forum zespołu muzyki folk Portfolk

cheapbag214s

'Barack Obama is really a man of history'
Let me finish tonight with this.
Barack Obama is really 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, prior to his selection as editor of the Harvard Law Review,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], was eventful. Extraordinary, really. As he place it in that great speech in Boston eight years ago, "Only in this country is my story possible."
As I speak tonight, he has been our president for 3 and a half years, and that we are used to something that is extraordinary: an African-American president within the White House.
And yesterday, he did it again: becoming obama who declared himself for same-sex marriage. Years, decades from now,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], they will not be referring to situations, precisely the extraordinary fact that no one else had ever done it. He made it happen. He, Barack Obama.
And thus we move ahead, perhaps, to more history.
Something I have come to believe, which is political in nature, that this is what Barack Obama must be doing: making history. As soon as he becomes yet another president,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], maintaining the way in which things are, he will lose himself, his historic self. He's, I suppose I'm saying, just as much a captive of history like a captor. He needs to be making history again and again, if he stops, he stops being what he can be, and the United states citizens will know it.
Consider this before you decide to think of the politics: if you're black within this country, you will know a black man could be president because the first is. If you're gay, you know that America, at its most idealistic, means your to love because an American president has now declared as much.
We live in a powerful time, and, so long as Barack Obama reaches the helm, it'll continue.
WHY LAWS MANDATING MARRIAGE From a Along with a ARE SCIENTIFICALLY ABSURD by Daniel Smith, RN,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Doctoral Student There is a current trend for states to mandate marriage laws stipulating that a marriage are only legally recognized from a and a woman which prohibits marriage. This ought to be more correctly known as same-gender marriage, not same sex. The word is used incorrectly,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and also, is definitely an emotionally inflammatory or salacious term, at least with a members of the far right. First, as likely to enact laws with different biological basis, we ought to use precise biological terms: we ought to use and never and also, since these are sociological terms, not biological ones. Also, if we are likely to enact a law whatsoever, it should be agreed that any law, to be fair,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], should be applied to all adult members of the population equally; to not do so results in discrimination. The issue with a law stipulating marriage as that from a and a is: if you are planning to become so specific regarding stipulate the requirements who might enter an agreement of the type (marriage contract), or engage in this legal activity, then those who favor such a law with your specific requirements, ought to be required to precisely define the terms, and the like that there is no uncertainty of who is qualified, and who is not, to initiate said marriage contract. Many people would think this absurd: everybody knows the main difference between a male and a female. Many, otherwise most,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], people assume, incorrectly, that everybody, all humans, are generally one, or even the other. They take for granted that persons identified through the public as male, can easily be identified by physical factors present with all males, and also the same regarding females. Situations are not too cut and dried biologically. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to convey mental, physical, and/or even genetic factors to define what it is to become a or to be a such that all humans will either be one or the other; there will always be a sizeable number of humans which have physical and/or genetic attributes which will prevent them from being definitively called either male or female. Additionally, there are millions of persons who've physical features that would enable them to be placed in both men and women categories. That law must be withdrawn as being too vague to become enforced, because the genders identified in the law can't be undeniably identified and classified. Should you don know what you looking for, how you determine if you thought it was? The terms, and therefore are nouns, or terms,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], not descriptions. A law must be explicit on the meaning or descriptions of terms for a law to become verified or enforced. For instance, if you use a term that you cannot define, it is an unknown variable. In math, this is represented usually by a letter, for example or We are able to evaluate the law in a mathematical way. To ensure that anyone to practice as a doctor in today's world (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 required training and scores, etc., such that we know the individual under consideration is qualified or eligible to practice in that profession. The necessary courses and other qualifications are elaborately spelled out in detail, so there is NO unknown variable. You know without a question, the person involved has met every qualification required by society, to legally participate in that activity. Regarding the current laws mandating that marriage is between a along with a would, currently, seem like: X + Z = marriage. These are represented by letters, as the terms, and not being specifically defined, are unknown. You are unaware of what each term comprises, or what the exact requirements and qualifications are. We do NOT know that each person represented by each term is qualified to take part in that activity. There has to be a way to verify eligibility, and you canrrrt do that, if you fail to define what the eligibility actually comprises. This, for me, makes the law legally too vague to be valid or even constitutional. Biologically, there are a few 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 be valid, and verifiable, one should have the ability to use one of these attributes to definitively classify any given individual as either man or woman. If you cannot classify every adult as either man or woman by using valid scientific criteria rather than religious doctrine, those laws are extremely vague and should be invalidated for the reason they discriminate against thousands of people. Before I address these criteria to understand more about why each one cannot (biologically) be used to classify each human, it ought to be noted that most humans DO fit completely into one classification or the other. They are CLEARLY man or woman. The concern here is that there is a significant part of society which cannot be clearly defined as male OR female. Some are neither, some could be considered both. Depending on those facts, this law should be found invalid,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], because it discriminates against lots of people. If the law is strict, and is enforced as is currently written this number of individuals would not be permitted to marry. Let discuss each category. 