I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that "promote homosexuality", which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn't present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters... but Neil Gaiman has already done the work. Go.
Posted by Glenn Hauman at December 2, 2004 07:36 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingPresumably the "you" refers to Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale.
Don't you think that science should first be able to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait before we start teaching it as proof? After all, unlike black holes, God, and evolution, this is one theory that we should have the answer to sooner or later, and frankly, it doesn't look good for genetics.
My wife and I recently let our membership in the CBLDF expire, we're broke due to a new baby, but with my next paycheck I'm rejoining.
I'm just awed that in this "enlightened age" there can still be so much hate.
Peace,
Doug
Does that mean that we have to "prove" that so-called white holes (theroretical counterpart to black holes) exist before we can include them in books available in public libraries? Is the Bible going to be banned under this law? By some accunts, the relationship between David and Jonathan had a homosexual aspect to it.
And where is the PROOF that God exists? Is it a matter of fact, or faith? For that matter, evolution is still just a theory. You can't prove it happens, you can just make some observations and draw a conclusions. Black holes are a little more fact than theory, but are still based on observations, and not direct proof.
Part of me actually wants to see this law get passed, and then see the uproar when the Bible gets banned by it.
As stupid and backwards as this law is, I do not see it as a free speech issue. Free speech is only violated if the government bans the possession or sale of an item based on content. Setting procurement policies based on content is not unconstitutional, just usually silly. CBLDF is wasting their time with this.
As for saying that homosexuality is not strongly influenced by genetics, you must be reading something that I'm not.
I'm with eclark1849, the law is half-right (the half-right portion being that there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait.)
>>Does that mean that we have to "prove" that so-called white holes (theroretical counterpart to black holes) exist before we can include them in books available in public libraries?
Fiction or non-fiction? Do they "theoretically exist" due to observation or consequences of the mathematics behind current astronomical physics?
>>Is the Bible going to be banned under this law?
It should get the axe.
>>For that matter, evolution is still just a theory.
We celebrate the centennial of the *THEORY* of Special Relativity next year. In about twenty years, we'll celebrate the *THEORY* of General Relativity which repealed the LAW OF GRAVITY! Discounting evolution merely because science has it labled as a theory is an ignorant action.
I think saying that it's not about free speech but about a procurement policy is precisely the thin end of the wedge that the legislator is trying to use. And once people try to circumvent the spirit of the law by using the letter of the law then they might as well ignore the letter as well.
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing? What is this obsession with homosexuality with being the most immoral act that anyone can possibly contemplate?
Ok, I'm a conservative, and I disagree strongly with this moron. I think most people do. I expect this won't pass, even in Alabama. We'll see I guess.
I just hope people get as upset when some group starts suing because schools or public libraries have books that "promote religion" in any way, because it's going to happen.
There's never, ever, ever, ever, ever any reason to ban a book from a public library. At the most, you might control access (through parental permisions of some sort) for certain adult books.
Now when you get to textbooks, that's a whole nother problem, which is a pretty sticky issue. What should and should not be taught/discussed in schools will never be an easy answer.
Don't you think that science should first be able to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait before we start teaching it as proof?
First, as others have pointed out, science cannot "prove" anything. That ain't how the process works.
Second, I frankly have yet to see any textbooks simply assert that homosexuality is purely genetic, so your argument has a fair bit of straw sticking out of it. (It's also looking at only a tiny piece of the law rather than the entire law, but that's another issue.)
The way I'm reading that portion of the law is that textbooks can't even acknowledge the *possibility* that homosexuality has a genetic component, and that steadfast a denial flies so far in the face of most studies that it's laughable.
And speaking of textbooks and laughable ... someone at Swarthmore has made a bunch of other "warning labels" for textbooks in light of the Cobb County, GA decision to put warning stickers on books teaching evolution. Worth a look and a chuckle.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/
TWL
I'm just awed that in this "enlightened age" there can still be so much hate.
No, the only "enlightenment" these days is what god has to say about this and that.
This country is moving in full reverse.
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing? What is this obsession with homosexuality with being the most immoral act that anyone can possibly contemplate?
That's a question I would like someone to answer. The Bible condemns a whole host of behaviors. Setting aside those things that are common practice today, like wearing clothes made from two different kinds of cloth or mixing your meat and dairy (cheeseburger, anyone?), there are still very strong condemnations for murder, rape, theft, etc, throughout the book. Homosexuality rates only two explicit mentions: One in Leviticus and one in Romans.
So, let's accept for a moment that homosexuality is a sin, what makes it the absolute worse sin imaginable these days?
I like Gaiman's question about whether or not libraries would be able to stock books in series with gay characters from before the character was revealed to be gay. I immediately thought of Buffy books written or set during Seasons 1-3 (and part of 4) and X-Men trades collecting the early appearances of Alpha Flight.
Tim Lynch wrote...
First, as others have pointed out, science cannot "prove" anything. That ain't how the process works.
Quoted for truth...some people really need to do some research into what science is before they start flapping their jaws.
Den, I think homosexuality is just a "good target" for religious conservatives who want to legislate morality/religion.
On the other hand, passages from the Bible (and I apologize, I'm not one able to cite chapter and verse, but I've read it) speak about a man laying with another man as he does with a woman as "abomination to God." Or something like that. So while Murder, Rape, theft, gluttony, are all sins in the eyes of God and to be avoided, something that is an abomination might actually rank higher in terms of things you want to avoid.
Which might explain why religious conservatives are spending so much energy on aboloshing tolerance for homosexuality.
I dunno...I'm usually one who's good for finding justifications for things (you should hear some of the things I've come up with to explain "science" in Star Trek), but this is the best I can do. Someone else want to take a stab?
From Jeff Lawson ""Tim Lynch wrote...
First, as others have pointed out, science cannot "prove" anything. That ain't how the process works.
Quoted for truth...some people really need to do some research into what science is before they start flapping their jaws."
There's a difference between what science has proved, and the facts used to reach that conclusion. Something is often accepted as proven before it is actually scientifically proved. Black holes are a good example. Our observational evidence strongly suggests they exist. But just 10 years ago, it was accepted as fact (and thus proven) that nothing escaped from a black hole...not light, not mass, not anything. Yet now we observe that, in fact, black holes give off radiation.
The point being that people ofte accept scientific proofs, at least until some new fact arrives that changes the theory.
Wow, that seems a lot more convoluted that I thought it would seem....my head's starting to hurt again...
So while Murder, Rape, theft, gluttony, are all sins in the eyes of God and to be avoided, something that is an abomination might actually rank higher in terms of things you want to avoid.
I don't know that simply using the word "abomination" qualifies as making it a worse sin. That then opens up the question about the other things in Leviticus that are also "abominations" like a man shaving his beard or the various dietary laws.
Well, yeah, I fully expect a rider attached to that proposed bill banning books that depict men shaving...
Which, of course, just goes to show you how far I was reaching in trying to come up with a rationale for targeting homosexuality.
Maybe it's just good political coin? Sections of the voting public seem to be in a mindset to restrict the rights and tolerance of homosexual acts, so why not test how far they can push it?
There's never, ever, ever, ever, ever any reason to ban a book from a public library. At the most, you might control access (through parental permisions of some sort) for certain adult books.
As I understand it, this is not an issue of a "public" library, but a school library. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say you would only include books a student can check out.
I am a strong conservative. I think homosexuality is not genetic and it is wrong. But I think the proposed law is ridiculous. Banning something only results in turning it into a "forbidden fruit."
I think there should be a little more restraint in regards to age appropriate materials. "Heather Has Two Mommies" being read to a First grader is propoganda (if done against a parents wishes) because the kid is not old enough to deal with these concepts. Whether you agree with the parent or not, there is no doubt that you are interfering at a stage when a child cannot fully understand an issue.
A book with active gay characters for a ninth grader is a totally different matter. Then it becomes a matter of whether it is sexually explicit or not. We don't put copies of Playboy or Playgirl in the school library, nor should we put in the literary equivalent. But to say a book that portrays a gay character in a good light be banned is pointless and absurd.
What I find fascinating is that a type of banning is already taking place. A high school student was not allowed to read "Pilgrims Progress" for a book report. I am not talking about it being required for the whole class. I am talking about it being banned for an individual student who was choosing to read the book. A Thanksgiving poem an elementary student wrote had the word "God" removed from it before it was posted on the wall (the class had voted it as the best).
Other than for some common sense, age appropriate issues, I think book banning is always a bad idea. If for no other reason, it is because it cuts both ways. If a book with a "gay" character is banned, a book with a positive "Christian" character may be banned next. If a book suggesting being gay "is" genetic is banned, then a book suggesting being gay "is not" genetic could later be banned when opponents gain the upper hand.
One final thought: This was proposed by one lawmaker. I am not suggesting you ignore it, but keep it in perspective. There are a lot of weird, stupid, and absurd ideas thrown out there. I suspect this won't even get off of the ground. Don't ignore it, but there are a very large number of conservative Christians who do not agree with this approach.
Jim in Iowa
kingbobb wrote...
Something is often accepted as proven before it is actually scientifically proved.
But what I'm trying to say is that nothing can be proven by science. Nothing ever has been, and nothing ever will be, because that's not what science is all about.
Thus, attacking something on the grounds that there is no "scientific proof" to back it up is a pointless excercise.
That's a question I would like someone to answer. The Bible condemns a whole host of behaviors. Setting aside those things that are common practice today, like wearing clothes made from two different kinds of cloth or mixing your meat and dairy (cheeseburger, anyone?), there are still very strong condemnations for murder, rape, theft, etc, throughout the book. Homosexuality rates only two explicit mentions: One in Leviticus and one in Romans.
So, let's accept for a moment that homosexuality is a sin, what makes it the absolute worse sin imaginable these days?
As with all groups, you have extremes. The extreme part of conservative Christians do treat this as the worst sin imaginable. However, I would suggest that they are not alone in this. I have run into many who are in no way Christian or religious who truly hate gay people (as well as hating Christians). For most of the extreme, they find any excuse they can to hate something, it is not really founded on a well thought out religious foundation.
In regards to most conservative Christians, while there is not the hatred for gays, it is true that this "sin" is often more focused on than others. I would suggest two reasons. James Dobson is an example of the first: We (since I am part of this group) see it as destroying families and the traiditonal value of marriage. Out of this group you will find marriage seminars, and a strong condemnation of divorce. This goes beyond just the "gay" issue. This has to do with a conviction that the family is the foundation of a society. It is where children are raised and values are taught. The opposition to gay marriage is based on a belief that any alternative to one man and one woman being married for life is harmful to the very fabric of society. Living together before marriage, teen sex, etc., are all also talked about and defined as wrong.
The second reason is based in a belief that the authority of the Bible is being attacked. (While I agree it is, I do not agree with how the mainstream of this group reacts). Since the Bible says homosexual practices are an abomination, then some in this group almost feel compelled that they have to scream this at anyone who will listen. I don't agree with that practice, but clearly there are some who do.
One final note: There are some commands in the Bible that were only given to the Jews, not to all of mankind. They were given for specific reasons, primarily to set them apart to play a specific role in the world of that day. Other commands were clearly given to all of the world. When you read the Old Testament, God never judges Israel's neighbors for "eating a cheeseburger" or for wearing clothes with two different fabrics. He does condemn Irsael's neighbors (and Israel, when they were guilty) for rape, murder, and for killing children as a sacrifice to an idol. It is important when reading the Bible to study it and understand what it is saying, just as you would with any book you would read. Because homosexuality is condemned in a variety of settings and passages, I believe the condemnation is universal and not tied to one specific context.
Jim in Iowa
Jeff Lawson...
Yes, I was trying to get to that, but in my long-windedness, I missed the point.
Science can only prove something based on known facts. Take the Law of Gravity. Proven by science...until some new fact comes along that changes what the Law is.
See also: World is Flat, Sun revolves around the earth, Coke is Better than Pepsi, and asbestos is good...I mean bad...I mean good....
Jim in Iowa,
From what I have read on Mr. Gaiman's blog as well as the newspaper article that he links to (with quotes by Rep. Allen), it is not only school libraries that would be subject to this ban, but all public libraries that receive state funds. What public library does not receive funds from the state? Also, not only fictional books that portrayed homosexuals with "in a positive light" would be subject to the laws restrictions, but books with any homosexual characters.
I'd guess that is what prompted the comments about the Bible being banned by this law. I dunno. Anyone know if there are any people in the Bible aknowledged as homesexuals, with good or bad portrayal?
Jeff wrote: But what I'm trying to say is that nothing can be proven by science. Nothing ever has been, and nothing ever will be, because that's not what science is all about.
What then is science about? Please define what you mean because in a practical way what you say makes no sense. For example, we *do* know that someone has brown eyes because of their DNA. In fact, it is at least possible that someday we can go in and change that DNA so someone is born with green eyes. If homosexuality is genetic, then it is at least theoretically possible to go in one day and change the DNA to eliminate it.
From a practical standpoint, it should be possible to one day *demonstrate* (if you don't like the word "prove") whether being gay is truly genetic. As one poster said above, the evidence does not yet demonstrate that it is.
Jim in Iowa
Why don't they just make a law that bans stupid people?
I would say that "because it is consensual" as a reason to go after homosexuality vs murder/rape/theft is the -worst- reason from both a practical and theological reason. Two people engaging in a mutual sin can work it out with the Maker when they report for judgement. That poor fellow getting clocked in the head with a brick would probably appreciate a little more timely intervention.
Anyone know if there are any people in the Bible aknowledged as homesexuals, with good or bad portrayal?
The short answer is no. There are no portrayls in narrative form of a single gay person. A few have suggested that David & Jonathan, or Jesus & John, were gay. Such suggestions have absolutely no foundation within what is actually written in the biblical text. (Since the Bible goes to great lenghts to tell of David's adultery with Bathsheba and its consequences, it is absurd to suggest that David was gay and the Bible says nothing about it. If you think we are homophobic today, it was even more so then. These suggestions are just desperate attempts to find an example in the Bible.)
The only other mentions of homosexual actions (in the books of the Law and in Paul's letters) are all negative.
Jim in Iowa
MP -
"As stupid and backwards as this law is, I do not see it as a free speech issue. Free speech is only violated if the government bans the possession or sale of an item based on content. Setting procurement policies based on content is not unconstitutional, just usually silly. CBLDF is wasting their time with this."
It is a free speech issue.
1) The proposed law doesn't say that libraries cannot buy the books, It says that libraries cannot OFFER the books. Which means that if someone was to buy the books from their own money & donate them to the libraries, they wouldn't be allowed to accept the books because the law doesn't allow the libraries to offer them.
2) One of the reasons that public libraries came into existance was because few people can afford to buy all the books they want to read, so libraries allow people to borrow them. If libraries are not allowed to carry books because of they express a viewpoint, then people who have to borrow the books they cannot afford are being restricted (at least in part) from taking part in that viewpoint.
Jim in Iowa
Some interpretations of David and Jonathon do suggest that the language supports a gay/bisexual aspect to David. The part where they lay down in the field together and wept, until David expired or succumbed or various other interpretations suggest that they in fact engaged in sex.
I'm not up on all the various translations, but it's out there.
Although as far as I know, that's the only place where the Bible can be said to even come close to describing a homosexual/bi-sexual relationship. And you need to be able to do some scriptural acrobatics to get there.
Personally I think we need more lawmakers like this. This proposal is just so stupid, that even if it passes thru some miracle, it will end up being struck down by the courts. Then, maybe, we can get some legislatures in place that worry more about the correct way to spend our money and enact laws that actually help us.
Sometimes you gotta let the idiots get up and say things, so we know who they are.
MP said "Because its consensual."
Was that in rersponse to Den's "So, let's accept for a moment that homosexuality is a sin, what makes it the absolute worse sin imaginable these days?"
Because if it was, please go kill yourself, you're saying that a homosexual that rapes someone is less of a sinner than two consenting adults of the same gender...
Luckily there is no god and all this "sin" crap is moot anyway
When you read the Old Testament, God never judges Israel's neighbors for "eating a cheeseburger" or for wearing clothes with two different fabrics. He does condemn Irsael's neighbors (and Israel, when they were guilty) for rape, murder, and for killing children as a sacrifice to an idol. It is important when reading the Bible to study it and understand what it is saying, just as you would with any book you would read. Because homosexuality is condemned in a variety of settings and passages, I believe the condemnation is universal and not tied to one specific context.
That maybe so, but it does not explain why so many conservatives like Fred Phelps (and I am aware that intolerance of gays is not only practiced by conservative Christians) openly state that homosexuality is *worse* that murder or rape.
It is a free speech issue.
1) The proposed law doesn't say that libraries cannot buy the books, It says that libraries cannot OFFER the books. Which means that if someone was to buy the books from their own money & donate them to the libraries, they wouldn't be allowed to accept the books because the law doesn't allow the libraries to offer them.
The law goes even further than that, as it would prevent even university libraries from offering books that discussed homosexuality or even offer them for discussion in a class. Also, university theater groups would be banned from putting plays like "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof."
So, whether or not you think that the issue of homosexuality is appropriate for K-12 public school kids, how many think that college students aren't able to handle a frank discussion about homosexuality?
That maybe so, but it does not explain why so many conservatives like Fred Phelps (and I am aware that intolerance of gays is not only practiced by conservative Christians) openly state that homosexuality is *worse* that murder or rape.
As stated above, there are extemes on any position. Fred Phelps is very much in the extreme camp. I went to some very conservative Christian schools and am very much aware of the mainstream of conservative Christian thinking and writings on these issues. They would strongly disagree with Phelps. While I believe accepting homosexuality will harm society, there is absolutely no question that an act of rape or murder is far more immediate and harmful.
At every church I have been a part of (both Baptist and non-denominational), someone who is gay could attend. We would tell them they were sinning and needed to change, but we would not treat them as a criminal. If someone was guilty of murder, rape, child abuse, etc., we would turn them in to the authorities and tell them they were not welcome unless they repented and changed. This is the norm from most churches. The example you give is the exception.
Jim in Iowa
So, whether or not you think that the issue of homosexuality is appropriate for K-12 public school kids, how many think that college students aren't able to handle a frank discussion about homosexuality?
I agree. If that is the law being suggested, it is wrong and should be defeated. I think that, other than sexually explicit materials, that even high schoolers are capable of handling the issue.
Jim in Iowa
Go state rights. Don't worry about pissing off New Yorkers and Europeans.
Glenn Hauman: I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that "promote homosexuality", which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn't present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters...
Luigi Novi: I was confused by this wording until I looked below and saw that it wasn’t Peter who wrote it. Glenn, no offense, buddy, but if you’re going to post things as either a webmaster or owner of a website—and a writer—your grammar/syntax, I think, should be better. I’ve run into quite a bit of hostile attitude towards this idea elsewhere on the Net, but given that this is the blog of a professional WRITER, (and that you, IIRC, are one as well), then it should be:
…which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable, fiction novels with gay characters, public school textbooks that present homosexuality as a genetic trait, and public libraries that offer books with gay or bisexual characters.
The word “and” would only go right before the last item on that list, and not before “fiction novels.” Mind you, I’m not trying to be a smartass here, and I myself make mistakes all the time, but when it comes to pro webmasters, the lax attitude toward correct language is really grating, and from a writer on a writer’s blog, moreso. No offense intended. :-)
Also, does cutting public funding constitute “banning” books? Censorship, perhaps, but I’m not sure about banning. The two are often lobbed together, and one is not necessary better than the other, but let’s be precise with her terms here.
eclark1849: Don't you think that science should first be able to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait before we start teaching it as proof?
Luigi Novi: Yes. Is anyone teaching it as having been proved? Or are they merely teaching that the preliminary evidence seems to indicate that it may be genetic or have a genetic component to it, which is true?
eclark1849: After all, unlike black holes, God, and evolution, this is one theory that we should have the answer to sooner or later, and frankly, it doesn't look good for genetics.
Luigi Novi: We already have the answer for the theory of evolution, and just like heliocentricity, the germ theory of infection, plate tectonics and the Earth’s sphericity, it is indeed a fact. Also, why do you think we won’t have the answer for black holes—later if not sooner?
Kingbobb: And where is the PROOF that God exists? Is it a matter of fact, or faith? For that matter, evolution is still just a theory.
Luigi Novi: No it isn’t. Evolution is a scientific fact, and is considered such by the scientific community. Saying that it is still just a theory is factually untrue. It has been observed in laboratories and in the wild.
Chris Grillo: Discounting evolution merely because science has it labled as a theory is an ignorant action.
Luigi Novi: Largely since theories and facts are not different points along a spectrum of confidence or certainty, but non-mutually exclusive things of which ideas can be both, which evolution is.
Guido: Why don't they just make a law that bans stupid people?
Luigi Novi: Who’d be around to enforce it? Or be left after it was enforced?
"Personally I think we need more lawmakers like this. This proposal is just so stupid, that even if it passes thru some miracle, it will end up being struck down by the courts. Then, maybe, we can get some legislatures in place that worry more about the correct way to spend our money and enact laws that actually help us."
Actually what we would get is people screaming about "activist judges", and judges, suers, etc. bypassing the legislative process. Then the idiot legislators will ride that wave to re-election.
*sigh*
What then is science about? Please define what you mean because in a practical way what you say makes no sense. For example, we *do* know that someone has brown eyes because of their DNA. In fact, it is at least possible that someday we can go in and change that DNA so someone is born with green eyes. If homosexuality is genetic, then it is at least theoretically possible to go in one day and change the DNA to eliminate it.
Science is about collection data through observation and experimentation and then drawing rational conclusions based on the best available evidence. Scientists in general avoid stating that anything is "proven" conclusively. Instead, they say things like "the data supports this conclusion."
Theories are basically interpretive models that best fit the available evidence.
Theories change over time as new data is collected that contradicts previous assumptions. If you look at the theory of atom structure in the early 1900s, everyone believed that atoms (Greek for "inseparable") were the smallest particle of matter and nothing could exist that was smaller than an atom. Then the electron was discovered and later, the proton and neutron and even smaller, still, quarks. Our modern picture of what atoms "look" like is very different today than it was a century ago.
