scrappy

Then you must also hate old ladies who wear too much perfume in public places. My point being this: Should everything that offends you be criminalized? I happen to be offended by NASCAR for a whole lot of good reasons, but I don't think its activities should be felonious (we need to know who these people are and watch out for them).

Dudde, maybe your paranoia is unjustified. With regards to physical harm from MJ relative to dependence on it, how do you justify criminalizing it when these data are commonly known: (source) Shouldn't you be more paranoid about cigarette smoking and beer drinking?

If one were to examine the entire spectrum of economic benefits accruing from the decriminalizing or legalizing MJ, one would see that the biggest gainer is the public, especially the tax-paying public. And who would be the biggest loser? The lawyers. (I just wish I had some statistics to back this up.) That is exactly why MJ will never be decriminalized or legalized.

How 'bout: X = X When law X is ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, then law X is unconstitutional.

So let me see if have this correctly. It’s a fact that the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade concerning its constitutionality. But it’s not a fact that their ruling declared anti-abortion laws unconstitutional—the SCOTUS being the only body in the land authorized to make such a decision. And if it is not a fact that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional then what’s the point of a SCOTUS ruling? When the SCOTUS rules against SSM in the future it will be just as unconstitutional as anti-abortion laws are today. Just the facts, mam, not your opinion.

ParanoiA, Here again you are confusing facts with opinions. When the SCOTUS rules on a law’s constitutionality that ruling becomes fact. It doesn’t matter if you agree with that ruling or not; it doesn’t even matter if a SCOTUS justice disagrees with the ruling, all there is is the raw reality that the law was or was not constitutional. No matter what anybody thinks about the constitutionality of legalized abortions, it is a fact, and indisputable fact, that laws prohibiting them are unconstitutional.

Cameron, it’s also worth mentioning that individuals carry many genes (specifically alleles) that are not expressed as proteins or phenotypes, thus proving a reservoir of code variations for eventual selection. Also there are many phenotypes expressed in individuals that play no role in natural selection. As such, mutations are not always the source of allelic or phenotypic variety that serves evolution. However, if you trace the history of alleles of a gene there could be two things that caused their original formation: 1. mutation, and 2. gene flow (i.e., lateral transfer of genetic material, including whole genes or parts of them, from one species to another*). *If you ever saw the movie The Fly you might get the general hang of it.

ParanoiA, I don't understand how you can say this and miss seeing the contradiction in it. What is constitutional and what isn't is decided at the federal level by the SCOTUS. For example, the SCOTUS has decided that women should not be prohibited from abortions. This means that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. That's a fact; it's unambiguous. Now, if you happen to disagree with the that ruling does not change the fact that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional; it only means that you hold an different opinion on that matter of constitutionality. Please, do we agree or don't we that the prohibition of abortion is unconstitutional. There can be only one right answer to this question, and I have all the facts needed to explain why.

Maybe. Great question! Yes, they would be, according to my reasoning, because they would be in denial that the constitutionality on that matter was already settled. But they're humans, too, and I would expect them to behave like humans after all. btw: I have NEVER heard ANY supreme court justice claim that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional after the SCOTUS issued it decision on the case. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged WRONG! There is only one way in America to decide on any issue of constitutionality—that's precisely why we have the SCOTUS.

