Turken wrote:care to back that up with any sort of evidence that it is NOT a choice?

Well, there's this for starters:
http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Neurohormonal_functioning_2.pdf

Seems to cover most of the bases, though I haven't read it cover to cover yet.

eta: my earlier point still stands, though. It doesn't matter if it's choice or biology, why should freedom to marry whomever one chooses be restricted?

Oh Em Gee!
That's on helluva birthday week.

PemberDucky wrote:I want to marry a panda!

Panda matrimony would lead to.....

j5 wrote:Panda matrimony would lead to.....

. . . Panducklings!!

j5 wrote:Well, there's this for starters:
http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Neurohormonal_functioning_2.pdf

Seems to cover most of the bases, though I haven't read it cover to cover yet.

eta: my earlier point still stands, though. It doesn't matter if it's choice or biology, why should freedom to marry whomever one chooses be restricted?

I also don't have time to read the paper in its entirety, but did go through the opening couple pages as well as the conclusions section. basic impressions:

1) Paper presents a theory, which as the authors note in their conclusions, may require several decades of subsequent study to confirm. Paper was published in 1987. It's now two and a half decades later, and we're still waiting for that scientific confirmation.

2) Even within the theory proposed by the authors, they do not go so far as to say that homosexuality is a genetic inborn trait. Rather, there are factors from birth (both genetic and environmental) which would give a strong preference towards one behavior or another, and even those can still be overcome post-birth. just confirms my previous comments re: alcoholism.

Here's the thing: as a scientist I honestly, truly, wish that these authors were right -- that there was a direct, verifiable and repeatable scientific cause for homosexual behavior -- because then we could address it as scientists. You see, there's a term for a genetic condition which prevents an organism from functioning in the way it was biologically intended (i.e. surviving, thriving, and propagating the species). It's called a genetic disease. Like cancer, or Alzheimer's, or any of the other numerous diseases out there, we could study it and try to find a cure for it.

Which leads us to the mess we're in today. Those promoting the homosexual lifestyle want special protection as if they had no choice about it, because the vast majority of American society (what is it, 38 of 50 states?) does not agree with the behavior. But at the same time, they don't want to prove that they have no choice in the matter, because doing so would be to admit that they have a genetic disease for which a cure could be found. It's the proverbial wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

So, back to your question... you ask why it matters who one does or doesn't marry? Well, once biology is out of the picture, marriage is a construct defined by society and religion, and, well, rather than commit the double-foul of discussing politics AND religion in one morning, I'll just leave it at that.

Turken wrote:Well, once biology is out of the picture, marriage is a construct defined by society and religion

In which case, it should not afford certain individuals legal rights that are denied to others.

Relativity is also only a theory, do we just discount it then?

Vidal Sassoon dead; Mourning hair reported worldwide

There's the trifecta:
Sendak (Wild Thing)
Yauch (Beastie)
Sassoon (Hare?)

PemberDucky wrote:The very mental image is simply phenomenal.

Of course, I was going for the obvious; Pandamony...

AZGman wrote:. . . Panducklings!!

mmm... pan fried ducklings...

ThunderThighs wrote:

HI, don't usually "see" you here. Nice.

no1 wrote:*shrug* politics and religion discussions veer off from reasoned discussion into angry posts and hurt feelings about 99% of the time. 'twould be nice if it didn't but it does.

What about your "nothing to see here" type of posts on a certain medical condition? Politics and freedom of choice seem a tad less offensive I would think

j5 wrote:In which case, it should not afford certain individuals legal rights that are denied to others.

If all they were asking for were legal rights for inheritance and major medical decisions, etc., it wouldn't be an issue. Civil unions can provide those rights.

The thing is, those pushing hardest for same-sex marriage aren't really fighting for legal rights as much as they are for societal acceptance and affirmation of their lifestyle choice. Their problem stems from the fact that "traditional marriage" is not only the societal norm, but its very long and very widely held definition also carries religious implications which strongly denounce their personal behavior. Hence the current battle to redefine, or in the case of the numerous states that have been forced to defensively legislate on the matter, reaffirm the societal definition of what precisely marriage is and is not.

