padren

Would you care to comment on the reasons I posted in support of both? You didn't respond back when I asked for a summary of agreements/disagreements so far.

It was only a matter of time before Republicans had to oppose it: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59757-amendment-would-block-fcc-regulation-of-net-neutrality With all the loud angry automatic opposition I really wish Obama would just give a speech already urging everyone to not jump off cliffs.

I ran across this and found it rather fascinating: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=1 It details an amazing doomsday mechanism created in the USSR designed to automatically detect a full nuclear attack on Russia and transfer launch authorization directly to whomever was stationed at the underground bunkers with minimal safeguards to ensure a counter attack. It is called "Perimeter" or aka "Dead Hand" to ensure a full scale counter strike even if a successful preemptive strike took the USSR completely by surprise. Unlike most "doomsday mechanisms" it was not publicized and made part of the MAD (we want you to know you can't hit us and survive) strategy and kept a very closely guarded secret. The mentality behind this decision appears to be rather interesting: I find cold war politics to be exceptionally fascinating because it really seems to encompass the most unthinkable and frightening scenarios that were planned for and still maintains seeds of introspection and forethought, even if it ends up completely twisted up in scenarios that make it all seem completely insane. Just to see how humans dealt with - for the first time in history - finding themselves in a world with these horrific capabilities that were here to stay and starting in a world build around the ideas of conventional warfare... it's a very unique point in history to alive in (even if it was a little before my adult years) and observe. Btw: Posting this here instead of politics since it's more historical than useful to a modern political discussion, though I suppose it could go that way at which point the thread could be moved.

Interesting idea. It's interesting though that no valuable information could ever be gained from trying it - as chances are the compelling findings would not be made in our universe. We could have a large group of people try it out, to get some survivors into all the various alternate universes including ours - but the net effect would still be a large number of people dying and the exact expected sampling (of a coin toss and not quantum factor) surviving and (from their perspective) saying "WHOAH, I don't know what universe I'm in now but hey - quantium immortality is real!"

More people within that society are free to choose more options - specifically gay people are allowed to partake in marriage. How is that not demonstrated as being more free? It at the very least, prevents them from getting a marriage certificate - even if no benefits were involved. Therefore, that is a restriction on their freedoms. Is that not pretty much evident? You are mixing terms up - you claimed marriage, including heterosexual marriage incurs costs (ie, legal benefits) to single people that are not benefiting from those costs directly. My point is that we are not discussing whether or not those legal benefits (that incur cost, aside from spousal rights) in general pertaining to all marriages genuinely contribute to single individuals. That is an irrelevant debate. My claim that gay marriage "benefits society" should not be confused with single individuals benefiting from general "marriage benefits." The reasons society does benefit from allowing gay couples the freedom to marry is wholly separate and already described above. If you believe the burden is on me to demonstrate that gay marriage, being nearly identical to heterosexual marriage defacto provides the same social benefits then would you not argue the same burden would have been required to appeal the laws preventing interracial marriage? If you do believe that to be the case, then do you (a) disagree with interracial marriage, or (b) are aware of some treasure chest of data that demonstrates unilaterally that interracial marriages offer the same benefits to society as a whole? Since the variances in gay marriage from heterosexual marriages appear to be so few, and at the same time heterosexual marriage variances (span of race, age, nationality, denomination) and come in so many types (mail order brides, vegas shotgun weddings, traditional church weddings) I think it is reasonable to presume the differences in any probable benefits would be equally if not more moot. By the way - where are we on our points of agreement at this point? Do you agree with the arguments I made regarding archaic laws, the general processes of relief people pursue to change them, and that by setting a standard of "How much does it negatively impact the petitioner to deny, how much does it negatively impact society to accept" scale of weighing the merits, so as to promote a society freely allows you relief if and when you need it? If you find those arguments reasonable, I think that in itself makes the case for a relevant secular reason to support gay marriage. It means a whole lot to them, and doesn't impact us any more than any other marriage would financially. Likewise, in terms of fairness they are also subsidizing heterosexual marriages so to completely lump both the single and coupled gay community into a "barred from access to those benefits" category seems especially egregious. Since they equally pay taxes I don't think the financial factor can be held as a cost of allowing it. Therefore, short of that factor, we have a situation where the law restricts them in a manner that is exceptionally stressful (to some, marriage is very important to their lives) and not a single "harm" is being used to block their petitions. Is it not rational to support their petitions, since it pertains to the mechanism we all use to alleviate such grievances with the letter of the law? If we do not oppose the arbitrary rejection of their petitions, what can our expectations be of how that mechanism will service us when we need it?

