• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny ~ Ernst Haeckel

vetusvates

Gamaliel's Principle
Social evolution marches on.
Every once in a while I am fascinated and pleased that in spite of politics, agendas, lobbyists, and parties,....the collective 'somebody' in Washington sneezes or stumps its toe...and gets something right.
I've got several links, but I will first post in quotes the article as it was email-forwarded to me today....that expresses so much more succinctly than I can why the subtleties of morality and ethics has no place on a ballot, in an election, or up for a vote.

Note, in its decision, the Supreme Court was so poetically and altruistically brief...that I nearly fell out of my chair in awe.

Court rejects appeal over DC gay marriage law
AP - Associated Press
- Tue Jan 18, 10:12 am ET
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.
The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district's Board of Elections and Ethics after it refused to put that initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination.
Last year, Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and in 2009, it began recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

A decision heard around the world...
eNews Park Forest
The Seattle Times
Forbes.com
The Washington Times
 
I hope this sets an example in other states! I love the decision, brief to the point and who can argue with that logic?
 
You are a funny, funny man.

You totally drew me in with that Ernst Haeckel quotation! I thought, "Woot! Eric posted something cool and sciencey!"

Then I opened the thread, read your post, and I am such a literalist I thought, "Who? Huh? Wha?" *headscratch*

And I'm still not sure of the connection between ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny (although I recall seeing a cool article recently about this, which was about how there's one part of pre-natal ontogeny that's more highly conserved across all kinds of taxa than other parts, if I remember correctly) and the topic of the OP, but I am also pleased at the Supreme court decision not to hear the case.

A lot of people like to point out that separation of church and state is supposed to protect religion from the state and not the opposite. But what the people who like to point that out often don't seem to realize is that a necessary corollary of that fact is that religion must also stay out of government in order to protect all religions from the government, since we have more than one religion in this country and they don't all agree. Religion being involved in the government necessarily means that the government is oppressing the religious freedom of whatever religions don't agree with the religion that's involved in the government.
 
I am glad that they overturned this obvious bigotry. It is sad to see when someone calls them self a Christian, and yet does not love their brothers and sisters. The last I heard we were supposed to "...love thy neighbor as thyself..."Leviticus 19:18. A lot of Christians seem to have forgotten that verse.

A lot of people like to point out that separation of church and state is supposed to protect religion from the state and not the opposite. But what the people who like to point that out often don't seem to realize is that a necessary corollary of that fact is that religion must also stay out of government in order to protect all religions from the government, since we have more than one religion in this country and they don't all agree. Religion being involved in the government necessarily means that the government is oppressing the religious freedom of whatever religions don't agree with the religion that's involved in the government.

I agree. Though I do think that they should touch on the many religions in our country, in public schools. I think that learning about them will help people to become more tolerant of religions and beliefs that are not their own. I personally love to listen to other peoples beliefs, I find it fascinating.
 
Well, Aaron,...nothing was really overturned, per se. An overturning was stopped by the Supreme Court shutting it down.

Something like this might have happened if a court would have recognized, thought about, and decided...that Prop 8 did not belong on a ballot.
This decision saves us from much strutting and fretting about the stage,...before it gets started.

Here is a link to the Hope Christian Church. Where it lives...in Maryland.
The site is beautiful. All gold and shiny. Has everyone's resume, awards, grand titles, and trappings...looks like a corporation or a small monarchy.
 
I agree. Though I do think that they should touch on the many religions in our country, in public schools. I think that learning about them will help people to become more tolerant of religions and beliefs that are not their own. I personally love to listen to other peoples beliefs, I find it fascinating.

I agree, Aaron. I'm a fan of learning about everything and everyone.
 
Well, Aaron,...nothing was really overturned, per se. An overturning was stopped by the Supreme Court shutting it down.

Here is a link to the Hope Christian Church. Where it lives...in Maryland.
The site is beautiful. All gold and shiny. Has everyone's resume, awards, grand titles, and trappings...looks like a corporation or a small monarchy.

Ah, I see, my mind wrapped around that in a funny way I guess. And, you are right, they do look more like a corporation or small monarchy.

I agree, Aaron. I'm a fan of learning about everything and everyone.

It would be nice if people were not so set on the whole separation of church and state thing when it comes to public schools informing our young people about religions. There are way too many hate crimes against people of different religions, and part of the cause is a lack of understanding.

I mean, come on, parents expect their children to learn about sex in public schools... I have heard stories from my grandparents about how that was taboo in their days and something the parents of the kid had to talk about when they felt it was time.

