iNow

Well, I haven't specifically measured the levels, but yes... the change in some of my behaviors is rather indicative of a surge in testosterone. To answer your question, "All of the above."

Dr.Syntax - Chillax, man. Charon implied no such thing. People at this site put a high priority on accuracy and precision. When somebody corrects you, it is not a personal attack, so you need to stop acting like it is. This comment is in reference to many of your other posts in other threads as well. If you state something that is not entirely accurate, you will be corrected. That's a good thing, as it helps you AND others to learn.

Reading your post above, tar... I get the sense that you would enjoy/appreciate the content of this thread which I created. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40233

This video made me laugh so hard that I thought this would make a nice home for it. Enjoy. TfS6cE7VXM0

Unfortunately, your answer was not accurate (just to clarify, you provided mechanisms of delivery... types of behavior... not characteristics of bacteria themselves), but the larger issue is that the rule for the Homework Help forum is not to just give answers, but to help the person find them on their own. So, even if your answer is/was perfectly correct, you should still avoid providing it directly. Make sense?

Well... Except that in 74% of the United States, not even civil unions are legal... So, there's always that problem with which to contend (only 13 of our 50 states recognize civil unions/domestic partnership, and even when civil unions are recognized the laws are not equal with marriage laws, neither at the state nor the federal level). We are a constitutional republic, with constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens... regardless if they are part of a minority or a majority. We are not a direct democracy, so the "tyranny of the majority" opinion, I contend, is not relevant whatsoever. The only way that opinion becomes relevant is if there is a valid secular reason for the opposition/differential conferment of privileges and benefits (as per the Enumeration Clause of the first amendment, the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th amendment, and the "Lemon Test" put forth by the SCOTUS in Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971]). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If you find yourself unable to respond politely, Mr. Skeptic, then please do not respond at all. Further, this is like the seventh time I've asked that posters stop deflecting the conversation on to me, my qualities, or my contributions, and answer the root question of the thread, or adequately address the criticisms of their offerings. Your post was merely you repeating yourself, without ever addressing the criticisms of your "because the definition used to be this" argument in favor of opposition. So, I really don't feel the need to respond to any of it until you bring new information to the table... new information elucidating why "the definition used to be this" is a relevant argument to oppose gay marriage, one which is not directly rooted in bigotry... one which is not merely an argument from tradition... an argument which has also already been shown to be irrelevant.

Well, you're right. They could also conclude that they are being bigoted and have no relevant secular reasons for their opposition other than ignorance or hatred, but I think I covered that already back in post #1.

And Wilson himself racked up over a million dollars from supporters who liked what he did and how he did it. He's even selling tshirts for people which say, "I'm with Wilson!" on his website. Further, I found his apology empty and insincere. While I respect the president's ability to turn the other cheek... live and let live... let bygones be bygones... Wilsons actions and continued points since the outburst are not indicative of a man who is repentant about his error, but are more indicative of a man who truly believes that his disrespect for the president was appropriate, who questions the legitimacy of the president, who is using this disappointing action to gain fame, and who only apologized because it would have been really bad PR not to. The healthcare "debate" has brought out the worst in Americans, and I (for one) am disappointed, and ashamed of the extremity and insanity of these types of actions and behaviors. That's my two pennies, anyway.

I_A - In short, we all pay into the system and share the result/output of those collective payments. I pay taxes, and my taxes go toward things like public schools, public roadways, fire departments, police departments, water treatment and delivery, etc. Despite the fact that we, as individuals, may never use those services, we still pay for them to support the common good. Those are, at their core, socialistic systems. In it's most extreme form, every worker pays all earnings to a central authority like government, and the government decides how those wages get distributed. We all work for the collective (social) benefit. However, that's not what we're talking about here now in the United States. With healthcare, the idea is that we all contribute to a single system to spread the pool of risk to a greater number, thus reducing all of our individual contributions to a lower amount, while simultaneously covering more people. Much like we all contribute in tax dollars to ensure an active fire department, we all would contribute in tax dollars to ensure a basic minimum level of care for all citizens. Why this is being associated with the nazis and being used as a negative/derogatory label... I simply can't conceive. It's based on misunderstandings and ignorance, as we already have a tremendous amount of "social" systems, all of which benefit the common good. IMO, healthcare is just one more part of that same safety net... that same set of systems which we implement for the greater good in an advanced civilization.

