12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society
-
Ian Darling wrote: So which society was that then? And was accepting homosexuality as an alternative the cause of their demise? I find that unlikely to say the least. Sodom from the Bible. The city was destroyed because of unrighteousness, sins which included Homosexuality. My code isn't buggy. Those are all fleatures.
Pardon me while I pick myself up - I just fell out of my chair laughing. So literal interpretation of the Bible is your source for historical information, is it? I'm sure you'll tell us all how we've been here a total of five thousand years, and that dinosaur bones are an elaborate practical joke. Or is it a test of faith? I forget. :laugh::laugh:
-
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html[^] (A note for those against gay marriage rights - this an extremely serious and important document, the arguments of which appear to be infallible and must be used whenever possible) (A note for everyone else: shhhhh ;))
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Actually, I think the proper solution is to require heterosexual couples to enter into Civil Unions. To many marriages are anything but civil... Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
Brian Gideon wrote: if we allow gay marriage based on equal protection of rights then we have to allow plural marriages as well. that's a slippery-slope argument ( a logical fallacy ) the government can draw the line anywhere it wants to. it can make an amendment that says "marriage = unrelated man and woman", it can make an amendment that says "marriage = two unrelated people", it could make a law that says "marriage = three people". all of those amendments exclude someone, but that doesn't matter, because if it's in the constitution, it's the law of the land. an amendment can't be declared unconstitutional (by definition) and overturned like a "normal" law. an amendment can be repealed by another constitutional amendment, of course, but that's not something that happens automatically. think about the voting age; it was lowered to 18 in the early 70's. the slippery slope argument would say that since nothing magical happens on your 18th birthday with respect to your mental ability to cast a vote, there's no reason we shouldn't lower it to the day before your 18th birthday - another day on which nothing magical happens, so why not make it two days before, etc.. all the way to infancy. but we don't do that - we chose 18 as the age at which people should be allowed to vote and we put it in the constitution. the only way 17 year olds could get the vote is by amending the constitution. and if the Congress and the States wanted to, they could raise the age to 21 or 25, or make it available only to men, or to only white men, or to white male land owners. but we don't, and we don't have to - nothing forces us to move the voting age either way. short version: the reason there's no slippery slope here is that the constitution is final, and nothing compells the constitution to change itself. it can only be changed by the conscious actions of Congress and the States. if society doesn't want polygamists to marry, they won't be allowed to. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
-
Ian Darling wrote: So which society was that then? And was accepting homosexuality as an alternative the cause of their demise? I find that unlikely to say the least. Sodom from the Bible. The city was destroyed because of unrighteousness, sins which included Homosexuality. My code isn't buggy. Those are all fleatures.
Adam Wimsatt wrote: Sodom from the Bible. The city was destroyed because of unrighteousness, sins which included Homosexuality Ahh, so it was destroyed because of unrighteousness. Which included more than just homosexuality. Going by how unrighteous they were according to scripture, they probably would have been destroyed anyway, just for being drunken, philandering, violent and having really bad body odour. You do realise that a sizable part of the Law as described in Scripture is actually just a public health guide designed to protect the health of people of the time. And stories of fear to keep the population under control are a well known form of propoganda (just look at todays news media) Being promiscuous (and possibly homosexual as well) in that era was quite possibly dangerous to health, rather than it is now, in an age of vastly improved hygiene, medical knowledge, condoms and awareness of STDs. So it's much more likely that if there was a Sodom (as opposed to some form of semi-historical myth), and it was destroyed, it was more likely through some form of STD or other epidemic illness spreading through the population than from a vengeful God. And even if you could find real archaeological and other historical evidence which might support the Sodom account you've presented here, it doesn't automatically follow that we should ban gay marriage. Our society in the West may have strong Judeo-Christian roots, but it doesn't mean we're beholden to them. If vengeful destruction from a God I do not acknowledge the existence of is the price of accepting gay marriages, then I consider that a reasonable price to pay for keeping to my own moral and ethical beliefs.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
Brit wrote: In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out) :-D Brit wrote: but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". I personally don't have a problem with polygamy/polyandry/or a combination of them, however as you've pointed out - it has to be consensual amongst all parties to have a legal binding to all the other parties. It's sufficiently problematic from a legislative point of view as well that holding back gay marriage on the grounds that you have to resolve the issues around pluralistic marriage is wrong. They are different kettles of fish (or kettles of spouses, as the case may be :-)) To argue using a "racial" example (which might be more easily understood at least, if slightly dubious): If there were laws made by turquiose people, some laws discriminating against green people and some possibly related but different laws discriminating against blue people, and fixing the laws surrounding blue people is more problematic (for some reason) than fixing the laws surrounding green people, you don't hold back fixing the rights of green people because of the issues surrounding blue people that need to be resolved. You fix the green people issues now to increase the social justice and freedom of society, and fix the blue people issues when you're able to do so.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
