zapatos

Is it safe to assume that since distant galaxies recede from us at a rate greater than c that they eventually leave the gravity well of our galaxy? If so, does this imply that Dark Energy will have a greater impact on recession rates over time as gravity wells are no longer an influence on distant galaxies; that recession rates increase over time and not just over distance?

I want to be careful around using the word 'discriminate'. I find it acceptable to offer a benefit for one type of behavior while not offering the benefit for another type of behavior. For example, giving a tax deduction for a mortgage but not giving a tax deduction for a car loan. I would not call that discrimination as anyone can take advantage of the mortgage tax deduction. I would also not call it discrimination to not give you and your father the same benefits that were given to married couples. What I don't find acceptable (and what is barred under the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution) is to offer a benefit for a type of behavior, while only allowing a specific class of citizens to take advantage of that benefit. In my mind, that is discrimination and should not be allowed. Hence, while it is acceptable to offer benefits to married couples that are not offered to unmarried couples, it is not acceptable to limit who can take advantage of marriage benefits once offered**. **There are of course exceptions, but they must be reasonable exceptions.

I do not know which environment is best for children, but I suppose some research could rank them based on certain parameters and I would not be surprised if one father/one mother appeared at the top of the list. But whatever environment landed on top, that would only be the best environment on average. I've known a number of two-parent families where the children would have been better off in almost any other environment. Hence, while one environment may be the best on average, I don't feel like any good environment for children should be discouraged simply because it is not the best. I feel government is generally obligated to create laws and policies that benefit society, and thus government certainly has the right to give advantages to certain groups or individuals who create healthy environments for children. Unfortunately what is 'best' changes over time, and the ability of government to fairly and impartially judge what is best for society, and how far to go, is suspect.

I didn't realize that. In that respect I agree with you completely. The church gets to make the rules for those who choose to be members of their club.

Is anyone suggesting that everyone is entitled to a marriage sanctioned by the Church? Marriage is not the sole purview of religion.

Many laws are enacted to promote behavior. In the US there are tax benefits given to people who have home mortgages in order to promote home sales and the resultant benefits to construction, manufacturing, etc. Giving tax benefits to married couples encourages marriage and the resultant benefits associated with the nuclear family.

Proper ergonomics for sitting include a back support that follows the curvature of your spine. I don't know if keeping your back 'straight' is a good substitute for an ergonomic chair, or if ergonomic chairs are recommended because people don't keep their backs straight. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/office-ergonomics/art-20046169 http://ergo-plus.com/using-exercise-ball-to-replace-office-chair/

I don't understand where you are going with this. Are you saying that you living with your father was the equivalent to marriage?

Sitting on an exercise ball clearly works the core much better than sitting in a chair, but I doubt it will contribute much to a six pack. On the down side, having no back or arm support can lead to back and neck problems. In addition, if the ball is at an incorrect height for the desk, you may introduce other problems. I'm guessing its effectiveness is a crap shoot.

Were you denied the right to marry? If not, then you are conflating two different issues (IMO). The issue is whether or not you should allow some citizens to marry and not others. If you want benefits equal to those given to all others, I don't think that issue needs to be conflated with whether or not you are allowed to marry.

This would be no different than Jim Crow laws in the United States. Separate but equal. It would not be acceptable as all citizens must be treated in the same manner, not in a similar manner.

That was not an answer to my question. Please name the religion you are referring to.

What religion are you referring to?

I never claimed otherwise.

There is also pee on the seat because people flush the toilets after using them. See above.

I hadn't heard that one before but I just found it. Glad I didn't try any of the buttons!!

That made me smile. Back in 1999 I was on a Y2K project and was in Japan doing mitigation. The toilet in my hotel had lots of buttons and switches. I remember telling my wife that it was the first time I had been afraid of a toilet since I was two years old.

Actually I was trying to point out that the seat may be as dirty as the porcelain. I agree the porcelain will be dirtier than the air once the aerosol has settled.

As I recall, once a toilet is flushed, the contents of the water proceed to coat the toilet seat, walls, floor, toothbrush by the sink, etc. I'd be curious to see how much dirtier the porcelain is than the seat. Here's something a quick search found: http://www.businessinsider.com/flushing-toilet-seat-up-sprays-water-germs-2016-3

Perhaps what I view as silly has to do with differences between our cultures. In the US, public restrooms are not considered any kind of a right, and the suggestion that businesses and local governments should be compelled to take on such an expense to modify a perfectly functional device into a perfectly functional and comfortable device seems a bit over the top to me. I'm quite sure women sit down in public restrooms more frequently than men do, and when men must sit, there is nothing stopping them from first wiping that bit of porcelain or laying a bit of toilet paper over it to avoid direct contact. Many women 'hover' above the toilet when they use it to avoid touching that cold, wet, pissy plastic surface covered in bleach and cleaning fluids or god knows what else every time they sit down to go. I am of course talking about the toilet seat. But I've heard no demand for action from them to replace all toilet seats with something more hygienic.

Carnal and Careless of the Internal Vacation Carnal Vomit Porcine Dank Dismal Airplane and the Fuse Creaky Grub of the Seventh Drizzle Broiled Paroxysm

Seems like you are the one who is now being silly.

Have you investigated elongated bowls, as opposed to round bowls? I actually switched out all the round toilets in my house and installed elongated bowls for that same reason; the round bowl was too 'crowded'.

My congratulations to anyone who dangles below floor level, and my condolences to their partners.