zeo

Proxim Orinoco AP-8000 Doubles Wi-Fi Throughput With Two 802.11n Radios Asus Announces 800MHz 'World's Fastest' Smartphone Even Google Gets Shafted By Apple's Ridiculous App-Approval Process Mimo 7-inch USB Battleoid ****pit Display Coming to the US Laser-Etched Powerbook Ensures Hands Never Leave the Keyboard, Ever SuperSpeed USB 3.0 Spec Finalized: It's Fast IBM Roadrunner Tops Cray as the Official World's Fastest Supercomputer Incase Power Slider For iPhone 3G Skillfully Conceals its Battery Booster Chevron Depot Blows Up Man's House, He Gets Nothing Woman Loses $400,000 To Nigerian Email Scam

Alpine Capsule Is Probably Aliens' Favorite Refuge on Earth Indian Lunar Probe Crashes On Moon Surface G-Speak Minority Report Gesture UI Actually Made By Minority Report Designer The Government Doesn't Need Telcos' Help To Spy On Your Cellphones, Thank You Very Much Harry Potter-ish Photos With Moving Shadows Invented Fujistu's Wraparound Exterior Car Video Gives Bird's Eye View, World's First NASA Scales Up 1966's Moon Image to Amazing Ultra-High Resolution Meet Veronica McGregor, Mars Phoenix Lander's Humanoid Personality Construct Sector Compass Torch Watch For Transmitting Messages in Morse Code The Official NASA Guide To Drinking Your Own Urine

Cool, enjoy. There's usually a button you can press and hold to activate the hold feature to make those buttons unresponsive if that ever becomes a problem.

Mud-Powered 'Soil Lamp' Proves Water and Electricity Go Together Well Swedish Nuclear Bunker Transmogrified Into Data Center Fit For Bond Meade ETX-LS Motorized GPS Telescope Basically Does Astronomy For You The World's Most Depressed People Watch the Most TV Slegoon Sled Might as Well Double as a Coffin American Airlines Brings Cellphone Boarding Passes to O'Hare UPS Dumps Labels for Paper-Free Gauntlet-Cum-Printer Chinese City Bakes Bad Milk Into Bricks Hydraulic Excavator Used to Climb Column Leaves Us Completely Baffled Book Your Posthumous Voyage to the Moon Back-to-School Season for Your Immune Cells Mysterious Infrared Aurora Glows at Saturn's North Pole

My Room II Is Still A Bastion of Antisocial Shut-Ins the World Over Woman Stabs Rapist in the Neck with an iPod Charger Just goes to show there are some down sides to being President. . . Obama's Blackberry Could Be Banned From Oval Office Barack Obama Cloned By Israeli Candidate Website , The YouTube PresidencyNow you can wear your favorite tunes. . . Sound Sewing Machine Concept Shows You the Music The Digital Transition is Proceeding Exactly According to Plan Replica 4004 Calculator Features First Intel Microprocessor Used by Mankind Stress Eliminator! Real 19th Century Vampire Killing Kit Is a Must In Current Economic Climate Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 Tested for XTREME Durability

Mud-Powered 'Soil Lamp' Proves Water and Electricity Go Together Well Swedish Nuclear Bunker Transmogrified Into Data Center Fit For Bond Meade ETX-LS Motorized GPS Telescope Basically Does Astronomy For You The World's Most Depressed People Watch the Most TV Slegoon Sled Might as Well Double as a Coffin American Airlines Brings Cellphone Boarding Passes to O'Hare UPS Dumps Labels for Paper-Free Gauntlet-Cum-Printer Chinese City Bakes Bad Milk Into Bricks Hydraulic Excavator Used to Climb Column Leaves Us Completely Baffled Book Your Posthumous Voyage to the Moon Back-to-School Season for Your Immune Cells Mysterious Infrared Aurora Glows at Saturn's North Pole

The Wii Fit Review: Six Months Later Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 Tested for XTREME Durability Activision Screws Up Their Own Guitar Hero Compatibility Charts Nintendo Says F You With One-Time-Use Wii Speak Code