i totally agree. it's arbitrary, but, there has to be a line somewhere: it could include incestuous couples and polygamists, or just gays and heteros, or just heteros, or just breeding heteros, or just christians, or whatever - all arbitrary choices when you get right down to it. the problem we have right now is that the line was never formally drawn, it was just assumed. but, now we have to put it in writing, and it's going to be an arbitrary choice. i personally think we should draw it to include gays but not polygamists because a gay marriage is closer to the traditional hetero marriage than a polygamous one is: it's two people; so it fits in better with our current society and our current framework of laws and institutions. silly example: every form you fill out has a place for "Spouse", but for only one spouse. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
-
Actually, I think the proper solution is to require heterosexual couples to enter into Civil Unions. To many marriages are anything but civil... Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
My take is that a truely secular government should only recognize marriage as a civil union and nothing more. All this banging on about the "sanctity" of marriage is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state (IMHO). The government should have no role in deciding the sanctity of anything. All marriages should be considered civil unions by the government and the church can decide if they are sacred or not. That way homosexual couple can have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (civil unions) and be recognized by the government to have the same status, but no church is going to be forced to like it or endorse it. People's churches can continue to be the comfortable little bastions of bigotry they've always been and the rest of society can move on.
-
I have one rule in life, as long as something doesn't infringe on my rights then people can live their lives how they choose or how nature made them. Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights as you and me. If we have to put up with the hell that is marriage, why shouldn't they ;-) This is the 21st century, it's time to update your thinking. Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
Michael P Butler wrote: If we have to put up with the hell that is marriage, why shouldn't they Actually I know a few Gay people who are against same-sex-marriage for that very reason. It's kind of funny. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Pardon me while I pick myself up - I just fell out of my chair laughing. So literal interpretation of the Bible is your source for historical information, is it? I'm sure you'll tell us all how we've been here a total of five thousand years, and that dinosaur bones are an elaborate practical joke. Or is it a test of faith? I forget. :laugh::laugh:
This is probably surprising to you, but every time there has been hard evidence discovered, it has matched with the history of the Bible. Archeologists have postulated many times that the Bible can't be right about so-and-so (Hittites for example). But later, someone goes and discovers that the Bible was right all along. The theory of evolution is similar. While it is a reason that many people disregard the Bible, it has no facts that clearly indicate its validity. Laughing at the Bible is a dangerous thing to do, when you look at the actual evidence rather than popular opinion. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
This is probably surprising to you, but every time there has been hard evidence discovered, it has matched with the history of the Bible. Archeologists have postulated many times that the Bible can't be right about so-and-so (Hittites for example). But later, someone goes and discovers that the Bible was right all along. The theory of evolution is similar. While it is a reason that many people disregard the Bible, it has no facts that clearly indicate its validity. Laughing at the Bible is a dangerous thing to do, when you look at the actual evidence rather than popular opinion. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.Looks like it's a little lame on that 7 day business... It is also very dangerous to accept everything written in a largely allegorical document, by many authors (some with a political agenda), and translated many times (often by politically motivated translators) as absolute truth. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
I forget which one it was, but one of our founding fathers sort of predicted this sort of thing. (I really wish I could remember the quote.) Basically he said that the U.S. Constitution would only work as long as people treated God and His Word as authoritative, and acted responsibly. Now, we simply see an evidence of this. When absolutes are ignored, whoever talks the loudest, the most, or with the most voices can change the law because people no longer have a non-emotional reason to stand against it. Many people who oppose homosexual marriage are doing it based upon principles of morality taught in the Bible. This is a principle, and not an emotional feeling -- thus a very valid reason to oppose homosexual marriage. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Looks like it's a little lame on that 7 day business... It is also very dangerous to accept everything written in a largely allegorical document, by many authors (some with a political agenda), and translated many times (often by politically motivated translators) as absolute truth. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
There are parts of the Bible that are clearly meant to be understood as allegorical, however most of it is not. Translations are just that. Some people do a good job, others don't. There's no point in throwing out the good ones just because bad ones exist. If you have proof that the world wasn't created in 7 days, then please provide it. No evolutionist yet has been able to. They simply provide a competing explanation for the same evidence. The 6-day Creationist viewpoint is consistent within itself, with only minor interpretations of evidence undergoing rethinking. On the other hand, evolution has had its most fundamental workings rethought and reinvented several times. Which has the better track record? (Popular opinion doesn't count.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
