devildog

I have no idea where you get this from any of that. Course, I'm not surprised at such bomb throwing. It seems to be your MO when the facts don't support your claims. I'm sure in a couple more posts I'll be labeled as a misogynist that gets off beating down women. Do we have any scientologists here? People profit off all sorts of things. And to an extent, I agree. I always said if I didn't have morals I'd either run a casino or be a televangelist. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Your analogy doesn't really work since not everyone can sing. So it discriminates against those who can't sing. Allowing everyone to marry someone of the opposite sex is not necessarily discriminating against homosexuals since they do have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex even though they don't have any interest in the opposite sex. Agree. I would also agree in part, but to finer tune this, I'd wager those with religious oriented objections also feel in large, that they would be approving of the marriage and saying "It's okay," which their religious beliefs clearly clash with. In essence, it might not be so much as an attack on their religion, but an active betrayal of what they confess if they "went along." You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

My argument started as a rebuttal to Amazon's list of rights found in the Constitution. I was simply pointing out that not to be the case. As to your example, one might ask, what does singing Ave Maria have to do with what the law sees as marriage? The answer, as I'm sure you know, is nothing. Therefore, we'd say it's a silly idea and certainly an unfair one. Now, what does the idea of both polygamy, homosexuality, and incest have to do with the idea of how the law sees marriage? Everything, as the law currently defines (in most places) marriage to be between two consenting, non-immediately related, opposite sexed persons of a specific age (and only 2). You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

If you look at the time line of it, you once could marry interracially, as the law allowed it. Anti-miscegenation laws then slowly came into being, altering who was legally entitled to marry, thus violating the 14th amendment by unequally applying an existing law (who can marry) to the population. When the courts began to rule that way, they never said, "You have the right to marry anyone and everyone, therefore interracial marriage is okay." They struck down the anti-miscegenation laws, which again, altered the application of existing law at the time they were brought into effect. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

It doesn't, which only supports my point. In the amendments, there is the right to equality under the law, which is where most people seem to be heading. Currently that equality is certainly being used in terms of who any person, regardless of orientation, can legally marry. The original thread to this that you missed due to pruning was Amazon claiming that people had the right (in the Constitution no less) to marry anyone they wanted (among other things). I'm just pointing out that's not true whatsoever. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1 I think the problem Amazon is having is seperating state law from the Constitution of the united states of America. The Constitution doesn't prohibit gays from marrying or wedding their chosen partner. Correct. In fact, it's made quite clear that anything not specifically stated is left to the states. So you do in fact SUPPORT BIGOTRY Its the American way I support applying laws equally. Glad we finally agree rights are the same. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1 I think the problem Amazon is having is seperating state law from the Constitution of the united states of America. The Constitution doesn't prohibit gays from marrying or wedding their chosen partner. Correct. In fact, it's made quite clear that anything not specifically stated is left to the states. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1 (Assuming you're heterosexual) You have the right to marry the one you love which entitles you to all the benefits only extended to married couples. I have the right to marry a non-immediate family member female. I do not have the right to marry just anyone because I love them. Any other male is afforded that same right. edit: I could, for example, be in love with my sister, but I can't marry her. Nor can I marry the Eiffel tower, a cat, or a snake (all three of which, btw, have been involved in marriages at one point in time), no matter how much I love any of them. double edit: the above rights are more, "I am legally allowed to marry / not marry..." The rights come into play where we all have the right to equal treatment / protection under the law. As such, marriage laws are equally applied in the above (which was my point) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1 You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Every Atheist claims to know everything about religion, otherwise they would not be so certain there is no Deity of 'ANY' description. How else can you come to that conclusion? As an agnostic I am not entirely certain about anything and don't feel the need to be. You appear to feel the need to be certain. I believe the earth is spherical due to the images that have been shown to me, there are also a great number of other examples to suggest the earth is a sphere, in a solar system orbiting the sun. There are also as many unknown possibilities that can change all that. A fish in water seems larger than it is in air. And a different shape depending on the angle… What appears is not always tangible; a hologram is a good example of this. What we don’t know effects what we believe we know, infinitely. Quantum physics (along with other non mainstream subjects) will throw a spanner in the works of what most people consider 'normal thinking' or what we perceive as reality. Only a closed minded individual will eliminate the possibility of something unknown to exist... Atheists fall into that definition. So you think there is a chance that the earth might be flat. Got it. Every photo / video I've seen show the earth only having two dimensions. Flat Stanley meet Flat Steve. Flat Steve, Flat Stanley. Your vision is flat too, btw :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Constitution supports my position at the moment, not yours. Thanks for playing, however :) No...the CONSTITUTION never did.... enough with the PHALACIES already. The fact that our country suffers from the sad reality that we were founded by various groups of religious whackjobs that got kicked out of England for their out of the ordinary beliefs.. or get added to the burn pile is where the bigotry stems from. It must really gall you that they are going to finally accept openly gay men with youin serving their country....... homopohbes all over the service must be in fear of the showers I really don't care if a gay man serves or doesn't. Anyone is welcome in my Corps as long as they are held to the same standards as everyone else. And, just so we're both clear, you've still yet to list a single right I have someone else doesn't. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I can't marry a man either. So.. you lied when you took the oath...got it... “I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Constitution supports my position at the moment, not yours. Thanks for playing, however :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I can't marry a man either. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Fallacious argument is fallacious. Don't like robberies? Don't rob. Don't like murder? Don't kill. etc. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH It’s all about rights... you either believe in them for everyone equally.. or you don't... by your name.. I would have thought you understood that. Generations of Americans have fought for those rights that were called inalienable rights by the founding fathers( even if they did not view Women or blacks as equal). Simple... do not expect those rights, if you are not willing to celebrate those same rights for all of your fellow human beings. IF you are willing to deny some of the rights you wallow in daily from anyone else then it is YOU who is living in a rather skewed sad PHALACIOUS world. AFAIK, every citizen in the US has the same rights as I do, felons excluded. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

