http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/tropical-atlantic-trying-to-co/15010525

Here we go again!! :D

Michale

Oh I dunno. I bet you can do a mean choke-hold.. :D

I see what you are saying.. But, even as you concede, CHOICE is a factor...

It may not be THE factor, but it is definitely a factor...

So, where do we draw the line between excusing behavior and forcing people to accept responsibility for their choices??

Michale

we all get to make choices, but our DNA and early development set parameters for those choices, and play a large part in determining how well those choices work out for us. that's not destiny, it's just our hardware, BIOS and OS. just because one program runs well, one barely runs, and one crashes the machine, doesn't necessarily take away our right to "choose" between them. i could choose to be a police officer and you could choose to teach seventh grade, but i somehow doubt we'd be equally happy or effective.

JL

But rarely does "new" software come out...

Look at Windows. The basics haven't changed since Windows 3.33

Hell, Windows is simply a rip-off of AMIGA OS

Ahhhh the memories.. :D

But it's one of those things that we still don't know enough to know what we even don't know..

New things are being learned everyday that shows this...

Michale

software will come out next year that is brand new and compatible with MS-Windows, even though it's never been run on Windows before.

your OS runs "cop" and it also runs "computer repair" - those programs may not run on other individuals.

JL

Ya know, I kinda feel sorry for the Left these days..

Reports like these are the Left's bread and butter. Their raison d'etre

It must be really REALLY hard for them to bite their tongues so as not to cast disrepute on The One and his Holy Court....... :D

One must admire the political loyalty...

Michale

While I don't doubt what you are saying, it smacks too much of "destiny" for my tastes...

Take me for example.. I have absolutely no LEOs in my family. My father and uncle were Navy (dad enlisted, uncle fighter pilot) but I have wanted to be a cop since I was 5... Mostly due to environment (embarrassed to say, TV :D)...

Two and a half decades in the career field and now I can disassemble and reassemble laptops and tablets blindfolded..

NO WHERE in my genetic/DNA history is there a HINT of any of that...

To say that what I have become is 50% (or more) pre-determined???

"All right, but what if we can and then, and then the arch thing doesn't work? What then? Hell? Fuck that."
-Loki, DOGMA

:D

Like I said, I don't doubt your claim that science supports your claim..

I just know that, from personal experiences, there's something more...

Michale

no, the BBC series.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1475582/

yes, and you're forgiven. the contributions have been measured in numerous studies over the course of the last 80+ years. i'm not going to go searching right now, but these are real studies i've read; i think i've earned the benefit of the doubt in that respect.

i'll try this in language you're more familiar with: the relationship between nature and nurture vis-a-vis behavior is in some respects like the relationship between hardware and software. think of the DNA as the guts of the computer, prenatal hormones as the BIOS, early childhood experience as the OS, and later experiences as applications and user preferences.

some people are built to do certain behaviors at the hardware level, but there's huge variation in the way the machine is used, and how well it is suited for the functions it it used for. apply that to the discussion of employment, sexuality, what have you. it's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully it will get you out of the mode of thinking of nature and nurture as "competing theories"

Which is likely why I am so frustrating for ya'all..

In those faux-science political issues, I never argue that I am right and you are wrong..

I simply argue that you MIGHT be wrong..

And there is no defense for such an argument.. :D

"I was playing for a standoff, a draw. While Kolrami was dedicated to winning, I was able to pass up obvious avenues of advancement, then settle for a balance. Theoretically, I should be able to challenge him indefinitely.
In the strictest sense, I did not win.
I busted him up."
-Lt Commander Data, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

:D

Michale

The term "probably" is very subjective hence, not very scientific.. :D

"Because you're an idiot. No, no, don't look like that, practically everyone is."
~Sherlock

Was that from the Robert Downey version?? I have to admit I haven't seen either of them...

But kudos on the quote anyways.. :D

Michale

And yet, what of the psychological science??

Wait a tic.. Forgive me for being dense, but are you saying that employment (occupation) is 50% genetic??

Based on what??

Michale

science must concede all possibilities, no matter how remote, but that one ranks right up there with being caused by magic unicorns. any sort of human behavior is always an INTERACTION between variables, which includes BOTH genetics AND environment. if we're to use other types of behavior as a guide (employment for example), sexual behavior might factor out to being about 50% genetic, 40% environment, and 10% chance/luck.

So, it's just as accurate to say that you are "probably" right as it is to say that I am "probably" right.. :D

nope, the probability that i'm right is much, much higher. heh.

"Because you're an idiot. No, no, don't look like that, practically everyone is."
~Sherlock

;p
~joshua

"Might" is not very scientific.. I "might" be always right and you "might" be always wrong..

Does that "might" signify any degree of accuracy? :D

And yet that is exactly what you do on both this and global warming.

Actually, that is exactly what I *DON'T* do on either of the issues..

You will note, if you read back thru every discussion we have ever had, I make, re-make and then make it again, a point to state that I am not saying ya'all are wrong and I am right..

All I *ever* say is that ya'all COULD be wrong.. That there IS evidence to support BOTH sides of either issue..

It's ya'all (with a few notable exceptions) who claim absolutely that human kind is responsible for climate change and, absolutely that gay people are born that way..

I ALWAYS say (gladly) that I could be wrong..

No one here is capable of the same. Again, with the few notable exceptions..

Male animal is consistently seen mounting another male animal when there are uncoupled females in heat around.

And that means "gay"???

Couldn't it mean just horny???

Maybe someone is not looking for Mr/Mrs RIGHT, but is just looking for Mr/Mrs RIGHT NOW??

I mean, isn't that another possible interpretation??

Actually, I gave a few examples of homosexuality being a product of environment

So, you are conceding that it's possible that being gay could be totally and completely a product of environment w/o ANY biological/genetic factors whatsoever..

You are conceding the possibility??

Could you do us all a favor and follow your own advice? Please?

I *ALWAYS* do.. In these discussions that are faux-science political issues I *ALWAYS* claim that there is science, good and real science that supports a multitude of possibilities..

Not just the ones that are, for ya'all, politically correct...

If you can find me one instance where I have not done this, by all means.. Point it out.. :D

Michale

But to compare such specific traits and make the claim that, because some animals are born gay, humans MUST be born gay too is ridiculous..

Yes, it is ridiculous. Good thing I never said such a thing. On the other hand, change "MUST" to "might" and it goes from ridiculous to science.

But a man of science, TRUE science, does not start with a conclusion and then recognize only the science that supports that conclusion and ignores the science that disputes the conclusion..

