Unrepentantly Retro
I'm soooo glad there are manipulative people like this to give me an analysis of culture.
Puh-leaze! So I, a Retro American, am obviously an intolerant tyrant who is bent upon forcing my morality upon everyone else. Forget the fact that I am less judgmental and more accepting of others than Metro Americans are. According to the site I linked to,
"Metro America values inclusion, respects science and social discourse, and promotes policies designed to provide physical, economic and social security for all families..."
As though the Retros don't. The article I linked to
is obviously blatant liberal manipulation. I believe I dealt with such
manipulation in this
post. An exerpt:
"Liberalism is built on denial and paradox. Liberals say 'Freedom for all--all of us Leftists,' and 'We are tolerant of everyone--but you.' They claim to be a straightforward philosophy of inclusion, but they are really a philosophy of fine print and exceptions. They are a philosophy of deception. They know that they would have no supporters if they said 'We fight for our own benefit and no one else's.' Therefore, they say 'We fight for everyone's benefit. Some restrictions apply.'"
The site I linked to is simply built on deception. Democrats are all about inclusion, so long as they can choose whom to include. The lights in which Conservatism and Liberalism are portrayed in Retro vs. Metro are not only manipulative, but deceptive. They attempt to portray Conservatives as warmongering neanderthals (see the pictures behind the title) and the Liberals as enlightened, inclusive, unifying leaders.
Those of us with common sense know the truth. So in light of that, I am RETRO AND PROUD!!! No matter how they describe me or my beliefs, I know the truth, and those who know me know the truth. Conservatism stands for family, education, unity, strength, integrity, and a hand up. The best the Liberals can do is fight for certain kinds of families (never mind two-parent heterosexual families), educators (forget the kids), unity (by eliminating those who aren't Liberal), morality (as long as it feels good), and hand outs.
So how about you: Are you Retro or Metro?
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 8/24/2004 03:17:00 PM
61 comments
61 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
"Liberalism is built on denial and paradox. Liberals say 'Freedom for all--all of us Leftists,' and 'We are tolerant of everyone--but you.' They claim to be a straightforward philosophy of inclusion, but they are really a philosophy of fine print and exceptions. They are a philosophy of deception. They know that they would have no supporters if they said 'We fight for our own benefit and no one else's.' Therefore, they say 'We fight for everyone's benefit. Some restrictions apply.'"
Prove it. I certainly think the religous right doesn't fight for everyone's benefit: only themselves and your book. Gays, Muslims and atheists have all felt the wrath of the religous right. Who have the liberals hurt? Nobody I can think of. Maybe the super-rich?
Does gay people getting married personally hurt you? Does it hurt your family? No.
Does my refusal to believe everything in some thousand-year old book hurt you? No.
Why don't you try thinking for yourself instead?
"Puh-leaze! So I, a Retro American, am obviously an intolerant tyrant who is bent upon forcing my morality upon everyone else. Forget the fact that I am less judgmental and more accepting of others than Metro Americans are."
You support banning gay marriage. That seems to me like forcing your morality on someone else.
Many of my friends are Christians, some are even creationists. How many of yours are atheists or Muslims?
So every child with a single parent is scarred for life? I don't believe that.
Where did you get your "fact" anyway? Why do you decide what children "need"? I know children raised by single parents, and they seem like normal kids to me.
Your example is confused, but the reason families fall apart is not because they are black, or because they receive entitlements. It's because they don't fit together.
You know what? You're right. There is a difference between people raised by two or one parent. There is a difference between people raised by their grandparents or people raised by adoptive parents. EVERYBODY is different.
Conservativism is, by definition, conservative. That means that conservatives oppose change. Civil rights: conservatives opposed that. Welfare: conservatives oppose that. Gay marriage: conservatives oppose that. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU SUPPORT?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LoneAmigo:
Your inference that it is merely Christians or "right-wingers" who oppose gay marriages is incorrect. In fact, most "fundamental" religions (Islam, Judaism, etc.) are opposed to homosexuality in general, and "gay marriage" in particular.
Perhaps it has escaped your notice that no nation in history has ever sanctioned homosexual marriage. Even the Greeks and Romans, whose culture was heavily homosexual and atheistic (can't argue "superstition" there) were opposed to the very idea, based on an understanding of rational and (dare I say) natural human functions. An opposition to homosexual marriage should be perceived as being quite natural, and even intellectual; claiming that a rejection of the gay agenda is mere superstitious whining is therefore inaccurate.
Your other point stands. Christians are, by necessity, "intolerant". Every organization exists by means of a standard, and Christians are no different. Neo's point was, however, that "Liberals" are no more "tolerant" than the conservatives they despise, and are frightfully dishonest in denying it.
I did not say christians. I said conservatives. Many religons do oppose gay marriage. Does that mean I should?
Many religons also sanction killing or at least fighting against those who are not members of their religon. Does that mean I should?
Many Christians do support gay marriage. Perhaps you don't recognize them, but some churchs in Massachussets marry gay people.
LoneAmigo:
No, the fact that many (actually most) religions are completely opposed to homosexuality does not mean that you must follow along. But the fact that thousands of years of human understanding and belief have been uniformly opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage makes for a legitimate objection.
No, “conservative” does not mean opposed to “change”. A conservative upholds traditional moral and social ethics, for the very good reason that they are proven to preserve and strengthen society, as well as improving general welfare. Any radical deviation from historical ideals should be held as suspect; Liberals seem to want to race into things without either much study or much sense.
Greek and Roman society was most definitely not atheistic: religon was heavily integrated into their society.
So, we shouldn't deviate from historical ideals, should we? Okay, let's be Roman pagans. Let's legalize slavery. Let's illegalize interacial marriage. Let's get rit of the internal combustion engine, the computer, and the industrial revolution. In fact, let's just head on back to 6000 BC.
You say you support family values. Well, what about letting families survive. The Bush administration is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Just look at the widening gap, the Bush tax cuts and the economic downturn. Not good for families if they can't afford to eat, is it?
You probably live in a middle-class home in a middle-class neighbourhoud, so you don't know what it's like to be poor. Honestly, neither do I. But thanks to George Bush and the Republicans (good name for a band, bad name for an administration), you'll soon have the opportunity to find out, because he's letting American middle-class jobs get outsourced to India. P'haps that's a little exagurated, but thousands of people are going to become poorer if the Bush administration continues. That is not good for families.
LoneAmigo:
Read up on the Greek and Roman religious beliefs. Not only are they completely borrowed from other nations (a total lack of any original religious convictions is pretty indicative of ‘lackadaisicalness’), but they also fluctuated repeatedly, with no firm structure or core. In fact, it got to the point of where the Roman Emperors, tired of the thousands of deities, cut it down to one: themselves.
You also seem to be confusing the issue in your second paragraph. How did you perceive an argument for careful historical consideration of human tradition to advocating living a barbaric lifestyle? Really, core human ethical beliefs have remained relatively the same throughout history. For example, every past and present nation seems to agree that murder is wrong, cowardice is wrong, stealing is wrong, illicit marriage is wrong, etc. Nations may differ on who they may think applies for this moral code, but the core beliefs remain the same. And one of those beliefs is that marriage is between man and woman.
So when Liberals suddenly light upon a supposed injustice that has been uniformly agreed to be just by _every_single_culture_and_nation_that_ever_existed_ , I think I am justified to be extremely suspicious.
You sound like communists, you know, quoting history all the time. "The Historical Dialect will show the truth" and all that crap.
But your knowledge of Greco-Roman religon is obviously lacking. Greek, and later Roman gods were not changed with the breeze as you seem to indicate. The Roman gods were of course the Greek gods renamed, but that doesn't mean much. They were worshiped by the Greeks in just the same kind of way that you worship Jesus Christ the Superstar(an all-around nice guy, I'm sure, by sadly delusional).
Jesus Christ probably had a different name when he was born, anyway.
For thousands of years, every_single_society supported slavery. Does that mean that I can lock you in chains and have you till my fields, because of history?
Populusque Mondus
-TheLoneAmigo
LoneAmigo:
Actually, this isn’t communism… communism rejects any form of normative teleology. And no, I’m not defining “right” to mean “human tradition”. I’m simply pointing out that human tradition (especially when it is relatively unanimous over thousands of years) should be considered carefully.
Please, do some more study on Greek/Roman religious belief. The entire emphasis on the gods being “human” (in character, speech, action, etc.) illustrates the core humanistic beliefs of the Greeks and Romans. For them, Man was God… they could not conceive of anything more rational or perfect than man… which is also the core of atheism. And they did not worship in the same way Christians worship, because they had no concept of a “super” man… which is Christ, the God-Man; the God who became man. Most other pagan religions dimly grasped the Judeo/Christian truths of sin, guilt, sacrifice, and redemption. A good example of this would be the common practice of human sacrifice to “appease” the god’s anger; providing good weather for harvest, victory in battle… whatever. This is a remarkably close picture of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice to satisfy God’s justice.