Laws, on the other hand, are principles in which the underlying assumptions are considered "settled." Newtons Laws of Motion and his Law of Gravity today are considered special cases in the theories of Special and General Relativity, respectively, but nobody challenges their underlying assumptions. Very few things in science are considered Laws and nearly all of them were discovered centuries ago.
People who say that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools because it's "just a theory" are displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of these basic scientific terms. 90% of everything taught in science classes today are "just theories," but they're theories that have gained wide acceptance in the scientific community. They have been tested through experimentation and observation and have held up.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, despite what many of its supporters claim. Creationism starts with a conclusion (God created the world 6000 years ago) and then tries to tailor observations to fit that conclusion. That is the cardinal sin (excuse the phrase) of the scientific method. Read scientists accept that their theories may be overturned by new data that contradicts their previsiously held assumptions. Could some new observations that contradicts evolution be found? Sure, but given that 99% of our current understanding of biology and genetics is based on the assumption that evolution is a process by which species find ways to adapt to a changing environmental, such an observation would be equivalent to conclusive proof that the world is indeed flat.
Jim in Iowa wrote...
What then is science about? Please define what you mean because in a practical way what you say makes no sense.
Happy to. The definition of "science" is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
The key word here is "theoretical." Science is fluid, and what most people consider to be "proof" is merely the theory that has the most empirical support. A cornerstone of the scientific method is that no hypothesis or theory can be proven; it can only be disproven.
Basically, a scientific theory only holds up until someone proves it wrong, in which case it must be revised or discarded. You can never "prove" a scientific theory - at best you can fail to disprove it.
To take your example, there is plenty of evidence that eye colour is related to DNA - it's about as close to "proven" as science can get. But the fact is, a discovery could be made any time that eye colour is not 100% determined by genetics, and a new theory would have to come forward.
Hope that makes sense, and I also hope that it's not interpreted as a criticism of science, as I'm scientifically trained myself and am a big believer in it.
I'm Christian, and I do believe that homosexuality is wrong. I don't believe that it's worse than rape or murder. What I think is one of the reasons there is such a reaction to it is the fact that it's becoming so accepted. People would be acting the same way if rape was becoming more accepted, though I think rejecting it would be a lot more universally embraced.
As far as comparing homosexuality to wearing clothes of different cloths and eating a cheeseburger, that was part of the law of Moses, something which Christians are not under. It is spoken against in Romans, and that is the basis of what Christians use (or should use) for our stance against homosexuality.
I also don't think it matters if homosexuality is genetic. People enjoy having sex, but that doesn't mean that it's right to have it outside of marriage. If a husband find someone other than his wife attractive, it would still be wrong for him to have sex with her, regardless of what his genetics tell him.
"The part where they lay down in the field together and wept, until David expired or succumbed or various other interpretations suggest that they in fact engaged in sex."
Well,apparently I've been doing it wrong all these years since all of my partners are still alive and breathing. Traumatized perhaps, questioning their committment to heterosexuality, sure, but still breathing.
What I find fascinating is that a type of banning is already taking place. A high school student was not allowed to read "Pilgrims Progress" for a book report. I am not talking about it being required for the whole class. I am talking about it being banned for an individual student who was choosing to read the book. A Thanksgiving poem an elementary student wrote had the word "God" removed from it before it was posted on the wall (the class had voted it as the best).
Jim, I agree that these actions of censorship are wrong and I would support these students if they wanted to argue that Pilgrim's Progress should be read for a book report or that a student's poem should displayed uncensored.
Yeah, it's true, both liberals and conservatives have engaged in censorship. That's a shocking bit of news and one of the many reasons why I remain a registered independent.
What I would like to know is, why do so many conservatives preach the magic of the market place as the solution to health care funding, environmental cleanup, and social security and yet turn around and want the government to censor TV and radio and like Mr. Allen in Alabama, want to censor public libraries and universities? Why preach about limited government in the boardroom but call for more government in the bedroom?
Luigi Novi
What defines a scientific fact? And what is evolution that has been proven? Is it evolution in the sense that species adapt to changes in their ennvironment over time, and those species that are able to make the best adaptations succeed, while those that do not fail and fall into extinction? Or is it simply the idea that species respond to their environment in various ways, including social, physical, and physiological ways, to adapt to changing conditions?
In what way is this a fact? A fact is something like this: A train hits a car. The car gets smashed. It's caught on tape. It is a FACT, that the train hit the car, and smashed it.
Here's a theory: We see a wrecked train and a smashed car. The car bears evidence that it was struck by the train. But no one saw it, there's no tape. The facts are that we have a wrecked train and a smashed car. The THEORY is that the train hit the car and smashed it. Backed up by facts, supported by evidence, but not proven. It will always be a theory.
Evolution is like the second example. The evidence strongly supports the theory that species evolve over time. But we can't for a fact say that they do. Or that the most well-adapted species is the one that succeeds.
Science can only prove something based on known facts.
Sorry, kingbobb, but this is on some level still missing the point.
Science cannot prove anything to be 100% correct. Ever. Our given level of understanding -- be it Newtonian mechanics, Darwinian evolution, general relativity, what have you -- is always understood to be "correct until demonstrated to be otherwise", but not proven. "Proven" implies a level of permanence that is unverifiable.
As a result, calling something "just a theory" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works (and I know you didn't, but lots of people do, including Luigi just recently in this thread). Calling X a "theory", scientifically, is the highest level anything's gonna reach. A theory is a working model that explains the observations in question, and predicts about the outcomes of future tests.
A theory's the closest approximation any explanation can get to being factual -- it's essentially classified as "factual so far as we know."
Newtonian mechanics is a theory, and a damned good one. When special and general relativity came along, they didn't so much say Newton was wrong as that he was incomplete: at normal everyday levels, both theories make the same predictions, and they only diverge significantly under conditions Newton hadn't been able to envision or to test (speeds approaching c and/or intense gravitational fields). That's how the process works -- every theory is "the state of current understanding", and it's always understood that the theory can and will be modified in the face of future tests.
Thus, Luigi's right that calling evolution "just a theory" is silly -- but not for his reasons.
Sorry for a bit of a rant there -- but as a science teacher with (a) a background in cosmology and (b) a wife who's an evolutionary biologist, my eyeballs tend to ignite in the face of the "just a theory" argument.
(Hey, you think that's a rant, you should've seen what I wrote when TNG's "The Chase" aired all those years ago. Hoooooooo boy.)
TWL
Isn't something like this what we're supposedly fighting to prevent in Iraq?
Geez, looks like Den, Jeff and I all leapt at the same topic there. Well, at least the scientific erudition of the thread just amped up a few notches. :-)
TWL
First, let me say this: The world definitely needs t-shirts that say "Rule #1: Don't fuck with librarians." Thanks for the idea, Neil!
Second, this law (if it passes) would be funny if it wasn't so threatening. We have a president who says he's determined to write discrimination into the Constitution to ban gay marriages; now there's someone who wants to cut funding for any book that "promotes" homosexuality? Judging by some of the examples listed, "promoting" seems to be "including, but not in a wholly negative light." This is an attempt to eradicate the very *idea* that homosexuality isn't evil. And in the (ahem) evolution of any minority group's rights, a key factor is that of role models, such as these books might have.
(Incidentally, there's a very strong homosexual feel to one chapter of MOBY DICK. Would this be on the chopping block too? Or would they cut out the chapters that are "gayer" than others?)
Also, would this law extend to movies? No movies with a gay best friend (MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING, FRANKIE & JOHNNY), no movies with any hint of homosexuality (the full version of SPARTACUS)... The list goes on.
I'll laugh about this if it fails. I'll weep if it passes. (And after the last presidential election, don't tell me it will never pass.)
"As far as comparing homosexuality to wearing clothes of different cloths and eating a cheeseburger, that was part of the law of Moses, something which Christians are not under."
Really? Last I checked the Old testament was still part of the bible. The 10 Commandments are still in effect. In fact, if you've done any theology at all, you would know that the laws that Jesus presented to his followers were meant to be extensions of existing Mosaic law; that is to say that the Mosaic law was appropriate for a people of a certain social development, and the 'modern' people of Jesus's time were ready for more restrictive laws. The Bible is meant to be a whole, not something that we pick and choose from.
That being said, people generally understand that many of the passages in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally; the point is to help drive the moral compass. This is why most modern Christians don't have a problem with outright dismissing many of the morality clauses listed in the Bible (other folks have enumerated many of the more absurd ones).
Last I checked, however, the driving force behind the Christian moral code is the 10 commandments and, if you are Catholic, you can add the seven deadly sins. Nowhere on either list does homosexuality appear. Not only isn't it the worst thing you can do (so much was God not concerned by it that he didn't bother mentioning it when he explicitly laid down the law to Moses), it doesn't even make the top 17.
People who are truly concerned about marriage should wage a war against divorce; half of marriages in the US end in divorce. Divorce is something that is strictly and explicitly forbidden in the Bible (what God has joined, let no man tear apart). For that matter, adultery is one of the leading causes (or in the very least one of the most overt symptoms) of a divorce AND it is explicitly forbidden in the 10 Commandments. Why is it, then, that these so-called "moral majority" legislatures aren't passing laws more strict against adultery? Why are so many of them caught in adulterous acts themselves?
The practice of picking and choosing which (obscure) parts of the Bible to pay attention to, and which you can ignore, is a very, very common practice for bigots. You can listen to many white supremacists who will swear that the Bible tells them to hate Jews (odd considering that Jesus considered himself a pious Jew). Others will use the Bible to support racism in general (which also is odd given that Jesus was middle-eastern and most likely had dark if not black skin despite the anglo-centric images that are so popular today).
This is a hot-button issue that is very popular today, and will likely continue to be popular in the near future. Much larger crimes such as corporate fraud, murder, state-sponsored murder (which, by the way, is also a sin), unjust war, rape, and on and on are largely ignored for the issues that play on the emotions at the surface. Right now, homosexual-fearing bigots are easy targets, and easy targets require less work.
Simple as that.
Phinn
Ahhhh, Tim Lynch, took me a while to see how what I said and what you said were different. Yes, my use of "prove" includes the basic conceit that science only makes conclusions based on known facts and observations.
What's interesting to me about all of this is the intersection of various studies here: science (Tim Lynch); law (me) and Luigi Novi...who I don't know enough about to classify as a discipline, but presents good arguments.
I forgot to mention that I don't believe that the intent behind "Heather Has Two Mommies" is propaganda; I think it is meant to help children understand that their peers who come from different families (those with two mommies, or two daddies, or whatever) are acceptable.
Think what you will of homosexuals, their children (adopted or otherwise) should not be subject to ridicule and humiliation by their peers; teaching acceptance is what the Bible is all about and I find it ridiculous that modern "Christians" often forget the heart of the message that Jesus preached. He was a pacifist who taght his followers to turn the other cheek. T
he only thing that really got under his skin was merchants in the temple, so the next time a Starbucks opens in your church you are welcomed to go on a rampage. Other than that, turning the other cheek, offering the shirt off of your back, and generally loving your fellow man (no homosexuality pun intended) are pretty much the rules.
Phinn
Thank you, Phinn.
Some days I'm embarrassed to be living in the state of Alabama.
Other days, I'm frightened and want to move out, and take my friends with me.
We're not ALL bigoted idjuts down here, honest!
Jarissa wrote...
Other days, I'm frightened and want to move out, and take my friends with me.
So the question is, do you try to get out and live with like-minded people, or do you stay put to use your voting power to make it a better (in your view) place to live?
Is it worth being miserable in hopes of making a difference? =)
"Is it worth being miserable in hopes of making a difference? =)"
One of the only reasons I haven't moved to Canada yet ;)
Phinn
First, as others have pointed out, science cannot "prove" anything. That ain't how the process works.
Science (n.)- knowledge as of facts, phenomena, laws, and proximate causes, gained and verified by exact observation, organized experiment, and analysis.
Sounds like that how the process works to me. And since 'proof" is nothing more than a collection of evidence gathered by one or more of the means listed in the above definition of "science", and sufficient enough to convince others of a particular belief.
It really doesn't matter to me if you want to debate what the definition of "is" is, while you lose sight of the points I was making, but you'll go down that road without me. I'm pretty sure most people got the gist of what I meant.
Second, I frankly have yet to see any textbooks simply assert that homosexuality is purely genetic, so your argument has a fair bit of straw sticking out of it.
I didn't say that any text book had asserted that homosexuality is purely genetic. Nor, for that matter did I "present " an argument to that effect. In fact, I neither supported nor opposed the proposed law in my post.
So while Murder, Rape, theft, gluttony, are all sins in the eyes of God and to be avoided, something that is an abomination might actually rank higher in terms of things you want to avoid.
So now we have the Over-Commandments? Those Commandments that are semi-stated, assumed, and more important than the 10 Commandments themselves? :)
I hope this doesn't sound insulting, because it's not intended to be.
--Would proving the homosexualiy *is* gentic trait be a good thing or a bad thing?
It seems like it might open up the door to things like "Oh, they can't help it, they were *born* that way." or worse "Well now that we know what genes causes it, we can fix it."
And to any Gay posters (bloggers?)out there; do you feel that your life style is your choice or would you rather be told that it's because of your gentic make up?
As for the Alabma book banning-- It's 2004, almost 2005. Does anyone else feel that we're making huge strides backwards in tolerence and open mindedness?
-=-=-Russ
Jeff asked:
So the question is, do you try to get out and live with like-minded people, or do you stay put to use your voting power to make it a better (in your view) place to live?
Do you really think my vote matters? I've been voting against imposed moralism and in favor of letting every adult soul choose their own spiritual destiny ever since I came of voting age -- here in Alabama.
Oh, I'm staying, for the foreseeable future. Firstly, I don't have the funds to set up my own private island nation somewhere, the Benevolent Dictatorship of Jarissa, and I'm not yet willing to give up my friends and my stuff.
Secondly, I've lived in several different places throughout my life, and I do know that every state is going to have its share of empowered nincompoops. I'd just be trading one set of problems for another, and I want to be certain that I'm getting a less objectionable problem set if I'm going to all that trouble.
Thirdly, it's not illegal for me to discuss my best friend in front of a hypothetical court stenographer (paid by the state, whose document becomes part of a public record maintained through state funding) ... *yet*. So I'll keep talking, and I'll stay here to do it.
But, Lordy, I do wish we had a law that Mrs. Grundy and all her selfish ilk could be exiled to a single, soundproofed auditorium until the echoes of their impertinent snooping voices made them all insensate.
Last year there was someone here in this state who wanted to legislate against Hinduism discussion of any sort in schools, on the basis that most of the voting population in this state is Protestant Christian of some sort. Fortunately that "movement" died a very early death.
And let's not forget ex-Judge Roy "I don't have to obey the law, but you have to obey me!" Moore, and ... now I'm just getting mad again. Sorry.
These idiots keep popping up in this state, and getting entirely too many sheeple to follow them around and clap. You'd think none of these people had ever heard of Matthew 6, where Jesus tells his followers that the Father isn't impressed when we show off how pious we are in front of other people. No, they're too busy telling other people how they HAVE to live, and think, and believe, often because "He says so!". Aaargh.
It's crap like this that makes me consider moving to Canada.
So let me get this straight, EClark -- you'll use a dictionary's definition of science to counter what actual working scientists are telling you about how the process works in reality?
How very authoritarian.
I was not and am not arguing semantics -- you made a case based on flawed definitions and assumptions, I called you on them, and now you're saying that's not your point.
Good try.
TWL
What I would like to know is, why do so many conservatives preach the magic of the market place as the solution to health care funding, environmental cleanup, and social security and yet turn around and want the government to censor TV and radio and like Mr. Allen in Alabama, want to censor public libraries and universities? Why preach about limited government in the boardroom but call for more government in the bedroom?
Your question confuses two different issues. There is overlap, but there is a difference. When you are dealing with "solving" social problems, you have to ask what the problem is. According to conservatives, the problem is the lack of personal responsibility. Thus, for the government to simply create a new "program," it does not solve the problem. Conservative suggest it just makes it worse.
When you come to moral values, there is a shift (althought there is clearly overlap). To use an extreme, rape is always wrong. You don't rely on market values to keep rape in check. You are truly dealing with a different area of life. When you come to issues that are less extreme (take "living together" before marriage), you don't have a "market" for it. But when you get to the radio (think "Howard Stern"), the two intersect.
The reality is that there is just as much variation among conservatives as there is among liberals. Some want to ban anything they don't like. Some just want to keep to some common sense decency (which I think Stern or the "wardrobe accident" with Janet Jackson crossed over) without regulating everything (I would ask the FCC to ban "Will & Grace" just because I disagree about homosexuality).
Jim in Iowa
Tim,
Thanks for the science definitions--I was working on sending something similar but you beat me to it and probably did it better.
"conservatives like Fred Phelps"...
Actually, you could make an argument that Phelps is no conservative. He has run for public office as a Democrat, has expessed contempt for Jerry Falwell, plans to picket the funeral of Billy Graham, called Bob Dole a "Whoremonger", say that Ronald Reagan is in Hell, worked as a civil rights lawyer, received an award from the NAACP, and ran unopposed in the Democrat primary for DA. When he filed for the Democratic nomination to the Kansas House he said "As a Democrat, I am liberal in my thinking, but conservative in spending the people's money."
Now does that mean he's a liberal? No, this guy is a special case. He's a single issue nut. He hates anyone who disagrees on this one issue, regardless of all else. His hatred and singlemindedness have trancended all politics. Calling him a conservative is like calling the Unibomber a liberal.
RE: Science and "proving" things.
I asked the question for one reason: There are times when some of us can get way too technical. Rather than jump down someones throat because they used "prove" in a way you don't like, why not dialog about the issue? Yes, it is good to clarify our terms so that we are on the same page. But I would hope the author of a post could be given some benefit of the doubt and that the point would be dealt with rather than just tearing into the loose use of a single word.
Jim in Iowa
It'll never pass (as well it shouldn't). The guy is shamelessly grandstanding to make a name for himself.
Um. Tim took my point.
Yes, go ahead and refer to the dictionary, over the word of working scientists and who teach the methodology of science.
That's not only authoritarian, but also arrogant and arrogantly proud in its ignorance.
Why should you be taken seriously when you do this?
Jim,
One could ask the same of you -- rather than jumping at someone's tone, perhaps you could actually examine the definitions I and others posted and see why the discussion of "proof" is so relevant.
In this case, the "loose use of a single word" was really at the heart of the point. One can't wait to put X into a textbook until "X has been proven", because from a scientific standpoint it never will be.
The "it hasn't been proven" argument is EXACTLY the argument used to put anti-evolution warning labels on science textbooks, Jim. This is not simply me objecting to the use or non-use of a word -- it's pointing out fundamental flaws in the other side's logic.
I'd love to talk about the issues, but if the two sides are using the same word to mean different things it's impossible to have a dialogue that's meaningful.
Now, having said that ... what point do you feel I haven't addressed?
TWL
What I always thought as funny is, as the teaching goes, sin is sin in God's eyes. No one sin is greater than the other and it's all the same. Now to live in a functional society and not being omi-everything we as finite beings can't take the approach.
My point, if I have one is, that a lot of Christans will harp on homosexuality, and how they wouldn't associate with a homosexual,etc. yet they have no problem with fornicators, and a lot of them proably are fornicators.
One is just different from them, so the pick that one to hate.
uhh...if you look really hard, there might be a point in there somewhere....
Phinn wrote People who are truly concerned about marriage should wage a war against divorce; half of marriages in the US end in divorce. Divorce is something that is strictly and explicitly forbidden in the Bible (what God has joined, let no man tear apart). For that matter, adultery is one of the leading causes (or in the very least one of the most overt symptoms) of a divorce AND it is explicitly forbidden in the 10 Commandments. Why is it, then, that these so-called "moral majority" legislatures aren't passing laws more strict against adultery? Why are so many of them caught in adulterous acts themselves?
If you look at some of the conserative Christians who oppose gay marriage, virtually all also are very actively opposed to divorce and adultery. If you listen to James Dobson, you will hear far more programs about how to have a healthy marriage than on the issue of gay marriage.
For the most part (there are exceptions), conservative legislatures are no more asking for laws banning gay sex than they are adultery. They focus is on the definition of marriage and what constitutes a family. While there is obviously an overlap in these issues, there is also a very clear and important distinction. In addition, when a legislature is found to have committed adultery (think Newt Gingrich), in most cases that person loses a lot of credibility within the conservative movement. Compare the status of Newt versus Bill Clinton within their supporters. Newt has fallen a lot further and is not looked to as a person to speak on moral issues. Bill Clinton still is by a large segment of his party. I agree that conservatives commit adultery, divorce, etc. But they tend to pay a much higher price for it among their supporters. There is some level of consistency among conservative Christians.
I forgot to mention that I don't believe that the intent behind "Heather Has Two Mommies" is propaganda; I think it is meant to help children understand that their peers who come from different families (those with two mommies, or two daddies, or whatever) are acceptable.
It *is* propoganda if it is being read to children against their parents wishes. If I went into the same school and told the story of Jesus and how to become a Christian to a first grade class, there would cries of outrage -- and understandably so. Reading the book does more than just say their peers are acceptable -- it suggests that the parents are also doing something morally right or at least neutral. (If they were read a book saying gay couples were living in sin, that would also be propoganda. I am not trying to have it both ways, I am just making a statement that at that age, a parent has the right -- and responsibility -- to be involved in the forming of a child's moral values, whether you or I agree with those values or not.)
Jim in Iowa
Kingbob wrote:
Does that mean that we have to "prove" that so-called white holes (theroretical counterpart to black holes) exist before we can include them in books available in public libraries?
Personally, I don't care what you put in a public library. I don't have kids, and I don't give a crap what yours read. If I ever DO have kids, and I don't want them to go to a public library, I'll either sacrifice and buy whatever book they need, or go to the library myself and check it out for them. Otherwise, I'll just have to trust I've raised my kids in the right way and let them go to the library.
