JillSwift

There's no link between exercise, even high-exertion exercise, and lenth of recovery from viral infection (colds, flu, etc.) (Hunt Google for "exercise and immune response") Your testes are busy producing lil swimmers all the time, to replenish stores that have died from age as well as stores used up during ejaculation.

I'd think lunar tidal effects would be increased by the increased mass of fluid water. (The moon has already shortened the Earthly day with what liquid water there is ) However, if I understand the amount of solid water at the pols versus the liquid water of the oceans, the overall effect would be negligible.

To refute the definitional argument, again: Definitions are arbitrary. Words carry different definitions depending on context. Definitions change over time. Marriage has had significantly different definition in the past. Contemporary popular definitions of marriage have recently been modified with the sole purpose of excluding homosexuals. Regarding #2 especially: Legally, a "marriage" is a social contract recognized by the state, and conferring special privileges upon the couple that make their union practical within the structure of society. Restricting this privileged state to any "class" of person is inequitable treatment under the law, something that has already has been struck down legally: Refuting "separate but equal", essentially another definitional argument: It has already been historically demonstrated and made a precedent that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. (Supreme Court of the United states; Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS)

C'est la vie. Oh, wait, Mr. Kelly already said that.

One of the amusing things a bout Bettany playing Darwin is that he played the ship's surgeon and naturalist in "Master and Commander", where he so desperately wanted to stop and explore the Galapagos.

Nothing changes unless people change it. Inertia is the cornerstone of societal stability, dissatisfaction is the motivator to overcome inertia, and only action can make it happen. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This depresses me. You've used repetition of a baseless assertion to keep your definitional argument going not because it really makes sense, but because you've an axe to grind with iNow. Given the number of people the issue effects, perhaps it would be wise, or at least kind, to let go of your bone with iNow and look at the problem dispassionately.

It is my humble opinion that politics in the United States has become increasingly reactionary since the events of 9/11/2001. Wilson's outburst is a symptom of that. Politics has always had a streak of the grandstander in it, examples are scattered throughout history of such bouts of showmanship. It can serve a purpose, as to bring attention to a subject people were otherwise ignoring, and it can be nothing more than a distraction (as it is in this case). It seems we have a growing number of people that find these sorts of things appropriate even if they fail to serve any useful purpose. 20% is surprising, and I'm curious what the margins are on that poll. His constituency would have been better served if he later demonstrated what lies were supposedly being told, but one suspects there was nothing to demonstrate. Good old American hyperbole made "I strongly disagree!" into "You lie!"

I was raised in a deeply religious home. Any and all gaps in knowledge were filled with teh bibble. Really. If I said "I don't know" about anything then we sat down and "found out". This led to some seriously strained credibility once my questions stopped being simple, then to the collapse of my faith once the contradictory nature of that book became solidly evident. As I learned how to be a skeptic, however, I found that I had a terrible habit of filling in what I didn't know with speculation, so that I didn't have to "not know". So, on the intellectual level, I know that not knowing is really just opportunity. But my emotional reaction to not knowing is still to fill in the gap as rapidly as possible. It has hindered my educational carrier.

In California, no law was passed to allow same sex marriage (though two were attempted, but vetoed). The courts decided that current laws restricting marriage to a specific class of people were unconstitutional. It later took the modification of the California constitution to remove the privileges of marriage from already married couples. I think this new law had real psychological impact, as was intended. Matters of how the government treats it citizens are quite different from day-to-day matters. That inequality is a fact of life does not excuse or suggest inequitable treatment under the law. If privileges are offered by government, they must be offered on equal terms to all people under that government. This prevents government from exacerbating the inequalities that naturally exist among populations. In short, it's not about passing a law to grant new privileges, it's about removing law that treats citizens inequitably.

