No, I'm repeating things because you don't understand what "I'm not going to argue a point with you that I just don't care enough to" means.

(04-27-2012 01:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, I'm repeating things because you don't understand what "I'm not going to argue a point with you that I just don't care enough to" means.

No you're doing it because you're a young and immature sod trying to get the last word in without actually saying anything meaningful...

You cared enough to *start* this discussion..

Hell you cared enough to take a trip into 'look how smart I am for knowing the basic parts of a cell' land... Hell you've cared enough to query people at other schools on the matter so you could come back and say "these schools don't teach it either"... Hell you've cared enough to try and look up the NYS regents guidelines on the topic!

But you don't care enough to talk about the real matter at hand?

now please say one last thing and then you can take your ball and go home..

Quote:Hell you cared enough to take a trip into 'look how smart I am for knowing the basic parts of a cell' land... Hell you've cared enough to query people at other schools on the matter so you could come back and say "these schools don't teach it either"... Hell you've cared enough to try and look up the NYS regents guidelines on the topic!

I didn't ask anyone about this topic specifically, I have just had very in-depth discussions with friends of mine over what was taught in their Bio I and Bio II classes lately, partially due to my interest in taking the MCAT and partially because I'm back in school looking for them. As for 'try and look up the NYS regents guidelines', it's called google. Not exactly a whole lot of work required.

(04-27-2012 01:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:05 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 12:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 12:56 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  yup

I think most rational people would agree with this. Unfortunately, there are extremists on either side who would disagree with this (the *ATTACK ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE* to the right, and the *WE DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS* on the left who'd see a change like this as not truly accepting them fully). It's quite saddening really.

Religious institutions should be able to marry(or not marry) whoever they want, while the government should allow it's citizens to have contractual unions with whoever they want.

That's all well and fine, but that's more of a semantics issue than it is a rights or government intrusion issue. I'm fine with dispensing with hundreds of years of tradition and welcoming the new era of common-law civil unions...

I could be mistaken but thats pretty much whay aTx was saying...

I would have both a marriage and a govt civil union..

Pretty much. You have the institution of religious marriage intact and untethered to government involvement added the ability of each citizen to make contracts with another person for tax purposes, custody issues, etc. If you want to put it under a civil unions umbrella to make it easier, that is fine but really its just the right to enter into contracts unfettered by unneeded government regulation.

(04-27-2012 07:06 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:05 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 12:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think most rational people would agree with this. Unfortunately, there are extremists on either side who would disagree with this (the *ATTACK ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE* to the right, and the *WE DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS* on the left who'd see a change like this as not truly accepting them fully). It's quite saddening really.

Religious institutions should be able to marry(or not marry) whoever they want, while the government should allow it's citizens to have contractual unions with whoever they want.

That's all well and fine, but that's more of a semantics issue than it is a rights or government intrusion issue. I'm fine with dispensing with hundreds of years of tradition and welcoming the new era of common-law civil unions...

I could be mistaken but thats pretty much whay aTx was saying...

I would have both a marriage and a govt civil union..

Pretty much. You have the institution of religious marriage intact and untethered to government involvement added the ability of each citizen to make contracts with another person for tax purposes, custody issues, etc. If you want to put it under a civil unions umbrella to make it easier, that is fine but really its just the right to enter into contracts unfettered by unneeded government regulation.

I agree; I don't think a lot of people understand that viewpoint and are instead opposed totally to same-sex marriage. I feel like churches should be allowed to marry who they want and the government should issue civil unions to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Sayings that apply here, to me: Love is blind; Love is the only thing that matters. Each person who falls in love with someone else and wants to spend life together with them should be allowed to.

(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm sorry,

Yes

Quote: but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.

That does indeed prove it.

(04-27-2012 07:22 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 07:06 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:05 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Religious institutions should be able to marry(or not marry) whoever they want, while the government should allow it's citizens to have contractual unions with whoever they want.

That's all well and fine, but that's more of a semantics issue than it is a rights or government intrusion issue. I'm fine with dispensing with hundreds of years of tradition and welcoming the new era of common-law civil unions...

I could be mistaken but thats pretty much whay aTx was saying...

I would have both a marriage and a govt civil union..

Pretty much. You have the institution of religious marriage intact and untethered to government involvement added the ability of each citizen to make contracts with another person for tax purposes, custody issues, etc. If you want to put it under a civil unions umbrella to make it easier, that is fine but really its just the right to enter into contracts unfettered by unneeded government regulation.

I agree; I don't think a lot of people understand that viewpoint and are instead opposed totally to same-sex marriage. I feel like churches should be allowed to marry who they want and the government should issue civil unions to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Sayings that apply here, to me: Love is blind; Love is the only thing that matters. Each person who falls in love with someone else and wants to spend life together with them should be allowed to.

I dont even think about as a same-sex marriage issue or a love who you want to love issue. To me, it's a freedom of association issue and an issue of too much government involvement in the ability of its citizens to enter into contractual agreements.

(04-27-2012 10:30 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  The government shouldnt be in the marriage business at all.

+1

(04-27-2012 07:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm sorry,

Yes

Quote: but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.

That does indeed prove it.

Still waiting for you to post something with some semblance of substance.

(04-27-2012 10:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Still waiting for you to post something with some semblance of substance.

Don't hold your breath; you're in for a long wait.

(04-27-2012 10:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 07:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm sorry,

Yes

Quote: but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.

That does indeed prove it.

Still waiting for you to post something with some semblance of substance.

I'm sure you are, because you don't understand those things when they're posted.

(04-28-2012 09:42 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 10:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Still waiting for you to post something with some semblance of substance.

Don't hold your breath; you're in for a long wait.

Ah, poor lil' Abner doesn't like his stupidity on display. Here's a thought: trying not being a fool sometimes.

(04-27-2012 09:33 AM)joep2 Wrote:  

Quote:'m driving to Colorado and voting for this guy as many times as I can and I'll get away with it because voter fraud isn't real

It is real, just the cases are in absentee voting, not poll voting, which is why Republicans target poll voting and not absentee voting for "reform."

I am unaware of this. Id requirements are id requirements

(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.

Why? We have a representative government, right? Are t many of us Believers in the bible? Shouldn't our beliefs have the same representation as someone infuenced by anything else? To anyone with an open mind, there is a huge difference between being lead by your beliefs, whatever they may be, and mandating them.

...read the thread Hambone, I stated multiple times it was a completely facetious statement.

And Dr.Torch, I can promise you that you're not as intelligent as you think.

Sorry Ucf.... Didn't want to read the whole thing. My spologies

(04-29-2012 01:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And Dr.Torch, I can promise you that you're not as intelligent as you think.

Understatement of the year.

(04-29-2012 05:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sorry Ucf.... Didn't want to read the whole thing. My spologies

No worries; it's sort of along the lines of "You should pass a test to have a kid" or "They should sterilize that person" in that I know in reality it'd be a massive encroachment on anyones rights and that legislation should never be allowed to make those sorts of decisions into someones life, despite me personally maybe liking the idea of the idea sometimes.