Syntho-sis

Agreed.

It's only an interesting discussion in that it's relevant to the question asked by the OP, so far no one has been able to answer that question. Otherwise we're just going off topic, which is what we've been doing for the last several posts.

Haven't all the reasons been ruled out? Several times by now? Why not discuss the more interesting topic anyway? No secular reasoning exists for opposing SSM. IMHO

Not what I suggested. I was simply pointing out how the current system operates and attempting to resolve what action would be necessary for such a law to survive. I was also attempting to explain why such a law is impeded on the basis of majority rule. Thus a change would need to be made in the constitution in order to guarantee SS couples right to marry because there currently is not a guarantee of that right. Legislation on this issue is left to the state's governing bodies. It may be relevant to have secular reasons to appeal laws in a scientific community, but that is not how legislation in this country operates. Bills can find their way into obscurity simply by a group of individuals deciding they are not comfortable with the proposal. If there was any "relevant, secular" reason behind the impairment of such a law's creation so far, then we would be able to talk about that reason. But there isn't one. It is simply... Majority will..Which is based, more oft than not, on religious beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#Public_Choice_Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule

No, but it is a foundational concept to be considered when answering the question. It is a fundamental center piece our honorable officials in legislation would need to consider if enacting an amendment which would allow for all SS couples to receive proper recognition (within all states). It's one of the major impediments of SSM as of right now. With the real hedge being the beliefs of a majority of Americans that SS couples should not be allowed to marry (thus influencing all three branches of government to enact and enforce certain laws). On to other topics then...Boy didn't I go out on a limb? haha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause#Same-sex_marriage

Let me quote you again.. That last claim is totally irrelevant to the constitution and the statement made: Wouldn't a change in the constitution be required in order for homosexual couples to be allowed to marry? (To enforce in all states that is) Would that change be based off of protection of minorities or will of majority? The issue is irrelevant to the decision made when it is impeded by the majority vote. To the exclusion of vetoes. Point being, that a piece of legislation requires at least some support from the majority in order to exist for any significant amount of time (Let's say ten years.) It may be passed to begin with, but if the people decide they do not like a specific law they can vote in new representatives and members of congress. They can then petition the law, and have it reversed. This also gets into the issue of states rights. This is a function of argument, you can't call out every supposed red herring if you are not prepared to back up your statements with reliable evidence. Nothing about our legislation is absolute...

Hmmm...Then why use it as a claim to refute another claim? I believe that is a fallacy (can't pin the exact one down.) Your own claims about how the three major branches operate..What evidence do you have to support those claims?

Where is that stated in the Constitution?

Sweet! Thanks much

I myself have lived on farms growing up, and have visited many small farms. I've witnessed firsthand how small farmers actually treat their animals. In the eyes of most farmers, the animal is money, and you treat your money well. The website claims on free range Animals should not be treated cruelly, but the depictions on the website and video far exaggerate what actually goes on. For example: There is one seen in which two pigs hanging on some sort of apparatus have there throats slit I believe. It is made to appear that they are suffering because they are squirming as if in lots of pain. In actuality, most animals in this state are not experiencing pain at all, this is simply a reflexive response. The spinal cord is still active in this state, and is sending neurochemical impulses at a high rate. Thus you have the squirming. Which does not necessarily mean pain.

Well the makers of the video have clumped all the varying species that are involved in meat production into the all encompassing term of "animals." and feel that... Source: http://www.chooseveg.com/chickens-turkeys.asp Well apparently chickens are capable of emotions as well. This is why I do not take vegetarians and vegans seriously when it comes to this topic.

