Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / General / Yea, California!
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
This thread is 3 pages long.
| Go to page 1 2 3 |
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes and 21 seconds ago. |
Also a great many people have children outside wedlock. Whilst marriage is often associated with children it really is silly to try to base some law on this. Laws must be founded on straightforward facts, and importantly must apply the rules to everyone equally. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 1 second ago. |
gut: What most same-sex couples want from the fed is legal protection for their marriages (i.e. if the home he has known for 30 years is in the name of his husband, a 60 year old man won't be kicked out when his husband dies; the family that disowned his husband for being gay would not have legal right to the home. He also would not be hit with crippling inheritance tax) As far as I know everybody agrees that religions can choose which marriages to acknowledge and perform (ie. Catholic priests cannot be forced to marry Hindu couples) It is the government that should not be allowed to discriminate. FYI, 90 years ago, you would be hard pressed to find a major religion that allowed interracial marriages. As for recognition in other states . . . at the moment, states do not have to recognize marriages from other states. In fact, over half the Union explicitly does not recognized marriages between same sex couples, even if the marriage occurred in another state (or another country -- Canadian and Dutch weddings would not be recognized in most states or by the Federal Government) [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/22/2008 at 18:15 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 1 second ago. |
Maul: Why are you against marriages between same sex couples? |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 13 hours, 43 minutes and 17 seconds ago. |
> What most same-sex couples want from the > fed is legal protection I am aware of most of the legal protections that the 'marriage' status gives. You even left out health insurance benefits. They are often extended to 'legitimate' spouces, but not partners. I don't know however, what that has to do with anything that I typed. Perhaps it was: >> Well, those same churches do also perform 'wedding' >> ceremonies for gay couples, with an authentic holy >> man included. Sometimes one of the partners will even >> wear a viel. This may not be typical of gay weddings, >> but to say no gay couples want it, just isn't true. To say "Well, most don't." doesn't really change the fact that some do. The irritation that people feel, by seeing their religion being 'mocked' is not reduced by the fact that "most don't". All they see, is how their religion being (ab)used. Those people will continue resisting the mockery of their religion, in whatever ways are open to them. I can't say that I blame them. If legal methods have worked in the past, you can see why they would use them again. For examle: They couldn't persuade the 'snake handling' churches to stop making a mockery of their religion, so they resorted to legal methods. The methods worked nicely, and most of the 'snake handling' churches were forced to stop (not all though). > As far as I know everybody agrees that > religions can choose which marriages to > acknowledge and perform Not so! RELIGIONS can't choose, CHURCHES can. There is no law that can be enforced, to say to a (insert denomination) church, "you may not perform gay marriages". If a church wanted to marry people to ANIMALS, religion could do nothing to stop it, only a law could. > It is the government that should not be > allowed to discriminate The law can be used as a shield OR a sword. To say that 'one side of this debate, only uses the law as a shield', and 'the other side is using it as a sword', is just silly. Both sides use the law as sword and shield. I can't say that using the law to ban gay marriage, is 'using the law as a sword'. I think a good argument can be made, that it is being used as a shield. If there were not scenes of 'religion mockery' to fuel outrage, there would not be enough money to fund anti gay-marriage efforts. They would die on the vine. There are plenty of scenes though, and plenty of outrage, and so we will all have to put up with it for a long time to come. > FYI, 90 years ago, you would be hard pressed to find > a major religion that allowed interracial marriages FYI, in my home state you would have been hard pressed to find one 40 years ago. What does that prove? Religions can do as they wish, no? Would you like to have laws that force them to do things they think are wrong? > As for recognition in other states . . . at the moment, > states do not have to recognize marriages from other > states. In fact, over half the Union explicitly does > not recognized marriages between same sex couples I think that is wrong... and right, at the same time : ) I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of that mess is as follows. To appease a signifigant voting block, 'lawmakers' passed laws that they knew could not be enforced. I hate it when this happens, but I think this is just such a case. The laws are on the books, but they are wrong. The burden is shifted away from 'lawmakers' and onto the judicial system. (Who can not be voted out of office). I do believe, that if some poor (hopefully stinking rich) soul wanted to devote his time and money toward taking this to the supreme court, they would handily win. To the best of my knowledge, a marriage that is legally recognized in one state, has to be recognized in all states. As I said before though, I'm no lawyer. > Maul: Why are you against marriages between same sex couples? My handle isn't Maul, but he said he thinks it's against the 'natural order of things'. I can see that logic, as if it were the 'natural order' we would all be extinct, no? Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes and 21 seconds ago. |
gut: > Religions can do as they > wish, no? Would you like to have laws that > force them to do things they think are wrong? And what law does that? Whatever the law is you will never see a gay marriage in a catholic church or a mosque for instance. The people in those religions will never see their religions "mocked" as you say. They still oppose the laws strongly of course - after all, it's a way of oppressing minorities their religion says is evil. Some more liberal protestant churches might host gay weddings if their religion says homosexuality is okay, but they are in no way forced to. > My handle isn't Maul, but he said he > thinks it's against the 'natural order > of things'. I can see this ending up as a silly debate... But ah well, without Echo here any more we could maybe do with one :) The "natural order" argument usually has quite significant flaws in it, especially when homosexuality is quite prevalent in nature. As for the "we would all be extinct" line of thought, well that doesn't really apply since we have many gay people in society and we've yet to die out as a race. We are not forced to procreate by nature or law, whether straight or gay, and there's always enough heteros to keep the genes flowing anyway. Plus advances in technology are allowing some gay people to have kids. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/22/2008 at 21:05 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 13 hours, 43 minutes and 17 seconds ago. |
>>> FYI, 90 years ago, you would be hard pressed to find >>> a major religion that allowed interracial marriages >> FYI, in my home state you would have been >> hard pressed to find one 40 years ago. What >> does that prove? Religions can do as they >> wish, no? Would you like to have laws that >> force them to do things they think are wrong? > And what law does that? I was refering to the (now) obvious fact, that the churches were slow to accept interacial marriage. I was supporting the 'let them take their time' philosophy. > you will never see a gay marriage in a catholic church > or a mosque for instance You're just plain wrong on that one : ) >> My handle isn't Maul, but he said he >> thinks it's against the 'natural order >> of things'. > As for the "we would all be extinct" line of thought, > well that doesn't really apply since we have many gay > people in society and we've yet to die out as a race. I was meaning 'natural order' to refer to 'what if everyone did it', rather than 'what if a few did it'. If 'natural order' is defined as 'what if a few did it', well then, necrophillia and cannibalism are in the perfect 'natural order' of things. > advances in technology are allowing some gay people to > have kids. Natural order? Technology also allows mice to glow in the dark. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes and 22 seconds ago. |
>> you will never see a gay marriage in a catholic church >> or a mosque for instance > You're just plain wrong on that one : ) Well, we'll see... Remember that neither allow women to become clergy members still, and the Catholic Church still states things like no sex outside marriage and no divorces. It will be many decades at the very least before we see things like acceptance of homosexuality. I personally think the Catholic Church will die out before it ever gives in to something like that. But my point was rather that Catholics won't see gay marriages in Catholic Churches until the Vatican says it's okay (and hell freezes over). Thus they should not fear their religion somehow being mocked. Not that this matters of course - even in countries where simple "civil partnership" (a purely legal affair) or the likes has been introduced they've still protested heavily and cruelly. They don't seem to be worried about a "mockery of their religion" - they more seem to care about what they see as "evil" gaining a higher place in society. > I was meaning 'natural order' to refer to > 'what if everyone did it', rather than > 'what if a few did it'. If we stick to "natural order" in that sense we'd still be monkeys in trees or prehistoric slime. Not that I'm saying homosexuality will somehow increase through evolution (that's biologically impossible at present) but to declare something as "unnatural" because the majority don't do it goes against the whole evolutionary system. Necrophilia and cannibalism exist in nature too of course. Along with bigamy, rape, murder, etc. Which goes to show that we can't really relate "natural" to "moral". > Natural order? > Technology also allows mice to glow in the dark. And it lets us cure cancer. Artificial insemination similarly allows for life to exist where nature would otherwise decree it impossible. Humans are in that sense outside the natural order - we can make our own rules. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 13 hours, 43 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
