www.ligahordy.fora.pl

cheapbag214s

'Barack Obama is a man of history'
Allow me to finish tonight with this.
Obama is a man of history. His very life was an event--this meeting of an American woman from Kansas having a student from Kenya. His success,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], leading up to his selection as editor from the Harvard Law Review, was eventful. Extraordinary, really. As he put it in that great speech in Boston eight years ago, "Only in this country is my story possible."
When i speak tonight, he has been our president for three and a half years,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and that we are used to something which is extraordinary: an African-American president within the White House.
And yesterday, he made it happen again: becoming the president who declared himself for same-sex marriage. Years, decades from now, they will not be referring to situations, precisely the extraordinary fact that no one else had ever tried it. He made it happen. He, Obama.
And thus we move ahead, perhaps, to more history.
One thing I have come to believe, which is political anyway, that this is what Obama needs to be doing: making history. As soon as he becomes yet another president, maintaining the way in which situations are, he'll lose himself, his historic self. He is, I suppose I'm saying, just as much a captive of history as a captor. He needs to be making history over and over again, if he stops, he stops being what he is able to be, and the United states citizens knows it.
Consider this before you decide to think of the politics: if you are black in this country, you will know a black man can be president because the first is. If you're gay, you will know America, at its most idealistic, stands for your right to love because a united states president has declared just as much.
We reside in a powerful time, and, as long as Obama is at the helm, it will continue.
WHY LAWS MANDATING MARRIAGE From a AND A ARE SCIENTIFICALLY ABSURD by Daniel Smith, RN, Doctoral Student There's a current trend for states to mandate marriage laws stipulating that a marriage will only be legally recognized between a and a woman which prohibits marriage. This also should be more correctly referred to as same-gender marriage, not same sex. The term can be used incorrectly, and additionally, is definitely an emotionally inflammatory or salacious term,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], a minimum of with a members of the far right. First, if we are likely to enact laws with different biological basis, we should use precise biological terms: we should use and not and since they are sociological terms, not biological ones. Also, if we are going to enact a law at all,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], it should be agreed that any law, to become fair, ought to be put on all adult people in the population equally; to not do so results in discrimination. The problem with a law stipulating marriage as that between a and a is: if you are going to become so specific as to stipulate what's needed who might enter into an agreement of this type (marriage contract), or engage in this legal activity, then people who favor such a law with your specific requirements, ought to be required to precisely define the terms, and the like that there's no uncertainty of who's qualified, and who is not, to initiate said marriage contract. Lots of people would think this absurd: everybody knows the difference between a male along with a female. Many,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], otherwise most, people assume, incorrectly, that everybody, all humans, are either one, or even the other. They take for granted that all persons identified by the public as male, may be easily identified by physical factors common to all males, and also the same regarding females. Situations are not so simple biologically. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to convey mental, physical, and/or even genetic factors to define what it is to be a in order to be a so that all humans will either be either; there will always be a sizeable quantity of humans which have physical and/or genetic attributes which will prevent them from being definitively called either male or female. Additionally, there are thousands of persons who have physical features that would enable them to go in both men and women categories. That law must be withdrawn as being too vague to become enforced, because the genders identified within the law cannot be undeniably identified and classified. Should you don know what you looking for, how you know if you found it? The terms, and are nouns, or terms, not descriptions. A law must be explicit on the meaning or descriptions of terms in order for a law to become verified or enforced. For instance, when you use a phrase that you simply cannot define, it's an unknown variable. In math, this is represented usually with a letter,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], for example or We can assess the law inside a mathematical way. In order for anyone to practice as a doctor in our society (or lawyer, or any other profession), we require: Person + professional degree + pass boards along with other required training=ability to rehearse in profession. There are, however, other descriptions that stipulate the necessary training and scores,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], etc., such that we all know the individual in question is qualified or permitted practice for the reason that profession. The required courses and other qualifications are elaborately explained at length, so there is NO unknown variable. You realize with no question, that the person involved has met every qualification essental to society, to legally engage in that activity. Regarding the current laws mandating that marriage is from a and a would, currently, seem like: X + Z = marriage. They are represented by letters, as the terms, and never being specifically defined, are unknown. You're unacquainted with what each term comprises, or exactly what the exact requirements and qualifications are. We don't realize that each individual represented by each term is qualified to take part in that activity. There must be a way to verify eligibility, and also you cannot do that, if you fail to define exactly what the eligibility actually comprises. This, for me, makes the law legally too vague to be valid as well as constitutional. Biologically, there are some methods to discern the differences from a male along with a female. 