zeo

Yes, I am for gay rights, just not the redefining of marriage because of its role in society and how it would impact the rights of non-gay couples. I would be all for any alternative that would give them the rights they are entitled to.

I have given you a straight answer, you just refuse to realize it. Try looking at the last two lines of my last post!!! No you are simply asking for a simple in your face answer to a subject that has no simple in your face answer. It would be neither honest nor correct to over simplify this subject to any single points. It is not simply government as you put it, society includes both government as well as the responsibility of each citizen to every other citizen. Saying government only gives one side and not the whole picture, there is also rights of the citizens. Same Sex marriage would also effect the rights of heterosexuals to identify marriage with procreation and child rearing. But neither do we want to impune the rights of individuals to the right to live life as they see fit, which is also at stake. So there is no outright your're wrong and I'm right answer!!! Only a concensus of the pro's and con's of both viewpoints. Only by considering both can we really see which is right and which is wrong but it's not an obvious in your face answer. To get you to realize the answers aren't simple, if it was it wouldn't be so controversal. Also you couldn't answer with just two sentences either! Speaking of which, lets clear some of the points you brought up... 1) The Roman Empire has no rights in America, and it doesn't represent any modern day society. So invalid answer! It's like comparing the Roman's practice of crucification to modern death penalty, there is no direct comparison. 2) The legislation of the US states where gay marriage is accepted is not clear, in most states it is defined as between a man and woman. The states that have accepted it never said gay marriage was a part of the law, only that the law did not specifically exclude them. But that's because the founders never thought it would ever be questioned, big difference. This answer also ignores the fact this is still being debated and thus does not support your answer. Prop 8 was a vote to affirm a previous passed law to specify that marriage is between a man and woman that had been knocked down by the state legislature but applies only to California. 3) The majority of Americans DO NOT support same sex marriage, the vote was 70% to >30%!!! The majority only support same sex unions such as civil unions or other similar practice. The majority doesn't approve of redefining marriage. 4) You have a lot of gull to say I should be ashamed. You can't even be bothered to know everything that is involved in this issue. Edit> If you had been paying any attention you would realize that in the US there is a separation between state law and the federal law, because of this each state has its own wording of matters of state concern like marriage. There isn't a real federal definition of marriage other than IRS tax law. Thus the reason for the debate since each state worded marriage description differently. Some specifically outline between man and woman while others kept it simple and just said union. It's because it was vague in those states that advocates argued in court to have same sex included because it wasn't specifically excluded. Since law follows precident but there was no precident on the marriage laws, since they had never been questioned before other than civil rights. But this is like question whether a woman should be allowed to join a gentleman's club just because the charter of the club never specifically said women would be excluded, even though it is a gentleman's club. Legally you could argue anything if the law doesn't have the language to contest your claim. One of the reasons there are nutty warning labels on products is because legally those companies can be sued unless they specifically word the warnings for all possible situations. But marriage is something that has existed since the country's founding and has never really been question before and thus never before had the wording needed to be specific to cover all possible interpretation. However there are 1000's of laws that do in fact impart and show the intent of the institution of marriage as those laws are overwhelming centered to the protection of children and the ability to raise them. Property rights for example are originally for the family, to ensure that in case of the death of the father that the child and mother would be provided for and not left destitute. This back when the father was the primary financial income for a family. Similarly the rights of custody of children are predominantly to regulate and protect the interests of family. So again big picture versus micro-interpretation. The advocates know they can't change the law in all states because not all states have vague definitions. So their tact is to change the laws in some key states and use the protection clause that presently allows marriages from other states to be respected in all states to then essentially make it legal in all states regardless of local laws. Thus forcing this redefinition upon the entire country. This is why there is talk of making a constitutional amendment to once and for all define marriage for the whole country. Something that may come about if the Advocates get their way in the California courts and have Prop 8 overturned. But people on both sides do not like that option as it imposes the will of the federal government on the states and thus would violate the normal separation of federal and state government in the US. With such big stakes, I hope you can understand why this can't ever be an over simplified subject.

<Puts on science lab coat and thick eye glasses> EM Radiation basically all breaks down to photons, everything from Radio to Gamma. Light is just the tiny spectrum in the middle that we can use to see with. So it would be photons to begin with and thus no need to manifest unless you think only a specific spectrum would be useful? Well if the Guyver gets turned into energy, there wouldn't be any DNA as that would be turned into energy as well. So that would be a one way trip. Essentially you're saying the Guyver gets destroyed and then recreated every time it gets activated. But in order for that to work the energy has to go through the host and use whatever DNA may be imbedded into the host DNA to rebuilt itself. The biggest problem would be then that the armor would grow out of the host body and not appear around the host. So more likely to work for the movie Guyver than the anime/mange Guyver. Additionally this would also bring into question why the Gigantic doesn't instantly recharge, when Agito stole the Gigantic from Sho it barely had enough power left to fire a full powered Pressure Cannon. But if it was an energy based construct created at the moment of activation then it should have been instantly brought to full power. So I don't think that idea works. You're thought idea for G3 would only work if the laws of reality were different for the Boost Dimension and quantum effects were essentially not limited to the normal quantum level, which in turn would make thoughts capable of altering local space. I know you don't give the quantum theory much weight but regardless of what you belief how it works it would still require the effects seen on the micro level to be in effect on the macro level. However if that was true then the Gigantic Cocoon could have been knocked off course, remember Agito wasn't aware that the others were in Danger in Japan. He was in America when he hitched a ride with the Gigantic and Sho was for all we know not yet fully conscious. So his thoughts should have effected where they wound up but it didn't, which suggest they still followed physical rules of travel and Agito was only along for the ride. Besides going with your idea of energy conversion has the problem that there was nothing in normal space to reconstruct them back into normal matter and it is doubtful G3 would still have any thoughts if his body had been turned into energy. Unless of course you're saying his experience in the boost dimension was just an illusion of his mind equivalent to some near death experience? But it still has the problem of what reconstructed them at the destination point. Though I am open to the idea that the Boost Dimension is filled to an extent with some level of ambient energy, I just think it more likely it is ZPE based and thus linked to other dimensions, which means it would be limitless. Otherwise we would have to deal with energy density to explain things like the Exceed for example would require an energy density that we bring up the question why there is enough energy to increase mass to 52 meters tall for the Exceed but not enough to instantly recharge the Gigantic when it was stolen by Agito. And that the energy from the boost dimension would be eventually finite versus the infinite potential ZPE through brane multiverse cosmology allows. The ZPE energy in turn could then produce the EM field through the natural process by which particles like electrons both emit and absorb photons. The only problem is this means nothing can go through the boost dimension, other than Guyvers. Without getting fried from all the EM and other particle radiation. Interesting concept though and would fit everything we have seen in the Manga.