And yet that is exactly what you do on both this and global warming. Guess you are more of a political animal than a scientific one. Though, personally, I think you go beyond politics and deep in to religion on such matters...

Further, how EXACTLY does a scientist determine that an animal is or is not "gay"???

Male animal is consistently seen mounting another male animal when there are uncoupled females in heat around.

If you can tell me that there is NO science that indicates being gay is a product of environment then you would have a point.

Actually, I gave a few examples of homosexuality being a product of environment, so I am not sure what you are talking about beyond a lack of reading comprehension. Please explain.

It is the DUTY of all REAL scientists to examine and acknowledge ALL the science.

Science doesn't exist to make sure one hypothesis takes precedence over the other.

Could you do us all a favor and follow your own advice? Please?

"The purpose of science is to confirm a hypothesis"

In this issue, we have two hypothesis.

1. Being gay is a social/lifestyle choice that is the results of factors within our environment.

2. Being gay is a result of genetics and biology.

Science doesn't exist to make sure one hypothesis takes precedence over the other.

THAT's called politics...

Michale

But I think you missed my point.

I do that occasionally.. :D

But what I am trying to say is that your point, using science (math is a science, right?? :D ) is evidence that the theory that people are born gay is not accurate.

But, because that evidence doesn't support the pre-ordained conclusion, it is ignored..

Michale, if you launched a statement so lame, the rest of us would rightly snigger & titter and laugh at you.

Troo dat!! :D

Bashi,

Many animal species have examples of homosexuality

Many animal species lick their own genitals and throw poop at each other.. The fact that animals have this or that or do this or that is really not any kind of indicator as it applies to humans. At least not in the context of behavioral studies.

Sure, one can observe animals and make some gross generality comparisons.. Animals breathe air, animals sleep, etc etc...

But to compare such specific traits and make the claim that, because some animals are born gay, humans MUST be born gay too is ridiculous..

Further, how EXACTLY does a scientist determine that an animal is or is not "gay"???

You are a man of science. You have made that abundantly clear.

But a man of science, TRUE science, does not start with a conclusion and then recognize only the science that supports that conclusion and ignores the science that disputes the conclusion..

So it is with many faux-science issues that are actually political issues. Nature v Nurture.. Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling).. Both very good examples of faux-science issues that are, at their base, political issues.

If you can tell me that there is NO science that indicates being gay is a product of environment then you would have a point.

But you can't, so you don't.....

It is the DUTY of all REAL scientists to examine and acknowledge ALL the science.

Not just the science that supports the desired conclusion..

Isn't that a fact??

Michale

Hard to respond when this is your first post in this thread, so I don't see how I am "bothered" in regards to you one way or the other. That said...

My argument was that current research is finding many paths to homosexuality. It is known to run in families which gives a good chance but not an absolute one for a genetic cause. It is known that the youngest son in a family with a large number of male offspring has a higher chance to be gay than in the general population which would likely lead to social or instinctual. There is some research that hormone interaction in the womb between mother and child might be a cause. Which would be chemical with much more vague genetic underpinnings. Then of course there are those that will have sex with anything that moves and many things that don't and some of them will gravitate to promiscuous gay communities where there is just much more opportunity for sex than in most heterosexual communities. Homosexuality is far from unique with humans. Many animal species have examples of homosexuality and some of those populations will have an increased rate when overpopulated.

Would multiple paths to the same effect clear up much your Mendelian math problems? Because that is the gist of my argument. Well that and it is possible to be "born" with a trait and not have a specific genetic marker for it...

Again, I can get here only intermittently.

I appreciate you stating that my comment was awesome. But I think you missed my point.

A "gay gene" should follow Mendelian rules.
A "gay gene" should, to some extent, not advantage the individual for transmitting the gene to the next generation. i.e. Gays don't have as many children.
"Gayness" has been with us for at least ~2500 years.
"Gays" currently represent ~10% of the population.

I can't make Mendelian math work to get all those statements true.

I dismiss BashiBazook's comment that I have it wrong & he can't be bothered to explain it to me. Michale, if you launched a statement so lame, the rest of us would rightly snigger & titter and laugh at you.

CW, you ask if we could choose to be gay. I'd submit that if our societal norms required gay sex, if our churches promoted gay sex, if gay sex was defined as wholesome & heterosexual contact defined as perverted, I'd bet we'd get around to it.

But I've been told, when you're a Sociologist, everything looks like a problem of societal norms.

Hahahahahah ... I know, right?!!!

That's kind of how I felt trying to sort through all this crap.

That's where I wish we had better media. More people in the media to net it out.

Not say ... here's the Dem talking points and here's the Republican talking points.

But who's it going to benefit and who's it going to hurt. Really. Because I would bet the farm that the people designing these bills know.

You're dead on when you say there's a lot going on in the background while everyone celebrates or gets mad about gay marriage.

-David

After that, my eyes just kind of glazed over.. :D

I'll take your word for it..

Bad Congress!!! BAD!!! Go lay down!!! BAD Congress!!!

:D

Michale

What is the benefit to the students of tying the rate to the treasury rate?

I don't see anyone writing about that.

What I do see are projections for how this will reduce the deficit.

What does that mean?

That likely means these loans will bring in more money and cost students more.

The CBO estimates that the Republican plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 billion over 10 years. The Obama plan is deficit neutral. The bipartisan Senate compromise would reduce the deficit by $1 billion over 10 years.

Any plan that says "reduce the deficit" is saying that this will generate more money from students.

I don't believe reducing the deficit by charging students more is the right way to go.

If you can find a better answer to the question: Why tie the rate to the market?

I'd be curious. It looks like a stealth tax to me though.

-David

The best comparison I've seen of costs to students is in that article I sent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/06/studentloan_reform_comparison.png

If accurate, all of the proposals on the table would lower the interest rate from it's current level (this is a good thing!).

However, projections from tying it to the market (from the GAO) say that the rate is liable to rise.

This is why I'd prefer a plan that has a fixed rate. Otherwise, it seems like a sneaky way to raise the rate (remember variable APRs? know anyone who had one when the rates went up? this was another one of the causes of the housing crash).

If they can't fix the rate, the plan should at least have a cap on how high the rate can rise.

Using these criteria, I'm more of a fan of the Warren plan which doesn't tie the rate to the market.

My two cents anyways. Trying to be as objective about this as possible. That's why it bugs me that there aren't more articles like this which show you as much info as possible and compare the plans.

-David

What do you think of Obama's (and the GOP's) plan to tie SL interest rates to the market??