Does the degree of individual happiness in most societies seem to follow the trend of respecting personal freedoms? If you measure the degree of hardship across the entirety of any society, this trend seems to repeat constantly. The evidence may not be infallible as it is nearly impossible to prove causation over correlation in anything on the scale of whole societies but the trends seem pretty consistent. That's actually rather simple. Citizens can, through their elected representatives challenge the laws that exist. They can assert that the law restricts them or someone in some arbitrary manner and petition to have that law revised. We often find archaic laws on the books. (Allegedly it's illegal "If you're a single, divorced, or widowed woman, you can't parachute on Sunday afternoons. " in Florida, and while I found a number of references to that online I cannot claim it's verified - but lets use it as an example.) Should people find this law unwarrantably restrictive, they can petition to have it changed. They would have to make the case that it is arbitrary or prejudicial, and that in fact no harm would be done by repealing it, and the law can be changed. While there is no law stating any such petition must be granted, it is the primary means of relief to change such restrictive laws. It may be subjective on the part of the legislators, but the spirit of the law requires them to do so in good faith. http://www.wikihow.com/Change-a-Law-Through-the-Democratic-Process That said, the same "gold rule" (as Pangloss put it) applies that it is in our own interest that laws that inhibit the freedoms of others (that do not safeguard unreasonable risk or harm) - even if it doesn't apply to us - because it fosters the sort of society open and receptive to our own needs to change laws when it does matter to us. After all, someday you may want to take your daughter skydiving on a Sunday afternoon in Florida. The issue of whether marriage benefits are fair to single people is irrelevant, and we are starting to mix topics. On the one hand - we are taking about the 'title' of marriage and even use the argument "if they have all the same rights, why do they need the title?" and on the other hand "how does affording those benefits help single people?" In the same sense, if those benefits exist to benefit society as a whole they should do so - single people and all - whether the couple is gay or straight. If those benefits do not benefit society as a whole and unfairly extort single individuals (a topic for a different thread) then that is a whole different matter. I am going on the assumption that those benefits do benefit society as a whole - even though I am not versed in the logic supporting it. Perhaps it's a safety net for people who may end up no longer single - I have no idea. I think that issue is entirely offside though, as we are not talking about the merits of those benefits in general or if there are any relevant secular reasons to support marriage benefits generally.

Actually, you are largely reading that right, if you mean that an individual benefits from treating others as they would like to be treated and not a simple moral imperative. To use an example, there is generally an unspoken understanding if you see someone stealing from your neighbor, you'll call the police - you'll look out for each other. That runs the risk that someone may benefit by not participating, and decide that if the cops just scare the robbers away, they may still be left "wanting" and target your house next. However, the fallout of that action will erode the trust in that understanding, and people may very well become more concerned with their own security over that of their neighbors, lessening the overall benefit to the abuser. We have people who abuse all manner of social contracts from welfare to tax fraud to all manner conceivable variations - yet we still consider the benefits greater overall and I think the evidence supports that in the success of social efforts from tax supported infrastructure to thoughtful neighbors.

...no, I am saying there is genuine advantage to promoting a society that recognizes personal freedoms of others because you benefit from having your personal freedoms judged not by whether they make sense to someone else, but by whether they make sense to you. Please also note the caveat "without hurting anyone" which puts "whatever the hell they want" into very different context. Since you seem to take things to the most extreme examples let me point out that "without harming" is also within reason. We do require wheelchair accessibility in certain buildings etc which harms the bottom line of the builders but it's a very minor inconvenience compared to the inconvenience on those that need them. Seems fair to me actually - they've been paying for part of the cost of painting our houses since the state got involved in the institution of marriage.

Context. Water pushes in every direction, but moves downhill due to less resistance. Evolution may move towards better replicators, but it's still pushing in all directions, including those that do not create better replicators. That is the context of the term 'direction' not whether we can retroactively identify patterns. If you have to presume to read into the deeper level of a statement perhaps it's not quite as strong of a statement to make after all. For the record - it's not a strong statement if we are talking within the sciences. It's a strong statement if it was extended to religious contexts. Given how clear iNow has been that he has no desire to muddy up this thread with religious arguments for or against, I don't think that is at all likely. All evidence supports natural selection as the driving force of evolution. There is no evidence of any other forces. That hardly makes the assertion baseless. If someone was to suggest that the last ice age ended one million years ago and I said "no, it was 10,000 ago" would that be a baseless assertion because I wasn't able to prove it, since I could only refer to established evidence? Would the thread simply have to derail while that issue was settled? I'm not going to pursue this topic until a thread split, but at that time I am happy to continue. It just has no relevance to Neurocortical Mechanisms.