>>> you will never see a gay marriage in a catholic church >>> or a mosque for instance >> You're just plain wrong on that one : ) > Well, we'll see... Search google with the keywords: gay catholic clergy You still think I'm wrong? > They don't seem to be worried about a "mockery of their > religion" - they more seem to care about what they see > as "evil" gaining a higher place in society. I think catholics are probably as irritated as any protestant, to see a gay marriage in any Christian church. I also think that protestants would be similarly irritated, if the marriages were held in catholic churches. I think it would be very difficult, to persuade large numbers of people to give up huge portions of their paychecks (and time), to ATTACK others. On the other hand, it's quite easy to persuade people to give those same things, in DEFENCE of what they believe. >> I was meaning 'natural order' to refer to >> 'what if everyone did it', rather than >> 'what if a few did it'. > If we stick to "natural order" in that sense > we'd still be monkeys in trees or prehistoric slime Huh? If 'natural order' refers to 'what if everyone did it', how would that ban evolution? > to declare something as "unnatural" because the > majority don't do it goes against the whole > evolutionary system. Don't think I said homosexual orientation is 'unnatural because the majority don't do it'. I think I said: "if it were the 'natural order' we would all be extinct, no?" Also, the clarification: "I was meaning 'natural order' to refer to 'what if everyone did it'," Put them together and you have: "if [homosexual orientation] was [possesed by every member of the species ] we would all be extinct, no?" The point being that if every human had homosexual orientation, humans would be extinct in one generation. Hardly what Iwould consider a success. The example of necrophilia and canabalism also follow the example. If every member of a species ate all the other members of the species that it could find, the result would again be extinction. If every member of a species had sexual orientation toward only corpse, you get the same result. > Artificial insemination similarly allows for life to > exist where nature would otherwise decree it impossible. I've seen some of the experiments they have performed in 'allowing life, where nature wouldn't'. It scares the ba-jeebers out of me. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes and 22 seconds ago. |
> Search google with the keywords: > gay catholic clergy > You still think I'm wrong? "Catholic witch-hunt to expose gay clergy" and "Vatican renews ban on gay priests" are among the top results. I certainly don't deny that there are many priests and Catholics who are gay, but the Church view is very sternly against them and they cannot be openly gay in the church. I do not see anything to indicate that will change. > The point being that if every human had homosexual > orientation, humans would be extinct in one > generation. Hardly what I would consider a success. So you're general viewpoint is that it's illogical to be gay because it leads to less procreativity? Well, I won't deny it, though I don't see how it has any bearing on legal or moral issues. There are many things humans choose to do that are, logically speaking, to their detriment. Homosexuality isn't even what I'd call a choice - unless you consider going against your own nature and desires a choice. > I've seen some of the experiments they have > performed in 'allowing life, where nature > wouldn't'. It scares the ba-jeebers out of me. Such as? Almost everything I've seen has simply impressed me, or made me wonder about the future potential. Millions of people benefit already from many of the recent advances in stem cells and animal experimentation. Billions have benefitted from other medical advances made since the war, many of which have been considered unethical at one time or another. Strange science doesn't scare me as much as it fascinates, and more importantly every opportunity we have to improve the species should be taken. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
All: Ugh. Okay. Can we try to keep responses to 20 lines or less? |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes and 22 seconds ago. |
That's no fun :P The whole point of these sorts of debates is to needlessly ramble on for ages. Oh, and to never let it die either, even when it's clear no consensus can be reached. Would be even better if we started spelling/grammar flames... Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
