forum zespołu muzyki folk Portfolk

cheapbag214s

'Barack Obama is a man of history',[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
Allow me to finish tonight with this,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych].
Barack Obama is a man of history. His very life was an event--this meeting of an American woman from Kansas with 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. Because he place it for the reason that great speech in Boston eight years back,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], "Only in this country is my story possible."
When i speak tonight, he has been our president for 3 . 5 years, and that we are used to something that is extraordinary: an African-American president in the White House.
And yesterday, he made it happen again: becoming obama who declared himself for same-sex marriage. Years, decades from now, they will not be talking about the circumstances, precisely the extraordinary fact that no one else had ever done it. He did it. He, Obama.
And thus we move ahead, perhaps, to more history.
Something I've arrived at believe, and it is political anyway, this is exactly what Barack Obama needs to be doing: making history. The moment he becomes just another president, maintaining the way things are, he will 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,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], he stops being what he is able to be, and also the American people will know it.
Just think of this before you decide to suppose the politics: if you're black in this country, you know that a black man could be president because one is. If you're gay, you know that America, at its most idealistic, means your to love because a united states president has declared just as much.
We live in a powerful time, and, so long as Obama reaches the helm, it'll continue.
WHY LAWS MANDATING MARRIAGE From a AND A ARE SCIENTIFICALLY ABSURD by Daniel Smith, RN, Doctoral Student There is 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 ought to be more correctly known as same-gender marriage, not same sex. The term can be used incorrectly, and also, is an emotionally inflammatory or salacious term, a minimum of with a people in the far right. First, as going to enact laws with different biological basis, we should use precise biological terms: we should use and not and also, since they are sociological terms, not biological ones. Also, as going to enact a law whatsoever, it ought to be agreed that any law, to become fair, ought to be applied to all adult members of the population equally; to not do so leads to 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 of whom might enter into an agreement of the type (marriage contract), or participate in this legal activity, then those who favor such a law with such specific requirements, should be necessary to precisely define the terms, and such that there is no uncertainty of who's qualified, and who is not, to enter into said marriage contract. Many people would think this absurd: everyone knows the difference between a male and a female. Many, if not most, people assume, incorrectly,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], that everyone, all humans, are either one, or even the other. They take for granted that persons identified by the public as male, may be easily identified by physical factors common to all males,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and the same regarding females. Things are not too simple biologically. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to convey mental, physical, and/or even genetic factors to define what it is to be a or to be considered a so that all humans will either be one or the other; there will always be a sizeable quantity of humans that have physical and/or genetic attributes that will prevent them from being definitively called either man or woman. Additionally, there are millions of persons who have physical features that will make them be placed both in men and women categories. That law should be withdrawn to be too vague to be enforced, because the genders identified in the law can't be undeniably identified and classified. If you don know what you searching for, the way you determine if you thought it was? The terms,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and therefore are nouns, or terms, not descriptions. A law should be explicit about the meaning or descriptions of terms in order for a law to be verified or enforced. For example, if you use a term that you cannot define, it's an unknown variable. In math,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], this really is represented usually by a letter, such as or We can evaluate the law in a mathematical way. In order for someone to practice as a doctor in today's world (or lawyer, or any other profession),[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], we require: Person + professional degree + pass boards along with other required training=ability to practice in profession. You will find, however, other descriptions that stipulate the necessary training and scores, etc., such that we all know the individual in question is qualified or eligible to practice for the reason that profession. The required courses along with other qualifications are elaborately explained in detail, so there isn't any unknown variable. You know with no 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 from a along with a would, currently, seem like: X + Z = marriage. They are represented by letters, as the terms,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and never being specifically defined, are unknown. You are unacquainted with what each term comprises, or exactly what the exact requirements and qualifications are. We don't realize 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 cannot define exactly what the eligibility actually comprises. This, in my opinion, helps make the law legally too vague to be valid as well as constitutional. Biologically, there are some methods to discern the differences between a male and a female. 