1) Mental differences: While probably many people would agree that there are some mental differences between males and females, it would be absurd to classify a person as or by their mental status. Everyone knows men that appear feminine, and ladies who're masculine, and everything in between. Clearly, mental differences Can't be accustomed to classify a person as male or female for the purposes of marriage. 2) Physical differences: Probably most people would say THIS is the area that would make it simple to tell the difference from a male along with a female not. Let us look at the items individually. A) Presence or lack of breasts: Traditionally, a lady is known (or assumed) to have breasts along with a vagina. If these are used as criteria, then your presence of these organs would define the individual as a female, and also the absence, rules the person OUT like a female. There's no question that this cannot be used as defining a person as a female. This narrowed view is extremely sexist would define a lady to be comprised of only breasts along with a vagina. What does it mean to have All humans have breasts. It is only dependent on size. Would you,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], then, define a lady as having larger breasts than a man? Clearly, as we all have experienced,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], this cannot be true. It might be true for many although not ALL. If it does not apply to ALL, it cannot be utilized for a defining criterion. We have all seen ladies who have minimally developed breasts. We have all seen obese males with very large and pendulous breasts, in addition to everyone in between. One might argue, woman breast, regardless of size, is different than a man because it can produce milk. Scientific truth is that the man breast can produce milk if sufficiently stimulated. The presence or absence of breasts CANNOT be used as criteria to classify a human as male or female, as it pertains to both. B) Presence or lack of a vagina/Presence or lack of a penis/Presence or lack of a scrotum/testicles: Well, then,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], regardless of breasts, a female includes a vagina, along with a male has 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 along with a vagina, then exactly what do you call her if she's some of those elements removed, as with cancer? By using this anatomical definition, she'd not be considered a lady, nor could she be considered 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 the same for any male; if his penis or scrotum or testicles removed due to trauma, or cancer, is he no longer a male? Should you say he IS 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, a person,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], to become a female,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], must be a minimum of BORN with breasts along with a vagina, and a male must be BORN with a penis and testicles, in order to be gender classified. Biologically, these can't be used as criteria. Many people are born with vaginas; some are born with penises. But some are not born with either,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], plus some are born with both, yet others are born with organs which are so unformed you cannot tell what they are. So how do we classify these others? As a result of genetic problems, many youngsters are born using what are termed,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], genitalia, meaning one cannot tell by looking when they are man or woman. Sometimes a child comes into the world using what seems to be male genitalia on the exterior, but mostly female organs inside, or vice-versa. How would we classify these individuals? Man or woman? Who does have the to arbitrarily assign a gender to a person who has the anatomical features of both or none? Numerous terms happen to be used to classify these people: hermaphrodites (anyone who has both men and women genitalia); neuters (anyone who has neither); and also the more current term: intersex persons,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], as that term encompasses all physical sexual abnormalities. Underneath the current law,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], you aren't a few of these physical abnormalities wouldn't be able to get married at all, since that person cannot be classified as man or woman. Some might think: These persons are so few in number; it really is not an issue that should be considered. False. These individuals comprise a much larger segment from the population than most people think. But more people than which are born with subtler types of sex anatomy variations,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], some of which won show up until later in life. Below we provide a review of statistics drawn from articles by Brown University researcher Anne Fausto-Sterling.2 The foundation for your article was a comprehensive review of the medical literature from 1955 to 1998 targeted at producing numeric estimates for the frequency of sex variations. Note that the regularity of a few of these conditions,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], 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 out of 1,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],000 births Androgen insensitivity syndromeone in 13,000 births Partial androgen insensitivity syndromeone in 130,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],000 births Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasiaone in 13,000 births Late onset adrenal hyperplasiaone in 66 individuals Vaginal agenesisone in 6,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],000 births Ovotestesone in 83,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],000 births Idiopathic (no discernible medical cause)one in 110,000 births Iatrogenic (brought on by treatment,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], for example 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 individuals whose bodies differ from standard male or femaleone in 100 births Final amount of people receiving surgery to genital appearanceone or two in 1,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],000 births 1 Dreger, Alice Domurat. 