drop the 2 31 band EQ's and get this:

Behringer ULTRACURVE PRO DEQ2496

As I assume youll be using to EQ your mains......

What "specs" are you expecting a cheaper console to have equal to a $6000+ USD GB4? For less $$ (about half), I'd look at an Allen & Heath GL2400-32. Decent audio performance, better reliability over the Yamaha MG line, for example. The Mackie Onyx live desk is very nice, too, but it has less of a track record. And a REALLY nice alternative to the GB4 is the Midas Verona, but the price of that is up there with the GB4. And when it's time to upgrade your EQ, try to stick with a decent pro brand like Ashly, dbx, Rane, Audient, K-T, Symetrix, etc.

You want 6 monitors in a church that size? Sounds like a lot of stage levels to me. In ear monitoring would be way better if you can swing it and keep the floor monitors to a minimum. It will make the sound man's job so much easier if he is not having to compete with stage levels.

ditch the berringer eq's.

Unless you have someone come in and eq the room for you the eq's might do more harm than good. (Well intentioned volunteers making smilely faces with with the sliders). If you do get them(a brand besides berringer) I suggest a locking front cover for them and hide the key where no one can find it.

My two cents worth

rois wrote: Hi all,

Worked out a system for use in a church with a hall size of about 20 metres x 30 metres x 15 metres high. It will currently only have 100-200 congregations. Would like comments or feedback if possible :)

2 x 31 band Berhinger EQ
2 x DBX-160A compressor
2 x REV100 FX
3 x PS3500S amp + 6 x A12M Monitor
2 x PS5000S amp + 2 x 218V Sub
2 x PS7000S amp + 4 x C-115VA High mid

As for mixer, I am looking at a 32 channel mixer with minimum of 32 channel, 6 Aux and 4 sub-groups. I was very interested in the GB4 but is slightly out of my budget.

Can anyone recommend a "cheaper" console than the GB4 but has the same specs?

Cheers,
Roi

You get what you pay for. You don't find cheaper alternatives for the same performance usually.

Why 4 of those C115VA's? You can't array them. Any time you use multiple 15s like that, you are going to have some severe combing issues, not to mention the combing from those wide horns interacting.
If this is a short wide room, go with two 60 degree horns maximum.

You are going to have quite a mess with 6 wedges IMO vs. your mains. I would do small headphone mixer amps like the ones from Furman and headphones.

Behringer EQs are horrid. They will suck the life and headroom out of your PA.

Hi all,

Thank you for your feedback.

I am going to try answer 1-2 questions here.

Why 4 x C-115VA?

Just cheaper alternative to other type of spk. Any other alternative that could be use would be most welcome. Thought about Array setup but just too expensive (in my neck of the woods anyway)

Edit: The C-115VA is the only "flyable" model from Yamaha. Also it seems like no Yamaha spk other than its monitor type has dispersion of less than 90degrees.

EQ use for main? Why Berhinger?

Yes, to just assist in reducing feedback. Again, I originally had Yamaha Q2031B but it cost twice. So if/when there is left over budget, I will purchase the Yamaha instead of Berhinger.

Equivalent to GB4?

Well...I did a bit of research and came up with these alternative which has a similar specs but costing less. And the alternatives I came up with are:

Soundcraft GB2-32, Soundcraft LX7ii, Mackie Onyx 3280 and Mackie Onyx 32-4-32.

I am kind of leaning towards the LX7ii.

Why 6 monitors? Why not in-ear monitor?

Simple...budget :)

Edit: I did consider A&H mixers before coming up with the alternative above but I have heard horror stories about some A&H mixers thus I took it out of the alternative list.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/HP60/ way less money than all those floor monitors. One wedge for your lead vocalist (or whoever it is that can't be tied down with being wired) the rest can use headphones or in ear's wired directly to the headphone amp. I run sound in a 2,000 seat church and this is similar to what we use

That eq is not gonna stop the feedback if you try and use it to things are gonna sound horrid. If your getting feedback it is either because of mic placement, incorrect usage, usage of the wrong type of mic, or its plain just too loud for the room your using it in. You can eq individual mics to reduce heavy freq. that might cause feedback but to use a big blanket like that is a big no no. I stick with my first suggestion ditch it (the eq period) and buy something else you need with the money.

