AbsoluteKeenan

Hello all, I'm looking for a place to stay in the DFW area for a few weeks. I need to move in this weekend. I finally got the job I've been looking for. I'll be designing circuits for control systems. It's in Irving and I start this Monday, the 7th. Currently, I'm in Houston. Unfortunately, this job isn't relocating me and I haven't any money, so I need to find a place to stay for a few weeks until my first paycheck. Do any of you know someone that has a spare room to rent me? I have a mute, and extremely well behaved cat. I will also be able to pay for the rent and move out as soon as I get my first paycheck. You can find out a lot about me at my website: www.absolutereason.com and contact me via email at: keenan at absolutereason dot com. Later, Keenan

In its essentials, marriage is just a contract. Contracts can be between two or more people, it can or cannot take their sexual orientation into consideration, or sexual relationship. The marriage contract primarily focuses on sharing of property, inheriting property, the responsibility of raising children, and medical decisions if one is incapable. The contract of Marriage discriminates between types of people and amount. There can only be one man and one woman. Another is that it is defined to be only between a man and a woman. And another that has come to mind is incest (adult and consensual in this case). There may be others that I am not aware of. In these cases, they each have their special circumstances and needs. If these people desire some sort of union similar to a marriage, then the government should recognize this as any other contract. The way Vermont has done this is with a Marriage and Civil Union Certificate. This does seem to keep separated the concept of marriage (between a man and a woman) and the concept of “civil union” (between homosexuals only, I assume). I must conclude that this is proper. It has been pointed out to me that there are adoption issues raised. I agree with his what was said to me: “As for adopting children, I think that preference should probably be given to heterosexual couples, assuming other things are equal, but a lot of times there are children that most heterosexual couples don't want to adopt because of physical or mental problems with the child or because the child is not an infant. In those instances, I think that a gay couple raising a child is preferable to the child having no parents at all.”

Here is a point in which I need to state I do disagree with Capleton. I do not over generalize and state that “homosexuality is immoral”, but it is a problem. If a homosexual cannot correct his thinking (and he ought to try), then he ought to be with whoever he is attracted to and try to be as happy as he is able. It *would* be immoral for him to damn himself to try and act normal if the he is not. I also *do* think it is legitimate to discriminate against homosexual on a personal/business level. Such a deep seated psychological problem cannot be alone. There are too many irrational integrations in such a mind for the man to be trusted.

Unfortunately, that was a quote from me. It was a mistake starting from the premise that government is part of political philosophy, which is derived after moral philosophy. This, however, does not mean that laws directly reflect proper morality, and my error was caught up in that line of reasoning. I have corrected it with the help of a comment by Trey Givens. On the most part, I agree with the post by Capleton above. We have both come to similar conclusions. I disagree with his definition, though. A marriage is a concept that we have evidence of being around for 6000 years in Mesopotamia. I don’t know the particulars back then, but every dictionary I have looked at refers to a “man and woman” and “husband and wife”. Here is my corrected post from my site: The Laws of a proper society are objective and they only prohibit crimes in terms of specific physical acts of physical force. I agree that this means that the law must not intervene with the intellectual or moral life of its citizens; to follow this then is Marriage a proper realm of the Government at all? The very definition includes "union of a man and woman as husband and wife" and this certainly discriminates other types of unions. A Marriage is one type of the many contracts that men make. It is a very common contract and has become a very special one with many emotive properties. There are already contracts people can make for whatever living arrangements they want. These contracts are similar to Marriages, but is not a Marriage (by its very definition). But it is the moral ramifications, the legitimacy and sanction that Marriage brings that many of those trying to change the law either desire or want to remove. The idea, though, to create a not-quite-a-real-marriage-but-close does not protect the concept of Marriage. It is simply an invalid multiplication of terms. If you want to remove the moral ramifications that a Marriage brings, you ultimately have to abolish Marriages and form a new Union/Consolidation contract. So to answer my question about Marriage, yes, the government should uphold the Marriage Contract and all other contracts.

Amazing how “horribly wrong” some people claim Mentzer was when there is ample evidence that his principles do and have worked. I have actually gained 20 lbs in 10 months strictly using his workout. With no fat addition. I looked at that hypertrophy page and it sure does look scientific. If I were a professional trainer or body builder, I might actually try to read through it, but not anytime soon. I want to be healthy with a large muscular physique, but, like me, there are few who want to look like that guy in the photo or spend their time learning whatever that says and compare it to all the other “scientific bodybuilding” theories out there to go workout. If you do, so be it. Mentzer’s thoughts were not the end-all in body building, but he laid a pretty good foundation. His workout is very simple and shows good results for some time. If you are a not a beginner and not a professional body builder, his high intensity workout is just fine. As a person progresses, then his workout knowledge, his charts, and his knowledge of his ability will also. Its great to learn how to workout the best ways and to keep up with current thinking, but I really disagree with those who scoff at worthy ideas. And its worse when they turn around suggest some highly complicated and difficult theory. Think of it like this: “I’m learning math. I just got this great book on algebra.” “Oh, that stuff sucks. Here’s this great guy who writes about differential multi-variable equations.”