The role of government is to serve the purposes of the people Ryuki, one of the purposes of which is the regulation of how the society is allowed to interact and grow. This consequently means marriage falls under the perview of government and the intentions upon which that government was founded. Thus my answer did answer your question, since as this country was founded the ideal family has always been based upon one man and one woman. The very structure of the American family has always been based on this since the country's founding and the purpose it was set that way is as valid now as it was then. To provide the best conditions upon which our children can be raised and the best conditions of stability to instill American values of free thinking. Same-sex marriage does not serve this purpose since same-sex marriages do not represent the type of family that can procreate and thus help the country grow. Marriage as an institution is not a right but a responsibility, it has benefits from government only because marriage benefits the country by benefiting our children. Essentially, this debate is centered around the rights of individuals over the rights of a society. Those who argue for the change only think of the individual to the exclusion of the impact on society, while those who wish to keep things the way they were think of the impact on society and what these changes will ultimately mean to us all. Really, I could easily put the question back to you. What authority do you have to redefine marriage if your redefining ignores the original intent and purpose of the institution? But consider these two points on the rights of a society. . . 1) Society has the right to be run the way it sees best, the American society still sees marriage as only between a man and woman for the purpose of child rearing. 2) Society has the right to expect responsibility of every citizen to the basic needs of the soceity they live in, if individual desires overruled societal responsibilities then we would live in anarchy without concern of how individual decisions effected the rest of society.

The nature of light would not really allow your theory to work. Photons are primarily a virtual particle that only exists to transfer energy, it is both emitted and absorbed by matter. Since it is massless photons only travel at the speed of light and thus would never really sit still while the Guyver Unit is always linked to the host and only separated by dimension until called. So unless light behaves very differently in the boost dimension then the unit could not remain near the host if converted to a mass of photons. Photons also don't have polarity and thus would not be directly effected by a EM field, even very powerful fields only produce a scattering of light and that is because the high EM fields could cause a photon to spontaneously produce both an electron and its anti-matter counterpart, which in turn immediately annihilate each other leaving photons to travel in a scattered pattern from the original photon. Though the analogy of using energy and pouring it into a mold to create something is still valid, it just wouldn't work with light. The other problem is the idea that the Guyver turns into energy when in the boost dimensions, this has not been observed. G3 even experience the boost dimension when he hitched a ride along with the Gigantic. He couldn't have done that if he had been converted into photons. Personally, I think a more elegant solution would one based on dimensions. Since the boost dimension is a dimension, though different dimensions can have different properties I think it has to be something fundamental that allows the boost dimension to provide a limitless supply of energy to all Guyvers. Key to this would then be the difference in the number of dimensions that make up both our universe and the boost dimension. For example if the boost dimension has more dimensions fully interacting like the 3 in our universe then the energy density of the vacuum of space would be higher for the boost dimension than it would be for ours. The energy disparity could thus be explained by Zero Point Energy (or aetheric energy as Eether describes it). To describe this in laymen terms it basically breaks down to the concept of a sponge. Nature abhors a vacuum after all and zero point energy is the minimum saturation of energy througout the universe. If the Boost Dimension has more dimensions that we do then it has a higher saturation point. So similar to an object falling into a black hole anything from the boost dimension entering our dimension would lose any extra dimensions and thus like a sponge the energy that had existed in those extra dimensions would get squeezed out. Also like a sponge any object from this universe entering the boost dimension would be exposed to those extra dimensions and thus would experience an equalization, equivalent to a sponge in water and then again like a sponge it would translate those extra dimensions into energy when returned to normal space. This helps explains how the Gravity Orb can function as a continuous energy siphon since there will always be a disparity between the boost dimension and normal space. It also explains how it can channel and control gravity since such a link also provides gravitons from the dimensional disparity, as well as the Zero Point Energy effect since that can produce all sorts of particles, which consequently open ZPE to explain where the Guyver gets its mass from when regenerating, since many of those particles are the building blocks for matter. The idea that dimensions can break down into energy in lower dimensional space is not new, for example the movie "Supernova" was based around the idea that 11 dimensional matter of even a few onces could break down and release the energy of a supernova. Imagine then the potential of even subatomic particle passing through.