San Francisco man risks life for iPhone Ginsu Stuns the Cuttlery World Again, Releases Most Important Invention of the Decade Without enzyme, biological reaction essential to life takes 2.3 billion years Matchbook-Sized Motor Sets 1 Million RPM Record AMD Has No Interest in Netbooks, None Get Ready for Cheap Nvidia Graphics Cards Question of the Day: Has the Tech Company You Work For Cut Jobs? Dogpile on Apple: New Lawsuit Adds Hairline Cracks to List of iPhone 3G Problems Plastic Cup and Toothpick Speakers Take Lo-Fi to New Heights Enable Four-Finger Gestures on Original MacBook Air with Dangerous Scary Hack The DIY Mac Pro Mini: Turn that Broken MacBook into a Teeny Desktop Intel Core i7 Motherboards, Systems On Sale Now (Again) Microsoft Lowered Vista Hardware Requirements to Appease Intel Dealzmodo Hack: Get Some Use Out of Your Useless Old PC

Have you ever imagined a tank with up to 100 kilowatt laser system? Well imagine no more... Firestrike: World's First Solid-State Battlefield Laser Now Available New Lease on Life for the Beloved M-14 Army Combat Shirt v5.3 New Rescue System Replaces Submersibles Live With Cyber Security Expert Kevin Coleman An Afghan 'Surge' no sure Winner Army Aviation Accidents Top $16 Billion NYT: "Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda" Military Developing Blood Farming Machine, Zombie Apocalypse Coming Soon Honeycomb Tires Take a Lick, Just Don't Actually Lick Them

My Room II Is Still A Bastion of Antisocial Shut-Ins the World Over Woman Stabs Rapist in the Neck with an iPod Charger Just goes to show there are some down sides to being President. . . Obama's Blackberry Could Be Banned From Oval Office Barack Obama Cloned By Israeli Candidate Website , The YouTube PresidencyNow you can wear your favorite tunes. . . Sound Sewing Machine Concept Shows You the Music The Digital Transition is Proceeding Exactly According to Plan Replica 4004 Calculator Features First Intel Microprocessor Used by Mankind Stress Eliminator! Real 19th Century Vampire Killing Kit Is a Must In Current Economic Climate

Problem, we don't know whether G3 has them or not. His crest/antenna covers the area that is exposed on G1. So they could be there and just be covered by the armor, we simply don't know anymore than we know what those red orbs are for.

This could be the mechanism, sound is just kinetic energy traveling through a medium. So the sensors could be detecting the movement of the air molecules to hear. If true then the anime may not have literally meant that they worked on sonic vibrations, just that since they are at least partly linked to the host audio processing centers of the brain that the feedback from the sonic zoanoids was numbing his ability to process the information from the Hyper Sensors... basically information overload. Though this doesn't rule out other explanations, just seems most likely to me. I doubt the crest/antenna since if that was the case then the Guyver's hearing should be damaged whenever the crest/antenna has gotten damaged. Though there hasn't been enough examples to really rule it out. Alternatively the Guyver could have either sound sensitive layers of the armor that are not immediately visible as such (perhaps the band of armor just below the hyper sensors). I doubt the whole armor could funtion in this way though, besides the host would be able to hear things from the ground if that was the case but seems to rely on the hyper sensors for all early warning.