Now, for your argument on slavery, my original argument holds. Every nation would agree that slavery is *wrong*, i.e., it wasn’t perceived as a desirable position for a person to be in. With that in mind, take a look at the “why” of slavery… if everybody agrees that slavery is bad, why institute it? The answer is that it was a form of punishment. Ancient (and modern) societies were constantly plagued with crime. To deter crime, you need to have an effective reason for criminals to avoid crime… for ancient lawmakers, slavery was the answer. Rather than have criminals cooped up in jail cells, at great expense to taxpayers, why not enforce a system which is extremely distasteful to criminals (loss of citizenship, loss of status, loss of most rights), and economically cheap? Put ‘em to work! Make ‘em sweat and labor for years, and we’ll see whether they commit the crime again! Now, as time goes by, this also applies to prisoners of war from battles, hostages, etc. Point is, slavery was used as a cheaper (in fact, actually lucrative) form of containment for “unwanteds”.
Now, the idea is actually effective… but what brought about the decline and fall of the slavery concept was the fact that with all the power the slaveholders had, there were many abuses. That’s what Christianity calls, “original sin”; and what Lord Acton called the corruptive result of power (“Power corrupts, absolute power…”).
The point of this long winded post is to point out that slavery and homosexuality are not in the same boat… slavery was a civil solution to a moral problem, not the moral problem itself.
On a last note, the Christian opposition of gay “marriage” is rooted in the fact that “marriage” (unlike civil unions) is a religious, not a secular, position. For the state to require that we recognize a gay couple as “married” means that the state is attempting to change our religion. If gay “marriage” is antithetical to Christian tenets and if we have freedom of religion… then how can the government force us to accept gay “marriage” as legit?
It’s one thing to proclaim “civil unions” legal (that is a secular position); quite another to carry the war into camps that, by law, are inviolate.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Why should we have a Dad and a Mom? What is the reasoning for that? What is wrong with being gay? How can it hurt society?
Being gay isn't natural. It's not genetic and you are not born with it. It is abnormal for the human to be gay or lesbian. You hear people constantly say to be different. Or that it is okay to be different. Being gay is not natural. It is not Biblical, nor is it right. How is it right if it isn't natural and it isn't born in you. I bet most gays aren't really gay, they just think they are because they have convinced themselves that they are different and they need to show it.
Being married to someone of the same sex is not a right. Just because you want to do it and America is "free" you should be able to do it? Why? Is that what our founding fathers wanted? Did they want Americans to be free or be free to do what they wanted to do?
Marriage is no more religous than singing or eating. It has been going on since before Judaism or Christianity ever existed. Ancient hunter-gatherers formed stable monogamous pairs, and I reckon they would have had a word translating roughly to marriage. Marriage is a millenia-old concept, and Christianity has no more a monopoly on it than Nokia has a monopoly on mobile phones.
No, I think you should do a little more research on Greco-Roman religon. They believed that the gods were more than human, that they could do things and see things that humans cannot. Can humans provide a better harvest? They definitely had a concept of a "super-man".
Jesus Christ, Superman! How do we know you're who you say you are?
I didn't say you were communists, I said you were using similar arguments: the historical ones, continously, over and over.
The world is not Christian.
Populesque Mondus
-The Lone Amigo
Marrige is a purley Christian thing. God created it in the very beginning.
Sigh. Of course the Greek gods were “more than human”. The point I was trying to make was that the characteristics of the Greek gods was simply ordinary human nature, only “more so”. The gods could be just as immoral, unjust, profane, and flawed as humans… they just had more “power”. There was no conception of an absolute truth, and the inconsistencies of the Greek religion were so blatantly obvious, (What makes a god a god? What is truth? What is justice?) that the only refuge Greek philosophers found was to adhere to a position that today is recognized as humanism… and it became the dominant policy of the Enlightenment era.
The difference with Judeo/Christian beliefs is that God is held to be unfathomable. His ways are totally alien from the sinful human understanding. God is not merely a “Superhuman” (as was Nietzsche’s view), God is God. That makes the concept of the Man-God so very complicated and intriguing.
Marriage is a religious concept. There are more religions than Christianity, granted, but all of them (in their tenets) oppose homosexual marriage. If it was merely Christianity that held the idea of homosexual marriage to be immoral, people could be then “married” in another sense.
As it is, since the concept of marriage is irretrievably tied to the tenets of religion, and the tenets of religion are unanimous in opposition to homosexual marriage, the government has no right to enforce it. If it does, we are talking serious suppression and violation of U.S. law.
>>>The world is not Christian.
No, and it’s precisely because it isn’t that there even is such a thing as homosexual civil unions. If we were a Christian nation, such a thing as the separation of church and state would be an unthinkable concept… how is it possible to govern wisely, if you don’t know what “wisdom” is?
Your first statement is patently false. If the only argument you can offer to support the theory that something “isn’t religious” is that it’s been practiced for a long time… then what, pray tell, IS religious?
Your statement that marriage “has been going on since before Judaism or Christianity ever existed” is going to be a wee bit difficult to prove. Taken that modern science has been totally unable to disprove the concept of Biblical creation (that’s why… even though they hate to admit it… secular scientist call evolution a THEORY. More honestly, it’s a hypothesis.), and that Biblical creation proclaims that marriage was instituted directly after creation… I’ll leave you to draw the obvious conclusion.
>>>Jesus Christ, Superman! How do we know you're who you say you are?
Well, obviously, a discussion of apologetics is going to be way beyond the scope of this blog; but if you are really interested in the “intellectual” evidence for Biblical Christianity, I’d be more than happy to give you the titles of a few books that you should find provocative.
Credit were credit is due!
You brought up a very good point, Fanny-Tora, and you are absolutely right.
Rock on, man! (NeoFascist?) As another conservative Christian homeschooler, you got it right! At least all I've read of your posts, anyway. God bless!
Atheism is not believing in superstitions and gods. That is not what Greco-Roman culture is.
Science can't disprove creationism because whatever they find, you just say "Well, that's the way God made it." Never mind the fact that a God who's created tons and tons of fossils has way too much time on His hands. God really has a thing for making His creations confused, doesn't He?
Science can disprove creationism if you just let it be so. Radiocarbon dating. Stratification.
Creationism is pretty much crap. No science is based on as little facts and as much bullcrap as creationist science. I really doubt that you understand all the facts involved, but even if you did, you'd just say "God is unfathomable." and leave it at that. You know, that gets pretty bloddy boring after a while.
The Vatican accepts evolution, but of course to you "Catholics aren't Christians."
How am I meant to argue with you? You don't even try to validate your arguments with anything but "God made it so." and "It's been so since God made it so." and the words of a book that's probably written by about sixty-two men at differing points in history without any connection.
Put down your Bible and start thinking for yourself.
Populesque Mondus
-The Lone Amigo
Fanny-Tora,
You got it totally wrong. The idea of marriage has existed since before homo sapiens. Animals paired up for life long before Homo Sapiens came around and much longer before they invented Christianity.
Homo Sapiens have been around for 100,000+ years, and Christianity has only been around for 2000 or so years. Therefore, marriage precedes your invented Christian God's rules by quite some time.
But, Fanny Tora, even if your statement were correct, then you would have another problem: If God created marriage, then God created HOMOSEXUALITY as well! Therefore, you should embrace homosexuality within your culture because God invented it.
And before you tell me that the Bible condemnds homosexuality, you should know that the Bible also says its better not to get married at all (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).
So, if you do want to follow the WWJD rules, then be inclusive to all, even homosexuals, and reject marriage for yourself. Or, you can do the secular thing, which is be inclusive to all, including homosexuals, and get married and live happily ever after.
S. Lewis,
You said: "Taken that modern science has been totally unable to disprove the concept of Biblical creation (that’s why… even though they hate to admit it… secular scientist call evolution a THEORY. More honestly, it’s a hypothesis.), and
that Biblical creation proclaims that marriage was instituted directly after creation… I’ll leave you to draw the obvious conclusion."
So many things are wrong in your post its hard to know where to begin.
Actually, Science disproved the Biblical creation account, starting at Genesis 1:1. See, Genesis says that the earth and water and plants and all these things were created before any stars were created, but that is impossible, since science and astronomy has PROVEN that no matter more complex than hydrogen (1 on the atomic chart) could have existed without previous generations of stars to have created such matter. Nothing existed in the universe in the beginning except for stars (made of hydrogen) and when they started dying, they crushed the molecules into more complex elements and ejected them into space. Science has IRREFUTABLY proven that we all are, quite literally, made of stars. (ever hear that Moby song?) Anyway, the point is that Geneis is totally wrong starting at 1:1.
Furthermore, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term "theory". Yes, evolution is a "theory". You know what else is a "thoery"??? Gravity is also a "theory". The rotation of the Earth around the Sun is also a "theory". Relativity is also a "theory". And on an on. Do you not believe in gravity, now that you know its only a theory? The term "theory" in science actually holds alot of weight, and is only denoted to ideas that have passed rigorous testing and calculating and researching.
And guess what else?! Creationism isnt even considered a "theory" in science. Creationism is not worthy of the scientific term "theory". In science, they call creationism "hogwash".
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have no clue how we got on the subject of Evolution, but I'll bite.
Lone Amigo, I think you're the one who needs to think for yourself. Logic and reason seem to be of some value to you, so please, let's start using them. Science cannot disprove creationism any more than it can prove Evolutionism. Darwin himself said that the only reason he likes the idea of Evolution is because he didn't want to believe in God. He could find no proof of his ideas, and no one since him has been able to find a shred of proof.