Note this response is only for YoungGuyver, to directly address his concerns and to clarify what I consider misconception. That comparison is completely invalid, being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with race. And last I checked both black and gays were allowed to be in government. They just all have to be citizens! Now are we going to claim citizenship is a discrimination too because it is required to run for office? If it is then you should have no problem with an American becoming the leader of your country without first becoming a citizen. Government issues marriage licenses, which means there is regulations involved. Like for example we can compare to drivers licenses, would you call it discrimitory to not give a license to a blind person? Just because a blind person can't fulfill all the requirements to drive, using the same logic you just used to compare same sex marriage to racism we should give a license to the blind person anyway because it discriminates on their disability. Do you really think that makes sense? No what you are failing to realize is letting same-sex marriage is more equavalent to letting someone who is not a citizen of a country run for office in that country. There is no basis of civil rights involved in this issue. The problem is that gay marriage advocates are refusing to acknowledge that marriage is primarily the state's regulation of individuals' conduct. For them it is a "right". How can someone have a "right" to have their conduct regulated? Regulation by the state necessarily implies that the state is regulating for a purpose. Like my other example, a woman wishing to join a gentleman's club can never join no matter what because it is a gentleman's club. Her rights aren't violated because it isn't a right to be a part of a club, it is elective, and she is free to join or create her own club. She just can't call it a gentleman's club if women are members. It's calling something other than what it is. The same is true for the reverse. Institutions have form and function, not to mention the simple matter of practicality and differentiating what is from what is desired. There are fundamental differences between heterosexual unions and same-sex unions. Same-sex unions will not have all the same issues that plague heterosexual unions. For example, there can be no accidental pregnancies in a same-sex union but there can be in a heterosexual union. Like the shotgun wedding example, the institutionalization of marriage happened for specific reasons. Thus one of the reasons governments recognize marriage is to protect the children, legally providing for children if the parents for whatever reason can not. Ultimately, the relationship between a man and a woman is indeed unique because it is the only relationship that has the potential to produce children. To call marriage discriminatory is thus absurd, since unlike same sex unions this is a matter of biological fact for heterosexual unions. Same-sex unions do not provide traditional lineage even if a child does become a part of their family. Male couples for example can only adopt (at least without violating a gay only relationship), while female couples can get pregnant but not ever with their spouse and thus the praternity of the child gets lost. A male child in a lesbian family for example will have no father figure to relate to and thus can claim his parents can't understand him and be right in doing so, while the lack of male role model for a boy should also be considered and the same for the reverse for a girl with male only parents. Consequently same sex unions are invariably based primarily on sex and emotion. They wouldn't have the same range of reasons to staying together as heterosexual couples would, which then brings up how we could ever call them the same and ultimately how they will effect divorce rates if they have less reasons to stay committed to each other. The above just demonstrate a few aspect in which same-sex unions do not equal the same thing as a heterosexual union. The only way they could is if you remove procreation entirely from the equation of marriage. Thus ultimately allowing same-sex marriage will result in a redefining of family and how soceity deals with it. Never mind the arguments the advocates are using can easily be applied to all other unions. If we redefine marriage to include same sex couples, it affects society as a whole. School children will be taught that John and Jim's marriage is on an exact par with John and Mary's marriage. But guess what-- it's not. John and Jim can't produce children. That may not bother you but it bothers me. The primary reason for marriage in my mind is to create a family. And although some people marry that can't have kids or don't want kids, that doesn't change the fact that most people do indeed marry so as to build a family and this is the primary interest of government to regulate it. Marriage also has a quid pro quo, the government doesn't just give the rights of marriage without responsibilities attached to those rights. Such as forcing the responsibility of fatherhood to both his child and wife, which ultimately means only heterosexual unions serve the purpose of the government in regulating marriage at all. Also assumed paternity is still an obligation. Even if a man is found to not be the biological father of a child born during his marriage-- many states still place the burden of raising that child on him. Again showing marriage is an institution based to support the traditional family. Tax laws themselves are evidence of this, because they favor only the stay-at-home-with-one-working-partner marriage arrangement, as well as general child tax breaks. While two working spouses carry the marriage penalty. The hard work of raising the next generation is also the obligation of married couples in general. The law understands that it must provide support for children brought into the world. It chooses marriage as the means by which to establish a support network for these children. Its purpose and aim is to insure and support the next generation. Thus, marriage does indeed obligate most of the participants. While praternal rights also puts an emphasis on the father's responsibility even in divorce and usually leans towards giving the mother costudy of the child but a same sex couple would not have this leaning. So regardless they wouldn't be judged in court the same way as hetero couples are and thus court cases involving them will be more complicated, especially since most won't have a biological child to contest. Further illustrating the differences and why they can never be the same. Regardless of religious persuasion, many people in America simply do not want their children coming away with the idea that marriage is not intimately linked with raising a family. The logical conclusion that would be drawn by the kids (and rightfully so) is that it doesn't matter that John and Jim can't have their own kids. But, what is important is that they are sexually attracted to each other. It is all about fulfilling one's individual desires and not about the responsibilities that come with children that are usually inevitably produced from heterosexual unions. In essense this shows how same sex marriage advocates are just playing on the growing disassociation of sex with responsibility in our society but ignoring how this same trend is destabilizing the American society. Advocates for example will try to point out that procreation should no longer be considered a part of marriage, siting events like the removal of the block to contraceptives or abortion. But that just illustrates that they want to redefine family and point to control as a validation that procreation should be irrevelant when it isn't. If it was then the human race would pretty much end as then we wouldn't be having any kids or not enough to maintain the population. And accidental pregnacies still happen despite the ability to control it. While presently we have the situation that... (1)Marriage is defined by law as between two people of the opposite sex. This is the primary reason it is even being debated, while 11 States outright have outlawed same sex marriage because the wording is precise in those states. (2)Gay advocates argue that the law should be changed and extended to include a two people of the same sex, but use legal arguments that would both redefine the relationship of marriage to family and open the way for other sexual unions to become validated under the same arguments use for opening marriage to same sex. (3) The court (or legislature) must examine the reasons why the existing law should be changed, but advocates want to force the issue and bypass any considerations. Legalizing it in California for example would force other states to accept same-sex marriage. Gay couples for example could go to California, get married and thus force their home state to accept them as married. (4) Included in that examination, they must also ask whether the reasons for extending/changing the law could apply equally to another group -- polygamists to just name one example. (5) If there is no principled reason why marriage should be extended to gays but not polygamists, then the court/legislature needs to understand that the further extension is coming down the road. For example, if advocates go through the courts saying it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to ban same sex marriage, we have the slippery slope problem in a magnified form. Courts will be hard pressed to draw a principled distinction between gay marriage and other types of unions. Second, if it is arrived at through the legislature, the slope is not as "slippery" but it still provides people favoring polygamy or any other type relationships the opportunity to argue further expansion and ultimately redefine marriage to have no real limit at all and thus cease to be an institution. What Marriage is For As the article states: why does every culture on earth have an institution of marriage? Because sex between men and women results in children and the raising of those children is vitally important for the continuance of any society. Yes there were many reasons and no I wasn't saying it was the sole reason but as listed here, Reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, the Decline in Morals and Values is listed among the reasons. It is true how a society shapes itself ultimately determines how stable that society is, though same sex relations had little to directly do with this decline it along with all the other forms of sexual unions practiced in ancient Rome contributed to the overal decline in morals and values. Practices such as orgies, prostitution, etc. Ultimately same sex unions do promote promiscuity over monogamy, the roman soldiers for instance also had wives and had sex with both the wife and their fellow soldiers while out in the field. The social structure of the Roman Empire made this normal for them. Such conditions however do not promote monogamy and thus opens a society up to other forms of sexual relations. So the argument can be made that the end result was a corruption of the Roman society that at least helped contribute to its eventual fall. Remember we are talking about a society that through most of its history allowed many pagan beliefs, including the ceremonial marriage to animals that represented a given diety, etc. Though it should also be noted gay unions were mostly temporary and not as binding as heterosexual marriages, which was still required for lineage and to insure the growth of the population. But was an example of how open the romans were sexually and why ultimately things like orgies became almost common place as the culture as a whole continued to become more and more corrupt till its final collapse. The only real key to stability the empire ever really had was its military might, giving it a fairly constant influx of new resources and slaves that in turn replaced older slaves as those slaves gained citizenship, and both corruption and eventually civil war left them open to its final collapse. Thus why I basically said that it was a bad example to compare to modern society, even though most modern societies haven't yet been around as long as the Roman Empire had been. Besides which the American system was founded much more recently, being this is still a relatively young nation compared to the long established European nations. And our society is very different from the Roman Empire. So pointing to them as an example was flawed to begin with. More relevantly, we should consider the issues that effect us now. For example here's an article, "Why should I care whether same-sex couples can get married?" "How will that affect me or my family?" "Why not just live and let live?", by Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law at Harvard. Same Sex marriage could also lead to the further erosion of monogamy in marriage, City Journal: Redefining Marriage Away