gut: I mentioned the legal benefits, because you seemed concerned that religions would be forced to perform marriages between same-sex couples. However, the decision was a legal one that will not force any religions to perform or acknowledge marriages between same-sex couples. If that was not your concern, Can you re-summarize your stance within 20 lines? My comment about religions 90 years ago was prompted by your religous argument. You partially based it on the fact that so few religions endorse marriage between same-sex couples. Following that logic would mean that 90 years ago, people were right in criminalizing inter-racial marriages, since so few religions endorsed them. I can say 100% that other states do not yet have to acknowledge same-sex marriages. (I am hoping this will change) My comment actually was for Maul. I wanted to know more about his/her "Natural Order". [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2008 at 15:41 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
Darren: I have found that forcing 20 lines really keeps people succinct and on point, and it reduces flaming. It doesn't stop the debate from going on interminably (which is much of the fun) but it does keep people from just rambling on and on and on within a post. It also forces people to think more. Also, for those of us with limitted access, we can continue to follow and participate. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2008 at 12:30 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
minchazo Registered user Last page view: 5798 days, 7 hours, 2 minutes and 7 seconds ago. |
gut: >Not so! RELIGIONS can't choose, CHURCHES >can. There is no law that can be enforced, >to say to a (insert denomination) church, >"you may not perform gay marriages". Are you referring to 'religion' as, for example, Catholicism, Protestant, Mormon, etc? And 'churches' being the specific branches/physical locations of those religions? (I'll use these definitions here) Because a religion can ban gay marriages for themselves on any of their churches if they so desire. The *only* punishment they can give is to excommunicate the 'offenders' and declare the marriage null & void in the eyes of their particular religion. Of course, the ex-members could then start their own religion to include all the previous doctrines + gay marriage. Personally, I'm up in the air as to whether there should be a law either banning or allowing gay marriage. Should there be laws based on the morals of the populace? |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes and 22 seconds ago. |
Not if the morals of the populace are unfairly biased against a minority group. I think we can all agree for instance that Iran's stance on executing all homosexuals is wrong. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
minchazo: Well . . . IMHO . . . if somebody feels there should be such laws -- purely based on the opinions/morals of the majority with no concern for the rights of the minority -- then they might have a difficult time criticizing anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crowe, Japanese internment or even (dare I say it) slavery, Bosnian Rape camps and the Holocaust, since all those laws were based on moral majority at the time. Personally, I would call such laws "Mob Rule" or "Might makes right." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2008 at 12:29 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
minchazo Registered user Last page view: 5798 days, 7 hours, 2 minutes and 7 seconds ago. |
Darren Grey: >I think we can all agree for instance that >Iran's stance on executing all homosexuals is > wrong. I'd say that's a resounding 'yes.' But my point is we're picking and choosing what moral compass to be guided by. The examples given by Caladriel are all bad if you assume "all men are created equal" and everyone as a right to Life & Liberty. (Incidentally, I agree with that as well). But what about laws that are based solely on a moral footing that is not so generally agreed upon? What about laws against bestiality? Statutory rape? Marijuana usage? These are *mostly* based on the morals of the populace (*NOTE* I am not in any way attempting to compare homosexuality with bestiality! I wish I could think of more examples). At what point should we draw the line and say, "Your morals have no place in our laws?" |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
minchazo: I never disagreed. At the deepest root, Laws are based on an axiomatic choice. I simply said that if you use "moral majority" as that axiomatic root to defend the discriminatory laws against same-sex couples then you are pretty much defending Bosnian Rape camps. Maybe some people who support discrimination against same-sex couples also supported the Bosnian Rape camps or the execution of gays in Iran. However, if they don't then I think they need a better argument than "A majority of the society feels this way." FYI: I think that the defense of statutory rape laws is that you are harming minors. Laws against Beastiality are probably rooted in animal cruelty laws. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/29/2008 at 19:39 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 13 hours, 43 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