I'm confused as to the relevance of your point, since the issue under discussion right now very much IS real in a legal sense. I agree, he is arguing for equal rights, but different names. However, as my intermission above suggests, his argument is not yet enough. He has yet to establish the relevant need to call them different names, and why this is better than using just one term to describe both groups. He suggested that "males and females have different names, so why not have different names for opposite sex and same sex marriages?" I demonstrated that there ARE relevant secular differences between males and females, but we have yet to see any relevant secular differences in the union of same sex and opposite sex partners. Until those relevant secular differences in the social contract of marriage are described, the argument falls flat. Group C most certainly exists, they simply have not participated in this thread. However, the subject of this conversation most definitely applies to that group as well. Again, I fear you may be misrepresenting the position. The implication is not that these people want inequality. The implication is that they have yet to share any relevant secular reasons to name the groups differently, and hence appear to be making an argument from ignorance, homophobia, and/or bigotry. Once they make a relevant argument to name the groups differently, the implication will immediately vanish, but not until. Close. I'd phrase it somewhat differently, though. It's more about asking why a separate name is required if you are unable to provide a relevant secular reason for calling it a separate name. From my perspective, the separate name is intended to do nothing more than to keep "them" separate, and has no real value or purpose. I'd welcome an argument to contrary, but no relevant arguments have yet been put forth in that regard. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Okay. Chillax guys. The broader point is this. Once that child (or adult) finally DOES look inward and examine their reasons for opposing same sex marriage, and once they realize they have no relevant secular reasons to maintain that opposition, something needs to happen. If they remain opposed despite having no relevant secular reasons, then they are being bigoted. If they wish to maintain their opposition, they should seek to find relevant secular reasons for their opposition, or they will remain bigoted. However, if they are unable to find relevant secular reasons to support their opposition, then they should quite simply stop standing in opposition, since they have no good reasons to do so.

Right on, and you're right... muscle weighs more than fat for the same unit area, so weight might not be the best indicator of your progress. Sounds like you're on the right path, though. Keep it up. With me, it's been strange. I sense my testosterone going up since I've been working out more regularly. I wonder if you (or others) have experienced that.

Okay. We’re now more than 100 posts into this thread. Let’s review what has been shared in response to the core question of the thread: “What relevant secular reasons are there to be opposed to same sex marriage?” I don’t know. I’m just against it. Not relevant, nor is it useful in a discussion explicitly asking for reasons explaining the opposition [*]Tradition Not relevant, as tradition alone is not a relevant reason to oppose same sex marriage. An injustice in the past is neither a valid nor useful argument for the continuation of that injustice in the present... Or, as Judge Kramer said, "The State's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional." [*]The composition is different, so it needs a different name Is not itself a valid argument, since it implicitly suggests that this difference in composition is relevant enough to treat or name them differently, without ever supporting that this is the case. Further argument is needed for this suggestion to have merit (which, at present, it lacks). Such an argument should present a valid explanation of why this different composition (based on genitalia alone) is somehow relevant to the state recognition of marriage prior to the argument being accepted as relevant. [*]The definitions should not be changed This one is also not relevant, and for several reasons. First, the proposer of this position conceded that definitions are arbitrary, defeating his argument the moment it was presented. Second, definitions change with time, and for good reason. Arguing on the basis of a static definition is not relevant since definitions are not themselves static. Third, the existence of a commonly held definition in the past is not a relevant argument against using a more inclusive definition in the present. Fourth, the definition argument implicitly assumes that the definition which is used by a subset of the people is somehow a higher priority than the definition used by another subset of the people, without ever supporting why that one definition is more relevant than the more inclusive one. Again, further argument supporting the merit of this proposal is required prior to accepting it as a relevant reason to oppose same sex marriage. [*]They can’t have children Not relevant, since marriage is not preconditioned on the ability to have children, as evidenced by the infertile, the elderly, and those who don’t desire children all being allowed to marry without challenge or opposition. So… We’re now more than 100 posts into this thread, and still no relevant secular reasons to oppose same sex marriage have been proposed. I encourage people to keep trying, and if you cannot find relevant secular reasons for your opposition, I encourage you to stop opposing same sex marriage.

Reinforcing much of the above... The slides are for background, not content. The content comes out of your mouth, and slides merely supplement it... not the other way around.

I agree also. They have the power, and are (to a disturbing extent) showing their inability to do anything with it (if they fail with healthcare). Americans may like representatives who are "on their side" with issues, but they seem to put a higher priority on strength, leadership, and success... regardless of subject.

How has your workout regimen been going, Severian? I thought of your thread because I've been doing a new program myself with a few friends from work, and I've been really happy with the results so far (about 3 weeks in).