There is such a thing as over simplifying a subject matter Ryuki. Unlike the situation of Wyrm this isn't a matter of simple making these easy for everyone. This is an important issue that will effect everybody. If there was something blatantly obvious to support either view then it wouldn't be a matter of such controversy. But I'll give you the two main points. 1) Traditional Marriage in the US has always been between a man and woman, aka the nuclear family, is the foundation of the American society since its beginning. (There's a ton of information that goes with this mind you) 2) Same-sex Unions do not serve the societal purpose of marriage to stabilize the foundations of American society and provide the structure that shapes each and every generation of this society (again a lot more information goes with this). For those actually interested in my reasoning and want a better understanding of the subject matter it goes as follows... The argument by advocates is that this should fall under civil rights but as an institution this is not a civil rights issue. Everyone has the right to get married, but like any institution there are rules and regulations. For example it is almost universal that a father can't marry his daughter, or a mother her son. The rules do vary according to each soceity but the common factor is what that soceity values morally and how they shape their society with those values. The reason polygamy is outlawed in so many places is not just because of religious reasons but because it promotes promiscuity. For example 44% of men polled in polygomist societies in Africa have admitted to having sex with women other than their wives. But in those societies such behavior is accepted as normal and is often brought about when there is a population disparity in which women outnumber the men. But is ultimately driven by sex, which is why the conversal situation of women with multiple husbands is so rare, since the burdern of family ultimately falls on women as the ones who actually have to get pregnant and give birth. The consequence of polygomy is thus a lessening of the bonds between couples as they have to share their mates, but they suffer from jealousy and desire just like anyone and thus ultimately such societies are much less stable than monogamy based societies. While America was founded on monogamy based principles of relationship in which promiscuity is looked down upon. This has served us well in stabilizing family structure and ensuring the most opportunity for each generation, while most situations in which this policy was not followed just results in broken families. It's just with the last half century the institution of marriage has suffered with ever increasing divorce rates and an increasing number of unmarried single parents. Same-sex marriage will only serve to further erode the institution of marriage. Since unlike traditional marriage there is even less to base these relationships on, ultimately this will only add to the divorce rate. The lack of biological procreation for example means the responsibility for child rearing becomes lessened and thus a lesser factor to keeping couples together. Even the ability to procreate is a factor in this respect since the lack of this ability in same-sex relations means there isn't the responsibility to be as careful as heterosexual couples, almost risk free cheating for example, and the role of child raising is all but removed from the equation of family and even lineage would become unimportant. Conversely this can pose problems such as protecting women who bear children produced from the union between a man and a woman (legitimacy, assumed paternity), whether one or both parents are bi-sexual or gay and just wanted a child for example. Same-sex marriage would open the door to all types of relationships. The advocates for same sex marriage even make a point of including transexuals and other non-traditional relationships. Among the many other scenarios in which paternity is an issue would become literally undone as the rights of parents get subverted in the redefining of marriage. Essentially forcing us to put the welfare of our young on a completely different system from what it has been traditionally. Before we continue with that line of thought the ramifications should be considered, the breaking down of the family structure has resulted in an increasing number of broken homes. With more and more children being raised in unstable conditions and a lessening of opportunities. It is also true a same sex couple can not provide a child with the traditional balance that a father and mother provide. The consequences of same-sex marriages on a society can be drawn from those societies that have decided to allow it such as Scandinavia, The Weekly Standard: The End of Marriage in Scandinavia Half of all children are now born out of wedlock in Scandinavia. By contrast, in the US, that figure is around 30-35%. This number has been relatively stable over the past 8 years. Source Now some may claim I'm making an "assumption" that children are the fundamental basis of marriage, let's examine a concept once known as the "shotgun wedding". Why would a father, whose daughter becomes pregnant out of wedlock, force the future father to marry his daughter. Of course, there are various rationales, including ensuring that someone other than himself is financially responsible for the new baby, but the key point is that having children and getting married were once considered hand-in-glove. That is, having children was once considered almost equivalent to being married. This is no longer true because of the way marriage has eroded over the last half century. We need to ask ourselves whether or not the child raising aspect of marriage should be emphasized more, or discarded. In Scandinavia, where the importance of marriage between parents has eroded, we see the results: a majority of children are born out of wedlock. We have not seen the social implications of this, but Scandinavia certainly will over the next decade or two. I doubt anyone is encouraged by the trends there. Ultimately, in order to emphasize marriage's importance in child rearing, it is important to stress the male-female bond which occurs in marriage. By de-emphasizing this aspect of the relationship we call marriage, we devalue it and therefore invite a further deterioration of the institution from what has already occured. We de-emphasize this by watering down the institution first off by reducing the social stigma of out-of-wedlock births, something that has already progressed to alarming levels, and second by encouraging those who cannot, by definition, conceive children to become married and thus remove the association of child rearing from the equation. It is not as simple as saying that allowing same sex relationships to be termed "marriages" creates a unique stress on the institution itself. However, it does add additional pressure on an institution that has been weakening over the past few decades. That weakening has caused real and measurable societal problems. Weakening it further may cause the institution to become a thing of the past, a quaint institution that used to be the framework of the family. Worse yet, it may morph into something wholly separate from child rearing, which would be a tragedy. Essentially we should remember that both sexes bring different elements to raising a child and having just one type of parent doesn't provide that balance. Then there is the parental rights, redefining marriage means also a redefining of parental rights. No longer will just your biological family have rights but anyone who took part in the relationship. Ultimately what is best for the child would get lost in the maze that opening marriages to really any type of relation will only serve to make an already chaotic system even more chaotic and the children will be the ones to ultimately pay the price for that. Consequently, same sex marriage also will effect other rights like property and inheritance. The role of traditional family will all but be gone if this is allowed to come about. To the extreme Ryuki has joked about someday people will be allowed to marry their dog, to which I should point out that historically human and animal marriages have occured. More recently on May 1998 - The Jerry Springer Show had an episode titled "I married a horse", about a man who had a long standing relationship with a horse. It wasn't aired because of the controversy of the subject matter but the man was later part of another documentary. So just like with the examples already given of cultures like the ancient Roman Empire, it all depends on what kind of society do we want and just what we are willing to allow based solely on what makes people happy. This shows the issue will not just effect individual choice but our entire society as a whole. The idea to be tolerant is fine, most American are open to the idea of Civil Unions to give the same legal rights and recognition as marriage. But this is being confused with the institution of marriage, which in American society has been designed for a specific purpose of not only interpersonal relations but the family structure upon which the American society is based. Even people who are for gay rights are not all ready to just throw away tradition for many of the same reasons I am listing. A popular argument is that same-sex unions can in no way be the cause of any injustice to others. As a civil law, however, they cannot help but play a decisive role in shaping both the thought and behavior of individuals and society. Legal recognition of same-sex unions would act to obscure basic moral values causing a devaluation of the institution of marriage. It is therefore somewhat naive to suggest, as do a number of proponents of same-sex marriage, that religious institutions will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages in the future if same-sex marriage becomes law. If a government can redefine the term "marriage" they can also redefine any existing laws to which the term marriage is related. Now mind you, Men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation. Nonetheless, same sex is counter productive to the sexual act to the gift of life. Procreation, while not the only purpose of marriage, is nonetheless essential to the institution. The fact that some married couples do not have children either because of infertility or personal decision does not determine the purpose of marriage. Exceptions do not invalidate but prove the rule; individual practices do not invalidate the objectives of an institution; variations do not nullify a norm. From the very beginning the founders of this country wanted a system that would produce the ideal citizen. So the system of marriage in America was created to provide both a stable family system but also one that would instill American values and ideals into each generation. To an extent this is why we are in the situation we are now since an over riding concept behind this system was that we are free thinkers and seek equality and the betterment of all. This is why the civil rights revolution was possible and one social injustice after the next has been overcome. But people are now confusing civil rights with the right to marriage when in fact marriage isn't a right any more than being an elected official of government is a right. Marriage is an institutional system created for a specific purpose in our society but with the decline of that system people have lost touch for the reasons why that system was established in the first place and why it is still revelant even today. At least to anyone who understands the ramifications of the system and how changing it will effect the future of this country. In all the changes that marriage has gone through in the history of American, the core has always remained the same and changing that core represents a fundamental change that will forever change it from what it was. And believe it or not all that is just a summary of the complexities that plague this issue. Like how advocates want to force this change upon us by subverting the law system to bypass the will of the people. But durendal probably best summed it up by pointing to "responsibility", as ultimately this breaks down to responsibility and how our choices effect not only ourselves but others in a society.