>> Search google with the keywords: >> gay catholic clergy >> You still think I'm wrong? > "Catholic witch-hunt to expose gay clergy" and "Vatican renews > ban on gay priests" are among the top results Yes, I saw those too, but I was aware of the catholic church's views already. I was refering to the amazingly high numbers of gay clergy in catholic churches. If you think a religion that has THAT many gay clergy, 'will never perform a gay marriage ceremony', we just don't think the same way, I guess. gut: >>> My handle isn't Maul, but he said he >>> thinks it's against the 'natural order >>> of things'. I can see that logic, as >>> if it were the 'natural order' we would >>> all be extinct, no? gut clarifying: >> "if [homosexual orientation] was [possesed by >> every member of the species ] we would all be >> extinct, no?" >> The point being that if every human had homosexual >> orientation, humans would be extinct in one >> generation. Hardly what I would consider a success. Darren: > So you're general viewpoint is that it's illogical > to be gay because it leads to less procreativity? > Well, I won't deny it, though I don't see how it > has any bearing on legal or moral issues Um, no. My general viewpoint is obviously: "if [homosexual orientation] was [possesed by every member of the species ] we would all be extinct." Nothing more, nothing less. You can read from the above posts, that I wasn't saying "views of 'natural order' should have any bearing on legal issues". I was explaining how thinking that a homosexual orientation, can be logically viewed as against 'natural order'. > There are many things humans choose to do that > are, logically speaking, to their detriment. > Homosexuality isn't even what I'd call a choice > - unless you consider going against your own > nature and desires a choice. That statement implies that having a homosexual orientation is a detriment. I haven't said that. Or were you saying that? Either way, I DON'T think that having a homosexual orientation is a detriment. I DO think that it is logical for people to believe that homosexual orientation is against 'natural order' (if they think of 'natural order' the same way I do). About choice: I would not advise anyone to go against doing what they think is right. Doing that would cause nothing but a huge mess. If a person with a homosexual orientation married a person with a heterosexual orientation, it seems to me, it would quickly end in disaster. >> I've seen some of the experiments they have >> performed in 'allowing life, where nature >> wouldn't'. It scares the ba-jeebers out of me. > Such as? Human cloning, off the top of my head. One 'gut' is bad enough, believe me. There are other freaks of science like the 'glow in the dark' mice, that I mentioned earlier. There are also now ligers, half lion, half tiger. It is not long in coming, the day when we are compelled to saddle up a monka-pottamus, and ride into work on it. When that happens, I will say "I told you so!" > Almost everything I've seen has simply impressed me, Impressed, yes, I can agree with that. Though I'm also impressed by watching nuclear warheads detonate. > Millions of people benefit already from many of the > recent advances in stem cells and animal experimentation Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Where to draw the line? Better start thinking on that one now, 'tis a slippery slope. Today animals, and human fetus experiments are OK. History tells us, it's not a big jump from that, to forced human experiments. All for the 'greater good' of course. Millions will benefit : ) > every opportunity we have to improve the species > should be taken. DNA modification is just around the corner : ) "I would like antlers and... an IQ of 189 please. Oh, and could I get blue skin, and maybe some kind of tail. Lizard-like, if you can, with scales, no fur!". That kind of stuff is fine for a book (Island of DR. Moroe), but for real life, I'd rather leave it, than take it. Caladriel: > All: Ugh. Okay. Can we try to keep responses to 20 lines or less? Nope. > gut: I mentioned the legal benefits, because you seemed concerned > that relogions would be forced to acknowledge marriages between > same-sex couples. Nope. I wasn't. > If that was not your concern, Can you re-summarize your stance > within 20 lines? Nope. I'm not a politician, I don't like 20 second sound bites. I have expressed myself clearly (with ample clarifications even), and will not summarize further. > My comment about religions 90 years ago was prompted by your > religous argument. My religious argument? When did that happen? I think what I typed was things like: "You don't have to limit things to just one controversial practice, you could substitute basically anything. If a (insert religion) church condones beastiality, necrophilia, or any other controversial thing (that their religion forbids), don't you think that would irritate other people, within that religion?" That's not an argument, that's an explaination of why people get offended at practices that their religion forbids, taking place in the NAME of their religion. NOT an argument that anyone is 'right' to criminalize anything. It reads quite plainly enough, to me. By