iNow

Indeed. Much more accurate of a depiction AFAICT. The critiques on wiki sum up the issue well: Conventional economic paradigms acknowledge the basic notion of the Laffer curve, but they argue that government was operating on the left-hand side of the curve, so a tax cut would thus lower revenue. The central question is the elasticity of work with respect to tax rates. For example, Pecorino (1995) argued that the peak occurred at tax rates around 65%, and summarized the controversy as: Just about everyone can agree that if an increase in tax rates leads to a decrease in tax revenues, then taxes are too high. It is also generally agreed that at some level of taxation, revenues will turn down. Determining the level of taxation where revenues are maximized is more controversial. However, in support of ecoli's point about "not *always*" good to increase taxes (his post suggesting a concession of the fact that it's more a mere possibility in present context rather than a probable occurance): In 1924, Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon wrote, "It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates." Exercising his understanding that "73% of nothing is nothing" he pushed for the reduction of the top income tax bracket from 73% to an eventual 24%.

I see. I think you are referring to ingroup/outgroup behavior instead of ethics... the ability of one to accept something different from themselves. I agree that this can be difficult, and think that you will notice how difficult it is to find educated and secular people who are passionately against these pursuits. Nearly all challenges are based on some indoctrinated ideological worldview, not on facts or real dangers. People approaching these issues with such bias (and in such large numbers) do present a formidable challenge, but not one that is impossible to overcome and vanquish. Maybe start by first putting wings on puppies. People like puppies, and the cuteness factor might soften them up a bit to the idea of putting wings on people.

Thanks, scalbers. Good article. Much of that is already covered in wiki, but it's not like facts and reality matter in these debates on AGW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Atmospheric_lifetime Additionally, to all those who like to claim that water is a more potent greenhouse gas, it's important to note that it doesn't build up or accumulate in the same way as things like CO2 or methane. Water only lasts about one or two weeks. As it turns out, we have this strange phenomenon called " " which seems to bring equilibrium to the system more quickly. Amazing what the scientists are coming up with these days. Next thing you know, they'll probably be trying to tell us that the geocentric model is faulty and does not accurately describe reality.

What code of ethics?

First, those people who believe that humans are the "end of the evolutionary chain" are both wrong and stupid. Sorry, that second bit was more opinion, but the first part was fact. Also, humans HAVE changed during the past thousands of years. Every day we change, and every child is different. Some are better suited toward survival than others, but we are still evolving. I think what you may have meant is that we have been very successful at reducing the impact of genetic issues and environmental stressors on our survival. That's true. We have learned how to maximize survival, and learn more ways each day, but we still continue to evolve. To your last point, we can genetic engineer. It's possible, and it's absolutely going to happen, so we may as well learn as much as we can about it to do it as safely as possible. There is a lot of harm that could be done with this technology, but also a lot of good. Either way, while we can genetically engineer, we will never fully control evolution, neither on the planet as a whole nor just within humans.

Yes, those are good ones. FWIW, this was discussed in the national geographic link and also shown as the first bullet point in the wiki link.

This is yet another invalid comparison, unless you can show me that the majority of members in society are being allowed public nudity and the minority is not. Also, incest does cause harm/injury to third parties, namely, the offspring. Whlie an unborn may not yet be afforded rights (at least not in the same way that a fully developed adult human is), there is in this case demostrable secular harm. So again a failed comparison. The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. They stated explicitly: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," ...also: The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. See: Skinner v. Oklahoma Maynard v. Hill Loving v. Virginia ...among others. But the state is not recognizing it on YOUR behalf, they are recognizing it on behalf of the state, and THAT is the point. You are free to be as biased or egalitarian as you wish, but the state, and the laws of the state are not allowed that same choice. Rights afforded to the people by the state must apply equally to all citizens, unless the differential application of these laws can be shown to mitigate against some harm or injury to others, or unless their differential application has some demonstrable and relevant secular purpose. Here, states are recognizing some marriages as legal, but not others, for no relevant secular purpose. You are free to regard same sex or opposite sex unions in any way you want, but the state must offer rights to its citizens without discrimination, and when disallowing members of its populace rights and privileges which others enjoy it must have a relevant secular reason for doing so.

I did find humor in Skeptics question. I wonder why he chose not to ask if heterosexual marriage exists in the animal kingdom. I started picturing a two deer going into town hall asking for a marriage license, and the human beside them grinning and salivating as he filed for a hunting license. The answer to his question is yes. There are species which mate monogamously with a same sex partner for life, and this was already covered in post #1.