Same reason we would let someone paint their house blue - they want to, it doesn't harm anyone else, and if you contribute to an open and tolerant society it will foster the very qualities where you won't have to justify why you should get to paint your house the color you want to by qualifying how it will benefit everyone else.* Edit: *before any "you can't paint your house like a giant scary clown in some neighborhoods" arguments come up - yes, there are restrictions in the sense of "doesn't do anyone else harm" caveat and arguments of lowering property values are subjective but reasonable. But gay marriage is far more like painting a house isolated in the woods than a condo complex. Just mentioning to head off that potential.

There really should be an evolution thread split. It's really all about sampling bias. The idea of evolution having a 'direction' is similar to saying water has a direction - water, when dumped on the ground will find a very clever path to the lowest point, but it's not pushing in that direction, it's pushing in all directions and where it is pushing that also happens to have a path of least resistance - which is the most existing part to look at. (hence, sampling bias) In a similar fashion evolution pushes in every direction, but the ones that go nowhere are not noticed nearly as much as the mutations that lead towards better replication. That is the context of the use 'direction' and 'guided' in the previous statement. There is a common misconception that evolution primarily introduces beneficial adaptations when evidence suggests mutations primarily introduce benign or malignant changes but also introduces at times ones that improve replication. It terms of the context - evolution is no more guided than water is, as evidenced by the fact water applies pressure in the full spectrum of directions, just as mutations create changes in the full spectrum of malignant to beneficial - even if only a handful of outlets appear eyecatching.

Just a note that, if we are talking about instincts, we are talking about emergent traits that evolved over time, that were not planned but just happen to improve the individual's chances of procreation. When those instincts aid personal survival by promoting group survival the end is still selfish, even if the emergent behavior is cooperative. It is exceptionally complex and instinctual responses can be completely self sacrificing sometimes, if the same attribute that causes that does so only in rare circumstances, while far more frequently leading to survival benefits. I don't know this discipline well enough myself but I do know it's not always easy to decipher.

I hate to offer this but: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=yahoo+answers+loose+vagina You can ask on Yahoo Answers and, apparently, you don't have to be worried about asking a relatively unusual question.

I made some notes and rebuttal questions - though it is a good video: 1) If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Q) After these changes, will the insurance "you like" only remain the same in name only, due to all the changes overall? With companies going through the huge transitions in what/who they can deny and the new guaranteed services and caps, and the delay in hospitals forwarding savings from unpaid ER visits to that of lowered general care costs, how will these companies still provide the same quality of service without "growing pains" that make them unrecognizable, at least for the short term? 2) Insurance Exchange: Q) This occurs after 4 years. What needs does it directly address, and how will this impact our system in the meantime while those needs are unmet? 3) Low-cost coverage Q) Where does this come from? It sounds like a core element, but the "public option" is an optional element to the whole plan based on his own words. If the public option is scrapped, how will this need be met otherwise? If the public option is only available to those who "don't have insurance" isn't still available to anyone, who choose to drop insurance because they feel it's too expensive, and thus become eligible for the public option? Who and how are people who "can't afford insurance" determined? Would a writer (perhaps the next Hemingway) who lives on next to nothing and is only employed 5 hrs a week going to be subsidized, or told to "get a job" and give up his writing? What about all the people that work under the table - will they become a yet greater tax liability? 4) Will not sign a bill that adds one dime to the deficit: Q) How can he be certain of that promise? Short of clairvoyance - once it is signed, new costs could be discovered, and the bill will already exist and and we'll be stuck with either adding money to save it or an expensive rollback. 5) Most can money can be found within the existing health care system (70% if I recall) by eliminating waste. The remaining will come from removing subsidies. Q) How is the "independent medical expert" panel to identify waste and fraud any different than how insurance companies do this now - and why would overhead be less when done by the government? How will this panel be anymore independent than those in the parks department were who were fired for giving the Bush Administration the answers they didn't like regarding the impact on drilling in NWAR? If the medical industry has a strong enough lobby to make it this difficult to pass now due to their influence on politicians, why should this be different when politicians are buying (ultimately, yes, buying) answers we "hope" are objective from the panel of independent medical experts? How will cutting subsidies (the missing 30%) not impact those companies to push the costs to the public? Who decides what passed costs are "fair" and what costs are "abuse" and ultimately what profit margins are exploitative and which are reasonable? -- These are just some questions I have and kinda wish would be debated. The question of how it will be paid for only gets "if he thinks that he's delusional" from the right, but the "breakdown" is never asked in a rational way and that bothers me. I am still very much in favor of the plan, but I would like to see those questions answered. If it should be split into a different thread feel free, I posted them here as they are in direct response to the 4 minute video.

