Voters set to reject gay marriage, ban on abortion

[Kärnfysikern]

I vote against ripping up babies to find a cure because it makes sense to me. Period. Call me ignorant? I dont care.

That is why we need a clear cut legal definition on when a embryo becomes a baby.

To me it seems wierd to call a bunch of cells without brain or bodyparts and no more concious than a bacteria for a baby.

But I guess there is no point in going into that since we have had those discussions before

[Kärnfysikern]

He is using a clever play on words of another quote made by a Jew during WW2 if I'm not mistaken.

yupp it was einstein that said it I think.

[Kärnfysikern]

I think Johan has a good point. Like it not, time marches on. The information age is the new dawn of mankind. The introduction of the internet in my mind is just as important as the Reneissance (sp?). The scientific and moral decisions we make right now will determine the history of humanity. This is not being dramatic, this is the truth. We have weapons that can detroy the world, we have methods that can cure the world, we have the ability to feed ALL the hungry, right around the corner. These types of decisions cannot be left up to the ignorant masses, especially thsoe with a backwater mindset of what is what. I hate the idea that a bible-thumping baptist can vote against stem cell research, basing his only objection on the Bible and having no real scientific or ethical objection.

Tough issue, hence, PRIVATIZE!

yupp. That is why I feel(havent realy though thru it properly so might change my mind) I like representative democracies over direct democracie.

We vote for our representatives and should let them do there job to there best ability while they hold office, if we dont like what they do we vote on someone else the next time.

We have the technology to create a direct democracie nowdays though, especialy with the internet. But I bet it wont happen for a long long time.

With democracie comes responsibility, it is the responsibility of the people to educate themself on the issues they want to effect. If the people are to lazy to take that responsibility than democracie fails.

If people vote according to what there old man, preacher, grandpa or local greenpeace activist say, without thinking for themself, it is useless.

Semi direct democracy has worked wonders in swiss though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

[RA]

So why dont the generals ask the people before making a big manuver in war? What is the difference? We are living in representative democracies so lets trust our representatives to make the descisions. Offcourse politicians should listen to people. But to decide single things on votes seems far fetched. In that case we should strive for complete direct democracie.




Realy? How much has newtons laws changed since he formulated them in the 17th century? Has maxwells equations changed since the 19th century?



Where do you draw the line? Should people vote for every descision? Vote for every submarine and aircraft carrier built? Vote if money should go to the f22 raptor or to education? Vote if the next probe to mars should be sent or not?

Direct democracy would be splendid if people cared about the things they voted on and bothered to educate themself.

The way we have it set up right now is how it should be. We do elect the lawmakers to make decisions but if a person or group feels passionately about an issue then they collect enough signatures from voters to have the issue put to the people and let them decide. Its the difference between National and State government. The vote doesnt affect the entire nation and ignorant or educated, its their constitutional right to do it.

I thought I put the issue of science to rest. The other day I referenced a program that after building a chamber that simulated the formation of the universe, scientists ideas on the issue were "radically different"

So what is to say that a better one will not be built tomorrow or next year and then their ideas will be "radically different" again?

[Kärnfysikern]

The way we have it set up right now is how it should be. We do elect the lawmakers to make decisions but if a person or group feels passionately about an issue then they collect enough signatures from voters to have the issue put to the people and let them decide. Its the difference between National and State government. The vote doesnt affect the entire nation and ignorant or educated, its their constitutional right to do it.

We just have to agree to disagree

I thought I put the issue of science to rest. The other day I referenced a program that after building a chamber that simulated the formation of the universe, scientists ideas on the issue were "radically different"

So what is to say that a better one will not be built tomorrow or next year and then their ideas will be "radically different" again?

Well I did say a scientific truth doesnt change. New theories are changed all the time. But after some time has passed and they have been tested enough they are firmer than a mountain.

The thing you refered to are very advanced aplications of basic theories. But the basic theories doesnt change, the only thing that changes is how they apply the basic theories.

We can make tremendous discoveries in the future and we probably will. But nothing will change for instance the basic truths of newtons laws, einsteins relativity or quantum mechanics.

[RA]

We just have to agree to disagree




Well I did say a scientific truth doesnt change. New theories are changed all the time. But after some time has passed and they have been tested enough they are firmer than a mountain.

The thing you refered to are very advanced aplications of basic theories. But the basic theories doesnt change, the only thing that changes is how they apply the basic theories.

We can make tremendous discoveries in the future and we probably will. But nothing will change for instance the basic truths of newtons laws, einsteins relativity or quantum mechanics.

Well you werent THAT specific before

[RA]

I heard a geologist on the radio. He said take out a piece of paper and put a dot on it. The dot represents how much we pollute the air and the paper represents how much mother nature does it...Made me think of all the gray scientific theories.