Thank you for a direct question. I don’t know the answer to that question; you’d have to ask them. If straight people support “gay marriage” then they are entitled to their opinion. And out here in Seattle there are a great many of them. When we have “Gay Pride” parades up on Capital Hill many straights join the march. I went up to one a few years ago and nearly got into a fist fight with a bunch of assholes who were yelling insults at them and calling them “fagots.” I wanted to hand out a few mouthfuls of bloody Chicklets to the jerks, and they were bristling to get a piece of me, too, but the Seattle PD stepped in. Then I returned home and thought it over. I wanted to protect the gays from harassment, even though I didn’t agree that a CU between two gays qualifies as a “marriage.” I came to the conclusion that “Gay Pride” parades are probably the most counterproductive things they could do to get same-sex CUs accepted and legalized. And I’ve spoken to gays I know about my opinion on this matter. Some agreed with me and some didn’t. I know gays who say this about “gay marriage”: “Screw it! Who wants to join their f***ed institution, anyway?” Bottom line: It’s all about pride and nothing else on either side of this issue. Therefore, let’s have a different venue. Let’s change the approach. Let’s build a case for same-sex CUs on proven facts that have universal appeal. I like Barney Frank; he’s my kind of politician. And I admire Seattle’s gay couples who adopt distressed orphans and do other fine things I have never done as a straight. Why not emphasize those splendid contributions to society and forget about "gay pride"? How many times do I need to say that pride is the bane of the human race. It’s also the cause of self-destruction on the issue of same-sex CUs. I'm just searching for something better than pride to move their cause forward. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged But I don’t understand this. The constitutionality of abortion rights has already been established. We now know for a FACT that it IS constitutional. That matter has been settled unambiguously. Correct. The SCOTUS can only interpret the Constitution, which happens to be the way this constitutional republic works. That’s right. Even at their level it’s all about opinions. Thank you for the gentle correction. I never said it did. I only said that it was a matter of pride on both sides of the issue. Three times wed and three times divorced. This does not speak in glowing terms for the marriage institution. Padren, you wear me out. We have in America a Constitution and the SCOTUS to interpret it. I’ll leave those questions to them when they finally rule on the constitutionality of SSM. Please forgive me if my answer is insufficient. The only answer I have is that the SCOTUS must ultimately make that ruling. Then we’ll know what is constitutional and what isn’t.

Only if the disagreeing parties have supported their case for SSM on its constitutionality. Thus, the matter would be settled—the SCOTUS did its job. Now, if you want to find another reason to support SSM, that’s fine, but to use the reason for legalizing SSM that it’s all about its constitutionality would be a hypocritical act. As to the rest of your post, it seems that you have not been paying attention. All I oppose is calling a same-sex civil union a “marriage.” That’s all. I do not oppose anything that would impede gay rights. This thread is about what the government should do with the word “marriage." I don’t think that title should go to them, simply because such a CU does not meet the key criteria my definition of “marriage.” What’s left for me to explain? It’s an opinion I hold on the matter. And you can’t justify your opinion on the matter to me any better than I can justify mine to you. But I can argue for the majority and you can’t. Sadly, that make a difference. If you recall, I have been arguing all along that the road to success for same-sex CUs cannot escape the emotion of pride when the word “marriage” is engaged. On the road to success there is a reality factor called “popular opinion.” Sad but true. What I am criticizing, basically, is the way the LGBT community is going about getting what it wants and deserves. It’s hard to reason on an emotional level, which is in and of itself a reality factor on both sides of this issue. Padren, could you ask me just one specific question that I have not already answered, please? I will give you the most direct answer I possibly can.

I doubt you would like any debating "conduct" that defeats your position. It’s as if you want to play rugby but you don’t want to get tackled. Don’t you want to go to the mat in a debate, as long as it’s fair, honest and civil? Don’t you want a worthy opponent to bring out your best debating skills? Don’t you enjoy the sport of it? btw: I didn’t say you were a hypocrite. I said you would be a hypocrite if you refuted a ruling on constitutionality by the SCOTUS while claiming that constitutionality is the fundamental reason for legalizing SSM.

What I don’t understand is why this forum’s “home team” would offer a debate on the topic Should the government drop the word "marriage" and then be intolerant of opposing opinions. What’s so scary about opposing opinions in a debate, anyway? What’s to be learned in a debate if everyone holds the same opinion? Should I assume that holding a minority opinion here automatically makes one a pariah on the forum?

I do not see how anything but pride is driving this discussion—pride on both sides. I have made it clear too many times already that I support fully legal, equal and fair same-sex domestic partnerships. But I don’t support calling them “marriages.” Why? Because they don’t fit my definition of the term, that’s why. Am I prideful because of this? Well, yes, to the extent that my pride counters the pride of the same-sexers who hold the opposite opinion. Wounded pride is all there is here…if same-sex DPs were fully legal, equal and fair. This is why it makes no practical sense for the LGBT people to demand their “marriages,” per se, as long as they get their fully legal, equal and fair DPs. Take this one word off the table—”marriage”—and see what happens. All those stupid, bigoted and traditional people who live in all those stupid, bigoted and traditional states—all 94 percent of them—might belly up the bar of same-sex DPs like farmers at a hoedown.