Okay, I think we're coming to some level of consensus. Of course there remains ideologies that we may never agree on but at least we can say we looked at our reasonings fairly. "You can't possibly argue that protecting one's current traditions doesn't constitute as being biased or abusive to someone different or gay." I disagree on the grounds that I don't believe it is biased to protect a tradition that doesn't deal with who you are claiming it biases against. Unlike race, gays have choices. Race and biological gender are not choices we make but the facts of our existence. I understand if you disagree with this reasoning. Social bias is a concern, I just think the pro's won't fulfill their promise and the cons out weigh the pros even if they succeed in my opinion, which I'm doubtful of since I don't believe redefining marriage will really effect the reasons why people may be biased against gays or not. Since the tradition is not for the exclusion of others but rather the celebration and respect of life. "actually man clubs have been targeted for being biased against other social groups. Same goes for both a women's club and men's club. Many times both have been sued against and even been made the subject of movies for social movements." I think that line of reasoning is excluding that those targeted for bias had monopolies on the institutions they represented. Like letting women into the military. Unlike social clubs for like minded people, or other criteria. You can only claim bias if the ability for you to partake in a given activity is prohibited for reasons outside of whether you are qualified to partake in those activities. "What business does a christian have in joining a Mosque if he doesn't convert or vice-versa. There's a reason why they are treated as second class citizens in some countries. Look at Afghanistan, they sentenced a man to execution for converting to Christianity 11 years ago... If not a second rate citizen... then a dead one. I also don't see the point in this comparison." First of all I object to using extreme examples to justify a point. 11 years ago Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic extremist based government with total intolerance for anything non-islamic. In America we have freedom of religion, so the argument of treating someone as second class citizen on the bases of religion is invalid. Similarly we have no law that dictates how people can have sex (barring abuse such as on children), previous sodomy laws have been removed. So the argument that they are second class citizens simply for being different is an attack on individuality and I think ignores the values of modern American society. "Same as above. If you don't convert you have no reason to join a church." Exactly, which is why you can't call it discrimination. Same-sex couples don't want to convert to a heterosexual lifestyle. What is being asked is equivalent to asking a Islamic institution to change itself to be both Islamic and Christian, so Christians can then join as well. The point being in order to consider this reasoning valid you must ignore the differences between the two groups and look at them as being exactly the same when they are not exactly the same. "This is confusing, this offers no logical point at all. Babies are too young to make choices in the same level as an adult" It goes to the point of showing the difference between choice and ability. Babies don't have a choice in their abilities. The logic and comparison being there are things heterosexual couples can do that gay couples can't and that represents a difference in ability that is no fault of either, which I put forth as one reason why they shouldn't be directly compared anymore than a woman should be considered as exactly the same as a man and vice versa. "But marriage wasn't about responsibility either. If anything it was about practicability to survive and gain human needs like emotional support." How is this different from responsibility? Survival requires responsibility like the work load and the management of resources. Even human emotional support involves responsibility in the effort given to provide that support, otherwise one becomes an emotional parasite if balance is not maintained. I understand you may not agree with that assessment but consider, what are the reasons for laws if not responsibility? "But my point wasn't that they represent our current culture, no it was to point out that there have been changes over time that removed gay marriage, and it may very well be reversed into allowing gay marriage in this turn of the century." I think whether it could change is a point already made by the very fact we are discussing it and have seen it change in more than one place, but the comparisons to old cultures were not made in the light that things could change but as justification for those changes. It's the justification part that I object to because no one has put those justifications in perspective and thus they can't be judged as valid to the present discussion. Like saying our ancestors had practiced cannibalism at some point in history, in debating the validity of cannibalism in modern society. This simple statement belies the concerns our society has to the practice and doesn't put into perspective whether the example being given was from a society that really accepted the practice or just tolerated it. "look up Baal, now there was a god who was worshiped by the most advanced iron makers in the world, but required having children burned alive inside a statue..." Um, I think that proves my point more than it does yours. (Thanks for bringing up child sacrifice in such a horrendous image ) "The persecution and murder of gays was due to the change of power and infulence held by christians. At this point, Rome wasn't Rome anymore, it was a new anti-pagen, anti-gay, anti-polygamy empire based off the single minded beliefs of early christians. It doesn't count as an example of roman intolerance to gays, if anything it just shows more anti-catholic/orthodox (before the two churches split) policies." I think you're missing the import that the reverse is also true, the tolerance of same sex unions in Rome was also just as much based on the pagan Religions. For example a man would marry his dog to dispel a curse or other ailment. The only law we know existed only was to protect the rights of individuals against rape. This does not tell us how sexual relations were judged but we do have words like "little greek" which are derogatory towards the practice of same sex. In large part all we really know is that consensual sex was not regulated. "Neither was it written that minorities nor women should be excluded, but it still happened at one point. You are right though in saying that it won't deny them the rights... but it can lead to that situation if they close off other venues too. Like I mentioned before, I would prefer marriage being defined as only a man and woman union, but I can tolerate it not being defined like that too." This much we agree with, I do not want to close off other venues too. But I do not believe redefining marriage will make a difference on whether people ever get discriminated against. People get married all the time and still have to face discrimination. So making it the same issue only serves to mis-characterize marriage in my opinion at the expense of what it has traditionally represented and to me doing that will only further weaken marriage. Perhaps I'm wrong in that belief but it is my primary concern that in the rush for social reform we will destroy a tradition that has historically benefited everyone involved. Other than that don't worry, I'm fully prepared to shut myself up now