Ok your not gonna like this but you really need to have an engineer (or the company that makes the speakers) design your setup. You may save a lot of money doing it like you want but you will
1. Always have sound issues you will be dealing with.
2. You will have safety issues if you don't fly them right. I think this trumps all the other issues in my mind. No church needs a heavy speaker falling from the ceiling an landing a visitor resulting in a death and lengthy lawsuits especially when they found out it wasn't done according to code.

You don't have to use expensive equipment but it does have to be used right.

On mixers I have used several of the brands you mentioned(except the A&H) and have had at least one problem with each one over time but all have been very usable. I would place a call to each ones tech support and see how easy it is to talk to someone(not a machine). The first company that answers with a human voice I would go with that one(a pet peeve of mine).

They are in a small room, with 100-200 people and a loud band. I think this is like a bar situation. It's low budget, so nobody is going to design a system. The acoustics...well, there is likely no money for that.

He is going to need some processing if he is going to blast away, especially if the pastor is going to be using the system with a lapel, cheek mic, etc. I would say at minimum the dbx 260 or the Peavey processor (which some say smoked the dbx). He HAS to have some EQ.

sheet wrote: They are in a small room, with 100-200 people and a loud band. I think this is like a bar situation. It's low budget, so nobody is going to design a system. The acoustics...well, there is likely no money for that.

He is going to need some processing if he is going to blast away, especially if the pastor is going to be using the system with a lapel, cheek mic, etc. I would say at minimum the dbx 260 or the Peavey processor (which some say smoked the dbx). He HAS to have some EQ.

Well...sheet is quite right in a way that there is almost no budget (though I am fighting for it and looking at finding $$$ to fund this sound system). And there is no money for acoustics, not now anyway unless we can grow the number of congregation :)

I am trying not to make it have those bar situation but yes, without proper planning and thinking, it will turn up to be a bar :)

You're right both points Sheet. Being in a church that actually has a budget for sound stuff has kinda spoiled me.

OK, I'm quite late to this thread, but will jump in anyway.

Nice board options, good amps, OK mains and you want to insert Behringer EQ's in between? If they're on the monitor channels only OK (which also assumes someone can use them effectively for feedback elimination) , but not in the mains. IMHO.

Also, are you sure that you need to have six separate monitor mixes? Our worship team runs with only two mixes right now because we're in betweeen upgrading amps and it works. Four would be great (and our Yamaha MG32/14 board will do it). Six would be overkill for us (and we sometimes use a pretty big band with horns, keys, piano, bass, acoustic and electric guitar, drums and multiple singers).

Some have questioned the use of six monitor wedges and I don't think that's an issue at all. If there's more of them, you don't have to turn them up as loud as they will be in closer proximity to those who need to hear them and that's going to help with feedback too. You could run those six wedges (or more) off of those 2 3500's you're proposing (4 channels) and save yourself money that you could spend on some nice EQ's.

Kent L T wrote: You're right both points Sheet. Being in a church that actually has a budget for sound stuff has kinda spoiled me.

Me too. To the point that it is hard for me to sit in a church that doesn't have the means to do it correctly. That is not to say that the service is not great, or that the pastor isn't proclaiming the Word of God. It is just hard not to get distracted with the "I wonders" and "if onlys".

On the other hand, I am growing tired of the concert, show and even circus event that church has turned into. I am finally coming to the balance point of form and function.

Sheet-
In my experience you can get "concert, show and even circus" in all type of worship formats. Style might be different in the "Christian Rock" formats, but the excesses and egotism are the same. It may be worse in the modern formats because people have to think about how they are going to put on the service rather than just do what they have been doing since they grew up. On the other hand, doing something new also makes people examine what they are doing critically rather than proceeding by rote. People have been writing novels about this for a few centuries.

I'm a praise band director at a "contemporary*" service, and there have been too many weeks when I have been concerned more with making sure the mics don't feed back than with providing a religious experience. But I'm doing this because music has been a central part of my religious understanding (and my general understanding of the transcendent) since long before electric guitars were used in service. So don't despair. At least around here there is (IMHO) more honest, fun, soulful music being made on Sunday mornings in this town than on Saturday nights.

* My experience is that the people who use the term "contemporary Christian" aren't old enough to know the Elton John songs most of the repertoire has been "influenced by."

How can a church possibly justify spending $$$ on a PA system when there are people going hungry?

I suggest you give the money to charity, and tell the pastor to speak up a bit. If its good enough for jesus's sermon on the mount, surely its good enough for you?

IIRs. That is a good point. This is a big can of worms.