Ah, tradition. So, this little girl watches her mother preparing a ham for a family get-together. Her mother removes about an inch from the end of the ham, and then places it in the baking pan. "Momma?" the girl asks "Why do you cut off the end of the ham?" Her mother looks thoughtful for a moment, then answers: "It's just tradition, honey. This is how your grandma did it. Ask her about it." So the little girl goes to her maternal grandmother. "Grandma? Why do we cut the end off the ham?" Her grandmother looks thoughtful for a moment and answers: "I don't know, dear. It's just how your great-grandmother did it, and now it's tradition. Maybe she knows why." So, the girl goes to her very elderly, frail great grandmother, and with all due respect and reverence she asks; "Great Grandma? Why do we cut the ends off of the ham?" Great grandmother immediately answers: "I have no idea why your grandmother and mother do that, sweetie. My pan was too short for a full ham."

No such claim has been made. The issues were compared, not equated. It's relevance is not subjective. It can and has been shown to you that it has never been relevant to the social contract. No one refutes that there is a difference. What is refuted is its relevance to the issue of equal treatment under the law.

Given your stance, I've demonstrated that same sex couples can and have reproduced. This reproduction does involve both parties. Thus your stance is satisfied by same-sex couples. How is that a straw man?

As I see it, the fertility argument is just another definitional argument. And as such, fails to be a reasoned response and as such, is indeed a red herring - or at best a waste of time. The privileges granted a heterosexual couple are contingent on one thing: Agreement by both parties to the social contract. That's it. Only recently have attempts been made to alter the legal requirements to exclude homosexual couples, and prior refusals ere made on incorrect assumptions about the contract and later backed by outwardly bigoted people, playing on people's unquestioned biases. This is identical in structure to the resistance to inter-racial marriages. We've already established that the basic requirements in those circumstances are met and such couples meet the criteria for marriage as a social contract recognized by the state. All attempts to argue fertility, definition, and social intent so far are baseless at worst, and irrelevant at best within this established legal and historical framework.

By sexual congress, no. But children can be produced, and have, through other means provided by medical science. Though given marriage is still allowed with couples proven to be infertile, it's an irrelevancy. Also, marriage is allowed for couples who have deliberately made themselves infertile, again making child bearing an irrelevancy.

A similar argument was put forward for intra-racial marriage. Because of the marked difference between the two members of the couple, and because offspring would not fit either race, it should not be allowed. Though the prime difference here is that in this case instead of being disallowed, it should be called something else. But that falls in line with the idea that blacks could be equal, but separate. Essentially true, but utterly unnecessary, and harmful in that it allowed the continued idea of racial inferiority tacitly. There are recognizable differences among humans in general - unless there is some need to bring these differences into the contract, then what you call that contract isn't important. Again, there is no secular, rational reason presented to disallow same sex marriage.

No one is demanding changes from religions or the religious. Words have always carried multiple definitions depending on thier context, and using "marriage" in a secular context has no effect on its use in a religious context. By the way, "marriage" has not always meant what it means now, even in the religious sense. Your preferences for what sorts of examples I use isn't relevant, sorry. Unjust is unjust, hon. Whether it was 1,000 years ago or last week, whether it was supported by almost all the population or just the folks in power. "Are you saying..." is clearly a call for clarification. Can we leave these gambits out of the discussion? I prefer looking at the issues at hand in a rational way, rather than bickering.

#!/bin/bash var='Hello World!' echo 'Hello world! I have an unreferenced variable!' exit 0 Now, that is real programming

That's the best argument in favor of allowing same sex marriage I have ever read. Thank you!

