad lifestyle produces disease?

[Donaldson Tan]

What is so surprising that a bad lifestyle produces disease?

This is the first time I hear someone describes homosexuality as a lifestyle. HIV infection is the result of unprotected casual sex. In fact, frequent unprotected casual sex leads to HIV infection eventually.  You might want to check the numbers if you find my claim questionable. There are so much more heterosexuals with HIV than homosexuals. HIV is not a homosexual disease. Everybody who engages in sex risks getting HiV. Homosexuality is just a sexual preference for the same sex group. Homosexuality is not preference for rampant casual sex.

[Baseball_Fan]

What is so surprising that a bad lifestyle produces disease?

This is the first time I hear someone describes homosexuality as a lifestyle. HIV infection is the result of unprotected casual sex. In fact, frequent unprotected casual sex leads to HIV infection eventually.  You might want to check the numbers if you find my claim questionable. There are so much more heterosexuals with HIV than homosexuals. HIV is not a homosexual disease. Everybody who engages in sex risks getting HiV. Homosexuality is just a sexual preference for the same sex group. Homosexuality is not preference for rampant casual sex.

You are 100% WRONG!!! Please, don't spread ignorance.

AIDS was a disease which first started causing deaths in large numbers in the 1980's. Before the 1980's, nobody heard of AIDS. If you remember the 1980's, they you would know for the first 4 years that AIDS was killing people, the disease didn't even have a name. The news called the disease "gay cancer" because it ONLY KILLED GAYS. That is 100% fact. Do you remember Rock Hudson, or Liberace?

Repeat after me. There were NO heterosexual AIDS deaths in the early 1980's. All AIDS deaths were homosexual. Every single one.

The reason AIDS spread into mainstream society is because homosexuals who also did drugs with needles, started sharing the needles with other people. These other people then infected normal people. It took a long time for the gays to force the disease on the rest of society. AIDS went from gays only, to gay drug users, to heterosexual drug users and prostitutes, to the lowest eliments of normal society, to infecting good people. How many innocent women were infected with AIDS because they had a boyfriend of low morals who used a prostitute that was infected? It is a crime against civilizationm, the woman is innocent and is suffering because of what gays and drug dealers did.

If you don't believe that AIDS is a disease made for gays, then consider there is a new strain of AIDS that is more powerful than the old one, and it only infects gays. This is happening today, it was in the New York Times, that old AIDS drugs are not working and the new AIDS is killing homosexuals. It is clear what God thinks about gays, and once again He is proving to us God is real and all powerful by forcing those people to repent or suffer forever.

[Will]

geodome, it is all true. If you remember history, there was only 1 group that was stricken with that disease in the beginning. Why? They must have been doing something wrong. Smokers get lung cancer, non-smokers don't get lung cancer in the same numbers. Alcoholics get cirrhosis in higher numbers than non-alcoholics. What is so surprising that a bad lifestyle produces disease?

Just because someone has a disease it doesn't mean they have a bad lifestyle. That is the most pathetic argument I have ever heard of, as of yet (I'm sure you'll come up with a more pathetic one ).

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease.

Just because you classify homosexuality as a disease it doesn't mean its right or wrong or normal or abnormal. I just get the impression you are using 'diseased' as an offensive and dirty term for people you don't like, as in; "Baseball_Fan is diseased". I would classify that as an offensive term. It would also be offensive if you called a person with lung cancer as 'diseased', as much as it is accurate, you would say they had lung cancer, not diseased.

Repeat after me. There were NO heterosexual AIDS deaths in the early 1980's. All AIDS deaths were homosexual. Every single one.

Repeat after me. I will not repeat anything with grammatical errors in it.

Well 'God' has clearly failed big time in his design for the human. If you want to kill off a species with a certain sexual preference, then what a more rotten way to do it than by AIDS. So much for a benevolent 'God', he has failed not only people with a certain sexual preference, but the 'innocent' people you mentioned. Not only has 'God' failed here, but also the fact that AIDS only kills those that have sex, and are infected with AIDS in the first place. I could have thought of a better way to kill off homosexuals than 'God'. Your 'God's' other diseases like lung cancer are also major flops, since they haven't wiped out smokers yet, and I don't think they ever will.