Stratification is a weak argument if I ever heard one. Maybe you missed the memo where obviously undisturbed strata are in the wrong order. Actually, strata is better for disproving evolution. There are extremely few (if any) places on earth where the geological strata are in order.
Then you've got the problem of fossils that stretch through two strata. Something would have to be there for an awfully long time in order to make a fossil that is in multiple strata. In order for a fossil to be formed, the process has to be relatively quick. A specimen would not have tens of thousands of years to sit on the surface of the earth while it's waiting for soil to cover it up and pressure to become immense enough to fossilize it.
A quick process is needed, and the only logical possibilty would be the flood as described in Genesis. The fossils of dinosaurs are always in contorted positions, implying violent deaths which would have been caused by drowning and underwater currents.
Radiocarbon dating? That would work if one could know how much of the substance being measured was in the original specimen. Without such knowledge, the dating method rests on simple speculation of the original amount of the substance. Obviously, there is no way to know that, and with the half-life of Carbon 14, the results can vary greatly depending on the speculation of the scientist.
"How am I meant to argue with you? You don't even try to validate your arguments with anything but 'God made it so.' and 'It's been so since God made it so.'"
How do you know? That's quite a stereotype if I ever saw one.
Anon,
For the first part of your post, see above.
For the second part, the Bible says it is best not to marry, but that it is better to marry than to burn with passion and sin because of it. If homosexuality was natural, then it would be possible. Homosexual feelings are possible, but homosexual relations are not physiologically possible. There's a reason for that.
Marriage is for a man and a woman. The very definition of marriage involves the union of a man and a woman. Some things are beyond human control and are not subjective. Try as you might, you can't change the definition of marriage. Period.
Okay. The “belief” (lacking in too much proof to give it the credibility of a “theory”) that hydrogen “created the universe” is just that. A belief. Proponents start with a preconceived opinion of how the universe began (i.e., “big bang”), and then try to fit the empirical facts around their hypothesis.
The second law of Thermodynamics states that all matter tends toward “disorder”. In order to circumvent this truth (the “big bang” theory is totally contrary to this empirical law), scientists are forced to make some weird, torturous theories on how the universe works. According to such prestigious scientists such as Issac Asimov, the universe is some sort of cosmic egg: “The cosmic egg may be structureless (as far as we know), but it apparently represented a very orderly aggregation of matter. Its explosion represented a vast shift in the direction of disorder, and ever since, the amount of disorder in the Universe has been increasing.” Now, how something can be without structure, and yet be orderly, is a little bizarre.
So, we have the supposed truth that hydrogen is the “creator” of everything else… even though we don’t know how it did this, and we don’t know where it came from. We just have to BELIEVE it did.
Now, interestingly enough, the entire evolution theory’s foundation is that ‘creationism is wrong’. There is no stand alone evidence FOR this theory, scientist’s entire rationale is to point out supposed inconsistencies in creationism, and then triumphantly claim that, since creationism is wrong, obviously evolutionism is right!
Since this is very poor science (actually, it isn’t science at all), the hypothesis of evolution cannot fairly be called a theory… because a theory requires some factual evidence. Like the theory of gravity, which can be satisfactorily explained with regards to known, empirical facts. For evolution to make sense, scientists are forced to request their audience to BELIEVE what they say is true… because they can’t empirically support it.
NeoFascist, you said:
"Anon,
For the first part of your post, see above."
You talked quite nicely about strata. But my post involved the disproving of the creation account starting at Genesis 1:1. Specifically, the fact that all matter and elements more complex than (1) on the atomic chart were created inside the bodies of dying stars billions of years ago. Indeed, billions of years before the Earth, or our own Sun, was even created. Since I showed that Genesis is disproven at the very first line, the rest of the sweater unravels from there.
NEoFascist, oyu also said:
"For the second part, the Bible says it is best not to marry, but that it is better to marry than to burn with passion and sin because of it. If homosexuality was natural, then it would be possible. Homosexual feelings are possible, but homosexual relations are not physiologically possible. There's a reason for that.
Marriage is for a man and a woman. The very definition of marriage involves the union of a man and a woman. Some things are beyond human control and are not subjective. Try as you might, you can't change the definition of marriage. Period."
Since Marriage is a man-made institution that only exists in human society, I contend that marriage is very much WITHIN human control and can be sued as we wish. But honestly, I dont care much about gay marriage only so much as I want equal rights for all taxpaying citizens.
I dont care if your religious viewpoint recognizes a gay marriage or not, and I dont care what you call it (a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet). BUT what I do want to see is equal federal and state rights for all civil unions/ lifelong commited pairs. I want to see the same legal recognitions, rights, and liberties afforded to straight couples. The word "marriage" matters not to me.
A marriage contract is a legal and purely secular contract. Our government doesn't serve in any capacity as a religious authority or institution and thus a marriage that is certified by the State has nothing to do with religion or the status of the marriage "in the eye's of God" anyway.
If a woman and myself go to a judge and get a marriage certificate then nothing religious has happened at all. Likewise there is nothing at all that prevents anyone, gay, animal lover, whatever, from having a PURELY RELIGIOUS marriage to anyone or anything.
If I belong to a religion that beleives that there is a special bond between people and animals and we worship an animalistic god and believe that soem pagan half dog is the father of the universe I can dress up in my religious attire and get my dog loving priest from my religious cult to perform a religous cerimony that "weds" myself and my dog.
As far as I'm concerned then I have been married to my dog "in the eye's of God". The government CANNOT in any way have any say over my own religious practices. My marriage is not recognized by the State, but no one can take away the recognition of my God. Likewise, Christians COULD have a religious wedding cerimony and consider themselves married in the eyes of God as well. Surely no Christian will say that the US government has to give sanction to a marriage in order for God to recognize it?!
So, what most people are familiar with is a cerimony in which they perform a religious ritual and seal their bonds religiously while at the same time getting recognition from the State. However, these are really two separate things. Both are independant from the other. Thus every marriage in the eyes of the government is a CIVIL UNION already.
Whether the participants believe it to have religious significance is purely up to them. This issue effects us all directly, regardless of faith or lack thereof. Marriage status from the government is ALREADY purely secular. This issue then is really about trying to convey some religious meaning to what is now recognized as a purely secular status. This is dangerous for all of us.
Bottom line is this: Your religion can recognize or refuse to recognize whatever it wants, but to the government, and to the people, and to our American society, every paired up couple (gay or straight) must be given identical and equal recognition by the government. What your religion defines as "marriage" is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT outside the walls of its church or mosque or temple.
>>>>Homo Sapiens have been around for 100,000+ years, and Christianity has only been around for 2000 or so years. Therefore, marriage precedes your invented Christian God's rules by quite some time.
You’re going to find that remarkably difficult to prove, considering the slight problem of “lack of evidence”. As Neo rightly pointed out, the concept of carbon dating relies on pre-conceived perceptions, such as the assumption of exactly how much carbon 14 the object originally contained, or how much rubidium, or whatever.
On the subject of “pre-historical” man, it’s interesting that every supposed “proof” has ended up as a fraud. For example, the “neanderthal” supposition blew apart years ago… scientists now agree that “neanderthals” were actually regular human beings after all.
>>>>If God created marriage, then God created HOMOSEXUALITY as well! Therefore, you should embrace homosexuality within your culture because God invented it.
Man, you’ve really got to study some basic theology before you spout off such nonsense. How on earth do you get the idea that since God created man with a free will, that God is somehow responsible for sin? Look at the situation “rationally”: for something to be ‘good’, there has to be something that is ‘not-good’, right? How do come to the conclusion that ‘good’, and ‘not-good’ are one and the same?
>>>How am I meant to argue with you? You don't even try to validate your arguments with anything but "God made it so." and "It's been so since God made it so."
Actually, I tried to validate my arguments with history (but that was communistic), with nature (but that was biased), and with reason (and that was selective). What more do you want?
I mean, come on. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Fact. Homosexuality runs against natural human function. Fact. The government does not have the right to mandate our religious beliefs. Fact.
Here we have history, science, and law. Are these fields invalid to you?
S. Lewis, you said:
"Okay. The “belief” (lacking in too much proof to give it the credibility of a “theory”) that hydrogen “created the universe” is just that. A belief. Proponents start with a preconceived opinion of how the universe began (i.e., “big bang”), and then try to fit the empirical facts around their hypothesis.
The second law of Thermodynamics states that all matter tends toward “disorder”. In order to circumvent this truth (the “big bang” theory is totally contrary to this empirical law), scientists are forced to make some weird, torturous theories on how the universe works. According to such prestigious scientists such as Issac Asimov, the universe is some sort of cosmic egg: “The cosmic egg may be structureless (as far as we know), but it apparently represented a very orderly aggregation of matter. Its explosion represented a vast shift in the direction of disorder, and ever since, the amount of disorder in the Universe has been increasing.” Now, how something can be without structure, and yet be orderly, is a little bizarre.
So, we have the supposed truth that hydrogen is the “creator” of everything else… even though we don’t know how it did this, and we don’t know where it came from. We just have to BELIEVE it did.