Well, it's kind of nit-picky but I do disagree on a finer point. Stockpiling of any resource to levels more than you need is just how you deal with an uncertain world - since we need to be prepared for the unknown you could say it's not really "more than you need." Acquiring more than "needed" is often good as it gives you more options, more security, and depending on your ambitions your needs may be a lot higher than basic survival. The "desire to flourish" with perhaps grand aspirations in my mind then, is different than greed. Greed, at least to me, is when hording is done as it's own end, like a financial form of gluttony where eating more actually is bad for your health. Whether we are too obsessed to realize it or not, we have better things to do than work for the sake of work. Works of passion, work to achieve goals or provide for others can be pretty obsessive but still healthy but to do so for things that do not meaningfully benefit your life (to me) seems to cross over into an almost illness. I may make that distinction (it's probably a personal and subjective one) because I find the dichotomy of altruism/greed to be both false and potentially misleadingly damaging. If anything I think codependent*/altruistic/ambitious/greed is a better scale with negative extremes on both sides. *not sure if that's the best term, but essentially some people are obsessed with helping others as a means to avoid their own problems, which is a self-defeating and selfish end, and just as unhealthy as greed. It's as potentially unhealthy to blur codependents with altruism as it is to blur ambition with greed.

It's not the last word usually, but (rarely, imo) it can devolve into that when respect erodes. I think what appears to be "last word" is really just restating what one person feels has not really been challenged, and the other person repeating what they felt was an easy defeating rebuttal - which really is just poor communication. It does take some discipline and self-checking on the part of the posters: the sort that PS&S is known for...lacking. If the opinions are backed by arguments, and the arguments are being discussed in a non-cyclical manner where progress is being made then it is headed in an acceptable direction. Progress in my mind is: a) a clarification of statements: Often we will say something, and it will be challenged mostly because of ambiguity. A discussion in which the argument becomes more clear is a nice progression as it may end up on a point where both parties agree to disagree or hit a point of clarification where both parties realize they are talking about the same thing. b) data is challenged: data is often cited as grounds for an assertion, and it can be exhaustive but still fruitful to challenge and go back on forth on the quality and implications of the data. c) implications are challenged: regardless of whether some data is valid, the implications that lead to a conclusion and subsequent assertion (that backs an opinion) As long as progress is made where agreement is recognized on clarifications, data, and implications then the discussion is clearly advancing. One of the biggest problems is recursion - arguments jump into sub arguments and on and on which can lead to progress overall but can also be as bad as going in circles, making the halting problem look like child's play. It may take a lot of recursion before agreement is recognized, or (the other halting factor) two parties agree that the elements have been broken down to components so small that they differ purely on the basis of untestable opinions, and both agree to disagree. I think some courtesies that may help are: 1) take the time to recognize points of agreement - it's easy to think it's apparent in a post, but it may not be as obvious to others. If it's a heavily active thread some parties may be skimming pretty lightly, and not realize agreement on a point has been achieved... and they may jump in with a counter-argument (often a weak one) that restarts contention not because their conclusion is opposed, but the manner in which they get there is. 2) Take time to consider whether clarification is required. One of my favorite debating partners and I (sadly, she moved away) would routinely start at polar ends of arguments only to arrive at a more nuanced "grand unified argument" that encompassed both, or at worst a proper understanding of the opposing views where we both saw the other as having a proper place, but respectfully disagreed on exactly where the lines that delineated those "proper places" are. It's actually quite satisfying to be able to start with "WTF??" and end up saying "You know, I know you are a lot more of a Libertarian than I am, but I totally get why you feel that way" and have the feeling mutual on both sides. The key to respectfully disagreeing though really comes from understanding how someone logically gets to where they have their stance, even if it's not the stance you would come to. To get there, you have to get past all the issues of believing they got to their stances due to flawed arguments, willful ignorance, philisophical crutches and the like. 3) Be clear when you feel your assertions have been defeated, when your opinions are challenged enough to make you want to "reconsider them" (but no one should expect that to be an instant process) and when you just feel you cannot be a good enough advocate for your opinion even if you feel someone, somewhere would be and you aren't ready to give up on it yet. Like I said before, when it comes to the last part - don't keep kicking it into the debate if you don't feel you can be it's advocate. There is no shame in acknowledging that. You may hold an opinion because someone you respect does too, and they know the issues inside and out. That's a fair reason, but doesn't lend itself to contributing in a debate as it holds no value to anyone else. Acknowledge you aren't the best advocate and move on, keep reading and perhaps later you will be.