Ryuki, this was the intent of what I was doing. I was arguing to separate opinions from reasonings. The problem is there are many issues at stake in this discussion, basically not everyone will use the same reasons for the stance they take. Thus I see limiting the reasons that can be listed as to why people on either side believe what they do is exclusionary and just polarizes the discussion to stereotypes. Consider... What of the views of Atheists who disagree with the arguments to redefine marriage? What of the views of the religious and spiritual to fight for what they believe is right under their beliefs? What of the views of gays who don't want to redefine marriage, or even be associated with heterosexuals? What of the views of heterosexuals who want to protect their rights of procreation and the institution that they associate those rights with? What of the views of those who want to protect the institution by the same rules that all other institutions are judged? What of the views of those who argue for the right of uniqueness and see the redefining of an institution as just a blurring of the lines that makes each of us unique? Does everyone's reasonings all fall under the same definitions? Aren't you excluding and thus performing reverse discrimination by excluding all the reasons involved in this discussion? More to the point, I disagree with the implied assertion that associates logic and reason with bullying. Bullying is imposing your opinions, wants, and/or desires upon someone(s) else without any concern but your own. While logic and reasoning is the neutral imperative to test the validity of ideas and concepts, these can be your own or those of others. Thus stating the logic and reasoning behind one's stated opinion can't be called bullying. Like how V Guyver and I have our back and forth, we both have reasons and we compare those reasons. Testing each others logic to show just how valid our reasonings are. We aren't imposing our views, we're discussing them. While I see telling someone they should be ashamed, that they're biased, that they aren't telling the truth without even repudiating what has been stated with anything but counter opinions is both negative language and forms of bullying. I don't expect everyone to agree with all my points, as the one point we do agree on is this is not a simple issue. But this is how I view it and believe that viewpoint should be accorded the civil respect of the right of anyone to voice their ideals just like anyone else's viewpoint. Like V Guyver, you can either agree or disagree, I'm not instigating anyone to do anything except think and I never considered that a crime.

The problem with the thought aspect of your theory is you're confining it to just the aspects that pertain to whether it can support your theory and does not go into what else may result. Human consciousness is not something that is very consistent or well defined. If for example G3's thoughts were effecting the reality of the boost dimension then it should also have effected where both he and the Gigantic Cocoon were traveling to. Then there are the examples of the inanimate objects sent through the boost dimension. Such as the Asteroid the Creators had attempted to use to destroy the Earth. It had no thought or consciousness and is the exception that I think disproves the rule you are trying to establish. Unless you are saying that Asteroid was manifested by the will of the Creators from the Aether of the Boost Dimension? I would suggest however that would make the Creators far more powerful than has previously been accredited and if true then why haven't we seen Archanfel perform a similar feet? Dropping an asteroid on someone's head would prove a useful ability and there are many examples suggesting Archanfel has a very wide range of abilities including control of dimensions.

