A Tripolation

Well see, that is what is inherently wrong with this thread. People assume that since we are opposed to SSM, it means we want to deny them the benefits that come from marriage. This is simply not true, yet, many in this thread act as if that is what is going on. I just want it called something different from marriage. Give them all the rights, as those rights belong to everyone that is in a COMMITTED relationship. But why must the name be the same? And I don't get how this is "seperate but equal" as homosexual relationships are different than heterosexual relationships in almost every way. What is wrong with the name "Civil Union"? I wouldn't be opposed to any future marriage I might have being labeled as a "Civil Union", so long as I got all the rights that were mine, and I was with the person I love. That's what leads me to believe that this is all about the name and not the content. It seems shallow to me.

Yes, I am quite aware of precedents within the Judicial Branches and how they shape our society. I just failed to see how they applied to this thread whatsoever, but I guess you were responding to Syntho-sis?

Well you are the one that brought it up. This is completely irrelevant, JillSwift.

Cool thread, iNow. I think I read about most of this in Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Is this meant to disprove a God? If so, it fails quite miserably. I understand the concept of "religion is a by-product of something else", but to me, that only seems applicable to the people that actually think that the entire world was covered by water. I don't see how it applies to me at all...perhaps you can offer some insight, iNow?

And what a fine option it would have been Bear's Key.

First of all, I'd like to say that, as someone who grew up on a farm, we small farmers NEVER treat our animals so horribly. Our cattle probably did have a much better life than a lot of the people in the world. They always had food and water and as much as they could want. They had good shelter and were treated incredibly well. This goes for EVERY small farm that I have ever visited. And yes, chickens are horribly packed in those places...I've seen it myself. That's why I only try and eat "free-range chicken" because, whether they feel pain or not, it is still wrong to treat a living animal so horribly. But they DON'T "feed antiobiotics to promote unnatural growth". What they do (at least in the feedlots for cattle) is put a growth horomone in tabular form in the cow's ear. Antibiotics are only used when necessary, as they are ungodly expensive. And the cattle are supposed to be stunned before they are slaughtered. How many are, I cannot say. But to anyone that has seen "No Country for Old Men" the weapon Javier Bardem uses is how they are supposed to be killed. It's called a captive-bolt pistol. And I plain refuse to eat veal because of what it is. Animals are never supposed to be treated as cruelly as those videos show, though sadly, I have seen it myself at the stockyards I went to with my father.

Yeah, upgrading houses would be money MUCH MORE well spent. And plus, you dont want to go around fooling with the weather. It could have unintended consequences. The hurricanes that hit near the Atlantic Coast often bring a lot of water to states that are caught in a drought. Hurricane rain has saved a lot of crops where I live.

I don't "support" it per se, but I did think it was awesome that he said that. Obviously he was mistaken, and Obama wasn't lying, but you have to admit it livened up something that is usually incredibly verbose and pretentious. I can't tell you how much I laughed after that. And "You LIE!!!" is just one of the funniest rebuttals in an argument...right up there with "that's what she said". And Pangloss made some good points. Thought I'd throw in the opinions that some of us non-sciencey people have.

Yes, Applied Mechanical Engineering is the same thing as Engineering Mechanics. Both are practical applications of Mechanical Engineering, IIRC. Biomedical Engineering is more along the lines like the creation of the artificial heart *to note a fairly recent and famous example*. These guys are insanely knowledgable, as they design a lot of the machines that hospitals and doctors use. But, unless I am mistaken, it wouldn't be exactly what you were looking for. To tell you the truth, what you want to do is fairly unique, and there isn't really a general major that you can choose that is specialized to your desired education. Certainly bioengineering would help you and provide a lot of core information, but I'm not quite sure as to where you would find a program that you are looking for. Mainly because engineering sticks to what currently exists! But that is not to say that they dont create new things, they most certainly do. I just don't know what field would best suit you.