1) mental differences 2) physical differences 3) genetic differences For that law to be valid,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and verifiable, you ought to have the ability to play one of these attributes to definitively classify a individual as either male or female. If you fail to classify every adult as either man or woman by utilizing valid scientific criteria rather than religious doctrine, those laws are too vague and really should be invalidated on the grounds they discriminate against tens of thousands of people. Before I address these criteria to understand more about why each one of these cannot (biologically) be used to classify each human, it should be noted that most humans DO fit completely into one classification or the other. They're CLEARLY male or female. The concern here is that there's a significant part of society which cannot be clearly defined as male OR female. Some are neither, some might be considered both. Depending on those facts, this law must be found invalid, because it discriminates against lots of people. If the law is strict, and it is enforced as is currently written this number of individuals would never be allowed to marry. Let discuss each category. 1) Mental differences: While probably most people would agree that there are some mental differences between men and women, it would be absurd to classify a person as or by their mental status. Everybody knows men that appear feminine, and women who are masculine,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and everything in between. Clearly, mental differences Can't be accustomed to classify a person as male or female for that purpose of marriage. 2) Physical differences: Probably many people would say This is actually the area that will make it simple to tell the difference from a male and a female not. Let us look at the items individually. A) Presence or lack of breasts: Traditionally, a lady is famous (or assumed) to have breasts along with a vagina. If these are used as criteria, then the presence of those organs would define the individual like a female, and also the absence, rules the individual OUT like a female. It is obvious this can't be used as defining an individual as a female. This narrowed view is extremely sexist would define a woman as being made up of only breasts along with a vagina. Exactly what does it mean to have All humans have breasts. It is only dependent on size. Can you,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], then, define a lady as having larger breasts than a man? Clearly, naturally we all have experienced, this cannot be true. It might be true for many but not ALL. Whether it does not affect ALL, it wouldn't be utilized for a defining criterion. We have all seen women who have minimally developed breasts. Most of us have seen obese males with large and pendulous breasts, in addition to everyone 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,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], as it pertains to both. B) Presence or absence of a vagina/Presence or absence of a penis/Presence or absence of a scrotum/testicles: Well, then, regardless of breasts, a lady has a vagina, and a male includes a penis and a scrotum with testicles. This limited definition makes it easy to invalidate it as being scientific criteria. If you define a lady as having breasts along with a vagina, then what do you call her if she's some of those elements removed, as in cancer? Applying this anatomical definition, she'd not be considered a female, nor could she be considered a male. Under those limitations she'd not legally be permitted to marry--and IF already married would she be compelled to get divorce, or would the marriage be nullified? And also the same for a male; if his penis or scrotum or testicles removed due to 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 cannot be used as criteria. 3) Genetic differences: Well, then, a person,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], in order to be a lady, must be a minimum of BORN with breasts along with a vagina, along with a male must be BORN with a penis and testicles, to become gender classified. Biologically, these cannot be used as criteria. Some people are born with vaginas; some are born with penises. However,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], many are not born with either, and some are born with both, and others are born with organs that are so unformed you cannot tell what they are. Just how do we classify these others? Due to genetic problems, many youngsters are born with what are termed, genitalia, meaning one cannot tell by looking if they are male or female. Sometimes a child is born using what appears to be male genitalia on the exterior, but mostly female organs inside, or vice-versa. How would we classify these people? Man or woman? Who does have the right to arbitrarily assign a gender to a person who has the anatomical features of both or none? Numerous terms have been accustomed to classify these individuals: hermaphrodites (anyone who has 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. Under the current law, a person with some of these physical abnormalities would not be able to get married at all, since that person can't be classified as male or female. 