But back to your question. I think a theory should be taught AS theory, unless there is sufficient evidence to support it being taught as fact.
Is the Bible going to be banned under this law?
Who knows? It wouldn't be the first time the Bible or at least parts of it was either banned or censored.
By some accunts, the relationship between David and Jonathan had a homosexual aspect to it.
I don't know about that, but I'm pretty sure that for the most part, the Bible as a whole tends to lean towards the anti-homosexuality side of the argument.
And where is the PROOF that God exists?
I don't know. Did someone announce that they had found it?
Is it a matter of fact, or faith?
As far as I know, faith.
For that matter, evolution is still just a theory. You can't prove it happens, you can just make some observations and draw a conclusions. Black holes are a little more fact than theory, but are still based on observations, and not direct proof.
Be honest, you didn't really read my post did you?
Part of me actually wants to see this law get passed, and then see the uproar when the Bible gets banned by it.
The way the ACLU is going, we may not have to wait for that law.
"It's crap like this that makes me consider moving to Canada."
Do a google search on "Censorship in Canada" before you do.
Tim,
I did read all of the posts. I understand the difference. But read Eclark1849's original post:
Don't you think that science should first be able to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait before we start teaching it as proof? After all, unlike black holes, God, and evolution, this is one theory that we should have the answer to sooner or later, and frankly, it doesn't look good for genetics.
His point is not at setting a standard so high it is impossible to reach, his point is the evidence is not there in the first place. To argue about the definition of prove is secondary when you read his second sentence. It shows that he is arguing based on the evidence, and the eividence is what needs to be primarily addressed. Yes, clarify the definition of "prove" if you want. But deal with the heart of his argument.
Jim in Iowa
Bill wrote:
>>""It's crap like this that makes me consider moving to Canada."
Do a google search on "Censorship in Canada" before you do.
You beat me to the punch, Bill!
Sorry for the lack of proofreading of my own posts. My earlier post should say "legislator" rather than "legislature." Hopefully you figured that out (along with other typos I caught on further review).
Jim in Iowa
"It's crap like this that makes me consider moving to Canada."
Do a google search on "Censorship in Canada" before you do.
Interestingly enough, Canada is generally rated higher for personal freedoms than the U.S. is by the international community. Furthermore, Reporters Without Borders ranks Canada as the 5th most free press in the world; the U.S. is ranked at 17th.
Phinn
Fine, Tim. Whoopee! You win. Happy now? Because I've told you, I'm not going down that road with you.
eclark 1849 ""For that matter, evolution is still just a theory. You can't prove it happens, you can just make some observations and draw a conclusions. Black holes are a little more fact than theory, but are still based on observations, and not direct proof."
Be honest, you didn't really read my post did you?"
no, really, I did. You claimed that evolution was a scientific fact, that it (evolution) had been observed in nature and in the lab.
Where?
I've never, ever, seen anything written or posted that evolution was *proved* to occur.
There is no such thing as a *scientific* fact. Or, if there are, what's different from a scientific fact and a lay fact?
Evolution is accepted (by some) as a theory until someone else comes along and posits are more viable conclusions. If we were to turn on our TVs tomorrow morning and CNN was broadcasting a tape of God making Platypuses, that'd throw the whole theory of evolution into a tailspin. Especially if they had an interview with the big G saying how he loved to make things like that just to mess with us.
So, if I'm wrong, what proof that evolution is a fact do you have that's been hiding from me?
Fred Phelps is an ultra-conservative Christian.
Being a Democrat doesn't automatically make you a liberal. See Zell Miller.
Not loving Ronald Reagan doesn't make you a liberal.
On social issues, he's on the far right.
Deal with it.
When you come to moral values, there is a shift (althought there is clearly overlap). To use an extreme, rape is always wrong. You don't rely on market values to keep rape in check. You are truly dealing with a different area of life. When you come to issues that are less extreme (take "living together" before marriage), you don't have a "market" for it. But when you get to the radio (think "Howard Stern"), the two intersect.
Here's where your point falls apart, Jim. Rape is a violent assault upon another human being. What Howard Stern engages in is speech. Now, thankfully, our founding fathers gave us the first amendment guaranteeing even Howard Stern his right to freedom of speech. No where, however is there a "right to rape." Therefore, laws banning rape are constittutional. Laws banning speech are not.
I use the example of the market place because, obviously, there is a market for Howard Stern and for "Will and Grace." If not, those shows would not be making money and would be taken off the air. So, why should any conservative wish to interfere with the dictates of the market?
Now, but "conservative," I mean the current political mindset of our beloved president and his various advisors, nearly all of whom preach market based solutions for social security and health care, yet through agencies like the FCC, have begun cracking down on freedom of speech on the airwaves. Maybe there are other conservative thinkers out there who see the inherent hypocrisy in this position, but none of them are members of the current regime in Washington.
So please, all of you Bush supporters, enlighten me. Tell me why market forces are good for education, healthcare, and social security, but not for our entertainment. I really would like to know.
I REALLY wish people would NOT use theory and proof so loosely.
In science, theory is top of the heap...you just don't get any higher than that. A theory is a comprehensive explanation of facts; you get evidence that supports theories. YOU WILL NEVER GET PROOF OF THEORIES.
Can I repeat that again? YOU WILL NEVER PROVE A THEORY.
So stop saying stuff like that.
1) What day did Neil make his comment? - it seems to have slipped off his first page....
2) Christianity's relationship w/ the Mosaic laws: According to Acts, God gave Peter a vision of food forbidden under the Mosaic dietary laws; Peter first rejected the offering on the basis of the dietary laws, and God said not to reject what he had created. This leads to a request from an non-Jew for information regarding Jesus, and the first conversion of a Gentile. While the vision should be primarily viewed as a sign that Christianity wasn't just for Jews, further reading in Acts shows that the Christians of the time were divided on what aspects of the Mosaic laws new converts were expected to follow. In particular, some people were requiring new converts to be circumcised; this was viewed as something of a stumbling block. The leaders of the Christian church decided that new converts should avoid a couple of food-related things (food sacrificed to idols, meat from animals that were strangled, and blood), and sexual immorality.
I assume that those things that were not covered (stealing, murder, etc.) were not seen as requiring specific instruction not to do, as they have generally been unacceptable in most societies.
One of the points the New Testament (and, yes, Jesus in particular) makes is that the Mosaic laws, in part, were there to make the people realize that they could not live up to God's standard (hence, the need to make sacrifices to atone for your failures).
Two last notes from me on this topic:
a) The Bible does seem to indicate that people should not engage in sexual activity other than with their spouse of the opposite sex. I do believe that biblical teaching indicates that, for the purpose of being acceptable in the eyes of God, engaging in sex with someone of the same sex is no worse than engaging in sex prior to or outside of the bonds of marriage, or than murdering thousands of people, or than shoplifting a package of gum.
b) I am sickened by people like Fred Phelps. Jesus did not approve of people committing sin; but he loved people, even those still in the midst of the most unsavory lifestyles (like prostitutes and tax collectors; hey, he would probably have even loved *lawyers*!) Again, in the churches I have attended, the phrase that explains the attitude people strive for is "hate the sin, love the sinner." Some people have problems making the distinction....
By the way...
Speciation: observed in the field and in the lab. With finches and with plants, over a period of years. Try that obscure Pulitzer prize book, BEAK OF A FINCH for starters. Then we can go to the scientific literature for more detailed instances...
Hm. Third thing.
Market forces are based on Darwinian principles. Why are some people so enthusiastic about that in economics, but not in biology?
King bob:no, really, I did. You claimed that evolution was a scientific fact, that it (evolution) had been observed in nature and in the lab.
I NEVER claimed that evolution was a scientific fact. I never claimed that it had been been observed either in or out of the lab. I never claimed that homosexuality was a purely genetic trait. I never claimed that black holes don't exist!
I did not claim it on a lark,
I did not claim it in the park,
I did not claim it while eating Spam
I did not claim it, Sam I am.
What the hell are you people reading?!!!!
Phinn wrote: So please, all of you Bush supporters, enlighten me. Tell me why market forces are good for education, healthcare, and social security, but not for our entertainment. I really would like to know.
In most cases, I would agree. Market forces are good. However, when it comes to TV and radio, they are a unique vehicle. You buy cable. You pay for an individual movie. You purchase (or check out) a book. But TV and radio are understood to be "public" airwaves. Direct market forces are not at work in the same way. As a result, there is an attempt to maintain a line of "public decency." If you go back to the days of "I Love Lucy," people could not sleep in the same bed and you could not use the word "pregnant." Clearly, over the years, "market forces" have changed this line (as anyone who watched "Friends" could attest).
Howard Stern is jumping to satelite radio because there is freedom in this country in entertainment. The outcry over Stern, Janet Jackson, etc., does show some "market forces" at work. People want to watch TV or listen to the radio without being "shocked" by what the average person would agree is indecent.
This is not a perfect system. But it is one that tends to balance the two extremes. So as long as TV and radio are considered public airwaves, you cannot use just "market forces" to apply to the programming. Michael Moore can make whatever movie he wants, and the public can choose to go the theater, pay for it on HBO, or rent it. But when it goes on the public airwaves, there is a level of decency that it should meet. (We tend to discourage people from running around a public park with nothing on or from screaming obscenities because it is a public area. The same courtesy is asked of what is broadcast on the public airwaves.)
Jim in Iowa
Phinn,
Sorry, I should not have used "market forces" as loosely as I did. That may have confused my point. Basically, TV and Radio are seen as belonging to the public as a whole. As such, market forces as normally defined do not apply. Obviously there is advertising, etc. But it is not the same thing. As an individual, I do not pay to see "Lost" on ABC. It is on whether I (as an individual) go buy the "Lexus" that is advertised or not. Neilsen ratings have some impact because it helps set the advertising dollar, but it is not the same as true "market forces."
Jim in Iowa
What the hell are you people reading?!!!!
EClark, I was wondering the same thing.
Jim in Iowa
TimJ: As far as comparing homosexuality to wearing clothes of different cloths and eating a cheeseburger, that was part of the law of Moses, something which Christians are not under.
Luigi Novi: Then why does the New Testament have Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah on the mountain in a positively-portrayed scene, if not to ratify Moses’ laws? Why did Jesus support the laws of Moses? Why does the New Testament contain constant references to the Old Testament?
kingbobb: Luigi Novi…What defines a scientific fact?
Luigi Novi: Staring with Den’s explanation of what theories are is a good place, since all facts are theories—theories that have achieved a certain level of confirmation. A fact (at least as it pertains to science) is a theory that has been confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement. A fact is a theory that has been confirmed to such an extent that it would actually be less reasonable to deny it then it would to accept. While I’m not fully versed on all the intricacies of the process as it pertains to the scientific community, or how, if at all, something becomes “officially” a fact, I believe the Peer Review Process, and confirmation thereby, is the manner by which theories gain such acceptance.
kingbobb: And what is evolution that has been proven? Is it evolution in the sense that species adapt to changes in their ennvironment over time, and those species that are able to make the best adaptations succeed, while those that do not fail and fall into extinction? Or is it simply the idea that species respond to their environment in various ways, including social, physical, and physiological ways, to adapt to changing conditions?
Luigi Novi: I’m not certain what you mean by the latter, but the former is indeed part of evolution.
kingbobb: In what way is this a fact? A fact is something like this: A train hits a car. The car gets smashed. It's caught on tape. It is a FACT, that the train hit the car, and smashed it.
Luigi Novi: If by this you mean that it is a fact only because it was caught on tape, and that anything not caught on tape isn’t, then I would have to disagree. If not—and I’m guessing you don’t—then I apologize, so please clarify. :-)
kingbobb: Here's a theory: We see a wrecked train and a smashed car. The car bears evidence that it was struck by the train. But no one saw it, there's no tape. The facts are that we have a wrecked train and a smashed car. The THEORY is that the train hit the car and smashed it. Backed up by facts, supported by evidence, but not proven. It will always be a theory.
Evolution is like the second example. The evidence strongly supports the theory that species evolve over time. But we can't for a fact say that they do. Or that the most well-adapted species is the one that succeeds.
Luigi Novi: The word “proof” is indeed being used by Jim and
Tim more technically and more strictly than it is in everyday common parlance, and by that connotation, then yes, nothing is “proven.” But evolution is a fact.
Tim Lynch: As a result, calling something "just a theory" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works (and I know you didn't, but lots of people do, including Luigi just recently in this thread).
Luigi Novi: Where did I do this? I merely said that calling it “just a theory” was untrue, (since evolution is both a theory and a fact). You yourself subsequently said that:
Thus, Luigi's right that calling evolution "just a theory" is silly -- but not for his reasons.
JamesLynch: Also, would this law extend to movies? No movies with a gay best friend (MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING, FRANKIE & JOHNNY)…
Luigi Novi: Interesting that as I’m reading this post by you, a episode of Saturday Night Live with Nathan Lane hosting is being shown now on E!.
kingbobb: no, really, I did. You claimed that evolution was a scientific fact, that it (evolution) had been observed in nature and in the lab.
Luigi Novi: That was me, Bob. :-)
Libraries are usually government run and government funded institutions. As much as one may want them to exist in an untouchable state, where they are free to do whatever they want, they in fact are subject to the rules setup by their proprietors. If a library is partially privately funded, then the government cannot ban content, but it can revoke funding if the library chooses to offer certain content (unless SCOTUS says otherwise in the somewhat related Solomon Amendment case). Only if a library accepts zero public funding is it free to put whatever it wants on it's shelves.
As for my statement saying that some people get more worked up about homosexuality than other sins because it is consensual, I was expressing my reasoning behind what others think. That is not my own belief.
TimJ: As far as comparing homosexuality to wearing clothes of different cloths and eating a cheeseburger, that was part of the law of Moses, something which Christians are not under.
Luigi Novi: Then why does the New Testament have Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah on the mountain in a positively-portrayed scene, if not to ratify Moses’ laws? Why did Jesus support the laws of Moses? Why does the New Testament contain constant references to the Old Testament?
Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." in Matthew 5:17. Think of it this way: When you are in school, there are requirements you have to fulfill in order to graduate. Some are technical, such as turning in a research paper. Others are "moral," such as not plagaarizing the paper. Once you graduate, those requirements are fulfilled and you are no longer obligated to the "laws" of school. You no longer have to turn in a paper. But some issues, such as not plagarizing, are a more universal truth that is still true once you have graduated.
This is just an illustration, but it gets the point across. The New Testament does not treat the Old Testament as a mistake. It instead treats us now as having "graduated" from living under the written law of the Old Testament. We are now living on a law written on our hearts, or as it says in one place, under the law of Christ.
Jim in Iowa
On social issues, he's on the far right.
Deal with it.
Oh, no no no no no. The left doesn't get to tell the right who its members are, "far" modifier or no modifier. We on the right don't want Fred Phelps. He bears about as much resemblance to American conservatives as Leon Trotsky does to American liberals. He's on his own.
Deal with it.
yes, my bad. that's what I get for trying to split my attention between work and PAD's board.
eclark, my apologies: I crossed whatever you said (and clearly now I DIDN'T read what you wrote) with Luigi.
My bad.
Luigi said But evolution is a fact.
Please let us know what we supposedly evolved from and if I accidentally step on these creatures when I go outside. I wouldn't want to accidentally destroy some potential new civilization that might evolve over time.
Prove that evolution is a fact Luigi.
Jim in Iowa,
I did read all of the posts. I understand the difference. But read Eclark1849's original post:
Don't you think that science should first be able to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait before we start teaching it as proof? After all, unlike black holes, God, and evolution, this is one theory that we should have the answer to sooner or later, and frankly, it doesn't look good for genetics.
His point is not at setting a standard so high it is impossible to reach, his point is the evidence is not there in the first place.
Sorry, can't agree.
*No* textbook is teaching the above statement "as proof", so his question really has no basis in fact. And prefacing any question with "don't you think science should be able to prove X before (etc.)" is a question in the "have you stopped beating your wife" category yet. It's unanswerable because it proceeds from a flawed premise. (The second sentence, which you say is "arguing based on the evidence", is frankly mangling the definition of "theory" and our current understanding of both evolution and black holes, so there's not really much I can argue about there either.)
I'm sorry that I'm not presenting my argument in a way you'd like, Jim -- but I'm not willing to pretend the scientific process can proceed in impossible ways.
You appear to want to argue about what the textbooks should or shouldn't say. I'd much rather see what they actually DO say before taking much of a stance on the matter -- seems more efficient somehow.
If you can show me a textbook that does in fact say without equivocation that homosexuality is purely genetic in nature, then I would say that textbook's doing a crappy job.
If a textbook says that there is evidence for a genetic link, then frankly I'm fine with it, particularly if it either describes that evidence or mentions where one could go to find it. (How much detail they'd go into would obviously depend on the level of the textbook.)
Does that sufficiently "deal with the heart of his argument" for you? If not, we may be in "agree to disagree" territory here.
On a different note ... why exactly does it matter to you whether homosexuality has a genetic component or not? Would it change the opinion you have of gay people, and if so why?
TWL
Evolution is accepted (by some) as a theory until someone else comes along and posits are more viable conclusions. If we were to turn on our TVs tomorrow morning and CNN was broadcasting a tape of God making Platypuses, that'd throw the whole theory of evolution into a tailspin. Especially if they had an interview with the big G saying how he loved to make things like that just to mess with us.[emphasis mine]
You have no idea how true that statement is.
"It's official - the platypus is weird"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1226827.htm
If there is one creature out there can prove creationism, that God has a sense of humor, or the existence of extraterrestrial life (I'd easily imagine patypuses -- or is it platypi? -- being descended from the long-abandoned pet of ancient astronauts), this egg-laying, mammalian freak would be it.
Oh, no no no no no. The left doesn't get to tell the right who its members are, "far" modifier or no modifier. We on the right don't want Fred Phelps. He bears about as much resemblance to American conservatives as Leon Trotsky does to American liberals. He's on his own.
I just wish members of the right pay the left the same courtesy.
And for the record, I think the Unibomber (suggested elsewhere) would make a better example as a non-left leftist.
Please let us know what we supposedly evolved from and if I accidentally step on these creatures when I go outside. I wouldn't want to accidentally destroy some potential new civilization that might evolve over time.
Well, then, you're pretty much screwed from the git-go, pilgrim. Given that for the overwhelming majority of Earth's history, all life was one-celled and overwhelmingly bacterial, you're potentially killing off future civilizations every time you take a breath, take a step, or take a bite of food.
Just pretend they're Democrats -- given your past opinions, that should certainly get rid of any guilt you might have about killing them.
Prove that evolution is a fact Luigi.
You really didn't bother reading any of the discussion, did you?
Prove to me that we didn't all appear five minutes ago with implanted memories after being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.
TWL
dreading the coming of the Great White Handkerchief
If there is one creature out there can prove creationism, that God has a sense of humor, or the existence of extraterrestrial life (I'd easily imagine patypuses -- or is it platypi? -- being descended from the long-abandoned pet of ancient astronauts), this egg-laying, mammalian freak would be it.
"Hey, these are EASY!"
-- God's thoughts upon making the snake, according to G. Larson
Remember that back in the '70s, the federal government did not set a national speed limit, as that was not within its purview. What it did was to withhold federal highway funding from states that failed to comply with the 55 mph limit.
Cite me a state that was willing to forgo money in order to preserve its own rights.
Similarly, cutting library funding if the library refuses to censor its books will have a chilling effect on the entire publishing industry. (What company is going to want to spend the money to publish a book that no library is allowed to touch?)
Yes, I know the current argument is only in Alabama. Care to wager whether such an idea would spread through the Red States, if it were upheld there?
The big fear that I have is that Bush appointed Judges would uphold such a law. The Bushies would consider this to be a state's right decision as opposed to medical marajuana.
According to this, libraries in Britain accounted for only 5% of all British book sales in 2001. I doubt that banning a book from libaries, thus reducing the marketplace for the book by 5%, is such a gross inhibitor of the book as to be a suppressor of free speech.
Again, I don't support the law, but I would agree with a SCOTUS decision that found it constitutional.
MP,
I don't think looking at the overall marketplace reduction is necessarily the best measure.
First, the library is by necessity one of the very few if not only places for lower-income people to get books. As such, if you remove things from libraries under the assumption that "well, people COULD just buy 'em", you're basically cutting off that end of the economic spectrum from seeing that information at all.
Second, the library is the only governmental outlet for any sort of reading material. Banning a book from libraries isn't preventing it from being published, no, but if a governmental entity says that the book cannot be distributed by any governmental means, it's in effect establishing a gag rule.
The latter probably wouldn't be enough to make the rule unconstitutional, but I wonder if the former might. Mr. Bjorlin, you're the resident constitutional law expert 'round here -- any thoughts?
TWL
"Fred Phelps is an ultra-conservative Christian.
Being a Democrat doesn't automatically make you a liberal. See Zell Miller.
Not loving Ronald Reagan doesn't make you a liberal.
On social issues, he's on the far right.
Deal with it."
Hating gays is not a conservative position. Using the worst examples of humanity to try to make conclusions about any legitimate philosophy is just lazy. Hitler tells us nothing about vegetarians who love animals. No environmentalist need apologize for the Unibomber.
Actually, the platypus is perfectly well adapted to its environment. The duck bill makes perfect sense for its food, the webbed feet help it swim, the poison glands have obvious benefits. The egg laying is the amazing thing but given the fact that mammals evolved from reptiles it should be no surprise that some once layed eggs.
[I] And to any Gay posters (bloggers?)out there; do you feel that your life style is your choice or would you rather be told that it's because of your gentic make up? [/I]
Well, first of all, I have to say that I find this question a little odd. For one thing, it seems as though you're hinting that, if it's genetic, it's somehow less valid, because we're "being told" this is who we are, rather than "deciding for ourselves." No one tells black people their racial pride is less valid because they had no choice in the matter. Also, the idea of homosexuality being a choice is something commonly taken as offensive by the gay community, so the fact that you seem to be gay-positive and at the same time, implying that you're leaning toward the "lifestyle choice" philosophy seems weirdly paradoxic. I'm not offended or anything, because I don't think you meant any harm. I'm just sayin'. And maybe I read you wrong entirely, who knows.