Yes, you have the undergraduate/grad system figured out pretty well (I myself am a junior in college). Once you obtain your Bachelor's degree, you can then apply for the graduate program, and from there obtain your master's degree, and your PhD, in that order. Also, while biochemistry is a suitable major, you might want to minor in Applied Mechanical Engineering or some other such thing. As an engineering major, I can tell you that what you want to do will most certainly need engineers. But I'm not certain if there is such a thing as Biochemical Engineering...maybe. I'm sure some of the other more knowledgable members of this forum can help with that. And I'm also not sure about the complexitites of med school. Hopefully this helps some

And this is precisely the case. I oppose it, but I'm not going to tell two adults that are in love that they can't get married. That's just wrong. I don't know why I oppose it, I just know I do, and I feel I always will. (lol, and people said I would become socially liberal in college) I guess one of the last things I'll add to this is that some people that are anti-same-sex-marriage is because they see marriage as between one man and one woman, as it has been for ages. That's my reason anyhow.

Oh, I most certainly see the fault in my beliefs. But what gives you the right to claim that my way is wrong? My belief harms no one, as I do not support the anti-SSM movements and such. Its just something I believe personally. If they were to pass SSM tomorrow, I would go "meh" and get on with my day. So to say that a quietly-held opinion is bigotry (which is an awful harsh term) just because that one opinion is proven to have faults, seems to fit the bill of bigotry much more than the aforementioned opinion. I'm minoring in Computer Science. I know Windows is a crap OS compared to Apple's. Ive seen the architecture of both, and I can adamantly say Apple's version is better written. But I still love and use Windows, and that won't change. Does that make me a bigot? I would think not, so why is this belief in SSM any different? Because it is a "hot-topic"? That wouldn't be a very good reason.

Agreed JillSwift, thanks. iNow, just because I (and others) hold that belief does NOT make me bigoted, as I wish no harm against them, nor do I actively seek ways to hurt them. It does NOT make me homophobic, because I do not fear them (heck, I share a dorm with a gay person, and we have had many talks on this matter). And I think many people share my thoughts on this. Couldn't your statements be considered a fallacy? I think they fall under the category of Ad Hominem. By saying that those views are bigoted and irrational and homophobic IMPLIES that we are those things as well. I think the part about "defaulting" would fall under the errors of a "false dichotomy", but I'm not quite sure. Anyway, I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

Why? Because that's how it has always been. I can't readily explain it. My thoughts aren't any more valid, than theirs. Once again though, many people that are pro-SSM are anti-incest and anti-polygamy, and that is exceedingly hypocritical. Isn't that right? Once same-sex "MARRIAGE" is approved, then won't we have to give proponents of incest and polygamy the VERY same rights? That's mainly my opposition. I'm not opposed at all to ANYONE being together, I just think we ought to call it a Civil Union. That applies to EVERYONE. And no, iNow, it wasn't a false comparison. If I carried a gun, it wouldn't be a modded AK-47, which is ONLY used for mowing down people, as you seemed to imply that most people would. I would carry a medium-caliber pistol, which would be a self-defense weapon...and most people would carry something similar. But I'm not allowed, even though the second amendment guarantees me that right. Violation of my civil rights. I was intending to show that we ALL have our rights violated at some point.

It was not a red herring. It was meant to show that EVERYONE has their civil rights violated at some point. I wasn't trying to make a point on gun control. I probably should have elaborated on that point a bit more.

And I already addressed this by suggesting that EVERYONE be civil-unioned instead of married. I just think marriage is between one man and one woman. That's just how I will always see it. So no, I can't seem to think of a reason to deny them this right. But then my right to carry a non-concealed weapon in public has been violated...so how are my civil rights less valuable than theirs?

Yes, you all are right about tradition being a not-so-great reason. And no, they should have the rights that everyone else has. But I just see it as them wanting the TERM and NOT the actual benefits. Why ELSE wouldn't they be satisfied with civil unions? I would. And Im sure most other people that are in love would as well. And also, what about the whole "slippery slope" thing? Going by the logic of pro-SSM, then polygamy should be legal as well. And so should incest, provided all the people are willing and consentful and of legal age. What right do you have to deny them "marriage" as well? And Jackson33 makes some damn good points.

