100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Redykeulous
|
Topic:
Immortality
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Fri 12/07/12 07:33 PM
|
|
refer to my new post if you are interested in true scientific hypothesis "telomeres Secrets of Aging and Imortality" Well, solving the problem of the diminishing telomere does not get us anywhere near immortality, unless of course science modifies our genetics to the point of being immune to every disease or immune disorder and every toxic substnace whether natural of man-made. But even then we would still have to worry about over population,and the human destruction of our environment that would lead to starvation. Given some sudden ability to be immortal and immune to all those things - humans would also have to, simultaneously, develop a homogenous sense of values with great regard to enviornmental healing and continued sustainablity of the enironment that support us. AND what about the birth rate? Would humans also deny their desire and instinct to breed once Earth's human capacity had been reached? These are all the reasons why immortality is a fantasy that's confined to the philisophical realm of mysticism i.e. spiritualism and religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Island of Dr. Moreau" - how far off are we really?
Whether one believes that the climate change is natural or humanly induced, it seems that the human race could likely be facing a severe bottleck situation or even extinction as so many species of animals & plants we depend on for our lives, are already facing. When GM foods fail to sustain us will humans and other life forms on the planet be the next oranism for genetic modification - to survive the cold, to be less affected by toxins... Is the current GMO for plants teaching us how to do that? Just a curious thought. While we are still, or at least partially, unsure of the long-term health and environmental effects of GM plants, we do know for sure, as metalwing pointed out, that trans-pollination does not just change heritage seed crops, it destroys them and the yield of any seed produced by a cross pollination is poor to non-edible. How can that possibly be good? Study after study has indicated that the promised yield of GM crops falls far below expectations and worse, it destroys surrounding non-GM crops, bringing fewer crops than before to the market place. But our government promotes it - sad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Homosexuals and Islam
|
|
The only religion I support (even without a constitutional religious freedom clause) is a religion of one.
TuTu is a prime example. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
very,,,,, but on the plus, it has a mom and dad that were and always will be its mom and dad and who are together as a family,, But it was all so 'unnatural', isn't there some religious law against that kind of unnatural birthing. I mean doesn't that pre-empt God, after all, in the Bible didn't he present a baron woman with a child in her old age, where's the patience. This kind of thing could destroy civil society as we know it, even bring God's wrath down upon a nation. It's confusing to the child to,no the child has two moms and they're related on top of it. she doesnt have 'two' moms she has a mom and dad, the egg and sperm donors she came from who will also be raising her together,,, I do agree its 'unnatural' though, as children are created in NATURE by a male and female lying down together,,, Well, there ya go, see gays and lesbians can have their own children and like 50% or more of heterosexuals, those children are being raised in a household where at least one of the parents is their natural parent. Somehow thier 'potential' for creating life was not diminished by their gaydom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
very,,,,, but on the plus, it has a mom and dad that were and always will be its mom and dad and who are together as a family,, But it was all so 'unnatural', isn't there some religious law against that kind of unnatural birthing. I mean doesn't that pre-empt God, after all, in the Bible didn't he present a baron woman with a child in her old age, where's the patience. This kind of thing could destroy civil society as we know it, even bring God's wrath down upon a nation. It's confusing to the child to,no the child has two moms and they're related on top of it. ???? your ok with gays getting married, but this offends you? that seems like a zig-zaggy line you have there... Well, I was just applying many of same arguments that are used against gays, I pay attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
very,,,,, but on the plus, it has a mom and dad that were and always will be its mom and dad and who are together as a family,, But it was all so 'unnatural', isn't there some religious law against that kind of unnatural birthing. I mean doesn't that pre-empt God, after all, in the Bible didn't he present a baron woman with a child in her old age, where's the patience. This kind of thing could destroy civil society as we know it, even bring God's wrath down upon a nation. It's confusing to the child to,no the child has two moms and they're related on top of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Wed 08/29/12 05:14 AM
|
|
again marriage is not a 'right' rights are not contingent on familial relationships they are afforded to INDIVIDUALS , not COUPLES It's not that you have trouble getting your point across, it's that you seem to have a problem incorporating facts into your bias. AGAIN, the contract of marriage, as set forth by the government, is only complete when considering the cascading effects of related laws which all have an effect on social connectivity. Couples who wish to marry are seeking 'equality under the law'. There has NEVER been a conditional privilege associated with any legal aspect of marraige which required sex or children. The only law that EVER restricted sex between consenting adults were the state sodomy laws - which proved to be unconstitutional due privacy issues. From that episode we can assume that homosexuals can consumate a marriage because sodemy is a form of sex, according to the law. Please carefully review this information and PLEASE as questions if you do not understand and please review the facts presented with your previous views so that you can stop saying that we don't understand what you are saying. Willful refusal to consummate is the unjustified decision not to consummate a marriage. It is may be grounds for annulment of the marriage. http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/willful-refusal-to-consummate/ Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this). Consumate: What is completed. A right is said to be initiate when it is not complete; when it is perfected, it is consummated. Consummation: The completion of a thing; such as the consummation of marriage, the consummation of a contract, and the like. Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled. http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml Elements for Nullification: The other spouse had another husband or wife living at the time of the marriage; Either spouse was younger than sixteen at the time of the marriage and did not have court approval; Either spouse was sixteen or seventeen at the time of the marriage and did not have parental consent, as long as the annulment action is filed within 60 days after the marriage ceremony; Either spouse was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the marriage, as long as the annulment action is filed within 60 days after the marriage ceremony; Either spouse was mentally incompetent or unable to consent at the time of the marriage; One of them was threatened or forced to get married; One of them agreed to be married based on fraudulent statements or actions by the other spouse; One of them was physically and incurably impotent at the time of the marriage, unless the other spouse knew about the impotence before the marriage; http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/index.shtml sex is a LEGALLY EXPECTED part of marriage the government should not make a stand for any reason to LEGaLLY EXPECT homosexual relations take the SEX out of the marriage laws or create another extension that allows the joining of lives LEGALLY with no consideration to sexual relations forcing marriage to remain as is and ADDING same sex relations is FORCING a government SANCTION on same sex sex,,,,,for which there is no reason,,,, First, only one of these state laws deals with sex and as you said, not all states incorporate it. Secondly, the only time this law comes to court in when one or the other party seeks dissolution of marriage because of NO SEX in the relationship. Therefore marriage is only about sex when one or the other of the two people involved WANT to make it about sex. The state simply offers a provision by which ONE or the OTHER partner wants to FAULT the other in order to obtain the dissolution. At one time, at least most, states required that some fault be assigned for the dissolution to take place which is why the consummation provision was there in the first place. Because it was considered the ‘right’ of every individual to have children and is sex was not present a person who wanted his or her own children, obviously, was being denied a right by another person. So again, it had nothing to do with marriage or the marriage contract, it had to do with individual rights that were not compromised in any way by the marriage contract. edited to add: If you want to find a 'legal' avenue to support an opposition to ss-marriage, then you must understand how the legal system works. If you want to find support for a religious concept, then continue to read the biased opinions of others, who ignore the reality of the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
taking one sentence in a phrase or paragraph and thinking about it alone can sometimes cause the sentence to have a different meaning That made it seem like you were saying anyone who wants to get married should join in those religious beliefs to do so. Why should they do that if they're not religious? if they are not religious, why would they want a part of that religion. it would be like a muslim boy wanting a Bar Mitzvah maybe this sentence will help: anyone who wants the antiquated religious belief of marriage, should believe in those antiquated religious beliefs I'm simply saying that many non-religious people get married. Yes, I know for some it's a very religious thing. For others it isn't. No one is forced to make it a religious ceremony. People can even go to city hall and get married. So, saying that because it's a religious thing and that's why gay people can't get married is silly. Yes, indeed. Most religions that have marriage ceremonies also include language of a life-long commitment which is a form of contract between the couple and their God - "let no man put assunder". But the hirearchy of those religions simply accept divorce as if it's just a fact of life. Then those same people say that ss-marriage is what will bring the wrath of God down on our nation and that such marriages will destroy civil society and somehow diminish heterosexual marriage. I can only call it what it is: hypocracy that seems to be invisible to those who are perpetrating the blunder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
taking one sentence in a phrase or paragraph and thinking about it alone can sometimes cause the sentence to have a different meaning That made it seem like you were saying anyone who wants to get married should join in those religious beliefs to do so. Why should they do that if they're not religious? if they are not religious, why would they want a part of that religion. it would be like a muslim boy wanting a Bar Mitzvah maybe this sentence will help: anyone who wants the antiquated religious belief of marriage, should believe in those antiquated religious beliefs Your point was not clearly made and for my assumptions, I apologize. However, I hope my previous reply to your post will be of some help to others who might read it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again marriage is not a 'right' rights are not contingent on familial relationships they are afforded to INDIVIDUALS , not COUPLES It's not that you have trouble getting your point across, it's that you seem to have a problem incorporating facts into your bias. AGAIN, the contract of marriage, as set forth by the government, is only complete when considering the cascading effects of related laws which all have an effect on social connectivity. Couples who wish to marry are seeking 'equality under the law'. There has NEVER been a conditional privilege associated with any legal aspect of marraige which required sex or children. The only law that EVER restricted sex between consenting adults were the state sodomy laws - which