Anti-homosexual marriage law ; unconstitutional?
Aug 30, 2012 | 07:52 AM
#141
Pirate Biker
Limping Rider!
Limping Rider!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 61,665
Likes: 55
From: Snohomish, Washington
Gay Marriage is legal in New York, Massachusetts, and a couple others. I'd say you're wrong.
To Moose, two men or two women can bond in the same way a man and a woman can. It happens very often. I'm sorry you feel there is a moral collapse in the United States, but my idea of morals and yours are very different.
It's not that my feelings were hurt, I honestly don't care about his opinions. He's on the wrong side of history. I'm just confused as to why I got censored, but he didn't. Although I don't remember what I said, I certainly didn't make such a blatant personal attack. Seems you censor anyone who doesn't agree with you.
To Moose, two men or two women can bond in the same way a man and a woman can. It happens very often. I'm sorry you feel there is a moral collapse in the United States, but my idea of morals and yours are very different.
It's not that my feelings were hurt, I honestly don't care about his opinions. He's on the wrong side of history. I'm just confused as to why I got censored, but he didn't. Although I don't remember what I said, I certainly didn't make such a blatant personal attack. Seems you censor anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Do some research. Every state that has VOTED on it, has turned it down. EVERY STATE THAT HAS VOTED ON IT!!!!
Liberal judges and liberal politicians have pushed it through.
Aug 30, 2012 | 10:57 AM
#142
Super Moderator
Well, golly JimBob!
Well, golly JimBob!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40,210
Likes: 55
Gay Marriage is legal in New York, Massachusetts, and a couple others. I'd say you're wrong.
To Moose, two men or two women can bond in the same way a man and a woman can. It happens very often. I'm sorry you feel there is a moral collapse in the United States, but my idea of morals and yours are very different.
It's not that my feelings were hurt, I honestly don't care about his opinions. He's on the wrong side of history. I'm just confused as to why I got censored, but he didn't. Although I don't remember what I said, I certainly didn't make such a blatant personal attack. Seems you censor anyone who doesn't agree with you.
To Moose, two men or two women can bond in the same way a man and a woman can. It happens very often. I'm sorry you feel there is a moral collapse in the United States, but my idea of morals and yours are very different.
It's not that my feelings were hurt, I honestly don't care about his opinions. He's on the wrong side of history. I'm just confused as to why I got censored, but he didn't. Although I don't remember what I said, I certainly didn't make such a blatant personal attack. Seems you censor anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Aug 30, 2012 | 11:00 AM
#143
Super Moderator
Well, golly JimBob!
Well, golly JimBob!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40,210
Likes: 55
I don't know about every state that "legalized" homosexual marriage but in Massachusetts, and Vermont it was done through the courts. In Massachusetts we have initiative petition rights where the citizens can put a question on the ballot if they get enough votes. Funny how the courts blocked this when there was a great citizen led petition drive that got over double the signatures needed to get it on the ballot.
Aug 30, 2012 | 11:07 AM
#144
Supersock
Hired Gun!
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
Hired Gun!
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 142,494
Likes: 182
From: Land of the misfit toys
I will also add this about Dawg.
He's not sitting at a desk in his pj's. He's in a shithole of a country and may be occasionally ducking random gunfire or taking indirect fire. So he can't just take a sip of his latte and post away.
He's not sitting at a desk in his pj's. He's in a shithole of a country and may be occasionally ducking random gunfire or taking indirect fire. So he can't just take a sip of his latte and post away.
Aug 30, 2012 | 02:38 PM
#146
ʇsıʇɹɐ ɹǝʌolloɹ
Providing the enemies of the United States with the maximum opportunity to give their lives for their country since 1775.
Providing the enemies of the United States with the maximum opportunity to give their lives for their country since 1775.
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 16,284
Likes: 3
From: rindge, nh
Well- time for my rant... 
This discussion is all over the place, as there's quite a bit of stubbornness on both sides, and I've been thinking about it for days now. I've been watching people argue points of religion, normality, social acceptance and evolution- which is fine. But the part that bothers me is that no one is starting from "the root." The first place anyone should look when discussing characteristics in human evolution is biology and physiology.