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 many people think. But more people than which are born with subtler types of sex anatomy variations, most of which won appear until later. Below we provide a review of statistics sucked from an article by Brown University researcher Anne Fausto-Sterling.2 The basis for that article was an extensive overview of the medical literature from 1955 to 1998 targeted at producing numeric estimates for the frequency of sex variations. Note that the frequency of some of these conditions, for example congenital adrenal hyperplasia, differs for different populations. These statistics are approximations. Not XX and never XYone in 1,666 births Klinefelter (XXY)one in 1,000 births Androgen insensitivity syndromeone in 13,000 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, 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 in 2,000 births Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis)one in 770 births Total number of individuals whose bodies differ from standard male or femaleone in 100 births Total number 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 Treatment 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 are we? Review and synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology 12:151-166. If you are using the lesser estimate, 1 in 2000 births have such ambiguous genitalia that the expert needs to be called in, that comes down to almost 2,100 births a year in the United States. This is a lot of individuals who can't be going to be male or female. In Ten years that's almost 21,000 persons. This approximation only deals with external genitalia; if you include all of the others shown within the table, who might have a combination of physical characteristics of both male and female, 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 1 in every 2000 births in america; this would be an additional 1000-2100 births annually towards 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 well be known as the female, are born with fused labia, in order that it looks like a scrotum--they don't have a vagina. You will find almost endless variations on the theme for both male and female children. Because there are a large number of genital malformations and abnormalities every year in the US (and all over the world) the presence or absence of any particular genital configuration cannot be used like a criteria for classifying a person as man or woman. A lady can bear a child or has a uterus, so she can bear a young child. Certainly not. There are lots of people that most would classify like a who don't have, nor were born with, a uterus. Sometimes an amount happen to be a uterus is merely a streak of connective tissue. The same would affect the presence, or absence, of ovaries. Ale having the ability to bear a young child cannot be used as criteria, because many normal women cannot bear children for a variety of reasons, whether or not they have, or have experienced, a uterus (or the presence or absence of ovaries). Ok then, clearly the only real definitive method to tell a from the is incorporated in the genes: a female has 2 chromosomes, and a has one and something If this is how the legal definition may ultimately be framed to obviously distinguish between after which thousands and thousands of people won't be able to obtain married because they do not fall under either one of these 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 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 the first is incompatible with life. (Merck Manual, 2012). How can we classify an individual who has only ONE X (X,O) and absolutely nothing else? What about a person who has XXY? A person who has XYY? A person who has XXYY? An individual who has XXX,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], or XXXX, or XXXXXXY? Or XYYYYYY? There are thousands of people who have an inherited configuration other than that of the male or female. Should you used this as criteria for thousands would not have the ability to be legally married. Genetic configuration can't be used as criteria for determining the differences between a male and female since it would discriminate against thousands of adults. In summary, one cannot use mental differences to classify a person as male or female; one cannot use the presence or absence of external genitalia or breasts to classify a person as male or female; and something cannot use the genetic configuration of the individual to classify that individual as male or female, because in most from the above situations, you will find thousands who will not fit into either or both classifications. If you fail to use any of the above like a sure-fire way to classify ALL humans as EITHER man or woman, how's it going going to define what it's, to BE a male or a female,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], such that all persons are either either, although not both, nor neither? If you fail to definitively define what it is to be male in order to be female, how will you create or uphold a law stipulating these characteristics like a requirement to complete or participate in anything (marriage)? Religiously, it might be desirable to classify everyone as whether man or woman, but biologically it is extremely difficult. Many 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 simply your body of laws defined by the state? Does it appear God says about this? A quick question - intuitive answers. The actual story here is not about homosexuality - its concerning the moral abyss that we have fallen into, and willingness of those with intellect, character, means and influence, not only to jump in - but to drag as much as they are able to in with them.
#3 - Fri May 11, 2012 12:18 AM EDT
SL Cabbie
Ah, the old "slippery slope,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], we're headed to hell-in-a-handbasket" argument.
That one was old in Cotton Mather's day. You did study about him, didn't you? He figured prominently in a little episode of the this continent's history called 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 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, because you apparently do not know, homosexuals do have the capability to love. Love, a capacity that goes unfulfilled and in many cases unbridled for a numerous men and women in the "gay" community, because of 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]