proved to be unconstitutional due privacy issues. From that episode we can assume that homosexuals can consumate a marriage because sodemy is a form of sex, according to the law. Please carefully review this information and PLEASE as questions if you do not understand and please review the facts presented with your previous views so that you can stop saying that we don't understand what you are saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one is saying everyone has to agree with same sex marriage. I just don't believe it's right to deny two adults the ability to marry based on antiquated religious beliefs that not everyone follows. it's those antiquated religious beliefs that instituted the marriage contract to begin with. if anyone wishes to be a part of that, they should join in those antiquated religious beliefs and have at it You're a little behind the facts in the issue so I'll remind you that when marriage was written into the law of this country, it was not a religious law. It was a law in which marriage was defined as a contractual agreement and no law associated with marriage, since that time, has been implemented solely based on a religious belief. The law is meant to be held in common to provide for the greater good of a civil society in which a wide diversity of people will reside. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules The other issue is that msharmony (or anyone who feels the same as she does) wants everyone else to conform to those guidelines she follows. Most people who are not as religious as her aren't going to conform. I wouldn't have an issue with someone who is following their guidelines and doesn't agree with something like same sex marriage. I do have a problem when they try to push others to conform to those same guidelines. So then it's ok for those who want same sex marraige to push those who don't to conform with their guidelines? In what way would herosexuals have to conform? What would be changing for them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules Of course all of that is correct assuming it is being strictly related to religious reqirements. But in a nation that values diversity in its population, as much as the USA does, laws are not made to conform with any particular religious value. In fact, the law in our society only grants free religous exercise to the extent that such practice does not infringe on any other persons rights, or are otherwise against the rest of the law. Therefore, individuals are free to obey and fulfill religious commitments within legal retraints, that being so, they are still expected to place government law above thier religious codes. So when a challenge to our legal code is presented that appears to be in opposition to religious morals/values, then those people are free to voice their religious view as a valid reason to be against changing the legal code. But unless other reasons, beyond religious values, can be provided as to why the code should not be changed, then their voice may not be heard. In the case of same-sex marriage, the most effective way for religious values to appear in the legal code, if for the religious sector to force a majority vote, in the hopes of gaining enough votes to overrule the legal challenge. The problem with the current situation is that asking for a public vote is exactly like asking the people in 1865 to vote on making slaves free or like asking the people in 1964 to vote on abolishing discrimination through the Civil Rights Act of the year. We don't use popular vote to determine the level of freedom individuals should have in this country. Not even the federal government can write discrimination into the law. Both of those condistions have occurred with regards to ss-marriage, which is why California's Proposition 8 is in its third round and finally at the U.S. Supreme court level and why that same court is being requested to take up the challenge to DOMA, which is in consideration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remove the sex, and we have no issues heterosexual sex is MANDATORY, some regulation and encouragement on the topic is responsible for the government and an attempt at securing our FAMILIES and children (Which come from heterosexual sex) homosexual sex is not MANDATORY, regulating it or encouraging it is irresponsible for government to do and secures NOTHING for families or children (ie ,,society)  The above-quoted statement doesn't make sense to me. it heterosexuals do not have sex, noone(hetero or homo) will exist its a MANDATORY part of the continuing human race regulating it in some manner is like regulating food, which we also need, but want to keep safe so as not to contaiminate people if homosexuals do not have sex, there is no affect on anyone, or on the existence of humans, its not a MANDATORY part of the continuing human race, its merely a choice that fulfills self with no extending consequences or affects anywhere else,,, comparing homosexual sex to heterosexual sex is preposterous,,,and forcing a government to make them 'equal' behaviors is equally preposterous,,,, the day the government decides to allow one homosexual to leave another because he wasnt sexually faithful is the day that an adult brother and sister should be able to bring up the same charge against each other because, like I have repeatedly been told, the children have nothing to do with the purpose of MARRIAGE since having children or wanting children are not necessarily requirements for heterosexuals to marry we likewise cant prove that all adult siblings will want or have children, and should likewise not be making that our concern where 'marriage' is concerned, since marriage is supposedly not having anything to do with procreation or fertility,,,,, Having sex is not mandatory. Having children is not mandatory. Having sex solely for the purpose of having children is not mandatory. These are all choices that we make. So all this mandatory talk is not making sense. really> what happens if all heterosexual sex stops? Hmm...I'm getting a visual of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Were there not children in those cities? Where did they come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's different to put the emphasis on the ability to "breed." What does a kennel owner do with dogs who can't "produce?"...Is our value determined by our ability to "bear fruit?" And populate the planet?...Are we deemed "useless" and a drain on society if we can't "produce" or can no longer "produce?".. Well said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