1998. Ambiguous Sex Ambivalent Medicine? Ethical Issues within the Treatment of Intersexuality. Hastings Center Report, 28, 3: 24-35. 2 Blackless, Melanie, Anthony Charuvastra, Amanda Derryck, Anne Fausto-Sterling,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], 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, One in 2000 births have such ambiguous genitalia that the expert must be called in,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], that amounts to almost 2,100 births annually in the United States. This is a large amount of individuals who can't be going to be male or female. In 10 years that's almost 21,000 persons. This approximation only deals with external genitalia; if you include all the others shown within the table, who may have a mixture of physical characteristics of both men and women, for example Kleinfelter or Turner the numbers are much higher. Kleinfelter males (who frequently have both men and women physical characteristics) are estimated at between One in every 1000, to at least one in each and every 2000 births in america; this is an additional 1000-2100 births annually to the above estimates; Turner females are estimated at One in every 5000 births, or another almost 1000 births a year (sex chromosome abnormalities is going to be discussed below). Some infants, who would otherwise be known as the female, are born with fused labia, so that it looks like a scrotum--they do not have a vagina. You will find limitless variations on the theme for both male and female children. Since there are thousands of genital malformations and abnormalities each year in america (and all over the world) the presence or lack of any particular genital configuration cannot be used as a criteria for classifying a person as male or female. A lady can bear a young child or has a uterus, so she can bear a young child. Not necessarily. There are lots of people that most would classify as a who don't have,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], nor were born with, a uterus. Sometimes what would happen to be a uterus is merely a streak of ligament. Exactly the same would apply to the presence, or absence, of ovaries. The ability of having the ability to bear a child cannot be used as criteria,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], because many normal women are unable to bear children for a variety of reasons, whether or not they have, or have experienced, a uterus (or the presence or lack of ovaries). Ok then, clearly the only definitive method to tell a from the is incorporated in the genes: a female has 2 chromosomes, and a has one and one If this sounds like how the legal definition may ultimately be framed to clearly separate and then thousands and thousands of individuals will not be able to obtain married as they do not fall into either one of these definitions. As numerous people know, the chromosomes are those which determine gender. Yes, the presence of two X chromosomes will determine a female, and something X and something Y will determine a male; but there are millions of people who have sex chromosomes in other arrangements. Everyone should have a minumum of one X; to not have one is incompatible with life. (Merck Manual, 2012). How do we classify a person who only has ONE X (X,O) and nothing else? What about a person who has XXY? An individual who has XYY? A person who has XXYY? A person who has XXX,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], or XXXX,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], or XXXXXXY? Or XYYYYYY? There are thousands of people who have a genetic configuration apart from that of a man or woman. Should you used this as criteria for thousands would never have the ability to ever be legally married. Genetic configuration cannot be used as criteria for determining the differences between a men and women because it would discriminate against a large number of adults. To sum up, one cannot use mental differences to classify a person as male or female; one cannot use the presence or lack of external genitalia or breasts to classify a person as man or woman; and something cannot make use of the genetic configuration of an individual to classify that individual as man or woman, because in most from the above situations, there are thousands who'll unfit into either or both classifications. If you cannot use any of these like a sure-fire method to classify ALL humans as EITHER male or female,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], how are you likely to define what it's, to BE a male or a female, such that all persons are either one or the other, but not both,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], nor neither? If you fail to definitively define what it is to become male in order to be female, how will you create or uphold a law stipulating these characteristics as a requirement to complete or participate in the contract (marriage)? Religiously, it might be desirable to classify everyone as either a man or woman, but biologically it is nearly impossible. Thousands are partially both, or neither. Are you familar with the KISS principle? May be the homosexual act natural or un-natural? Does it serve any purpose beyond sexual gratification? Is marriage an institution ordained by God or is it really your body of laws defined by their state? Will it appear God says about this? Simple questions - intuitive answers. The real story here's not about homosexuality - its concerning the moral abyss that people have fallen into, and willingness of those with intellect, character, means and influence, to not only begin - but to drag as many as they can in with them.
#3 - Fri May 11, 2012 12:18 AM EDT
SL Cabbie
Ah, the old "slippery slope, we're headed to hell-in-a-handbasket" argument.
That certain was old in Cotton Mather's day. You probably did study about him, didn't you? He figured prominently in a little episode of this 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 can really kiss) suggests there's more to the entire issue than your simplistic attempt for moralizing addresses.
You're aware, for example, the incidence of child abuse among children raised in lesbian households is zero--repeat zero. Note: You will need your individual or online 'Strong's Concordance' to understand what God says there. Smile

Furthermore, since you apparently do not know, homosexuals do have the capacity to love. Love, a capacity that goes unfulfilled and in some cases unbridled for a numerous men and women within the "gay" community,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], due to formerly oppressive laws and grevious attitudes such as yours today.
相关的主题文章：

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]