I like to think that most people desire to flourish, not seek to greedily accumulate as much wealth as possible. Greed does exist as it's own end and it may be responsible for some of the largest concentrations of wealth that have had beneficial impacts on our society... but I don't think overall it is an attribute to be praised. When people cut out a huge range of the experiences life has to offer because they are too obsessed with accumulating wealth despite having huge amounts of it already - that strikes me (at least subjectively) as unhealthy. When the chips are down and people are trying to survive, their circle of concern shrinks dramatically - whether to just themselves, themselves and a mate, or children, or extended family, or a tight group of friends it always shrinks when people are starving. When times are better, people do genuinely care about the people around them, in their communities, and are emotionally affected by the state of health of their town, state, country, species and such. As social creatures we can't help but to have a connection between our health and those we associate with to enhance our survival - whether it is altruistic or subconsciously self serving it definitely exists. I don't know about most people but I've probably had 3 years of couch crashers simply because it bothers me to know I have a futon that is a perfectly good bed that doesn't get used when no one is on it. The need to see resources utilized in a manner that helps people trumps resource ownership. I still have what I need that I won't give up, but I have my needs and I am part of the community too. I guess it's a complex topic, before I started rambling I just wanted to point out the difference between the desire to flourish and the desire for greed.

I'd propose that we should accept someone who feels their opinion doesn't need to be rational, but at the same time expect them to take a back seat in the discussion. There are two factors: 1) The person's opinion 2) The merits of the opinion and why others should find it compelling. If we can accept a person's opinion as their opinion, yet remain steadfast they have not made a case for their opinion to be compelling in any form of debate or shared discussion - we can move on. If they continue to bring up their opinion (like "But I said I just think that is wrong cuz I don't think x deserves y, it just doesn't") then they are stifling the debate. A debate is about sharing ideas and conveying their merits that are then critiqued, defended or refined. I think we can all agree that in any open discussion this is the only way to advance any kind of topic in a meaningful way. If this was a religious forum, perhaps we could just advance the authority from which an opinion came from, but it's not - so all we have are the merits. We can take for example, a hot topic like abortion: Someone may say it's their opinion that life starts at conception. We ask them why. They provide some pseudo-answers, which are challenged, until ultimately they become defensive because they have a right to their opinion. At this point I think it's fair to back off them, as long as they back off using their opinion to sway the debate. They may have a secondary opinion, such as to the legality of abortion, which would be based on the idea that if their opinion is assumed accurate then it should be illegal. We may then debate with them as to whether or not it is a wise idea to allow strong opinions that are not backed by merit to sway public political policy - and it may get a little hotter again. The thing is - they may genuinely believe that (a) since an opinion without a logical framework can be right and (b) if that opinion is right it could have a large impact on what policy is right or wrong © therefore you cannot always use reason to determine the best policy. Many people in a science forum may object to that idea - mostly due to (what I call at least) the "white noise" argument, that it creates too many such scenarios and they are more likely to be wrong than right, and you could even have an opposite opinion that is unsubstantiated that would suggest the exact opposite policy. Ultimately, they may still feel that their original opinion (life at conception) is sound and still feel abortion should be illegal and nothing we say can really change that. At that point, we should gracefully accept their opinions as their opinions and respect that. However, the moment the thread continues and others are discussing the topic, if that person continues to interject arguments (logical or otherwise) that are based on the axiom of the opinion they could not build a case for - they are disrupting the thread. They can continue to participate and point out general logical fallacies that are tied to the opinions shared and backed up, or point out contradictions in facts others may bring up against the other side, but if they continue to use their opinion as the basis it is repetitious and disruptive. We should try to deal with people like that by saying "I understand your opinion on the matter and I respect that, but we are trying to discuss the various merits in this issue, and you have been unable to provide such. Since we respect your right to feel as you do, please respect our right to disagree and continue to discuss the other opinions that have their own merits