What more justification do you need? You’re a hypocrite because you would claim that SSM is constitutional, even if the SCOTUS were to decide that it isn’t. (How can let yourself get caught in such an embarrassment? Answer: emotional overload.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged One would be a hypocrite if one were to argue the SSM case on its constitutionality and then deny its unconstitutionality after the SCOTUS ruled against it. Not only would one be a hypocrite, one would be abysmally ignorant of the principles of a constitutional republic. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged When all other legalities concerning real marriage an same-sex civil unions are equal in every relevant detail of the law, there is nothing left to complain about except wounded pride...on either side of the argument. The Constitution is not about people's emotions; it's about people's rights as interpreted by the SCOTUS. If you don't like that system then you need to go join one that is not a constitutional republic.

Then that would make you a hypocrite, because you and others here have based your entire case for SSM on its constitutionality.

I agree. Their legal equality matters. Gays and others of the GLBT community should NEVER be denied their constitutional rights. But how do we determine that? The courts have to make an interpretation of the Constitution, and we have to go along with it. If we don't we're bigots, because we'd be in an irrational minority of decent, demanding tyranny over the majority. And I ask again: If state supreme courts or the SCOTUS decide against your opinion, would you then be willing to change it?

It was at one time, and it was just as wrong as opinions favoring cannibalism were in their time. Civilization has moved on, at least in America and Canuckistan. The problem now is that the analogy of prohibiting blacks from drinking at white drinking fountains, or of blacks marrying whites, to prohibing SSM cannot be convincingly demonstrated to enough people to make a legal difference. Whose problem is that? Who needs to get real? Whose reality matters? If gays got their full legal rights to DPs, and all “facts and logic” were equal, then who is right and who is wrong about the titular issue of “marriage.” The straights claim it as their own; the gays want them to share it. No facts or logic from either side can settle this matter; it can only be settled on the fearsome landscape of opinion. What‘s left but opinion if the gays are not in any way disadvantaged by the legality of their DPs? Would you object if I decided to marry myself? And on what grounds? Would it be a “same-sex marriage”? Does this seem ridiculous to you? Why? Who is harmed by it? Would it be discriminatory if I decided to call myself a woman? Why not? Why can’t I call myself a pink unicorn if I want to? Well, I suppose I could do all that, but why? Answer: Because prevailing opinion (forget about the facts and logic) would not allow either one to occur on the legal level where the rubber of opinions meet the road of political reality. Then you agree that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage. I find this flippantly brief and uncommunicative. If you wrote a large explanation to something and I simply commented "Too illogical" you'd want to know why I thought it was illogical' date=' because it's not exactly a stretch for me to realize you wouldn't have posted it if you yourself saw it as illogical. I'd say that I found it illogical, then explain why I did, so you could understand too. I don't see how my statement has "Too much conjecture" so please illuminate me as to the err in my comment. As far as I am concerned I was pointing out how if the wording was slightly different and happened to discriminate against a different, larger social group it would never stand. I did this to demonstrate that the "original definition" of marriage is irrelevant, as if it discriminated against atheists, or protestants, or other races the wording would be challenged and changed. It should not be any different because it "only" discriminates against gays. Please demonstrate why this is too convoluted.[/quote'] I’m sorry about the conjecture remark. You are a sincere poster and I didn’t mean to blow you off. But “the original definition” of marriage is relevant here, because politics is relevant if SSM is to be actualized. So far, that “original definition” prevails in 96% of the states and DC. How are you going to lift your 4% up to something that has any meaning for your cause? You have to change opinions, however terrible they might seem to the 4% minority. All that having been said, I still don’t know where the harm is if gays are granted their fully comprehensive and legal rights to DPs. Not being able to call it “marriage” would not harm even a child conceived from such a CU…oh, sorry, that’s biologically impossible, I forgot. Well, then where IS the harm? Agreed, opinions are the element. This debate is about pride, on both sides. If there are no legal differences between a marriage between one man and one woman and a DP between two gays then what else do we have but prideful opinion. That’s why we have courts, to interpret the Constitution. The big question is this: If state supreme courts or the SCOTUS decide against your opinion, would you then be willing to change it?