Michale

- The rate hike only applies to newly issued loans. Right now, not many loans are being issued so the real date is September.

- Here's a link to a post about all of the different plans on the table

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/13/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-student-loan-rate-hike/

What I think would be best for students is either a fixed rate or a plan with caps on variable rates.

It's still confusing as to what each would cost students, but this helped.

-David

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ohio-church-gets-heat-from-gay-marriage-supporters-after-celebrating-biblical-marriage-with-chick-fil-a-gift-cards-96352/

That's the result of a 5-second search...

I am sure if I really researched it, I could find dozens, hundreds of incidents where pro-gay-marriage groups targeted churches...

The simple fact is there is a political agenda at work..

Not science whatsoever, but political correctness out of control..

That is what I am railing against...

Michale

THAT's the point..

Has any legislation been proposed to change that? I don't see this as much of a point, nor have I seen any main stream gay rights groups pushing it. I would also expect any law outside of a constitutional amendment that tried to force unwilling churches to perform same sex marriages to be shot down pretty quick by the supreme Court on first amendment grounds...

"The sky is blue, water is wet, women have secrets."
-Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOYSCOUT

:D

Some churches that will do same sex marriages:

They have that choice.. Just as those who oppose gay marriage ALSO have a choice..

THAT's the point..

Now if you really want to see some people with a problem, try proposing a civil union as the only legal form of wedlock.

Watch the Christians go nuts!

If that's what the American people want, then the Christians can like it or lump it...

At least here in Weigantia, we could all vote for a single institution: the civil union!

I am all for it..

But, in the real world you have gay people saying, "I didn't ask her to 'civil union' me.."

All of this heartache and hard feelings over a frakin' label...

It's ridiculous...

Michale

Now if you really want to see some people with a problem, try proposing a civil union as the only legal form of wedlock.

Watch the Christians go nuts!

I mean they can't even handle people saying "Happy Holidays!" How do you think they're going to feel about civil unions?

My guess: Batshit!!!!!!!!!

So it seems to me that the EASIEST way to solve the gay dilemma is to have an institution that ANYONE can partake in regardless of any religious claptrap.

At least here in Weigantia, we could all vote for a single institution: the civil union!

-David

We DO agree, right?? :D

Yes, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? The sky is also blue and water wet but both are meaningless points in the current discussion...

But since religious weddings = church, they can't have it..

That's been my whole point..

Then your whole point is wrong. Some churches that will do same sex marriages:

United Church of Christ
Reform Judaism
Quaker (some but not all, varies by meetinghouse)
Metropolitan Community Church
Unitarian Universalist
Unity Church

As well as others. In many cases it is up to and will depend on the particular local church or pastor.

So, it's just as accurate to say that you are "probably" right as it is to say that I am "probably" right.. :D

This has all been fascinating discussion.. I really mean that..

But, the simple fact is, there is real "science" on both sides of the issue.

And that has been my only point..

I think we should go the route of civil unions. Civil unions for everyone!

Churches can have their own weddings but they won't be recognized by the government until they get a civil union.

Don't have a problem with that at all..

But gay activists will.. Because they want acceptance..

Actually, how it is set up in the united states it can be either. I can have a religious wedding in a church with all the trimmings or I can get married without ever getting near religion at all. Gays just want in to that system.

But since religious weddings = church, they can't have it..

So, they have to settle for the equal alternative...

That's been my whole point..

In a scientific context, it is. When you bring up nature vs nurture, I am assuming you are bringing this up in a scientific context. Out of scientific context it can have other meanings. Since I was referring to scientific research it would be the former and not the later...

Once again, I marvel at your tap dancing. :D

At least we agree that occupation is not genetic...

We DO agree, right?? :D

It was way back up in comment #57 where you said,

Are you talking to me or nypoet22?

My bust.. Comment #56...

No. I did not say that.

Michty did. And, since you didn't correct him (as you correct me) I assumed you agreed with him.. :D

I said marriage does not have to be religious in the here and now. Sure it has it's roots in religion but no longer needs to be related to it...

Then all you have to do is convince society of that...

But, in the here and now, marriage is more a religious institution than not...

So it seems to me that the EASIEST way to solve the gay dilemma is to have an institution that ANYONE can partake in regardless of any religious claptrap..

Marriage ain't going to be it as long as society is the way society is...

Michale

We can have a Union that has all of the benefits and rights and privileges of the religious marriage w/o all the religious claptrap.

Actually, how it is set up in the united states it can be either. I can have a religious wedding in a church with all the trimmings or I can get married without ever getting near religion at all. Gays just want in to that system.

Ergo, the "run in families" claim is NOT a claim that is exclusive to the discussion of genetics..

In a scientific context, it is. When you bring up nature vs nurture, I am assuming you are bringing this up in a scientific context. Out of scientific context it can have other meanings. Since I was referring to scientific research it would be the former and not the later...

It was way back up in comment #57 where you said,

Are you talking to me or nypoet22?

So, you claim that there is NOTHING religious about marriage..

No. I did not say that.

I said marriage does not have to be religious in the here and now. Sure it has it's roots in religion but no longer needs to be related to it...

I think we should go the route of civil unions. Civil unions for everyone!

Churches can have their own weddings but they won't be recognized by the government until they get a civil union.

And I'd like to advocate for a 'civil union test' based on some of the people I've seen getting married :)

-David

probably is the best science can do, because it is not a method that deals in absolutes. science can observe that DNA mathematically accounts for 53% of people's choice of profession, or 36% of their job satisfaction (those are actual figures, feel free to look them up). what science can't tell you is how much any particular contributing factor contributed to the outcome of any single individual. the variation between and within individuals is too great.

estimating genetic or social influences is like guessing who contributed most to winning a ball game. we know there are many contributors, but the game is too complex to say for sure that one player absolutely must have decided everything. there are many paths to the same outcome. when we say people are born gay, that doesn't mean having sex with same-gendered people and self-identifying as gay are their only options, just the ones in this society that are most likely to prevent them from being miserable.

probably.

Ding ding ding ding!!!

We have a winner!! :D

either it's a religious institution and churches can privately engage in whatever discrimination they wish;

it can't be both.

But we, as a society, CAN have both..

We can have a religious marriage with all the associative religious claptrap..

OR

We can have a Union that has all of the benefits and rights and privileges of the religious marriage w/o all the religious claptrap.

And THAT is what gay activists SHOULD be fighting for.. The creation of an institution that is equal in every legal way...