Now, interestingly enough, the entire evolution theory’s foundation is that ‘creationism is wrong’. There is no stand alone evidence FOR this theory, scientist’s entire rationale is to point out supposed inconsistencies in creationism, and then triumphantly claim that, since creationism is wrong, obviously evolutionism is right!
Since this is very poor science (actually, it isn’t science at all), the hypothesis of evolution cannot fairly be called a theory… because a theory requires some factual evidence. Like the theory of gravity, which can be satisfactorily explained with regards to known, empirical facts. For evolution to make sense, scientists are forced to request their audience to BELIEVE what they say is true… because they can’t empirically support it."
The hydrogen stardust theory is not a simple belief. It is an observed, tested, measured, fact concluded concretely with vast amounts of empirical evidence. This is something you will not find for any Biblical creationism idea. Every astronomer, every NASA employee, every physicist, agrees on this subject. Extremely accomplished university professors write incredibly detailed papers on this topic. There is no controversy here, unless you look at the religious fundamentalists. You could not even properly refute it if you tried, because you do not understand the mechanics behind it. The best you can do is point to some Bible verse, and insist they are wrong because your book says so. It would be no different than a Muslim pointing to a verse in the Quran and insisting that the world is flat. And the irony of this all, is that you are just another version of a religious fundamentalist insisting the earth is flat because you see flat ground every time you look out your window. Fortunately, the later generations will know better. Gotta love human progress!
As far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, I think you are misunderstanding it. If you were correct in your interpretation, then it would be impossible for snowflakes or DIAMONDS to form! Furthermore, you misunderstand the universal concept of "Disorder". There is no disorder in the sense that you think it is: there are only two kinds of order. Sequential and grouping order. sequential is like this: abcabcabc, and grouping order is like this: aaabbbccc. Chaos or Disorder does not exist in the way you are trying to insist it does.
Go read up a bit on this website please: httP://www.everythingforever.com
We do not "believe" that hydrogen created the universe. You are vastly mistaken here. the truth is that the universe was never "created". Mass/energy is never created nor destroyed; it merely changes forms. Even the Big Bang does not suppose a "creation" of the mass in the universe in the sense you think it does. It still models off the fact that mass can never be destroyed. The universe has no beginning because the further back in time you go, the slower time goes. Its like getting 50% closer to the finish line with each step, but you cannot EVER get down to "0".
Hydrogen never "created" anything. It merely changed forms inside dying collapsing stars into more complex atoms, like carbon and oxygen. Very simple actually. Much more simple and realistic than an invisible super hero that waved a magic wand and created everything.
Your claims of evolutions foundation of the wrongness of creationism shows only that you misunderstand everything about evolution. For oyu to make such bold claims about evolution, it would do you well to read up about it. After all, how can you attack your enemy if you know not what your enemy is?
Please visit this website so that you may refute evolution more properly in the future: http://www.talkorigins.org
We have tons of tesable measurable evidence of evolution. We have seen evolution happen all around us and even within our human bodies. For example: ever notice that a new flu strain is around each season? Do you know why your flu shot is only good for one year? Because evolution creates new diseases that are new species. Not only for viruses, but bacteria too. All kinds of new diseases appear that are classified as new species. And this happens on a yearly basis. Larger more complex life forms take a bit longer, but still do the same thing. Look at the galapagos islands. I dare you to watch one hour-long documentary on the galapagos islands and then tell me that evolution is not based on any empirical evidence.
Look at whales: they have fingers and toes in their skeleton! Look at humans: We have leftover tails in our skeletons. Look at snakes: they have leftover bony stubs from where their limbs used to be. Look at humans again: we have an appendix, which is used im part to digest raw meat. Since humans dont eat any significant amount of raw meat anymore, the appendix is superfluous and on its way out the door.
I have some pressing questions for you S. Lewis: IF evolution is false, then why do we not see modern mammal fossils next to ancient dinosaur fossils? And why do we have to make new inoculations and new immunizations for diseases each year if evolution is false?
S. Lewis, you said:
"You’re going to find that remarkably difficult to prove, considering the slight problem of “lack of evidence”. As Neo rightly pointed out, the concept of carbon dating relies on pre-conceived perceptions, such as the assumption of exactly how much carbon 14 the object originally contained, or how much rubidium, or whatever.
On the subject of “pre-historical” man, it’s interesting that every supposed “proof” has ended up as a fraud. For example, the “neanderthal” supposition blew apart years ago… scientists now agree that “neanderthals” were actually regular human beings after all."
Funny how you cite a "lack of evidence" while simultanteously embracing the most unevidenced unsupportable assertions ever made: the assertions in the Bible. Lack of evidence? Try gensis. Try the global flood. Try the existence of God. Try the existence of an afterlife. These are all things in the Bible that have a complete lack of evidence.
So why dont I agree with you on this one? Like you said, if there is a lack of evidence for something, then it doesnt exist. Therefore, God does not exist. Genesis is made up. The global flood never happened. There is no afterlife.
S. Lewis, you said:
"Man, you’ve really got to study some basic theology before you spout off such nonsense. How on earth do you get the idea that since God created man with a free will, that God is somehow responsible for sin? Look at the situation “rationally”: for something to be ‘good’, there has to be something that is ‘not-good’, right? How do come to the conclusion that ‘good’, and ‘not-good’ are one and the same?"
I will show you how God is responsible for sin, and evil, and everything bad in the universe. I will do it with a Bible quote, appropriately enough:
[God speaking] Isaiah 45:7. I make peace and create evil
There you have it! Straight from God himself.
>>>the fact that all matter and elements more complex than (1) on the atomic chart were created inside the bodies of dying stars billions of years ago. Indeed, billions of years before the Earth, or our own Sun, was even created.
Actually, you didn’t prove your premise. The scientific reasoning behind the “Hydrogen=Creator” is flawed and improvable, empirically… which is science’s realm. All else is either philosophy or speculation.
You are right, every marriage is a civil union… but logic doesn’t follow that every civil union is a marriage. Marital status is recognized as foundationally religious; couples who receive a “civil union” recognition from the government get the status of marriage (in the eyes of the government), without “religious-ness”.
“a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet”
Exactly. So why would gays feel compelled to have their sin approved of by God? Why should they insist on being “married”, if the phrase “civil union” will mean (secularly) precisely the same thing? Gays desire to be married, because they want to have their cake, and eat it too. How dare these churches hold the view that homosexual relations are wrong! We’ll show ‘em! Let’s get the government to illegally interfere with church beliefs and FORCE them to recognize us as legit!
Tell me now, really, who are the oppressors?
>>>the fact that all matter and elements more complex than (1) on the atomic chart were created inside the bodies of dying stars billions of years ago. Indeed, billions of years before the Earth, or our own Sun, was even created.
Actually, you didn’t prove your premise. The scientific reasoning behind the “Hydrogen=Creator” is flawed and improvable, empirically… which is science’s realm. All else is either philosophy or speculation.
You are right, every marriage is a civil union… but logic doesn’t follow that every civil union is a marriage. Marital status is recognized as foundationally religious; couples who receive a “civil union” recognition from the government get the status of marriage (in the eyes of the government), without “religious-ness”.
“a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet”
Exactly. So why would gays feel compelled to have their sin approved of by God? Why should they insist on being “married”, if the phrase “civil union” will mean (secularly) precisely the same thing? Gays desire to be married, because they want to have their cake, and eat it too. How dare these churches hold the view that homosexual relations are wrong! We’ll show ‘em! Let’s get the government to illegally interfere with church beliefs and FORCE them to recognize us as legit!
Tell me now, really, who are the oppressors?
I wish I had more time, Anonymous, but I have work to do. I will say only a few things.
First, the statement that only two kinds of order exist and that disorder is nonexistent is an insane assertation. In order to prove your point, you elect to use an unproven and unscientific assumption based on the rejection of one of the basic laws of the universe. That argument is the scientific equivalent of heresy, and its absurdity renders it useless to anyone in this argument.
As for whales, why would they have fingers? They're supposed to be relatives of cows, right? And while I'm on that subject, take a look at some "missing link" between cows and whales. A creature that was between a cow and a whale would be ill-suited for life either in water or on land. It would die no matter what environment it was in.
As for the flu virus, shouldn't life on earth have already Evolved as a whole past the need for single-cell organisms? Why on earth do we have any left if everything is supposed to Evolve? Also, while the flu-virus (and every other living thing) has the ability to adapt, it will never change into something else. I know for a fact that we will never see any Flu-Fishes or Flu-lizards. We will only have Flu viri, and despite the fact that it might *adapt* to become more dangerous to humans, it won't change into some complex creature.
S. Lewis, you said:
"Actually, you didn’t prove your premise. The scientific reasoning behind the “Hydrogen=Creator” is flawed and improvable, empirically… which is science’s realm. All else is either philosophy or speculation.
You are right, every marriage is a civil union… but logic doesn’t follow that every civil union is a marriage. Marital status is recognized as foundationally religious; couples who receive a “civil union” recognition from the government get the status of marriage (in the eyes of the government), without “religious-ness”.