Jesus knew how to use the natural landscape as amphitheaters. Plus I imagine that he had the ability to have some support if he needed it. Unfortunately, we do not have said landscapes or the ability to hold church out doors all year round.

We all need PA systems so that people can hear. I can stand before God with a good conscience and say that I have never installed excess, or unnecessary lusted items. There are those that do. I won't. I can't.

The thing is, churches are actually harder on gear than professionals. Churches also need simplicity, repeatability, with professional production results when driven by a volunteer staff. Some of us churches are doing more advanced stuff than broadway and major network broadcasters as a result.

The church is reaching a generation now, called the Mosaics. They grew up with computers, iPods, internet, excellent concert productions. They are not linear thinkers. They need data and presentations that accommodate their learning process, and allow them to worship in a way that is relevent to their culture. This places unique and expensive demands on the church.

To me it is not the sound that is unnecessary. It is the TV broadcasting. People are watching less and less. It will soon be mostly internet driven, so that people can watch on their own time. That is the trend that is recognized by the major religious broadcastors.

If people would get off of their butt and go to church, Christians would go to the sick, imprisoned and elderly, there wouldn't be such a need. There is a church on every corner. There is a bible in almost every store and library. Come on. If a person wants help or a word from God about how to fix their life, they can take some initiative. IMO, there are too many bad preachers with poor reputations and no accountability on TV, and they are getting loaded.

The hunger issue is a big can of worms. Why doesn't the 30% of my income do a better job of feeding them? Churches SHOULD feed and clothe. Many of them do. There are many international ministries that do this as well. They get help from major corporations and Christians across America to feed our own. We have more food in this country than we need. There is no shortage. But, society has moved hunger and necessities to the responsibility of the government. The government knows little about efficientcy. We all look to churches and God when things get tough. Look at 9-11. People went to church and got serious with God for about two weeks. Do we seek churches any other time when things are great?

This is a great thread. Some observations:
My parents taught our family that going to church served more than one purpose. It was not only to learn the word of God, but to have the personal interconnections with other PEOPLE-know their needs, their problems, their souls. To communicate eye-to-eye, person-to person.
You cannot achieve this through a video monitor and a Visa card.

I have recently been getting more and more into the church production
business. On Saturday nights, I mix at a 2500-seat non-denominational church. Big board, big-budget sound. When the NFL season starts up, that Saturday night service is packed, overflowing. The Sunday 11 am service drops like a rock. Everybody wants to be ready for the Jacksonville Jaguars' game, they act like they want to get church "out of the way".
God is taking a backseat to the NFL!!!

On Sunday mornings, I have a sunrise service on the beach, under a gazebo. Rain or shine a good 150 turn out for that. Average age:60+.
There is always some sort of outreach/food bank project underway,
always a friendly smile and a handshake. They've learned that the personal contact, caring, and giving is what it's all about.

Then I'm off down the road for a couple of services in a very affluent golf community. We are currently holding services in a middle school while they are building a new facility. Full sound/light/video production for a couple of services that are barely 100 each. There was a call for volunteers to be onhand to set up the "show" (screens, speakers, etc).
That lasted a couple of weeks. But because these "upwardly mobile" folks don't want to get their hands dirty, they opted to up my rate and have me provide the extra personnel instead. Now I feel guilty that I'm profitting from peoples' unwillingness to personally contribute to the church service.
Once again, the lack of human involvement. It makes me question the faith at times...

IIRs wrote: How can a church possibly justify spending $$$ on a PA system when there are people going hungry?

If you are really serious about that question I'd bet there is a library in Sheffield with a long shelf of books examining it. The debate goes back to at least the middle ages (remember "The Name of The Rose"?) Obviously I don't agree that it is necessary that a church or it's member must commit themselves to poverty in order to follow Christian theology. While a lot of people claim to believe it, I don't see the Franciscans having a big shortage of sackcloth robes.

I suggest you give the money to charity, and tell the pastor to speak up a bit. If its good enough for jesus's sermon on the mount, surely its good enough for you?

There is only one [[url=http://[/URL]="http://youtube.com/…"]appropriate response[/]="http://youtube.com/…"]appropriate response[/] to that.

sheet wrote:
I can stand before God with a good conscience

What does that mean? Given that "God" is apparently whatever you want it to be, so can I. So can the people that flew planes into the WTC.

sheet wrote:
If people would get off of their butt and go to church, Christians would go to the sick, imprisoned and elderly, there wouldn't be such a need.