refering to the above as 'your religious argument', are you implying that I have said something about being against gay marriage? I haven't. Nor have I said anything about wanting it to be criminalized. In fact, I have said: "the legal side, I have no problem with." > You partially based it on the fact that so few > religions endorse marriage between same-sex > couples. Following that logic would mean that > 90 years ago, people were right in criminalizing > inter-racial marriages, since so few religions > endorsed them. Let's just break this down, shall we? > You partially based it on the fact that so few > religions endorse Now what is 'it' again? My religious argument? The one that has nothing to do with gay marriage being illegal? The one that doesn't exist!? Perhaps you mean the one that goes like this: "You don't have to limit things to just one controversial practice, you could substitute basically anything. If a (insert religion) church condones beastiality, necrophilia, or any other controversial thing (that their religion forbids), don't you think that would irritate other people, within that religion?" > Following that logic, Now what logic would that be? The logic of 'if few religions endorse something, it should be made illegal'? In other words "the 'logic', I again don't have". > would mean that 90 years ago, people were right in > criminalizing inter-racial marriages. Well, now we see where all that mess lead us. Using a 'religious argument' (that gay marriage shouldn't be legal) that I DON'T have. Following the 'logic' (that if few religions endorse something, it should be made illegal) that I, once again, DON'T have. We arrive at the preposterous conclusion, that "I am in favor of banning gay marriage just as much now, as I was ever in favor of burning witches in the old country!" Please Caladriel, I appreciate the book recomendations from a while back, so I want to say this as nicely as possible. Please do not ask me about my posts, unless you read them all completely first. It's just a lot easier, as I am a long winded fellow by nature, and confused posts like your above one, can really irritate. If you don't want to read more than 20 lines at a go, just skip my posts. Most intellegent posters already have me in the 'fool filter' anyway, so believe me, you won't be missing much : ) A more accurate representation of my 'religious argument' and 'logic' would have been: "Following that logic would mean that 90 years ago, it would have been *UNDERSTANDABLE*, FOR PEOPLE TO BE OFFENDED BY INTERACIAL MARRIAGES, TAKING PLACE IN THE NAME OF THEIR RELIGION." Yes, that I would say. > I can say 100% that other states do not yet have to > acknowledge same-sex marriages. (I am hoping this will change) You won't be offended, if I ask from what university you aquired your constitutional law degree? I have stated that I am no lawyer, and I don't think you are one either. My posts were clearly in the form of an opinion. It is beyond either of our abilities to give 100% guaratees on any constitutional matter. I think the theory of 'let's force it on people, and see what happens', will ultimately cause a constitutional ammendment to be passed. I do not like constitution fiddling. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3120 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes and 34 seconds ago. |
I usually don't involve myself in such disputes, and walls of text scare me away (annoyingly formatted walls of text especially), but: "DNA modification is just around the corner : ) "I would like antlers and... an IQ of 189 please. Oh, and could I get blue skin, and maybe some kind of tail. Lizard-like, if you can, with scales, no fur!". That kind of stuff is fine for a book (Island of DR. Moroe), but for real life, I'd rather leave it, than take it. " means I HAVE to speak up. Just because someone is wrong on the internet ;) DNA are not building blocks. You cannot modyfiy someone already developed by changing their DNA - that just makes them terminally ill. And there is no gene for "antlers". You can modify externally. But we can do that now: blue skin, scales, antlers, just a bit of cosmetic surgery involved. And as for the intelligence part; even the most generous geneticians say, that the h2 of intelligence is 0,2. Most say it's below 0,1. To those of you that don't speak "population genetics", that means that less then 10% of it depends on the genes and the rest comes from the influence of the environment. Sure; 0,2 is enough to work with, but eugenics is a touchy subject to say the least, "thanks" to idiots like Adolf the painter. That's all from me - if someone wants to contiune the human modification subject, whether it's genetics, cybernetics (the South African athlete with artificial legs given a green light from the olimpic council?) or any other form of controversial subject other then unorthodox legal unions, please start a new thread. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2008 at 16:44 (GMT -5) by Maelstrom] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