Paul Bettany? Wow, he usually plays some bad*** guy running around killing people or angels. This is pretty cool. Looks like a great movie.

iNow, I think that the fact that marriage has always referred to a man and a woman for so long is a decent reason. I truly don't understand why they want a marriage and not a civil union. And to anticipate a probable question with regards to that statement, yes, I would be perfectly fine with a civil union, provided I get to marry the woman I love, and that none of my rights were violated. I may be a theist, but I am actually in support of abolishing marriage's legality as it ISN'T fair that a legal procedure be tied up with religious entities. Everyone should have to get a civil union. And a marriage could be the ceremonial after party of sorts. As a quick aside (as it is fairly far off topic): Anarchy would never work, it's practically guranteed to devolve into a tribal society where the people with the biggest guns control the people with no and/or smaller guns. There are no examples of a country in anarchy living in relative peace.

I just thought that since we are capable of making other species extinct, that means we are above them on the evolutionary ladder. They continue to exist because we allow it. And I'm sure we couldn't survive if we wiped out all other species except humans, I'm just saying that it seems to me that since we can destroy them, that makes us superior. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I completely understand that. I was just wondering if we have had some impact on these random mutations, which we can now ascribe a value to, due to our developed mental abilities. Seems to me that with us keeping people alive that wouldn't be alive without medicine is cheating---but now I understand that we are simply changing our environment...speeding up the process of evolution quite a bit. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged ...We aren't the dominant species? Well then, to whom does that honor go to? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I think if EVERY Australian was committed to the extermination of rabbits, like we would an opposing species, the rabbits would be dead.

Well, wouldn't it benefit humans today to be equipped as the aliens are? Or is it because that our environment doesn't DIRECTLY require this adaptation, that we will never have the strenghts of the "Aliens". And if that is so, does that mean were the environment to change to where great strength was needed, humans would adapt and become more powerful versions than what they are today? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, see, that's my point. Look at rabbits! If we were so compelled, humans (even without our armaments) could easily wipe them off from the face of the earth. They would be our food. If humans were more destructive than they are today, what species could oppose us except one that was even more intelligent and strong? That was my point with the Aliens. I was saying that they seem to be more well evolved due to the fact that they would be the dominant species on Earth. Sorry if I'm bringing up issues that have been resolved. This is a very new topic for me.

Hmmm, I'm not sure getting rid of common-sense is the way to go, but I do believe that more international cooperation is neccesary to make the world a better place. But we will always have violence and war and hatred and bigotry...I have no suggestions as how to curb all that.

Maybe none of those, but I can give you a personal example, if you'll permit it. It's not violent, but an extreme liberal did try to set free all the cattle at a stockyard I and my father were selling cattle at by sneaking in and opening the gates. Had she succeeded, she would've cost many people a lot of hard-earned money. That's the same as stealing in my opinion. I've also read accounts of extreme liberals destroying crops saying that our fertilizers are polluting the Earth. So, while I can't give you any links, those are some ideas as to the mischief that radical lefties can incite.

Crap...I can't believe he would apologize to that venemous jerk. Well, I don't know is this helps, but believe me when I say most conservatives don't acknowledge Limbaugh as anything more than a noisy figurehead. We can think for ourselves. As for Palin, I think her "Death Panel" remark was slightly prescient, and as such, could be dismissed as irrelevant to the currently proposed health care bill. Though I am afraid I am meandering off far too much from the OP's questions, so I'll stop here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged With nothing but anectdotal evidence...I can't use search engines at all hardly. But from most of the liberals I speak with, they all seem to share many of Moore's criticisms and views. Maybe I just know one too many radical liberals

Can you provide one with regards to Rush Limbaugh being the conservative's savior? I think you have implied that most conservatives agree with Limbaugh. If you have, that is hardly the case. He's just the person who screams the loudest, hence, he's heard most often. And who the heck apologized for telling that idiot he's an idiot?