Gay marriage debate

#151
#151
RespectTradition said:
I honestly can't tell if you are serious or not. If you are not being humorous, then I would strongly question your grasp of logic.

As long as the court is a government court, and as long as it has the power, backed by the government to enforce its rulings, then yes, the court IS the government.

"No ma'am, I did not grab your butt just then, it was just this hand that is connected to me."
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm serious. Please feel free to question my grasp of logic anywhere along the way.

And, I have already acknowledged that the judicial branch is a branch of government. That is undeniable.

However the judicial branch cannot create law. Its interpretation and finding, the end, is still... not the same as the beginning.

And, because picking apart your asinine attempts at explanation is rather fun, in your quote... if the individual had chorea... did he grab her butt, or was it, in fact, just his arm?

Because, his erratic muscle condition didn't initiate the grab consciously (the beginning), means he didn't, in fact, grab her but (the end).

That answer, though, should be almost as fun as the idea that the opposite of a sound wave is ... nothingness.
 
#153
#153
fl0at said:
Oh, I'm serious. Please feel free to question my grasp of logic anywhere along the way.

And, I have already acknowledged that the judicial branch is a branch of government. That is undeniable.

However the judicial branch cannot create law. Its interpretation and finding, the end, is still... not the same as the beginning.

And, because picking apart your asinine attempts at explanation is rather fun, in your quote... if the individual had chorea... did he grab her butt, or was it, in fact, just his arm?

Because, his erratic muscle condition didn't initiate the grab consciously (the beginning), means he didn't, in fact, grab her but (the end).

That answer, though, should be almost as fun as the idea that the opposite of a sound wave is ... nothingness.
Click to expand...

I like the way that you add absolutely nothing to the conversation, you just try, unsuccessfully I might add, to discredit my thoughts. I have tried to help you see your mistakes, but you persist in them.

I especially liked that last one about how the judicial branch can't create law. Shouldn't create law I would accept. Can't? Every lawyer I know would disagree with you there.

But, if government says 1) all married people are to be treated the same and if you don't then you open yourself to a lawsuit and 2) says that gays can marry (the beginning) then when someone follows his own conscience and treats them differently, then they can be sued and if they lose the government will enforce the ruling (the end).
 
#154
#154
fl0at said:
Can something unnatural, be natural? As in, does nature allow for a certain bit of un-natural occurrence, naturally?

If so, in that nature has un-natural occurrences, quite naturally, then the un-natural, is in fact, natural.
Click to expand...

No. It just means that something went haywire during the formation kinda like down syndrome.

And yes, I went there.

But by your standards down syndrome would be natural and not a mutation.
 
#155
#155
RespectTradition said:
I like the way that you add absolutely nothing to the conversation, you just try, unsuccessfully I might add, to discredit my thoughts. I have tried to help you see your mistakes, but you persist in them.

I especially liked that last one about how the judicial branch can't create law. Shouldn't create law I would accept. Can't? Every lawyer I know would disagree with you there.
Click to expand...

Which laws have the judiciary created? Not interpreted, not reviewed, not ruled upon, but set precedent, but created.

Name... I don't know... two.

RespectTradition said:
But, if government says 1) all married people are to be treated the same and if you don't then you open yourself to a lawsuit and 2) says that gays can marry (the beginning) then when someone follows his own conscience and treats them differently, then they can be sued and if they lose the government will enforce the ruling (the end).
Click to expand...

The bolded is important. There is no guarantee that they lose. Should they lose, however, there is no guaranteed "punishment."

If, however, they do lose, then this situation is no different than any other lawsuit, ever. Not. At. All. Different.

However, since I persist in my erroneous viewpoints, maybe you can school on how the end ruling is different from... let's say... any two other civil lawsuits.

If there is no difference, you are applying a slippery slope.

There, I added something to the conversation. Or have I already added that, I can't remember. Long day.
 
#156
#156
NEOCON said:
No. It just means that something went haywire during the formation kinda like down syndrome.

And yes, I went there.

But by your standards down syndrome would be natural and not a mutation.
Click to expand...