Relativity is also only a theory, do we just discount it then?

If it were a theory which years of study and inquiry failed to find any support for, then yes, we would.

Turken wrote:If it were a theory which years of study and inquiry failed to find any support for, then yes, we would.

I haven't investigated the current state of the debate, so I defer to the Wiki on the subject where many interesting points are raised and references cited.
There is way too much to discuss on your other point to address without beer in front of me and a few hours to debate, so I'll leave it with this: No laws should ever be made based on religious doctrine. Period.

j5 wrote:There is way too much to discuss on your other point to address without beer in front of me and a few hours to debate, so I'll leave it with this: No laws should ever be made based on religious doctrine. Period.

Agreed on the first point. And I'll leave it with this: No laws can ever be made in a religious vacuum, either.

Turken wrote:And I'll leave it with this: No laws can ever be made in a religious vacuum, either.

Outside of protection of religious freedoms, I cannot disagree more.

j5 wrote:Outside of protection of religious freedoms, I cannot disagree more.

Hear, hear! I agree with J5 emphatically.

klozitshoper wrote:What about your "nothing to see here" type of posts on a certain medical condition?

what about them? was someone upset by the phrase "nothing to see here?"

klozitshoper wrote:Politics and freedom of choice seem a tad less offensive I would think

i think nobody was driven away by the phrase "nothing to see here" but people can be driven away by a long string of angry rants. nobody's ability to post was being restricted; last time i checked, most of the people here don't have wootstaff badges and no ability to dispense probations or delete posts. statements to avoid certain topics should be taken as friendly, wise advice, in much the same vein as "parents shouldn't dress up their toddlers in makeup and risque clothing to enter them in pageants" (which, by the way, is only my opinion - any1 is free to become offended by my apparent attack on parental rights and dress up their children thusly, if they so choose.)

j5 wrote:Outside of protection of religious freedoms, I cannot disagree more.

ORLY?

Where does the law come from?
What gives authority to that law?
What give morality to the law?

Law is, by definition, the codification of the morality of the society. That is, society as a whole declares what is right and what is wrong, and establishes a system so that the people can be held accountable to it. However, it has authority only as long as the governed give it that authority. And where does the morality of society come from? In the US, from our religious heritage.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

So, as citizens of the USA, ALL of our law is based on the fundamental idea that there is a divine being greater than any one of us from which morality and justice are derived. Like it or not, it is impossible to create law (at least in the US) in the complete absence of religion. Remove religion from the equation, and it becomes a matter of each man determining for himself what is right and wrong. Which, in the context of a representative government, means those with the loudest voice and deepest pockets end up creating the law for personal gain and power.

But hey, if you want to try living completely devoid of all religious influence, feel free to leave here and move to China or North Korea where they are trying to govern in such a manner. It sure seems to be working real great for them!

no1 wrote:i think nobody was driven away by the phrase "nothing to see here" but people can be driven away by a long string of angry rants. nobody's ability to post was being restricted; last time i checked, most of the people here don't have wootstaff badges and no ability to dispense probations or delete posts. statements to avoid certain topics should be taken as friendly, wise advice, in much the same vein as "parents shouldn't dress up their toddlers in makeup and risque clothing to enter them in pageants" (which, by the way, is only my opinion - any1 is free to become offended by my apparent attack on parental rights and dress up their children thusly, if they so choose.)

Well, actually, it was directed to me who was simply saying hi to a group of people I thought. I certainly was not offended; however, if I were thin-skinned, I would have probably been driven away not to return. What is not harsh to some people can be hurtful to others, just saying'.

"
last time i checked, most of the people here don't have wootstaff badges and no ability to dispense probations "

BTW I just noticed a week or so ago that you had a woot staff square. It was not always so was it?

//pokes head in

back reading was something else...

I'm sorta alive and even left my bed today. Apparently my intestines haven't exploded at this time although I did wonder yesterday.

Will not chime in on debate about homosexuality. I've spent too many nights with friends in tears wishing they could be "normal" or visiting them in hospital after they've been beaten for being "different". Only to have them wish that they could be any other way. I don't have scientific evidence in humans, but plenty in other species. And that is ALL I am going to say about it.