THAT's what they would be fighting for if equality is the goal...

But the activists aren't fighting for that. They are fighting to force the church to recognize their marriage..

And, as petty and as unfair as I think that is (and I do..) the simple fact is, it's NOT going to happen..

Bashi,

But just for fun here are traits and diseases that typically run in families:

And I don't see an occupation in there whatsoever..

So, when you said, "Are you trolling me or is your science knowledge really at the sub high school level?" in response to the question as to whether occupation is genetic, you were what??

Just being silly??

Let me make it easy for you..

Is occupation genetic??

No, of course it's not..

Do occupations "run in families"???

Why yes they do..

Ergo, the "run in families" claim is NOT a claim that is exclusive to the discussion of genetics..

So, when you make a claim about something that "runs in families" you MIGHT be talking about genetics...

Or.. You might NOT be...

Is that basic enough?? :D

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about

It was way back up in comment #57 where you said,
" 'Runs in families' is generally an indicator that there might me a genetic component.

So, you were the one who brought up the question of "run in families" not I... :D

In your opinion and, as usual, completely removed from fact.

So, you claim that there is NOTHING religious about marriage..

And your evidence for this is....????

{{hint}} this is where you accuse me of trolling and refuse to provide any evidence.. :D

Michale

*bring...

Then yea.. I guess I am "trolling" you..

No. You either don't know what "runs in families" means in a scientific conversation or are being intentionally obtuse. A high school science student would know exactly what I am talking about and be able to respond intelligently.

But just for fun here are traits and diseases that typically run in families:

hair color
eye color
skin traits (color, ease of tan/burn, freckles, ect)
Alzheimer's disease/dementia
arthritis
asthma
blood clots
cancer
depression
diabetes
heart disease
high cholesterol
high blood pressure
pregnancy losses and birth defects
stroke

I'm not going to being you up to speed on basic science. Google will get you there just fine if you are actually interested...

So, you are saying that a person CAN be "born a cop" or "born a farmer"...

Would LOVE to see your evidence to support this..

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about and is, as far as I can see, being intentionally obtuse. A.K.A., trolling...

But that doesn't change that fact that, at it's heart, marriage is a religious institution..

These are the facts that no amount of political correctness can change...

In your opinion and, as usual, completely removed from fact.

These are the facts that no amount of political correctness can change...

that may be the case. however, as long as that institution retains a unique, official, government-sanctioned status, the religions that don't approve of said status being conferred to two people of the same gender can't have it both ways.
if religious communities don't want gays having legal marriages, they need to lobby their congress-critters to take all marriages out of government hands.

either it's a religious institution and churches can privately engage in whatever discrimination they wish;

or it's a government institution, and no discrimination is permitted.

it can't be both.

If, by "trolling", you mean asking for you to back up claims with evidence....

Then yea.. I guess I am "trolling" you..

But, but that definition, ya'all have been "trolling" me for half a dozen years.. :D

Marriage in this country is somewhat separated from religion.

It CAN be...

But that doesn't change that fact that, at it's heart, marriage is a religious institution..

These are the facts that no amount of political correctness can change...

David,

Or ... perhaps they're not fighting that battle at all.

If they weren't fighting that battle, then they would be happy with a union that had all the same rights and benefits as a religious marriage..

They AREN'T happy with that, so the acceptance battle is what they appear to be fighting..

It's really that simple...

Michale

So either they're fighting an unwinnable battle ...

Or ... perhaps they're not fighting that battle at all.

-David

Would LOVE to see your evidence to support this..

Ah, so you are trolling me. Noted.

THESE days you can...

Marriage is first and foremost, a religious institution...

So, atheists are not allowed to be married? Things change and have for quite some time in this country. Marriage in this country is somewhat separated from religion. Or have you not noticed that to get married you need a marriage license given by the state and not the church? Or if you want to get divorced, a court and not your local priest?

But they can't have the church accept it as a marriage...

Which church? Some will, most won't. Your generalization is not reflected in reality...

So, you are saying that a person CAN be "born a cop" or "born a farmer"...

Would LOVE to see your evidence to support this..

No. That is not what I'm saying. I am saying, for the umpteenth time, there are probably many paths to homosexuality, SOME include choice.

"probably"???

How scientific.. :D

Really? I was under the impression that I could go to any court house and get married. When did they take the ability to perform marriage ceremonies from judges?

THESE days you can...

But marriage roots are with the church.

No way around that fact...

Marriage is first and foremost, a religious institution...

Of course you can, at least in this country. Other Muslims are unlikely to accept you and I would recommend not making a pilgrimage to Mecca, but legally you can be a church of one and call yourself a Muslim even with those variations...

Fine.. Then gay people can have a union and CALL it a marriage if they wish..

They can call it a Ball And Chain for all I care...

But they can't have the church accept it as a marriage...

And that just pisses the gay activists off to no end...

No matter how much the gay activists may want it, you simply CAN NOT legislate acceptance..

And, the sooner that is realized, the happier they will be...

Michale

Exactly..

Which is why I say that the gay activists are fighting a losing battle... :D

Michale

And I always confuse 'except' and 'accept' :)

-David

Occupation, for one..

Are you trolling me or is your science knowledge really at the sub high school level?

So, you are saying that CHOICE is one of those factors??

That if people have the "gay gene" then they can still CHOOSE not to be gay??

No. That is not what I'm saying. I am saying, for the umpteenth time, there are probably many paths to homosexuality, SOME include choice. Trying to twist that to all paths include choice is more of a reading comprehension problem or are you just being disingenuous?

Bashi didn't claim that WE know very little about Biology.. Even though he should have..

Keep the "we" bit to your self bub. I have studied quite a bit of biology in college and do understand this stuff...

But first and foremost, marriage is religious...

Really? I was under the impression that I could go to any court house and get married. When did they take the ability to perform marriage ceremonies from judges?

Say you want to call yourself a muslim...

But you can't...

Of course you can, at least in this country. Other Muslims are unlikely to accept you and I would recommend not making a pilgrimage to Mecca, but legally you can be a church of one and call yourself a Muslim even with those variations...

Marriage is not a religious institution in the slightest.

Yea, right..

That is why the vast majority get married in a church and "god" and "lord" are peppered throughout the ceremony...

Yea michty.. Not a religious institution in the slightest.. :D

Marriage is as simple an issue as Global Warming: 2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other. That's it. Simple.

Why only 2?? Why not 4?? or 6?? or 10???

You see the slippery slope??

David,

Equal rights is equal rights.

Fine.. I want to use the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader shower facilities..