[Kärnfysikern]

Well you werent THAT specific before

I didnt think this was a thesis defense

I heard a geologist on the radio. He said take out a piece of paper and put a dot on it. The dot represents how much we pollute the air and the paper represents how much mother nature does it...Made me think of all the gray scientific theories.

That must be a wierd geologist considering that most of our dangerous polutants are things that does not naturaly exist. Chemicals that doesnt get broken down at all or hardly at all in nature.

Offcourse there is lots of science that is scetchy, the further it is separated from nice and clear mathematical theory the less reliable it gets.

Climatology and stuff like that with all the randomness must be utterly horrible to work with

[RA]

I didnt think this was a thesis defense



That must be a wierd geologist considering that most of our dangerous polutants are things that does not naturaly exist. Chemicals that doesnt get broken down at all or hardly at all in nature.

Offcourse there is lots of science that is scetchy, the further it is separated from nice and clear mathematical theory the less reliable it gets.

Climatology and stuff like that with all the randomness must be utterly horrible to work with

I hear ya on the randomness. He did say another thing that was interesting. He said the "ozone hole" was actually a thinning and it was being caused by no direct sunlight hitting that spot for an extended period of time.

[Logan13]

Logan if you're going to post an article post the entire thing. Not just the parts you like.

I posted the facts. And the fact is, the ballot measures passed...........no matter whether you like it or not. You are just reaching Carlos.

[Carlos_E]

I posted the facts. And the fact is, the ballot measures passed...........no matter whether you like it or not. You are just reaching Carlos.

I'm not reaching for anything. You did not post the entire article. I edited your post and added the rest.

[Phreak101]

I vote against ripping up babies to find a cure because it makes sense to me. Period. Call me ignorant? I dont care.

And you have your opinion, but no need to dramatize it. I hardly call a clump of cells 2 weeks old a "baby". Don't get me wrong, I am not for irresponsible abortion by any means, but if the baby is getting aborted anyway, why not use it to further research? If these aborted fetsuses can save the lives of thousands later on in life, I just don't see a justification for not using them to further research if they are being aborted anyway. Period.

[Carlos_E]

I just don't see a justification for not using them to further research if they are being aborted anyway. Period.

Good post.

[RA]

And you have your opinion, but no need to dramatize it. I hardly call a clump of cells 2 weeks old a "baby". Don't get me wrong, I am not for irresponsible abortion by any means, but if the baby is getting aborted anyway, why not use it to further research? If these aborted fetsuses can save the lives of thousands later on in life, I just don't see a justification for not using them to further research if they are being aborted anyway. Period.

Because the ends dont justify the means IMO.

[Logan13]

I'm not reaching for anything. You did not post the entire article. I edited your post and added the rest.

24 State Amendments that have passed to ban Gay marriage:It must be pointed out that the states that have passed this are states that have had a movement by gays to allow gay marriage. In these states, all but Arizona's citizens have spoken otherwise to this cause. This is not to say that these states would not allow "civil unions" though.
South Carolina 2006
Idaho 2006
Wisconsin 2006
Tennessee 2006
Virginia 2006
Colorado 2006
South Dakota 2006
Arkansas 2004
Georgia 2004
Kentucky 2004
Michigan 2004
Mississippi 2004
Montana 2004
North Dakota 2004
Oklahoma 2004
Ohio 2004
Utah 2004
Oregon 2004
Louisiana 2004
Missouri 2004
Alaska state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Hawaii state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Nevada state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Nebraska state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Did I forget anything?

[Phreak101]

Because the ends dont justify the means IMO.

Fair enough

[Haro3]

24 State Amendments that have passed to ban Gay marriage:It must be pointed out that the states that have passed this are states that have had a movement by gays to allow gay marriage. In these states, all but Arizona's citizens have spoken otherwise to this cause. This is not to say that these states would not allow "civil unions" though.
South Carolina 2006
Idaho 2006
Wisconsin 2006
Tennessee 2006
Virginia 2006
Colorado 2006
South Dakota 2006
Arkansas 2004
Georgia 2004
Kentucky 2004
Michigan 2004
Mississippi 2004
Montana 2004
North Dakota 2004
Oklahoma 2004
Ohio 2004
Utah 2004
Oregon 2004
Louisiana 2004
Missouri 2004
Alaska state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Hawaii state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Nevada state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Nebraska state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Did I forget anything?

do you feel strongly against gay mariage logan?

[spywizard]

It always pisses me off when scientific descisions are left to votes. Letting the avarage joe vote about stem cell research is as stupid as it was to let the swedish population vote about the future of nuclear power in sweden.

Moronic.

that's why we don't let them elect our president...