I think you suffer from more serious 'diseases'. Maybe one day your 'God' will come up with an illness to wipe them out.

The fact is, love is a biochemical phenomenon, and I'm sure gay couples experience the same type of love that male-female couples do. I don't see how you can argue against that, even if you want to think that homosexuality is a disease.

[Baseball_Fan]

I'll start with your first point "Just because someone has a disease it doesn't mean they have a bad lifestyle.". I consider alcoholism to be a disease. Do you? Nobody becomes an alcoholic with a good lifestyle. Most diseases start because the person does something wrong, they drink too much, eat too much. Gluttony is a sin, God warned us about it. If you look at all the major diseases, God warned us about each of them in a general way. God might not have said "don't gamble", but he did say avarice is a sin. Each time humans rebel against what God has told us, we suffer for it. AIDS is no different.

Your second point "Just because you classify homosexuality as a disease it doesn't mean its right or wrong or normal or abnormal.". Homosexuality is wrong, almost every religion teaches that. Those who practice it are doing wrong. God punishes some of them with AIDS, and now a new strain of AIDS. What do these people need to get the message, to have San Francisco sink into the ocean because of an earthquake? I don't think it was random that New Orleans, aka Sin City, was struck.

Your third point "The fact is, love is a biochemical phenomenon, and I'm sure gay couples experience the same type of love that male-female couples do.". Gays do not experience the same type of love that heterosexual people do. Read some research journals. Homosexuals tend to be very promiscuous, they have hundreds of sex partners, where normal heterosexuals don't. In one way, I guess you could classify homosexuals are suffering from a sexual addiction. But it is worse for them, because they don't even know the right sex from the wrong sex. Something in the thinking of a homosexual is fried and does not work normal. It is like an alcoholic who won't stop drinking. They can do it, but the don't.

Why does God target some for disease and not others? I think part of the reason is the person doing the wrong must have full knowledge they are doing wrong. When people like you act as an enabler, you are not doing anyone a favor. You are causing harm. One day, people will say that pedophilia is okay. Will you be one of those people who says "Oh, pedophiles love the same way. You're a bigot for not letting pedophiles live how they want".

 

[constant thinker]

Errrmm New Orleans is not "Sin City," Las Vegas is "Sin City."

New Orleans is " The Cresent City", "The Big Easy", or "The City that Care Forgot."

[Donaldson Tan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

[Yggdrasil]

geodome, it is all true. If you remember history, there was only 1 group that was stricken with that disease in the beginning

Anyone who knows anything about AIDS will tell you that in addition to the cases of AIDS among homosexuals and heroin uses in America, there were many cases of AIDS in Africa at the same time among heterosexuals (especially those where the husband traveled to urban areas for work, solicited prostitutes, then came back to their rural homes).  IIRC, cases with AIDS-like symptioms were reporeted in Africa well before they were reported in the American gay communities.  Furthermore, the AIDS epidemics among intravenous drug uses developed in parallel to the epidemics among gay men.

[mike]

*lol*

Baseball_Fan you are a f***ing idiot! haha

Where do you come up with this s**t? *lol*

[Baseball_Fan]

*lol*

Baseball_Fan you are a f***ing idiot! haha

Where do you come up with this s**t? *lol*

When people are wrong, the best they can do is call others names. You just proved that. Everything I've posted is true. In the USA, AIDS was exclusivly a gay disease for the first decade, and then spread to others because of drug users. If it wasn't for homosexuals sharing needles with heterosexual drug users, the disease never would have spread out of the gay community.

But whatever, you don't care about facts. You just think that  deserve some special rights. You want the facts to match your idea of what it should be like.

[mike]

Not true. When people are wrong the best they can do is make up rubbish. The worst they can do is call each other names, and hey, I am willing to admit I am the latter, which one are you?