I mean, Equal rights is equal rights.. So if they can shower in there, then so can I!

Joshua,

society doesn't have to socially accept gays' equal rights to marriage if they choose not to, but we all do need to accept it legally.

Exactly..

That's why we take the religious marriage out of the equation..

Make it a Union..

I mean, seriously!?? Is the LABEL really that important??

I guess, to gay activists, it IS..

Which is why I say the evidence shows that it's not equality that the gay activists want..

It's acceptance. They want to be accepted into the religion "club"....

And that is simply NOT going to happen any time soon...

Personally, I give less of a rat's ass for the label as I do for religion in general..

But the facts are the facts..

And reality is reality..

Michale

But you want to pig out on bacon and sausage every morning. You want to drink a case of beer every day..

"Jews for Jesus" are essentially a strategy by evangelical christians to create converts. they are considered by all four major branches of judaism not to be real Jews. however, we can't legislate against their right to call themselves that, regardless of how insulting we all may find the organization's mission and indeed their very existence. i don't have to like or agree with the fact that they call themselves jews, but it's not within my rights to tell them they can't. isn't marriage equality the same?

but putting the word marriage aside for a moment, there are very soon going to be some cases in the vein of sweatt v. painter and mclaurin v. oklahoma, establishing legally whether a civil union can practically be afforded all thousand plus legal rights of marriage. if any of those cases comes back negative, there will be no choice but to include any two individuals in civil marriage.

on the other hand, the supreme court may rule as you've suggested, that any union between two people must be treated as legally identical to "marriage," regardless of which word is used by states to name it. perhaps even the name itself makes it substantively unequal. personally i think there's a difference between legal and social acceptance. society doesn't have to socially accept gays' equal rights to marriage if they choose not to, but we all do need to accept it legally.

~joshua

Here, here, michty!

Even when I talk with people who call themselves conservative, when you point out some of the things being done by their representatives, they tend to disagree.

-David

Equal rights is equal rights.

It's independent of religion. That is, one religion shouldn't get different rights just because ... well, they want them.

But I do recognize we've about hit the point where we're rehashing so Ima gonna bow out.

-David

Marriage is as simple an issue as Global Warming: 2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other. That's it. Simple.

You'll find that the majority of people in the US are actually just as progressive as in Canada. Just because there is one (VERY) loud minority party full of crazy lunatics does not mean the country is this way - they aren't even close to representing the USA.

If you look past the noise (and look at the polls) you will see that the policies of this loud crazy lunatic party - from gay marriage, abortion, gun control, healthcare, global warming, Corporate support, minimum wage, money in politics, immigration and taxation (etc) - pretty much every major political issue - are in the minority right across the country. Just as they would be in Canada too.

The only problem in the US, compared to other Western countries, is getting politicians to do what the majority of people actually want. Sometimes the lunatic party manages to block progress on these issues at the national level (eg. gun control), sometimes their attempts to block progress fail (eg. healthcare), sometimes they block some but not all of what people want (eg. taxation). But in the end they won't stop the people and the country itself (even though they will try as hard as they can, by stopping them from voting for example). When you travel it is these people across the country that you'll see - this is what I see and love when I travel to the US.

Say you want to call yourself a muslim...

But you want to pig out on bacon and sausage every morning. You want to drink a case of beer every day..

And you want to polish off a fifth of Jack every night...

But you STILL want to call your religion "muslim"..

But you can't...

Because your lifestyle is incompatible with that of a true muslim...

It's the same concept and context with a religious marriage..

The gay lifestyle is incompatible with the religious aspects of marriage..

So, the ONLY solution is to create a new definition that has all the rights and benefits of marriage w/o any of the religious issues.

Just like YOUR solution to your wanting to be a muslim is to create a new designation that let's you be a muslim, but lets you do all the things you (allegedly) love to do.. :D

Michale

Like it or not, marriage is a religious institution...

It's only moronic "luck" that governments intertwined marriage with laws...

But first and foremost, marriage is religious...

So, the ONLY way that gay activists will get the equality they *claim* to want is by creating a separate institution that has absolutely NO religious connection whatsoever but carries all the same legal status, rights and benefits that are afforded people who are joined in a marriage..

It's that simple...

Michale

Marriage can ONLY be between a man and another man.

Things would be different. But they're not. They seem perfectly able to accept straight people for all our foibles and idiosyncrasies.

-David

Yes.

Exactly.

You can't legislate accepting someone into a home or heart.

You can legislate equal rights.

Which doesn't take any freedoms away from anyone religious. They can still hate all they want to hate. It just makes sure everyone has the same and equal rights under the law.

-David

Yes it is.. It's called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION :D

Heheh ... no changing the subject!!! :)

By wrestling the definition of marriage away from the church..

Show me where gay people have introduced legislation saying "You have to like gay people"

They aren't.. They are trying to introduce legislation that says, "You have to allow gay people into the religious institution of marriage"

Joshua came up with a great comment about this...

It's right here...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/06/26/marriage-equalitys-giant-leap-forward/#comment-39599

Now it is possible to legislate discrimination.

Yes it is.. It's called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION :D

Michale

How are they trying to legislate acceptance?

Show me where gay people have introduced legislation saying "You have to like gay people"

Now it is possible to legislate discrimination. You simply introduce legislation defining marriage to be between the people you want to include. And exclude others.

-David

My issue with the Nature vs. Nurture argument is the agenda behind it.

EXACTLY!!

We are in complete agreement on that, albeit for different reasons. :D

They want to "change" people.

A perfect example..

I view it as it's the Left and the gay activists who want to "change" people..

They want to force people to accept the lifestyle...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wish these people would just leave well enough alone.

Again, I am in complete agreement...

And they want to do it through law and government rather than through choice.

And the gay activists do the exact same thing...

That can't force the Church and religious people to accept them and their lifestyle so they are attempting to legislate the acceptance..

It's uncanny. With very minor adjustments your argument is MY argument...

Or my argument is YOUR argument! :D

Michale

The religious nuts believe that homosexuality can somehow be prevented or corrected.

Though its been around since people have been around.

Now they can believe whatever they want to believe. I could give a crap.

But they can't leave well enough alone.

They want to "change" people. And they want to do it through law and government rather than through choice.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wish these people would just leave well enough alone. Why don't they worry about themselves for a change? Instead of trying to inflict their religion on everyone else.

This is why it's a good thing there's separation of church and state.

-David

Bashi didn't claim that WE know very little about Biology.. Even though he should have..