“a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet”
Exactly. So why would gays feel compelled to have their sin approved of by God? Why should they insist on being “married”, if the phrase “civil union” will mean (secularly) precisely the same thing? Gays desire to be married, because they want to have their cake, and eat it too. How dare these churches hold the view that homosexual relations are wrong! We’ll show ‘em! Let’s get the government to illegally interfere with church beliefs and FORCE them to recognize us as legit!
Tell me now, really, who are the oppressors?"
I never equated hydrogen with the role of creator. That is your strawman, and not my assertion. I asserted that hydrogen and stars existed before the Earth or water or plants, therefore refuting Genesis. I also stated that there is no creator of the universe and matter/energy is never created nor destroyed. So please, if you debate me, stick to debating the things i actually said, not the strawmen you set up.
And regarding the gay marriage issue, you dont seem to actually be addressing my statement. I stated that I dont care about names, I only care about equal rights and benefits for all taxpayers. I also said that I dont care what religious institutions do or do not label a couple as "married" or not. So, if you want to debate me on gay marriage, then you will have to address my assertion that equal rights for all citizens and couples is necessary, and set aside your complaints about the definition of the word "marriage".
S. Lewis, let me ask you straight: Do you believe that gay couples should or should not be given the same federal and state rights as straight couples?
Contrary to your post, scientists are finally abandoning the Big Bang theory. Due to major inconsistencies, such as the prediction of a homogenous universe, the discovery that background radiation is smooth, and the self-defeating dating of the galaxies, scientists have concluded that the Big Bang theory is wrong, and now they are pursuing even more complicated scientific philosophies such as plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory. It seems that your tenacious clinging to the Big Bang theory (because that’s what the scientists say is true!) is slightly out-dated.
A major problem that evolutionists have with claiming the adaptation of viruses to different environments is an example of evolution, is that the virus remains a virus. It retains all of its characteristics; it simply changes how it enacts them. Kinda like claiming humans evolved in our lifetime, because all of a sudden we can go 100 m.p.h., and fly in the sky… because we have cars and planes.
And yes, scientists have found “living” fossils, such as the whale, sharks, dolphins, coelacanths, tuatuas, graptolites; and of course tons of insects… cockroaches, bees, ants, etc. In fact, there are many more “living” fossils found, than extinct ones.
Darwin’s Galapagos theory assumes that all change is evolution, not merely adaptation. Darwin took the very natural adaptation of particular animals to a particular climate, and assumed that since animals can make SMALL physical changes, they must therefore be able to make BIG physical changes. Poor logic, and bad science.
And the human “tail” is actually a shock absorber, so that we don’t harm our bodies when we sit down. The whale’s “fingers” are actually the most efficient means of propulsion; providing maximum strength with minimum product. This is proven physics.
>>>Since humans dont eat any significant amount of raw meat anymore, the appendix is superfluous and on its way out the door.
Actually, as a chef-in-training, I can tell you that you are incorrect. Serving rare meat is far more nutritious and flavorful than cooking everything well-done. In fact, what with food safety being up tremendously, more and more people are eating their meat rare. So the hemoglobin-processing appendix is once again starting to make sense…
NeoFascist, you said:
"I wish I had more time, Anonymous, but I have work to do. I will say only a few things.
First, the statement that only two kinds of order exist and that disorder is nonexistent is an insane assertation. In order to prove your point, you elect to use an unproven and unscientific assumption based on the rejection of one of the basic laws of the universe. That argument is the scientific equivalent of heresy, and its absurdity renders it useless to anyone in this argument.
As for whales, why would they have fingers? They're supposed to be relatives of cows, right? And while I'm on that subject, take a look at some "missing link" between cows and whales. A creature that was between a cow and a whale would be ill-suited for life either in water or on land. It would die no matter what environment it was in.
As for the flu virus, shouldn't life on earth have already Evolved as a whole past the need for single-cell organisms? Why on earth do we have any left if everything is supposed to Evolve? Also, while the flu-virus (and every other living thing) has the ability to adapt, it will never change into something else. I know for a fact that we will never see any Flu-Fishes or Flu-lizards. We will only have Flu viri, and despite the fact that it might *adapt* to become more dangerous to humans, it won't change into some complex creature."
I wish you had more time too. In fact I also wish I had more time, as I dont know how much longer I can post here today. I got work as well.
I never asserted that disorder does not exist. You are setting up a strawman or else you are misunderstanding my post. What I said was that disorder does not exist in the universal sense that you think it does. Disorder is relative for the purposes of "universal reality or creation". Understand now? in the context of the creation or desitnation of the universe, disorder is not a factor in the way you would traditionally think it is. If you read some stuff out of that website I posted, http://www.everythingforever.com, you would understand what I meant. But until you do, it is apparent that you will simply not understand what Im talking about, and you will mistakenly believe that I said disorder does not exist.
Why would whales have fingers? Because their evolutionary predecessors had them. That predecessor predates the cow or hippo, etc...
Methinks you did not visit http://www.talkorigins.org. There is volumes and volumes of data about the whale at that website. I will not be posting it unfortunately, as I must make this quick because I got to go to lunch (im at work).
As far as your "ill-suited species" claim, that is unsupported as far as Im concerned. Care to link something that backs it up? See, I believe you simply heard or read that from a preacher or religious source that knows nothing of evolution or biology.
Regarding the flu, you misunderstand what evolution is about: filling gaps and breaking new territory. Those single celled organisms are vital to our existence, because they are like the foundation for more complex animals. Its like a pyramid. single cell organisms are the base. mammals are the peak or point so to speak.
You got to crawl (bacteria) before you walk (mammals). But when you learn to run, do you suddenly forget how to crawl? nope. You retain the capabilities of both. Hence, you still need bacteria.
The flu changes to new species every year along with many other diseases. How is that not evolution? Care to explain how speciation evidenced within human diseases is somehow noe evolution?
By the way, to claim that a flu would evolve into a flu-fish or whatever only shows your lack of knowledge in the topic. Its akin to the word misinterpretation of Biblical scripture possible; one which would make you laugh your socks off.
>>>if you want to debate me on gay marriage, then you will have to address my assertion that equal rights for all citizens and couples is necessary, and set aside your complaints about the definition of the word "marriage".
But then the question comes right back to my position. Is marriage a “right”? More particularly, is enforcing the right of marriage a government precedent?
If marriage is a religious ceremony, then marriage is not a “right”, i.e., to be enforced by the government. Those participating in a religious ceremony must first fulfill the requirements of the religious body. I.e., if I deny the office of Pope, deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, deny the deity of Mary, deny the supremacy of the saints, deny the premise of confession and penitence; the Catholic Church has the right to exclude me from their body, not me the right to force them to accept me.
Same thing with homosexual marriage. Such a thing is antithetical to the meaning of marriage, and it is the homosexuals who must be governed by our laws, not us by theirs, if they desire religious recognition.
>>>Do you believe that gay couples should or should not be given the same federal and state rights as straight couples?
That’s kind of a loaded question. How do you define “rights”? It seems that you believe there should be no difference between the two hypothetical couples, but that’s not possible. The difference is, one couple is married, and one is not. If the government attaches certain benefits to those in a married status, and other benefits to those in a “civil union” status, that is because the two are not equal.
Just as I don’t get senior citizen rates because I am not a senior, gays don’t get marital status because they are not married.
S. Lewis, you said:
"Contrary to your post, scientists are finally abandoning the Big Bang theory. Due to major inconsistencies, such as the prediction of a homogenous universe, the discovery that background radiation is smooth, and the self-defeating dating of the galaxies, scientists have concluded that the Big Bang theory is wrong, and now they are pursuing even more complicated scientific philosophies such as plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory. It seems that your tenacious clinging to the Big Bang theory (because that’s what the scientists say is true!) is slightly out-dated."
I never said I subscribed to the Big Bang Theory. I merely referred to it because I am used to religious fundies only knowing of that theory. The only thing I said about the big Bang theory was that it does not say that matter was "created" like you thought it said.
Personally, I am more along the lines of Plasma Cosmology. Not that I subscribe to Plasma Cosmology per se, but I believe in a universe closer to those lines. Basically, an uncaused or uncreated universe. Your paragraph gives me no information I dont already know. In fact, the info you just typed up is something that any fan of the Science Channel (like myself) has known for years now. So you basically said that science is leaning away from the Big Bang, while I dont subscribe to the Big Bang theory anyway. So, I guess I cant really figure out what you are arguing against, other than your mistaken preconception that I believe in the Big Bang theory. For future reference, remember this: being an atheist (as I am) does not require subscription to the BBT.
S. Lewis, you said:
"A major problem that evolutionists have with claiming the adaptation of viruses to different environments is an example of evolution, is that the virus remains a virus. It retains all of its characteristics; it simply changes how it enacts them. Kinda like claiming humans evolved in our lifetime, because all of a sudden we can go 100 m.p.h., and fly in the sky… because we have cars and planes."
You cannot see the forest for the trees my friend. The sponge, for example, is like a "bridging" animal that links one type of life to another (plant/animal or fungus/animal etc...)