Really? So the fact that *everyone* else defines NS as a process, not a result, doesn't phase you at all? "Everyone"? Please prove your assertion. You can call random genetic drift the same thing as natural selection, too, and you’ll look just as ridiculous. You’ve got a lot work to do to catch up on cause-effect relationships of evolution. So [is?] drift and founder effect? I'm not just being pedantic - the problem with defining NS as a result is that there are other mechanisms that lead to the same result. What's walking? Is walking the place you wind up' date=' or the process by which you got there?[/quote'] If you continue to confuse drift with NS I don’t know how to help you and move on with this discussion. I’ll leave you to your “cytoplasm fairies.” If you still think genes are “blueprints” of proteins then I don’t know where you’ve been in the last few years. Maybe with the evo-devo fairies? My, oh, my! Aren’t we a bit insecure here. And you’re a moderator, too. Telling!

Is anyone's position on this thread not oriented by opinion? And who differentiates real marriage from the other kind? Those who hold the persuasive opinions on the matter, that's who. All of the battles of this war are bebing fought on the landscape of opinion. Being an untheist I am not qualified to say. But I know that gays and atheists and blacks and short people are all welcome without discrimination into the marriage institution. If they weren't, then we'd have a really big problem. It's yours, too, such as it is. Should the gays own it instead of the straights? I think we all own it, and without discrimination, too. Too much conjecture. Then you would agree that DPs for gays should be enough for them. I haven't seen any facts yet that change my mind on the core issue. Is there a registry somewhere that separates the facts from the opinions? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged But, as I have taken pains to point out above, gays can get married, just like straights, atheists, untheists, nerds, and geeks. I'd say the agent that causes them harm is their pride.

All of the circumstances I can think of involving dented pride are existentially self-inflicted.

A falling rock is not NS, but it might lead to differential success amongst individuals of a ppulation, which is NS. 1. The founder effect is, in fact, drift. 2. Drift is not selective, and therefore it is not NS. No. Diferential reproductive success... is NS. Bad analogy, because genotypes are not "blueprints" of their phenotypes. Genotypes look nothing like their phenotypes. Genotype are only code for their phenotypes. Crap? Genes don't "build" organisms. Genes only code for phenotypes. The ribosomes, if anything, build the organism.

Of course it does. It's all about opinions. But atheists have just as much access to the marriage institution as the Christians and gays do. Otherwise, we'd be propagating bigotry. The DOMA people have always welcomed those "other people" into their marriage institution. If that were true then the gays will be satisfied when they get the fully legalized DPs. Once again, is abused pride (on either side of this issue) a measure of harm?

Or I could say the problem is that tallying the score is what NS actually is, while the race is what happens before there is any scoring. Not at the moment when NS is measurable: i.e., that moment when there is an occurrence of differential reproductive success amongst individuals of a population. That moment (in k-selected pops.) is fertilization. And, at that moment, the phenotypes are all but non-existent. No. That is not what NS is. NS is an occurrence of differential reproductive success amongst individuals of a population. You’re talking about physical events that affect allele distribution; I’ll agree to that. But NS is not precisely active in the context you offered, because you couldn’t observe NS until the you saw which alleles (genotypes) made the jump successfully at the moment of fertilization. I don’t think predation, for example, is selective, per se, but the consequences of it, as measure by an occurrence of differential reproductive success amongst individuals of a population would fit the definition of NS. And that would require genotypes to carry the load, because the phenotypes are mostly unexpressed. No. That is not what NS is. NS is an occurrence of differential reproductive success amongst individuals of a population. I think we may have a bit of a chicken-or-egg argument here.

How can I answer this post without being accused again of repeating myself?