My mistake.. :D

Michale

I think someone has taken BRAVE NEW WORLD too seriously... :D

Michale

Again, genes - sections of DNA or RNA that contain the data that control all the functions in the organism. Hormones - chemicals released by cells that regulate processes in the organism. No semantics, just basic biology...

DNA and RNA are basic biology..

The idea that something in the DNA/RNA that makes someone maybe/maybe not gay is what ya'all tapdance around. :D

The only fact here is you have little clue as to how genetics or evolutionary biology work.

Exactly!

So, the idea that people are born gay MIGHT be wrong...

Agreed??

THAT has been my point the entire time..

A family genetic predisposition is a chance that an offspring will have a trait not a guarantee all children will have that trait...

True.. You will recall I had a lot of "if"s in my postulation..

My beef with your "runs in families" claim is that it is NOT solely attributed to genetics, as you said. A lot of things "run in families" that have nothing to do with genetics..

Occupation, for one..

Unless you are making the claim that occupation is genetics. That people are BORN farmers or BORN cops...

I would love to see your data on THAT claim.. :D

Or rather how you read it. I'm saying it is likely that there are many complex paths to homosexuality. Some include all these factors, some only a subset.

So, you are saying that CHOICE is one of those factors??

That if people have the "gay gene" then they can still CHOOSE not to be gay??

Not really. More that someone has a biological predisposition then certain early childhood experiences push them in to that direction. Choice is only sometimes a factor.

So, like I said. You claim that people can be "born gay" but still have a choice NOT to be gay...

So, it's NATURE *AND* it's NURTURE..

And you don't think that it tap-dancing?? :D

You want it all neat and simple but how everything works is anything but.

No, I want it all logical and rational without ANY hint of political tap-dancing..

I would agree with you that how everything works here in Weigantia is anything but.. :D

As long as you concede that you may be wrong about it, that's common ground right there...

In turn, I concede that you might be right...

Hopefully we will know the facts in our lifetimes.. :D

I would hate to miss the chance to say "told ya so!" :D

Joshua,

A great comment...

But it's all unproven theory...

There is NO comprehensive and definitive evidence that homosexuality is established in the womb..

There are indications, sure..

But, as Bashi points out, we don't know enough to even guess at what we don't even know...

You might be right.. There is evidence to support this..

But..

You also might be wrong.. There is evidence to support this as well..

That's all I am saying...

But the political component of the nature vs nurture theory is well substantiated..

People who are gay MUST be born that way..

Because, if they are not, then the entire gay activist agenda falls apart..

Michale

No one has ever tried to make the case that it's genetic/hereditary....

strangely enough, that particular facet actually has been studied, and significant evidence found. since 1932. but i digress.

~joshua

Being a farmer or a cop or a fireman "runs in families"...

No one has ever tried to make the case that it's genetic/hereditary....

Well, until now anyways.. :D

I'll get to the rest in the morning...

Michale

the operative word here is "be."

depending on the context, that could mean "behave," or it could mean "feel toward others," or "identify oneself as." those are three different questions, and they're all interrelated.

a cognitive psychologist by the name of albert bandura came up with a concept called reciprocal determinism. what it means in a nutshell is that human thoughts, behaviors and natural drives all have a causal effect on each other. it has been tested in relation to all sorts of human behavior.

when we say somebody is "born gay" we're only talking about a third of the process - genetic and in utero - what instinctual drives make them attracted to somebody else's smell, touch, taste, etc. but within the scope of one's range of natural attractions, there's the ability to develop more refined preferences, more complex thoughts and beliefs associated with those natural drives. there's always been huge genetic variation - my guess would be that a large percentage of humans are born with the capacity to be attracted to either sex, but those capacities are not equal. as we map the human genome and learn about prenatal hormones, we may find out what those approximate capacities are, and how they work.

when we say that there is a "choice," that's only true inasmuch as a person can choose between the thoughts and behaviors that are within his or her natural drives and experiences. gay identity is a fairly new phenomenon, but homosexual behavior has been around about as long as human beings have existed. why? because most societies didn't have a separate name and identity for same-sex preference, it just "was."

Nope, just basic science. There is really a difference between genes and hormones...

Which would also support the nurture argument..

The opposite actually. "Runs in families" is generally an indicator that there might me a genetic component.

The problem is that the "it's genetic" argument is so fraught with scientific impossibilities and inconsistencies that they ONLY way that people will even CONSIDER the genetic possibility is with semantic tap-dancing you apparently are so eloquently adept at...

Again, genes - sections of DNA or RNA that contain the data that control all the functions in the organism. Hormones - chemicals released by cells that regulate processes in the organism. No semantics, just basic biology...

The simple fact is, if it's genetic and no one has a choice about being gay, then the "gay species" is doomed to extinction...

But is still a fact nonetheless....

The only fact here is you have little clue as to how genetics or evolutionary biology work. A family genetic predisposition is a chance that an offspring will have a trait not a guarantee all children will have that trait...

That's how your explanation re: nature v nurture sounds...

Or rather how you read it. I'm saying it is likely that there are many complex paths to homosexuality. Some include all these factors, some only a subset.

You are born gay but THEN, magically, your environment gives you a CHOICE to be gay or not!!

Not really. More that someone has a biological predisposition then certain early childhood experiences push them in to that direction. Choice is only sometimes a factor.

You want it all neat and simple but how everything works is anything but. Personally I find that makes it interesting rather than bothersome.

Ah, gotcha. That was what I didn't understand until you 'splained.

-David

Ahhhhhh OK...

NOW we're on the same page...

Michale

And if god doesn't exist??

What does that do to your logic?? :D

David,

I guess the discontinuity was in our definition of re-finance..

For instance, I would likely do the re-fi to obtain more money..

So, the initial 30K odd amount I financed in year xxxx became a couple hundred K in year xxxx+4....

That's what I was saying the risk became greater because the amount became greater and the default risk became greater..

Again, this is not comparable to the student loan situation so I concede THAT argument.. :D

Just trying to understand the current iteration..

Michale

Without some form of a common logical framework, facts cease to matter and argument is pointless.

The problem with extrapolating God's intent is the God Works in Mysterious Ways Principle outlined in the Book of Job and elsewhere. If you take natural history as an example of God's Intent, than He seems to engage in a lot of overly complex engineering to solve fairly simple problems. To be fair, so do German auto engineers.

Problem: Keep races from mixing.

Complex, ineffective engineering solution. Put 'em on separate continents. Design flaws: free will, apples free trade and boats.