Your assertion is reeking of almost willful ignorance. Next will you tell me that Bats are birds? Why not? it says so in the Bible! :sarcasm:
S. Lewis, you said:
"And yes, scientists have found “living” fossils, such as the whale, sharks, dolphins, coelacanths, tuatuas, graptolites; and of course tons of insects… cockroaches, bees, ants, etc. In fact, there are many more “living” fossils found, than extinct ones.
Darwin’s Galapagos theory assumes that all change is evolution, not merely adaptation. Darwin took the very natural adaptation of particular animals to a particular climate, and assumed that since animals can make SMALL physical changes, they must therefore be able to make BIG physical changes. Poor logic, and bad science.
And the human “tail” is actually a shock absorber, so that we don’t harm our bodies when we sit down. The whale’s “fingers” are actually the most efficient means of propulsion; providing maximum strength with minimum product. This is proven physics."
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. A cupped hand works similar to a flipper, as swimming in a pool can show. So, hands or paws evolved to have connecting tissue between each digit in order to make a flipper for whales and dolphins. Dont forget sea otters and manatees etc...
If dolphins and whales did NOT evolve from land mammals, then why do they breathe air? Why do they have warm blood? Why do whales have fingers and digits, but FISH and SHARKS do not????
Your argument accidentaly proved my point, friend. You should be more careful when you argue in such ways, because its as if you forgot the other side of the coin entirely: water breathing, digitless fish.
S. Lewis, you said:
"Actually, as a chef-in-training, I can tell you that you are incorrect. Serving rare meat is far more nutritious and flavorful than cooking everything well-done. In fact, what with food safety being up tremendously, more and more people are eating their meat rare. So the hemoglobin-processing appendix is once again starting to make sense…"
Well Mr. Chef in Training, would you like to share with us what happens when you eat repeated meals composed primarily of RAW meat?
Rare meat is still cooked. And I cant remember when the last time is a human made a diet mainly of raw, unheated meat. Actually I can: remember that story of the girl who was raised by wolves? (I am not kidding there is a true story about this). Well she lived for quite some time. She was discovered and attempted to be rehabilitated. But she died an untimely death. What was the cause of death? Poisining from eating too much raw meat!
If you really are a chef in training, you should know what happens to a human that composes their diet PRIMARILY of RAW (not rare) meat.
S. Lewis, you said:
"But then the question comes right back to my position. Is marriage a “right”? More particularly, is enforcing the right of marriage a government precedent?
If marriage is a religious ceremony, then marriage is not a “right”, i.e., to be enforced by the government. Those participating in a religious ceremony must first fulfill the requirements of the religious body. I.e., if I deny the office of Pope, deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, deny the deity of Mary, deny the supremacy of the saints, deny the premise of confession and penitence; the Catholic Church has the right to exclude me from their body, not me the right to force them to accept me.
Same thing with homosexual marriage. Such a thing is antithetical to the meaning of marriage, and it is the homosexuals who must be governed by our laws, not us by theirs, if they desire religious recognition."
It is not the religious recognition that concerns the pro-gay-marriage crowd. It is the federal and state and social rights and legal recognitions. It is the creation of a 2nd class of citizens that concerns them.
The government decided a long time ago to give priveleges to couples that are "committed" in "civil unions" or "marriages" however you like to define the coupling. Now, if you allow RELIGIOUS rules to sneak into the government, then you automatically discriminate against other citizens, because you DENY RIGHTS to taxpaying citizens based on an ARBITRARY ATTRIBUTE (like homosexuality or race or religion).
Were you areound S. Lewis, when interfaith marriage was illegal? Were you around when interracial marriage was illegal? Do you think those things should be illegal or allowed? Personally I think they should be allowed. I think every citizen should have EQUAL LEGAL RECOGNITION. Now, if the government never granted any special rights to joined couples, then I wouldnt care about any of this. I honestly dont care what your church recognizes or doesnt.
but I DO VERY MUCH CARE what my government recognizes. Im not even gay, but I want my fellow citizens to be equally protected and represented under the law. Since the government does give stuff to joined couples, then I believe that every joined couple (gay or straight) deserves those laws and benefits equally under the eyes of the government.
Do you beleive the opposite; that discrimination is okay? If you oppose gay marriage, then why not oppose interfaith marriage? After all, the Bible says not to marry someone outside your faith.
S. Lewis, you said:
"That’s kind of a loaded question. How do you define “rights”? It seems that you believe there should be no difference between the two hypothetical couples, but that’s not possible. The difference is, one couple is married, and one is not. If the government attaches certain benefits to those in a married status, and other benefits to those in a “civil union” status, that is because the two are not equal.
Just as I don’t get senior citizen rates because I am not a senior, gays don’t get marital status because they are not married."
It sounds to me like you are under the mistaken impression that your particular religions definition of marriage is written into government law. The government of the USA recognizes all religions equally, therefore, it must recognize all marriages equally, or in other words, the government must aford the same rights and benefits to all its citizens, regardless of faith or lack thereof.
It honestly sounds like you are mistakenly believing that religious discrimination is okay in the USA and even written into law. You are of course incorrect.
Your claim that "one couple is married and one is not" only exists within the walls of your church. It cannot exist in the eyes of the government, otherwise it is promoting one religion over the other, and as you know, that is very un-American and very anti-freedom. You dont stand against freedom and equality do you?
Let me give you an example of why your assertion is so fallacious. I could start a new religion today (I seriously could), and it would be a religion in which only gay marriages are recognized under that religions God. Lets call this religion Gaystianity. So, the US government would have to recognize the new Gaystianity religion and its definition of marriage. Furthermore, the high priest of Gaystianity complains to the government that the Gaystian God does not recognize straight marriages. So now what does the government do? How can it cater to one religion and not to another? At this point, the government would have to choose between Gaystianity and Christianity. And of course, all patriotic Americans know that promoting one religion over another is a big NO-NO.
There is only one answer: Do not cater to any religion. The Government must give equal protection to all couples that decide to make a lifelong commitment to eachother if it wants to recognize any partnerings at all. Your religion of Christianity can ban gay marriages within the walls of its church, but outside that church it must mind its own business, because not every American Citizen believes in your particular superstition.
Two options here for the government.
1) is to give equal coupling rights to all gay and straight couples.
2) is to take away all rights and benefits associated with partnering.
Anything else would create a 2nd class of citizens and would be un-American and un-Patriotic and very discriminatory.
S. Lewis, if your assertions were true, then I, as a straight atheist, could not get married at all in the eyes of the government! Because your religion would not recognize me (or more specifically I would not recognize your religion).
The truth is that you dont need religion to get married in the USA. The USA will allow marriage of any couple regardless of faith. Therefore, your religious notions of marriage have NO RELEVANCE to government law or legal rights or social class, etc...
>>>Two options here for the government.
1) is to give equal coupling rights to all gay and straight couples.
2) is to take away all rights and benefits associated with partnering.
Now, this to me is a classic example of assumptive reasoning. Granted, your options stand as being just and practical, IF and only IF, you base these options on the idea that marriage should not be restricted to heterosexual relationships. If we start with the foundational assumption that gay marriage SHOULD BE allowed… this is the logical conclusion.
So, with that in mind, let’s look at your reasons why gay marriage should be legitimate (correct me if I’m wrong):
1)marriage is a secular rite, and should not be held discriminately.
In order to hold this principle, you also have to condone parent/child marriages, brother/sister marriages, grandparent/grandchild marriages, polygamy, child marriages, etc, because all of the above match your requirements for homosexual marriage.
Plus, you ignore the fact that marriage is a religious rite, and as I pointed out earlier, religions have the right to withhold their granted privileges.
2)failure to grant marriage recognition to gay couples results in second class citizenship
Well, this also is untrue. This position assumes that gays are being excluded from the marriage state. They are not. Any (eligible) man or woman in this country can marry… and THAT is their right. That doesn’t mean that because (as Neo’s fond of pointing out) they are free to marry, they can marry anyone they want! By your logic, I should be allowed to rob a bank, because hey, it’s my right to make lots of money. Never mind that there are rules which regulate HOW someone can make money… if you don’t change those regulations, you are reducing me to a second class citizenship!
3) all religions in the U.S. are equal, so I can’t claim that MY religion’s definition of marriage should be universally accepted.
Another misconception is revealed in the above. Yes, all religions are equal PROVIDED THEY OBEY U.S. LAW. If your religion calls for the sacrifice of small children, then that is against U.S. law, and you are not “equal”. At this moment, homosexual marriage is not recognized in U. S. law… which is why Mayor Newstrom was ordered to revoke his order. He broke the law.
Plus, you are ignoring the fact that it is not merely “my” religion that opposes homosexual marriage; every fundamental religion does. The very concept of a homosexual marriage is antithetical to the very meaning of marriage, as seen by these fundamental religions.
So, the question boils down to whether the government should recognize the religious meaning of marriage, or whether we should scrap it and redefine the word. Since in our new, enlightened age we don’t need history to guide us, we should face some interesting polls in the next few years. Interestingly enough, the first tentative same-sex marriage polls in a couple states showed an overwhelming voter abhorrence to the idea, that it looks as if gay rights agents are going to see if they can get the laws passed without the consent of the people. So much for equality and democracy, eh?