There are parts of the Bible that are clearly meant to be understood as allegorical, however most of it is not. Translations are just that. Some people do a good job, others don't. There's no point in throwing out the good ones just because bad ones exist. If you have proof that the world wasn't created in 7 days, then please provide it. No evolutionist yet has been able to. They simply provide a competing explanation for the same evidence. The 6-day Creationist viewpoint is consistent within itself, with only minor interpretations of evidence undergoing rethinking. On the other hand, evolution has had its most fundamental workings rethought and reinvented several times. Which has the better track record? (Popular opinion doesn't count.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: If you have proof that the world wasn't created in 7 days, then please provide it. The geologic record (and I don't mean fossils, but just rocks and rock formations) makes it quite clear that the world has been around for millenai befor man arraived on the scene (by whatever mechanism - I don't need evolution to contradict the 7 day bullsit, just physics). John Fisher wrote: The 6-day Creationist viewpoint is consistent within itself, with only minor interpretations of evidence undergoing rethinking. Consistently absurd. There is no evidence that supports that timescale for creation of the universe to the emergence of humankind. John Fisher wrote: On the other hand, evolution has had its most fundamental workings rethought and reinvented several times. Not so. The fundamental theory is unchanged since Darwin, a few refinements on the mechanisms at work, but no substantive changes. And both curtrent observations and geologic records support it, not Creationism. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
John Fisher wrote: If you have proof that the world wasn't created in 7 days, then please provide it. The geologic record (and I don't mean fossils, but just rocks and rock formations) makes it quite clear that the world has been around for millenai befor man arraived on the scene (by whatever mechanism - I don't need evolution to contradict the 7 day bullsit, just physics). John Fisher wrote: The 6-day Creationist viewpoint is consistent within itself, with only minor interpretations of evidence undergoing rethinking. Consistently absurd. There is no evidence that supports that timescale for creation of the universe to the emergence of humankind. John Fisher wrote: On the other hand, evolution has had its most fundamental workings rethought and reinvented several times. Not so. The fundamental theory is unchanged since Darwin, a few refinements on the mechanisms at work, but no substantive changes. And both curtrent observations and geologic records support it, not Creationism. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
Rob Graham wrote: The geologic record (and I don't mean fossils, but just rocks and rock formations) makes it quite clear that the world has been around for millenai befor man arraived on the scene (by whatever mechanism - I don't need evolution to contradict the 7 day bullsit, just physics). The geologic record is simply a pile of rocks. There is stuff in them. None of those things have date labels. All of the methods that evolutionists use to date them are based upon unproven assumptions. This is not proof. Again, the problem is with interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. (As an interesting aside, the origins of the geologic record are based solely on circular reasoning -- i.e. the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils.) Oh, and these piles of rocks are actually one of the stronger evidences for Creationism. The only good way to get layers of rock like that (and the fossils in them) is to bury things quickly (like in a flood or volcanic eruption). [edit] This sort of thing has been observed just a few years ago at Mt. St. Helens. I would tend to call that evidence... [/edit] Rob Graham wrote: There is no evidence that supports that timescale for creation of the universe to the emergence of humankind. There is plenty of evidence to support a 6,000 to 10,000 year timeframe for the earth. Take a look at www.answersingenesis.org or any of the other sites that provide it. Just because you believe otherwise doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. (And just to remind you, evidence doesn't come with built-in interpretations. They come as people try to dicipher what the evidence means.) Rob Graham wrote: The fundamental theory is unchanged since Darwin, a few refinements on the mechanisms at work, but no substantive changes. Then what about the people who changed the model from Darwin's suggestion to mutation? How about the evolutionists arguing among themselve about things like the "hopeful monster" theory. Why the arguments between solid-state and big bang theories? Why so many variations on the big-bang theory itself? These are not minor disputes, they affect the very basics of the evolutionary explanation. (The only thing truly in common between all the evolutionary theories is that the world and universe are really, really, really old.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as s -
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
I would suggest that you decide the gay marriage issue on principle and if and when the issue of polygamy comes up for serious discussion, you listen to all of the arguments and make the decision the same way. If noone can come up with a compelling argument against it, then support it. If they can come up with a compelling argument against it, then oppose it. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
