I missed this when first reported.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...

I do not see that the penetration of an ovum by a sperm will show the visible zinc sparks unless treated by "a membrane impermeant derivative of the zinc fluorophore FluoZin-3" which makes the zink sparks visible, The sparks are a release of zink atoms from the ovum membrane when penetrated by the first sperm and last for many minutes. That could be the mechanism to disable other sperm from penetrating the membrane.
Thanks for bring that up.

Yea...there is a spark and I think, someone posted the discovery on the gulch...I read it separately somewhere else...it's been a while.

Yes it's electrochemical and in creating an entanglement between sperm/father, egg/mother (yet to be proven and hopefully seen) has nothing to do with DNA, (and hopefully not the mess in the ovum...joking of course).
Even a plant seed shows a spark of light (electricity) at the start of germination.
Pretty interesting I'd say.
I'm sure we'll more about it in the future.

Yea...there is a spark and I think, someone posted the discovery on the gulch...I read it separately somewhere else...it's been a while.

Yes it's electrochemical and in creating an entanglement between sperm/father, egg/mother (yet to be proven and hopefully seen) has nothing to do with DNA, (and hopefully not the mess in the ovum...joking of course).
Even a plant seed shows a spark of light (electricity) at the start of germination.
Pretty interesting I'd say.
I'm sure we'll more about it in the future.

"I have yet to hear any evidence that gays do a worse job at raising children than heterosexuals."
Yes. And regardless of which groups do better on average, it's not worthwhile to figure it out and then to discriminate by group membership. If gov't is going to get involved in evaluating parents, it should evaluate the factors of merit directly, not by group membership.

Is there really a "spark of inception of a new life" or just a race of sperm to penetrate the ovum and the random shuffling of the genetic material with, of course, a lot of ionic chemical actions going on. If it is a spark, it is the complex charge distributions on the molecules involved.
Perhaps you are using entanglement to refer to the entangled mess within the ovum while the DNA is intermixed. It is quite a complex process.

The article was about the deception and overall we can see through recent history, it's had a toll on marriage and children. I've seen statistics that show children, do better with a female mother and a male dad...no matter how mismatched mom and dad are...they generally do better in life, and after all, that's how things work in our world...why would one reject that, it's the nature of things.

Marriage, in most of history, is primarily a type of economic contract, to enable the upbringing of children and protect them. (Thus the state does have a legitimate interest in "recognizing" such contracts, whether we call it a license or not, but any decision to deny one ought to be for good cause.)

I have yet to hear any evidence that gays do a worse job at raising children than heterosexuals.

And there have certainly been other societies in history with gay marriage, or at least arrangements that can be so interpreted. The 300 who lost at Thermopylae, for one.

I think that spark at the inception of new life is itself an entanglement that produces brains, hopefully minds...but not sure about something to argue about...that could lead to a quantum divorce...laughing.

Quantum entanglements, i.e., things continuing in their created states with respect to those in the same creation until change in some interaction, are very fragile and would not affect any relationships between children and their parents. You need to get into some none entangled stuff for the rearing of children and the need for marriage whether civil or church or just "let's consider us as married". At the quantum level, entanglement has no effects at the macro level unless a human gets excited about some experiment. Can the excitement be caused by entanglement and actions with other particles?
Or is it that non-entangled particles are acting and eventually producing brains, minds, and little ones to care for and the desire to argue about something?

Part of the issue is regular marriage, and the financial incentives offered it. There really is no reason for this, and it is a large part of the basis for the same-sex marriage argument.

We should face it though, the "moral majority", now a minority made this an issue with foolish religious reasons for objecting, and that made it inevitable that a small minority was able to make such an issue of this thing, I'd prefer to ignore.

Yes...Many are not aware of that.

Believe it or not, but up until the Southern States started trying to prevent interracial marriage, neither local, state nor federal government was involved in regulating marriage. The origin of the marriage license stems from blatant racism and attempts at government control.

All the other legal arguments you make are a sub-set of government's interference in the first place and the assumption that rights and privileges and recognitions originate with government. What should have happened is that marriage licenses themselves should have been ruled a violation of the Constitution - a separation of Church and State. Then marriages would have remained what they have always been: a thing for religion to worry about.

Bingo!...another great response...see...it is about being allowed to be reasonable, rational and objective...even with a contentious subject...it still comes down to the words we use and what everyone means by those words...liberals naturally dismiss original meanings and progressives use that as a weapon.