Anyway, to your question. It seems to assume that it's a "one or the other" scenario, which it isn't. I mean, homosexuality can be caused by any number of things, some of which we might not even have considered at this stage yet. One theory is that it is the result of a mother's hormone fluxuations during pregnancy. Frankly, I don't know what the cause is. One thing I do know for certain is that it's not a choice. And if it is, it's certainly not a conscious decision, and it's one made very, very early in life, because I was clearly a gay child. I grew up in the 80's, and I always preferred She-Ra to He-Man. My Little Pony to Transformers. And I only liked G.I. Joe if Scarlett or Baroness were in it. I also remember enjoying looking through my father's National Geography magazines with pictures of African tribesman. I didn't know why at the time, all I knew was that it was fun to look at them. I can list more proof of My Very Gay Childhood, but I'll spare you.
mike wrote...
...I was clearly a gay child. I grew up in the 80's, and I always preferred She-Ra to He-Man.
That's funny, I'd expect it to be the other way around. I mean, have you looked at He-Man lately? Loincloth...rippling biceps...massive sword...sounds pretty gay to me. =)
Yeah, I prefer She-Ra to He-Man as well...I am SO confused right now...
No one tells black people their racial pride is less valid because they had no choice in the matter.
Well, THAT's certainly not true.
"By the way...
Speciation: observed in the field and in the lab. With finches and with plants, over a period of years. Try that obscure Pulitzer prize book, BEAK OF A FINCH for starters. Then we can go to the scientific literature for more detailed instances..."
You got to it before me, but I'm also fairly certain that evolution can be observed in the lab in such lifeforms as certain insects with short lifespans (something that's born, reproduces and dies in 24 hours) as well as germs and viruses (hence every so many years we have to find newer or stronger vaccines).
As far as what humans evolved from, it probably ain't walking around anymore, but humans and other primates have a common ancestor.
Monkeys.
TWL,
A library is a public service, not a right. The phrase "free library" is not in the 1st Amendment. If a poor person wants to read a book with gay content, then they can go to a gay charitable organization and get one.
As for your second paragraph, if you are relying on the government as your primary source of information, then you are already SOL.
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural (physin) relations for unnatural (para physin) ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural (physin) relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."
Romans 1:26
In the preceding passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR THAT PERSON. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals and not everybody is heterosexual.
wow, over 100 replys in less than 12 hours. Touched quite a nerve, did we?
MP:
A library is a public service, not a right.
Education IS a right, however, and libraries serve that function in part. Just because the phrase "free library" is not in the Constitution (why you focus only on the 1st Amendment is a bit odd to me) doesn't mean they're unimportant. The phrase "breathable air" isn't in there either, but I rather expect most people assume they've got a right to same.
If a poor person wants to read a book with gay content, then they can go to a gay charitable organization and get one.
The "let them eat cake" quality of this statement is just astonishing to me.
Suppose we change the word "gay" to, oh ... "Christian", and therefore justify states banning the Bible from public libraries. Suppose we put in the word "scientific" instead, and remove all books that mention any hint of science.
Individual libraries can of course choose not to stock books on any particular subject (or to stock books ONLY on a particular subject), but for you to argue that it's fine for an outside entity to mandate what they can and cannot carry based on content is something I just find both mystifying and appalling.
TWL
TWL,
Education is not a natual right. It is not an explicit right defined by the Constitution. It is a mandated responsibility only in certain states, and sometimes only because of (what I consider) gross misinterpretations of state constitutions by state judges.
I focus on the First Amendment, because original posters talked about this being a "Free Speech" issue. That implies a First Amendment right. My argument has consistently been that this is not a Constitutional "Free Speech" issue.
You appear to assume that I'm an anti-gay person of religion. I honestly couldn't give a sh&& if the Bible was banned. I also think that the proposed Alabama law is asinine. That doesn't make it unconstitutional.
And calling the Government an outside entity when it comes to Government run/funded libraries shows a lack of understanding of how things actually work. Private libraries are few and far between. So are truly private schools. Did you know that if a University accepts a student who uses even $1 of a government grant/loan is subject to regulation by the government? If you truly want a free country, you'd best consider shrinking the government, not continuing to expand its authority.
The issue at hand is not an outright ban, but a regulation regarding what government run/sponsored entities can do.
And BTW, if a poor person wanted to read the Bible, let them go to Church.
Actually, the platypus is perfectly well adapted to its environment. The duck bill makes perfect sense for its food, the webbed feet help it swim, the poison glands have obvious benefits. The egg laying is the amazing thing but given the fact that mammals evolved from reptiles it should be no surprise that some once layed eggs.
You didn't read the article I mentioned did you? :)
I especially love the final paragraph.
MP,
Education is not a natual right. It is not an explicit right defined by the Constitution.
Ah. So you're taking the strict-constructionist position. That explains a great deal. Me, I think the tenth amendment tends to demolish most such positions.
You appear to assume that I'm an anti-gay person of religion.
Nope. I'm simply pointing out that the same argument could be used to ban all sorts of things. I'm sure that if I decided to dig around for long enough, I could find something you'd object to banning -- but frankly, that's not the point.
There are, however, plenty of people who ARE "anti-gay people of religion", including the dips in Alabama who came up with this lovely idea, and I thought it was worth pointing out that your argument could hurt them as much as it could help them.
Private libraries are few and far between. So are truly private schools.
Dude, I *work* at a private school -- "truly private", indeed. I frankly don't think I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Now, if someone like David Bjorlin says I don't get a particular element of constitutional law, that I'll listen to, as it's his field. So far as I can tell, you just turned up out of nowhere to blow smoke.
'Night, all.
TWL
The latter probably wouldn't be enough to make the rule unconstitutional, but I wonder if the former might. Mr. Bjorlin, you're the resident constitutional law expert 'round here -- any thoughts?
As far as it being illegal as well as stupid? Allen was almost clever. If he'd stuck with the "public funds" issue, he would at least have an argument that could be made with a straight face. Jonathat (the other one) alluded to the argument-- courts have consistently held that the Federal spending power, at least, is unrestricted by the Constitution's enumerated powers. At least to some extent it's plausible that "we're just not going to pay for it" is a constitutionally survivable position for a state government.
(As a side note, Jonathan referred to the speed limit. The better example is the national 21-year-old drinking age, which was made part of the safe roads legislation of the 1980s, and was the source of much of this case law. It also provides the counter-example he wanted. Louisiana has road funding problems because its Supreme Court invalidated the 21 drinking age under its state constitution, which removed Louisiana from lots of road funding programs. That's either a counter-example or further proof of his point, since the decision was not made by the political branches of the state government, and the road conditions explain why it was not the political branches.)
Allen blew what limited chance he had, however, by inserting the ban on "offering" the books, and commenting that they'd have to be removed, that they might need a shovel to bury the books, and all that good stuff. That's explicit viewpoint suppression by a state government, and if the First Amendment means anything it means you can't do that; no prior restraint of private publication, and no government viewpoint suppression. (It's more ambiguous when you ask whether the government can endorse some policy--clearly governments do make value judgments, and have to in order to govern-- but even during the Red Scare nobody thought it was legal to remove Das Kaptial from the University of Alabama libraries.) Any rational court would use the same argument to kill the funding proposal as well, but the "offer" provision is one that even John Paul Stevens could figure out.
I spent a half hour searching for a copy of the bill online. I'd be able to form a more informed opinion if I had more than the Birmingham newspaper story to go on. I'm treating this strictly as a censorship issue. If Allen was silly enough to mention religion in the bill or if it comes up in the legislative history, you get a second line of attack as an Establishment Clause case. With the caveat that the actual bill might not be as stupid as it's reported (though based on the quotes from Allen, it probably is), this law wouldn't even require a long hearing in front of a judge.
s yarish
wow, over 100 replys in less than 12 hours. Touched quite a nerve, did we?
And it's been remarkably civil...at least it hasn't devolved the way certain previous threads did...
You appear to want to argue about what the textbooks should or shouldn't say. I'd much rather see what they actually DO say before taking much of a stance on the matter -- seems more efficient somehow.
I feel like we are debating two different issues. I don't remember the original post saying anything about textbooks. I am not trying to be difficult, but just trying to understand why they entered the picture.
I 100% agree with you that text books should be precise. My complaint is that in everyday English, and even in many news articles and reports on TV, reporters are just as sloppy. When the cover of Time suggests that a "gay gene" may have been found, the average person would conclude that if such a gene was indeed found, then being gay is virtually the same as being white or black, being right or left handed, etc.
Most people today do not read a textbook, they hear short news reports and read the first 3 paragraphs of a news article.
My point is NOT to dumb down textbooks. My point was to give the author of a post the benefit of the doubt when they use terms and deal with their point more than just dealing with how they are stupid and don't know what they are talking about in the first place.
On a different note ... why exactly does it matter to you whether homosexuality has a genetic component or not? Would it change the opinion you have of gay people, and if so why?
I did not bring up the issue. My point was to be fair with those who post a point. But since you asked, here is my belief. It would not change my opinion of gay people. I believe engaging in any sex with another person outside of marriage is sinful. That includes a hetero couple living together. Whether there is a genetic component that causes someone to tend one way or another really doesn't matter.
Jim in Iowa
Reverendsnow wrote: In the preceding passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR THAT PERSON. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals and not everybody is heterosexual.
This interpretation of the Greek words involved grossly distorts the meaning of the text. In the context of when Paul wrote this, it would have been clear that any form of sex between two men was being condemned. All of the major lexical tools are in agreement with the traditional understanding of this passage. You have to do a lot of acrobatics with the text to come to the conclusion suggested above.
Jim in Iowa
TWL: Education IS a right, however, and libraries serve that function in part.
Yes, but only under the Alabama constitution. (Sorry, but MP is right about that one. Take a matchbook. Write down, on the matchbook cover, all the laws ever invalidated by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution combined. Then figure out what else you're going to use to cover your matchbook.) That's actually a good argument why the proposed law is invalid, this time under Alabama law instead of US law. (Look at Section 256, ignoring the segregationist language that has been overtaken by Federal law. Come to think of it, this is the state that rejected an amendment to this provision last month. No wonder the legislators are screwy. http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm ) Under Alabama law the State is obligated to fund the educational system. I don't think many judges would find authorization in the constitution for the funding to have strings attached by the legislature.
On an unrelated note, the sentence structure in my writing is needlessly convoluted tonight. Maybe I should get some sleep.
Rather than posting a long rebuttal of "ReverendSnow's" suggestion that Romans 1 has been misunderstood, I will simply give a link that deals with the topic:
http://www.str.org/free/studies/homorom1.htm
http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/issues/marco2.html
Jim in Iowa
Tim Lynch,
As someone whose passion (and career) is vested in the First Amendment, and someone who has strongly supported libraries and will continue to do so, let me state I strongly disapprove of this proposed law.
But what I take issue with people on this board and elsewhere who are trying to make this
A.) A Gay Issue- When the issue is much broader than that. It is a CENSORSHIP/BANNING issue.
B.)An example of why they "want to move to Canada" and other such cliched, canned nonsense. Unless you live in Alabama, it really won't affect you, and as many have stated I feel this guy is grandstanding and that, even in Alabama, it won't pass.
C.) By the way, Alabama is...unique. It is the least-taxed state in the country and is last (some argue 49th) in Education spending, yet when the Republican Governor proposed to raise taxes to increase funding for schools and basic things it had to be put to a referendum, which was soundly defeated. Now the governor, despite being Republican and trying to improve his state's education, may be in trouble.
So be careful when you say we would be better off with a "true" democracy. Especially in this system ,people get the government they deserve. But this is just another example I have seen this week of people trying to shut other people up or shut them out.
A.)Macy's announced this week, they will not be celebrating "Christmas" or playing Christmas songs this Holiday Season. They have to stay with the commercialized, sanitized hapy Holidays.
This is being done, of course, in the interest of being multicultural and inoffensive, when what it really does is piss a lot of people off. If they were really interested in celebrating other cultures and Holidays, why not INCLUDE rather than EXCLUDE them all. Heck, I know athests who enjoy the Christmas season. They could have Hanukkah displays and Kwanzaa displays as well. It might actually educate people and have them ask questions and learn about each others' customs.
And Lord knows, that would be a bad thing.
So we'll take the meaning and even the spirit of the season for millions. How inoffensive (not).
B.) At my local Borders, remember loking for "How To Make Love Like A Porn Star" by Jena Jameson. I loked and looked and could not find it. Finally, I went to the cashier, and what did I find, but stacks of the book waay behnd him. I asked him why they weren't on the floor, since it was a major book release that had gotten a lot of pub. he said a "few moms" were upset.So PLAYBOY can be sold on the main floor, but this book that was obviously intended for grown-ups could not. I was so upset.
C.) The whole military-funding-the Scouts issue really hits me the wrong way. As did kids not being allowed to say they were thankful for GOd ON THEIR OWN at a certain school.
I hate censorship. I stongly believe in The Frst Amendment, as much as I do The Second Amendment.
It's why I disagree with "hate speech". It's why I hate campaign-finance "reform" which restricts one of if not THE most important parts of free speech, the ability to criticize the government.
Because, for every person you shut up who disagrees with you, you are making it easier for the to do the same to you.
As Tim states, libraries are the best, sometimes the only way to get chalenging words and ideas in front of some eyes. We should always support them and allow them to buy and put on shelves as wide a variety of material as possible.
I haven't been able to find the legislation either, but I did find his web page (which includes his home phone number):
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/house/representatives/housebios/hd062.html
Interestingly, a search of Gerald Allen at www.google.com/unclesam brings up a fugitive from Texas, & sex offenders in Alaska & Nebraska
Howard Stern is jumping to satelite radio because there is freedom in this country in entertainment.
At least until Michael Powell gets his way and the FCC is given the power to regulate satellite radio and cable TV.
But when it goes on the public airwaves, there is a level of decency that it should meet. (We tend to discourage people from running around a public park with nothing on or from screaming obscenities because it is a public area. The same courtesy is asked of what is broadcast on the public airwaves.)
The difference is, running around naked or shouting in a public place is disruptive to other people's enjoyment. Nobody is forced to own a TV or radio or watch programming that they don't like. If I run naked in front of your car, I've created an offensive action against you. If I want to listen to Howard Stern on my drive to work, it doesn't affect your morning commute one bit. It all comes back to my "TVs and radios have buttons" point.
Hating gays is not a conservative position.
Oh, but it is. Our beloved conservative president has made hating gays one of the center pieces of his campaign. He wants to write hating gays into the Constitution.
Den wrote...
Oh, but it is. Our beloved conservative president has made hating gays one of the center pieces of his campaign. He wants to write hating gays into the Constitution.
I think/hope he was trying to say something along the lines of "hating gays is not an exclusively conservative position."
I was in two minds about if I should post because in these discussions nobody seems to be willing to accept that there stance may be wrong so it just becomes a whos loudest competition.
Firstly my favourite sin which is mentioned far more times than the two obsurce references to homosexuality in the bible is the act of userey which is the act of charging intrest on borrowed monies. I have never once hear of anybody every say that the banks and credit card companies are sinful I don't recall anybody protesting to get these business practices stoped so until somebosy tells me American Express is an abomination of gods law I can in no way take your opinion on what consenting adults do seriously.
As for scientific theorey versus law I was taught that something became a scientific fact or law when a theory could be suggested and then proved in a labority with the results then published and that the experiment could then be performed independently of the first achieving the pridicted results.
Things like Newton's theory of relativity and the theory of evolution are scientifically sound but there is no experiment that we can perform to prove that forces like gravity and time work in predicted ways anywhere in the univese so these will remain theories (But basically it's just a word)
Censorship in all forms is wrong and the product of fear and ignorance. Knowledge is power and censorship is somebody not wanting you to have that power.
Also there is fairly good mathematic evidence out there to suggest that homosexuality is a reseive genetic trait found on the x chromosome (As far as resarchers can tell homosexuality seems to be represented in the population in similar percentages as things like Colour Blindness there is however not definitive test of homosexuality so this is far from conclusive however likely)
Hating gays is not a conservative position.
Oh, but it is. Our beloved conservative president has made hating gays one of the center pieces of his campaign. He wants to write hating gays into the Constitution.
1) Our conservative President (for whom I voted) is also spending money at a rate that would make a New Dealer blush and running up massive deficits. Be wary in your definition of "conservative," if you don't mind.
2) Actually, he doesn't want to write hating gays into the Constitution. He wants to write the definition of marriage as it existed when he took office into the Constitution. That's not the same thing. (We already had this thread once, didn't we?) To summarize: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 vote, mandated gay marriage under the Massachusetts Constitution. I would be stunned if the Defense of Marriage Act were held constitutional. Therefore, under the Comity Clause of the US Constitution, all states have to honor marriages performed in Massachusetts, irrespective of the number of genders involved. Four residents of Massachusetts have therefore been able to rewrite the domestic relations law in 50 states, including 49 in which they're not even permitted to practice law. It is possible to find this vexing without being motivated by anti-homosexual bias, and for what it's worth Bush appeared to be endorsing civil unions by the end of the campaign. A constitutional amendment, either in Massachusetts or at the Federal level, is the only way to overrule the SJC.
"And it's been remarkably civil...at least it hasn't devolved the way certain previous threads did..."
That's probably because Glenn posted it. If I'd posted it, very likely a different reaction would result.
"The difference is, running around naked or shouting in a public place is disruptive to other people's enjoyment."
How anyone could possibly NOT enjoy watching someone run around naked and shouting in a public place is beyond me. I went to school at NYU. We had naked shouting people in Washington Square at least once a week. When you're a student on a tight budget, you learn to enjoy watching whatever no-cost entertainments present themselves.
PAD
For anyone interested in explanations of scientific methodology (given all the debate here about the use of the word "proof") can I recommend the two volumes of The Science of Discworld, which are not only entertaining, but also hugely informative (and unlike the Science of Star Trek not entirely devoted to explaining how a world that is a disc might be possible).
They deal fairly firmly with the common misunderstandings about science, which have been perpetuated largely by (a) scientists being largely unable to communicate with the lay person (b) the media distorting anything in favour of a good story and (c) primary educators oversimplifying science to make it easier for children to understand (and sometimes because they don't understand properly themselves because of a, b and c).
"Therefore God gave them over in the LUSTS of their hearts to impurity,"
Key word there, Jim. LUSTS. " usually intense or unbridled sexual desire" Lust, NOT love. So, heterosexual men and women, along with gay and lesbian are all guilty of that sin. Giving into love is o.k. NOT lusts.
Matthew 19:4-5 "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].'?" NOPE! Making a child from the aformentioned intercourse is when the flesh becomes one. Maing children is the point there. Considering the overpopulation problem we're having today, this could be deemed as one of those "for the times" passages.
God was mad at the spilling of the seed. WHY? Not becuase every sperm is sacred, but becasue he was defying God's will.
1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another..
"one another?" Are you SURE this means man to man sex? I know a lot of straight people that have BURNED IN THEIR desire for one another. (Yes, I know that the first site tries to make it seemlike it is, but that's if you read it going in LOOKING for it to say that and not considering anything else also, the second site would keep me up all night refuting and I have to work.) For women to abandon the natural function could indicate that they were engageing in sexual acts that would not make a child, not that they were having gay sex. I'm not going to say how that would happen, I'm sure we all have imaginations. I also like the way they used the word 'function" to define the word "function" The "function" of the female is to be the life giver, I think with the whole Emmacualte conception thing, we've proven you don't need to have sex to accomplish that. Men can donate sperm, so we ARE living up to the functions set for us. Going with the "function" thing, that would mean that celibacy is ALSO a sin becuase it goes against the function.
So, if married couples have sex for fun, this is a sin too? Because they're not going to be procreating?
It all depends on what and HOW you read it.
Basically, it REALLY all comes down to this. I have always been told that God has a plan for us all. We are to never know what his plan is, just that we all have our place in it. God is infallable and cannot make a mistake. Using that in mind, who's to say that the way you interupret the Bible isn't God's plan for you and the way I interpret the Bible isn't God's plan for me? Wouldn't that mean you were questioning God? Doesn't that technically make you more of a heathen?
I'm not against religion. Heck, look at my name! Zealotry and the inability of MOST(not including you, Jim. I actually have respect for the way you've presented your ideas and beleifs.) of those follwing their leaders without thinking for themselves is what I have a problem with.
As long as you have actually READ the Bible and made your own beliefs from it and not have a preconcieved notion going in, then I have no real beef with you, even though your beliefs are different from mine.
BUT, when people seek to take from gays and lesbians the same rights that other people have, it makes me sick. They say that it's not natural, but I sure has HELL don't know any person that picked this lifestyle. Why would a gay man want to live in a society where people hate him? Why be gay? For the Quieche? If someone's using the "it's not natural" argument using natural to mean majority, well then, neither is being left handed but I don't see any hate crimes against Southpaws.
If you feel that I have done gymnastics to make my point then in some cases, it's probably true. But, in all reality when people quote the Bible to me, they're just going by what their Reverend said and not making that descision for themselves and honestly? That's when some gymnastics really begin.
Peace,
Larry
**
Creationism is not a scientific theory, despite what many of its supporters claim. Creationism starts with a conclusion (God created the world 6000 years ago) and then tries to tailor observations to fit that conclusion. That is the cardinal sin (excuse the phrase) of the scientific method. Read scientists accept that their theories may be overturned by new data that contradicts their previsiously held assumptions. Could some new observations that contradicts evolution be found? Sure, but given that 99% of our current understanding of biology and genetics is based on the assumption that evolution is a process by which species find ways to adapt to a changing environmental, such an observation would be equivalent to conclusive proof that the world is indeed flat./b> **
Den, what you are talking about here is not Creationism per se, but the Young Earthers interpretation of it. A fair chunk of Creationists, perhaps even the majority of them, have no problem putting a billions-year-old universe and evolution together with Genisis. They believe that when both science and religion are both properly understood that they do not contradict each other but are in harmony. Thus, if the hard evidence keeps saying '10 billion years' is the answer to the question 'How old is the universe?' then obviously the seven days of creation referred to in Genisis cannot have been 24-hour days (at least as how humans percieve and measure time); and if the hard evidence says humans decended from ape-like critters, then obviously the Genisis writers left out a few steps between 'God played with some mud' and 'created Man' (probably to keep their audience from falling asleep on them during storyhour ;) ). And so on. The Young Earthers just get more airtime because extremist positions play better in the media than the more moderate ones.