The passing of Prop 8 was by vote, not the authorities, it was the people who passed it. It's the advocates who want to ignore the vote and the will of the people. There are many reasons but since you want it limited to two... 1) Because the American system, I'm not making assumptions on yours, of Marriage is based on a man and woman based family structure, reasons have been listed in previous posts, and has been since its founding. We do have a system of tolerance, like freedom of religion, etc. But the factors that helped make this country what it is was based on that traditional family structure. 2) Marriage, in all its forms has always been to promote the growth and regulation of society and its people. The purpose of the American system is not served by extending it to same sex couples, when that alters all the priorities and system of check and balances that regulate marriage. You change marriage and it changes its role in society and how it effects its growth and regulation. For example, the right of parents would be effected. People who are not blood relatives can suddenly have as much rights over a child as blood relatives. The issue has far more reaching ramifications than I think most ever consider. Everything I've stated has been to the point, and nothing has been random or off topic. I've even included all points of contention and put them into perspective, which shows I have been listening. Explaining how all points effect each other is not an attack but an illumination of the true dynamics of the subject matter. Point is this is not a simple subject and some things in life do require you consider all the factors if you are to be anything close to fair and want to have a valid opinion on the matter. This is a subject that effects the very foundations of our societies and how we both have and will shape them. Please just take the time to read through it all if you really want to understand what is at stake. The Weekly Standard: Beyond Gay Marriage The American Spectator: Going Beyond Same Sex Marriage PublicSquare.net: Neither a Marriage Nor a Civil Right (Non-Partisan Site) The American Civil Rights Union: A Supreme Constitutional Showdown (Non-Partisan Site)

Except American society isn't really dividied over it, the majority don't want it changed. It's the advocates through the legal system that are pushing to change it. Imposing the will of the minority on the majority. Even California, arguably one of the most liberal states in the US voted against it and they got cities like Chicago that lets sex change come under tax funded health care. And we should consider what marriage was defined for OUR CULTURE!!! Ancient civilizations are nice for perspective but we're talking about the present and our society was based on base principles that are now coming into question. City Journal-Gay Marriage vs. American Marriage (Everyone should read the whole article by Kay S. Hymowitz ) Even in ancient secular systems, legal marriage was seen as a way to help society regulate and achieve a complex set of desires and goals: sexual activity, procreation, mutual help and affection, and parental care and accountability. As can be imagined, integrating these classic goods into the institution of marriage was a task for law, religion and other socializing elements of society. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not simply extend an old institution to a new group of people. It changes the definition of marriage, reducing it primarily to an affectionate sexual relationship accompanied by a declaration of commitment. It then gives this more narrow view of marriage all of the cultural, legal and public support that marriage gained when its purpose was to encourage and temper a more complex set of goals and motivations. The very shaping of our society as a whole. What you are missing on the historical context is how those systems effected those cultures and the purpose of those practices. Like polygomy was a good system to deal with low population but in a large population it becomes detrimental. The point is what benefits our society and what doesn't.

Etymological Fallacy, the definition is not the whole picture and like stated it often is simply a statement of the realities of today. It doesn't judge or justify, it simply states what is. You should read the links I provided, they do illuminate much of what I have stated. re This coming after you already tried to use a definition to dispute my arguments. No, it just describes what it is from what it is not and nothing more. I only point to it to show it is included in the definition when you seem to be trying to say it isn't but I also put it into perspective by showing some of the history (if you had bothered to read the links I provided). You asked why I would say Marriage is an Institution and I explained why. Like any institution it has a base upon which the society it serves a function for has a designed purpose and intent. Stating that marriage is an instution points this out. We have government because it serves a purpose for example and like marriage it is an institution, with rules and regulations that define it and guide how it functions. Marriage in the united states was designed specifically to promote balance and freedom. It is exactly because of these and other benefits that others want to be part of it. Now contrary to your assertion we do have historical records going back centuries, and archeological findings from before then, and they do show the core of what marriage has always been throughout history. Yes, there have been as many versions of marriage as there are languages throughout history but the core has always remained the same. Marriage started with religion and became part of government later as its benefits and effects had to be recognized and incorporated into the mechanisms of society. Ultimately we must remember that each system has its own pluses and minuses and based on the history of the other systems we should compare which system works best for a given society, thus my points on polygamy and the Roman Empire since these examples were brought up. There are consequences to a society by what it allows and what it doesn't allow. It is very much a revelant point to make that a clear part of what we have to consider. During the founding of the United States, this was one of the things the founding fathers of this nation considered when they set the foundation of this society. They wanted a system that would benefit the new growing soceity and crafted the marriage system this country has used ever since. Designed to promote free thinking and responsibility, it was a system of creating new citizens. Invariably this is what allowed it to adapt as the country progressed and overcome inhibiting social issues. But the last half century has seen a decline of the marriage system in the US as divorce and unmarried parents have increasing become more and more common. This ultimately had eroded the US marriage system, I simply put to you that further redefining the meaning of marriage in the US will only serve to further degrade it from its intended purpose. There can be little doubt to any honest consideration that this has only served to erode the country as a whole. Many of the people who advocate marriage are the very same people who didn't grow up under a traditional home and desire what they had missed out on. My points have been rather clear, perhaps the ideas they represent are not things you are use to considering, I have pointed to the negative aspects that changing the system will pose as our system of marriage increasingly becomes irrevelant and I have pointed that marriage serves a purpose as was designed by the founders of each of our societies. Your society may be based on different principles that may be the cause of the confusion but the US was founded on specific principles that have shaped it and made it what it is today. We are a land of freedom not just because of our bill or rights but because of our way of thinking and how we have been raised to think. The problem is many now have forgotten our base and because of the desire to be part of a system that has produced so much good they may ultimately destroy what they seek. This should all have been clear with the many examples I have provided, you take any institution and make it into something it wasn't originally then it is no longer an institution and no longer serves the purpose it was designed for. Since it was designed to help shape our society then the ramification of altering it are indeed very important to consider. Whether you care about those reasons is entirely dependant on whether you value the results of the said system or if you think it should be replaced with something else with different goals and intents. Ultimately this is not just a decision for individuals but for everyone involved in the society it effects. So let me make myself abundantly clear, all I'm doing is pointing out there is a big picture to consider and we should consider all the ramification.