Great article, thanks. I agree that the main goal of progressives is to destroy conventional wisdom by trying to make A = B when A !=B. Their reasoning is that if they can make it similar-enough, that they can get people to disregard the differences and say A = B. The confusion of marriage and homosexuality is one such example. It doesn't matter if you are a proponent of homosexual unions or not - it is disingenuous to equate them to a heterosexual union, which is precisely what this article points out.

It is a head twister...as we have seen, language confounds itself through the changing connotations of each generation...but what was done here and what has become the norm with progressives and radicals is coercion and deception.

SSM is just an example, it's one that everyone is familiar with and I did not want to deceive anyone about the content of the article, but it was as a whole about subversion.The paragraph depicts the problem as a result of the language being used against us.

Lucky and Dean Strikeris are one of the few that understood.

What the article pointed out was connotative value of words. Not what they denote, but what the connote. It has been long recognized that connotations are associated with most words, some more strong than others depending on current usage. In my post, I glossed that over and focused on the actual conflict between the pro and con of same sex marriage. Getting into connotation is a mire of psychological presentation which to do properly would require more time than I'd want to devote to it.

Yes, but it all came to a head in Babylon when the Rulers decided to confound us by using our own various languages against us. Mankind was confused enough at the time.
With out that crap, can you imagine where mankind might be now if we had developed self introspection a few 1000 years sooner?

Again, Susanne...it's about the use of language, not about the "be what ever you will, anything goes, perversions.

Um... reread your initial opening statement... from about the 4h word through the 8th word you opened this with.

"In deciding whether to legalize same-sex marriage, it is not sufficient to take into account just what individuals want, much as we might empathize with their claims. We must also consider a wide range of factors relevant to the impact on society of doing so - especially the impact on children's rights, in general.

Why Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Call it ‘Marriage Equality’ "

Sorry, Carl. You cannot say A then say it's not about A. To do so is self-contradictory to reality. THAT you can ask Ayn Rand.

Yes, Yes, Yes Lucky...your the only one so far that understood the problem the article brings up about how our language is confounded. It's worse than speaking different languages...at least you could make some hand movements and funny faces to get your point across but when I use a word with it's original definition and someone else uses the same word and assigning a made up different meaning...All Communication Breaks Down.

Ah, but big brother...(not sure it's a brother any more), has, along with the radicals and mentally ill, made it difficult to have a discussion.
Yes, of course, it was a state issue...but all this nonsense has gone way to far...tired of the language being use against us.

But we are really talking about subversion and making it difficult to have a reasonable conversation.
Confounding our language should offend us, not make us fearful to have a discussion.

We also should consider the "be what ever you will" anything goes problem...need some reasonable rules to keep things running smoothly...remember the article about how demonocracies fail when they get toooooo demoncrapic?...order breaks down.

Besides, what do these creatures have against electricity?...remember the N/S thing?

Your example still falls flat. Sorry.

Using your analogy, Atlas should be thrown in the trash because there was no Taggart Transcontinental, nor a Hammond Motors, nor Rearden Steel... Even if they were alternate names for UP, or Packard, or Carnegie (later Bethlehem) Steel because using assumed or made up names, rather than being brilliant, destroyed those industries and the world.

See how silly that is? I bet you don't. Because nobody likes to have their preconceived notions challenged, and most will fight it tooth and nail, even if they're using false logic as their proof. Hell, when I was still a card carrying pinko socialist Leninist-Marxist scumball (and I was), I used to do just that - no matter what someone said, I had the quick, correct-thinking rebuttal to their statement... and would defend it to the bitter end. Thank whoever I was open minded enough to see truth in front of me when it was shown to me... and be able to change from a false doctrine full of lies meant to skew thoughts to rational objectivism - because the truth always shows itself, not theough propaganda, but through example. A really does equal A.

I DO know - after doing a lot of research, and actually meeting some of these folk (no, they do not scare me, as they do some people) - that not one straight marriage has been destroyed by 2 same sex (or even 2 transsexual) people from getting married. As far as I know it's still illegal to marry close blood relatives, or your farm livestock, or your shoe.

But it's not illegal for 2 people whose lifestyle, sexuality, or gender may not please you, to follow the law as it is written and get married, and enjoy the same benefits as anyone else. Just as it's now legal for people of different races to marry (at one time that was illegal because it was "an affront to society" and would cause all the things people accuse same sex marriage of). And I do know that interracial marriage, rather than destroying children, give them a stable home to grow up in, and so far it hasn't created cases of marrying sheep, or children.

Not a fan of plato because he loved the war makers and the law makers until late in life when he finally woke up and realized he'd and they'd be nowhere without the producers and creators.