Down Syndrome is very natural. In fact, it is very much "expected" in later life of women.

Want a brief biology lesson?

Women are born with all their eggs. Every single one of them. They are arrested at the end of division, and await fertilization by sperm.

Over the years, if no fertilization occurs, mitotic spindles become bound more tightly to the chromosomes, such that, when fertilization occurs, and division resumes, the chromosomes cannot separate. This is due, largely in part, to the length of time the spindles are attached to the egg.

As you recall, since the attachment started at birth, the older a woman gets, the longer the attachment, and the harder it is to separate the chromosomes during divisions.

If the 21st chromosome fails to separate, you get an extra chromosome, resulting in trisomy 21, or Down Syndrome.

It is a very natural process, and occurs by natural biological and chemical properties.

That it is detrimental, does not mean it is un-natural.
 
#157
#157
NEOCON said:
No. It just means that something went haywire during the formation kinda like down syndrome.

And yes, I went there.
Click to expand...

Evolution. You lack a very basic understanding of it.

But by your standards down syndrome would be natural and not a mutation.
Click to expand...

Mutations are natural DNA occurrences. But since you don't believe in evolution, it's pointless to explain it to you, but this picture might help:

http://i.imgur.com/PiZWc.png
 
#158
#158
fl0at said:
Down Syndrome is very natural. In fact, it is very much "expected" in later life of women.

Want a brief biology lesson?

Women are born with all their eggs. Every single one of them. They are arrested at the end of division, and await fertilization by sperm.

Over the years, if no fertilization occurs, mitotic spindles become bound more tightly to the chromosomes, such that, when fertilization occurs, and division resumes, the chromosomes cannot separate. This is due, largely in part, to the length of time the spindles are attached to the egg.

It is still a mutation. It is not the way things are meant to be.

As you recall, since the attachment started at birth, the older a woman gets, the longer the attachment, and the harder it is to separate the chromosomes during divisions.

If the 21st chromosome fails to separate, you get an extra chromosome, resulting in trisomy 21, or Down Syndrome.

It is a very natural process, and occurs by natural biological and chemical properties.

That it is detrimental, does not mean it is un-natural.
Click to expand...

It's still a mutation no matter how you want to slice it.

And I'm glad you can copy and paste wikipedia like everyone else can.
 
#159
#159
VOLatile said:
Evolution. You lack a very basic understanding of it.



Mutations are natural DNA occurrences. But since you don't believe in evolution, it's pointless to explain it to you, but this picture might help:

http://i.imgur.com/PiZWc.png
Click to expand...

Oh good God.

It is a mutation.

It happens.

It's a fact.

And Volatile please don't sttart acting like you have a PHD or something. Let's not get bigger than we are, ok?

You're a kid with an opinion. A theory.

A non proven theory.
 
#160
#160
NEOCON said:
It's still a mutation no matter how you want to slice it.
Click to expand...

Which occurs naturally... no matter how you want to slice it.

NEOCON said:
And I'm glad you can copy and paste wikipedia like everyone else can.
Click to expand...

Yes, Neo. In the 5 minutes after my first post, I googled Down Syndrome, read the entire article, put it into my own words, and passed it off as my own work.

Brilliant.

So, disagree all you want, Aflac, it won't change how wrong you are tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
#161
#161
NEOCON said:
Oh good God.

It is a mutation.

It happens.

It's a fact.

And Volatile please don't sttart acting like you have a PHD or something. Let's not get bigger than we are, ok?

You're a kid with an opinion. A theory.

A non proven theory.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what to say. No, really, you're ridiculous. You have balls calling ToE unproven. Mountains of information on evolution compared to a single book in favor of creationism?
 
#162
#162
VOLatile said:
I don't even know what to say. No, really, you're ridiculous. You have balls calling ToE unproven. Mountains of information on evolution compared to a single book in favor of creationism?
Click to expand...

No. There are not.

I know this is hard for you to deal with becauyse your hate for all things religion trumps all sanity but most logical creations do believe in micro evolution (which there is proof of and does not go against the theory of creation) but we do not believe in macro evolution.