A question about the whole 'banning books & such with gays in them' discussion that I haven't seen addressed here yet: who is the final authority supposed to be on which characters/real people really are gay and which aren't when is is not specifially stated anyplace. or outright denied that a paticular charater or person is gay? In recent years I have seen various reports about/articles by gay activists that say fictional charaters like Bugs Bunny and Elmore Fudd are a gay couple (based on the fact that Bugs dressed Fudd in dresses in some of their cartoons, implying Fudd is also a transexual) and that the purple Teletubbie is gay based on the fact that it is, well, purple, and carries a purse everywhere with it. The Spongebob Squarepants movie implies that there is a fair amount of speculation floating around about what the 'true' relationship is between him and Patrick the Starfish. In cases such as these, who is supposed to have the final say as to whether these are really 'gay' characters or not? The gay activists who have an overwhelming desire in making it seem like every pop culture icon is really a homosexual icon just below the surface, or the creators of said charaters who emphatically denied any such intent, either overtly or subvertly? (The Warners creators have publicly denied that the Bugs/Fudd relationship was ever intended to be seen as gay; I think I have seen someplace that the Teletubbies creator(s) never intended the purple one to be percieved as gay; I have no clue about what the Spongebob creators have said about the Spongebob/Patrick thing.) In cases involving historical people such as Michaelangelo, who is supposed to have the final say about whether he was homosexual or not -- gay activists (who again would have a vested interest in making him one of 'their own') or art historians (who would provide an alternate in-culture answer to what he was trying to accomplish in certain of his paintings and drawings)? Or in cases such as Siegfried & Roy, who have never PUBLICLY stated one way or the other what their private relationship has been/currently is; would the librarians be required to take an 'innocent until proven guilty' stance (so to speak) when is comes to public people who are percieved as being gay, or would they be required to take every 'mind your own @#$%$% business!' answer and non-answer to the 'are you gay?' question as an automatic 'yes' and act accordingly?
Chris
Jerome says:
"At my local Borders, remember looking for "How To Make Love Like A Porn Star" by Jena Jameson."
Jerome, you stud! :) I'll bet you used to write fake letters to Penthouse with your buddies in college, you know, the ones that always started with "I never thought this would happen to me" or "I guess it was my lucky day". Or maybe that was me...
"Interestingly, a search of Gerald Allen at www.google.com/unclesam brings up a fugitive from Texas, & sex offenders in Alaska & Nebraska"
Not to slander Rep. Allen since he is (coff coff) OBVIOUSLY not one of the men mentioned above...but I notice that some of the folks who are most obsessed with homosexuality are sometimes struggling with the issue themselves. No, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone on this thread, but when you devote your life to an issue, as Fred Phelps has, it is probably near and dear to your heart.
Jeff says:
"I think/hope he was trying to say something along the lines of "hating gays is not an exclusively conservative position."
Well thanks, but I would argue that it is not a conservative position OR a liberal one, though there are many conservatives and liberals who do hate gays. So Den's statement that hating gays is a conservative position because he believes that Bush hates gays makes as much sense as saying it is a liberal position because Castro hates gays. A poor argument.
//Posted by: REVERENDSNOW
If someone's using the "it's not natural" argument using natural to mean majority, well then, neither is being left handed but I don't see any hate crimes against Southpaws.//
I'm not sure it would qualify as a hate crime in this day and age, but during the first part of the 20th century (and maybe decades earlier?) it was the commom practice, ordered and enforced by various doctors and scientests, to take Southpaws and 'train' them to make their right hands their dominate hand rather than their left hands, lest they become degenerates or something like that. Thankfully that is no longer the case. This Southpaw is messed up enough as it is without having to deal with what that kind of 'reprogramming' would have done to my brain. :)
Chris
I said Prove that evolution is a fact Luigi.
to which TWL said You really didn't bother reading any of the discussion, did you? Prove to me that we didn't all appear five minutes ago with implanted memories after being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.
I did read it as a matter of fact, thanks for asking. Did you read my post? It was directed at Luigi since he stated evolution was a fact, but thanks for adding your two cents though.
Novafan
I said Please let us know what we supposedly evolved from and if I accidentally step on these creatures when I go outside. I wouldn't want to accidentally destroy some potential new civilization that might evolve over time.
to which TWL said Well, then, you're pretty much screwed from the git-go, pilgrim. Given that for the overwhelming majority of Earth's history, all life was one-celled and overwhelmingly bacterial, you're potentially killing off future civilizations every time you take a breath, take a step, or take a bite of food. Just pretend they're Democrats -- given your past opinions, that should certainly get rid of any guilt you might have about killing them.
That's a pretty crappy thing to say. You justify killing by having someone pretend it's someone you have a difference of opinion with. Hmmm. I bet that's the justification for a lot of bad things people do.
This was said "And it's been remarkably civil...at least it hasn't devolved the way certain previous threads did..."
to which Peter said That's probably because Glenn posted it. If I'd posted it, very likely a different reaction would result.
Here's an idea. Why don't you have Glenn post all threads that are potentially controversial, that way you never have to worry about it. :0)
Is there such a thing as the "gay agenda"? And if so, is this proposed law an aid or a detriment to the cause?
Enquiring minds want to know. :0)
Novafan
Den, what you are talking about here is not Creationism per se, but the Young Earthers interpretation of it. A fair chunk of Creationists, perhaps even the majority of them, have no problem putting a billions-year-old universe and evolution together with Genisis.
The date of the earth is not at issue. At issue is the creationists assumption that all life can only exist because of divine intervention. A real scientist will not take any preconceived notion until the data collected have been found to support it.
Den said The date of the earth is not at issue. At issue is the creationists assumption that all life can only exist because of divine intervention. A real scientist will not take any preconceived notion until the data collected have been found to support it.
So, are you saying that there are no creationists that are real scientists?
1) Our conservative President (for whom I voted) is also spending money at a rate that would make a New Dealer blush and running up massive deficits. Be wary in your definition of "conservative," if you don't mind.
He calls himself a conservative. I'm just taking him at his word. You aren't suggesting that our beloved president would lie, now are you?
2) Actually, he doesn't want to write hating gays into the Constitution. He wants to write the definition of marriage as it existed when he took office into the Constitution. That's not the same thing. (We already had this thread once, didn't we?)
And why is this such a burning issue? Because he and his key supporters hate gays!
As for Castro hating gays, remember that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" don't necessarily mean the same thing in other countries as they do in the US. In America, the party that hates gays is the conservative party.
Deal with it.
I think it's fairly obvious that Tinky Winky is not gay.
I mean, what gay man would ever accessorize purple fur with a red purse?? Eewwww....
On the other hand, Dipsy prances every bit as much, loves to wear that silly-looking cow-pattern hat (leather?), and has what appears to be a giant dildo growing out of his head.
Did Rev. Wildmon spot the wrong gay Teletubbie? :)
So, are you saying that there are no creationists that are real scientists?
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
Tell him what he's won, Don Pardo!
Well, Den, Novafan has won a hundred copies of Youngblood #1, signed by Rob Liefeld himself!
That Phinn guy is one smart cookie:
"Think what you will of homosexuals, their children (adopted or otherwise) should not be subject to ridicule and humiliation by their peers; teaching acceptance is what the Bible is all about and I find it ridiculous that modern "Christians" often forget the heart of the message that Jesus preached. He was a pacifist who taght his followers to turn the other cheek."
I just felt it needed to be repeated.
Peace,
Doug
Novafan: Please let us know what we supposedly evolved from…
Luigi Novi: We evolved from simpler organisms.
Novafan: Prove that evolution is a fact Luigi.
Luigi Novi: No.
You challenged me to show lies on the part of the mendanonymously-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and after I spent a good deal of time composing a post detailing their falsehoods in great detail, you stonewalled on it. I’m not wasting any more time doing your homework for you simply because you’re too intellectually lazy to go out and crack open a book on the subject, one that does not argue its case on an a priori basis.
A fact is a theory that has gained confirmation to such an extent that it is reasonable to offer provisional agreement, and that denying it would be unreasonable. Evolution has been thus confirmed through the Scientific Method and the Peer Review Process, and is considered a fact by the scientific community, having been observed to occur in nature. Thus, it is a fact. Beyond that, I feel no obligation to give a tutorial on the details of the evidence, which I know you’ll ignore anyway.
Sasha: "It's official - the platypus is weird"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1226827.htm If there is one creature out there can prove creationism, that God has a sense of humor, or the existence of extraterrestrial life (I'd easily imagine patypuses -- or is it platypi? -- being descended from the long-abandoned pet of ancient astronauts), this egg-laying, mammalian freak would be it.
Luigi Novi: Not really.
In 1971, two fossil platypus teeth were discovered in the Tirari Desert in South Australia. They are about 25 million years old, and have been named Obdurodon insignis. The modern platypus has only vestigial teeth which are replaced by horny pads when it is still a juvenile. The fossil teeth are similar enough to these vestigial teeth to allow identification, and they show that ancient platypuses had teeth as adults.
And contrary to the creationist Straw Man that platypus supposedly links mammals and birds, anyone who reads any evolutionary literature, even at a basic level, will quickly find out that birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals.
Interesting article, btw.
Tim Lynch: You really didn't bother reading any of the discussion, did you?
Luigi Novi: Check out his response to my post on the Fonzie board in which I offered evidence of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s lies.
Jeff Lawson at December 2, 2004 08:39 PM
Toby: As far as what humans evolved from, it probably ain't walking around anymore, but humans and other primates have a common ancestor. Monkeys.
Luigi Novi: Humans did not evolve from monkeys. (Or was that last word just intended as a jab at someone, and not a follow-through from what came before it?)
PolarBoy: My favourite sin which is mentioned far more times than the two obsurce references to homosexuality in the bible is the act of userey which is the act of charging intrest on borrowed monies. I have never once hear of anybody every say that the banks and credit card companies are sinful I don't recall anybody protesting to get these business practices stoped so until somebosy tells me American Express is an abomination of gods law I can in no way take your opinion on what consenting adults do seriously.
Luigi Novi: But isn’t that how banks and AmEx make money?
PolarBoy: As for scientific theorey versus law I was taught that something became a scientific fact or law when a theory could be suggested and then proved in a labority with the results then published and that the experiment could then be performed independently of the first achieving the pridicted results.
Luigi Novi: That’s part of it, but I would quibble with the “laboratory” part. If something has to be “proved in a laboratory,” then the “facts” derived from Galileo Galilei’s observations of Jupiter are not really facts (unless you’re saying someone has actually managed to build a laboratory that can hold Jupiter).
Jerome Maida: At my local Borders, remember looking for "How To Make Love Like A Porn Star" by Jena Jameson."
Luigi Novi: I browsed through that at Tower Records, and it was quite interesting. Her explanations of being raped on two different occasions (once by a gang) were very disturbing. I just wish it had a different title, because it sounds like “How To” title, which feels a bit embarrassing if you’re found reading it. I want to finish it so I can find out what happened concerning the “Preacher” scumbag, but I’m waiting for the price to come down at Amazon.
Reverend Snow: If someone's using the "it's not natural" argument using natural to mean majority, well then, neither is being left handed but I don't see any hate crimes against Southpaws.
Luigi Novi: Being left-handed isn’t natural?
Den: The date of the earth is not at issue.
Luigi Novi: Well, for some creationists it is, since they state that it’s only 10,000 years old.
Den: At issue is the creationists assumption that all life can only exist because of divine intervention. A real scientist will not take any preconceived notion until the data collected have been found to support it.
Novafan: So, are you saying that there are no creationists that are real scientists?
Luigi Novi: No, he’s saying that no real scientist will take any preconceived notion until the data collected have been found to support it.
How you turn this into that Straw Man with which you responded, I don’t know, but it is clear that he is correctly talking about the METHODOLOGY by which science is correctly applies, whereas you, ignorant as you are about how science works, are ignoring that point (much as you do with arguments you can’t refute), and are focusing on the CONCLUSION. This contrast highlights the problem with creationists. They focus solely on the conclusion, and work their way backwards, looking for evidence to confirm that pre-conceived conclusion on an a priori basis. If you’re a creationist, and follow the proper METHOD, and regard an idea such as creationism as confirmed only after you have accumulated evidence for it that has been peer-reviewed and found to be sound, only then do you have science, then yes, you could be a creationist and a real scientist—at least in regards to the subject of evolution/creation.
Den: Well, Den, Novafan has won a hundred copies of Youngblood #1, signed by Rob Liefeld himself!
Luigi Novi: Definitely cruel and unusual punishment. I could never stand idly by and allow Novafan to be forced to read even one copy of it, let alone a hundred.
Jim in Iowa --
I feel like we are debating two different issues. I don't remember the original post saying anything about textbooks. I am not trying to be difficult, but just trying to understand why they entered the picture.
Take a look at (a) Glenn's original post at the top of the thread, and (b) EClark's initial question about things being "taught as proof". Textbooks are explicitly mentioned in the first, and implied in the second. The media (e.g. Time magazine, which you're bringing up here) didn't enter into the initial discussion at all.
That's where the textbook issue came up. You still want to claim I'm being unfair to people, that's your call, but don't expect much agreement on this end.
David -- thanks for the clarifications and corrections.
Jerome --
1) My school struggles with the "holiday" issue every year, and in the last couple of years has generally come down on the side of "mention 'em all", as you suggest. There are still all sorts of perceived imbalances on many sides, but on balance it seems to be working out pretty well. (Personally, as an atheist I'd be happier not to have umpty-ump assemblies cutting into class time while celebrating belief systems I happen not to share, but I've no doubt other people have a similar reaction to school events I find fascinating, so that's pretty much a wash.)
2) I'm surprised at the Borders story you mention. I'm certainly not questioning it, but my local Borders had the book on very prominent display last time I happened to be in there.
(Hey, given how well she's done with that title, should PAD consider titling his next book "How to Make Love Like a Writer"?)
TWL
"In America, the party that hates gays is the conservative party."
But Bush is a Republican. I think you're confused.
If being against gay marriage means you "hate gays", then both candidates in the last election (ok, both MAJOR candidates) hate gays.
Considering that the new RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman, is being "accused" of being gay by some Democrats (because, you see, anyone who is 38, single, and keeps his personal life to himself, MUST be gay, dontcha know?)there are plenty of bigots to be found on both sides.
If he is gay...gosh, how could the "gay hating" party possibly nominate him for the post? If he isn't gay...gosh, how could the "gay friendly" party possibly think that homosexuality is the worst smear they could come up with?
There's good and bad on both sides. Deal with that. Or don't, if it rocks your world too much.
Seems that many scientists follow the preconceived notion that matter suddenly appeared from absolute nothingness without the collected data supporting it.
Well, Luigi Novi convinced me.
I started somewhere up this thread denying that there could be such a thing as a scientific fact. My legal background gave me a bias, because, from a courtroom/lawyer perspective, facts are absolutes. They are the things that are not left to a jury to decide. If ballistic evidence indicates that this gun, with the suspects prints and DNA all over it, was the very weapon used to kill the victim, that is a legal fact, and not for the jury to decide.
Luigi presents a very good explanation for scientific facts. Although I think to a point we're line-walking. A scientific fact only remains so until some new piece of information comes along and contradicts the old information. For example, it was once a scientific fact that the sun and moon and stars once rotated around a stationary Earth. Until astronomical science reached a sophistication level that revealed otherwise.
So, from that point of view, I'll agree that evolution is a scientific fact.
That doesn't mean it's correct. It's just the best we can do with the information we've been able to uncover so far.
Johnny, you mean the Big Bang theory?
My understanding of current thought is that the current universe was "created" when some*thing* literally exploded. What that *thing* was is unknown, perhaps a super-dense mass that exploded. But I don't think that Big Bangers think that matter was created out of nothing.
Me? I prefer the Gary Larson theory...God wondered what would happen if he smashed a roasted pork haunch in between his hands....
Phinn wrote: So please, all of you Bush supporters, enlighten me. Tell me why market forces are good for education, healthcare, and social security, but not for our entertainment. I really would like to know.
No, I didn't.
Phinn
Johnny,
Not really, no. One of the issues at the forefront of early-universe Big Bang cosmology is trying to see if there's any way we can get at the underlying effects that might have brought about the BB. (It may have been a vacuum fluctuation that in effect expanded out of control.)
One of the major consequences of quantum mechanics, BTW, is that there's no such thing as "absolute nothingness", which means there's certainly no preconceived notion in the manner you describe.
You might want to look into the work of people like Alan Guth or Andrei Linde; the former has a lay-level science book out that should be pretty accessible to those not in the field. (I have to confess that I haven't gotten around to reading Brian Greene's stuff, but I suspect he dwells on this topic at length as well.)
Now, if your statement refers to the Big Bang theory in general, then there's a hell of a lot of collected evidence in favor of it, the cosmic microwave background being perhaps the strongest individual piece.
Could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean by the above?
(Sorry if this seems lengthy -- the cosmic microwave background is the main topic I was working on for my master's degree, so it's rather near and dear to my heart.)
TWL
But Bush is a Republican. I think you're confused.
What part of "he calls himself a conservative" is giving you trouble?
Kingbobb, I think that's probably where some of the "fact" debate we were having earlier came from. I'm still inclined to quibble with Luigi a bit about the term :-), but certainly the "as factual as we can get unless new evidence surfaces" definition is one that works for me.
TWL
Seems that many scientists follow the preconceived notion that matter suddenly appeared from absolute nothingness without the collected data supporting it.
No, scientists have observed that the universe is expanding, so they developed a theory to explain that the universe began in a massive explosion. The data collected in the form cosmic background radiation support this theory. What triggered the "big bang" is still the subject of debate among cosmologists today.
Den wrote...
Novafan has won a hundred copies of Youngblood #1, signed by Rob Liefeld himself!
Luigi Novi wrote...
Definitely cruel and unusual punishment. I could never stand idly by and allow Novafan to be forced to read even one copy of it, let alone a hundred.
I have to agree, that's a clear violation of the Geneva conventions.
I have to agree, that's a clear violation of the Geneva conventions.
Really? How quaint!
TWL
I dunno, with winter coming on pretty chilly now in the midwest, I think 100 copies of Youngblood would provide kindling for a good many fires.
Tim, I agree with you somewhat. But whether we go with Luigi's scientific facts, or scientific theory, we all seem to be talking about the same thing. I've found this thread to contain a higher ratio of good, intelligent posts to mindless drivel than other posts, and was kinda hoping to get off the "can science prove facts" line.
No one liked my Far Side reference? I know they're much more funny visually. I really miss new Gary Larson...
One of my favorites is "Bummer of a birthmark, Bob..."
Hating gays is not a conservative position.
Oh, but it is. Our beloved conservative president has made hating gays one of the center pieces of his campaign. He wants to write hating gays into the Constitution.
By the same logic, hating Christians is a liberal position since there are some prominent liberals who want to exclude any connection between religion and real life.
Jim in Iowa
Well Jim, conservatives have accused liberals of hating Christians for years now, despite the fact that many liberals consider themselves to be Christians.
I can only speak for myself, but I just take a live and let live attitude. People want to celebrate their religion in public? Fine. But then they have to deal with people who have opposing views bringing their beliefs into the public realm as well.
Some terminology assistance from the National Academy of Sciences (http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html):
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
On another note, it appears to me that Den is using "creationism" to mean as equivalent to young-earth creationism. Den, is this correct? If so, I would ask you to check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html for a listing of the many different views that can be called creationist.
When discussing the whole "creation vs evolution" fooferah, it is useful if we don't begin with the ridiculous assumption that those believing in creation necessarily disregard evolution (and vice versa, for that matter -- there are many scientists who accept the scientific fact of evolution and still believe in divine creation).
Jeff
Basically, it REALLY all comes down to this. I have always been told that God has a plan for us all. We are to never know what his plan is, just that we all have our place in it. God is infallable and cannot make a mistake. Using that in mind, who's to say that the way you interupret the Bible isn't God's plan for you and the way I interpret the Bible isn't God's plan for me? Wouldn't that mean you were questioning God? Doesn't that technically make you more of a heathen?
Larry,
Obviously we will have to agree to disagree on the way to interpret Romans 1. I am quite familiar with Greek and know the lexical tools to look these things up, so I am not just basing my view on what a pastor told me. You have done the same and reached a different conclusion. So I will spare everyone else who doesn't care about the Greek translation of a 2,000 year old text. ;-)
In regards to your quote I noted above, I cannot accept your logic. I not only believe God cannot make a mistake, I also think he is logical and consistent. It is possible I am wrong and have misunderstood God(or that you have), but it is logically absurd (at least to me)to think that BOTH of us could be right at the same time about this issue. Not when something is so clearly stated in the Bible. On other matters I think what you say can be true, but when the Bible speaks clearly (and I think it has), then there is a right and a wrong answer. (Of course, it is possible we both are wrong, but if God took the trouble to actually record a message for us, it is logical that he would try to make it understandable. Our two views cover the two most logical options to this matter, and our views cannot both be true at the same time. So I suspect one of us is right and the other is not.)
Jim in Iowa
2) Actually, he doesn't want to write hating gays into the Constitution. He wants to write the definition of marriage as it existed when he took office into the Constitution. That's not the same thing. (We already had this thread once, didn't we?)
And why is this such a burning issue? Because he and his key supporters hate gays!
It is this type of logic that frustrates me. You are accusing a group (including myself) of a motive without any basis.
