Gay Marriage page 105

3421 posts

Flag Post


Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Don’t you think it funny that they can’t find a cure for cancer, but got right on the AIDS epidemic and came up with a possible cure?

Is there a cure for AIDS I don’t know about?


Ironically, HIV is one potential cure for cancer. In the lab, at least.



“We’re not sure how to wipe out the chimeral T-cells after they’ve destroyed the cancer. Though I do have this vial of smallpox…”

 
Flag Post

Its not wiping them out that’s the problem. Its guaranteeing the modified HIV doesn’t mutate. Otherwise, the modifications are fine to leave in place. The only thing they’ll attack is any future cancer.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Its not wiping them out that’s the problem. Its guaranteeing the modified HIV doesn’t mutate. Otherwise, the modifications are fine to leave in place. The only thing they’ll attack is any future cancer.

So how do they modify this HIV so that it only attacks bad cells, and doesn’t go on to target good ones? I thought HIV was just a predatory and indiscriminate virus…

 
Flag Post

No, its targetting the same cells in both cases. It goes after messenger cells only – T-cells. Always has.

In normal HIV, it disrupts the functioning of the T-cells by adding ‘junk’ code. This code benefits the virus, but stops the T-cells functioning properly. Without the messenger cells, the immune system is unable to fight off any infection. Its why the myth about HIV being indiscriminate exists. HIV never kills; it shuts down the immune system and lets everything else kill you instead.

So all they needed to do was modify the gene sequence injected into the T-cells into something which added additional functionality to the cells rather than shutting them down. They still function perfectly fine at their assigned task. Only now, they also tell the immune system to attack the cancer cells as an invader to the body that must be destroyed.

As a result, the immune system attacks and kills every cancerous cell it can find.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

As a result, the immune system attacks and kills every cancerous cell it can find.

Sounds as good as using robots. That was the development for cancer I had read about before, although now it looks like it’s progressing out of the theoretical and into a real thing.

 
Flag Post

holy cow, using HIV as a carrier to genetically engineer some of our white blood cells…what’s next … microscopic robots?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

holy cow, using HIV as a carrier to genetically engineer some of our white blood cells…what’s next … microscopic robots?

LOL…Thanks for the set up

And

 
Flag Post

It’s when they have to broadcast it that really ticks me off.

I agree. I’m not comfortable when another guy is bragging in the bar about how many girls he banged last night. I’m sure you feel the same way, but since this is a thread about homosexuals, you only bring them up. To be consistent and non-discriminatory, you’ll have to claim to dislike both types of behaviour, not just from one group.

I am not the one giving them AIDS, they are giving it to themselves with their abnormal behavior.

This would be a good argument if you’ve claimed that anal sex is immoral, but you haven’t. Your posts always revolve around “immorality” of homosexuality.

If people are obese, others come down on them and persecute them. If a person smokes, people shun them and treat them as lower than low people. Yet let a gay get HIV and liberals want to move the world for them.

Bullshit. I’ve seen no “persecution” of obese people or smokers.

TuJe,

Your definition of marriage is an opinion, not a fact. It can become sort of a public fact, when many(50+%) people agree with your definition.

Majority rule on sensitive issues such as this asks for blatant and legal discrimination.

Are you saying that heterosexual marriage hasn’t always been the most common of all those? Or how do you define traditional? And this also depends on your perspective, we should look at the history of western world to inspect what is/was the traditional marriage.

He’s showing there are more cultures than just the American one (which, ironically enough, is pretty young), and that there are many cultures focusing on issues other than “just” the man/woman thing. I dislike how you manage to squeeze in “western world”.

Depends of your definition of marriage. Gays can have legal equality and not marriage. They are not mutually exclusive (See my post in previous page).

Legal equality while not having legal marriage is inherently contradictive. The church is not forced to marry homosexuals, but if you want to claim legal equality you’d better start legally marrying those homosexuals.

I don’t know, there’s a lot of unclarity in these studies. For example in Finland it was found that being a child of same sex couple likely had some negative consequences.

Bah, there are no laws against being a bad parent. Such studies are purely out to stop homosexuals from adopting kids (and aren’t even against the concept of marriage).

This is very culture specific, I think. I learned that from my psochology studies. There is different results in USA and Finland in many studies.

How can another marriage influence your own? I don’t see the link.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:


Your definition of marriage is an opinion, not a fact. It can become sort of a public fact, when many(50+%) people agree with your definition.

Majority rule on sensitive issues such as this asks for blatant and legal discrimination.

