iNow

I believe this gives the Republicans a source of leverage. On any votes which are close and right on the edge, that ONE republican will receive promises and gifts and whatever it takes to coerce him/her to the other side. If leveraged correctly, you could have a few smart republicans becoming very powerful through all of this, precisely because they will be so needed.

Well, in my opinion, and looking at the data (declining resources like water and food, inceasing pollution and climate change, etc...), we're diving quickly to our own extinction because we're reproducing too much. Either we need to find sources of resources beyond our own planet, or we need to have negative population growth for a while. It won't be pretty, but it will happen whether we want it to or not (nature is a real bee-atch sometimes).

An informative and welcome correction. Thanks, DH.

To whom?

Then, in addition to the parts bascule referenced, you'd also see higher levels of activation in the auditory cortex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_auditory_cortex Btw - the thalamus is like a crossroads or a junction through which almost all neural signals travel. "All roads lead to the thalamus."

Your feeling is the right one. It involves all of the different regions, much like dreaming. Here's the kicker, though... the different regions which are involved depend greatly on the subject of your imagination. For example, if you are imagining a big math problem, it would be prefrontal cortex. If you were imagining pitching a fast ball during the world series, your motor cortex would be more involved. If you were imagining a painting of clouds, it would be more the occipital cortex. Then, on top of all THAT, there are the contributions from your more basic reptilian brain regions, the emotional and memory areas, like the hippocampus and amygdala, which change the "taste" or "texture" of those imaginative explorations. Glider is the best person here to answer such questions, but you'd probably need to be a bit more specific first ("When I imagine X, and how it relates to Y, which brain regions tend to show the most activity on fMRI scans or PET...positronic emission topography... or CAT scans?) Interesting question, though. Now you've got me thinking about this.

Not sure if it's a sign of deeper problems or not, but long story short... He enjoys the games and the feeling he gets while playing them. If you want him to stop the game playing (or, at least, limit it), you ought to try finding a replacement... Some alternative that gives a similar pleasurable exprerience. Some people do martial arts or other sports for the "good feelings" and endorphin rush that they get out the games. The trick is to replace it with something else that provides a similar feeling of enjoyment.

Why do I feel like I'm stuck in the middle of a Who's on First skit?

If I read that article correctly, they got off because they never appeared in court, and on other technicalities like alternate jurors being inproperly substituted one day. That's our legal system for you. Guilty until dismissed by procedural nonsense. [Administrative Judge]Banales withheld judgment on whether probable cause existed for the Cheney and Gonzales indictments because they were not represented in court and did not present any argument. Banales dismissed all eight indictments because GEO Group attorney Tony Canales showed that two alternate jurors were part of the panel that day but had not been properly substituted.

A better explanation, Pioneer, is that this follows a similar path as the grandmother effect. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6979/full/428128a.html There is no need for unfounded analogies. There is an existing explanation that works much better. Also, there are other aspects of the evolution of homosexuality that you are missing. Evolution is about much more than passing on just your own seed, and you've been reminded of this numerous times before at this site and others.

During an All Hands meeting with several thousand employees across the globe this morning, the senior executive of HR in my company just named me as employee of the quarter! It's really too bad that the economy is doing so poorly, as this would normally bring some sort of raise.

I guess I'd been holding that in for a while, huh? It came across much more negatively than I intended it. Sorry about that. I had actually planned on PMing you about those exact points just a few days ago, but never got around to it. Speaking of PMs, that's another thing I think you do well. Sometimes there will be a hot topic or a heated debate, and you'll take the time to send a PM. Usually, it's something simple like, "Hey, I notice things are getting aggressive and emotional over in thread Y. Try to keep it civil and calm before things escalate." I've always really appreciated that, and such a step goes much farther with me personally than "Mr Stompy" ever will. When I see "Mr Stompy" coming, I tend to quickly become "Mr Go F Yourself."

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=445943#post445943

Well then, this is irreconcilable and inconsistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, since other states won't recognize those unions presently being permitted in MA and CT. This was already covered in posts #4 and #5, this thread.