that are being debated right now" If they continue to be disrespectful a moderator should warn them in my opinion. If they continue to propose logical fallacies to defend their opinion as a logically defendable argument (such as life starts at conception) but are really just pulling stuff out of thin air that slows the discussion and due to personal bias is so poorly structured that it is time consuming to dig through (on par with your average PS&S thread) then a moderator should either warn them, or split it into a "arguments in favor and against the idea that life starts at conception" thread. As regulars here, I imagine (though don't really do it enough) it's fair to PM a moderator and let them know it seems a thread is getting into that sort of territory, and they may want to keep an eye on it or split it in such a manner. It's worth noting of course moderators may not see things the same way as we do as we all can get caught up in a discussion and be blindered by our point of view, and respect that even if they disagree (even if we think they are very wrong) we a) can't always expect ourselves to be right and b) can't always expect them to be right and respect the fact they have a difficult job. In short - we need some ideas on how to deal with opinions and how to keep discussions moving. Since we deal with advancing topics and share information, it's sensible to include the merits that an opinion is based on to determine the veracity of the opinion as it enters the "collective discussion" for the purpose of swaying others. For the record, we often go by "opinion" in politics in ways that are critical and their are no other options. When a diplomat returns from overseas they may warn the government that they "do not trust those guys" and they do not think we should take their word on a number of issues, we often give that weight. If the diplomat was required to base that opinion on tangible merits, their contribution would be very negligible to the discussion of whether to trust those people - you just can't easily break a "gestalt feeling" such as gut reaction distrust. It is far more open to abuse (subversive motives of the diplomat) and far more open to false basis (the diplomat's prejudices, fears and such) but it is the best tool we have even now in those sorts of situations. Likewise, such political discussions are not very good for a forum - if we discuss (should we trust Joe when he says Jack is a bad guy) we'll be debating all kinds of merits to Joe's authority and not his opinion, that can at best decide if it's rational to accept his appeal to authority argument or not. I just mention it because it's worth noting that not everything lends itself to rational discussion as the best means of determining truth.

I really have no problem with Wilson calling Obama a 'liar' although, I wouldn't be giving him credit on "well won debating arguments" for any one liner that fails to forward discourse at all. However, the fact that he shouted it is the first thing that is offensive, but following his "apology" the fact he then went on to raise money for his interruption is simply atrocious. That would be like McCain in the election accusing Obama of being a Muslim, apologizing, then cheering a bunch of voters on at a "No Muslims in the white house" rally. From what I can tell, his apology appears far more disingenuous than anything that has come out of Obama's mouth. I'd have respect for the guy if he refused to profit from what he said he did wrong. But I guess we (the populous) have let the bar go so low that's too much to ask.

It is also an interesting time in a person's life that leads to a much more encompassing perspective. As far as spirituality goes, I can understand how you feel and I have to admit I haven't examined the content of such lectures so I can't really attest to whether any given instance is objectionable. I will say that I would find any attempt to use such an event to proselytize objectionable, but at the same time if someone's mindset at that time includes spiritual overtones it wouldn't bother me. If students can resist the "leftist re-education machine" I think they can take a person's feelings on spirituality with a grain of salt too. More likely than not, it will either reinforce what a person already believes or be dismissed outright, but it can still be respected in terms of what it means to the individual who is speaking. I actually feel that it is unfortunate that spirituality is such a hot topic because I think people within a much broader and more diverse range could benefit from a more open and civil dialogue.

First, we have to move the goal posts, since you were asking about the republican party, not (albeit powerful) groups within it. Second, you could be right (I am not asserting a case to the contrary, mostly out of lack of desire to put forth the energy) but I will say I don't find your arguments wholly compelling - while I do think rhetoric is accepted to a higher degree even when it may be irrational I don't know if it still qualifies as a cult. I may agree there are "cult like" aspects but I think those like Glenn Beck are playing off beliefs that already exist within the viewership, instead of instilling them. I don't know how much power he really has to impact what people believe, other than to reinforce what they already do.