Slavery was also culturally accepted at one time, didn't make it right and I think that just shows what you consider okay. Who cares if such a system inherantly is bent to abuse women whether they agree to it or not. One such group just got busted because they were marrying off young teen girls to much older men in arranged marriages in which the girls had no choice. Lost boys for example are boys and men expelled from polygomist communities because they posed competition for potential brides. Yeah, let's just be open minded and turn a blind eye to all the problems posed by polygomy, which is what many governments have decided to do, under separation of church and state, and only intercede when a clear case of child or woman abuse is noted but such cases are almost impossible to bring to light as many polygmist communities are closed to the outside world and the women are taught from a young age what their expected role is, so they think it's normal and have no way to complain outside of escaping the community, which is often the only world they have ever known. Never mind the social problems that such communities face as eventually everyone becomes related and it becomes increasingly impossible to prevent blood relation marriages. A single husband could easily have to time share with multiple wives and their kids. Or the legal ramifications as rights of inheratance get insanely complicated. Or depending on the rules of the community a husband would have to time share with his wives other husbands, then they would have to keep track of whose kid is whose, etc. Yeah, lets just add that to the general public version of marriage and drive our legal system totally insane. It is the open minded thing to do. Never mind not everyone could even afford a polygmist lifestyle as you would have support very large families, which would definitely destablize our society even worse than dead beat dads, etc have. Polygomy in ancient times was used to help populate the species, birth rates for polygomist families are very high and was fine in ancient times but is counter productive in our modern close to overpopulated world. Never mind in ancient times women were usually treated as property, not something I think we should go back to. If you really want to make comparisons then put them into perspective. No you're just trying to make this personal and trying to misrepresent what I've said. Clearly I do believe anyone can feel love and think of someone like family. I'm just pointing out the difference between what people feel and what actually exists. You can love anyone enough to consider them family but you can never make someone a blood relative, they have to be born that. An institution has requirements that has to be fulfilled in order for you to join that institution. Like you have to adopt someone to make them officially a part of your family, but adoption has regulation and rules. Not everyone can adopt and not every can be adopted. A gentlemans club for example wouldn't be a gentlemans club if women were allowed in, then it's just a club. Ditto with the reverse for a woman's club. You can't be president or any other elected representative unless you are voted in and fulfill the requirements for taking that title and position. So this isn't about being open minded, this is about what is and whether you consider all the factors important or irrevelant. Everyone can make up their own minds and have their own opinions, just don't try to misinterpret the reasons why you make those decisions. We all have different value systems and beliefs, there is nothing wrong with that but we each have to accept the consequences of those beliefs and values. Otherwise we are just disillusioning ourselves and not being true to our beliefs and values. And for those who disagree with me, just remember being open minded goes both ways. Just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean my point of view isn't just as valid as yours. You have your opinion and I have mine, we just care about different things. For me this article gives a good perspective, City Journal-Gay Marriage (But you'll have to read it all the way through to truly understand)

For one you really only provided one definite definition, wiki was more vague but clearly stated marriage as an institution while both Merriam-Webster and Oxford both gave the primary definition as a union between a man and woman. Merriam-Webster just added as a secondary meaning of gay marriage but specifically noted it with the redefiner of same-sex in front of marriage, which as I pointed out was just an acknowledgement that some places have made it legal (since they added that when legalizing same-sex marriage became legal in some states). Again a separate issue as to whether that should have happened or not. Because Marriage has always been an institution. It wasn't just invented by one person, it was developed to define a stable family unit and anything that is regulated by rules and regulation over time is an institution. It even says so in my quote for the definition of Institution, which included a mention of marriage as being an institution. Btw, yes the Romans had same sex marriage but through most of their history they were pagan and definitely had a very different moral structure from anything we have now. You can hardly say they represent the vast majority of historical institutions or directly compare to modern societies. Roman armies for example actually encouraged gay love among their troops under the thinking that you were more likely to protect your lover than your buddy, they also liked to have orgies. So do you really want to use them as an example to justify an alternate point of view? Remember the Roman Empire eventually collapsed. Ultimately this is an issue of what kind of society we want to live in and whether our society can survive such restructuring of its basic value system. The reason we valued the institution of marriage so much throughout the centuries is because it benefits society, it provides the foundation upon which we are all raised. Originally established by religion marriage was accepted by government because of its clear benefits to stablizing a society and paving the way to growth. This is something that seems to have been forgetten as few now ever think of what the eventual ramifications may be of altering this institution to the stability and growth of our societies. As previously stated Marriage was originally an economic based contract designed for the benefit of society. In Judaic societies for example if a child did not result in a specific time period then the marriage became null and void automatically. And you should be familiar with the almost universal concept of dowery in which the parents were compensated to allow the marriage. Something that was stopped relatively recently in our history as things like pre-arranged marriages happened less and less. All the way to modern times in which we still have rules and regulations over marriage. For example many do permit children to marry, with few exceptions, and most won't allow marriage between blood relatives. Some even prohibit marriage if either has a particular disease. All of which illustrates why marriage is an institution, it has rules and regulations and has been around for a very long time. For some US Constitutional insite here's a informative link, Constitutional Topic: Marriage and A Defining Moment: Marriage, the Courts, and the Constitution The problem is each individual state doesn't use the exact same language in the definition and many have successfully argued that it should be a civil rights issue, totally ignoring the fact marriage is an institution. In some cases this was done because there aren't any comprehensive Civil Union laws to give anything as an alternative to marriage in many states. Thus the problem we now face is instead of trying to fix the laws and establish proper civil union laws they instead want to redefine the institution of marriage and put it all under one roof so to speak. This is why many now want to amend the constitution and give the country an all encompassing definition to finally settle the issue once and for all but since this would bypass the decisions of the individual states and not all are comfortable with that. Further complicating the issue is the will of the people, as voted the majority don't want marriage redefined but instead of following the will of the people many of these advocates force these redefinition through anyway, which is counter to the system of representational government that the US is suppose to operate under. Present Map, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Samesex...iage_in_USA.svg While other progressive seculist governments and reform religious organizations have taken the stance that marriage is no longer an important institution to the foundations of our societies and thus it's okay to redefine it for social sense of equality. After all marriage in many countries has suffered in the last half century as divorces become ever more prominant and single parenting have become accepted as almost normal by many. The traditional purpose of marriage has thus degraded and the reasons for its establishment have almost become mute in many cultures. So this issue is not so much a matter of logic or reasoning of law but rather one of convienance and whether marriage still has any meaning that should be defended or not, because really that is where most people fall into when they debate this issue. Like durendal pointed out this has a lot to do with responsibility and what responsibilities you tie with marriage. The more vague the definition you asign to marriage the less responsibility to tie to it. Ultimately same-sex marriage will only serve to lessen the meaning of marriage, cause really secularly there isn't a reason to even get married anymore. Many governments already put more penalties for getting married than remaining single, such as with the tax code, etc. So unless you are religious then there is no reason to not let marriage just degrade into a simple title that would ultimately be no more important that calling oneself Mr or Mrs. Many have already forgetten the difference between Mrs and Ms for example. If you are okay with that then there is no reason to deny same sex marriages, it all depends on what you care about and what you are ultimately willing to let happen.