Simple highly effective engineering solution:

Speciation. Make mixed race offspring nonviable or infertile. Proven concept, highly effective, problem solved, at least until one of the human species acquires advanced genetic engineering skills -roughly 10,000 to 4 million years according to how you read or refuse to read the geological record.

Is somebody perhaps attributing things to God that God never actually said? Gene flow has never respected human notions of race. Maybe God intended that. Certainly fits the known facts. God made bigots also fits the facts.

Here's a few quick numbers that might make clearer (if it makes your head hurt, I'll shut up ... promise).

Say your original loan was for $300k at 6%.

The house appreciates in value to $500k. This doesn't matter. Your loan is still for $300k.

The most you would refinance for is $300k assuming you've paid none of it off.

Now let's say you refinance the $300k at 4%. Your chances of defaulting actually decrease because your payments are going to be much less per month.

And ... it's going to work similarly for student loans. If you have $100k in loans at 6% and refinance at 4%, the risk of default decreases.

Hope this helps!

-David

Not trying to be a dick here.

That goes without saying.. I know you wouldn't intrude on my domain here, eh?? :D

hehehehehehe

Michale

And our National Security Advisor Designate Susan Rice said that Snowden's actions have NO EFFECT on the status of this country..

Now, call me stoopid...

But having someone so utterly and completely CLUELESS as that as our NSA???

What good can come of that???

Michale

My brain hurts... :D

I know that I am the LAST person who should be arguing high finance..

But, strictly speaking from a position of common sense, here is what it looks like to me.

Using myself as an example..

I bought by house for $52K and took out a mortgage for that amount (give or take)..

That was loan #1...

Now, in several years, the house appreciated in value considerably..

So, I RE-FINANCED the house at the larger value..

In essence, I took out a NEW loan based on the new value of the house..

That is the SECOND loan and the risk is STILL on the second loan, even MORE so than it was on the first, because the value AND the loan amount is much higher..

Now, if my house were to appreciate even more (doubtful in this climate, but go with me) then I would re-finance for even MORE money which would, in fact, become a THIRD loan for even MORE money and even higher risk...

Now, I grant you, this has little to nothing to do with the student loan issue, as that is comparing apples and Eskimos...

But, since we got off on this housing/mortgage tangent, isn't what I am thinking rational, logical and common sense??

Michale

If it were another loan ... yes.

If you refinance an existing loan, the sum total of loans is 1.

You're not adding a new loan with additional risk to the system.

The risk from that loan is the same (or less if the refinance is at a lower rate). Whether it's from the initial loan or the refinance. Either way the loan is out there with the same or lower risk.

This is why the overall risk to the system doesn't change (or, if anything it's less because you're less likely to have defaults).

(Not trying to be a dick here. Just trying to help explain risk and why there isn't additional risk from refinancing.)

-David

I expect the real cause of homosexuality is a complex interaction of a whole host of genes, chemical reactions in the womb during pregnancy and/or social factors after birth.

I find your "you are born gay but nurture factors come into play after birth" to be a very convenient line of reasoning..

It's like the christian belief that suicide means you can't go to heaven..

Postulate a scenario where the priests and the Church, during the dark ages, wanted to give the people hope amidst all the despair..

So, they concocted a religious fable that said "when you die, you go to a heavenly paradise where you never want for anything."

But then some priests said, "Wait a tic.. If we tell people that there is a heavenly paradise when they die, then we'll have mass suicides because people will want to get to their heavenly paradise. We can't have that!! Who will pay taxes!!??"

So, some Madison Ave type priest said, "Here's what we'll do! We'll tell people all about the heavenly paradise.. BUT... But we'll tell them that, if they commit suicide, they won't go to that heavenly paradise!! They will go to a tortuous hellish place! THAT will keep them in line, eh!??"

You see the point???

When you die, you go to heaven... But if you die by your own hand to get to heaven, you DON'T get to go to heaven.. You go to hell instead!

How convenient, eh??

That's how your explanation re: nature v nurture sounds...

You are born gay but THEN, magically, your environment gives you a CHOICE to be gay or not!!

It's magically convenient...

Not logical or rational, of course...

But certainly convenient...

And you REALLY call that "science"???

Michale

But there is no risk of causing a financial crisis because you are not creating new risk in the system. You're simply refinancing a risk already taken.

But, by taking the risk, it's compounds the first risk...

And yes.. It's just one homeowner and one bank.. Or mortgage company..

But one bad loan started and cascaded into a huge financial meltdown.....

Whether or not the loan is a first loan or a re-fi loan, the basics still apply..

People being given credit that can't afford it..

That's what happened in the first crisis..

And the same factors are present in the here and now...

And student loans don't appreciate or depreciate in the same way as houses by the way.

True.... Which is why I like to stay out of high finance.. :D

Michale

There may be a risk to you. Or a risk to a single bank.

But there is no risk of causing a financial crisis because you are not creating new risk in the system. You're simply refinancing a risk already taken.

And ... it's more likely that the loan will actually be paid.

So you're actually reducing the risk with refinancing. Which is exactly what the government has done by keeping rates low.

And student loans don't appreciate or depreciate in the same way as houses by the way.

-David

No, my point is fact is always truth...

But truth is not always fact...

It depends greatly on one's point of view...

"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"
-Obi Wan Kenobi

Michale

Beyond that your use of "REAL science" is typically as erroneous as your use of the word "fact", "born with" does not always directly equate to "genetic predisposition to".

Oh jeezus!!! Another semantic discussion.. Joy.. :^/

Yet it has also been found that homosexuality is known to run in families.

Which would also support the nurture argument..

I expect the real cause of homosexuality is a complex interaction of a whole host of genes, chemical reactions in the womb during pregnancy and/or social factors after birth. In other words, no one definable set path, and no easy, one size fits all "cure".

Again, I am a simple knuckle-dragger...

If it's genetic, it's not a choice..

If a person can choose to be gay or not to be gay, it's not genetic...

The problem is that the "it's genetic" argument is so fraught with scientific impossibilities and inconsistencies that they ONLY way that people will even CONSIDER the genetic possibility is with semantic tap-dancing you apparently are so eloquently adept at...

The simple fact is, if it's genetic and no one has a choice about being gay, then the "gay species" is doomed to extinction...

One of those facts that you deny...

But is still a fact nonetheless....

David,

Refinancing isn't a risk to financial institutions because the risk has already been taken. It's simply refinancing at a lower rate.

I refinanced my home when it was valued at $300K...

It's now valued at a fifth of that, yet I still owe a LOT more..