Where is your evidence for that assertion? I put it to you that the truth is [[url=http://[/URL]="http://moses.creigh…"]exactly the reverse.[/]="http://moses.creigh…"]exactly the reverse.[/]

moonbaby wrote: ... the church production
business.

That's an interesting choice of phrase...

moonbaby wrote: It makes me question the faith at times...

That's reassuring. Think for yourself! You don't actually believe all that [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.awitness…"]god nonsense[/]="http://www.awitness…"]god nonsense[/], surely?

I can stand before God knowing that I did not waste money, I did not sway people to buy something other than what was right for the job, given the criteria and budget at that time. We Christians are called to be "good stewards" or good managers of what we are given. We are not to spend foolishly. There are many designers and churches that swap gear like it is a fashionable textile. They buy the latest and greatest for bragging rights. I am not that type of guy. I know that money could be better spent on reaching/helping people.

We have done both built and equiped a "comfortable" church with pretty decent media production capabilities and yet we support the needy. There may be some churches that do not but of the ones I have attended none of them have disregarded those in need. To their ablilities they have helped out those in need.

The "church" (in the business sense) is changing just like everything else now days. Yet even out of church it has been pretty standard that about 25% of the people do the work while the rest of society reaps the benifits. The churches I have attended have generaly been higher than the average. I cannot speak for all of them though.

When my life fell apart a few years back it was the people in the church that helped me put it all back together. There are a lot of loving and caring people in churchs some of which will help a person out even knowing they are going to take advantage of them. Unfortunatly the only church people you hear about in the media are people like Jimmy Swaggart and those who have messed up.

This was not the purpose of this thread though so I will stop.

sheet wrote: I can stand before God

Really? How? You have some kind of large viewing platform somewhere..?

Kent L T wrote: we support the needy.

You don't support ALL the needy though do you? Like the people with serious degenerative illnesses that could potentially be cured using stem cell treatments.

Or the women that need a safe & clean abortion.

Or the gay community.

Or any other of the minority groups that have been repressed and persecuted in the name of your god.

Kent L T wrote: There are a lot of loving and caring people in churchs

Yes I'm sure that is true. There are a lot of loving and caring people outside churches also. The only difference between them is the ones inside the churches have been conned into believing that their natural inherent goodness does not belong to them, and that they need to rent it from a priest.

IIRs wrote: [quote=Kent L T] we support the needy.

You don't support ALL the needy though do you? Like the people with serious degenerative illnesses that could potentially be cured using stem cell treatments.

Or the women that need a safe & clean abortion.

Or the gay community.

Or any other of the minority groups that have been repressed and persecuted in the name of your god.

Kent L T wrote: There are a lot of loving and caring people in churchs

Yes I'm sure that is true. There are a lot of loving and caring people outside churches also. The only difference between them is the ones inside the churches have been conned into believing that their natural inherent goodness does not belong to them, and that they need to rent it from a priest.

We can't speak for all churches. Some churches do their best. Some do not. All churches are funded by the free will offerings of time and services and financial donations, in worship to God, out of the joy of their hearts.

That said, some churches like Rick Warren's Saddleback Community Church in CA do have gay outreach ministries, to assist those wanting to change their mind about their lifestyle of choice. The church is leading the way in AIDS efforts in Africa as well. PBS did a special on them. Check it out.

Homosexuality and abortion (murdering under-developed human life) is immoral and wrong according to the bible. Biblical churches do not condone the activities. A biblical church would supprt a soon to be mother in crisis though. Many ministries do. There are many denominations and para-church organizations with large scale safe homes for battered, sexually abused and pregnant moms, singles, teens, etc. The SBC has a large operation like this.

It sounds like you are an unbeliever in God. God is not about religion. He is not what you see on the TV. That is a bastardized commercial version to make people rich. If you were to read Gods words to us in the bible, then you would see that the creator just wants us to love him and love the others around us.

You make some generalizations that are not true for all. Yes, there are some people outside of a church doing "good" things. God can use anyone (and does) to accomplish his will. But, those good works don't outway the shortcomings in life.

"God love the world, and gave his only son, that whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to God but by me."

"By grace you are saved (reserved from the wrath of God) by faith in Christ. It is not by works, because some men would boast. All of your works are as filthy rags."

I thought this was a live sound forum.........

It is. But when we are talking about church audio, and someone asks a question about churches, I am not going to discourage it. Free speech here. Use it while you can. The Fairness Act is coming back in vogue.

sheet wrote:
We can't speak for all churches. Some churches do their best. Some do not.

