Actually I must argue this here. If something (space) is expanding, it DOES NOT (via physics) require space to expand into, since space itself is what is expanding, space is thus being created.
Correct.
Don't tell me. Tell mare.
As far as the "universe" theoretically it is "infinite" as far as the layman need be concerned.
The 'theoretical' expansion of the universe through infinity rests on a curious 'quantity' called the cosmological constant.
I say curious because it has this unique property of being created out of
NOTHING (meaning it's energy density remains the same despite indefinite spatial expansion - hence 'constant').
And in the real, common sense world,
NOTHING, or
EMPTY SPACE doesn't exist. Remember that space-time is functionally dependent on the existence of matter/energy.
The thing is that the "universe" spatially is created by it's very expansion, beyond that, no idea, depending on the dimensional theory applied you could simply go to XYZ 0,0,0 and end back up at 10^a, 10^a, 10^a coordinately (where a is the exponential of the arbitrary coordinates given for the opposing side of the universe in which you entered by exiting at the 0,0,0 coord.) Or you could simply cease to exist, though I doubt this, since mass itself creates the space around it, ones mass by being their to observe the location and crossing that threshold actually would create space
but I digress this is not for this thread, nor forum.
The cartesian coordinate system you are describing
exists only in mathemtics, and not the real world. The closest you get from this ideal is the minkowski space with a time-dependent curvature. And since this itself involves a uniform and homogenous distribution of matter throughout, its curvature is a straight line.
Bottom line - ideas of nothingness and infinity, while helpful in formulating theoretical models, simply doesn't exist within the realms of physics.
You're better off imagining god and the devil, I think.
This is your bias speaking. Plain and simple. Anti-gay rhetoric. Marriage has nothing to do with "motherhood", if you even think that..I have about 30 friends I'd like you to meet of mine who have no marriage and children. To say that marriage has anything to do with children is ridiculous.
What I have said is the anthropological basis of the institution of marriage.
If it is dependent on how individual couples see it, as you claim, then it is entirely subjective, no?
Where is the sense in having the state legislate something that is entirely dependent on the couples, themselves, eh?
Marriage is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); a close and intimate union.
Circular.
Which should be afforded to ANY two people regardless of gender or orientation.
You need no one to 'afford' you of an intimate union save yourself and your partner. You needlessly involve the state with your own affairs.
The fact that workforce insurers have a prerequisite ALONE should be reason enough to allow for marriage between same sex partners. Any other definition is purely a religious idealism.
No.
It is a consequence of the right to motherhood. When one recognizes this right as inherent in the FEMALE GENDER, the practical necessities for a woman to EXERCISE this right must be PRESENT.
This simply means that a woman's choice is made WITHOUT prejudice.
A woman who chooses to become a mother and is left alone to fend for herself and her child constitutes prejudice.
Not that women are incapable of this, only that it creates a bias to her entire gender.
Marriage does NOT effect the children in any way. A father and mother NOT married can both apply their workplace insurance to their child as well it should be. Now where this DOES come into play is due to the bad insurer policies on many insurers have. Here's a hypothetical that shows the problem with your definition. A woman has a child, the father is no where in the picture, she is in fact a lesbian and ends up in a lesbian relationship. Now she has a car accident and can no longer work and ends up losing her insurance that covered her and her child. Now the spouse of this woman has insurance that will not cover the child nor the disabled mother.
This is unbelievably off-tangent!
The right to motherhood necessarily INCLUDES the conditions that does not prejudice a woman's choice to it.
And so, rather than scream for homosexual marriages, the more logical solution is a legislation that would afford single mothers financial security, no?
Another hypothetical. A woman has a child and remarries, now whatever supposed "for the children" effects that the marriage have now apply to this father EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NO CHILDREN OF HIS OWN. How is this supported by your argument?
The biological father is still responsible for the child concieved IN the union, whether he is still married to the mother or not, no? Isn't that a clear consequence of the family relations that result in marriage.
And if the mother divorces the second husband, is the husband liable for child support?
I cannot see anything that is afforded via marriage that has anything to do with anything here. You don't really get tax breaks unless you have kids, which has nothing to do with marriage itself, as you can get those same breaks married or not with kids. And in fact being married OFTEN costs more in taxes.
Which solidifies my point, exactly.
As I said - the tax breaks given to married couples are there as support for the mother exercising her right to motherhood and the family relations that result from it.
again your supposing something that is completely aside from marriage. that inalienable right is given by biology, not a marriage license. And again, motherhood has nothing to do with marriage. If you think that then you MUST by virtue NOT allow sterile couples to marry.
Correct again.
Motherhood is not conferred to a woman by a marriage license.
Marriage, in the legal sense, is simply a way by which the state recognizes this right and the family relations that accrue from it.
This is stupid, however there is precedence for this. I worked with a man who took maternity leave because the wife had a job that required her attention and the father cared for the kid after it was born. The only maternity leave his girlfriend took was to pop the lil kid out.
Good for him. However, to legislate such a thing and compel all employers to it is absurd, no?
this is purely due to tradition and not law.
It is a principle even the law upholds.
The mother is the first person an infant bonds with - even before birth.
Purely tradition indeed!
they should be allowed, this is more religious ideology becoming law, something that should not exist. notice the locations and their majority religious beliefs.
- Florida and New Hampshire had laws forbidding adoption by homosexuals;
- Arkansas, Missouri, North Dakota and Virginia had legal precedences in which courts ruled that gays and lesbians are automatically unfit as parents because of their sexual orientation.
- California, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey had laws or regulations which specifically permit homosexual adoption.
- The remaining 40 states and the District of Columbia had no laws either forbidding or permitting adoption by gays or lesbians individuals or couples.
What are you talking about?
Adoption is a PRIVILEGE whereby the state transfers responsibility to parents that are not biologically related to the child.
I don't agree with excluding potential foster parents exclusively due to their sexual preference.
It doesn't mean, however, that sexual preference doesn't play a part in the family environment being contemplated for the child.
Equality is not defective, it's simply not applied all the time, when it very well should be. Women don't get paid as much as men, same education, same abilities, it's a statistic fact. It still isn't right though.
What are you talking about?
I am FOR gender equality.
Motherhood for males and fatherhood for females are naive and fundamentally defective notions of gender equality.