rachel corrie death
|
|
today i v seen an act of coward and shame of israel state justice.(watch my back i watch yours)that's how it works between israel justice and israel army. How many years ago? And, it was judged an accident. Since then, Palestinians have killed thousands of their own using them as shields. And from a shield of thousands of miles, another nation pushes a button to reak havoc only to declare victory on those whose sin may be no more than association by proximity to an enemy whose weapons are of no use against the broad shield of distance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And what faith (or honor) is behind the drone attacks in which Americans are responsible for well over 1,000 innocent lives, including pregnant women, babies, and children and there seems to be no pattern or reason for this abhorant action.  Ah I see - What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And what faith (or honor) is behind the drone attacks in which Americans are responsible for well over 1,000 innocent lives, including pregnant women, babies, and children and there seems to be no pattern or reason for this abhorant action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The end of America
|
|
A Comprehensive List Of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-obamas-worst-executive-orders/ Editor’s correction: This is a list of executive orders in force that outline Emergency Powers. Some of these were signed by prior US Presidents going back all the way to JFK. Obama specifically has signed executive orders starting with the number EO-13489 and forward. But these all reference powers Obama could use to limit your freedoms. Here is a full list of Obama Executive Orders.) There have been over 900 Executive orders put forth from Obama, and he is not even through his first term yet. He is creating a martial law ‘Disney Land’ of control covering everything imaginable. Some of the executive orders he has signed recently have been exposed thanks to ‘Friends of Conservative Action Alerts.’ They have compiled a choice list of ‘Emergency Powers, Martial law executive orders’: Get your headache medication out while you still can without a prescription. * Executive Order 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports. * Executive Order 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media. * Executive Order 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals. * Executive Order 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. * Executive Order 11001 allows the government to take over all health education and welfare functions. * Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons. * Executive Order 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. * Executive Order 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations. * Executive Order 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities. * Executive Order 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issues over a fifteen-year period. * Executive Order 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. * Executive Order 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute Industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President. * Executive Order 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months. Editor’s correction: This is a list of executive orders in force that outline Emergency Powers. Some of these were signed by prior US Presidents going back all the way to JFK. Obama specifically has signed executive orders starting with the number EO-13489 and forward. But these all reference powers Obama could use to limit your freedoms. What does the quote directly above have to do with anything – those EOs were there for all the presidents since JFK and some of them have to do with FEMA – you know, like full scale disaster that requires a military complement to direct, protect, and secure the safety and property of a devastated population – you know? There have been over 900 Executive orders put forth from Obama, and he is not even through his first term yet. Let’s get a little closer to reality, more like 135 EOs total and their numbering begins with 13489, as properly stated in the first quote. This link below has a complete list (easier to see than going to the federal registry, but that link is provided too). http://1461days.blogspot.com/2009/01/current-list-of-president-obamas.html OR http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2011.html If you use the open web for your research, be sure not to stop when you find information that confirms a particular point of bias. All I did was google “executive order Obama” and I got some reputable sites and accurate information along with a lot of garbage. When an error in the information being presented in support of a point of view, is this grievously mistaken, there is little credibility left for further discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The end of America
|
|
we can try to uproot everything because we dont like some of it or we can hold on to those things that work and that make sense, and continue trying to improve on those things that are failing or harming others,,,, Holding on to a system that is about to crash only means that we will crash with it. Instead, we should begin building something that does work. where is evidence that it is 'about to crash'? based upon what? Simple common sense, and also looking back into history (which we are WOEFULLY ignorant of), we CANNOT keep sustaining things as they are we just can't. It WILL break at some point, it's happened before (see Great Depression) and it will happen again. Whether people wanna believe that or not really makes no difference, we will ALL be faced with the cold hard reality sooner or later. And if we're not prepared it will be that much harder to accept. Pride comes before the fall... Well, as we have discovered, our breaking point is still less consequential than the rest of the world, who will continue to break with us and we will still have the worlds largest military complex. I think dictatorship is the least of our worries - perhaps we need to be concerned about a World Corpora-oligarchy. At the rate the worlds major corperate entities are buying into the privatization of public resources we should all be concerned. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