I believe homosexual sexual acts are harmful to the person, spiritualy, emotionally, and mentally. I believe having a loving father AND a mother is the best environment to raise a healthy child, so I therefore oppose gay marriage. You may disagree with my positions. You may even say it is not fair to a gay person. But you cannot say I "hate" a gay person.
If you really believe saying something is wrong means you hate a person, than many of you on this site hate Christians, creationists, and Republicans. Just because you disagree does not have to mean that you hate. You can't have it both ways.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, I accused you of nothing. I only stated the obvious about Bush and his advisors. Are you one of his advisors?
Jeff, please see my comment above about the age of the earth.
...and hence more proof from Jim that there is NO connection between religion and intelligent life...
Well Jim, conservatives have accused liberals of hating Christians for years now, despite the fact that many liberals consider themselves to be Christians.
Den, I will have to use the "sarcasm" warning next time. My point was that the original was absurd.
Jim in Iowa
Phinn wrote: So please, all of you Bush supporters, enlighten me. Tell me why market forces are good for education, healthcare, and social security, but not for our entertainment. I really would like to know.
No, I didn't.
Phinn
Sorry about that, it was "Den." I apologize for the wrong attribution.
Jim in Iowa
That's where the textbook issue came up. You still want to claim I'm being unfair to people, that's your call, but don't expect much agreement on this end.
Tim, thanks for the clarification. I see why you took it that way now. Because the original post mentioned novels as well, I was looking at it from a broader perspective than just textbooks.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, I accused you of nothing. I only stated the obvious about Bush and his advisors. Are you one of his advisors?
When you said "Because he and his key supporters hate gays!", I did not read that as "advisors" but as those, like me, who voted for him. But I would still ask my question: in what way do they hate gays? Is it simply because they oppose gay marriage? Or do you think there is an actual, emotional hatred for anyone who is gay?
Jim in Iowa
I think it is definitely an actual hatred of gays, yes.
Why? I am curious as to what led you to this conclusion.
Jim in Iowa
I think it is definitely an actual hatred of gays, yes.
Well, then you would be wrong.
Did you see how much Cheney squirmed when his daughter was brought up in the VP debate? The last thing he wants is to remind the power brokers in his party that he has a gay daughter.
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing?
Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?
I don't think it is so much picking on homosexuality, but defending societal morals.
Jim in Iowa and Larry have opened up an interesting discussion, concerning different, and in some cases opposing interpretations of the same biblical passage.
If I understand the christian *take* on scripture, it's that God *inspired* certain good and holy men to write out His words, and has acted throughout the ages to preserve the meaning of His word so that it is not lost. So scripture really is, despite the various translations, the true Word of God.
And while understanding that this premise is one of faith, I think it fails me. Which may be my issue, but it compels me to seek an answer. If God, working through the Holy Spirit, can preserve the true meaning of His words, why does he stop there? Why doesn't he, in the same fashion, go the next step and ensure that everyone and all comprehend his Word in the same way?
See, if man really does have free will (which kinda contradicts the God's plan for everyone line of thinking), then we could all read the Bible, get the same message, and use our free will to decide how we're going to act having that knowledge. But is interpreting scripture an act of free will? I don't see how it can be.
Did you see how much Cheney squirmed when his daughter was brought up in the VP debate? The last thing he wants is to remind the power brokers in his party that he has a gay daughter.
Or perhaps he is just a truly loving and protective father who did not want to see his daughter dragged into this debate.
Jim in Iowa
See, if man really does have free will (which kinda contradicts the God's plan for everyone line of thinking), then we could all read the Bible, get the same message, and use our free will to decide how we're going to act having that knowledge. But is interpreting scripture an act of free will? I don't see how it can be.
Whole books have been written on this question!
Short answer: It is logical to me that part of free will includes denying the message in the first place.
A key aspect of Christianity is "faith." A good synoymn is "trust." Faith does not mean you jump off a building and just hope real hard you will not fall. But if you are doing a ropes course, and there is a group of people standing there behind you, faith/trust is letting go and falling back and trusting they will catch you.
If God were to in essence "force" us to understand his word, then it would remove one of our basic freedoms, which is to think for ourselves. Faith/Trust in God includes a trust in his word, the Bible.
Jim in Iowa
The question of free will is far from solved, and many of the arguments have nothing to do with religion.
Some of the very arguments used in this thread indicate that free will does not exist, or at the very least is limited. Genetics puts limitations on free will, as do many other attempts to explain human behaviour scientifically.
In psychology, most fields seem to indicate that free will does not exist. This is mainly because science is oriented towards a "cause-and-effect" methodology, and free will frankly doesn't fit well with science. One of the founding fathers of behaviourism, and one of the giants in the field of psychology, B. F. Skinner, once argued that "free will" is an outdated concept that no longer serves a useful purpose, and that as a species we must move past the concept.
It ain't an open-and-shut case, folks.
We cannot - as a society - proclaim that free will does not exist. To do so would undermine every law based on personal responsibility we have.
"You killed her!"
"No, I didn't want to, but it was predetermined that I do so! You can't hold me responsible for something that I was forced to do by psychology!"
Good points, Jim in Iowa.
"Short answer: It is logical to me that part of free will includes denying the message in the first place. "
And this I guess is the problem. Where do we get to exercise our free will? Is it in failing to understand the message? Or, in understanding the message, but then failing to follow it?
Here's where my economic background starts to get in my way. Economic models are all based on information: who has it, how much do they have, is it correct, do they understand it correctly, etc. Simple economic models use the term "perfect information" to represent an actor that knows everything that they need to in order to make the *best* choice, based on their needs.
I know this doesn't carry through to faith based decisions (that's why it's only a model) but the idea that God would allow us to proceed without giving us an approximation of perfect information seems to me to be unfair. Kinda like God is saying "here's this book with my Word in it. Follow it. Oh, uh, and it's kinda in code, so good luck with that. No pressure, just your eternal soul at stake. Off you go, don't eat the fruit..."
Maybe I'm just looking for a Babblefish.
Mark L...
We cannot - as a society - proclaim that free will does not exist.
Your point is taken, and I don't necessarily disagree, but your statement doesn't actually address the issue of whether or not free will exists - it just says we shouldn't think about it.
The entire topic is rather unsettling, and I'd like to go into Skinner's intent when he made the statments I mentioned earlier, but that particular textbook is on loan to a friend and I wouldn't want to misrepresent him.
In broad terms, he was saying that clinging to the concept of free will is preventing us from fully understanding the principles which influence behaviour, and that understanding these principles would allow us to make vast improvements to society.
(Hey, given how well [Jenna Jameson]'s done with that title, should PAD consider titling his next book "How to Make Love Like a Writer"?)
What? Alone in a room using nothing but your hands and imagination to keep you going? ;)
No one liked my Far Side reference? I know they're much more funny visually. I really miss new Gary Larson...
I did. So I'd imagine would Jim Lynch who replied to my post with: "Hey, these are EASY!" -- God's thoughts upon making the snake, according to G. Larson
The collected 2 volume FAR SIDE omnibus is so going on my Christmas list.
One of my favorites is "Bummer of a birthmark, Bob..."
I think that's one of everyone's favorites.
Jim in Iowa,
It is this type of logic that frustrates me. You are accusing a group (including myself) of a motive without any basis.
I believe homosexual sexual acts are harmful to the person, spiritualy, emotionally, and mentally.
You've also said that you believe any sexual act outside of marriage is harmful and sinful, and I assume therefore that you also think adultery is harmful to the environment of raising a healthy child. (That latter is an assumption, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
Therefore, why are you not pushing just as hard for a constitutional amendment banning adultery? There are a lot more adulterous straight people out there than there are gay people trying to get married, and there are many more documented cases of marriages ending due to adultery than of marriages ending due to a gay couple down the street getting hitched.
I wouldn't presume to call it hatred (not on your part, anyway -- some politicians have made public statements which I think do show flat-out hatred), but there's certainly something consciously discriminatory in your willingness to elevate homosexuality as A Bigger Problem than adultery despite evidence suggesting the latter's a greater threat to your stated goals.
(I'd also like to point out that in previous threads you've been more than willing to bash others, myself included, for "hating" Christians or religion in general. Shouldn't the same standards apply?)
TWL
I did. So I'd imagine would Jim Lynch who replied to my post with: "Hey, these are EASY!" -- God's thoughts upon making the snake, according to G. Larson
That'd be me (though it's Tim, not Jim) -- and yes, I enjoyed it.
The 2-volume Far Side collection, by the way, is absolutely wonderful. My only regret is that it doesn't have an index, but I imagine a comprehensive index would require a third volume.
TWL
I know this doesn't carry through to faith based decisions (that's why it's only a model) but the idea that God would allow us to proceed without giving us an approximation of perfect information seems to me to be unfair. Kinda like God is saying "here's this book with my Word in it. Follow it. Oh, uh, and it's kinda in code, so good luck with that. No pressure, just your eternal soul at stake. Off you go, don't eat the fruit..."
Actually, I think you make a fair point. In Romans 1, Paul says that nature itself gives testimony to God's character and nature, so even if someone never has a copy of the Bible, they have information (and, one could argue, everyone who has ever lived has been given the same, basic level of information).
Furthermore, I believe salvation is based on a relationship with God, not just following a book (a list of rules). Ultimately the problem was not that Adam & Eve ate the fruit, but that they broke their relationship with God, they chose to not trust him. That does not mean we are therefore free to do whatever we want. It means our lives our lived based on a love for another.
Jim in Iowa
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing?
Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?
Considering the groups that have been adamantly supporting the Iraq War, the shoddy-if-not-outright-untruthful reasons we began it, and the shameful treatment of prisoners, yes, I'd say you may have missed it.
I don't think it is so much picking on homosexuality, but defending societal morals.
Morals or mores I wonder sometimes . . .
By the same logic, hating Christians is a liberal position since there are some prominent liberals who want to exclude any connection between religion and real life.
Well, to be honest, I have to wonder whether a great number of religious conservatives are out of touch with real life.
"Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?"
There is one. The Bush Administration.
Murder - 100,000 Iraqi citizens
Waging war - Iraq, and likely Iran
Lying - the reasons for said war(s)
Stealing - the missing billions (cash & materials)that went to Halliburton, the missing Iraqi oil
I don't see any of this getting even half the attention that gays are getting.
You've also said that you believe any sexual act outside of marriage is harmful and sinful, and I assume therefore that you also think adultery is harmful to the environment of raising a healthy child. (That latter is an assumption, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
Yes, I would say adultery and premarital sex are both wrong and harmful, etc. (There is strong research that suggests that a lack of a father is actually the leading reason for poverty in a given group. So kids born outside of "marriage" are far more likely to be poor than from any other factor studied.)
Therefore, why are you not pushing just as hard for a constitutional amendment banning adultery? There are a lot more adulterous straight people out there than there are gay people trying to get married, and there are many more documented cases of marriages ending due to adultery than of marriages ending due to a gay couple down the street getting hitched.
For your example to be true, I should be pushing for a ban on all homosexual acts. That would be a true equivalent. I am not calling for that. I am asking that the definition and fundamental understanding of marriage as involving a male and a female not be changed.
You do not have a group trying to actively push for adultery to be legitimate like you do with gay marriage. That also is the reason for this push. The ammendment is a REACTION to something that was not even an available option in the over 200 years of American history.
I agree that in regards to a given couple's marriage, adultery is more of a threat. But I have never suggested gay marriage will pull apart existing marriages in this way. What I have suggested is that gay marriage will cause some harm to children raised in such an environment, and that the value of marriage will be lowered in general. If the value is lowered, you will have even more kids being raised by a single parent (see point above).
Fundamentally, gay marriage is a huge CHANGE in how we have understood marriage in virutally any of the variations you can find. It has almost always involved a man and a woman.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa, well said. This
"Furthermore, I believe salvation is based on a relationship with God, not just following a book (a list of rules). Ultimately the problem was not that Adam & Eve ate the fruit, but that they broke their relationship with God, they chose to not trust him. That does not mean we are therefore free to do whatever we want. It means our lives our lived based on a love for another."
may be the best, most basic breakdown of christian faith I've seen. I wish more remembered this key part, and spent less time working on getting into wars over the details.
I've got the Prehistory of the Farside. Good stuff if you don't have it. Amazon has them for under $12.
Hardly a year goes by that I don't get a "Midvale School for the Gifted" card from some relative. Wonder if they're trying to tell me something?
Or perhaps he is just a truly loving and protective father who did not want to see his daughter dragged into this debate.
And what was so horrible that was said about her in the debate? That she was a human being who deserved the same rights as everyone else. Gasp!
Cheney wasn't upset that his daughter was brought into the debate. He was upset because he didn't want certain people to be reminded that she exists.
There is one. The Bush Administration.
Well, I will admit this unclever answer was expected, but it totally misses the point. How many pride parades, rallys, etc. is going on to promote murder, war, lying, and stealing?
How many pride parades, rallys, etc. is going on to promote murder, war, lying, and stealing?
How about the Republican National Convention? :)
Well, that covers the "war" (which is not considered a sin), so I guess the DNC covered lying, stealing, and murder?
No, I'd say that with Haliburton and the other contractors screwing up in Iraq, the RNC had lying, stealing murder well-represented.
Political hatemongering aside, you can't come up with a legitimate group that is marching out and saying that lying, stealing, and murder is an acceptable lifestyle. And keep in mind, whoever asked the original question made the equivication with these and homosexuality.
The conservative movement against homosexuality is just a reaction, they did not make the first move.
Me:
Therefore, why are you not pushing just as hard for a constitutional amendment banning adultery? There are a lot more adulterous straight people out there than there are gay people trying to get married, and there are many more documented cases of marriages ending due to adultery than of marriages ending due to a gay couple down the street getting hitched.
Jim:
For your example to be true, I should be pushing for a ban on all homosexual acts.
Um ... no, no you shouldn't. "All homosexuality" is not what you're calling the threat to marriage -- homosexual marriage is the part that you're feeling threatens stable homes, yes?
You do not have a group trying to actively push for adultery to be legitimate like you do with gay marriage.
Poppycock. "Desperate Housewives" is the number one show in the country right now. The 1990s saw the titular heads of both the Democratic AND Republican parties having flings with interns.
Sure, there's no official lobbying group calling itself Wedding Vow Veterans for Adultery, but one could easily, *easily* make the case that there's a greater societal pressure to legitimize adultery than to legitimize gay marriage.
You're still not answering my basic question, Jim. Adultery has directly threatened more marriages than any gay marriage ever has. Adultery has directly changed more children's lives than any gay marriage ever has.
So why is gay marriage the big threat?
I agree that in regards to a given couple's marriage, adultery is more of a threat. But I have never suggested gay marriage will pull apart existing marriages in this way.
Unfortunately, in some ways that makes it worse -- you're arguing that there is a threat to an abstraction, and willing to legislate discrimination against actual people to ensure that a particular abstract concept is held intact.
I personally find that very, very worrying.
Fundamentally, gay marriage is a huge CHANGE in how we have understood marriage in virutally any of the variations you can find. It has almost always involved a man and a woman.
True ... but if you'll forgive me for asking, so what? Copernicus's and Galileo's observations caused a huge change in how we understood the nature of the universe: it had always involved the Earth at the center of the universe.
Change happens. Simply saying "but it's a CHANGE!" is a value-neutral term, not an innate cause for concern.
TWL
Den says:
"Cheney wasn't upset that his daughter was brought into the debate. He was upset because he didn't want certain people to be reminded that she exists."
Riiiiiiiight. That's why she had a prominate role in his campaign. 'Cause, you know, he wanted her hidden.
"Did you see how much Cheney squirmed when his daughter was brought up in the VP debate? The last thing he wants is to remind the power brokers in his party that he has a gay daughter."
Well, that's an interesting interpretation. Most of the Kerry apologists claimed that Cheney had no bad reaction to his daughter being brought into the discussion, therefore his outrage over Kerry was fabricated. You're claiming that he WAS upset the first time, making Kerry's subsequent use of her as a debate point undeniably a cheap shot. Interesting.
Me, I'm willing to give the 2 Johns some benefit of the doubt, though, as others have found out when dragging PAD's family into these discussions, trying to score points with another man's loved ones is usually a first class way to look like a no class prick. But to each his own.
Obviously you want to believe that conservatives hate gays and no amount of arguing will be able to convince you otherwise. A bad argument is like pseudoscience: it can't be disproven. While some see that as a strength, better minds usually see it as a weakness.
Just to interject, but who would you say made the "first move" in enslaving africans?
The measures to prevent homosexuals from gaining marraige rights is simply a form of discrimination. Color all you want as "just trying to defend what our traditions are," it's still discrimination. And I'm sure the south, when asked why slaves should be continued to be denied the same rights as free men, would have answered "because our free/slave tradition says so."
And unless civil unions are granted the exact same bundle of rights that come with marraige, it's still going to be discrimination. The simpler solution would be to make marriage the sole perogative of religion, and only allow governments to issue "Civil Union Licenses."
The conservative movement against homosexuality is just a reaction, they did not make the first move.
Gee, and I thought conservatives didn't hate gays.
My bad. :-)
Seriously, is that you're whole argument? "We're against homosexuality because they started it."?
Aw, gee, Bill. Did you think insulting me was a counter argument?
Too bad. Ken has already proven my point.
Kingbobb says:
"The simpler solution would be to make marriage the sole prerogative of religion, and only allow governments to issue "Civil Union Licenses."
That's a...GREAT idea. Me, I say just let anyone get married but since I'm in the minority (and, if Den is correct, I'm probably secretly AGAINST the idea anyway!) that might make people happy.
Den says:
"Aw, gee, Bill. Did you think insulting me was a counter argument?
Too bad. Ken has already proven my point."
Uh...what point is that? If it's that conservatives hate gays, yeah, I guess in your world it is now an iron tight case. Because if Ken hates them (and we will just have to trust in your eerie powers of mind reading to trust that this is indeed the case) well, then I guess all conservatives do.
Sorry about that, it was "Den." I apologize for the wrong attribution.
Jim in Iowa
That's OK. It made me laugh, especially after reading this:
What the hell are you people reading?!!!!
EClark, I was wondering the same thing.
Jim in Iowa
Phinn
Kingbob does bring up a good point. Slaveowners used the Bible to defend Slavery. Hmmm. Isn't that similiar to how some conservatives are using it to attack homosexuals?
I'm still waiting for some kind of counter-example showing me how conservatives don't hate gays.
Here's a hint: Calling me "weak-minded" isn't it.
Too bad. Ken has already proven my point.
Only if you take what I wrote out of context, as you did.
I was responding to:
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing?
And my answer was to point out the ludicrousness of saying that homosexuality was being picked on as opposed to the others.
Gee, and I thought conservatives didn't hate gays.
I don't how you get that from what I wrote. Being against an act is not the same thing as being against a person. It is like those who say that they support the troops, but not the war.
I'm still waiting for some kind of counter-example showing me how conservatives don't hate gays.
Yet, except for your clearly biased opinion you have no real examples of conservatives hating homosexuals.
"I'm still waiting for some kind of counter-example showing me how conservatives don't hate gays."
Me.
Well Bill, I think that one word reply is the first thing you've said to me that wasn't a personal insult. Congratulations!
As for Ken, I've named a number of conservatives who hate gays and all I've heard in reply is, "they're not really conservatives."
Gee, and I thought Bush kept saying he was a "compassionate conservative." My TV must have been on the fritz or something.
Keep trying, guys. If nothing else, you're giving me an endless source of amusement.
Again, I must have missed something, when did Bush say specifically that he "hates" homosexuals?
Again being against an act, does not equal hating a person!
J. Alexander wrote: Kingbob does bring up a good point. Slaveowners used the Bible to defend Slavery. Hmmm. Isn't that similiar to how some conservatives are using it to attack homosexuals?
Similar only on the surface. You do not find a single command of the Bible requiring there to be slaves. The Bible regulated what was a common practice of the time. In addition, slavery then was different than the slavery of 19th century America in that it was not racially motivated. It was more like serfdom in Russia. Not saying it was good, but it is a mistake to confuse the two situations.
You can find Christians for the last 2000 years who opposed slavery. In fact, Christians were at the forefront of getting slavery abolished in England, and were very active against slavery here in America. You find more prominent "enlightenment" thinkers defending slavery than you do leading Christians in the 1800's. My point: While the Bible has been used (wrongly) to justify slavery, it has not been a major belief of Christianity. On the contrary, there has been a strong movement to abolish slavery.
When it comes to homosexuality, there is an overwhelmingly unanimous voice for almost 2000 years agreeing that the Bible condmens it. So the analogy does not hold up.
Tim wrote: You're still not answering my basic question, Jim. Adultery has directly threatened more marriages than any gay marriage ever has. Adultery has directly changed more children's lives than any gay marriage ever has.
I did answer the question, you just dismissed it as an abstraction. I have stated repeatedly on this thread and others that the same Christian leaders who strongly oppose homosexuality also oppose adultery (James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, to name a few). When you compare how the respective parties treated the leaders who committed adultery, the difference is enormous. Bill Clinton is still at the forefront. As a whole, Democrats don't care about his adultery. Compare that to Newt Gingrich. While he still is a commentator on a few shows, he has lost an enormous amount of credibility with conservatives in the Republican Party.
Bottom line, I agree that adultery is a problem. The focus on gay marriage is because it is making into law something that will undermine the value of marriage. While adultery may still occur, it is by no means being put into law.
True ... but if you'll forgive me for asking, so what? Copernicus's and Galileo's observations caused a huge change in how we understood the nature of the universe: it had always involved the Earth at the center of the universe.
Change happens. Simply saying "but it's a CHANGE!" is a value-neutral term, not an innate cause for concern.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The earth being, or not being, the center of the universe is an objective truth. Homosexuality is an action. It is an action with moral implications (one way or the other). Your comparison is invalid.