This is probably surprising to you, but every time there has been hard evidence discovered, it has matched with the history of the Bible. Archeologists have postulated many times that the Bible can't be right about so-and-so (Hittites for example). But later, someone goes and discovers that the Bible was right all along. The theory of evolution is similar. While it is a reason that many people disregard the Bible, it has no facts that clearly indicate its validity. Laughing at the Bible is a dangerous thing to do, when you look at the actual evidence rather than popular opinion. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: This is probably surprising to you, but every time there has been hard evidence discovered, it has matched with the history of the Bible. Archeologists have postulated many times that the Bible can't be right about so-and-so (Hittites for example). But later, someone goes and discovers that the Bible was right all along. This is just one of those untruths that Christians pass around to each other without any real scrutiny. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684869136/qid=1077832936/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-0662552-5930453[^] John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Rob Graham wrote: The geologic record (and I don't mean fossils, but just rocks and rock formations) makes it quite clear that the world has been around for millenai befor man arraived on the scene (by whatever mechanism - I don't need evolution to contradict the 7 day bullsit, just physics). The geologic record is simply a pile of rocks. There is stuff in them. None of those things have date labels. All of the methods that evolutionists use to date them are based upon unproven assumptions. This is not proof. Again, the problem is with interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. (As an interesting aside, the origins of the geologic record are based solely on circular reasoning -- i.e. the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils.) Oh, and these piles of rocks are actually one of the stronger evidences for Creationism. The only good way to get layers of rock like that (and the fossils in them) is to bury things quickly (like in a flood or volcanic eruption). [edit] This sort of thing has been observed just a few years ago at Mt. St. Helens. I would tend to call that evidence... [/edit] Rob Graham wrote: There is no evidence that supports that timescale for creation of the universe to the emergence of humankind. There is plenty of evidence to support a 6,000 to 10,000 year timeframe for the earth. Take a look at www.answersingenesis.org or any of the other sites that provide it. Just because you believe otherwise doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. (And just to remind you, evidence doesn't come with built-in interpretations. They come as people try to dicipher what the evidence means.) Rob Graham wrote: The fundamental theory is unchanged since Darwin, a few refinements on the mechanisms at work, but no substantive changes. Then what about the people who changed the model from Darwin's suggestion to mutation? How about the evolutionists arguing among themselve about things like the "hopeful monster" theory. Why the arguments between solid-state and big bang theories? Why so many variations on the big-bang theory itself? These are not minor disputes, they affect the very basics of the evolutionary explanation. (The only thing truly in common between all the evolutionary theories is that the world and universe are really, really, really old.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as sDamn. I forgot. It is pointless to reason with true believers. FYI: Carbon dating does not depend on fossilized life forms of any kind, and is a well understood, proven, and accepted method for dating damn near anything. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
Damn. I forgot. It is pointless to reason with true believers. FYI: Carbon dating does not depend on fossilized life forms of any kind, and is a well understood, proven, and accepted method for dating damn near anything. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
You know.. science as we know it, was created by God, so that we (some of us at least) would have something to do all day. God doesn't like slackers.. :rolleyes: :-D -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
Rob Graham wrote: The geologic record (and I don't mean fossils, but just rocks and rock formations) makes it quite clear that the world has been around for millenai befor man arraived on the scene (by whatever mechanism - I don't need evolution to contradict the 7 day bullsit, just physics). The geologic record is simply a pile of rocks. There is stuff in them. None of those things have date labels. All of the methods that evolutionists use to date them are based upon unproven assumptions. This is not proof. Again, the problem is with interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. (As an interesting aside, the origins of the geologic record are based solely on circular reasoning -- i.e. the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils.) Oh, and these piles of rocks are actually one of the stronger evidences for Creationism. The only good way to get layers of rock like that (and the fossils in them) is to bury things quickly (like in a flood or volcanic eruption). [edit] This sort of thing has been observed just a few years ago at Mt. St. Helens. I would tend to call that evidence... [/edit] Rob Graham wrote: There is no evidence that supports that timescale for creation of the universe to the emergence of humankind. There is plenty of evidence to support a 6,000 to 10,000 year timeframe for the earth. Take a look at www.answersingenesis.org or any of the other sites that provide it. Just because you believe otherwise doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. (And just to remind you, evidence doesn't come with built-in interpretations. They come as people try to dicipher what the evidence means.) Rob Graham wrote: The fundamental theory is unchanged since Darwin, a few refinements on the mechanisms at work, but no substantive changes. Then what about the people who changed the model from Darwin's suggestion to mutation? How about the evolutionists arguing among themselve about things like the "hopeful monster" theory. Why the arguments between solid-state and big bang theories? Why so many variations on the big-bang theory itself? These are not minor disputes, they affect the very basics of the evolutionary explanation. (The only thing truly in common between all the evolutionary theories is that the world and universe are really, really, really old.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as sAlways amazes me that such total ignorance still exists in todays world. I point you to http://www.talkorigins.org/[^]. Every single creationist "argument" (which is giving them more credit that they deserve) has been roundly debunked by modern science. Most arguments against evolutional theory and modern geology are argued from positions of extreme ignorance and often based on out of date material. Even the pope accepts that the world is billions of years old and that humans arose through evolution. I recommend Richard Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" - it'll blow your mind