Someone Please Build This Woman a Webcam Eye, The Ocularist LG, Sharp and Chunghwa Fined $585 Million For LCD Price Fixing Buy Your Own Face for $299, Or Someone Else's... Fiber Optics May Change The Way You View Wallpaper

A Maelstrom of Weird New Genetic Information Princeton Scientists Discover Proteins that Control Evolution Killer: Online Gaming Made Me Crazy Cray XT Jaguar: The New World's Fastest Supercomputer This Robot Wants Your Money, Jerks Japan's Downsy Medical Bot Teaches Doctors How to Treat Special Patients , [botJunkie] Norton AntiVirus 2009 Gaming Edition promises to be less intrusive Army Replaces YouTube With Censored TroopTube Giz Explains 3D Technologies Lifemax Sneezer Beam Annihilates Your Allergies With Light

Homemade Wasp Sucking Machine Creates a Wasp Holocaust Hyperion Power Module Neighborhood Nuclear Reactor Baby Ogopogo Found in Canadian Lake? Stop Future Plagues By Mutating Viruses To Death Mini Coyote Saves Us from the Worst Orwellian Abomination Ever: Speedtrap Cameras GM Working On New "Cadillac One" Limo For Obama US Air Force Abandoned Nuclear Bomb in Greenland Handmade Scythe Car Looks Like a Toy, is KITT-like Computerized Awkward Piaggio Tricycle Could Be First Mass-Produced Plug-in Hybrid Fuel Cells To Go Bendy, Fit Inside Gadget Corners

Yikes, sorry to hear that Mike. It really sucks, this recession is really starting to bite.

Full-Length MGM Movies To Come to YouTube Astronauts Getting First Space Kitchen Fridge Ever Actually Wanted a Kegerator The Copenhagen Gateway Sees Your Dubai and Raises it 65 Meters Ex-CIA Officer Laments Q's Absence from Modern James Bond How to Make Lego Bricks You Can Actually Eat More Video Evidence of China's E-Waste Problem iPosture Now Shocking Backs Straight In the United States Minority Traffic Report Detects Accidents Before They Happen What To Do With Thermite On a Friday Toshiba Advances Bullet-Time to Next Level In Ad Filmed By 200 Camcorders, Toshiba

What if the Matrix Ran on Windows? Underwater Canadian Robots the Latest Weapon in the Battle for Arctic Oil 5.11 Tactical Series UC3.400 Flashlight Might Be the Last Torch You'll Ever Need Unmanned Helicopter Flies Low, Dodges Obstacles With 3D Laser Camera Etch-A-Sketch Mod Adds Memory, Ability to Reproduce Your Art Australian Cage of Death Taunts Crocodiles With Human Food Ear Bud Headphones Are a Shot Through the Heart for Pacemaker Patients MIT Team Tapped to Design the Airliners of 2030 FEMA Firefighters Manual Covers UFO Attacks, Crashes Honda Unveils an Experimental Walking Assist with a Bodyweight Support System

Okay, since energy tends to spread unless something contains it then what keeps matter in the Boost Dimension coherant? As for thought, as I said before if thought was effecting the boost dimension then there have been some result from G3 traveling with the Gigantic Cocoon that would have resulted in them arriving somewhere else beside right above Mitzuki.

