The Argument: The practice of homosexuality is a violation of the religious faith American society is based on. We have a responsibility to be sympathetic to our fellow human beings, but extending to homosexual couples the special privileges of the traditional family would undermine the sanctity of the family.

The Response: There is such in a thing in the United States as the separation of Church and State. America is not based on one particular faith, nor on a single moral code, but on a plurality of creeds. Your feelings as a member of a particular religious community notwithstanding, you have a responsibility as a citizen to support the extension of the same civil rights you yourself enjoy to everyone equally. Race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation must not affect the even application of civil rights. Homosexuality is not morally wrong, but even if you believe it is, you must not oppose the right of any person to claim equal privileges under the law.

"The suggestion that homosexuals can be 'married' is absurd, since marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman."

The Argument: Calling a union between two gay people "marriage" devalues the word. What is special about marriage, and beneficial to society, ceases to be special and beneficial to society if the idea of marriage becomes so diluted as to include just about anything.

The Response: There has never been any fixed, traditional definition of marriage. The idea of marriage is constantly changing according to the changing needs of society. The world we live in today is very different from the world of a hundred or fifty years ago and our institutions must be altered to reflect these changes. There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would be harmful to society.

"Under the doctrine of the separation of Church and State, the government should not force millions of religious people to accept a new definition of 'marriage.'"

The Argument: Legalized same-sex marriage violates freedom of religion, since those who believe deeply that homosexuality is immoral, and that same-sex marriage is wrong, would be forced by the government to accept these "marriages."

The Response: Civil recognition of a union between two people is separate from religious recognition. Marriage licenses can be issued without a religious ceremony, and those who are opposed to same-sex marriage would be no more forced to accept it morally than they are forced to accept homosexuality itself.

"The institution of heterosexual marriage serves a social purpose, and that purpose is to foster a stable community and a good environment for bringing up children."

The Argument: Committed, monogamous relationships between men and women - marriages, in other words - are the foundation of the nation's health, peace, and security. At a time when we are faced with high rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, and rampant STDs, any action taken to undermine the sacrament of marriage is likely to further erode our communities.

The Response: There is no evidence to suggest that social problems are caused by gay lifestyles any more than they are caused by so-called "traditional" lifestyles. Same-sex couples are as likely as straight couples to live healthy, happy, well-adjusted lives, and to provide a good environment in which to raise children. Though they cannot procreate themselves, gays and lesbians could adopt and raise children just as well as straight couples. Furthermore, same-sex couples have just as much right to happiness as straight couples who choose to marry but are unable or unwilling to have children.

You already posted this, I think. Or something just like it.

Once again... American society isn't based on any religious faith, you cocksmoker.

let's face it...

no ones going to read all that.

Well put.

The assumption that field theories have a Fermi-Bose symmetry leads to predictions which will be tested in the next decade, certainly at the LHC at CERN, and possibly earlier at the Tevatron at Fermilab. For example, in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model, one needs two (instead of one) Higgs doublets, with one of the Higgs scalars classically lighter than the Z boson and quantum corrections being able to lift its mass at most to about 150 GeV. For some of the predicted suspersymmetric partners, upper and lower limits on their masses can be given, so that not finding these suspersymmetric particles will be a serious problem for SUSY. On the other hand, discovery of supersymmetric particles will rank, with quantum mechanics, special and general relativity and gauge theories, among the most important physical discoveries of our century.

It is sometimes stated that there is not the slightest indication that nature is supersymmetric. This is not the whole story, though. The standard model becomes probably inconsistent at very high energies, of the order of GeV, due to what is called ``triviality''. This means that some extension or modification of the Standard Model is needed. SUSY is one such modification, perhaps the most consistent one available today. When combined with string theory, SUSY produces a theory of quantum gravity without infinities. In addition, supersymmetric quantum gauge field theories have duality symmetries which give detailed information on the nonperturbative sector of the corresponding effective actions, the hope being that also nonsupersymmetric gauge theories have similar features.

In these notes we first give an introduction to SUSY, both in x-space and in superspace. Then we discuss a fundamental problem with SUSY that has been around since its beginning: a regularization scheme that respects both SUSY and gauge invariance. In 2+1 dimensions we have found such a scheme, but we make no claims concerning 3+1 dimensions. We conclude with a detailed discussion of 2+1 classical supergravity. Rather than giving a full account of the subject and the literature on it, something which would require much more space, we have opted for a more direct presentation which hardly requires any background on supersymmetry.