The two are entirely different things.

I am not here to debate evolution though on a gay marriage thread.

I personally am not going to change your opinion and you arent going to change mine. I see no reason in debating theories.
 
#163
#163
NEOCON said:
No. There are not.

I know this is hard for you to deal with becauyse your hate for all things religion trumps all sanity but most logical creations do believe in micro evolution (which there is proof of and does not go against the theory of creation) but we do not believe in macro evolution.

The two are entirely different things.

I am not here to debate evolution though on a gay marriage thread.

I personally am not going to change your opinion and you arent going to change mine. I see no reason in debating theories.
Click to expand...

The problem is not with macro evolution, but micro evolution. Mutations are a major part of micro evolution! We can leave all of that macro evolution jazz out of it.
 
#164
#164
fl0at said:
Which occurs naturally... no matter how you want to slice it.



Yes, Neo. In the 5 minutes after my first post, I googled Down Syndrome, read the entire article, put it into my own words, and passed it off as my own work.

Brilliant.

Or, that's right... I'm in friggen Medical School, and have a degree in Biology... and a degree in Chemistry.

So, disagree all you want, Aflac, it won't change how wrong you are tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I know you have a degree float. You mentioned it many times as your trump card for why you are right about theories and every who disagrees with you is wrong.

It's your little ace up the sleeve that I knew youd pull out.

Honestly, I don't care.

We had this discussion many months ago if your high IQ remembers it about micro and macro evolution. I dont have the time to go there again with you.

By the way Float, show me the gay gene real fast.

Post the pic of the gay gene on here or shut up.
 
#165
#165
VOLatile said:
The problem is not with macro evolution, but micro evolution. Mutations are a major part of micro evolution! We can leave all of that macro evolution jazz out of it.
Click to expand...

What are we debating here?

I believe in mutations. I believe in micro evolution.

I believe homosexuality is a mutation. But not due to micro evolution.

I asked Float this ... I'll ask you too.

Show me the gay gene.

Show me the money kid.
 
#166
#166
NEOCON said:
I know you have a degree float. You mentioned it many times as your trump card for why you are right about theories and every who disagrees with you is wrong.

It's your little ace up the sleeve that I knew youd pull out.

Honestly, I don't care.

We had this discussion many months ago if your high IQ remembers it about micro and macro evolution. I dont have the time to go there again with you.

By the way Float, show me the gay gene real fast.

Post the pic of the gay gene on here or shut up.
Click to expand...

Alrighty. It is, as of right now, highly likely to be the gene encoding for the Interstitial Nuclei of the Anterior Hypothalamus.

INAH encodes for sexual desire. Oddly enough, "sexual desire" fires equally for females and homosexuals, but unequally for males and female and males and other male homosexuals.

Now, show me a picture of God.
 
#167
#167
LOL.

They pulled the whole map on august 2003. They found NO gay gene.

I have no pic of God but science has given 0 probability that life could occur by chance.

ZERO.

study was done by multiple scientist.

Zero float.

Kinda like the evidence of a gay gene.
 
#169
#169
science is with me that there is zero chance of life occurring by chance.

science is with me that there is no gay gene.

seems i'm more in touch with science than you are.
 
#171
#171
NEOCON said:
LOL.

They pulled the whole map on august 2003. They found NO gay gene.

I have no pic of God but science has given 0 probability that life could occur by chance.

ZERO.

study was done by multiple scientist.

Zero float.

Kinda like the evidence of a gay gene.
Click to expand...

There is no "single" gene responsible for homosexual behavior, any more than than there is a single "gene" responsible for your children.

If you want to play games, let's play.

Show me the gene for little Neo. Show me... or it doesn't exist.

See how dumb that sounds?
 
#174
#174
About as dumb as believing in evolution by itself when science has given it zero chance.

You started the games by changing theories into facts, Float.

You also clearly stated long ago that you could debate the creation of life by God and not by macro evolution as easily as you could the other ... so who's playing games?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top