No, I don’t have any real objections, maybe a suggestion, though.. I consider you a friend, and have nothing personal against you, but I do think that sometimes you seem to take a Honeymooners (or Homer Simpson choking Bart) approach to moderation... "Why I oughta!!" More explicitly, you tend often to put in giant red letters "Knock it off," or "Cut it out." It reminds me a lot of the father figure driving cross country with the family in the stationwagon in a 1960s sitcom. He’s getting frustrated that his “children” are acting up in the back seat and he keeps threatening the kids that he's "gonna turn this car around right now" if they don't quit... which, he basically never did. I appreciate your desire for civility, the need for avoiding personal attacks, and also recognize the inherent difficulty of maintaining decorum in a Politics forum, where people with strong personalities are battling gladiator style on soft concepts and opinions. With that said, though... Just freakin' moderate and be done with it. If you’re unsure about something, ask for opinions from the other staff, but please, for the love of flying spaghetti monsters, stop with the empty threats, and the condescending tone (“You know better! I won’t have any more of this!”). If someone does something wrong, then infract them and move on. If someone's logic is faulty, point out where and move on. If they don’t respond to these corrective actions, escalate accordingly and scale your response with problem you seek to ameliorate. Also, be specific. Quote specific sentences by specific posters which distress you. I've seen too often where you'll respond after 3 pages of thread and not quote anything, simply yelling "stop it!" It's like, "Huh? Who? Which part? There's been a lot of things said here..." Just be specific. Quote bits like you did in the OP (but within the thread), and say, "This is not appropriate. It will result in an infraction next time." Botta bing... You're done. Frankly, the repeated calls for "these types of comments need to stop" do you more harm than good, as it shows that you are somewhat powerless to take more meaningful actions. I don’t want you to read too far into this, though, as I see how much you are trying to provide everyone with an open floor, and that’s truly commendable, and damned hard to accomplish. You want ideas and opinions to be expressed, and for everyone to do so while being respectful and considerate of the membership and readers, and it’s fine line to walk sometimes. Again, these aren’t objections, per se, more suggestions than anything else. With that said, there’s nothing wrong with criticism of faulty ideas, nor of demonstrating problems in thinking. Also, sometimes it's important to just call a spade a spade, and as long as ones comments are supported and backed up intelligently, it's not inherently a bad thing when members ostracize certain beliefs or worldviews (like racism or jingoism). We’d all perhaps be better off if people would just grow thicker skins. I want those who disagree with me to tell me what they think, but, in reality, sometimes after their points have been debunked, they really should shut up and comply. Speaking of which, I’ll step down off the soap box, now. I only commented since one of the five quotes in your OP was directed at me, and three of the others were made by me, and all context was stripped, as they were each made within a single post to a member who was spouting hate speech.

How much time do I have to decide? Also, btw, it's a false dichotomy.

Well, they are also denied marriage licenses and legal recognition of their union, a legal recognition which is afforded to heterosexual couples. I'm not sure if you missed the fact that this is what we have all been here discussing, but it negates your comments all the same. I don't know if you've noticed this either, but every argument I've made has been precisely about laws and constitutionality.

Okay, that's fair. The only relevant secular reasons for laws against incestuous marriage that I can conceive of are a) mutant babies and b) psychological trauma. It's plausible to mitigate against mutant babies via volutary sterilitiy, but the psychological trauma is much more difficult of an issue to avoid and protect against. Regardless, it's not at all my desire to argue in favor of incestuous marriage. I was simply answering a question posed to me qiuckly so we could keep the thread on track. If you'll notice, Severian specifically referenced sibling marriage, which is why I answered in the affirmative. However, when you start discussing parent/child or uncle-aunt/niece-nephew pairings, the issue of psychological trauma becomes much more tantamount and presents a much greater potential for harm/injury to at least one of the involved parties. Since psychological trauma is not an issue in homosexual marriage (unless it's perhaps a forced "shotgun" marriage, which I don't believe is being discussed here), I find the comparison moot. That's just me, though. I've found a relevant secular reason for prohibiting incestuous marriage (in fact, I've found two, but proposed a way to mitigate the first). I have not found any such relevant secular reason for prohibing homosexual marriages, and I welcome examples.

Again, though... It just makes you feel icky. That is neither a relevant nor secular reason to differentially apply rights and privileges which are afforded by the state to its citizens. While I can see why some would be interested in the constitutionality of incestuous marriage, that is not what this thread is intended for, and it's equivocation to suggest that it's the same as homosexual marriage. If readers would like to have that discussion, it most certainly warrants its own thread, especially since there are so many unique instances and frameworks in incestuousness such as sibling/sibling, parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, nephew/aunt, niece/uncle, cousin/cousin, etc.

That would depend entirely on the relevance and effectiveness of your counter-arguments now, wouldn't it? When I am proven wrong on an issue, I concede it quickly and openly, and have done so repeatedly since I joined this community. I will await your counter-arguments, and if they are weak, you should expect them to be challenged.

How about instead of throwing feces, you remind me what those arguments providing relevant secular reasons for the differential application of rights were, since I seemed to have missed them. Also, which of my statements have been untrue? There is a nice little quote feature here on SFN that will allow you to be precise with your substantiation. Also, I'd like to remind you about my use of the descriptor "relevant" for these arguments, instead of the word "valid." If at all possible we should try to avoid another 4 pages of thead going toe to toe about validity versus relevance, something far too inane and specious to adequately address the root of the issue under discussion here.