I agree, and that’s why I’m only talking about definitions. If I could start a referendum on this, I’d be sure to offer only non-discriminating options.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Are you saying that heterosexual marriage hasn’t always been the most common of all those? Or how do you define traditional? And this also depends on your perspective, we should look at the history of western world to inspect what is/was the traditional marriage.

He’s showing there are more cultures than just the American one (which, ironically enough, is pretty young), and that there are many cultures focusing on issues other than “just” the man/woman thing. I dislike how you manage to squeeze in “western world”.

I understand your dislike, I should have said traditional western marriage instead. I think every culture has a slightly different “variant” of marriage.
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:
Legal equality while not having legal marriage is inherently contradictive. The church is not forced to marry homosexuals, but if you want to claim legal equality you’d better start legally marrying those homosexuals.
How is it inherently contradictive?
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:
Bah, there are no laws against being a bad parent. Such studies are purely out to stop homosexuals from adopting kids (and aren’t even against the concept of marriage).
Are you arguing that those studies done here in Finland are unscientific/biased? Do you see no other reason to study that other than stopping homosexuals from adopting kids?
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:


This is very culture specific, I think. I learned that from my psychology studies. There is different results in USA and Finland in many studies.

How can another marriage influence your own? I don’t see the link.

Oh, true. It may or may not have adverse effect on divorce rates, but I confess that’s irrelevant on the topic at hand. I wasn’t arguing anything in that post it seems, just pointing you may get different results from different cultures even though the study is the same.

 
Flag Post

Yet another post on the Forums of the interwebs consisting of the “do’s and don’ts” of a religious aimed secular mindset.

Using a religious belief to validate your opinion, has and always will be, a cop out for moral objectifications.
You make a side note mention of Roman Marriages. In what time, my lost friend, do you think “Jesus” resided during his stint of this planet? During the era of Roman occupancy as a high power. So, your side note is invalid, soley based on pure ignorance of the time period.

If you want “Scientific Facts” then listen up. Without the “heterosexuals” that partake in copulation, WE (homosexuals) would not exsist. I do not care to listen to idle banter about it being a choice, nor do I care to divulge in an ongoing debate of said choice versus genes. The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of heterosexuals to keep up with the population and demand.

Polygamy is still widely practiced. Despite it’s illegal and moral objections. So, what is your point exactly?

You used “billions” of people as a reference to religious belief. I hope you realize how many “christian” based religions there truly are, and how many people can disect Christianity to the confines of it’s “ORIGINAL” birth. Some even go as far as saying that “forms” of Christinaity was the beginning religions. How sad these people must be.

The bible also states that the consumption of shrimp is wrong…my point is obvious.

So, my dear poster what more moral objections do you have of “the world”?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ChargrimMigra:

I’m assuming you’re talking about the original post, right?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by ChargrimMigra:

I’m assuming you’re talking about the original post, right?

Yes

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

No, its targetting the same cells in both cases. It goes after messenger cells only – T-cells. Always has.

In normal HIV, it disrupts the functioning of the T-cells by adding ‘junk’ code. This code benefits the virus, but stops the T-cells functioning properly. Without the messenger cells, the immune system is unable to fight off any infection. Its why the myth about HIV being indiscriminate exists. HIV never kills; it shuts down the immune system and lets everything else kill you instead.

So all they needed to do was modify the gene sequence injected into the T-cells into something which added additional functionality to the cells rather than shutting them down. They still function perfectly fine at their assigned task. Only now, they also tell the immune system to attack the cancer cells as an invader to the body that must be destroyed.

As a result, the immune system attacks and kills every cancerous cell it can find.

Wasn’t this the plot for a Will Smith movie that ended poorly for all humans involved?

 
Flag Post

Tie, that movie was based off of an old book.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

Tie, that movie was based off of an old book.

That’s a valuable piece of trivia! Thanks a bunch!

 
Flag Post

What are we talking about now, I Am Legend?

We should probably get back to the thread, though.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

What are we talking about now, I Am Legend?

We should probably get back to the thread, though.

And, back we shall go.
I am most happy to do so w/ proof of my meager abilities as a soothsayer.
In putting jake-o on his ear, over a year ago,,,,,I told him that him and his “most of America” wanting marriage to remain a sacrid “priviledge” for straights would soon be on the docket of the SCOTUS.

This is now happeing
I predict the lower courts’ decicions will be upheld.
What say ye?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

In this Supreme Court thing, is there a chance that they’ll federally legalise same-sex marriage like Mexico (allegedly) did? Or is it just about illegalising it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

In this Supreme Court thing, is there a chance that they’ll federally legalise same-sex marriage like Mexico (allegedly) did? Or is it just about legalising it?

I don’t know about Mexico….not really much of a rational comparison w/ that place.