SUSY is a symmetry of certain actions with an anticommuting spinorial parameter, such that in the (anti)commutator of two supersymmetries one finds a translation. There are other symmetries with anticommuting parameters, BRST symmetry for example, which has an anticommuting constant parameter, but this parameter is a scalar instead of a spinor under Lorentz transformations.

Suppose one has an action with some bosonic fields b(x) and fermionic fields f(x) which satisfy the usual spin-statistics connection. A crucial property from which SUSY springs is their mass dimension. Actions for bosonic fields contain two derivatives. Examples are the Maxwell and the Klein-Gordon actions, and also the spin 2 action of Fierz and Pauli which is the linearized limit of the Einstein-Hilbert action of general relativity. On the other hand, actions for fermions contain only one derivative. Quite familiar is the spin 1/2 Dirac action; but also the spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger action for ``gravitinos'', the supersymmetric partners of gravitons, has only one derivative. It follows that the sum of the mass dimensions of two bosonic fields and two derivatives is equal to the sum of the dimensions of two fermionic fields and one derivative. Equivalently, the dimensions of a Fermi and a Bose field differ by one half the mass dimension of a derivative. If we define the latter to be unity, , we find

Suppose that there are SUSY transformation rules which transform a boson into a fermion and vice-versa and which leave the action invariant. Then and , with a Fermi field. However, if contains no derivative, it follows from eq. (1) that , so that in there is a gap of one unit of mass dimension. If there are no masses in the theory and we there are no dimensionful coupling constants, the only object that can fill this gap is a derivative. Hence

It is clear from the statistics of Bose and Fermi fields that must be anticommuting. Usually one chooses Grassmann variables which anticommute, so . Recently, another choice for has been studied, namely Clifford variables [Bouwknegt et al. 1997]. This seems to lead to quantum groups, and could lead to a completely different quantum superspace.

From the conservation of angular momenta and the integer/half-integer spin of bosons/fermions it follows that has half-integer spin. The simplest case is clearly spin 1/2. Spin 3/2 for leads to field theories which have no positive definite Hilbert space in flat spacetime. Thus, by angular momentum theory, bosons transform into fermions and fermions into bosons whose spins differ by 1/2. This means that the basic building blocks are Fermi-Bose doublets.

The commutator of SUSY transformations of b(x) leads indeed to a translation:

The translation of b(x) is over a distance which is the same everywhere, since in rigid SUSY the 's are x-independent. For the fermion f(x) one finds a similar result

We shall see that matters are a bit more complicated than in point above. In general, there are also ``auxiliary fields" F which do not correspond to physical particles. Often they appear in the action as and have field equations F=0. In 2+1 dimensions they have mass dimension [F] = 3/2, so that now one can fill the mass dimension gap also with an auxiliary field

With auxiliary fields, the SUSY algebra ``closes'', meaning that the commutator of two supersymmetries leads to a sum of symmetries, namely a translation and sometimes a gauge transformation. Without auxiliary fields, the SUSY commutator of a fermionic field contains in general fermionic field equations. Their origin is clear: because F=0 is a bosonic field equation and, in general, field equations rotate into field equations under SUSY, the SUSY variation of F(x) is a fermionic field equation. Hence, if the SUSY commutator in the theory with F closes, omitting F from the theory will introduce fermionic field equations.

algebra will give you herpes.....

HAHAHAHAHA

GO ArSi!!! WOOO!!!!!!! lol

i think arsinik needs a full does of jesus if he had half the input and had the holy fire in him i am sure he would be able to convert people here to the light side!

setting phasers on "love thy neighbor"

Yeah...Where's Sixgun when you need him to shoot someone?

I wouldn't shoot kharstaag/Massaman/Tribunal. It'd be a waste of a perfectly good bullet. Besides, he's just misguided, which I'm assuming is the result of a painfully boring and sheltered upbringing. Can't do much about that.

So why do you insist on sucking Jesus' cock for providence?


Star Trek is the work of the devil...with all the aliens and stuff...I thought all you bible fuckers knew that.

i wish everyone of your posts could be answered with sniper fire.

:firing:

Chrissake..