On another note, please avoid the Scriptural quotations. Invariably, you quote them out of context. For example, the injunction to avoid inter-faith marriage does not impugn the rite of marriage in any way. In fact, it strengthens it. The argument in Scripture runs that we (as Christians) should not marry those who are not Christians… because we can’t back out of it. Marriage is sacred, and divorce is not permitted except in very drastic situations, and even then those divorced are not supposed to re-marry.
Scripture in no way implies that marriage (taking marriage to mean man+woman, here) can be subject to conditions. That is why Scripture warns believers to be very careful whom they marry… and they should not marry those who are not Christians.
S. Lewis, you said:
"
In order to hold this principle, you also have to condone parent/child marriages, brother/sister marriages, grandparent/grandchild marriages, polygamy, child marriages, etc, because all of the above match your requirements for homosexual marriage.
Plus, you ignore the fact that marriage is a religious rite, and as I pointed out earlier, religions have the right to withhold their granted privileges."
You are confusing gay marriage with incest. A same sex couple is not the same as a incestuous couple. Furthermore, gay incestuous couples are frowned upon, while gay non-related couples are accepted in society.
Besides, you are making a fallacious slippery slope argument. Just because gay unions would have the same protections offered to them by the federal government as straight marriages, does not mean that we must allow incestuous unions.
But, if you choose to place religious rules into US law, then I could argue a slippery slope argument the other way around. Why stop at Biblical condemnation of marriage? Why not include the prohibition of interfaith marriage? Or prohibit divorce (as the Bible does)? Or prohbit the female any consent option, for in the Bible, women could not consent to their own marriages; it was not their decision to make. Kiss euqal rights goodbye.
S. Lewis, you said:
"Well, this also is untrue. This position assumes that gays are being excluded from the marriage state. They are not. Any (eligible) man or woman in this country can marry… and THAT is their right. That doesn’t mean that because (as Neo’s fond of pointing out) they are free to marry, they can marry anyone they want! By your logic, I should be allowed to rob a bank, because hey, it’s my right to make lots of money. Never mind that there are rules which regulate HOW someone can make money… if you don’t change those regulations, you are reducing me to a second class citizenship!"
first, your "rob a bank" analogy is fallacious. Robbing banks will directly harm people. Giving gay unions the same federal protections offered to straight marriages harms nobody. If anything, it HELPS families because it encourages adoption, and I would rather be raised by gay parents than by no parents.
Furthermore, your (or Neo's) statement about how gays can marry opposite sex is blind to the desires of the citizen. It is like saying "You can practice any relgion you want, as long as that religion is Christianity". What kind of choice is that?
Also, in a world where gender is an option (parents can choose the gender of their child, people can get sex changes and become another sex in the eyes of the law), how can you legislate or regulate unions of people? What if a straight couple gets married, and then the wife changes sex to a man? How does the government handle that kind of situation currently?
Furthermore, this country allows gay adoption in just about every state. To allow gay adoption is to recognize the legitimacy of gay unions. Whatever we call them matters not to me, but the PROTECTIONS and RIGHTS we grant our gay citizens matters very much, especially when they will be a part of parenting our next generation. We should give them all the tools they need. If you are "pro-family" then that includes being in favor of the gay adopted families that are sanctioned by the government.
S. Lewis, you said:
"Another misconception is revealed in the above. Yes, all religions are equal PROVIDED THEY OBEY U.S. LAW. If your religion calls for the sacrifice of small children, then that is against U.S. law, and you are not “equal”. At this moment, homosexual marriage is not recognized in U. S. law… which is why Mayor Newstrom was ordered to revoke his order. He broke the law.
Plus, you are ignoring the fact that it is not merely “my” religion that opposes homosexual marriage; every fundamental religion does. The very concept of a homosexual marriage is antithetical to the very meaning of marriage, as seen by these fundamental religions."
Newstrom broke the law, yes. But homosexual marriage is recognized in Massachussetts, Oregon, and soon in Washington.
Also, sacrificing small children (a practice endorsed in the Bible by the way) is something that harms others. Gay marriage does not harm others. In fact it helps all of us, by allowing adoptions and stable households for children. It promotes "settling down" so to speak, which encourages home ownership and paying taxes and getting a career, which is exactly what we need from our citizens to make this country great. Inclusion for the homosexual community will make this country stronger. Youre just afraid about it all because you know in your heart that it will make your religion weaker. But of course, history has shown that stronger countries are more secular, and weaker countries are more theocratic. So which do you choose?
Also, you mention that all religions oppose homosexual marriage. This is not true. In fact, there are Christian preachers that are openly gay and have had their churches sanction their marriages. And dont even think about pulling a "no true scotsman" fallacy on me here. (if you know what that fallacy is).
Furthermore, whether or not all religions oppose the idea is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because 14% of the US population identifies themselves as "non-religious" according to the 2000 US Census. If you had it your way, the non-religious in this country would not be allowed to be married because they deny all Gods/religions. 14% is an awful lot of people for the USA.
S. Lewis, you said:
"So, the question boils down to whether the government should recognize the religious meaning of marriage, or whether we should scrap it and redefine the word. Since in our new, enlightened age we don’t need history to guide us, we should face some interesting polls in the next few years. Interestingly enough, the first tentative same-sex marriage polls in a couple states showed an overwhelming voter abhorrence to the idea, that it looks as if gay rights agents are going to see if they can get the laws passed without the consent of the people. So much for equality and democracy, eh?"
Scrappgin government protections for married couples does not redefine the term "marriage". Your church can define it any way it likes, and the government cannot take that away from your church. In my opinion, the government should continue to give rights and benefits to partnered couples because it encourages progress and promotes stability and cohesion in this society. And to include these rights to gay couples only increases the progress stability and cohesion in this society.
Your argument about the same-sex polls is fallacious. The latin term is "argumentum ad populum". It is the fallacious argument from popularity. History shows that it is the courts, not the voters, that fight for equal rights. The majority of Americans were against civil rights in the sixties. the majority of Americans were also against inter-racial marriages back then. Do you think we should have listened to them?
Hey, there was even a time when the majority of humanity thought the Earth was flat! Should we have just agreed with the majority back then, and not have pushed the unpopular view that the Earth was spherical?
S. Lewis, you said:
"On another note, please avoid the Scriptural quotations. Invariably, you quote them out of context. For example, the injunction to avoid inter-faith marriage does not impugn the rite of marriage in any way. In fact, it strengthens it. The argument in Scripture runs that we (as Christians) should not marry those who are not Christians… because we can’t back out of it. Marriage is sacred, and divorce is not permitted except in very drastic situations, and even then those divorced are not supposed to re-marry.
Scripture in no way implies that marriage (taking marriage to mean man+woman, here) can be subject to conditions. That is why Scripture warns believers to be very careful whom they marry… and they should not marry those who are not Christians."
I will quote scripture whenever I want to, as long as you will use religious Christian arguments that are in favor of restricting the rights of taxpaying US citizens.
Out of context you say? Thats actually called "interpretation" and the Bible is subject to alot of it. It is very difficult to base laws of the land on a religious book that can be interpreted so many ways, right?
And your explanation about interfaith marriage does and the abolition of divorce does nothing to bolster your argument. It seems actually to weaken it, because those interfaith and non-divorce rules are not written into US law at all. So why argue for other Biblical marriage rules when so many are disregarded?
I will agree to stop using the Bible against you if you agree to not use any religious-based arguments against gay marriage. The point here is that your supposed infallible word of God can be used to support or refute the arguments from both sides of the fence.
And you seem to forget, through all of this, that the Bible endorses POLYGAMY! Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3
The Bible also endorses CONCUBINES! Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3
The Bible also endorses forced marriages! Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11 Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17. According to the Bible, if I choose to marry your sister or your cousin, she will have no say in the matter, but maybe your father will have a say. Women readers, pay attention here! Personally, if my sister is gonna get married, I want her to have a say in the matter! What if she disagrees with my father? How barbaric this Bible of yours is.
And the Bible forbids interfaith marriages in quite a few passages, it doenst just warn against it. Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14
Just an FYI, I spent the first 17 years of my life as a very devout fundamentalist Christian and I am pretty knowledgeable in the Bible. In fact, I can honestly say that it was my intense study of the Bible and knowledge of it that eventually turned me away from Christianity, and indeed all religion.
When you say that Im quoting out of context, I can contend that you are merely misinterpreting your Bible with a liberal view and you are incorrect. I can contend that if you want to use the Bible, then you must interpret it LITERALLY for it is the infallible unalterable word of God.
If you say I took the interfaith quote out of context, I will reply with very specific references to the words and phrases in these passages, and I will show you that the context is correct. I do not make assertions about the Bible without knowing full well the gravity of those assertions, and I have multiple passages to back me up.
So if you want to accuse me of quoting out of context, then show me which Bible verse and why its out of context. Dont make unsupported assertions about the Bible passages. Otherwise I can just reply with unsupported assertions of my own.
>>>You are confusing gay marriage with incest. A same sex couple is not the same as a incestuous couple. Furthermore, gay incestuous couples are frowned upon, while gay non-related couples are accepted in society.
>>>Besides, you are making a fallacious slippery slope argument. Just because gay unions would have the same protections offered to them by the federal government as straight marriages, does not mean that we must allow incestuous unions.