Excuse me? This thread is entirely about the constitutionality of homosexual marriage. You're trying to tell us all that "legal definitions" have no place? I disagree. The Establishment Clause of the first amendment states that laws must have a valid secular reason for existing, such as preventing harm to others... injury as defined by one of the bullets in my previous post. There is no strawman here, as I was not misrepresenting your position, then arguing instead against that weaker misrepresentation, then claiming some sort of victory. That's not what I did. I asked for a specific secular harm caused by homosexuals (or their marriage), since that has been the most recent argument against equal protections of our laws and the removal of discrimination in the privileges offered our citizens. Nobody has yet offered a relevant response with specific harms being caused, and I doubt that anyone will since (truth be told) there aren't any. Yes, I completely follow your argument. Society gets changed, people perceive said change as beneficial or harmful. I'm not missing what you're saying. However, you are missing what I'm saying. In order for a law to be made, it must be to protect others from specific harms or injuries, or have an alternative secular purpose. The fact that somebody perceives societal change in a negative way hardly addresses this criterion. Again, this thread is explicitly about law and constitutionality, so this discussion is entirely relevant. Murder is illegal because it harms others. Rape is illegal becaue it harms others. Stealing is illegal because it harms others. Why is homosexual marriage illegal? I think you and I agree mostly, and may be getting caught up in semantics (however, I do think there is a lot of merit in my being pedantic on these points). However, with that said, the bigoted intolerant individual has not been stripped of any rights that the homosexual couple has been afforded/allowed. That's the difference which makes the comparison invalid. One is about perception, the other is about rights and privileges offered to the majority, but restricted to the minority for no relevant secular reason. Hence, I keep asking, what secular harm is being prevented by keeping homosexual marriage illegal? What relevant purpose does this restriction of rights based on sexuality serve? Nobody has answered with anything more substantial than "it makes some people feel yucky."

Did you not read the OP, or the links it contained? I would presume not considering the question you asked.

I'm going to take that to mean that you, too, are unable to cite a single secular harm caused to others by homosexuality. Feel free to correct my impression with actual examples if I am somehow mistaken. Also, "society will be worse off" is a faulty argument since homosexuals are a part of said society. Either way, I just want someone to put some specific details around this supposed harm that homosexuality causes, and I've asked that it be limited to the arena of the secular. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harm INJURY. A wrong or tort. Injuries are divided into public and private; and they affect the. person, personal property, or real property. 3.-1. They affect the person absolutely or relatively. The absolute injuries are, threats and menaces, assaults, batteries, wounding, mayhems; injuries to health, by nuisances or medical malpractices. Those affecting reputation are, verbal slander, libels, and malicious prosecutions; and those affecting personal liberty are, false imprisonment and malicious prosecutions. The relative injuries are those which affect the rights of a husband; these are, abduction of the wife, or harboring her, adultery and battery those which affect the rights of a parent, as, abduction, seduction, or battery of a child; and of a master, seduction, harboring and battery of his apprentice or servant. Those which conflict with the rights of the inferior relation, namely, the wife, child, apprentice, or servant, are, withholding conjugal rights, maintenance, wages, &c. 4.-2. Injuries to personal property, are, the unlawful taking and detention thereof from the owner; and other injuries are, some damage affecting the same while in the claimant's possession, or that of a third person, or injuries to his reversionary interests. 5.-3. Injuries to real property are, ousters, trespasses nuisances, waste, subtraction of rent, disturbance of right of way, and the like. 6. Injuries arise in three ways. 1. By nonfeasance, or the not doing what was a legal obligation, or. duty, or contract, to perform. 2. Misfeasance, or the performance, in an improper manner, of an act which it was either the party's duty, or his contract, to perform. 3. Malfeasance, or the unjust performance of some act which the party had no right, or which he had contracted not to do. 7. The remedies are different, as the injury affects private individuals, or the public. 1. When the injuries affect a private right and a private individual, although often also affecting the public, there are three descriptions of remedies: 1st. The preventive, such as defence, resistance, recaption, abatement of nuisance, surety of the peace, injunction, &c. 2d. Remedies for compensation, which may be by arbitration, suit, action, or summary proceedings before a justice of the peace. 3d. Proceedings for punishment, as by indictment, or summary Proceedings before a justice. 2. When the injury is such as to affect the public, it becomes a crime, misdemeanor, or offence, and the party may be punished by indictment or summary conviction, for the public injury; and by civil action at the suit of the party, for the private wrong. But in cases of felony, the remedy by action for the private injury is generally suspended until the party particularly injured has fulfilled his duty to the public by prosecuting the offender for the public crime; and in cases of homicide the remedy is merged in the felony. 1 Chit. Pr. 10; Ayl. Pand. 592. See 1 Miles' Rep. 316, 17; and article Civil Remedy. 8. There are many injuries for which the law affords no remedy. In general, it interferes only when there has been a visible bodily injury inflicted by force or poison, while it leaves almost totally unprotected the whole class of the most malignant mental injuries and sufferings unless in a few cases, where, by descending to a fiction, it sordidly supposes some pecuniary loss, and sometimes, under a mask, and contrary to its own legal principles, affords compensation to wounded feelings. A parent, for example, cannot sue, in that character, for an injury inflicted on his child and when his own domestic happiness has been destroyed, unless the fact will sustain the allegation that the daughter was the servant of her father, and that, by, reason of such seduction, he lost the benefit of her services. Another instance may be mentioned: A party cannot recover damages for verbal slander in many cases; as, when the facts published are true, for the defendant would justify and the party injured must fail. A case of this kind, remarkably bard, occurred in England. A young nobleman had seduced a young woman, who, after living with him some time, became sensible of the impropriety of her conduct. She left him secretly, and removed to an obscure place in the kingdom, where she obtained a situation, and became highly respected in consequence of her good conduct she was even promoted to a better and more public employment when she was unfortunately discovered by her seducer. He made proposals to her to renew their illicit intercourse, which were rejected; in order to, force her to accept them, he published the history of her early life, and she was discharged from her employment, and lost the good opinion of those on whom she depended for her livelihood. For this outrage the culprit could not be made answerable, civilly or criminally. Nor will the law punish criminally the author of verbal slander, imputing even the most infamous crimes, unless done with intent to extort a chattel, money, or valuable thing. The law presumes, perhaps unnaturally enough, that a man is incapable of being alarmed or affected by such injuries to his feelings. Vide 1 Chit. Med. Jur. 320. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t. INJURY, civil law, In the technical sense of the term it is a delict committed in contempt, or outrage of any one, whereby his body, his dignity, or his reputation, is. maliciously injured. Voet, Com. ad Pand. lib. 47, t. 10, n. 1. 2. Injuries may be divided into two classes, With reference to the means used by the wrong doer, namely, by words and by acts. The first are called verbal injuries, the latter real. 3. A verbal injury, when directed against a private person, consists in the uttering contumelious words, which tend to expose his character, by making him little or ridiculous. Where the offensive words are uttered in the beat of a dispute, and spoken to the person's face, the law does not presume any malicious intention in the utterer, whose resentment generally subsides with his passion;, and yet, even in that case, the truth of the injurious words seldom absolves entirely from punishment. Where the injurious expressions have a tendency to blacken one's moral character, or fix some particular guilt upon him, and are deliberately repeated in different companies, or banded about in whispers to confidants, it then grows up to the crime of slander, agreeably to the distinction of the Roman law, 1. 15, Sec. 12, de injur. 4. A reat injury is inflicted by any fact by which a person's honor or dignity is affected; as striking one with a cane, or even aiming a blow without striking; spitting in one's face; assuming a coat of arms, or any other mark of distinction proper to another, &c. The composing and publish in defamatory libels maybe reckoned of this kind. Ersk. Pr. L. Scot. 4, 4, 45.