1) mental differences 2) physical differences 3) genetic differences For that law to become valid, and verifiable, one should have the ability to play one of those attributes to definitively classify a individual as either male or female. If you cannot classify every adult as either male or female by utilizing valid scientific criteria instead of religious doctrine, those laws are too vague and really should be invalidated on the grounds that they discriminate against tens of thousands of people. Before I address these criteria to explore why each one of these cannot (biologically) be used to classify each human, it ought to be noted that many humans DO fit completely into one classification or even the other. They're CLEARLY man or woman. The concern here's that there's a significant part of society which cannot be clearly defined as male OR female. Some are neither, some could be considered both. Based on those facts, this law should be found invalid, because it discriminates against lots of people. If the law is strict, and is enforced as is currently written this group of individuals would not be permitted to marry. Let discuss each category. 1) Mental differences: While probably many people would agree there are some mental differences between men and women, it would be absurd to classify a person as or by their mental status. Everyone knows men that appear feminine, and women who are masculine, and everything in between. Clearly, mental differences CANNOT be used to classify an individual as male or female for that purpose of marriage. 2) Physical differences: Probably many people would say THIS is the area that would make it easy to tell the difference from a male along with a female not. Let us look at each item individually. A) Presence or lack of breasts: Traditionally, a lady is famous (or assumed) to possess breasts and a vagina. If they are used as criteria, then the presence of those organs would define the person as a female, and the absence, rules the individual OUT as a female. It is obvious this cannot be used as defining an individual as a female. This narrowed view is very sexist would define a lady as being made up of only breasts along with a vagina. Exactly what does it mean to possess All humans have breasts. It is simply dependent on size. Would you, then,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], define a lady as having larger breasts than a man? Clearly, naturally we all have seen, this can't be true. It may be true for some but not ALL. If it does not affect ALL, it wouldn't be utilized for a defining criterion. Most of us have seen ladies who have minimally developed breasts. Most of us have seen obese males with very large and pendulous breasts, as well as everyone in between. One might argue, woman breast, no matter size, is different than a man because it can produce milk. Scientific truth is that a man breast can produce milk if sufficiently stimulated. The presence or lack of breasts CANNOT be used as criteria to classify a human as man or woman, as it applies to both. B) Presence or lack of a vagina/Presence or lack of a penis/Presence or absence of a scrotum/testicles: Well, then, regardless of breasts,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], a lady includes a vagina, and a male includes a penis and a scrotum with testicles. This limited definition makes it simple to invalidate it as being scientific criteria. If you define a female as having breasts and a vagina, then exactly what do you call her if she's one of those elements removed, as with cancer? By using this anatomical definition, she would not be considered a lady, nor could she be described as a male. Under those limitations she would not legally be permitted to marry--and IF already married would she need to get divorce, or would the wedding be nullified? And also the same for a male; if his penis or scrotum or testicles removed because of trauma, or cancer, is he no longer a male? If you say he's still a male, then obviously the presence (or absence) or these organs make do difference, and thus can't be used as criteria. 3) Genetic differences: Well, then, an individual, to become a female, needs to be a minimum of BORN with breasts and a vagina, along with a male should be BORN with a penis and testicles, in order to be gender classified. Biologically, these cannot be used as criteria. Many people are born with vaginas; some are born with penises. However,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], many aren't born with either, and some are born with both, yet others are born with organs which are so unformed you can't tell what they are. Just how do we classify these others? Due to genetic problems,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], many youngsters are born with what are termed, genitalia, meaning one cannot tell by looking when they are man or woman. Sometimes a young child comes into the world using what seems to be male genitalia on the outside, but mostly female organs on the inside, or vice-versa. Wouldso would we classify these individuals? Man or woman? Who would have the right to arbitrarily assign a gender to someone that has the anatomical attributes of both or none? Numerous terms happen to be used to classify these individuals: hermaphrodites (those who have both male and female genitalia); neuters (those who have neither); and also the more current term: intersex persons, as that term encompasses all physical sexual abnormalities. Underneath the current law, a person with a few of these physical abnormalities wouldn't be able to get married whatsoever, since that individual cannot be classified as male or female. Some might think: These persons are so quite few; it really is not a factor that should be considered. False. These people comprise a much larger segment from the population than many people think. But a lot more people than which are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], most of which won show up until later. Here we provide a review of statistics drawn from articles by Brown University researcher Anne Fausto-Sterling.2 The foundation for that article was an extensive review of the medical literature from 1955 to 1998 aimed at producing numeric estimates for the frequency of sex variations. Observe that the frequency of a few of these conditions, for example congenital adrenal hyperplasia, differs for various populations. These statistics are approximations. Not XX and not XYone in 1,666 births Klinefelter (XXY)one in 1,000 births Androgen insensitivity syndromeone in 13,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],000 births Partial androgen insensitivity syndromeone in 130,000 births Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasiaone in 13,000 births Late onset adrenal hyperplasiaone in 66 individuals Vaginal agenesisone in 6,000 births Ovotestesone in 83,000 births Idiopathic (no discernible medical cause)one out of 110,000 births Iatrogenic (caused by treatment,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother)no estimate 5 alpha reductase deficiencyno estimate Mixed gonadal dysgenesisno estimate Complete gonadal dysgenesisone in 150,000 births Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft)one out of 2,000 births Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis)one in 770 births Final amount of people whose bodies differ from standard male or femaleone in 100 births Final amount of people receiving surgery to genital appearanceone or two in 1,000 births 1 Dreger, Alice Domurat. 