I can speak for all churches: they are institutions founded on lies, which exist solely to provide an easy and comfortable living for the priest / parasite class.

sheet wrote: That said, some churches like Rick Warren's Saddleback Community Church in CA do have gay outreach ministries, to assist those wanting to change their mind about their lifestyle of choice.

"assist those wanting to change their mind about their lifestyle of choice." ???

I think you meant to say: "convince these poor misguided people that their loving relationship / unfulfilled sexual urges are evil and will result in their eternal damnation."

I consider this a form of torture. Gay people have no more choice about their orientation than you have about your skin colour. You might as well try to "help" black people by scrubbing their skin with wire wool in an attempt to make it whiter.

British Medical Journal wrote:
Abstract:

Objectives To investigate the circumstances since the 1950s in which people who were attracted to members of the same sex received treatments to change their sexual orientation, the referral pathway and the process of therapy, and its aftermath.

Design A nationwide study based on qualitative interviews.

Participants 29 people who had received treatments to change their sexual orientation in the United Kingdom and two relatives of former patients.

Results Most participants had been distressed by their attraction to their own sex and people in whom they confided thought they needed treatment. Although some participants chose to undergo treatments instead of imprisonment or were encouraged through some form of medical coercion, most were responding to complex personal and social pressures that discouraged any expression of their sexuality. While many participants found happiness in same sex relationships after their treatment, most were left feeling emotionally distressed to some degree.

Conclusion The definition of same sex attraction as an illness and the development of treatments to eradicate such attraction have had a negative long term impact on individuals.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7437/427

sheet wrote: The church is leading the way in AIDS efforts in Africa as well.

Leading the way in dangerous misinformation: according to the Catholic Church condoms help to spread HIV. Preaching this to AIDS-ridden Africans is tantamount to mass murder.

sheet wrote: Homosexuality and abortion (murdering under-developed human life) is immoral and wrong according to the bible.

I do not accept the bible as a source of morality. (after reading chapters such as [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.awitness…"]Ezekiel 23[/]="http://www.awitness…"]Ezekiel 23[/] how can you? Do you honestly believe it is acceptable to murder a woman and all of her sons and daughters becuase she is a prostitute?)

sheet wrote: It sounds like you are an unbeliever in God.

No shit sherlock. The concept of god is an insult to my intelligence.

sheet wrote: God is not about religion. He is not what you see on the TV. That is a bastardized commercial version to make people rich.

There is NO difference. You pass the collection plate around at your church, right? You pay your priest / pastor / whatever a good salary, right? Rather higher than the national average I would hazard a guess..? You are all equally dishonest and corrupt. (or self-decieving... but the outcome is still the same even then.)

sheet wrote: If you were to read Gods words to us in the bible, then you would see that the creator just wants us to love him and love the others around us.

I refer you back to Ezekiel chapter 23: I see no evidence of love, just barbaric and bloodthirsty murder, along with despicable double standards (what was god's punishment for all the men that "defiled her with their prostitution"? Nothing at all? )

It is high time you were educated better: morality does not stem from any religion, it is a contsantly growing and evolving thing that is shaped by our culture.

Do you honestly think that before Moses carried the stone tablets down the mountainside, all the jews belived it was ok to murder each other? Of course not; those 10 commandments were carefully chosen to fit with the mores that the people already held. Otherwise they would not have accepted it as the "word of god".

The problem is, once they have been usurped by a religion and declared "divine", moral codes ossify and struggle to evolve any further. After all, the word of god must be true eternally, right?

So we end up with a conflict: society's morailty changes (eg: we now accept that women are equal to men, and that it is not acceptable to murder them and their whole families for being sexually actuive.) but the word of god does not.

Religious people then have a choice: either they stubbornly cling to their out-dated mores and struggle to keep their society a generation or two behind the times, or they admit they were wrong and gradually moderate their views to avoid offending the innate morailty of their congregation.

Examples: the catholic church struggling to come to terms with the fact that it is no longer acceptable for "celibate" preists to bugger choirboys. Or the anglican church trying to avoid schism over the subject of homosexuality... note the way this debate is split by the way: african countries that still persecute gays mercilessly vrs western countries where homosexuality is legal and there are laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. In other words, the debate is not religious at all, it is simply a clash of cultures with moral codes that are at differing stages of development.

Religion therefore acts as a brake on morality, not as its source.