I have a background in biology, so, in an attempt to steer this conversation away from the sociological and religious angles being discussed above- I 'd like to make a few valid points on the "nature vs. nurture" aspects of homosexuality- bare with me here... much of this info I'm extrapolating from my molecular biotechnology "principles & applications" 4th ed. college book.
for simplicity of my post, "animal kingdom" includes fish, mammals, birds, reptile, amphibians, arthropods so on and so forth......
Although I believe the majority of homosexuality is a choice in lifestyle, (people gravitate towards comfort and acceptance even if it's within the same gender group)
It is entirely plausible (and probable) that there are cases where the human may feel a strong sexual attraction to the same gender based on their biological / genetic makeup.
True, this particular "human" species would not survive if it was the "norm" to have these deviations in feelings between two men or two woman- but that does not mean that it doesn't happen in nature, at birth within the human kingdom.
I am greatly simplifying this - this book alone is over 485 pages on the subject of molecular cell biology and is very technical. So, in a "nut-shell" Biology can easily explain how this may occur in human evolution. A human (or organism) may be born with both sex organs. This phenomenon is called "hermaphroditism", and it occurs in the animal & human kingdoms (but is more common among animal species.) In this case, It all comes down to chromosomes & hormones. A human born with both XX (female) and XY (male) chromosome pairs (XY- female, XX-male) will have both ovarian & testicular tissue.
There are at least a half dozen ways this phenomenon can occur in nature- for example a mutation of the sry gene or having the ovum fertilized by 2 sperm...
In some of these cases there is no sex assignment- these people are physically between both sexes and may or may not display characteristics of either sexes. For example, one may physically posses the female organ(s) while their body is producing and experiencing the androgenic effects of the male hormone (testosterone) because both tissues are present. That's a very important statement- as it explains how a male can poses the same physical attributes as another male, but genetically lack the androgenic effects of the testosterone hormone that the other "normal" male displays; like, thicker bone structure, deepening of the voice, muscle mass, facial hair and a sexual attraction to the opposite sex.
The condition is considered a mutation or a deviation in human genetics- in other words, even though it happens to humans, it's not "normal."
Again- the explanation above is akin to me saying "the earth was formed by gluing rocks together from space." it's so complicated that unless you're actually majoring in this specific field of study, you'd never fully understand all the intricate caveats involved.
So- in reality- both sides can take a point; it does happen naturally but is considered a mutation or deviation from the standard model of evolution.
I do want to point out that their are many species in the animal kingdom that are both, or can switch from one to the other- from fish, to reptiles, to insects to flowers. Evidence of this phenomenon is all around us.
-
I want to touch base on the topic of the word "marriage" which I think is a major sticking point between the religious and the nonreligious communities.
Religious ideology is very stubborn and conservative- whereas nonreligious people are more liberal (adjective, not noun) with their ideology.
The term "marriage" has a very distinct meaning in the religious communities- taken literally as a Latin term that describes a mutual agreement between a man & a woman...
Then along comes current generations that view the word "marriage" in a more liberal (adjective) point of view meaning "to mutually join two parts together".
This subtle difference in meaning is creating an enormous war of rights between a state / country where the majority of its constituents are religious in one way or another and have a conservative view that marriage = man & woman.... but, there are also more unconventional Liberal thinking generations that view marriage to = two parts together.
These two groups will never merge- neither will digress. There will not be any compromise- ever!
Compounding this issue are the state's & agencies that allow certain benefits to those who only subscribe to the conservative marriage doctrine of marriage = man + woman.
Perhaps the only solution is to coin up a new phrase that these other "unions" can use that essentially means the same thing as marriage that can then be recognized by states & agencies for equal civil rights-
man. I hate these topics!
This discussion is all over the place, as there's quite a bit of stubbornness on both sides, and I've been thinking about it for days now. I've been watching people argue points of religion, normality, social acceptance and evolution- which is fine. But the part that bothers me is that no one is starting from "the root." The first place anyone should look when discussing characteristics in human evolution is biology and physiology.