gut: I skipped to the bottom. Is there anything, other than the last paragraph, that I should care about? Can we keep the various posts to 20 lines or less? I feel like I am reading some Politician's stump speech. My information comes from talking to people at the ACLU and making the effort to look at actual cases, along with studies during and after college. For your clarificatoin: Whether the Federal Constitution requires that states recognize marriages from other states is unknown unless/until SCotUS makes a ruling on it. Until/unless that happens, individual states can reject out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples via their individual constitutions and laws. That's why both sides are fighting State by State. I don't think you need to worry about a federal amendment. They tried with the anti-miscegenation laws, as well, and people hated blacks even more than they hate LGBT's (IMHO). They tried making federal amendments then, as well, but none of them took. I can't remember the exact speech supporting one of the attempts, but it something about "Protecting white women from being enslaved by black beasts." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2008 at 20:06 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
Maelstrom: You won't be offended, if I ask from what university you aquired your genetics degree? I am no geneticist, and I don't think you are one either. It is beyond either of our abilities to give 100% guaratees on any genetic matter. :-) How do you know that we don't have "Antler" genes which are simply turned off? Besides, I think we do have a tail gene. . : , ,-'"""`-. . : ,
\\|/ ,' `. \|//
\-;-/ \-:-/
// | | \\
//__: :. ,; ;__\\
`-----\`.`-.___,-','/-----'
`.`._.-.-,','
`-._) )'
`-' jgs (Boo-yah! under 20 lines including the hitchhiker diss and the edit alert)[Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2008 at 20:08 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes and 22 seconds ago. |
Maelstrom is right, and it's fairly common knowledge too. You can modify the genes of an embryo and have it grow into something new and interesting. There's nowhere where this is legal with human embryos (except for stem cell harvesting, where the embryos are never planted in a womb and are destroyed within a matter of days). I hate the whole "slippery slope" argument. Should our science be paralyzed by crazed fear that somehoe something bad could happen at some point? Caution and forethought are welcome of course, but not the sort of conservative fears many have that make them utterly opposed to new sciences they don't understand. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4152 days, 16 hours, 43 minutes and 13 seconds ago. |
before applying "fairly common knowledge" try googliong for something like somatic genetic engineering. classical case would be phenylcetonuria - genetic dialowance for some metabolism of certain amino acid . Technically it is possible (and rumoured to be done) to insert gene which produces enzimes utilizng amino acid into leukocytes of a formed body (not embryo). that is not antlers, but i fail to see flaw in theoretical probability to insert certain gene into temporal bones forcing them to make certain extra bumps. And before you ask - no - I don't have degree in genetics, i only have degree in Medicine. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3120 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes and 34 seconds ago. |
The flaw lies in the fact, that it's not a "certain gene" but a host of genes, promotors and even then it would propably be some lameness instead of the antlers you desire, because of the maternal factors involved in the expression of genes. Dammit, this is a gay mariage thread, not an "I'm gonna have antlers insterted into me" thread ;P P.S. Not offended Caladriel. I study at the August Cieszkowski Agricultural University of Poznań in the Faculty of Animal Sciences. I don't have my degree yet, but have completed courses in genetics, breeding methods, animal experiments, biochemistry and I've got exams for "current trends in cattle breeding" and "current trends in pig breeding" next month. All of which have enough advanced genetics to make an avarage student puke ;P Especially the transgenic pig part. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 13 hours, 43 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
> gut: I skipped to the bottom. Is there anything, other than the last paragraph, that I should care about? There is no part of my postings that ANYONE there right mind should read! It's funny, but the only bit that seems to have been taken seriously... was the jokes. I care zero % whether genes can be modified in any way. It was jokes. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4071 days, 12 hours, 8 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