Hmm, that link doesn't work for me V Guyver. Here's the wiki on Marriage penalty The general thinking behind the tax penalty was to to make it easier for couples with unequal income and especially for couples with one member staying at home with the kids. Mind you this was put in place in '69 before women became a major force in the work force and incomes were still predominantly male orientated. So essentially those more likely to have one parent spend more time withe the family got the benefit while those most likely to spend the least time with the kids got the penalty. Still it is not a system reflective of modern reality, with valid problems that need to be addressed, and so major changes are in store as many of the statutes have to be reviewed around 2010. Anyway, to address your previous post VGuyver... I appreciate your honest assessment but not everything you are asserting is entirely true. My efforts are to show that this is not an issue of discrimination and the question of gay marriage effects everyone and not just gays. (If it helps, you can skip to the summary at the end if you're not interested in a full analysis) It is true polling data is subjective but trends shown by how people vote are not and in this respect it is true since the majority have voted in favor of not redefining marriage. Several thousand protesters have indeed been seen advocating gay marriage, but under the same note over a million people signed and put Pro 8 on the ballot and it was passed by the same voters who elected Obama president. Under the same observation it is also true the majority of Americans support adopting of civil unions or some other alternative. Some polls just confuse this distinction. Americans are reasonable people in general and just because people may be oppose to redefining marriage does not mean they are against gay rights. Saying so is just a way to polarize the issue and dismiss the valid concerns many Americans have over this issue. As it presently stands, the US federal government does not recognize same sex marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act and only 3 states actually have made it legal (though that may drop to 2 if California accepts Prop 8 ) out of all 50. Overall, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." A small number of about 11 states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage. At least 41 states have statutes and/or constitutional provisions that prohibit same-sex marriage, with many of these statutes voted in with the people's support. While advocates are trying to circumnavigate this trend and make same-sex marriage issue a civil rights issue. Something that since slippery slope arguments are indeed valid in a court of law has let them gain ground through this tactic but this is not a representation of the will of the people but legal action to force this change. The difference is thus the rights of Americans to continue to define marriage as a system of procreation from the right to redefine it as simply a sexual relation and divorce it from the act and responsibility of procreation. Remember marriage has not always been about love, most of the reasons for marriage were financial in origin. Or political like marriage between royal families to form alliances or to gain benefits like citizenship. Reasons and practices of course varied throughout history. It's just in the modern world the old traditions have been glazed over by the concept of love dominating all other reasons, though the old truths are still also valid since love is still not the only reason to get married, and it is just a question of whether marriage should still be linked to procreation or should procreation become an after thought. The problem with this is the assumption that we can give them what they don't already have. They do not have the ability to procreate naturally with their chosen companion. Giving them the right to call their unions marriage will not give them this ability. All it will do is redefine marriage to no longer associate it with traditional family unit for the purpose of procreation. Thus you will be taking away the foundation upon which the right of protection for procreation is given to heterosexuals. You have to see both sides to this argument before you can make claims of rights abuse. To compare... Are men second class citizens for not being able to join an all women's club? Are Christians second class citizens if they aren't allowed to join a Mosque? Are Muslims second class citizens if they aren't allowed in join a Church? Are babies second class citizens for not being able to do adult only activities when they aren't even physically at the stage they could? Are men second class citizens for not being able to get pregnant and give birth? If none of these examples are examples of bias then neither can you claim bias on Marriage. This is a confusion, Marriage as it stands is not solely about love. People get married for all sorts of reasons and traditionally love was not highest among those reasons. Like the shotgun wedding example marriage has been predominantly been about responsibility. Responsibility because it invariably involves procreation and thus responsibility for the children produced by such unions. Contrary, people do not need to be married to feel love or otherwise care for each other. So you are confusing romanticism with marriage, its a plus if love is involved in marriage but it is not a requirement. The whole "For Better or Worse" and "Until Death do you Part" are the key parts. Emotions are personal, no one can give or take your right to feel emotions. Thus it is not logical to use that as part of this debate. This is a opinion that has little to do with reality and takes no account of the context of the societies being referred as examples for justification. I have already pointed out that ancient cultures do not represent modern cultures. But to play devil's advocate, since some seem to want to justify this debate from a historical perspective and because it keeps popping up. It may help to actually bother to check your examples. For example Ancient Roman Law on marriage was not an open acceptance of same sex couples but rather a tolerance that belies the social stigma that such practices had in their culture. The reasons for which should be noted had a lot to do with Czars like Nero.The so-called "evidence" for homosexual marriage comes primarily from small, isolated pre-literate tribes. A great many of the primitive societies deemed to be tolerant of same-sex marriage ... have also been known to engage in other practices, such as cannibalism, female genital mutilation, massacre or enslavement of enemies taken in war, and other practices which was once held to be the duty of the civilized to extirpate. Some for example included human sacrifice as part of the ceremony. Frankly, comparing any modern society to these primitive examples defies common sense. Just because something may or may not have happened in the past does not denounce or justify it to a society not based on the same principles. Furthermore, what most take for homosexual marriage are actually male bonding rituals that have been mistakenly eroticized. Like in some parts of India they still practice some old traditions including a mock gay marriage in which men marry other men dressed in drag. But it is only a ceremony and the men go back to their wives afterward. Alleged examples from ancient Rome, such as Nero and Elagabalus, only reveal the degree to which homosexuality was held in contempt by Roman society. In referring to Nero's homosexuality, Tacitus wrote that the emperor "polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, [and] had not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity." This hardly constitutes an endorsement of homosexuality in ancient Rome. Roman law ultimately dramatically changed when Christianity became a force in the Roman Empire and then people caught with such relations could be burned at the stake. Not exactly an acceptance of gay unions I would say. The Greeks before them simply had an acceptance of all forms of sexual intercourse. So people using Roman law as an example are really picking and choosing which era they are looking at. Never mind the invalidity of comparing such an old and long gone culture to any modern society literally makes no sense. Also many of those practices were based on pagan religions and thus we would have to ignore our present separation of church and state to even consider them for examples. As to what polygamist think of all this... Or in other words they are already getting ready to expand the definition even further.Mind you, even if there was some clear case to point to. It should be noted that no one who has referred to any historical reference of gay marriage has ever mentioned how those practices effected those societies. You have simply justified something by its mere existence without question as to whether the practice was beneficial or detrimental to those societies. Without such contextual information for comparison makes such statements nothing more than pure opinion. Back to the present... Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia. Essentially nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman and conversely that a woman is not a man. There is then undeniable that a heterosexual couple brings two essentially complimenting but different sexes together that same sex couplings do not. Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly regulate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race. It is no fault of heterosexual couples that same sex couples aren't capable of natural procreation. So there is no bases for describing a bias where there is none. Since bias requires a choice and we have no choice over our biology after birth. For legal precedent... This reasoning is flawed since there is not really a balance of authority. A same sex couple can only present one sex to the child, they do not represent both. Same sex couples could benefit from the same safe guards that presently protect heterosexual couples. However, the difference you are ignoring though is that a heterosexual couple could produce more children and thus additional safe guards are need to protect the potential children. Such safeguards aren't necessary for a same sex couple, since a child can only enter their relationship by choice and planning. The majority of protection of children afforded to married couples are thus not needed for same sex couples. Extending the institution of Marriage to same sex couples would not change this. The issue of gay adopting children is thus separate than the issue of marriage. Though it is true the larger the family the more resources can be shared but if that is your argument then we might as well justify polygamy for the more the better argument. But this also bring us back to the issue of what society deems best for children and how they should be ideally raised. Unfortunately, most of this debate is about possibilities and which we consider valid. Most on either side will argue many of the points already brought to light but without context as I have shown. Ultimately we only have one country we can really compare to and that is Scandinavia, having had gay marriage legalized the longest the impact on their society is the most evident and that impact shows a massive decline in the institution of marriage. In Scandinavia the actual percentage of gay marriages dropped significantly after getting the right, was this because it was more of an ideal than something they really wanted? Or was their goal not to be treated equally but to destroy the institution upon which traditional values were embedded into society and thus recreate society into a form in which traditional morality no longer had a place? In either case it is hard to argue with the results as marriage has become essentially meaningless in Scandinavia. Whether this will be true for America is not certain but it should be a concern. As I have stipulated from the beginning this is not a simple issue. I do not claim to have all the answers and there are issues which I have not covered. My fears of the negatives may indeed be less of a concern than I may think but I think they should be considered before we make changes that can't be unmade. I have tried to outline the concerns of both sides and show how they compare. With which concerns are valid and which are imagined. Since the majority of opinions voiced have been only to one side of the debate I have shown more of the opposing view. Consequently this has confused some into thinking my only concern is the opposing view when in reality I only seek a compromise based on the concerns of both sides. Same sex Unions should enjoy many of the benefits of marriage, but they neither represent all the reasons why those benefits exist or require all of those benefits to fulfill their needs. Neither are the responsibilities of marriage entirely theirs to take on. I think I have proven this isn't just a simple issue of giving same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, for in fact they already have those rights, but rather what people think the institution of marriage is for versus what they want it to be. The future of American society is at stake and the choices we make will effect all the generations to come.