But, yes…here in the U.S., we’re talking about CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS.
That makes it Fed. It means that no state shall pass a law that violates said rights.
Fed deuce trumps state ace….always. This will be the Calif. Prop 8 case.

The other case is the Fed’s very own Defense of Marriage Act which blocks same-sex married couples from receiving a host of federal benefits.

The Gay “marriage” thing has been picking up speed exponentially of late.
It’s about time it got to SCOUS and loooooong overdue.
For rational ppl, it really shouldn’t have been an issue in the first place.
Just ignorance at its finest.

Hopefully, SCOUS will do the RIGHT thing and correct this horrid chapter in our CIVIL history (right up there w/ racism).

 
Flag Post
I don’t know about Mexico….not really much of a rational comparison w/ that place.

I’ll have to correct you on that one.

Mexico today is much more advanced in terms of progressivism and tolerance regarding same-sex marriage than the United States is.

Map of Mexican states by same-sex marriage recognition. Dark blue: same-sex marriage; blue: same-sex unions; light blue: same-sex marriage recognised, not performed. There is no single state where same-sex marriage is not recognised, unlike in America.

So any married couple in the Mexico is recognised anywhere and everywhere. On the other hand, in states that fail to distinguish the separation of church and state in America such as Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, and most other states, if you are married your marriage won’t be legal if you married someone of the same sex. This does not happen in Mexico. Mexico is doing much, much better than you guys.

So yes, to social conservatives like jhco, even Mexico is better than you. Do you want to fix that by no longer being discriminatory and homophobic, or do you want to stay in the dark ages, worse than the ethnicity you probably despise the most, Mexicans?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
I don’t know about Mexico….not really much of a rational comparison w/ that place.

I’ll have to correct you on that one.

LOL…I think I need to make MYSELF much clearer….
at least by what I meant by “rational comparison”: I mean that I have no real data by which to answer YOUR input on how Mexico (allegedly? ? ? or otherwise?) legalized SSM’s. Such would be somewhat surprising to me, tho. This is because I’m assuming that Mexico is heavily HRCatholic and Rome is very strongly against Gay-ANYTHING.

From the balance of your post….I found your info to be very “uplifting”.

Mexico today is much more advanced in terms of progressivism and tolerance regarding same-sex marriage than the United States is.


From YOUR data, I very well have to agree on that.

On the other hand, in states that fail to distinguish the separation of church and state in America such as Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, and most other states, if you are married your marriage won’t be legal if you married someone of the same sex. This does not happen in Mexico. Mexico is doing much, much better than you guys.

Yes, I live in Kansas……SO, I very well do know exactly what ya’re talking about when it comes to the “soft-bigotry” of most of our population,,,,unlike the hardcore shit Westboro Baptist Church puts out. As I listen in on groups (casually talking….like jake-o’s coffee klatch) in various venues, they consider it extremely de rigor to consider Gays, etc. as much 2nd-class ppl as were Blacks in the pre-60’s.

AND YES, the same pretty much goes for the Latino population….both legal & illegal. They rarely make any distinction. It’s implied that the one is responsible for the other….largely because the legals pretty much came from originally being illegal……such is the blind hatred far too many Americans are capable of….esp. when fanned by inflammatory rants by the far right.

So yes, to social conservatives like jhco, even Mexico is better than you.

I’m a little confused here. Are ya saying that an extreme social conservative (U.S.) sees Mexico (& its laws regarding SSM—& other “progressive & tolerant” stances) as being “BETTER”?

OH…OH, I think I see. Ya’re saying: When compared to U.S. social conservatives, even Mexico is better than America. Aha….gottchya. As pointed out above, this somewhat surprises me. BUT, our American Catholics don’t give much heed to Rome. However, one huge difference between U.S. Catholics and Latino-U.S. Catholic is where they stand on birth control & the number of children per family.

BUT, we should keep in mind the socio-economic strata of population that immigrates (mostly illegally I’m speaking of). Perhaps, as in America, the higher “up the economic//social ladder” one goes, the less they tend to subscribe to “religious dogma” & other “influences”.

Do you want to fix that by no longer being discriminatory and homophobic, or do you want to stay in the dark ages, worse than the ethnicity you probably despise the most, Mexicans?

LOL….I hope YOU “you” is the general one and doesn’t mean ME. I’d like to think ya already very well know where I stand on the issue.

I knew back in ‘96 when the Def-of-Marriage-Act was passed that it was all a setup to quell the homophobia shit going on until a case could be finally brought to SCOTUS (maybe at a time predicted to be much more tolerant?). Sadly, that’s the way things have to work here….sloooooooowwwlllly. A lot of harm & hurt in the MEAN (< both meanings) time having been done to ppl whose rights were being shit on….by “good & true, flag-waving” Americans who pretend they know better.