[spywizard]

And you have your opinion, but no need to dramatize it. I hardly call a clump of cells 2 weeks old a "baby". Don't get me wrong, I am not for irresponsible abortion by any means, but if the baby is getting aborted anyway, why not use it to further research? If these aborted fetsuses can save the lives of thousands later on in life, I just don't see a justification for not using them to further research if they are being aborted anyway. Period.

the problem with this is, what is the value of a person.... Born, or unborn?? if you could kill through research 10,000 people that had cancer, but in the end you might have a cure for cancer... should we kill those 10,000??? what if the # were 100,000??? or 1,000,000??

[Carlos_E]

24 State Amendments that have passed to ban Gay marriage:It must be pointed out that the states that have passed this are states that have had a movement by gays to allow gay marriage. In these states, all but Arizona's citizens have spoken otherwise to this cause. This is not to say that these states would not allow "civil unions" though.
South Carolina 2006
Idaho 2006
Wisconsin 2006
Tennessee 2006
Virginia 2006
Colorado 2006
South Dakota 2006
Arkansas 2004
Georgia 2004
Kentucky 2004
Michigan 2004
Mississippi 2004
Montana 2004
North Dakota 2004
Oklahoma 2004
Ohio 2004
Utah 2004
Oregon 2004
Louisiana 2004
Missouri 2004
Alaska state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Hawaii state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Nevada state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Nebraska state constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Did I forget anything?

And?

do you feel strongly against gay mariage logan?

What will he do when states start passing Civil Unions.

[Haro3]

there should be a test to decide if you can vote...u must pass a test of knowledge on every subject ua re voting on.
example: George bush is ...democrat/republican
: he strongly suports....

etc.
i dont vote because i know NOTHING about the subjects and i think its absolutely retarded when ignorant people vote for something they know absolutely nothing about. people vote for a president because their friend did or because their parents say hes better etc. if you dont know enough about a canidate/amendment to know what would better suit americans then you should not be allowed to vote on it. simple as that.

if you dont know what stem cell research is or why its good or why its considered bad. then you shouldnt be allowed to vote jus cuz ur catholic mom says its HORRIBLE and you are ignorant to the subject.

therefore i say there should be a knowledge test allthough it owuld never happen. its just unfortunate to think that ignorant uneducated people are voting on things they know absolutely nothing about........kinda scary

scientific example: its like having an engineer design a bridge/building/structure that only made it through engineering by cheating and knowing professors and not actually knowing the material...kinda scary
(this was the only example i could think of )

[Haro3]

And?


What will he do when states start passing Civil Unions.

true. i think the gay marriage thing is stupid. if gays wish to be married have at it. FAR more important things to worry about in life. such as the fact that its november and its like 78 degrees...global warming will kill us. gay marriage wont. big deal leave it be.

people have gotten away from marriage being a religious union. its more than that now and therefore it should be allowed. atleast thats how i feel

[mcpeepants]

As a gay man, one gets a little tired of having everyone vote every six months, or so, on whether or not we have the same civil rights as everyone else.

While we're at it, why don't we have a plebicite (general vote) on what Mr. & Mrs. Middle-America think we should do to the CRIMINAL USERS AND DEALERS OF ILLEGAL STEROIDS ?

When they came for the gays, I didn't say anything because I'm not gay;
When they came for the feminists, I didn't say anything because I'm a man;
And when they came for the playground drug dealers (a.k.a. "steroid users") no-one said anything for me... because there was no-one left.

-BigLittleTim

that quote seems familiar

[alphaman]

When it come to far reaching things like that I wwould rather se politicians appoint a comitte of scientists to make the descision. Let the experts decide of the pros outweight the cons. Who else is competent?

Its stupid to leave the descision to a uneducated mob that can be scared to vote either way by the most vocal group of nutbags around.

Perfect example, nuclear power. The avarage joe is far to ignorant to decide.

Leave science to scientists. They know best what to do with it.

Why would you have a bunch of scientists decide on a moral issue? The reason it's being voted on isn't because of whether it could be effective or not.

[Tock]

24 State Amendments that have passed to ban Gay marriage:It must be pointed out that the states that have passed this are states that have had a movement by gays to allow gay marriage. In these states, all but Arizona's citizens have spoken otherwise to this cause. This is not to say that these states would not allow "civil unions" though.

To the extent that marriage is a God-ordained institution, it is a religious ceremony. The government should not base any law upon whether or not you have participated in a religious ceremony (actually, it's unconstitutional for it to do so). So, it seems to me that folks who want the gov't to recognize any contract affecting mutually owened property, child custody rights, etc, they have agreed to, well, there needs to be some other way for this to be done. May as well just have civil unions for everybody, and then those folks who want a religious ceremony can go ahead and have them done in whatever church they can find to do them.