Then you don't understand anything I've said. The only way you can see this as an attack on liberties is if you ignore those same liberties effects the liberties of other groups. No rights are limitless, every right is limited to whether or not it effects the rights of another. For example you can voice your opinion all you want but you can't slander someone else because you are effecting the rights of that other person. So it's not just the rights of Same Sex Couples at stake, but also the rights of Heterosexual Couples as well and which is in the best interest of the society they are a part of. This is what the American people are now struggling with, should we remove the responsibility of family from the institution of marriage and redefine it as just a proclaimation of love or should we reinforce the link to family and exclude other forms of unions that do not fulfill that responsibility. The ramifications go beyond just same sex couples, since if we redefine marriage as just a proclaimation of love that anyone who loves each other then can get married. Including and not limited to, mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, polygamists, etc. For example marriage between blood relatives is only really barred because of the moral implication of procreation between blood relatives and the problems it can cause. But same sex blood relatives would not have this problem and can successfully argue they have the same right as other same sex couples to marry if the only requirement is a declaration of love. Similarly, if we can't limit marriage to specific sexes to define procreation then we can't barr polygamy either, as what right do we have to tell someone how many people they can fall in love with. What then of the value of traditional family, if marriage is no longer about procreation then what then the value of lineage, of family beyond two or more lovers? Where will this ever stop? That's all I ask everyone involved to consider, because the argument that this will only effect those who choose to be married is totally false.