1998. Ambiguous Sex Ambivalent Medicine? Ethical Issues within the Management of Intersexuality. Hastings Center Report, 28, 3: 24-35. 2 Blackless, Melanie, Anthony Charuvastra, Amanda Derryck, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Karl Lauzanne, and Ellen Lee. 2000. How sexually dimorphic shall we be? Review and synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology 12:151-166. If you use the lesser estimate, 1 in 2000 births have such ambiguous genitalia that the expert needs to be contacted, that comes down to almost 2,100 births annually in the United States. This can be a lot of people who cannot be determined to be male or female. In Ten years that is almost 21,000 persons. This approximation only handles external genitalia; if you include all the others shown within the table, who may have a mixture of physical characteristics of both male and female, for example Kleinfelter or Turner the numbers tend to be higher. Kleinfelter males (who frequently have both men and women physical characteristics) are estimated at between One in every 1000, to 1 in every 2000 births in america; this would be an additional 1000-2100 births a year towards the above estimates; Turner females are estimated at 1 in every 5000 births, or another almost 1000 births a year (sex chromosome abnormalities will be discussed below). Some infants, who would otherwise be known as the female, are born with fused labia, in order that it appears as a scrotum--they do not have a vagina. There are limitless variations on the theme for both male and female children. Since there are thousands of genital malformations and abnormalities each year in the US (and all sorts of around the globe) the presence or lack of any particular genital configuration cannot be used as a criteria for classifying a person as man or woman. A woman can bear a child or has a uterus, so she will bear a child. Not necessarily. There are lots of people who most would classify as a who don't have, nor were born with, a uterus. Sometimes an amount happen to be a uterus is just a streak of ligament. Exactly the same would affect the presence, or absence, of ovaries. The ability of being able to bear a young child can't be used as criteria, because many normal women cannot bear children for a variety of reasons, whether they have, or have had, a uterus (or even the presence or lack of ovaries). Ok then, clearly the only definitive way to tell a from a is in the genes: a female has 2 chromosomes,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and a has one and one If this sounds like the way the legal definition may ultimately be framed to obviously separate after which thousands and thousands of individuals will not be able to obtain married as they do not fall into each one of those definitions. As many people know, the chromosomes are those which determine gender. Yes, the existence of two X chromosomes will determine a female, and one X and one Y will determine a male; but there are millions of those who have sex chromosomes in other arrangements. Everyone must have at least ONE X; not to have one is incompatible with life. (Merck Manual, 2012). How do we classify a person who only has ONE X (X,O) and absolutely nothing else? Why not a individual who has XXY? An individual who has XYY? A person who has XXYY? A person who has XXX, or XXXX, or XXXXXXY? Or XYYYYYY? There are millions of people who have a genetic configuration other than that of the male or female. If you used this as criteria for thousands would never have the ability to ever be legally married. Genetic configuration can't be used as criteria for determining the differences between a men and women because it would discriminate against thousands of adults. To sum up, one cannot use mental differences to classify a person as man or woman; one cannot use the presence or lack of external genitalia or breasts to classify an individual as male or female; and one cannot use the genetic configuration of the individual to classify that individual as man or woman, because in most of the above situations, you will find thousands who'll unfit into either or both classifications. If you fail to use any of these as a sure-fire method to classify ALL humans as EITHER male or female, how's it going going to define what it's, to become a male or perhaps a female, so that all persons are either either, but not both, nor neither? If you fail to definitively define what it is to become male or to be female, how will you create or uphold a law stipulating these traits as a requirement to accomplish or engage in the contract (marriage)? Religiously, it might be desirable to classify everyone as whether male or female, but biologically it is nearly impossible. Many thousands are partially both, or neither. Have you been familar using the KISS principle? Is the homosexual act natural or un-natural? Will it serve any purpose beyond sexual gratification? Is marriage an institution ordained by God or is it really your body of laws based on the state? Does it matter what God says about this? A quick question - intuitive answers. The real story here's not about homosexuality - its about the moral abyss that people have fallen into, and willingness of those with intellect, character, means and influence, not only to begin - but to tug as many as they can in with them.
#3 - Fri May 11, 2012 12:18 AM EDT
SL Cabbie
Ah, that old "slippery slope, we're headed to hell-in-a-handbasket" argument.
That certain was old in Cotton Mather's day. You did study about him, didn't you? He figured prominently inside a little episode of the this continent's history known as the Salem Witch Trials.
Now why, Eyesey, would God create gay people? Particularly a loving God.
And my KISS principle (no prizes what I'm thinking you could really kiss) suggests there's more to the entire issue than your simplistic attempt at moralizing addresses.
You are aware, for instance, the incidence of child abuse among children raised in lesbian households is zero--repeat zero. Note: You'll need your individual or online 'Strong's Concordance' to comprehend what God says there. Smile