People, I'm away for some days and there are these enormous walls of text, are you trying to scare me away? Darren - The Catholic Church has a proud history of taking ages to progress in many areas, that much I'll admit. I'm pretty confident I'm going to see married catholic priests within my lifetime, though, maybe when I'm seventy or something. Bah, who am I kidding, I have no clue. Back to the marriage thing. Atheists, or agnostics like myself, have an easy time. We can happily ignore the religious side of it all. Governments, however, cannot. Not because churches or religion have power themselves, but because people have opinions, and they cannot ignore what the people say. Society hasn't yet evolved as much as we'd like for it to have. And about that we can't do anything but wait (and stuff our opinions down the throats of ignorant people :) ). You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 13 hours, 43 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
Social evolution can swing both ways though, the way we may like, and the way we may not. When it swings nicely, we call it progression, when it swings badly, we call it misery. I think the trick, to avoid misery, is to take into consideration everyone's opinions (and motivations). If people don't do this, the pendalum will swing back against them. Then they will find themselves worse off than they were, before they were in the majority. This is my opinion about the gay marriage laws. If laws are passed, without considering the way huge groups of people will feel about them, then the swing is soon to come. I don't know how many years away it is, but think about what was posted here earlier, by the supporters of gay marriage. How many US states have legalized gay marriage, how many US states have (soon to be over-turned) laws, saying they won't recognize them. There is more support to ban gay marriage, than to legalize it! There just isn't (for the time being) 66% support to ban it, constitutionally. Though, I must say, California has just went a long way toward changing that. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes and 22 seconds ago. |
> There is more support to ban gay marriage, than to > legalize it! I'm not so sure on this. I think those who want to ban it are more vocal and have greater influence on people in power than those who who are pushing to have it legalised. In particular judges and politicians tend to be old conservative men. A survery of the general public would likely result in more balanced reports, with the majority of people either supporting gay marriage or not caring enough to oppose it. I disagree that forcing the matter against other people's wills would be a bad thing - the only way equality has been gained before has been through forcing the issue down peoples throats, not just leaving it on the backburner and hoping it'll get better at some point. Would women and blacks have equal rights if they didn't campaign and fight for them? I personally doubt it - things are too slow to change if you don't make that change yourself. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 13 hours, 43 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
> A survery of the general public would likely > result in more balanced reports, Reports count somewhat less than votes. It takes all of five minutes to vote, yet how many do that? I do vote in every election, State, local, and federal, I'm not asking about views, but how many others here, vote in every election? You? Opinions don't count, votes do. Especially when it just takes five minutes, and people still won't do it. If you think that a constitutional ban of gay marriage, would be enough of a spark to actually get people registered... you have another think coming : ) They just plaing won't. > I disagree that forcing the matter against > other people's wills would be a bad thing - Then you will have no right to complain, when it is done to you. Remember how drastically political opinions can change in a few decades. The thought that extreme situations are impossible NOW, is just silly. We are essentially the same beings that we used to be (all the way) back a few decades ago. Or a few centuries ago, for that matter. > the only way equality has been gained before > has been through forcing the issue down peoples Not so. If well over 50% of a nation is against something, it will likely not succede. The people trying to do the forcefeeding... most often wind up choked. If you check through the history books, those in power, seldom forced equality down anyone's throat, it is usually horrible things, that have to be forced. > not just leaving it on the backburner and hoping > it'll get better at some point. I like the old saying of, 'when you don't know what to do, do something'. Hopefully though, one doesn't do something, that will wind up as a hinderance to them. My theory, is that the most effective strategy, is to avoid scenes that would fuel (fund) the opposition, like gay weddings in churches, that sort of thing. While at the same time, using your own finances to bribe poloticians. That strategy worked well enough for America's money-lenders. They recently over-turned laws regarding bankruptcy, that had stood for countless decades. No one seemed to notice, or care : ( If they had made a big deal about it, things may have worked differently for them. Talking in every public place they could find, about how good the laws were going to be for them. Talking about how if others didn't like it, they could just come to 'accept' it in time. The opposition would have been well funded indeed. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
| Go to page 1 2 3 |