It's a non-binding agreement. Nuff said.
Since createdebate doesn't allow under 50 words, here is the continuation:
CA is doing something states have been doing for a while now, and that is writing a non-binding agreement. It doesn't break federal law, because it doesn't force CA to do anything at all. If is contains any mandatory term, that agreement will be automatically abolished. Understand?
P.S. Enough with the view names. That is very misleading in that the name assumes that this side thinks CA can override the feds.
Ahem, wrong topic here...
Anyways, our "rights" are what we give each other. There is no objective "right" that you have as a human in the universe, but we choose to have compassion for our own kind and write a code of ethics. Again, we are in the wrong space here, so I'll leave it at that.
"Depending on how far back you're talking, they did; almost exclusively, in fact. And, surprise surprise, they were much healthier than when mass-agriculture came into being." - Explain how the lifespan at that time was 4 times shorter than ours.
"most civilized culture in human history" You mean racism, sexism, religious discrimination, and bigotry, compounded with the tendency to stick your nose in other countries' business? Civilized indeed.
Also, whites cause less violence, but they cause more of different crimes, like fraud. This is more divided by economic status than it is by race.
We simply don't know.
And we will never know.
Assuming there will be a creator: Who created that creator? Then who created the creator of the creator? And so on... Even if you say that there must be an uncaused cause, then can nature be the uncaused cause by itself? Or, if the universe is a loop, then who put that loop in motion in the first place?
It seems like the argument is an endless rabbit hole.
To start off, inborn traits can't be chosen, religion can. You can't choose your race, or change it in any manner (unless you're Michael Jackson, of course). However, religion is only your opinion, and it can shift over time, so we shouldn't give it the same level of protection that race or gender merits.
Well, the same-sex couple would be effectively "married" and they can adopt children just like straight couples sometimes do. Same-sex adoption is good, as children need homes and same-sex couples can raise children just as well as their traditional counterparts do. As with remembrance, we have photos to deal with that. Regardless, a truly loving family doesn't need looks to remember the others.
Yeah, Obama was useless, and the majority of the military isn't really horrendous or anything, but that doesn't exonerate the War on Terror, because it was so damn inefficient, and it was the perfect excuse for secret intelligence agencies to exploit it.
Well, I do wonder what Muslims are thinking...
as I do with any other person. Don't discriminate and make stereotypes based on religion, because that's unfair, and in the 1+ billion Muslims in the world out there, only a few thousand are ISIS fundies.
No. It depends on each person.
Now, there might be a possibility that a certain gender have a genetic tendency towards common sense than the other. It changes basically nothing, because human intelligence are mostly determined through growth and experience.
In short, you learn common sense through life experience, not gender.
Sexual identification can shift over time, there are straight people who then identify as gay, and then there are gay people who then identify as bisexual, and so on.
There are epigenetic, genetic and hormonal influences as well, but you can't count out society and environment. Environmental factors covers some, but not all, of the sexual orientation.