You're confusing the issue Ryuki, the problem is not the definition it's how people want to interpret the definition. What you listed was not multiple definitions but the simple fact that because some places have already made it legal. So it gets listed but as your own quote shows, it adds "same-sex" in front of Marriage. This is a redefiner that is simply listed because some governments have made it legal. A totally separate issue from whether it was right to do so in the first place. Really, governments can make anything legal. It doesn't mean it's right for them to do so in all matters. The important issue is the status of marriage as an institution... Simply put Marriage is more than just a title to someone's relationship. The question is does anyone care about the actual meaning of marriage or is it just a title to be given to anyone who wants it? Remember this isn't so much a legal issue as a societal one. Civil Unions can give gay couples all the rights they want, but it's not the rights the advocates want its the title. It's just most people confuse the issue based on emotional reasons and for some emotions is all the reason they need.

How Many Games Each Console Sells Yes, This Buttonless Xbox 360 Controller Still Works 9-Year-Old Plays Driving Game, Steals Parent's Car

Martian Ice Is Why I'm Alive and Why I'm Dying Helios Off-Roader is Designed Like a Dinosaur, Minus the Extreme Violence An Ultra-Fast Gravity Portal Between Earth and the Sun "Beauty Machine" Makes Every Face a Pretty Face Brain Scans Reveal that Teen Bullies Get Pleasure from Your Pain AT&T Ad Spoof Argues that Using Verizon Will Get You Murdered MacBook Air With Nvidia-Powered H.264 Video Playback Runs Less Toasty Windows 7's Calculator Bundles Real-Life Uses Windows 7 to Extend Laptop Battery Life by Minimum of 11% Windows 7 Loading 20% Faster than Vista It's Official: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009 Don't Fear the Cheap Third-Party Laptop Battery

Japan Makes First Brain Tissues From Stem Cells 60 Minutes Reporter Investigates China's E-Waste Pits, Gets Attacked, CBS News Statewide California Bullet Train Project Reduces Road Rage and Increases Happiness EWA System Sucks Drinkable Water Out of Thin Air Star Trek Tribble Replica Wriggles and Coos, Won't Over-Run Your Home , Instructables Honda Robo-Legs Help Mobility at the Expense of Fertility Traffic Loop Sensor Trigger For Bikes Gets You More Green Lights Mcor Matrix 3D Printer Replicates Objects on the Cheap With Simple Paper and Glue Chinese Transformers Will Put Optimus Prime To Shame

Sarah Brightman Flashes Her Holographic Eyes, Belts Out New Repo! Song The 50 Skills Every Geek Should Have New Laser Cinema Projectors Offer Superior Picture Quality, Increased Pew Pew Factor Junk 4GB Of Stuff in The Trunks of Lupin The Third And Gundam WPA Wi-Fi Security Gets Cracked; Your Network is No Longer Secure Inside Consumer Reports' Electronics Testing Lab Spherical Satellites Aboard the ISS are Gary Gygax Approved AMD Employee Stole $1 Billion In Secrets From Intel Mgestyk Gesture Control System Will Make Your Mouse and Keyboard Obselete Claw Bike Storage From ABC's "American Inventor" Available For Pre-Order

No, as I clearly stated marriage has certain criteria that needs to be filled to call it marriage just like any other institution. Trying to construe it as just procreation alone is a misrepresentation that ignores the other criterias, marriage is the basis of our family and social structure. Procreation is a part of it but it is not the only criteria. Again Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. Simply having sex and loving someone is not enough to fulfill the requirements of a marriage. Looking it from another point of view, you don't need to be married to have sex and you don't need to be married to love someone. So these things can never be denied but like any other institution not everyone will fulfill the requirements to be in that institution. Even among heterosexuals there are limits to who can get married. By the way, your argument of meaning falls under etymological fallacy, since the actual origin of the word marriage doesn't support either view, and ignores the fact that marriage is an established institution. Just like my other examples, you change the definition and then the status becomes meaningless as its meaning essentually becomes undefined and no longer an institution. Marriage was originally an economic contract, concepts like love weren't a part of it. Later love was added to it as the modern concept of choosing our own mates started to take over but its form and purpose has remained the same throughout history. Most reasonable people will agree there is nothing inherantly wrong with gay unions, anymore than you need to be a blood relative to consider someone you care about family. The choice and associate emotions are yours to give or take. But there is a difference, Just like marriage there are requirements to calling yourself a son, a daughter, a uncle, a aunt, a cousin, etc. that can't be filled by just anyone. Really, consider the logical conclusion of redefining marriage as simply people who love each other. Then anyone who love each other can get married, polygamists, mother and sons, fathers and daughters, cousins, etc. Since they would all fall under the new definition. There can be no limitations under that definition! You can't claim any moral problem without causing problems with justifying gay marriage as well and if you think it's an equal rights issue (let's just ignore the institution part for the sake of argument) than who do you prevent from having this right without having the equal part violated? What then becomes of the meaning of marriage?

Like audio, there would most likely have to be a sweet spot in which the images overlap. Remember though the variance only has to be very small as the images mainly just have to be perceived between the distance between our two eyes and generally screens have to be flat for the best image quality. So the image scattering would be very close. The technology probably isn't perfect yet, like how it took years before you could look at your LCD screen at different angles and still see a good image for example. But it's good enough that if you sit in the right spot you'll get the desired effect. There is also timing, two distinct angled images can be sent at different intervals. So long as those intervals are still rapid enough for the illusion of motion then our brains can combine the images to produce the 3D effect. Just like the newer 3D glasses worked by basically shuttering at different rates between the two eyes, the projector too could possibly use that technique to split the two images and help add to the effect. But again it probably still requires you to be in a certain spot to get the full effect.