// leaves unless someone has something non divisive to talk about.

KtCallista wrote:// leaves unless someone has something non divisive to talk about.

do you think deckard was a replicant?

ThunderThighs wrote:I'm working day shift some this week. Back to normal next week.

Hi!!

Hi TT - how are you handling the temporal shift? My dad takes about a month to shift between days and nights when he changes.

KtCallista wrote:// leaves unless someone has something non divisive to talk about.

who'd win in a battle between star trek's starfleet and star wars's empire?

KtCallista wrote:// leaves unless someone has something non divisive to talk about.

grey or gray?

no1 wrote:do you think deckard was a replicant?

I edited my previous comment to you and wondered if you saw it. Are you new Woot staff - say witin the past few months?

klozitshoper wrote:BTW I just noticed a week or so ago that you had a woot staff square. It was not always so was it?

it's made up. a part of my avatar pic.

no1 wrote:do you think deckard was a replicant?

//blush

It's been so long since I've seen that I had to google it. I'm going to have to pull the ol' VHS off the shelf, boot up the VCR and rewatch it to make any kind of guess.

2 weeks and I might have the freedom for a movie. Although I was planning on it being Lady Hawke, I think it's time to introduce the kids to that one.

no1 wrote:who'd win in a battle between star trek's starfleet and star wars's empire?

Empire, easy The starfleet would need borg help to even begin to fight.

no1 wrote:grey or gray?

No comment

Thank you No1, I needed something normal today.

KtCallista wrote:Empire, easy The starfleet would need borg help to even begin to fight.

but starfleet has ftl weaponry (they say photon torpedoes are ftl) and routinely battle at ftl speeds (in original series, kirk's first battle tactic is routinely "go to warp") whilst empire ships, though able to travel in hyperspace, seem limited to sublight speeds in battle.

KtC, I sure hope they don't dumb down the questions for this group.

"Jeopardy!" has announced the line-up of celebrities who will participate in the special "Power Players Week" tournament.
Silver fox Anderson Cooper, "New Girl" cameo maker Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Lewis Black are just a few names on the eclectic roster of competitor, who each stand to earn $10,000 for their charity (winners earn a minimum of $50,000).
Monday, May 14
Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Competing for Pine Hills Literacy Project)
"Hardball" host Chris Matthews (La Salle College High School)
CNN correspondent Lizzie O'Leary (826DC)
Tuesday, May 15
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Skyhook Foundation)
CNBC anchor David Faber (New Visions for Public Schools)
Fox News host and former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino (Pets2Vets)
Wednesday, May 16
BBC America anchor Katty Kay (International Women's Media Foundation)
Dr. Mehmet Oz (HealthCorps)
Fox News host Chris Wallace (Hope for the Warriors)
Thursday, May 17
Lewis Black (Cystic Fibrosis Foundation)
Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page (American Institute for Stuttering)
NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd (Samaritan Inns)
Friday, May 18
Professional giggler Anderson Cooper (The Trevor Project)
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman (Conservation International)
NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Kelly O'Donnell (Lost Dog & Cat Rescue Foundation)

Thread temperature critical.
Aborting.

no1 wrote:but starfleet has ftl weaponry (they say photon torpedoes are ftl) and routinely battle at ftl speeds (in original series, kirk's first battle tactic is routinely "go to warp") whilst empire ships, though able to travel in hyperspace, seem limited to sublight speeds in battle.

The Empire is a juggernaut. Their firepower is vastly stronger than Starfleet's. They also have extremely heavy armor in addition to their deflector shields. Their craft (with the exception of Interceptors) are designed to take some serious hits without failure. Starfleet vessels are designed for exploration. They are a smaller lighter craft, that while it does have a speed advantage (that it can only manipulate in short bursts) they can not take sustained high intensity fire, like that from the main turret of a destroyer. Even with their speed they can't outmaneuver the Interceptors. They simply aren't built for war, like the Empire is. Even in their fights with Klingon or Borg they were mostly border skirmishes between just a few ships, never taking on an armada. It's not just technology differences, it's the psychology behind their equipment.