I think the law is more to prevent false advertising containing scientific mumbojumbo used in incorrect ways, claiming that water is healthy because of an obvious requirement of our bodies to be supplied with water.

However that it required highly paid scientists to figure this out and that it is in fact becoming a law of its own in the UK is laughable, as the topic is seemingly redicoulous.

Yet, I do believe that false advertisement is a topic that should be discussed in politics a lot more: there is a need to prevent misinformation of the public, especially in advertisements, and since advertisement companies are very eager to misinform the public I do believe there has to be some regulation that forbids the advertisements from misleading (or attempting to mislead) the public.

On the other hand, the EU is indeed a bureaucratic mess of laws and legislation and they have definitely made worse laws in the past, of which some are named by the article. And at this moment it is definitely not the time to waste resources on something as redicoulous as defining the effects of water on dehydration.

"Rising,

1. Psychoanalysis is pseudo science.
2. I said we should be tolerant of homosexuals. We just should not condone their lifestyles. Whether their sexual preference is natural or a matter of choice is irrelevant.
3. Your grasp of genetics is poor. Polygamy is such a bad idea that it's the reason why some populations are effectively inbred.
4. I am a supporter of zero-population growth, meaning 2 children per couple."

1. Not talking psychoanalysis, i clearly stated DNA mutations/gene activation and brain deformities.

2. Your grasp of the definition of the words tolerant and the verb to condone is poor. Plus i would say that the fact whether their sexual preference is natural or a matter of choice is relevant in many of these discussions, especially when people start to use moral arguments in an attempt to argue against gay marriage.

3. I am not talking genetics, I am talking efficient reproduction. I was under the impression that by "practical reasons to privelege heterosexuality above homosexuality" you meant the ability to reproduce, to which I would like to make another remark: Is an impotent man allowed to enter marriage? Is a woman aged over 40 allowed to enter marriage? Is someone who is infertile, either by choice or by birth, allowed to enter marriage?
Regarding inbreeding as a result of polygamy: Inbreeding only happens in small, isolated populations, so if polygamy would be legalized on a national scale it would not necessarily lead to inbreeding. Plus migration can negate inbreeding. Inbreeding only happens in isolated populations, be it isolated geographically or socially. This is not a field in which my grasp is poor, rather my grasp of said field is quite extensive so I would shut your mouth before you throw around insults like that. Now had you said my "grasp of the consequences of polygamy may have is poor", it would have been acceptable, however you saying all my knowledge in a certain field of science is of a low level, is clearly a step too far. Specify or refrain from using such strong language. Plus, I could easily argue that your grasp of the conditions for inbreeding is rather poor if you generalize the few communities in which inbreeding occurs to a population scale.

4. If you are a supporter of zero population growth, then why not be in favor of gay marriage to balance out the people who want to have more than 2 children?

Why not go all the way, if you wanna overpopulate the planet you might as well do a damn good job at it . Worst thing you can have is a half arsed attempt at overpopulating this one planet we got!

Although I could go into this further, making an attempt to debunk/debunking arguments used by certain others in that certain other discussion, I will not do this for time's sake. Some of us do a REAL study, remember? Plus as you said this is not that thread.

On topic: it was just one of the ways to up population growth without having to take away priviledges that I see almost as human rights away from people, in this case the right to get married. I myself would definitely enjoy such a program and I'm sure there are quite a few women who would participate in it, be it because they were taught up in some weird backward Mormon town or just because they like to poop out babies from their 18th (or 16th, whatever you prefer) till the start of their menopause.
However there are several other ways to promote population growth, I'm sure if you think hard you can come up with a few of your own

sounds like Justinian either is an enormous homophobe or he has his own doubts about his own sexuality and tries to ban them from his thoughts through this way .

some time ago a study showed that homosexuality in some individuals may not have been the result of their own choice but that it was caused by mutations in genes or switching on/off of certain genes. I'm sure you have your own little mutations that make you different from the guy sitting next to you. Would you like to be discriminated for your little unique aspects, caused by mutations in your genes?
Plus excluding people from marriage solely because they have a certain mutation that leads to a certain "syndrome" would exclude A LOT of people from marriage, not just homosexuals. Think people with either a family history of or suffering themselves from diabetes, asthma, sickle cell trait, who are perfectly capable of just normally functioning in society, although slighty differently. But for instance Gingers would be part of this group as well (perhaps a good idea? hmm...)

Plus if they're not hurting anyone else, why are you complaining? Gays often play an active part in society, and are less of a drag on society as a whole than some other "alternative lifestyles", for instance fat people or smokers. Have you ever heard of a fat guy who could do something (positive, not something like rolling on someone or covering multiple plane seats) better than a guy with a normal body size? I have not. Well, I know only few heterosexual people who can rival a gay's taste of clothes.