To me it is similar to the same sex relationship issue. When I was a child I had an avid stance against homosexuality. But, as I grew up and learned about my family members that are homosexual, and that my own father had experimented before he met my mother. My ideals about it changed. I am now much more accepting, at least I hope so....lol
 
...and.....marches on........
Court win for same-sex couples seeking benefits
Bob Egelko, SF Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 19, 2011

(01-19) 17:39 PST OAKLAND -- In a victory for gay-rights advocates, a federal judge has ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government's exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland denied an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit Tuesday and signaled that she is likely to overturn provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.

A federal judge in Massachusetts declared the law unconstitutional in July, a ruling the administration is appealing.

President Obama has criticized the law, but his Justice Department is defending it in court. The administration says Congress was entitled to preserve the status quo in federal law while states debated the marriage issue.

But Wilken said the 1996 law actually changed the status quo by "robbing states of the power to allow same-sex civil marriages that will be recognized under federal law."

She also rejected arguments that the law's sponsors put forth in 1996, that the legislation was necessary to promote procreation and preserve heterosexual marriage.

"Marriage has never been contingent on having children," Wilken said, and denying federal benefits to same-sex couples "does not encourage heterosexual marriage."

She said sponsors' "moral rejection of homosexuality" had been obvious in congressional debate. TheU.S. Supreme Court has found that bias against gays is an unconstitutional justification for passing a law, Wilken noted.

Her statements paralleled the reasoning of the Massachusetts decision and a ruling in August by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage.

Although Wilken considered only whether the suit over health insurance could proceed, her ruling "gives a pretty clear direction as to where she's going," said Claudia Center, lawyer for three UCSF employees and their spouses who sued to overturn the law.

Center said she would ask Wilken to certify the suit as a class action on behalf of all state employees with same-sex spouses or domestic partners. The judge did not decide whether domestic partners could challenge the law.

The couples sued in April over the California Public Employees' Retirement System's refusal to enroll the spouses in a federally approved long-term care plan. State employees can buy coverage at below-market rates, use pretax dollars to pay premiums and deduct future benefits from their taxes.

The California agency has refused to sign up same-sex spouses because the Defense of Marriage Act denies federal tax benefits to any state that covers them.

The state agency, a defendant in the lawsuit, declined to comment on the ruling. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
 
You are a funny, funny man.

You totally drew me in with that Ernst Haeckel quotation! I thought, "Woot! Eric posted something cool and sciencey!"

Then I opened the thread, read your post, and I am such a literalist I thought, "Who? Huh? Wha?" *headscratch*

And I'm still not sure of the connection between ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny (although I recall seeing a cool article recently about this, which was about how there's one part of pre-natal ontogeny that's more highly conserved across all kinds of taxa than other parts, if I remember correctly) and the topic of the OP, but I am also pleased at the Supreme court decision not to hear the case.

A lot of people like to point out that separation of church and state is supposed to protect religion from the state and not the opposite. But what the people who like to point that out often don't seem to realize is that a necessary corollary of that fact is that religion must also stay out of government in order to protect all religions from the government, since we have more than one religion in this country and they don't all agree. Religion being involved in the government necessarily means that the government is oppressing the religious freedom of whatever religions don't agree with the religion that's involved in the government.
Stephanie, funny is much better than quirky. I've been called both, and while I often strive to be the one, I am oh so much more than the other. ;)

But seriously, von Haeckel's theory and that it highly overlaps and parallels Darwin's early thoughts on "evolution"....I thought was an elegantly poetic title for a thread on social evolution. Living at a time where changes are visible due to the reverse of protraction of time usually required for major changes to occur...is quite thrilling.

Reason number two, (for the title), I left off inflammatory words that attract soap-boxers...and intentionally used deeper, more meaningful, more complex words...to screen out (dare I say) minds reluctant to think before they speak/preach. And intelli-trap the thinkers that I do know are sprinkled out among the membership. So far, I'm quite pleeezzzzed with myself.
 
Reason number two, (for the title), I left off inflammatory words that attract soap-boxers...and intentionally used deeper, more meaningful, more complex words...to screen out (dare I say) minds reluctant to think before they speak/preach. And intelli-trap the thinkers that I do know are sprinkled out among the membership. So far, I'm quite pleeezzzzed with myself.

You know. I had no idea what they title meant, so I knew it had to be an interesting thread....LOL
 
Sorry for the double post, but I now remember why Haekel looked familiar. I remember learning about that theory when I was younger.
 
LOL! This had me laughing for a long, long time last night when I read it on my phone. Tricky, Eric. I could learn a thing or two from you . . . or three or four. :rofl:
 
Back
Top