If you were cast your vote against same sex marriage, I'd have to call it bigotry, because it's using what power you have to stand in the way of others (in fact, it would be you claiming others are wrong in the most active legal way available to you.) If you simply "don't agree" but don't use your political power to stand against it, it's not bigotry because you've tolerated what you don't agree with. That's the real litmus test of anything involving tolerance. Real tolerance is ignoring that which does not directly affect you when you otherwise disagree. Not if it's actual bigotry, it is not. Then it would be an observation. Does disagreement alone constitute bigotry? Nopers, because the core of the definition is intolerance. Intolerance is an active position. As I said, and bears repeating: It's not the disagreement that makes a bigot, it's the active intolerance. You would never marry another man. This does not make you homophobic or a bigot, this just makes you "straight". Believing marriage has a particular definition doesn't make you a bigot. Disliking the use of the term marriage when the couple are of the same gender doesn't make you a bigot. However, disallowing a man to marry another man would make you a bigot. Disallowing the use of the term "marriage" for same sex couples when the term is in use for the exact same social contract between different sex couples is still bigotry - it would be active intolerance of equal treatment under the law.

And therein lies the rub, eh? When we are children we are essentially hardwired to accept what our parents do and say uncritically. So long as it hasn't been questioned, it can't be bigoted, as it's not yet intolerance any more than it's intolerance not to eat the vegetables as an adult your parents never served you. However, once you have given it a look, and you choose to maintain that outlook but without rational cause... well, then we may well be looking at bigotry.

Oh, there's a pretty specific definition of "rational[definition #1]" in use here. A little apocrypha there. Generally irrelevant, however. What risks folks choose to take with their own bodies is their own responsibility. I can not make sense of this. What are you trying to convey here? As I've said, what it's called is a quibble. However, since the state is presently calling that set of conveyed privileges "marriage", then that's what it's called. Are you suggesting we can just redefine words to make this problem a non-problem? That was done to keep killing the Native Americans, keep Africans enslaved and treated as chattel, and deny rights to women. All of which have since been disposed of as unjust. "at least in my opinion" is an escape clause. In this thread, on this question, it's all about the secular. Are you saying that the fight for rights in each case was not won, but those in power were just gracious enough to let them have their rights? Are you excusing atrocity "because others did it as well"? It seems like you are here. Again, this answer makes no sense to me.

Interjection: Not having a rational reason for holding an opinion does not default to meaning the opinion is bigoted. A learned behavior is often unquestioned, and in that sense is nothing more than a default position. This is where folks will say "I don't like it, but I don't know why." Definition as defense or basis of arguments against SSM: Using the term to represent the secular social contract does not alter the use of the term to represent the sacrament. If this is were not so, then engineers could not use the term to describe bringing two major parts of a complex system together as "marriage". Words have always had multiple definitions and which is in use depends on context. A similar argument about the definition of the word was used to back the argument that whites and non-whites could not marry. The claim being that marriage happened only within the races as part of the definition. This was obviously proven to be irrelevant (or untrue).

Mr. Skeptic poses a darn good question. Each module aught either be able to provide or accept information on request, or all of them should keep the game info where all modules can get to it. In this way a UI can just request the game state for updating its display, and change the game state when the player makes a move (i.e. presses a button or whatever the interface ends up being). How does each module interface with the others?

Oh no! Not the orange one! That will interfere with the feng shui of her left bilateral chakra's chi flow! ... Where's that come from? =>.>=

This is the thing about politics, interpretation gets awfully muddy. I can't see iNow making a claim that it's impossible to disagree, rather that the disagreements are not rational, evidence supported disagreements. I find myself agnostic about any rational stance against homosexuality in general, and same sex marriage in particular. I have seen no evidence to support it, but I also see no contrary evidence. So, I just stand that, like anything claimed but unsupported, it's something I don't worry about until there is reason to. The question I asked is just and invitation to those who think there are rational reasons to stand against SSM to present their evidence, and is not a claim that there is none. Meanwhile, we're left with religious, faith-based, and flatly irrational reasons to stand against SSM. I reject that these reasons should be enshrined in law for the same reasons Muslims don't want Christians to dictate who they worship, and for the same reasons artists don't want to be told what they can create, etc. Which is to say, so long as an activity does not have any real negative impact on others, freedom reigns supreme.