No risk???

Shirley, you jest... :D

The sad thing is that it's hard to actually learn about the different plans being put forth. Most of what is in the media are talking points and blame.

Too bad we can't just call up the POTUS and ask, "what this shit is up with this crap, eh!??"

:D

Michale

Well, as you can see from the photo evidence, I had more than my share of THAT cake! :)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/600486_10151662091079318_1543944412_n.jpg

One small correction. Easy credit to finance homes is part of what brought on the financial crisis. With no risk for the lending institution due to mortgage-backed securities.

Refinancing isn't a risk to financial institutions because the risk has already been taken. It's simply refinancing at a lower rate.

Me, I don't have enough information to know which way is the better way..

Me neither, to be brutally honest. I just don't think letting them go up is a great idea.

The sad thing is that it's hard to actually learn about the different plans being put forth. Most of what is in the media are talking points and blame.

I'm continuing to look though and if you find anything good, please post!

-David

Beyond that your use of "REAL science" is typically as erroneous as your use of the word "fact", "born with" does not always directly equate to "genetic predisposition to". In the case of homosexuality there has been some interesting research recently that it may be the interaction of hormones between mother and child in the womb that predisposes one to being homosexual. In other words it's possible to be "born gay" without a specific genetic marker for homosexuality. Yet it has also been found that homosexuality is known to run in families.

In another line of research there turns out to be a strong statistical correlation between families with lots of male children and the youngest male child being homosexual. Which turns out to be tough socially, as in this country, large families are more often than not highly religious.

I expect the real cause of homosexuality is a complex interaction of a whole host of genes, chemical reactions in the womb during pregnancy and/or social factors after birth. In other words, no one definable set path, and no easy, one size fits all "cure".

Thanks very much!

Very clever use of quotations, Michale.

But, if your point is that the truth is not related to the facts, then you have no point.

Happy B-Day! :D

Michale

Uhhhh.... What were we talkin bout again??"
-Chicken Little

:D

My point is, "truth" is subjective....

Facts are not...

Michale

Happy Canada Day - we're 146 today!

More often than not, especially in the political arena, truth is based on faith, not facts..

Well, my friend, therein lies the problem in having a discussion about the truth.

The truth of any given matter is, most decidedly, NOT based on faith. The truth must always comport with reality and the facts, by definition. Any "truth" based on faith alone and that does not comport with reality and the facts is sheer fantasy.

Opinions can be, and often are, based on faith. And, similarly, opinions can be right or wrong or found anywhere between right and wrong.

Furthermore, there is only one overarching truth of any given matter and one set of facts, at any given time. When speaking about the truth of any matter, there is not your "truth" or my "truth"; there is not your set of "facts" or my set of "facts"; there is only the truth as which conforms with the reality and facts of the situation.

Maybe that should have been a bigger priority than gay marriage and illegal immigrants, eh??

Point being that Democrats are no different than Republicans..

Their priorities are the Party agenda first and the American people a far and distant second... Or maybe even a third...

Michale

Abso-frakin'-loutly :D

Michale

Good ... me too!

Then we at least agree in theory on how to judge legislation and our legislators. Though we're liable to have some differences in opinion on what these things are.

-David

Uh, yes it is. But it's likely one of those "agree to disagree" issues.. :D

Dems want a better bill- a bill to let students refinance or something that isn't a stopgap.

Obama opposes that..

Me, I don't have enough information to know which way is the better way..

Letting students re-finance sounds good on the surface...

But letting people re-fi their homes with very loose qualification standards is what brought about the last financial crisis..

Perhaps Obama's and the GOP's reasoning is why tempt Apropos???? :D

I'm glad you're against the higher rates though.

I am against anything that screws over the American people.. Even the kids... :D

I don't care if Republicans or Democrats pass better legislation ... what we should be thinking about is helping the students.

Maybe that should have been a bigger priority than gay marriage and illegal immigrants, eh??

I'm just sayin'.....

Michale

No. It isn't.

Especially when you consider that Obama and the Republicans are on the same page with this and it's DEMOCRATS who are against it.

Dems want a better bill- a bill to let students refinance or something that isn't a stopgap.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/sherrod-brown-student-loan-refinancing_n_3493851.html

I'm glad you're against the higher rates though.

Now get off the sidelines. Contact your Congressman! :)

I don't care if Republicans or Democrats pass better legislation ... what we should be thinking about is helping the students.

-David

But that influence is even MORE prevalent under the Obama Administration..

Which is my point. You can't be against against Corporate Influence in government and turn around and support the current Administration who, for all intents and purposes, have put in an Express Lane for Corporate Influence...

Student loan example is a great example btw. It's ridiculous that Congress let the rate go up.

Especially when you consider that Obama and the Republicans are on the same page with this and it's DEMOCRATS who are against it..

Go figger, eh? :D

Michale

The problem is the outside influence of corporate lobbyists on government. This is producing policies that only benefit a wealthy few.

What we need are policies which benefit more people.

Student loan example is a great example btw. It's ridiculous that Congress let the rate go up.

-David

The time gods smiled upon me (and apparently frowned upon ya'all :D) and I was able to find it again..

Here it is, in all it's (dubious) awesome-ness.. :D

If one is "born gay" and if the "gay gene" is hereditary and if one views gay people as a different race (a lot of "if"s, I know), then gay people, as a race, are doomed to extinction.

So this would be a very logical argument AGAINST people being born gay. Evolution (AND religion) has shown that perpetuation of the species, IE self-preservation writ large, is an overriding goal. So whether we evolved naturally (despite Picard's ham-handed interference in the 26th century.. :D) in a pool of primordial goo or we were created in some galactic petri dish, the idea that people are born in such a way as to eliminate the species is ridiculous..

Put another way, how long do ya'all think the human race would have endured if we could not pro-create??

Would we be here today discussing the nature vs nurture argument if this race really DID start with Adam and Steve???

I think the answer is self-evident.

Further, if people ARE born gay, then a mechanism would have had to evolve naturally that would allow the species to perpetuate. To the best of my knowledge, no such mechanism..

Since no evidence of a procreation mechanism exists, then it is illogical to postulate that people are born gay.

So, science... REAL science, would seem to argue against the theory that people are born gay..

If anyone can point out any fallacy in my logic, that would be awesome...

"Do I really say 'awesome' a lot??"
-Dean Winchester, SUPERNATURAL

Michale

Apparently, unless you are gay or an illegal alien, Democrats don't give a crap aboutcha.... :^/

Michale