Consider the following two motivations for an act of altruism:

1. I do this because I wish to go to heaven.

2. I do this because I feel compassion for the suffering of a fellow human being.

Reason number 1 is used by suicide bombers. Can you imagine any plausible situation in which reason number 2 could be so abused?

Forget catholiscism. That is not Christianity. That is not completely biblical. The Catholic church has done many things wrong in it's past, which I agree with you are crappy.

If you buy one Shure SM58, and it is bad out of the box...no, it explodes while pulling it out of the box, would you assume that ALL microphones are bad? Surely not. How many times have you found a hair in your food, or received poor service at a restaurant? Did you condenm and judge all restaurants, assuming that they ALL do that? Surely not.

You need to stop looking at men. Men fail. We are all sinful by our own choice. Our standard for church is biblical. It is nothing more than believers in Christ getting together to help one another and worship God. When not together they are to be the hands and feet of Christ, doing what he would do. If some organization sucks at it where you are (and churches ARE considered pretty much dead where you are) then don't assume that the lifeless un-Christian activity is universal, because it is not.

Homosexuality is a choice. How do you as a non-beleiving atheist prove that it isn't? If evolution is true and we have no intelligent designer, and homosexuality is natural, then how did to same sex cells procreate? They didn't. It's impossible.

Studies by several US organizations show that almost 90% of these homosexuals have been abused, had some trauma that has caused them to engage in it, or were TAUGHT it at a young age. It is not natural. I can send you some resources by non-religous study groups if you like. When God created man, he made a mate. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. You can't hold a recording console together with all screws. There must be some nuts and lock washers, or atleast a whole for a self tapping sheet metal screw to go into.

You can't base your beliefs on science. Science is man's best guess at what is going on. Science changes. Health care changes. What is a "fact" today will change tomorrow when someone else guesses with better tools and a fresh point of view.

Oh my god (God) whatever, CLOSE THIS THREAD! It's gotten so far off topic it's embarrassing...Shame on those who took it where it didn't need to go!

Amen:)

indeed....

sheet wrote: Forget catholiscism. That is not Christianity.

:lol: You sure about that? I think you had better tell the pope.

sheet wrote: If you buy one Shure SM58, and it is bad out of the box...no, it explodes while pulling it out of the box, would you assume that ALL microphones are bad?

Thats a terrible analogy. I have never come across a bad SM58 straight out of the box! On the other hand EVERY religion that I have ever encountered has been full of bigotry and hypocrisy, and furthermore entirely fails to provide satisfactory answers to the eternal questions it claims to address.

sheet wrote: Our standard for church is biblical.

I refer you back to Ezekiel 23. Does your church murder prostitutes and their children? Why not? That's the biblical standard you ought to be aspiring to, no?

And what about Usury? (lending money at interest, in case you don't know what it means) That is condemned in the bible (and I actually kind of approve of that bit!). How come you choose to ignore that?

sheet wrote: and churches ARE considered pretty much dead where you are

Fortunately, yes. As a consequence, Britain is a more civilized society than the US. (compare our annual murder rates if you don't believe me!)

sheet wrote: Homosexuality is a choice. How do you as a non-beleiving atheist prove that it isn't?

I know that I had no choice regarding my own sexual orientation: I fancy women, but don't fancy men. I also know that gay friends of mine feel exactly the same in reverse. And bi-sexual friends have come to terms with feeling attractions to both.

I suspect your conviction that it is a choice may be due to your own experiences. Perhaps you have felt attracted to members of the same sex, and have had to repress those feelings due to your religious brainwashing. If that is the case I feel sorry for you. But I also despise you for your hypocrisy.

sheet wrote: It is not natural.

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

sheet wrote: When God created man, he made a mate. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

:roll: Is this what passes for reasoned debate round your parts?

sheet wrote: You can't hold a recording console together with all screws. There must be some nuts and lock washers, or atleast a whole for a self tapping sheet metal screw to go into.

You seem to be rather ignorant as to the mechanics of gay sex. Ever heard of oral sex? Anal sex? You shoud try it, its great!

sheet wrote: You can't base your beliefs on science. Science is man's best guess at what is going on. Science changes. Health care changes. What is a "fact" today will change tomorrow when someone else guesses with better tools and a fresh point of view.

That is exactly why I do trust science. It is flexible enough to take account of new information, and it actually WORKS! Where it not for science we would have no internet on which to discuss this, and no PA systems for you to spend your churches ill-gotten gains on!

Space wrote: Amen:)

one that note... let's lock this one down and move on to more music.