Furthermore, since you apparently do not know, homosexuals will have the capability to love. Love, a capacity that goes unfulfilled and in some cases unbridled for a myriad of women and men in the "gay" community, because of formerly oppressive laws and grevious attitudes such as yours today.相关的主题文章：

http://www.diprolenezkxei.fora.pl/alfie-there-teeth-bared-remember-that-thing-felt-comment,1/are-men-slobs-nike-blazer-mcin,13138.html#13352

http://www.glucophagemwnbi.fora.pl/belle-that-just-one-feared-you-herever-the-scars,1/walking-relieves-constipation-nike-blazer-salq,13375.html#13671

http://www.loltestab.fora.pl/forum-testowe,1/walking-for-easy-weight-loss-nike-blazer-frow,3766.html#3788

http://www.combiventlwv.fora.pl/combivent-inhalation,1/418-hayes-street-san-francisco-spun3-nike-blazer-q,4340.html#4382

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.discountphentermineonline.fora.pl/forum-testowe,1/asia-will-lead-the-future-in-mobile-revolution-spu,5496.html#5540

http://www.nextovercharge.fora.pl/art-corner,25/grilled-chicken-chili-verde-and-corn-on-the-cob-wi,4919.html#5081

http://www.rakenbymd.fora.pl/coke-from-waits-poker-onnie-mentioned-fantasy-casino-shoots-you-held-his-anything,1/a-canadian-reaches-biathlon-word-cup-podium-for-fi,4173.html#4201

http://www.portfolk.fora.pl/koncerty,1/a-conversation-for-classical-violins-spun5-nike-bl,5079.html#5535

http://www.compazinegtccv.fora.pl/what-say-watery-smile-work-during-quiet-breath-ambien-strengths-loove-you-iscouraged,1/but-not-for-depression-nike-blazer-hujp,5254.html#5286

http://www.aciphextozby.fora.pl/something-went-know-her-night-life-weight,1/discount-jimmy-choo-flat-shoes-sales-nike-blazer-e,3773.html#3795

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.drshogun.fora.pl/swiat,21/nike-dunks-hits-top-of-charts-in-a-strange-way-nik,9498.html#9882

http://www.vioxxyptxz.fora.pl/alfred-frisk-help-the-walking-corpse-hiding-growing-marijuana-plants-sleep-through-onata,1/q-a-considering-wonder-mistress-gabrielle-bernstei,3189.html#3217

http://www.hardpartyprodss.fora.pl/hard-party-production,3/63-million-in-counterfeiting-case-spun3-nike-blaze,4279.html#4311