You are misrepresenting what I've said! No, I am not spreading falsehoods. Falsehoods would mean there was nothing to back what I said when there is in fact a lot to back up what I said if you just read everything that I had posted. I am spreading the truth by specifically stating the viewpoints of both sides and showing how they compare to each other. You just want a straight answer to a subject that doesn't really have a straight answer no matter how much you try to distort the situation to your own views. No, it is not a simple thing and with all due respect you have shown nothing but your own personal bias in this situation. You seek to over simplify a situation that is far more complex than you seem to comprehend or wish to take account for. And demand answers be made to your liking to satisfy just your concerns. Really, who cares that this will effect millions of Americans, let's drop everything and just address your concerns. I never said it was undesputed, every time I point out the controversies involved I point out that it is in dispute. What I actually said is that it was not the intent of what this country was founded on and outlined all the factors that help show that intent and ultimately what separates a traditional marriage from a same sex union. Really, it is not in contention what the founders of America intended for the institution of Marriage in America. It is ony in contention whether it should still be valid in modern America. You do not know the history of this country, not even many Americans bother to read the full history of this country. But I have and it is from that perspective that I bring my points and analysis. Sorry but Prop 8 is America!!! I have said time and again I am not making assumptions about your society. Whether same sex marriage is allowed in America or not has no effect on your country. For example Canada has legalized gay marriage but that has no effect on America. Totally false and shows how you completely do not understand the meaning of the institution of marriage is intricately linked to the society it is based on. America is not the Roman Empire, our values are not the romans. You can't use Roman values to compare American values. Really, just because the Roman's had orgies should I then compare it to the fairly recent trend in England that has some couples having sex in public places? Where anyone in England raised in Roman soceity? The only aspect of marriage that is world wide is religion and that is totally separate issue from whether any form of marriage should be legal in any particular country or state. With all due respect, No, you just need to get over yourself. You have no right to dictate how people in my country live their lives anymore than I have right to judge how people in your country live their lives. You are pushing your values onto my country. You can voice your opinion but you can't tell me how American's should run our own country. If you want to discuss marriage in your own country then fine open a topic on some law or bill that you have problems with and we'll discuss it. But don't confuse the fact that marriage may be a world wide practice from how each country uses it to shape their society. Really, islamic nations legally allows polygamy, should my country legally allow polygamy just because islamic nations allow it? You're comparing apples to oranges and expecting them to taste the same because they are both fruit. We can argue the history of marriage ad nausium and never come to an concensus but we're not discussing the history of marriage of the world we're discussing marriage in the US. See the difference?