There has been, without doubt, a change in moral values. Sexual values is a great example. Go back 50 years, it was not acceptable to "live together" before marriage. It may have been done, but it was not considered moral. Today it is. You may think that this is ok. I think it has hurt our society as much as adultery has done. Studies have consistently shown that the divorce rate of couples who lived together before marriage is higher than that of couples who get married then live together. I think divorce is, by far, a greater threat than adultery to marriage. Whether you agree with me or not, it is clear that this shift in moral values has had an impact on our society. I am convinced that gay marriage will only further this trend and this problem.
Change is not always bad, but is also not always good. In this circumstance, allowing gay marriage will cause a fundamental change in our society. The only question is whether that is a good or bad thing, not whether it will have an impact.
Jim in Iowa
Well that's what we're here for, spreading our special brand of joy.
For a guy who throws around "deal with it" with such abandon, you get upset pretty easily. I apologize for the insult, though I would point out that I did not, in fact, explicitly call you weak-minded. But the implication was there and for that I'm sorry. I think a lot of your arguments have been pretty poor here but for all I know you are secretly one of the Supreme Court Justices having an off day.
The fact is, conservative gays are welcome among many conservatives and will find themselves vilified in the most vulger way by some (SOME) liberals. As for myself, for all the political stuff I follow in the news and on the web, it is absolutely no factor in the people I consider my friends (And luckily for me the same is true for them, otherwise I doubt that Tom, Frank, Mimi, Joe, My Mom, My ex-wife, my ex-wife's husband and my youngest child, among many others, would ever speak to me again!).
I guess I can understand that others may find it impossible to be friends with people of different political beliefs, just as I can understnd that many decent people are very particular in the race or religion of people they would date or marry, but I'm glad I never felt that way. I would have denied myself the love and friendship of some of the greatest people I have ever known.
And one benefit of these relationships has been to forever deny me the comfort of believing in the cartoon cliches of what "liberals" or "conservatives" are like.
I'm still waiting for some kind of counter-example showing me how conservatives don't hate gays.
Do you also want me to prove that I have quit beating my wife? Seriously, you are assuming an answer by the very question. As one person told me earlier, the fact that I believe homosexuality is wrong/bad/harmful means I hate gays. I consider that a false definition of hate, but that is his or her view.
That being said, there are a number of conservative Christian organizations who provide help and care to gay individuals who have AIDS. You have conservative Christian individuals who defend gays against verbal and physical abuse. The fact that there are also some who do not simply shows that some conservatives (as there are some liberals) who do bad things.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa wrote...
You can find Christians for the last 2000 years who opposed slavery ... When it comes to homosexuality, there is an overwhelmingly unanimous voice for almost 2000 years agreeing that the Bible condmens it.
But you can and do find Christians who are not opposed to homosexuality. In fact, the United Church of Canada decided in 2003 to endorse same-sex marriage. So I'm not just talking about individuals, but formal religious institutions as well.
"The conservative movement against homosexuality is just a reaction, they did not make the first move."
How did gays make the first move? By wanting to be treated as equals? By not wanting to be attacked by those who fear/hate anyone who is different?
The gay rights movement arose from incidents like Stonewall, which were caused by the police (& others in power) constantly attacking the gays until the gays had had enough & fought back.
Or did the gays make the first move by existing?
Take a look at (a) Glenn's original post at the top of the thread, and (b) EClark's initial question about things being "taught as proof". Textbooks are explicitly mentioned in the first, and implied in the second. The media (e.g. Time magazine, which you're bringing up here) didn't enter into the initial discussion at all.
Actually, Tim I didn't imply anything of the sort. I never said or implied that anyone WAS actually teaching "homosexuality as a genetic trait" AS fact, just that BEFORE we do, we should be able to establish it AS fact. If someone wants to teach it as a theory, I have no qualms with that.
But you can and do find Christians who are not opposed to homosexuality. In fact, the United Church of Canada decided in 2003 to endorse same-sex marriage. So I'm not just talking about individuals, but formal religious institutions as well.
You only find Christians not opposed to homosexuality in the last 50 years. My point was quite clear. There is a virtually unbroken record of Christianity believing that the Bible taught homosexuality is wrong. That record is at least 1800 years long. You do not find the same for slavery. There are writings by Christians within a few centuries of Christ that called for the aboloition of slavery. My point stands: The church, UNTIL the last 50 years, has been quite clear and consistent in saying homosexuality is wrong. Slavery has been questioned BASED ON THE BIBLE for over 1800 plus years.
Jim in Iowa
I don`t have the time to read this whole discussion but I have read and heard so many variations of it that I am aware of the arguments anyway.
What has been written in the Bible has not been written by God but by people. On top of that, a lot of it is open to interpretation and some of what is written in it should definitely not be taken literally.
The Bible should NEVER be a substitute for your own conscience and I have very little patience with Bible thumpers.
Talking about sins: I define a sin as an action that harms at best only the sinner and at worst also others. Who is harmed by homosexuality? It is consensual sex between adults of the same sex. I understand that for many people there is the "ick" factor involved but what moral right do these people have to deny them to live their lives and be happy the way they want to be?
And about the discussion if homosexuality is genetic or not: Who cares? These people are not sick, they don`t need to be cured.
This is only another example why at least in Western Europe, less and less people are interested to go to church. Like me, they have their beliefs but refuse to be part of a church that discriminates against women and homosexuals (I have other reasons as well).
There are some good examples of homosexuality in more recent Star Trek books. I don`t know about other SF but I certainly welcome it that homosexuality is slowly becoming more acceptable in books.
I would be careful with the word "promoting". We even have the law here in Britain that forbids "promotion" of homosexuality in schools. What they mean is that homosexuality is something forbidden, something people should not talk about, something that is dirty and hearing about it might put "wrong" idea into children`s heads. What it means, people should be ignorant about it. Instead of "promotion", something that sounds like it is a life style made by choice, it should be "promoting understanding and informing about homosexuality".
Kingbobb:
The simpler solution would be to make marriage the sole perogative of religion, and only allow governments to issue "Civil Union Licenses."
Count this married man in. Every time this subject has come up, I've always said that we need to separate the legal/civil definition of marriage from the religious one.
If we did that, then I think most of the objections to gay marriage on religious grounds would fade away, and those still opposed would have to defend a more up-front form of bigotry.
TWL
Jim:
Tim wrote:
You're still not answering my basic question, Jim. Adultery has directly threatened more marriages than any gay marriage ever has. Adultery has directly changed more children's lives than any gay marriage ever has.
I did answer the question, you just dismissed it as an abstraction.
No, actually, I didn't. Your answer was saying that you weren't concerned about any particular married couple, but about the institution of marriage as a whole.
"The institution of marriage as a whole" IS an abstraction, Jim. I'm not saying your argument was one; I'm saying that your willingness to hurt concrete individuals for the sake of saving an abstraction is disheartening.
I have stated repeatedly on this thread and others that the same Christian leaders who strongly oppose homosexuality also oppose adultery (James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, to name a few).
But not to the point of LEGISLATING AGAINST IT. Adultery is condemned more often and more strongly in the Bible than homosexuality is -- it's one of the Commandments, for heaven's sake. And, as I said before and you more or less brushed aside, adultery is directly responsible for more failed marriages than any aspect of any homosexual relationship.
You can say "oh, they're against adultery too" if you like -- but based on their actions and the battles they choose to fight, they (and you) consider homosexuality the threat and not adultery. That is logically inconsistent with their (and your) stated goals.
Bottom line, I agree that adultery is a problem. The focus on gay marriage is because it is making into law something that will undermine the value of marriage. While adultery may still occur, it is by no means being put into law.
Huh? Adultery already is legal, and is happening in far greater numbers than homosexual relationships.
There has been, without doubt, a change in moral values. Sexual values is a great example. Go back 50 years, it was not acceptable to "live together" before marriage. It may have been done, but it was not considered moral. Today it is. You may think that this is ok. I think it has hurt our society as much as adultery has done.
Here's where I challenge your generalizations again.
My wife and I lived together before we were married (sort of ... certainly enough to qualify under your definition, I'm sure). At this point, we've been married for 13+ years and have a thirteen-week-old daughter who brings joy to our lives at a rate far greater than she takes sleep from it (large though the latter is some days).
Your statement above implies that you consider our marriage somehow less moral or less valid than the marriage of a couple who never lived together before marriage.
I'll ask you point-blank: is that your belief?
A good friend of mine is living with her fiancee now. Another pair of good friends of mine didn't get married until she was already pregnant with their son. Are their marriages less moral than someone who didn't do that? And are you prepared to legislate to that effect?
I think divorce is, by far, a greater threat than adultery to marriage.
Given that the latter rather frequently leads to the former, I'm intrigued by your willingness to make the distinction.
Change is not always bad, but is also not always good. In this circumstance, allowing gay marriage will cause a fundamental change in our society. The only question is whether that is a good or bad thing, not whether it will have an impact.
I think I'd agree with this on the whole, though I'd dispute how "fundamental" a change it would really be. Has interracial marriage created a fundamental shift in society? Many of the same arguments, religious or otherwise, were used to argue against legalizing that.
You didn't like my Copernican example; fine. Here's another one: 150 years ago, women couldn't vote. The consensus belief for a long period of time was that women couldn't be trusted to make good judgements in that regard. When women got the vote, there was no shortage of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and claims that American democracy was doomed.
Well, women have voted for a while now, and they've proven no worse at it than men.
That was a societal shift -- an action, to use your word, rather than a clarification of existing fact. It was a change that was heavily resisted (including by most Christian churches, BTW), but in the end has strengthened society rather than weakened it.
is there some reason this parallel's not apt?
Lastly, a question which I hope will give us some more common ground, or at least clarify the terms of the discussion. Kingbobb earlier suggested taking marriage out of the realm of the government entirely, and making all relationships "civil unions" so far as the state is concerned. That would leave any individual faith to define marriage as it saw fit, and those couples who wanted a religious blessing could find an institution willing and happy to give it.
Would that change your support for an anti-gay-marriage amendment? (I will have a follow-up question. :-)
TWL
eclark1849 wrote...
we should be able to establish it [homosexuality as a genetic trait] AS fact. If someone wants to teach it as a theory, I have no qualms with that.
The earlier discussion about the scientific method was completely lost on you, wasn't it?
First, of all Tim, congratulations on the new tyke. :-)
Second, I do not believe that legalizing gay marriage will cause a fundamental change in our society; I think it will simply be the recognition that there already has been one.
Last, can someone please tell me how to format links in the form of text?
Thanks.
Toby: As far as what humans evolved from, it probably ain't walking around anymore, but humans and other primates have a common ancestor.
Monkeys.
Luigi Novi: Humans did not evolve from monkeys. (Or was that last word just intended as a jab at someone, and not a follow-through from what came before it?)
That OTHER John Byrne: Luigi- Toby usually punctuates all his postings with 'Monkeys.' In this case, it's either an ironic coincidence, or Toby's being a little cheeky by having some fun with his online habits.
-tOjb
Luigi Novi wrote...
Last, can someone please tell me how to format links in the form of text?
<a href="http://link.html">Text here</a>
I hope the above shows up, I had to do some experimenting.
Well, the format worked, but the link didn't. Where do you place the url? In between the quotation marks? That's where I placed the test url.
Brak, thank you. Btw, since we're on signatures and whatnot, what's with "The Other John Byrne"? Is that actually your name?
It looks like your link would have worked if you had put just http://www.nitcentral.com/ in between the quotation marks, without the malibulist stuff that seems to be there.
Luigi: What's with "The Other John Byrne"? Is that actually your name?
Yep. It's led to all sorts of interesting (and sometimes threatening) conversations at cons and in online forums, since I'm pretty much a polar opposite of John Byrne the artist. I figure it'd probably cause all kinds of chaos if someone named 'John Byrne' showed up on PAD's board and started agreeing with him; hence the forced distinction.
"When it comes to homosexuality, there is an overwhelmingly unanimous voice for almost 2000 years agreeing that the Bible condmens it. So the analogy does not hold up."
the bible comdemns it. well, too bad then that homosexuality predates the bible (see also: ancient greeks). too bad then that there are billions of people who dont follow the bible.
Look, you wanna follow the bible's teachings, fine and dandy. But don't you dare try to foist it on me.
And don't you dare try to use it to make secular policy. (see also: treaty of tripoli - "As the United States is in now way a christian nation")
The Bible Condemns Homosexuality? fine. The constitution doesn't, and thats what matters for lawmakers and secular society.
Hi, first-time poster (but long-time lurker) here...
I've been reading this discussion since the beginning and suddenly something struck me. Would you like to know what it was?
If I see correctly, even conservatives on this board are against the law Mr. Allen proposed.
Meanwhile, in my country (I live in Poland). there are many people (even among moderate conservatives) who would be quite happy with such law. Even today I spoke with two people (in no way religious fanatics), who seriously said that homosexuality is a sin and therefore there is a need to censor books, movies etc. in which it is shown.
It's quite terryfing how many people in my country do not get the idea of "free speech"...
BTW. Sorry for my poor English. :(
Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?
Try listening sometime to a gang member, attempting to justfy what he and his homies do. They gotta keep people from dissin em, an dat means sometimes you gotta pop a cap in somebody's ass so's he'll respect you good an give you your props. An stealin stuff, thass jus because the Man keeps us street folk down, and we jus be tryin to make things more equal, y'know?
If you find the presence of gangbangers distasteful (and who could blame you?), try hardcore rap. You might have to bust out a lyric sheet in order to make out what they're saying, but you'll find a lot of attempts to justify murder, theft, lying, and rape - and attempts to get you to call it by another name, in order to make it more palatable.
Piotr:
Your English is excellent, as is your understanding of the value of free speech.
Keep up the good fight. I don't know if you are aware of this, but it used to be common in this country for people to make jokes about the Polish (I don't know why the Poles got picked on over Checkylsylvakia...ok, now I know. It's easier to spell Poland). After watching the way Poland embraced the Solidarity movement and exposed the first big chink in the armor of Soviet domination such jokes fell out of fashion. You and your countrymen have been an inspiration.
Den said Well, Den, Novafan has won a hundred copies of Youngblood #1, signed by Rob Liefeld himself!
I'll be expecting this right away. Rob rocks!!!
I said Prove that evolution is a fact Luigi.
to which Luigi said No.
and ... You challenged me to show lies on the part of the mendanonymously-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and after I spent a good deal of time composing a post detailing their falsehoods in great detail, you stonewalled on it. I’m not wasting any more time doing your homework for you simply because you’re too intellectually lazy to go out and crack open a book on the subject, one that does not argue its case on an a priori basis.A fact is a theory that has gained confirmation to such an extent that it is reasonable to offer provisional agreement, and that denying it would be unreasonable. Evolution has been thus confirmed through the Scientific Method and the Peer Review Process, and is considered a fact by the scientific community, having been observed to occur in nature. Thus, it is a fact. Beyond that, I feel no obligation to give a tutorial on the details of the evidence, which I know you’ll ignore anyway.
What's the phrase you're famous for using anytime you disagree with another poster's response. I think the term is "straw man" and it fits nicely to your response. I say, if the shoe fits, wear it.
:0)
Why not get our Scientific peers together to say that since homosexuality exists in the Animal world that it's natural for it to exist in humans?
Didn't scientists in the past use the Peer Review process to prove that the world was flat and that the Universe revolved around the Earth. Yes, I take great stock in Scientists using the Peer review process to prove things. They've been so successful in the past haven't they?
Michael said Or did the gays make the first move by existing?
Didn't they make their first move in Sodom and Gomorrah?
That was probably a bad move though.
Novafan said...
Why not get our Scientific peers together to say that since homosexuality exists in the Animal world that it's natural for it to exist in humans?
Scientists say that [i]all the time[/i]!
Novafan said...
Didn't scientists in the past use the Peer Review process to prove that the world was flat and that the Universe revolved around the Earth.
They most certainly did not, as flat-earth theories were debunked well before the rise of the modern scientific method.
I wouldn't bother, Jeff. Our dear troll is clearly just here to stir things up, not to engage in any sort of discussion.
Back to the shroud with 'im, I say.
TWL
For some reason, I've been reluctant to give up on the guy. I keep hoping he'll disappear and come back under his real name to join the fun.
Bladestar, on the other hand, is just flat-out embarrassing to me.
Tim said I wouldn't bother, Jeff. Our dear troll is clearly just here to stir things up, not to engage in any sort of discussion. Back to the shroud with 'im, I say.
Funny, anyone who doesn't share your illustrious point of view is a troll.
You're just so much more intelligent than everyone else here aren't you? I bet you say that to yourself in the mirror all the time.
Jeff said For some reason, I've been reluctant to give up on the guy. I keep hoping he'll disappear and come back under his real name to join the fun.
Jeff, everytime I start to forget the constant negative things you say about me, you continually say something to make me change my mind.
Get over it already.
That's funny, I didn't realize saying that I'm still willing to read and respond to your messages, and that I wish you'd use your real name (thus posting on a "blank slate" with everyone else here) was an insult.
I've changed my mind. Shroud on.
Doesn't say much about your self-image or intelligence Jeff if you let total strangers embarass you... Glad I embarass you, so I don't know or give a rat's ass about you.
BTW... do you people ever sleep or work? I walk away from the computer for a few hours and the thread just explodes....
Toby: As far as what humans evolved from, it probably ain't walking around anymore, but humans and other primates have a common ancestor. Monkeys.
Luigi Novi: Humans did not evolve from monkeys. (Or was that last word just intended as a jab at someone, and not a follow-through from what came before it?)
No, it's just my goofy way of signing all my posts "Monkeys". I've just always thought monkeys were neat to the point of it being a major in-joke in my family. I recently discovered that my mom was over due with me until she and my dad went to the circus, and she promptly went into labor. She thinks that's why I like monkeys so much (though to be honest, I'm in awe of pretty much all life, from mites and ants to whales and tigers).
Monkeys.
From Institute for Creation Research:
"One of the self-serving arguments of modern evolutionists is their rather arrogant claim that creationist scientists are not real scientists. No matter that a large number of creationists have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science, hold responsible scientific positions and have published numerous scientific articles and books—if they are creationists, they are not true scientists! In a Letter-to-the-Editor, Steven Schafersman, of Rice University's Department of Geology, says, for example: "I dispute Henry Morris's claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those ‘thousands of creationists' with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists, precisely because they have abandoned the scientific method and the scientific attitude, criteria far more crucial to the definition of scientist than the location or duration of one's training or the identity of one's employer" (Geotimes, August 1981, P. 11).
Thus modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition! Science does not mean "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts," as we used to think, but "naturalism" or "materialism," according to this new definition. The very possibility of a Creator is prohibited by majority vote of the scientific fraternity, and one who still wishes to believe in God must forfeit his membership.
Well, no matter. At least we creationist scientists can take comfort in the fact that many of the greatest scientists of the past were creationists and for that matter, were also Bible-believing Christians, men who believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as in the deity and saving work of Jesus Christ. They believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex structure for its own unique purpose. They believed that, as scientists, they were "thinking God's thoughts after Him," learning to understand and control the laws and processes of nature for God's glory and man's good. They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that modern creationist scientists do.
And somehow this attitude did not hinder them in their commitment to the "scientific method." In fact one of them, Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method! They seem also to have been able to maintain a proper "scientific attitude," for it was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison. The real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science."
Imagine that, a Creationist formulating the scientific method. Go figure.
Jeff said That's funny, I didn't realize saying that I'm still willing to read and respond to your messages, and that I wish you'd use your real name (thus posting on a "blank slate" with everyone else here) was an insult. I've changed my mind. Shroud on.
You are hilarious. I will read every post and respond to everyone I can, even if I don't agree with the poster who posts. I even respond to Bladestar, :0).
What you actually said was For some reason, I've been reluctant to give up on the guy.
Which was a response to TWL's calling me a troll who doesn't add to the discussion, which meant to me that you agreed with him. Thus, my knee-jerk response to you.
I would like to know how many people here can actually carry any type of conversation without attacking another individual. Is there anyone here that can own up to that?
"Didn't they make their first move in Sodom and Gomorrah?"
Not necessarily. Many interpert that the reason for God's anger was because the cities were engaging in pure debauchery (sp?), not just with homosexual behavior.
And that the incident with the angels was an act of inhospitibility. Also, the townspeople who demanded 'to know' the visitors wanted to rape them. As I'm sure you're aware, rape isn't a sexual act, it's an act of violence.
toby said No, it's just my goofy way of signing all my posts "Monkeys".
I think it's pretty kewl. :0)
Bladestar said BTW... do you people ever sleep or work? I walk away from the computer for a few hours and the thread just explodes....
sleep? what's that?
Michael said And that the incident with the angels was an act of inhospitibility. Also, the townspeople who demanded 'to know' the visitors wanted to rape them. As I'm sure you're aware, rape isn't a sexual act, it's an act of violence.
Do you think if the townspeople just asked the Angels to please have sex with them, then the city wouldn't have been destroyed?
"Do you think if the townspeople just asked the Angels to please have sex with them, then the city wouldn't have been destroyed?"
It still would have been, but there would have been no survivors. The angels were sent to find if there was anyone in the towns worth saving, and only Lot & his wife were. God had already decided to destroy the towns BEFORE he sent the angels, so the town wasn't destroyed because of the attempted attack on the angels.
After some research, I think I understand why Luigi said evolution is a fact:
"... evolution does not qualify as a theory. A theory allows you to go back and make modifications when an error is discovered. This is not possible with evolution. The premise can’t change or it ceases to be evolution. Evolutionary study can NEVER draw any other conclusion other than evolving life and remaining within the box. That is why evolutionists must call it a fact. If it is not a fact, they have no foundation. They can’t admit defeat without abandoning ship. Therefore, even if the facts don’t support it, they tenaciously defend their position. Evolution can’t even be accurately called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess that is followed by experimentation to prove or disprove the assumption. Evolutionists do make many educated guesses, but the experimentation can’t be honestly evaluated. It either gives the results they want, or it is tossed out. The results can’t be allowed to contradict the ‘fact’ of evolution because they can’t go back and make the necessary corrections. The end result has already been determined and anything that does not support its foundation or point to the evolutionary destination cannot be accepted."