"There are practical reasons to privilege heterosexuality above homosexuality."
There are practical reasons to allow polygamy as well, if your argument is that a homosexual relation can't produce offspring. A 1 on 1 relation between men and women is definitely not the most efficient reproduction-wise. A better ratio would involve more potent men having multiple women, and the women being breeding machines who's only occupation is to pump out a baby every, let's say, 21 months. Now, I would not have any problems with such a system but obviously there are some people who do .

"wake me when they can tell inherent sexual orientation at an autopsy"
They have actually found a corrolation between certain brain deformations that formed due to beforementioned gene mutations and homosexuality, plus the mutations can be found by analyzing the genome of the homosexual and comparing it to that of a "normal" human (although every human has a certain amount of deviation from each other DNA-wise so I myself find this method to not be completely accurate).

To be honest I find your entire way of reasoning dispicable, Justinian. I don't understand why people like you are bothered by homosexuals. I myself don't have any problems with them, unless they try to make a move on me, but that would just be a problem between the individual and myself that can easily be dealt with. They don't bother me and they are an active part of society, so, unless you are a homosexual who is afraid of coming out and being rediculed and therefore hiding behind idiotic arguments, I do not see why you have such an attitude towards gay people.

Nox i'm not calling this farming, but what your alliance has done earlier in round

this isn't anything close to farming lol.

Yup we definitely need more centralization, to prevent those southern countries from [meeping] us over again. It was a bad decision to let them join the euro without having them change their financial strategy. In the past this included spending and lending as much as you can, then printing money to pay the interest. Now with the euro this is impossible, but they still continued to spend and lend for plenty time, expecting they could rent money cheaply through northern interest rates, resulting in the current situation.

we NEED to have some form of control over their finances, else they will [meep] us over because we are so tightly connected. It is not only the euro, it is also years of investment into the southern countries by northern countries (which i partly blame stupidity in northern countries for, but partly the false image that rating companies gave the southern countries by giving them AAA ratings even though they clearly were not economically healthy, inviting investers to invest in economically unhealthy countries). Removing the Euro, be it all together or just in the southern countries (preferably), may be part of a solution, as the southern countries will be able to use their strategy of inflating their own currency gain, however this will not solve everything, since we will remain economically tied together.

Do not forget it isn't just Germany that has interests in having control over the PIIGS.

hey, we're asking for a decent amount just to make things less painful for you guys!

1    ~The Smurfs~ (5510) [16,28]    861    5407245    38182
6    Farming Machines (5517) [19,88]    712    3697075    31297

3    We Strapped Up!! War Time Bish (5521) [4,11]    819    4925713    37803
4    Bad Asses! (5522) [18,55]    730    4566190    34814

before:

Fleet Admiral    Naughty SmurfDK    Smurfs V2011.12    1248226gc    61    [ONLINE]
Inactive    Macaroni Smurf    imaattacker    719531gc    44    [ONLINE]
Inactive    Bully Smurf    Troll Dance    654366gc    35    [ONLINE]
Fleet Admiral    Breast Plough    ( . )Y( . )    700488gc    45    [ONLINE]
    Big Green Tractor    Harvesters6    456890gc    46

(combined nw: 3 779 501)

vs

Fleet Admiral    Papi Rico    Camaar    1278429gc    52    [ONLINE]
    Bad Guy    really bad    738181gc    59    [ONLINE]
Fleet Admiral    Tupac Amaru Shakur    Thug Life    1118547gc    42    [ONLINE]
    Dr Dre    Camaar    567008gc    46    [ONLINE]

(combined nw: 3 702 165)

after:
Fleet Admiral    Naughty SmurfDK    Smurfs V2011.12    1052612gc    62    [ONLINE] (195614 nw lost)
Inactive    Macaroni Smurf    imaattacker    652446gc    59    [ONLINE] (67285 nw lost)
Inactive    Bully Smurf    Troll Dance    456598gc    69    [ONLINE] (197768 nw lost)
Fleet Admiral    Breast Plough    ( . )Y( . )    665691gc    40    [ONLINE] (34797 nw lost)
    Big Green Tractor    Harvesters6    341678gc    42               (115212 nw lost)
                                                                   combined loss: 610 676 nw

vs

Fleet Admiral    Papi Rico    Camaar    1192444gc    53    [ONLINE]         (85985 nw lost)
    Bad Guy    really bad    463785gc    48    [ONLINE]                 (274396 nw lost)
Fleet Admiral    Tupac Amaru Shakur    Thug Life    993509gc    45    [ONLINE] (125038 nw lost)
    Dr Dre    Camaar    207417gc    32    [ONLINE]                         (359591 nw lost)
                                                                   combined loss: 845 010

log out/log in chaos...

God hoity, we could've won the round if we'd only done the same as our allies!

Prepare for a yet another thread to be killed by Good Ol' American Conservatism!

/me braces himself

"btw before you respond, can you actually log into your mw account and aid in? why are you so active in politics but not in the places it matters? "

^can't believe that actually worked.
gonna do this more often now!