It was modified to include divorce. It was modified to be an act between two consenting adults and not a form of property transfer. Those with the authority to perform a marriage has changed over time. Definitions change to reflect the societies in which they exist. That's about as simple as you can get. No one is trying to change how marriage was defined at the beginning of time. Declaring something "logical backflips" is not the same as demonstrating such logical antics are taking place. If you wish to stand by that assertion then please cite and give examples. No one is trying to change the definition of heterosexual marriage within the legal definition of the term Marriage. The question is if we should also include homosexual marriage within the legal term of Marriage. Just because a gay man can marry a woman doesn't mean he has equal rights - he can't marry the person he loves. If that person was a six year old then there would be rational reasonable cause to prevent it, but if it's another consenting adult of the same gender no such reason has yet been presented. Considering that is the point of this thread, I'd like to ask if you have any such rational reasonable arguments against gay marriage, since so far your post has consisted entirely of indigence at the mere idea of such "logical back flips." Regarding everything else being "a relationship" I am curious where you get this idea from. While I have never verified it for myself, I am willing to take the word of homosexual couples that it appears, based on their experiences there is no meaningful difference between what they experience and any heterosexual couple experiences. Many dictionaries already include same sex definitions. Your comment about "gay couple wants a free meal tax break" implies a rather derogatory motivation for proponents of gay marriage. You may have said that in a heated moment but I hope you don't believe such a sweeping generalization. As far as "How has being homosexual benefitted the country?" since when do we measure benefit to the country in relation to rights? The only reason I won't debate that is because it's wholly irrelevant. If we recognize committed long term relationships legally as something we call marriage and have decided that two such individuals constitute a union that requires distinct tax laws so as to treat fairly.... why should the gender of those two in that union be relevant? Our recognition of marriages has nothing to do with benefit to the country. It has to do with our decision that certain relationships require slightly different tax laws.

I would have to disagree as they often differ on the particulars of religion - whether Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, etc. I think a system of religious worship implies some uniformity.

Groans and cheers are especially popular in the British Parliament. It also occurs in the US in a more subdued manner, but shouting over the speaker (as Wilson did) is not something we do in these affairs. It's not something we consider promoting a healthy discussion or debate. Do you not agree? In terms if his power, he is our representative and it's our congress that we voted for, not him. The fact we voted for a congress and senate that supports his plans does not mean he has some sort of dictatorial power. Your company already has to pay for the uninsured - the hospitals that they use already have to cover the overhead of paying for emergency services of the uninsured. I don't see how this equates to paying more simply by streamlining the mechanisms in place to create more accurate billing. We already pay for universal health care because we already have to provide health care to those that go to the emergency room. The costs saved by denying the uninsured are (it seems) more than offset by the costs incurred by being forced to treat them by law due to the development of life threatening conditions. You use the argument "you can't get something for nothing" in a manner that would equate building a more efficient car engine to the ludicrousness of building a perpetual motion machine. Lastly, regardless of whether the President is delusional in his belief that it will not result in higher costs or lowering of quality - he is not lying unless he doesn't believe what he is saying. That's a fair debate too - maybe he is lying. The time for that debate however is not by shouting "You Lie!" during his address to the joint session of congress. He has no opportunity to make a counter argument without derailing his own speech, at a time when it was his legal right to deliver that speech. Personally, I find that shouting an assertion at a time that a person cannot defend against without sabotaging the very activity they are supposed to be doing as per their duty is cowardly. Either Wilson expected Obama to drop his speech and engage in a lively debate on whether he was, in fact lying - which would be very disrespectful of not only the President but our entire system of government.... or he expected that Obama would have to continue and not be able to give any sort of nuanced rebuttal - which the debate equivelent of kicking someone when they are down. It is cowardly regardless of whether you agree with his arguments - that is not how you make an argument in our society.

It was up to six months when the lifetime ban was passed. With the testing they do now it is only 12 days for HIV. All blood is checked, the only risk is if someone became infected within the last 12 days which could introduce the virus into the donated blood undetected. I actually have no idea what the window is for comparable tests for other blood borne diseases, such as hepatitis or such. What I found so bothersome is it was a question asking if you have ever even once in your entire lifetime had such contact. I honestly got the feeling that the person who checked my form wish I had lied. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged According to this article it appears the blood is tested before use - although the tests favor false positives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_donation#Blood_testing