Would it be possible for you to give us all a few secular examples of harm that homosexuality causes others? I can't think of a single one, and I'd welcome the insight brought by such a response.

I just wanted to emphasize this important point that Pangloss made. Solutions must always scale with the problems. Lead? Isn't that something that is no longer allowed in our petroleum fuel and paints?

Interestingly, the studies I've read suggest that animals which fornicate more frequently tend to get it over quickly. Mount, thrust, finish, all within just a few seconds. Whatever gets the job done, I suppose. Interesting point. I was thinking about this more as an emergent phenomenon from existing functionality, but you're right about evolution "hijacking" other systems. As one of the articles I shared in the OP discusses, homosexuality is 3 to 4 orders of magnitude more common than other genetic issues described as "diseases" like Huntington's. It obviously has served a meaningful purpose for it to have survived and prospered as a trait for so long, and for it to be as common as it is.

Who ever said our society was modern or civilized? I've seen far more depressing and disturbing attitudes and actions than an accidental trampling at the walmart store, and I know you have, too.

That's fair, but if it's the strong nuclear force, then why do the objects need to be polarized/charged to exhibit this behavior? Why would polarization be relevant in terms of the strong interaction? I would think that if the reaction were a result of the strong force, then this reaction would be independent of charge and polarity. It's probably painfully obvious to you, but I'm not seeing it.

So, it's more about induction of charge? What I suppose I'm missing is, if the surface of the object is charged, and hence later repelled or attracted as a result of that charge, what causes the repulsion/attraction if not magnetism?

Okay, I welcome correction, and appreciate the links. Can you help me to better understand the basic difference between electromagnetism as I suggested in polarizing the objects and electrostatics or electromotive forces causing the bend in water and the paper to move in response to the comb? I'm not sure what I said was wrong, but welcome an quick tutorial on why these other terms apply better.