Well since it's the most reasonable thing at the moment, that's what I'll have to go with. (Home-built HeNe will have to wait) I have a simple laser pointer and access to tools and what not... Where do I go from there?

http://www.chooseveg.com/animal-cruelty.asp?gclid=CIrS89aL-ZwCFU8M2godJgmJaQ Now before I present my argument on this, I want you to watch this video. Do you agree with what the creators have intended to claim? Yay or Nay? And why? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSince there seems to be no early takers I will propose my case against the agenda behind the video: Which is encouragement of people to practice vegetarianism solely on the basis that cruelty and pain are experienced by the animals used for meat production. And that somehow eating meat is morally wrong. There was also a statement on the website that suggested that compassionate people choose not to eat meat. I see this as a fallacy in that the only alternative presented in the video and on the website to consumption of meat is vegetarianism. This is a false Dichotomy. I'm assuming there are quite a few people on here who disagree with my perspective. For those of you who do disagree I challenge you. If you are able to present a reasonable amount of evidence that meat production is a cruel and sinister affair I will stop eating meat immediately. This is one topic in which I am well-versed, so it will be a challenge indeed. Any takers? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Suggestion of non-compassion on the consumer's part. A statement which is not supported by evidence. Also a false dichotomy.

There was somewhat of a misunderstanding then. In that case I agree with your statements.

Yes I definitely agree that there exists some correlation between the two. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well it was an example in that most people have no interest in going to prison. Most people in fact will rationalize why they should be excluded from punishment of that form. Then again most people will agree that some form of punishment for individuals is necessary to maintain the rule of law. I was using self-interest in the form of interested in one's self i.e. placing your own desires above those of everyone else.

But there obviously exists some exclusion between the two, right? Not every action spawned out of a socialistic system is for the self-interest of the people. Sometimes whats good for us (or the entire community) is not in our self-interest. Prison system for example.

What Amino acids from outer space? Can amino acids form naturally in space? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment This indicates that as long as the right ingredients and correct stimulation are involved, amino acids can easily form. If that's so, how come we don't witness abiogenesis everyday? I mean if the correct chemicals are involved, and the correct stimulation....

Quick question: I was wondering. If the couple decides to have children. Say they adopted, and the child's previous family had be a heterosexual one. Is there any evidence that the psychological health of the children may be affected? Even if the child was at a young age? Has any studies been done in that regard? Thanks

I'm sorry for the lack of respect I have shown thus far.

Wow that is depressing. Our own library system, voted the best in the country, had to cut back on operating hours. A few months ago they were pretty much begging for donations, saying that it might be possible that they would have to close branches..It's still possible. I wonder what they would do with all those books.

I kinda like this one...Sortav like a lottery government. I wonder if any sci-fi books have been written on this premise. Interesting nonetheless.

How is that in the least relevant to helping the OP understand the question and then help them to come up with a correct answer? If you had read the rules for posting in the homework section you would know that you shouldn't be providing direct answers anyway! http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23802 And it seems to me that you are simply being antagonistic because your answer were refuted by numerous posters. Instead of taking it in stride you felt as if you were being personally attacked and are now associating snobbery with anyone who does not accept ignorance that is proclaimed as fact. I'll admit that I have made more than my share of mistakes on the forum. Apart of being able to 'survive' on here though, is knowing when a mistake is being made on my part, and then attempting to correct it and learn more about what I am ignorant in. My own answer may have been non-relevant to the question (I wrote it in haste without really understanding the question itself.) But Dr.Syntax, that does not, in and of itself validate your own answer. Now can we please stop arguing and instead discuss the question. Cheers

I'm interested in performing this experiment. How much time and money would I need to invest in this? I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the original experiment. What equipment did Thomas Young originally use? Any resources on this would be appreciated. Cheers s-s Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAs part of this I will most likely build a Helium-neon laser... I found one extensive website. The info is a little overwhelming though. http://www.repairfaq.org/ The HeNe construction is more for amusement purposes than an actual inability to come into the possession of a laser of this type. They are relatively inexpensive and easy to find.

I don't know why I didn't think about that. I was thinking more along the lines of the question referring to pathogenicity. Because like you said, almost all bacteria can spread to a given extent, but not all cause harm. Does that totally exclude the virulence factors I cited for pathogens?