I have a background in biology, so, in an attempt to steer this conversation away from the sociological and religious angles being discussed above- I 'd like to make a few valid points on the "nature vs. nurture" aspects of homosexuality- bare with me here... much of this info I'm extrapolating from my molecular biotechnology "principles & applications" 4th ed. college book.
for simplicity of my post, "animal kingdom" includes fish, mammals, birds, reptile, amphibians, arthropods so on and so forth......
Although I believe the majority of homosexuality is a choice in lifestyle, (people gravitate towards comfort and acceptance even if it's within the same gender group)
It is entirely plausible (and probable) that there are cases where the human may feel a strong sexual attraction to the same gender based on their biological / genetic makeup.
True, this particular "human" species would not survive if it was the "norm" to have these deviations in feelings between two men or two woman- but that does not mean that it doesn't happen in nature, at birth within the human kingdom.
I am greatly simplifying this - this book alone is over 485 pages on the subject of molecular cell biology and is very technical. So, in a "nut-shell" Biology can easily explain how this may occur in human evolution. A human (or organism) may be born with both sex organs. This phenomenon is called "hermaphroditism", and it occurs in the animal & human kingdoms (but is more common among animal species.) In this case, It all comes down to chromosomes & hormones. A human born with both XX (female) and XY (male) chromosome pairs (XY- female, XX-male) will have both ovarian & testicular tissue.
There are at least a half dozen ways this phenomenon can occur in nature- for example a mutation of the sry gene or having the ovum fertilized by 2 sperm...
In some of these cases there is no sex assignment- these people are physically between both sexes and may or may not display characteristics of either sexes. For example, one may physically posses the female organ(s) while their body is producing and experiencing the androgenic effects of the male hormone (testosterone) because both tissues are present. That's a very important statement- as it explains how a male can poses the same physical attributes as another male, but genetically lack the androgenic effects of the testosterone hormone that the other "normal" male displays; like, thicker bone structure, deepening of the voice, muscle mass, facial hair and a sexual attraction to the opposite sex.
The condition is considered a mutation or a deviation in human genetics- in other words, even though it happens to humans, it's not "normal."
Again- the explanation above is akin to me saying "the earth was formed by gluing rocks together from space." it's so complicated that unless you're actually majoring in this specific field of study, you'd never fully understand all the intricate caveats involved.
So- in reality- both sides can take a point; it does happen naturally but is considered a mutation or deviation from the standard model of evolution.
I do want to point out that their are many species in the animal kingdom that are both, or can switch from one to the other- from fish, to reptiles, to insects to flowers. Evidence of this phenomenon is all around us.
-
I want to touch base on the topic of the word "marriage" which I think is a major sticking point between the religious and the nonreligious communities.
Religious ideology is very stubborn and conservative- whereas nonreligious people are more liberal (adjective, not noun) with their ideology.
The term "marriage" has a very distinct meaning in the religious communities- taken literally as a Latin term that describes a mutual agreement between a man & a woman...
Then along comes current generations that view the word "marriage" in a more liberal (adjective) point of view meaning "to mutually join two parts together".
This subtle difference in meaning is creating an enormous war of rights between a state / country where the majority of its constituents are religious in one way or another and have a conservative view that marriage = man & woman.... but, there are also more unconventional Liberal thinking generations that view marriage to = two parts together.
These two groups will never merge- neither will digress. There will not be any compromise- ever!
Compounding this issue are the state's & agencies that allow certain benefits to those who only subscribe to the conservative marriage doctrine of marriage = man + woman.
Perhaps the only solution is to coin up a new phrase that these other "unions" can use that essentially means the same thing as marriage that can then be recognized by states & agencies for equal civil rights-
man. I hate these topics!
Aug 30, 2012 | 02:47 PM
#147
Supersock
Hired Gun!
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
Hired Gun!
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 142,494
Likes: 182
From: Land of the misfit toys
I could live with hetero couples getting the word marriage, and the gay and lesbian crowd getting union.
Never been in a union and never plan on joining one.
Never been in a union and never plan on joining one.