Well, you seem to be more interested in perpetuating an argument than getting an objective question answered, but I'll see what I can come up with. The challenge, of course, is that we must first a) limit our population sample to only those animals which mate for life (a relatively small percentage), b) further limit sample to those which mate for life with same sex partners, and c) have been observerd and confirmed doing this in the wild. In short, I'm abundantly sure such data is out there, I just need to sift through the journals to find it... which is why the animals in a zoo provided a quick solution to the problem... they were available and met all of the above criteria, without the need for me to go on a wild goose chase like a little lap dog to satisfy your tangential inquiry. But since you're just being "academic" and "curious," I'll try to oblige as those are commendable approaches to our lives with which I can easily align. In the meantime, can you clarify who precisely insisted that "only humans want gay marriage" and where? Then, if you'd further demonstrate how that is directly relevant to this specific thread in the Ecology forum, that'd be super nifty. EDIT: Okay, it was far easier than I thought. You had me doubting myself, so I went back and re-read the articles, but I didn't even have to do that since I even quoted the relevant bit in post #1. Second link in the OP: Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. I hate to point out the obvious, but it seems you did fail at reading. Can we move back into the thread now, and stop with the personal nonsense which distracts everyone, including you and I, from learning and progressing?

As explicitly stated in the OP, this argument is not about biased application of the law, it is about whether the law itself is implicitly biased. These are two very different things, and I've made abundantly clear all along which argument was being made. Discussion about application of the law is completely moot if the law itself is implicitly discriminatory and/or irreconcilable with our federal constitution, its articles, amendments, and its clauses. I have assumed no such thing. I only state that, as a matter of rights and privileges granted to the populace by the state, that differential application and allowance of these rights based only upon sexuality has no relevant secular purpose. I have also repeatedly welcomed relevant examples to the contrary, and none have been provided. Within the first amendment, in the Establishment Clause, it explicitly states that laws respecting or recognizing one religion over another, or giving preference to the views of a certain religion, are prohibited. In addition to this, the Establishment Clause (as well as the subsequent interpretations of it) makes clear that all laws must have a valid and relevant secular purpose for existing, or otherwise are unconstitutional (purposes such as protecting others from harm or injury). Again, there is no relevant secular reason why two people of the same gender should not be allowed the same rights and privileges that two people of opposite gender are allowed, whether they are gay, straight, bisexual, suffering from XYY (Klinefelters) or XO (Turner) syndrome, are infertile, hyperfertile, or otherwise. Marriage, a basic civil right as defined by the Supreme Court of the United states, is being offered as a right by the state, and recognized as legal to some segment of the populace. If they wish to prevent this right from applying, and legal recognition from being allowed, to all citizens equally, then they must demonstrate a relevant secular reason for this differential and discriminatory behavior, as expressly indicated in the Establishment Clause in the first amendment, and reinforced by the Equal Protections Clause in the fourteenth amendment. The discussion here is about homosexual marriage, not incest. I find it curious and disheartening that you would make this huge mental leap and equivocate the two. However, to answer your question, I'd say sure. It doesn't effect me at all, and there won't be any mutant babies, so that takes the harm/injury to another party out of the equation. While it's not exactly a bright shining example of mental health, I see no relevant secular reason to prevent siblings from marrying if the chance of them copulating and producing offspring is taken off the table. Either way, though, this is about homosexual marriage, not incest, and there is no relevant secular purpose for restricting marriage rights which are allowed to heterosexual couples from applying equally to homosexual couples. This is not an appeal to incredulity (I see no relevant secular purpose) as I've welcomed examples to the contrary and have not received any (any of those thus far offered have been, in terms of the law and our constitution, wholly irrelevant). And you and I may be able to find alignment here on this part. Many of the participants at this site do, in fact, agree that the interconnectedness of marriage and state rights has gotten far too messy. However, the issue is that marriage IS currently a basic civil right in the United States being offered to heterosexuals (the majority), and it is being restricted from homosexuals (the minority) for no relevant secular purpose. If the decision is made to restrict it, then it must be restricted for everyone. If the decision is made to recognize it legally and allow it, then it must take the religiously motivated discrimination based on sexuality alone out of it. This is an extreme oversimplification, of course, but I feel summarizes the basic issues at play here.

Wait, huh? You asked a question to which you already knew the answer was yes, then disregarded the examples given you in support of that affirmative response since you'd heard it previously elsewhere? What a strange approach to understanding the world you have. Yes, penguins also do it in the wild, as do others. That's also covered in the links above, among others, but clearly we don't have a full catalog of the sexual behavior of every single species on the planet. Would you be willing to wager that more species other than penguins mate with a same sex partner for life? I know I would. Also, how does any of this really matter since monogamous life partnering is an outlier in the animal kingdom, and against evolved tendencies even in humans? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Well, we'd still make some organisms that were better suited to survival than others, and there are a few that just would die right off, hence are being selected against. The thing is, we'd be taking much of the "natural" out of natural selection, and making it more artificial (such is the process we use when we select for cattle that have better meat yields or chickens with breasts that are grotesquely larger than they should be, or seedless grapes, even). Regardless if the selection happening is natural or artificial, though, evolution still occurs, as the organism is changing over time. That is, of course, unless we hit upon a recipe we like and we start cloning them. However, even then we'd need to ensure error free cloning methods to avoid evolution and change. Also, we'd need to make them sterile to avoid evolution (lock up the ability to reproduce into the lab).