I think the entire matter would be solved if government got out of the contract. If homosexuals want to form their own groups to sanction their relationships let them do it. Barring that they can hire attorneys to set up the agreement.

Homosexual acts are contrary to natural law.

The Republicans have an opportunity to drive a wedge deep into the the black-Democratic Party Alliance as well as the Hispanic-Democratic Party ALliance by exploiting this. B****s & Hispanics have been demonstrated time & again as having far more conservative view of issues like homosexual rights and right-to-lifeyet people like the Reverends Al & Jesse and Luis Guttierez have programmed these people into doing the party line v**e every eleactiopn day. They have the opportunity but they won't develop it and they deserve what they get. They don't have the cojones to really destroy the Democratic Party and its marxism.

:) :?: :-D

I often wondered about this. The original Jews of Judea were sephardim and they colonized in Greece, Egpyt, across the Mid-east and northern Africa. There were also others in Rome & probably Spain & Portugal but I don't think France. This was accelerated after the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans in 49AD and the diaspora

The Ashken**i, or Khazarians, were a tribe along the northwest shore of the Caspian & had a mass conversion to Judaism. I think they became large majority of the Jews of central & eastern Europe. With the southern Europe and others being the Sephardim.

It seems obvious that some Jews remained in the province of Judea and it's just about guaranteed that over the Millenia they interbred with the other non-jews of the region, the descendants even of Esau, the Philistines, Samarians, etc.

I've read the the Ashken**is dominate Israeli politics and often to the detriment of the Sephardim. How true that it, I don't know but it's certainly consistent that many Palestinians have genes form the original tribes. It would be interesting to know the percentages.

I am not sure if I understand your point here.

My point is simply that no one, and I mean no one, should be compelled to associate in any way with anyone, businesswise or personalwise. Any cure of the bigotry it supposedly represents is worse than the disease and there will always be people who will try to exploit the law for their own purposes. (And BTW, how do you separate business from personal? We live our lives moving from one to the other, likely four or five times each hour.)

To illustrate, when I was a medical student at our clinic, a black woman was trying to exploit the civil rights situation and tried to accuse me of r****m. She filed a letter of compliant at the school and due to the sensitivity of the time, my career was suspended in the balance for weeks.

And try this one on for size. In 1964, a World's Fair was held in New York City. The state license plate had 'World's Fair' across the bottom. There was a law suit about it because the Fair was run by a corporation and the plaintiff(s?) maintained that it represented free advertising for a private corporation. It was upheld and those who wanted could block the words out with tape.

Any L**T complainants are just looking for publicity.

Yes, in business and personal dealings, it is within anyone's rights to discriminate on any basis of his choosing. Yoou have done exactly the same thing when you choose a Snickers bar over a Milky Way.

Everyone is missing the legal points in the Indiana case here, even the Indianans, their governor & likely p**********l candidate, Marco Rubio & all the talking heads; any kind of discriminaton is not unconstitutional & in violation of no natural law. It is only illegal. The laws against discrimination in private exchanges free market are unconstitutional

The current flap is based upon the 1964 & 1965 Civil Rights bills. The target was racial discrimination. The progressives justified both through the regulation of interstate commerce clause, a distortion of both the wording & the intent. At the time they were passed, no one in his right mind would have thought they'd be mangled to justify what is happening with the entire L**T situation.

But no matter who the intended target is, what is not under discussion, and should be, is what these bills do to individual & private property rights. They are full frontal assaults on them and no one, not Gov. Pence, not Sen. Marco Rubio is saying that such decisions are no business of the government's. They are not advocating that discrimination is the right of both parties in any volunatary & free market exchange.

That's the lesson, no one,not even from the Republicans, has the b---s to say it & until someone does bring it right out into the open, governmental assault on our privacy rights will continue.

Everyone is missing the legal points in the Indiana case here, even the Indianans, their governor & likely p**********l candidate, Marco Rubio & all the talking heads; any kind of discriminaton is not unconstitutional & in violation of no natural law. It is only illegal. The laws against discrimination in private exchanges free market are unconstitutional

The current flap is based upon the 1964 & 1965 Civil Rights bills. The target was racial discrimination. The progressives justified both through the regulation of interstate commerce clause, a distortion of both the wording & the intent. At the time they were passed, no one in his right mind would have thought they'd be mangled to justify what is happening with the entire L**T situation.

But no matter who the intended target is, what is not under discussion, and should be, is what these bills do to individual & private property rights. They are full frontal assaults on them and no one, not Gov. Pence, not Sen. Marco Rubio is saying that such decisions are no business of the government's. They are not advocating that discrimination is the right of both parties in any volunatary & free market exchange.

That's the lesson, no one has the b---s to say it & until someone does bring it right out into the open, governmental assault on our privacy rights will continue.

Here, we have to agree to disagree.

Precisely; you see what you get. You can draw NO scientifically valid conclusion from it. If you shone a light across space, and saw some rays doing this & others doing that, what could you conclude?

1. Did they predict the results?

2. Were the factors used similar to the ones in nature?

3. Also, has anyone shown a species with recent examples unable to have fertile offspring with earlier examples?

I am somewhat hazy about the details of the the Lake Nairobi incident but, it was in that lake (or another African lake) that some investigators had some fish and left them. When they returned, the fish had changed and they said, oh evolution. It's not the best example but I distinctly remember it.

In your case of the sickle cell mutation, it occurred spontaneously with no controls. To what was it due? Ionizing radiation? Chemicals? ionizing electricity?

Finally, please show a controlled laboratory exdperiment that produced a mutational change. In one that I know of, they bombarded the seeds of red carnations with more ionizing radiation than they would receive in eons and when they planted them they got red carnations.

Your turn.

You have just proved my statement; you've described serial se******n which I admit does occur. I think most do.

However, a cornerstone of evolutionary theory is the mutation which is extremely rare and in 99% of the cases is detrimental. There has never been a demonstration of it in laboratory conditions. Please cite a single case where mutation has been induced.

Nor, for that matter, has any prospective evolution EVER been demonstrated. No one has ever been able to predict the outcome, the cornestone of science. You can predict the outcome of light travel, gravity, the expansion of gas, etc. You can't do it with evolution.

The fish in Lake Nairobi is a classic example of how evolutionists seize on things as examples that prove evolution. No theory is given such indulgence.

About the most ludicrous exampe I ever read was an article in The Sunday New York Times Magazine where the author tried to fit an end-of-life phenomenon into the theory. All I could say was WOW.

Pray tell nwtk2007, where do you get your science & facts?

:) :D :) :-) :D :-D :( :?: :?: :x
Evolution is the only theory that is given the presumption of validity in the face of all new evidence. New discoveries are met with questions of how they fit in with evolution rather than the possibiity that evolution is wrong. Even relativity, the most sacred of theories, is always being challenged by new discoveries. Much of evolution 'evidence' is just serial se******n.

Evolution has never been subjected to controlled laboratory experiments. Instead, observers leave, come back and say, oh, evolution has occurred when faced with species changes. That's hardly scientifically valid.