Aug 30, 2012 | 03:20 PM
#148
Super Moderator
Well, golly JimBob!
Well, golly JimBob!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40,210
Likes: 55
One thing lacking from the "scientific" argument that points out physical attributes is our ability to reason. Call it what you will, but either by God's design or if you go that route, by clawing our way to the top of the evolutionary heap, we have abilities that animals have in very limited quantities at the very best if at all. We're either a freak accident where the chemicals magically united in just the right way, on just the right planet, with the star at just the right distance, and a planet with just the right ingredients to sustain life, or we are created.
I like to think of it this way. Take something as simple as a washer from a hardware store and say, "What are the chances of this appearing out of nowhere?". You would say, "There is no chance or the chances are so phenomenally small that it just would not happen." It was created by a man or woman. We are so much more complex than a simple washer. It takes more blind faith in my mind to believe we are just an accident of nature.
It's this ability to reason and have a conscience that tells us some things are wrong and some things are right that separates us from other animals. There is good and bad.
I like to think of it this way. Take something as simple as a washer from a hardware store and say, "What are the chances of this appearing out of nowhere?". You would say, "There is no chance or the chances are so phenomenally small that it just would not happen." It was created by a man or woman. We are so much more complex than a simple washer. It takes more blind faith in my mind to believe we are just an accident of nature.
It's this ability to reason and have a conscience that tells us some things are wrong and some things are right that separates us from other animals. There is good and bad.
Aug 30, 2012 | 04:05 PM
#149
Polaris ATV Expert
Retired and loving it!
Retired and loving it!
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 24,350
Likes: 44
From: North Texas
Moose if you have a chance read this book. He kinda puts it in layman's terms on the "razor edges" of how exact things had to be for life as we know it to exist. In his research as an astronomer and astrophysicist he himself could no longer deny not only an "intelligent" creator, but a personal one.He makes some sense in using science along with faith to help understand existence way better than I ever could try to explain it. I do take it with a grain of salt though as I put my faith in the one book I believe in my heart to be true.
The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the ... - Hugh Ross - Google Books
OPT
The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the ... - Hugh Ross - Google Books
OPT
Aug 30, 2012 | 04:12 PM
#150
Elite Pro Rider
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,641
Likes: 1
No one is trying to convince you or the majority of America.
As a mod Iam sure you can hack up my posts and make them say what ever you want.... Whats your point??? As long as my dog is old enough to consent how is it any of your business?? Agenda
, I did not start this thread. I was enjoying a informative conversation. Moose is very well spoken and has the ability to bring relevant facts to the conversation as well as getting his opinion across without stooping to your level.
I fail to see how I attacked the military.... Too bad you are not in the military. If you were I would Thank You and have a shred of respect for you and your status on this site.
Now after reading your post I have no respect for you even if you are military. Actually Iam glad that you claim not to be in the military. I would not want someone like you traveling the world and representing the rest of us. So thanks for nothing.
You can call me out of whatever you want. A opinion does not equal a lifestyle. Most among us have the ability to comprehend such a simple concept.
Threads like this usually dont end up very well. Kind of funny that it was the mod who brought this thread down to the personal attack level.
As a mod Iam sure you can hack up my posts and make them say what ever you want.... Whats your point??? As long as my dog is old enough to consent how is it any of your business?? Agenda
, I did not start this thread. I was enjoying a informative conversation. Moose is very well spoken and has the ability to bring relevant facts to the conversation as well as getting his opinion across without stooping to your level. I fail to see how I attacked the military.... Too bad you are not in the military. If you were I would Thank You and have a shred of respect for you and your status on this site.
Now after reading your post I have no respect for you even if you are military. Actually Iam glad that you claim not to be in the military. I would not want someone like you traveling the world and representing the rest of us. So thanks for nothing.
You can call me out of whatever you want. A opinion does not equal a lifestyle. Most among us have the ability to comprehend such a simple concept.
Threads like this usually dont end up very well. Kind of funny that it was the mod who brought this thread down to the personal attack level.
You did in fact attack the military with your "first to go last to know" comment that you posted twice.
As far as your opinion of me I could not possible care less.