Well, the water is neutral also. AFAIK, the negatively charged comb essentially "pushes" the negative charges in the other material as far away as possible. So, with your example of the paper, the negative charges essentially "run" from the comb. It's being polarized. This can cause the paper to move, much like the bending water. It's just simple electromagnetism. If you want more detailed explanations, then you're going to be beyond my personal education and ability to teach. You might check out something like this: http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/elec_charge.htm Otherwise, there are members at this site very much better versed in the dynamics of electromagnetism than me, and perhaps they'd be willing to step in and help. Enjoy. Although the charges (on the electrons) are tightly bound to the atoms in an insulator they are free to move slightly within the atom. This is called polarization. If a plastic comb is rubbed on fur (or your dry hair) electrons will be rubbed off the hair onto the plastic comb. The plastic comb becomes charged negatively. If the comb is brought close to a neutral insulator, like a piece of dry paper, it will repel the negatively charged electrons in the atoms causing them to moving away slightly, leaving the protons without an electron closer to the comb. Since opposite charges attract and the positive charges are closer to the comb than the negative charges, the piece of paper is attracted to the comb. This effect is used to remove soot and ashes from smoke going up industrial chimneys. The inventor became rich as a result of his patent! Part (b) of the diagram shows the same result (attraction of the paper) even if we had a positively charged comb.

This thread is primarily in response to those who insist that homosexuality is an abomination, or that it harms peoples morals, or any of the other stupid nonsense people say after they've been poisoned by religious teachings. Also, it's just an interesting topic of conversation. http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php Male big horn sheep live in what are often called "homosexual societies." They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males "effeminate." Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages. As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia. Thus, any distractions from the business of making babies—distractions like homosexuality, masturbation, etc.—are precious wastes of fluids. You'd think by now, several hundred million years after sex began, nature would have done away with such inefficiencies, and males and females would only act to maximize rates of sexual reproduction. But the opposite has happened. Instead of copulation becoming more functional and straightforward, it has only gotten weirder as species have evolved—more sodomy and other frivolous pleasures that are useless for propagating the species. The more socially complex the animal, the more sexual "deviance" it exhibits. Look at primates: Compared to our closest relatives, contemporary, Westernized Homo sapiens are the staid ones. Given the pervasive presence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, same-sex partnering must be an adaptive trait that's been carefully preserved by natural selection. As Roughgarden points out, "a 'common genetic disease' is a contradiction in terms, and homosexuality is three to four orders of magnitude more common than true genetic diseases such as Huntington's disease." Interesting. I never knew that more than 450 vertebrate species exhibited homosexual behavior. Gollly. Wait... Did I say 450? I think I meant 1,500: http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718 "One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition. Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other. Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy". Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life. Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species. "We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives." 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. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples. Well, that's odd. The article suggested that homosexual animals might actually be better suited to raising offspring. That seems counter to all of the love and truth the religious people have been sharing with me. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female. But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates. Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural. In the U.S., in particular, the moral debate over this issue rages on. Many on the religious right regard homosexuality as a sin. Even wiki has an entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behaviour Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue. This is wild stuff. It leaves me pondering the question... What is more wrong... Homosexuality in humans, or humans who refuse to accept it as natural?

Funny. I always thought that the values of the majority were best represented by individual liberty and equal rights and protections for all citizens. I think your post speaks for itself. I do not have to apply a label or description to you since it would not add anything to something which is already so plainly self-evident. I'd ask you what "facts" you think I'm missing or not considering, but I'm not optimistic that you have the ability to be objective in this. I heard that it was really disgusting to let a black man stick "his thing" into a white woman, too. The people who said that were, in fact, rather ignorant. Same applies here. "Gays are yucky" is not a solid enough argument to change the principles of our constitution.

What's unthinkable is your ignorance and bias. What is so warped about homosexuality? What is it that they would do to harm children? Why would the sexuality of the child even begin to be relevant? How does your ignorant post have anything whatsoever to do with the constitutionality of equal protection to our citizens? It's almost 2009, people. It's not 1009. Never mind, agentchange. I know you'll just respond with another ignorant post, and that won't help me in my attempts to understand how the ruling in Baker v. Nelson warrants overturning. You can walk away from this thread unless you have something meaningful to share.

Very well done, sir. I do believe you've got it.

The comb does pull electrons from your hair, causing the comb to be negatively charged. Then, when you place the comb near the water, it bends for the same reason that magnets attract and repel one another. Now, can you repeat back in your own words the answers to the questions you asked? Also, if the comb pulls electrons from your hair, what happens to the electric charge in your hair after you've combed it and removed those electrons? EDIT: Also, Paul, what is it about the structure of water (what it's made of) that causes it to bend in response to the presence of a comb packed with extra electrons?