"Render unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

[Logan13]

And?


What will he do when states start passing Civil Unions.

I'm all for Civil Unions and all the perks that married heterosexuals get in regards to property rights, taxes, etc.... But you already knew that I felt this way Carlos as I have posted it a couple of times. I guess that your need to argue will persist regardless. So Carlos, when you gettin' hitched?

[Carlos_E]

I guess that your need to argue will persist regardless.

???

You're the one trying to make something out of nothing. All I said is "when posting an article. Post the entire thing." You could have posted an article about puppies and I would have told you the same thing.

Are you trying to pull me into an argument or a debate? It's not working.

So Carlos, when you gettin' hitched?

Considering the guy I'm dating lives in New Jersey, eventually, we could get married. But I'm not too sure about marrying a guy who's in the Army. That whole don't ask don't tell thing.

[Logan13]

???

You're the one trying to make something out of nothing. All I said is "when posting an article. Post the entire thing." You could have posted an article about puppies and I would have told you the same thing.

Are you trying to pull me into an argument or a debate? It's not working.


Considering the guy I'm dating lives in New Jersey, eventually, we could get married. But I'm not too sure about marrying a guy who's in the Army. That whole don't ask don't tell thing.

Originally Posted by Carlos_E
And?
What will he do when states start passing Civil Unions.
I have no idea what you are responding to as my last post had to do with the above in bold. Care to take a whack at it again?

[Carlos_E]

Again

Are you trying to pull me into an argument or a debate? It's not working.

[Kärnfysikern]

Why would you have a bunch of scientists decide on a moral issue? The reason it's being voted on isn't because of whether it could be effective or not.

because in my mind it isnt a moral issue. It is a scientific issue.

[Logan13]

Again

Do not mistate my views Carlos. Views which you had prior knowledge of. Being gay does not give you the right to lie.

[Carlos_E]

Do not mistate my views Carlos. Views which you had prior knowledge of. Being gay does not give you the right to lie.

WTF are you talking about? Are you high?

[Phreak101]

the problem with this is, what is the value of a person.... Born, or unborn?? if you could kill through research 10,000 people that had cancer, but in the end you might have a cure for cancer... should we kill those 10,000??? what if the # were 100,000??? or 1,000,000??

A 3 week old clump of cells is not a person, and the number is not 1,000,000. The fact remains that if stem cells are as amazing as promised, more lives WILL be saved than taken in the use of them, period. The numbers work, especially when we gain the ability to create them rather than harvest them. Would you feel better if we used miscarriaged fetuses instead? Your morality is admirable, but again, these fetuses are being aborted anyway, why not use them?

[Logan13]

WTF are you talking about? Are you high?

Would you discriminate against me if I were?

[Logan13]

A 3 week old clump of cells is not a person, and the number is not 1,000,000. The fact remains that if stem cells are as amazing as promised, more lives WILL be saved than taken in the use of them, period. The numbers work, especially when we gain the ability to create them rather than harvest them. Would you feel better if we used miscarriaged fetuses instead? Your morality is admirable, but again, these fetuses are being aborted anyway, why not use them?

If that is the line of thinking, what's wrong with necrophilia? These people are dead anyway, why not let these sickos get a crack at them? After all they are just going to be cremated or buried anyway.

[Kärnfysikern]

If that is the line of thinking, what's wrong with necrophilia? These people are dead anyway, why not let these sickos get a crack at them? After all they are just going to be cremated or buried anyway.

a necrophile doesnt save any lifes by screwing a corpse and he violates a corpse without the permission of the corpse family.

But a embryo is used in science with the permission of the woman doing the abortion.

[Logan13]

a necrophile doesnt save any lifes by screwing a corpse and he violates a corpse without the permission of the corpse family.

But a embryo is used in science with the permission of the woman doing the abortion.

So what you are saying is that the ends justify the means...no matter what those means are? This is why this is a social issue, whenever there is an attempt to draw a moral equivalency, society must choose the path.

[Mike Dura]

There can never be such a clear definition.

That is why we need a clear cut legal definition on when a embryo becomes a baby.

To me it seems wierd to call a bunch of cells without brain or bodyparts and no more concious than a bacteria for a baby.

But I guess there is no point in going into that since we have had those discussions before

[Mike Dura]

I don't think this is what he's saying. Is this what you are saying Johan?

So what you are saying is that the ends justify the means...no matter what those means are? This is why this is a social issue, whenever there is an attempt to draw a moral equivalency, society must choose the path.

[Mike Dura]

In terms of passing legislation I agree. If you value the constitution and the seperation of church and state, you'd agree.

because in my mind it isnt a moral issue. It is a scientific issue.