IINM, he is arguing that since we call men and women by different names since they are different things, that we should also call marriages between heterosexual partners and marriages between homosexual partners by different names (basically, he is arguing that these, too, ARE different things). IMO, it's a false comparison, since marriage refers to the relationship, and in the sense of a social contract there are not any relevant differences in the social contract between opposite and same sex partners (whereas there ARE relevant secular differences between males and females). I agree with your conclusion that it's irrelevant to the discussion, but I think above I've more closely represented what he's trying to convey.

They are similar in the fact that they are both completely irrelevant to the social institution of marriage, yet are being used as arguments by groups in their attempts to prevent certain consenting adults from being allowed to marry.

Infertile couples are not expected to produce children. Your assertion is false. Sure we can. Please note my reference to the elderly. Hell, couples over the age of 50 pretty much aren't expected to have children, and yet they are allowed to marry. Regardless... Moo spelled this out more clearly than I could. The social contract of marriage is not contingent on children, therefore, the fact that two same sex partners cannot (via sexual intercourse) bear children is not a relevant reason to stand in opposition to same sex marriage. I'm still waiting for a valid response to the question posed in the thread title.

You say that infertile couples are an "exception to the rule" which you do not have a problem with. However, same sex couples are ALSO an "exception to the rule," however it is one which you do have a problem with. Why?

Is it worth it to call them by a different term? The composition of the relationship between a black man and a white woman is different than the composition of the relationship between two partners of the same color. Should that also have a different term? What about when an older man marries a younger woman? That has a different composition from the marriage between two comparably aged partners. Should that have a different term? What about people who are married for the third or fourth time. That has a different composition than people who are marrying for the first time. Should that have a different term? What about people who marry and are infertile. The composition of that relationship is different than those who are fertile/want children. Should that have it's own term? I know you are okay with granting homosexual partners the same rights as heterosexual couples, but I'm making a point here. What relevant secular difference is so profound as to require a different term, and why don't you ALSO have a different term for all of the other countless relationships of different composition? If we simply accept that the term "marriage" describes the fact that there are partners in a relationship recognized by the state, we can do away with all of the other "let's keep them out of my country club" discussion of alternate terms. All of that aside, you've basically just said that they should be called something different, and you haven't given a relevant reason why. The inability to have children doesn't factor in since we call infertile couples, the elderly, and people with no desire to have kids "married." If you use that criterion to prevent same sex couples from being called "married," then you are applying a double standard.

Yes, it can... But, why should we use a term other than marriage (since the term seems to apply to the relationship, not the gender of the participants in that relationship)? What relevant secular reason is there for having a different term, and is it worth it to relegate homosexuals to an underclass... as different in an "us/them" sense... prevented from joining your treehouse or country club of "marriage?"

First, nobody is asking religious folks to change a thing. They can choose to marry or not marry anybody they wish. We are talking about the state, and state recognition of marriage. Second, marriage (as recognized by the state) is NOT a religious activity, as atheists and non-religious people have been getting married for decades, and potentially centuries. This is perhaps the single best evidence that the opposition is based on ignorance and/or homophobia. I really can't believe you just let yourself type those words as if they were accurate and representative of reality, Jackson. It's comments such as those which make people so frustrated with the opposition. What you've said there really has no basis in reality, and I shouldn't have to explain that with it being almost the year 2010, not 1010. Now, I have read your several posts to this thread, and notice you have still not addressed the central question. Please note that.

This video is from 8 seniors at a high school in Washington, DC, and was taped after the president's speech. I thought it was pretty well done, and might serve as a nice bookend to this otherwise frustrating/disappointing topic. TlvAPH6R_s4

Because you have relevant secular reasons for knowing that Windows sucks, and also for liking parts of its functionality despite that... I bet you could name the parts you like and dislike, and it wouldn't take you more than a few moments to name several. Now... Ask yourself... What are your relevant secular reasons for being opposed to same sex marriages? If you have none, then as much as you might dislike admitting it, and be uncomfortable with how it sounds, you are being bigoted. However, let me pause and state for the record that... after having interacted with you on numerous occasions here at SFN... I'm quite confident that you are not a bigoted person. I think you are quite kind and thoughtful, and I've enjoyed your contributions here. However, if you continue to hold your opposition to same sex marriage for no good reason, then you have to concede you are being either bigoted or ignorant on this particular topic. My sincere hope is that you will offer a good reason to be opposed to same sex marriage, or... if you are unable... that you will change your position and stop being opposed to it.