- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I'm going to go with no on this based on the wording. I don't think I would want to be truly unable to die. I would probably take the option to no longer age as long as I can still function as I do now. Or at least live the lifespan of the Shide. There is so much potential and things developing that I would love to see how they turn out. But forever, no.
But which chromosomes? There are people known as chimeras who actually have two sets of DNA. One theory of their origin is that they are fraternal twins whose zygotes have merged. One woman nearly lost her children because a genetic test initially showed her DNA did not match. It wasn't until they took a DNA sample from her uterus instead of her mouth that showed she had two sets. So what if a person has both male and female DNA? Maybe the set that is opposite of the genitals formed the brain or the hormone producing organs.
This is not to say that all homosexuals are like this. After all there are those who most certainly identify themselves as the same gender they sexually desire. For that matter there are those who are "straight" who identify themselves as opposite the external gender they were born to.
I'm going to add the argument to this side although in all honesty, the answer is "both".
The history one prescribes to will have a large effect on what one thinks is the origin of marriage. Those of the Judeo-Christian line of thinking will say that marriage started as a religious institution with the creation of Adam and Eve.
On the other side, marriage has been used in so many ways by so many cultures that it's origins are truly muddied. Regardless, it has been used by both civil and religious institutions over several centuries.
I can go into a church and have the minister marry me and my spouse without ever having to go through a court or legal proceeding. My marriage would be recognized by the "church" but not by Gov't. Likewise, I can have my marriage recorded by the state, but there is no law that requires the "church" to reconize that marriage. In this day and age, and in most countries the two have become synonymous. However, they are truly not the same as the beginning of the paragraph shows. It is like saying that a Pembroke Welsh Corgi and a Cardigan Welsh Corgi are the same. They are very similar, almost identical, but they are not the same.
In the end, a civil marriage is one created by the rules of a government and a religious marriage is one created by the rules of a religious institution. Just because some or even most of the rules are the same, not all of them are and thus they are not the same.
If there were a membership limit I could support limiting this to only those who were on the roles of the original. However, Essembly was never about elitism (despite some who might have thought so) and so we should indeed allow whoever wishes to be here. Besides fresh blood is always good.