As far as the Mexican Immigration situation goes, like most things “American”…..it’s gonna have to get a lot worse before it can get better…..UNFORTUNATELY. Cuz, it’s always the little ppl that get shit on, hurt, & harmed while the “big boys” sort it all out to make sure they come out on top of it all.

Yeah, I’m a fucking SOCIALIST. I’m against ANY society being fucked over by a few ultra rich//powerful ppl. I’m truly dismayed when an industrial, first world nation w/ general public education can still be sooooo fucking ignorant about how things work and end up voting against their own best interests. I’m in total awe of the propaganda machine the rich boyz have going….or, in equal awe of just how fucking ignorant the average person can be.

Fortunately, this last election showed me some really bright spots on the horizen. I’m NOT talking about just Obama being reelected. I’m talking about a whole lot of other PROGRESSIVE issues coming forth. I’m very excited about the next 4 yrs.

 
Flag Post
at least by what I meant by “rational comparison”: I mean that I have no real data by which to answer YOUR input on how Mexico (allegedly? ? ? or otherwise?) legalized SSM’s.

Here are the references: 1, 2, 3, etc. The funny thing is that America copied Mexico. Mexican Supreme Court acts on same-sex marriage… the United States does so aswell just over a day later.

I actually was confused by what I read a few days ago. I thought they legalised same-sex marriage federally, for which reason I said “alledegly” because I didn’t see many sources actually confirming that (or Wikipedia’s “Same-sex marriage in Mexico” article being updated accordingly). Whatever news source I read must have had it wrong.

What they actually did is take the first step to legalising it federally, as seen in the first (Washington Post) reference above. Anyway, it would be great if this continued.

OH…OH, I think I see. Ya’re saying: When compared to U.S. social conservatives, even Mexico is better than America.

Yeah, I’m saying to social conservatives (racists are social conservatives; however not all social conservatives are racists) that even Mexico is better than them in this aspect. This to them might come across as an insult as what they see as lesser people are more tolerant and advanced than them.

However, one huge difference between U.S. Catholics and Latino-U.S. Catholic is where they stand on birth control & the number of children per family.

I’d say it’s more about poverty rather than religion. Rich Catholics don’t have that many kids. Middle class and upper class tend to have better sex education too.

LOL….I hope YOU “you” is the general one and doesn’t mean ME.

Nah, the “you” was part of the same paragraph directed at social conservatives in the United States.

Fortunately, this last election showed me some really bright spots on the horizen. I’m NOT talking about just Obama being reelected. I’m talking about a whole lot of other PROGRESSIVE issues coming forth. I’m very excited about the next 4 yrs.

Yes, and it’s great to see progressives such as Elizabeth Warren getting elected too!


Great to see your perspective being from Kansas. That’s probably one of the states I’d least like to live in if I went to America, to be honest. You should check out the documentary—if you haven’t already—What’s the Matter with Kansas?, very informative and real.

I went to the most conservative high school in my city, which I regretted soon enough. I’m 100% sure it’s not near as bad as Kansas, since religion even in conservative societies in the non-American Western World plays little role in life. However, I’m glad I’ll be going to the best university in my island which happens to be very liberal and tends to vote for the Labour and Green parties next year!

 
Flag Post

Okay, I don’t really care what side of the arugment you’re on, but this guy [Bates] is just… This guy, man. I mean, I’m used to people one here being hyppocritical as all fuck, but you’d think that an actual political official would consider the other side of the argue- Oh right, never-mind, I jusr remembered that this isn’t back in the day where people actually had to think about what they’re saying.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, I’m saying to social conservatives (racists are social conservatives; however not all social conservatives are racists) that even Mexico is better than them in this aspect. This to them might come across as an insult as what they see as lesser people are more tolerant and advanced than them.

Just wanted to point out that the statement that racists are social conservatives is false as this implies that all racists are social conservatives. You could be a racist and not be a social conservative.

I went to the most conservative high school in my city, which I regretted soon enough. I’m 100% sure it’s not near as bad as Kansas, since religion even in conservative societies in the non-American Western World plays little role in life. However, I’m glad I’ll be going to the best university in my island which happens to be very liberal and tends to vote for the Labour and Green parties next year!

I’m kind of surprised you’d say that actually. We tend to learn a lot from those who challenge our beliefs, and I would think you’d probably get much more out of something that challenged your thoughts on things rather than reenforcing them with the same old talking points. That being said, academia is mostly liberal-controlled, so you probably wouldn’t find too much of that anywhere.