Prove it. Based on your arguments in favor of homosexuality, how could you refuse incestuous couples the same “rights”? Furthermore, you contradict yourself. One minute, “society acceptance” rationalizes your point, and on the other, fights against it. If the supposed fact that society accepts homosexuals proves your case, then how come when overwhelming evidence shows that society does NOT accept homosexual marriage, it doesn’t matter?
>>>first, your "rob a bank" analogy is fallacious. Robbing banks will directly harm people. Giving gay unions the same federal protections offered to straight marriages harms nobody. If anything, it HELPS families because it encourages adoption, and I would rather be raised by gay parents than by no parents.
So, “direct” harm is not okay, but “indirect” harm is? Opponents of homosexual marriage offer some valid long term reasons why such a thing would be disastrous. Opponents of gay adoption point out that there is no factual evidence to suppose that there is a lack of heterosexual couples to adopt… assuming that forbidding gay’s to adopt children results in a “family shortage” is logically puerile, and factually incorrect.
>>>Gay marriage does not harm others.
You do not know that. Considering that the application of gay marriage has never been done before, claiming that there are no “risks” is very unscientific. Social evidence from Europe suggests (albeit not conclusively PROVES) otherwise.
>>>Also, you mention that all religions oppose homosexual marriage. This is not true.
Well, sir, you have put words in my mouth. I said all FOUNDATIONAL religions did… and that is true. Any religion with an historically established canon of belief is opposed to homosexual marriage. And yes, there are some Christian preachers that are willing to perform homosexual marriages… but the point is that the Christian religion, in its laws, is opposed to homosexual marriage.
>>>If you had it your way, the non-religious in this country would not be allowed to be married because they deny all Gods/religions.
No, my biblical allusion earlier clearly stated that in God’s eyes, the act of marriage is a sacred one, whether a couple acknowledges God’s laws or not. That is why marriage is so serious… according to God, the act of uniting with a prostitute “marries” her to you.
>>>Your argument about the same-sex polls is fallacious. The latin term is "argumentum ad populum". It is the fallacious argument from popularity. History shows that it is the courts, not the voters, that fight for equal rights. The majority of Americans were against civil rights in the sixties. the majority of Americans were also against inter-racial marriages back then. Do you think we should have listened to them?
Well, you have flat out contradicted yourself. Your entire basis for promoting homosexual marriage is that it is “right”. Why? Because *thousands* of people want it. Your whole argument for homosexual marriage is that the majority of homosexuals want it. But when the tables are turned, and it is proven that the majority of Americans do NOT want it… then all of a sudden we get “argumentum ad populum”. And no, the courts do NOT have the right to change laws. Only the Legislative offices do. And how do the Legislative offices pass laws? According to “vox populi”: the voice of the people.
If you want to argue that the masses can be wrong, you have to have a standard of absolute truth. Otherwise, you’ll be forced to agree with the A.M.A.’s decision 30 years ago, that homosexuality was an abnormal mental disease. Obviously, you disagree with that… so you must have some idea that homosexual marriage is an “absolute”.
Funny thing is, you single-handedly discovered that truth. It seemed to have eluded every other moral code ever made. What a brave new world this is, that has such perspicacious people in it!
>>>the Bible endorses POLYGAMY!
That is simply not true. Read the Levitical law, which was Israel’s standard on how to live. Nowhere does it condone polygamy.
The verses you cited simply gave instances of polygamous relationships. Biblical and historical scholars know that polygamy was quite common in ancient times, for various social and economic reasons. Simply claiming that because the Bible records polygamy, it is endorsing the practice; is akin to claiming that because the Bible records murderous acts, we should all go and butcher our neighbors.
>>>The Bible also endorses CONCUBINES!
Yawn. Read the above.
>>>The Bible also endorses forced marriages!
Based on your humanist philosophy that before marriage there must be consensual sexual lust between the man and woman, the idea that people could happily marry for other reasons is a massive shock.
Not only this, but (gasp!) the fact that the parents of a woman should be entrusted to make a wise, experienced decision on whom she should marriage is outrageous! Well, assuming that divorce is out of the question… Biblically… and that you’re going to be married to the guy for the rest of your life… is it really so weird that you would trust your parents to decide whom you should marry, considering that they are older, wiser, and more experienced than yourself?
Moreover, these laws were what is called “ceremonial”, that is, pertaining to the nation of Israel, prior to the coming of Christ (which were then fulfilled by Christ… so it’s okay now for us to eat shrimp scampi and canadian bacon); as opposed to the “moral” laws, which remain inviolate.
>>>And the Bible forbids interfaith marriages in quite a few passages, it doenst just warn against it.
Well, I never said that the Bible just “warned against” interfaith marriages. But if a non-believer is converted, and he/she is married, the Bible does not allow them to divorce. So, in certain occasions, it is not a sin to be married to a non-believer. Conversely, the Bible commands that believers should never marry those who don’t share their faith… for various, lengthy reasons that would be beyond the scope of this blog.
>>>sacrificing small children (a practice endorsed in the Bible by the way)
…Is an utter lie. Give me a scriptural reference.
So much for your Biblical exegesis.
My comment about you quoting history like communists was a joke, since most conservatives seem to think Communism is THE ULTIMATE EVIL, sharing the throne with gay marriage and Islam. Remember McCarthy?
I'm sorry for the catholic thing, but I have heard many Christian conises state that "Catholics aren't Christians."
You did back your arguements up with stuff that wasn't directly from the bible, but creationist science is ridiculous.
If the majority of Americans supported banning interacial marriage (which they did, at one point), would you say that it is right to ban it?
>>>If the majority of Americans supported banning interacial marriage (which they did, at one point), would you say that it is right to ban it?
No, I would not… but that is because I have a standard of absolute truth, that remains the same no matter who votes for or against it.
The sad weakness of your case, is that you would have to agree with the 51%, because your standard of “absolute truth” is simply what you “feel” is right… if 51% of people “feel” that you are wrong, then you have to bow to their will. Because you do not have any standard of absolute truth; for you, everything is relative.
You're saying I have no "absolute truth'? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but I definitely have a working, absolut moral code: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
I think that's a much better absolute truth than a book written by about seventy men contradicting each other extensively.
Populesque Mondus
-The Lone Amigo
Hey Lone Amigo, I wonder where your "code of morals" really came from. Not from "a book written by about seventy men contradicting each other extensively", did it?
From "The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy", Third Edition. 2002.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
1: A command based on words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” The Mosaic law contains a parallel commandment: “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.”
2: ‡ “Do unto others …” is a central ethical teaching of Jesus, often referred to as the Golden Rule.
http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/dountoothers.html
By the way, I'm not the Anonymous that has been posting here already.
No, it didn't. It came from the thousands of years of human society preceding the writing of that book.
That said, the direct wording did come from the bible. However, I've had several people tell me that that is not the central tenet of Chistianity.
Well, this thread has been “posted” to death, but I’ll make one more.
>>>I definitely have a working, absolut moral code: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Pardon me, but that is not a moral absolute. An absolute, by definition, is “unchanging”, i.e., without relativity or partiality. Now, holding your code is going to result in different “truths”. Perhaps you believe that “doing unto others” would involve the redistribution of wealth, so that all people have equal property. Someone else may take the same platitude to mean the opposite. Or, you might believe that “doing unto others” entails pacifism… again, someone else may take the opposite approach, and still hold to your platitude.
That, unfortunately, is the great flaw in humanism. It ignores indisputable historical and social history which shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain order with moral relativity. It has not, and can not, be done. It ignores the philosophical truth that Man is evil, and that without definite restraint, Man WILL do evil. That, sir, is the history of oppression in a nutshell. The ONLY successful forms of national government have been those that have recognized and accounted for Man’s prevalence for evil. And those successful governments have used an absolute moral code to restrain that tendency for evil.
History is against you. History, philosophy, social science… you name it. You would doom us to the destruction of the past, when those who stood up in the name of relative truth unleashed wars and destructive tyrannies that have shaken the globe.
Perhaps my moral code is not absolute, according to your definition of it(not the Oxford English Dictionary, but you speak American, I suppose).
That enables me to cope with change in the world, unlike you, who can't cope with the fact that some people are openly gay and are demanding their rights.
The problem with Christianity is it doesn't change anything. Their are still Christian murderers, Christian thieves, and Christian con-men.
Perhaps my moral code is not absolute, according to your definition of it(not the Oxford English Dictionary, but you speak American, I suppose).
That enables me to cope with change in the world, unlike you, who can't cope with the fact that some people are openly gay and are demanding their rights.
The problem with Christianity is it doesn't change anything. Their are still Christian murderers, Christian thieves, and Christian con-men.
This is the last time I post comments on this post. I'd much rather be playing Dungeons and Dragons with my friends, or actually HAVING A LIFE, y'know?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You overlook the historical fact of same-sex marriages also having existed among many groups in Africa and elsewhere: the Azande in Central Africa, the Ibo of Nigeria, the Lango, Iteso and Karamojan of Uganda, the Nandi of Kenya, the Kaluli in Papua, the Mojave, Navajo, Omaha and Zuni in America, the Zulu in South Africa, the Zapotec in Mexico, and so on.
Post a Comment
<< Home