So.... You think 2 Chihuahuas have an equal chance of producing a Labrador Retriever pup as a couple of random strays? Never said they would. Because the genetic material remains the same. Same benefits, same defects. Defects aren't magically introduced just because a sibling pair has kids. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Fallacious argument is fallacious. Don't like robberies? Don't rob. Don't like murder? Don't kill. etc. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Genetic mutation isn't the issue of concern. The fact that they have a much higher likelihood of possessing and passing on negative recessive genetic traits is the issue. No, they don't. That's what I'm saying. If say, the brother sister pair each have a recessive negative gene, they have their children have the same chance of being AA, Aa, aa (25/50/25) as any other general population couple with the same traits. If two perfectly genetically healthy siblings have kids, their kids will not have any negative genetic traits that were passed down, just like a couple from the general population. And again, if we're going to exclude one set of people because they might pass down bad DNA, why not make the ban across all people? Blood tests would just be a requirement to get a license, quick and easy at that. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Not feeling you on that one. That's a case of potential mental and physical defects, which will have a direct impact on the rest of society through taxation and the increased burden placed upon our medical infrastructure. Not true. There is no increased chance of genetic mutation in say a brother / sister pair. If neither one of them have negative genetic traits, they won't magically create one at a rate higher than the general population. Even if the brother / sister pair were both carriers of something, are you going to forbid their love because of it? Are you also ready to start requiring DNA testing for all couples to insure that the gene pool isn't further damaged? etc. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

D'souza has a good book on the subject, actually. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I disagree completely. The hellfire and brimstone, you will be damned forever and ever, version of Christianity that most people think of today didn't come about until the 5th century AD, largely spearheaded by Augustine. Early Christians, like their Jewish roots, had no concept of hell ("Hel" btw, is Scandinavian in origin). Early Christians preached a gospel that included the salvation of everyone by "the end." Death may yield some nasty surprises / judgement for some, but those judgments are neither eternal nor vengeful, but rather finite and ultimately redemptive. It's a tragedy that eternal damnation is still clung to so hard, or that it even became a doctrine when it's not in the original material whatsoever. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I used the numbers you gave, which I'm sure you know, since at this point I'm pretty sure you're more interested in trolling than anything else. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Or maybe they just don't exist :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Running to tarn-x and crying "myth" won't change the fact you don't get it. And for the record, I'm using the numbers you provided, except for the population of women in the US (which is both recent and irrelevant in the end). It doesn't matter what the total numbers are, the ratio doesn't change. You still have 35-37% of all rapes being reported. You still have about 17% of the total population having been raped. If you know those two, you automatically know how many unreported rapes there are. You still have 2-3% of the total reports being false. Until those change, you'll always get about 60 unreported rapes for every false one. You can try and spin this over and over anyway you want, the ratio won't change. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey in November of 2000. 17.6% of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womencensus1.html "157.2 million The number of females in the United States as of Oct. 1, 2010." 17.6% of the total population of women is 27.6M (157*.176) So, 27.6M women in the US have been raped. The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. Of those 27.6M women, there would have been at most 10.2M reports filed (1 rape per woman, no multiples). That leaves 16.4M unreported rapes. (27.6M-10.2M). If 10.2M reports would have been filed, with a 3% false report rape, the total number of reports (False + actual) would be 10.5M (10.2M * 100/97). Or put another way, there are .3M (300k) total false reports for the current population. The ratio of false reports to unreported rapes then becomes 16.4M/300k or...drum roll please... 1 false report for every 54.6 unreported rapes (which is pretty close to the 1:60something numbers I had before). You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_47/b3960108.htm "Similarly, 28% [of Americans] have a college degree" Do you think that means each year, 28% of Americans are graduating college? Or are even in college? FAIL try again... I love irony :) BTW, I just did a down and dirty calc based on your total population of raped numbers. Given approx 312M people, 156M females, 17% of which have currently been raped, that's a total of 26.5M. Divide by the avg life expectancy of 75 years and you get 353,600 rapes per year -- which of course, leads you right back to my original comment and note that the number of false accusations per rape is no where near 1:10000, but 1:60 (or 1:90 if you prefer) So millions of your sisters, mothers, daughters etc being raped is ok.. got it ONLY 37 percent even get reported Got some Tarn-X for all that ???? See, when you start slinging things like, "So millions of your sisters, mothers, daughters etc being raped is ok.. got it" you sound like a feminazi. 353,600 rapes is total per year, reported or not. That means 130,000 are reported (about) and 253,000 not reported (about). (353,000 * .37 = 130k ; 353k-130k = 253k). If 130k are reported, that means 3.9k approx are false (130k * .03 -- number is fudged a little, but it won't really matter in the end). To get the ratio of number of unreported rapes to false ones, just divide. 253k / 3.9k = ~ 64.8 (1:64.8 ratio wise) If you want 2% instead of 3%, the number jumps to about 1:96. I use to be a math major. I promise these calcs are right as long as the data is (which it seems to be). This is like middle school stuff, regardless, subject matter aside. Just because the numbers crunch to something you don't like, doesn't mean I hate women, want to have my way with them at any time, free rapists and give them all medals, etc. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.