Except marriage is not a civil rights issue. We can't compare interracial marriage to gay marriage, interracial marriage still fulfills the definition of marriage, they can still procreate, etc. and gay marriage does not. Basically we all can agree that, under the law, everyone is equal, regardless of what institutions they belong to. So what do we do about those who want to enter the institution of marriage, even though they don't fit its definition? Are we denying them their civil rights, thus making them second-class citizens? For example, The General Court of most states, also known as our state legislature, is an institution, and membership in it is not a civil right. Membership in the legislature is only available to those who satisfy particular criteria, not to all those who have opinions on legislative matters and would love a chance to vote on pending bills. By definition, the legislature is a closed, exclusionary institution. It's fair to ask: Is barring those who would love to be senators or representatives from membership in their state house a violation of their civil rights? If the answer is yes, then all barriers to exclusion, including elections, should be dropped, and anyone who wants to be a member of the legislature should be allowed to join. But, if the answer is no, then our definition of “civil rights” must be independent of our right to membership in institutions, and as such, our duly elected senators and representatives should take a new look at the issue of same-sex marriage. Though this differs to varying degrees in other nations, the American founding was characterized by clear thinking about ordered liberty. Today in America, chaos essentially reigns. Judges and mayors often ignore the law, and the will of the people, while imagining that they themselves, along with supporters of same-sex marriage, are compatriots of those who stood against slavery and communism. I put to you that the comparison is not accurate. Their struggle is not the same. Slaves were denied their civil rights. So were those who lived under communism. Civil rights are, as correctly recognized in America's founding, inalienable. They can neither be given by government, nor rightfully taken away. These rights are those which slaves, and all subjects of tyranny, were denied: free speech, the free exercise of religion, a free press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to vote, to be free from unlawful intrusions of government on their persons or property, and the right to fair and equal treatment under the law in all other matters mentioned in the Constitution and its amendments. The same-sex marriage advocates who today compare themselves to freedom fighters in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Pope John Paul, Gandhi, etc. are misconstruing the significance of what these leaders accomplished in the face of actual tyranny. Whether they mean to or not, the gay marriage movement is confusing the civil rights struggles against slavery, racism, and totalitarianism with something very different — their desire to redesign history's most important cultural institution in a manner that will eventually render it for all effect meaningless. Those who contend that marriage is a civil right must contend with additional questions. Is graduation from school a civil right? Is a government job? How about being a family member like a son, or a daughter, an uncle, or an aunt? What about a graduate degree? Employment? Housing? Health? Business ownership? A driver's license? Membership in the National Organization of Women, the NBA, the PTA, the AARP, the Priesthood? Just as it is with these institutions and definitions, so it is with marriage—each one is defined with exclusions in place, and once it becomes anything we want it to be, then it is nothing at all. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with first- or second-class citizenship. Marriage either has an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition and will become simply a term of convenience. These are the concepts and ramifications that we have to deal with and why it is simply not a black and white issue of social acceptance, as is most issues that are driven more by emotion rather than logic. For example, contrary to many assumptions not all gays want to redefine marriage. So even among gay people this issue is not clear cut. Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage Gays Against Gay Marriage.

Well I don't believe a direct comparison can be made and still be fair. The movies were clearly different from the anime and most of that can be summed up by budget limits. That said though, remember Guyot barely survived a single Mega Smash while the Zoalord in the movie was hit with a full double at point blank range. There is also something to say about being able to increase one's mass to such a massive size. Similar to Waferdanos, so on the surface this would still put the movie zoalord into a full zoalord status. Conversely though the second movie showed the same smashers would not seriously damage the Relic when we know the Manga Relics can be damaged by a single smasher fired miles away even through its shield and seriously damaged without a shield. Though it was a controlled release and may not have been at full power, it still suggests a significant power disparity between the Manga and movie versions. The movie version may not even be able to produce a pressure cannon if this is true, the head beam at least suggests this as well. So it would seem Sho would have a clear advantage, but then again if we were being fair then a live action Sho would be limited by the same restraints as the live action Sean and vice versa.

It amazes me everyone forgets or never gets told about Civil Unions. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union It is almost like a concerted effort to make marriage the only option. . . The problem with gay marriage is it can never fulfill the full purpose of marriage. They can never procreate naturally and though they can certainly adopt and raise kids they don't provide the kid with the balance that a father and mother can naturally give their kid. As same sex couples they are either maternal or praternal but never both and thus suffer from the same problems that plague single parents. Ultimately the purpose of marriage is to stabilize society through the family structure and to keep the species going. So calling it marriage would only make it equal in name only and is more to make them feel like they are equal than anything else. But even if the law concedes that much claiming the right to call it marriage under equal rights opens up the possibility that other forms of unions would also get officially accepted, like polygomy, etc. This is all besides the point that many religions would never accept this altering of the definition of marriage and not all same sex couples want to redefine marriage in any event. Civil Unions on the other hand can be crafted to give same sex unions all the same rights as marriage, without having to redefine marriage. Though some would complain about even this the vast majority of people will readily pass such a measure over allowing a redefining of marriage.

The same way they have holographic pictures (photographic), the projector has overlaying images synced to the viewers eyes. Normally you would still need glasses for splitting the image layers between our two eyes but this is 2nd gen tech and can overlay and sync it so the glasses are no longer needed. Basically the LCD display allows the beams of light to be projected at different angles, etc and our brains do the rest. They also got 3D television displays as well in the works, so the technology is quickly spreading and becoming more practical all the time.

Jogger runs mile with rabid fox locked on her arm Teen compacted in Wis. garbage truck, survives TIV-2: An Exclusive Look Inside The Techie Tank-Like Tornado-Chaser Giz Explains: What's So Awesome About 64-Bit? SanDisk's New Flash File System Improves SSD Write Speeds by 100 Times LaCie's Internet Space a Beautiful Slab of Networked Storage R.I.P. Windows 3.x Discontinued

Scientist Designs Nanoparticle Optics That Self-Assemble Flat Light Bulbs Are an Incandescent Innovation NASA Nearly Bombs Australia With 1400lb Ammonia Tank Japanese Scientists Miss The Point, Design Self-Stabilizing Electric Bike Know-It-All LCD Panel Can Scan Fingerprints, Sense Light Jurassic Park Creator Michael Crichton Dies Unexpectedly British Libertarian Party Fights Surveillance with George Orwell ESA Reveals Next-Gen Reentry Pod, Makes NASA's Plans Look Kinda Low-Tech Paini Puts Some Flex Into Their Futuristic Faucet JVC DLA-RS2 is 'World's First' Home 3D Projector