You know, here's the thing I just don't get about those who oppose gay marriage based on the idea that "It'll ruin/undermine the institutuin of Marriage", or "it'll tear at the moral fiber of this nation", I can't help but wonder, exactly how will it ruin/undermine/bring down the Institution of Marriage? And I mean, seriously, if two grown men, or women, decide that they want to spend the rest of their life devoted to each other, and only each other, and building a life together, just how does that effect anyone else's marriage?
From Institute for Creation Research:
Their saying things does not make them true. I think "using scientific method" is a much better definition of scientist than "have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science". Referring to degrees may dazzle people who never went to universities. They're not that hard to get, if you have the money to see you through. I've published articles myself. Publishing books takes patience/a strong will and money, not brains. The number of degrees and books published is not a good way of judging how scientific an author is.
For a different reading, you folks might want to check out
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/index.html
Okay.
I find this entire thing to be INCREDIBLY daft. So what are they going to do? Get rid of English history books with references to Edward II? Toss out books on Wagner because of his male admirer and sponser who was reportedly gay? Toss out all books written by gay or lesbian authors/poets? Well. There goes a good chunk of the library. Oh, but I suppose if people can't find anything about it in their biographies, it's okay, or maybe Oscar Wilde's trial will stand to scare the shit out of people.
This sort of lack of education will only serve to cause more misconceptions and more hate. I suppose that's what they want.
Makes it a pleasure to be alive.
And a little thing about being gay... I grew up in a conservative Christian family and held the view that homosexuality is evil for a good long time, and that always scared the SHIT out of me because I was not physically attracted to males as I should have been. I'm still not. Can you imagine that? Thinking that your own God hates you or part of you because of something you honestly can't help? Needless to say, I have a raging anxiety disorder because of the stress that and my parents put me through when I was dealing with all this and I have yet to recover. And you know, I don't think I ever will despite medication and psychiatrist visits.
I fell in love with my best friend the moment I saw her in sixth grade, and oh, I followed her around because I felt this great longing to be part of her life. I denied my real attraction for her throughout middleschool and high school, although we did kiss and cuddle a few times in secret. That was always a wonderful, comfortable, natural feeling, but it frightened me. I knew what it meant. Or I thought I knew.
I tried going out with a boy I "liked" in high school, but I hardly let him touch me. I feared every time I felt obligated to kiss him (always just a short peck) because it disgusted me so much. And I never would cuddle.
Then in college came another boy who I thought I liked even MORE, but the same sort of repulsion came up immediately and ALL I could think about was my best friend. I had tried to separate myself from her, I had tried to communicate less with her, I had tried EVERYTHING to get away from my strong attraction for her, but...it didn't work. It came to the same point (almost immediately in the relationship) where I loathed each kiss and touch from that boy, to where I was literally FORCING myself to spend time with him in order to grasp a slippery heterosexuality. He also never got any closer to me than those kisses which honestly disgust me to think about. I'm sure it's similar to the feeling that heterosexual people get when imagining kissing someone of their same sex.
I had never prayed so hard in my life than I did when it came to my feelings for my best friend, and every answer, every dream, every POSSIBLE sign pointed to her as if God was telling me that THIS is who I need to spend my life with, THIS is who can give me comfort and love here on Earth. I know this may sound like absolute crap to some Christian conservatives, but you know, it's the absolute truth.
The thoughts and dreams of her love (no, they weren't "wet dreams"...not ONE of them, I'm talking about REAL emotional love, not physical) drove me to the point that I emailed her during a mission trip in June, 2003. I had to get it out or I felt I would literally have a nervous breakdown and I couldn't talk about it on the phone because of the company. I was scared. I was inches away from losing EVERYTHING I had with her, but I risked it anyway...
And now we've been officially together for over a year. I've never felt happier, more secure, or more complete in my lifetime.
Is loving someone like this so wrong?
I will say that I disagree with promiscuous behavior, but you know what, it's amazing how people blather about how promsicuous gays are and yet they turn a blind eye to the crazy heterosexual teenagers and young adults screwing each other blind every chance they get and having a variety of "fuckbuddies". Methinks some people don't see the whole picture, but rather pick and choose what they want to see.
Selective sight.
Oh, and it happens when people read the scriptures, too. "Oh, this part was just meant for Jews, but this is for EVERYBODY!" as if they know precisely what they're talking about. And hm, can anyone here actually read Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? What are the passages REALLY saying?
Oh, so all you know is what some OTHER person interpreted for you?
Well, that's quite convenient.
I have a VERY hard time trusting translations due to the biases of the translators. Who knows, maybe if I get the crazy need to learn the languages, I'll find out for myself what may be hidden in the original texts.
Also, just about anyone can take an excerpt from anything and bend it toward whatever direction they please. I'd rather find the entire quote, read it in context, and THEN make my judgment, but unfortunately most people would rather just have their information spoonfed to them. It takes a lot less effort.
From my muddled understanding (I've read this, but I haven't done extensive research on it), that part of Leviticus has to do with things that go on during a pagan ritual and how it's all an atrocity in the context of that ritual.
My challenge to you: Find ONE PLACE where JESUS HIMSELF spoke something against homosexuality. One.
Those other passages? Oh, they're from human hands writing down laws and guidelines. Humans are fallible creatures with biases; how do we know that this is the Word of God full stop?
We. Don't.
It's not our place to make such judgments.
Ah, after reviewing a few things, the bit in Leviticus was likened to idolotry, so what I said was only somewhat correct. My apologies.
Bill:
Thank you for your kind words. I must say it's quite... pleasant (if unexpected) to know that our Solidarity times are considered as inspiration in your country.
Sadly, Solidarity has become today a kind of "squandered legacy". It is our national mentality that we unite in times of danger - and can't stand each other in times of peace. The same happened with Solidarity movement after the fall of communism - politicians and activists that fought together in the past are now arguing, accusing and generally hating each other.
To make things worse, even ordinary folks seem not to have learned anything from the communist days. As I said in my previous post - many people still don't get such ideas like "freedom of speech", "constitutional rights" etc. Many people would not object if our country become a catholic religious state - there's even quite popular saying "If you're not catholic, you're not truly Polish"... Today Poland is a country when the Church influences openly our politics, when some people seriously believe that promoting abortion should be banned... and you better not say that you don't consider the Pope The Greatest Man of Our Times!
I may be wrong, but I don't think that in United States artists can be prosecuted because of creating art that is "offensive to religious believes". In Poland, sadly, artists can be (and are) prosecuted because of such crime...
All this really saddens me...
"I may be wrong, but I don't think that in United States artists can be prosecuted because of creating art that is "offensive to religious believes"."
Unfortunately, they can. See Maplethorpe or the Virgin Mary portrait that was at the Brooklyn museum a couple years back. Although there is no 'offensive to religious believes' law, there are other ways in which the artist and/or exhibitor are prosecuted. Government leaders will use obsenity charges or the threat of loss of funds to try (& sometimes succeed) to censor any art they don't like.
As the original topic of this thread shows, censorship is still alive & well here in the "land of the free". As it's done by both the left & the right, although thr right is much more aggressive about it.
Good call Michael,
The left uses donations and social pressure as censorship, the right uses legal garbage (obscenety charges and theatening galleries and museuems with the the same) and other form of money (goverment grants as opposed to donations like the left uses)
Tim Lynch: I wouldn't bother, Jeff. Our dear troll is clearly just here to stir things up, not to engage in any sort of discussion.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure what definition of “troll” we’re working with here, but I see no evidence that Novafan does not believe what he/she is saying, or that he/she is posting solely to provoke emotional reactions in others.
Novafan: From Institute for Creation Research:
Luigi Novi: If you’re really interested in approaching this issue objectively, then I wouldn’t bother quoting the ICR, since, as their name makes clear, it is an organization devoted to promoting creationism, which they do entirely with logical fallacy and distortion-laced propaganda. They are not interested in examining the evolution/creation issue objectively, and do not seem to put much stock in the Scientific Method as a basis for doing so. They, like all creationists, argue their position on an a prior basis, which they pretty much admit in this statement, which must be adhered to by all faculty members and researchers:
“The scriptures, both Old and New Testament, are inerrant in relation to any subject with which they deal, and are to be accepted in their natural and intended sense…all things in the universe were created and made by God in the six days of special creation described in Genesis. The creationist account is accepted as factual, historical, and perspicuous and is thus fundamental in the understanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created universe.”
So in other words, if I’m on the ICR faculty, and I find evidence that contradicts scripture, (Like say, pointing out that Leviticus 11:20 refers to four-legged insects, when in fact, all insects have six legs), then I’m out of the ICR. Compare this to how the scientific community works, where people with new ideas that challenge the status quo are welcomed, so long as their evidence backs up their claims, and indeed, the status quo has been thus changed many changed. No amount of evidence, on the other hand, will convince a true believer creationist, because they don’t want to allow themselves to be convinced. Those for whom Biblical literalism is fundamental to their beliefs can’t do this because it would be too uncomfortable a paradigm shift in their lives.
Quoting the ICR as a means to back up an argument, therefore, is meaningless. But by all means….
IRC: "One of the self-serving arguments of modern evolutionists is their rather arrogant claim that creationist scientists are not real scientists…”
Luigi Novi: Evolutionists do not claim that creationists are not real scientists. What they point out—quite correctly—is not that creationists aren’t real scientists (which would just be an ad hominem argument), but that their work isn’t scientific, and this is absolutely correct. Creationists do not play by the rules of science. Indeed, what is a “real scientist”? Someone with a degree? If so, then Louis Pasteur wasn’t a “real scientist,” since he was not formally educated. But his work was scientific, because it followed the proper methodology, and is shown to work. It’s not the person, Nova. It’s the work.
IRC: “…No matter that a large number of creationists have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science, hold responsible scientific positions and have published numerous scientific articles and books…”
Luigi Novi: Argument from Authority. Whether someone has a degree or has published a book is entirely irrelevant to the scientific validity of their work. The work must be judged on its own merits. Not on it author’s pedigree. Again, the fact that ICR doesn’t understand why this is a logical fallacy is demonstrative of how their position is argumentatively worthless.
IRC: “In a Letter-to-the-Editor, Steven Schafersman, of Rice University's Department of Geology, says, for example: "I dispute Henry Morris's claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those ‘thousands of creationists' with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists, precisely because they have abandoned the scientific method and the scientific attitude, criteria far more crucial to the definition of scientist than the location or duration of one's training or the identity of one's employer" (Geotimes, August 1981, P. 11).”
Luigi Novi: Nowhere in this statement is Schafersman saying that creationists aren’t real scientist. The ICR are simply too obtuse to comprehend what they’re reading. Schafersman is merely expressing doubt on the number of scientists that are alleged to be creationists, and pointing out that anyone with a “degree” who promotes creationism is not a science by virtue of the fact that they’re not doing science. Again, is being a scientist defined solely as having a degree? Or being paid for working in a given field? Perhaps, but I wouldn’t say that those ones that ignore the Scientific Method and promote pseudoscience are real ones in the sense that they are not playing by the rules of science. The use of the word “real” here is to denote the validity of the work and the adherence to the Scientific Method. Not merely the conclusion that they promote, in and of itself. Yeah, technically Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman, who peddled their bogus room temperature cold fusion rubbish to the media years ago could be called “scientists” because they have degrees and work in that field. But I really wouldn’t call them real ones. So too is with any supposed scientist who promotes pseudoscience, be it extraterrestrial visitation, homeopathy, chiropractic, dowsing, ESP, prophecy, etc. Creationism is no different in this regard.
IRC: “Thus modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition!”
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Creationism is excluded because it doesn’t meet the requirements of science. When creationists can present evidence for their ideas that meets these requirements, then they will be listened to.
I notice that creationists tend to ignore these points when they’re brought up, or deny the importance of the methodology. Is the ICR saying that there is evidence for creationism that conforms to the Scientific Method? That has been submitted for peer review? Where is it? In which peer review journal has it been published?
IRC: “Science does not mean "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts," as we used to think, but "naturalism" or "materialism," according to this new definition.”
Luigi Novi: A definition of your own invention, not that of scientists’. Science means conforming to the methodology of science, including the Scientific Method, the Peer Review Process, etc.
IRC: “The very possibility of a Creator is prohibited by majority vote of the scientific fraternity…”
Luigi Novi: Wrong. In science, the validity of an idea isn’t determined by authority or majority vote. It’s determined by the evidence.
IRC: “…and one who still wishes to believe in God must forfeit his membership.”
Luigi Novi: Creationist propaganda. Most scientists believe in God. How do you explain that? You are making a deliberate confusion between believing in God and being a creationist. The two are not the same thing. The majority of believers in God are not creationists.
IRC: “Well, no matter. At least we creationist scientists can take comfort in the fact that many of the greatest scientists of the past were creationists and for that matter, were also Bible-believing Christians, men who believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as in the deity and saving work of Jesus Christ. They believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex structure for its own unique purpose. They believed that, as scientists, they were "thinking God's thoughts after Him," learning to understand and control the laws and processes of nature for God's glory and man's good.”
Luigi Novi: Believing in these things has nothing to do with creationism. St. Augustine did not believe in a six-day creation. Pope John Paul II accepts evolution as a scientific fact. Last time I checked (I’m going out on a limb here), both of those guys believed in God.
IRC: “They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that modern creationist scientists do.”
Luigi Novi: No they didn’t. If any of them did real science, then they followed the Scientific Method. Modern creationists don’t.
IRC: “And somehow this attitude did not hinder them in their commitment to the "scientific method." In fact one of them, Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method!”
Luigi Novi: Bacon is credited with formulation the Baconian Method, which is an early forerunner of the Scientific Method, one of many. In addition, I see no evidence that Bacon was a creationist.
IRC: “They seem also to have been able to maintain a proper "scientific attitude," for it was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison. The real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science."
Luigi Novi: The ICR provides no evidence that any of these men were creationists. Moreover, these men lived before the evidence for evolution was accumulated and explained, and in the cases of the some of them, worked in fields not pertaining to evolution, such as physics, mathematics, chemistry, electromagnetism, electrochemistry, physics, philosophy, etc., so it would not be surprising even if they were creationists, since creationism was probably the zeitgeist among believers in God at the time.
Had any of them lived today, it is highly likely that they would all accept evolution, since all scientists today who understand the Scientific Method do.
Novfan: Imagine that, a Creationist formulating the scientific method. Go figure.
Luigi Novi: Imagine that, using a dishonest bait-and-switch to argue that someone who believes in God is automatically a creationist, and that one of the many people who contributed to the SM was the only one. Go figure.
Novfan: After some research, I think I understand why Luigi said evolution is a fact:
Novfan: "... evolution does not qualify as a theory. A theory allows you to go back and make modifications when an error is discovered. This is not possible with evolution.”
Luigi Novi: Untrue. If evidence were provided to make modification necessary, it would occur, and indeed, evolution has been modified over the last century, and even today there is still debate over the finer points of how natural selection works, with those who argue punctuated equilibrium and those who argue gradualism. The ICR’s statement that such modification (and continued debate and research into the continuing questions within the phenomena) does not occur is simply put, a flat-out lie.
A theory is a tentative idea or set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, one that has been repeatedly tested and may be widely accepted, though subject to revision in light of disconfirming evidence. Evolution is this. Creationism, incidentally, is not, as it is not tentative, and not subject to revision. Its proponents will not accept any evidence that would contradict their position. By contrast, science works by welcoming challenges to the status quo, and if powerful evidence were discovered and brought forward to indicate that the universe was the work of an omnipotent being, scientists would be scrambling all over themselves to examine it and be a part of its debut into the field. The problem that no one has provided it, not they would not accepted it if someone did. Creationists simply assume that they can read the intent of the scientific community, and ignore the fact that none of them have submitted evidence for peer review, and thus, such statements like this one are entirely rhetorical. Their “turn the tables” tactic, by which they accuse evolution of being precisely what creationism is, is an old tactic of theirs, one that, like all their other ones, has been long-debunked.
Novfan: “The premise can’t change or it ceases to be evolution. Evolutionary study can NEVER draw any other conclusion other than evolving life and remaining within the box. That is why evolutionists must call it a fact. If it is not a fact, they have no foundation. They can’t admit defeat without abandoning ship. Therefore, even if the facts don’t support it, they tenaciously defend their position.”
Luigi Novi: Provide evidence for this, or it’s just rhetoric.
Novfan: “Evolution can’t even be accurately called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess that is followed by experimentation to prove or disprove the assumption. Evolutionists do make many educated guesses, but the experimentation can’t be honestly evaluated.”
Luigi Novi: And why is this?
Novfan: “It either gives the results they want, or it is tossed out.”
Luigi Novi: When was this? Where? By whom? Which researcher? Which organization? Why does the ICR not provide evidence for this?
Novfan: “The results can’t be allowed to contradict the ‘fact’ of evolution because they can’t go back and make the necessary corrections. The end result has already been determined and anything that does not support its foundation or point to the evolutionary destination cannot be accepted."
Luigi Novi: Again, this is actually the position of creationists, for it is they who argue on a a priori basis in this manner. Not evolutionists. It is they who cannot allow the facts to contradict their pre-held conviction. Are they arguing otherwise? Are they saying that they would abandon their anti-evolution stance if evidence was provided it? Obviously not, since they haven’t done so.
"Unfortunately, they can. See Maplethorpe or the Virgin Mary portrait that was at the Brooklyn museum a couple years back."
Whoops. Sorry to see you've got that problem too.
"Government leaders will use obsenity charges or the threat of loss of funds to try (& sometimes succeed) to censor any art they don't like."
Here in Poland it's much more simple... If a politician wants to censor some art, he goes to the exhibition in question, later claims that his "religious feelings" have been offended... and in most cases the exhibition will be immediately closed. Owners of galleries and museums are too scared of trials...
It may sound ridiculous, but it really happens like that. Some bigot yells "I'm offended!" and boom! - "Exhibition closed".
"As the original topic of this thread shows, censorship is still alive & well here in the "land of the free". As it's done by both the left & the right, although thr right is much more aggressive about it."
I agree, although here in Poland the censorship comes entirely from the right. Our left is composed mostly from ex-communists - who are more concerned with makings shady interests than censoring anything :)
Getting back to the original topic - I simply wanted to say that in US even people opposing homosexuality are not in favor of using censorship against gays. You know that such law would be stupid and unconstitutional... In my country you can find many, many people who would support such law vehemently - "Free speech for gays? You've got to be kidding! They're sick - and sick people should not be allowed to spread their illness!".
Luigi Novi,
You're doing great. Just to summarize for anyone who might have skipped parts of what he wrote, I think the main point is this:
Many critics of science have no comprehension of what science actually is.
"Imagine that, a Creationist formulating the scientific method. Go figure."
Of course it might have been very very difficult for many of the Greats to embrace Darwinism when Darwin had yet to be born. It's like saying that the fact that Aristotle never watched TV means we should follow his example.
"Although there is no 'offensive to religious believes' law, there are other ways in which the artist and/or exhibitor are prosecuted. Government leaders will use obsenity charges or the threat of loss of funds to try (& sometimes succeed) to censor any art they don't like."
I wouldn't equate taking away funds with being prosequted. Frankly, inthis country we are more likely to give completely unearned acclaim to "artists" who have done nothing more than be oh-so-shocking. Look! A Madonna made of elephant shit! See, it's RELIGIOUS...but I made it out of SHIT! Give me money! And over here...a crucifix dipped in urine! Crucifix! Urine! It's postmodern! Where's my grant?
It's like the upper crust version of the Mary on the Cheese sandwich. I don't mind that the untalented now have access to museum walls but it seems to have driven off whatver it was that made the pre-20th century artists so good. Give me a pre-raphealite painting over anything done lately.
This has been a production of Cranky Old Man, inc.
"As the original topic of this thread shows, censorship is still alive & well here in the "land of the free". As it's done by both the left & the right, although thr right is much more aggressive about it."
Probably true, though when the left does it it can be more effective, since it often escapes any condemnation. If some one makes a painting mocking Dr. Martin Luthor King and outraged Black ministers snatch it from the gallery it will not receive 1/10 the attention and outrage that would occur if Jerry Falwell did the same to "Piss Christ".
Of course, it would also be very difficult to get an anti-King painting exhibited in the first place, which is also telling.
Luigi,
I'll second Jeff here -- nice work. I continue to have my doubts that your sparring partner is actually interested in any sort of debate, but if nothing else you're certainly educating everybody else!
TWL
The earlier discussion about the scientific method was completely lost on you, wasn't it?
Apparently. Are you saying that we can't establish anything as a "fact"? Gee, that blows.
Novfan: “They can’t admit defeat without abandoning ship. Therefore, even if the facts don’t support it, they tenaciously defend their position.”
Sounds like exactly the position of those who believe in "god". They can't prove it exists, yet they keep screaming that it does...
eclark1849...
Are you saying that we can't establish anything as a "fact"? Gee, that blows.
I agree, but it's true. The best we can do is come up with a theory, say "this is how it seems to work" and wait for someone to knock it down. Anything in science that is known as "fact" is actually just a really good theory that hasn't been disproven.
Jeff and Tim, thank you.
Now can SOMEONE please teach me how to format a link into text??????? Someone offered the procedure to me (on another board, I think), but it didn't work. :-)
Tim,
Sorry, I was out of touch. If you are still following this thread, here is a reply.
But not to the point of LEGISLATING AGAINST IT. Adultery is condemned more often and more strongly in the Bible than homosexuality is -- it's one of the Commandments, for heaven's sake. And, as I said before and you more or less brushed aside, adultery is directly responsible for more failed marriages than any aspect of any homosexual relationship.
It was mentioned more because, like today, it is a larger problem. I did not brush aside what you said about adultery. I did say that divorce happens for a lot more reasons than just adultery, so I consider no-fault divorce to actually be the larger problem. And I *would* be in favor of some changes to this law. Except for adultery and abuse, divorce should be more difficult and be seen as more of a problem.
You can say "oh, they're against adultery too" if you like -- but based on their actions and the battles they choose to fight, they (and you) consider homosexuality the threat and not adultery. That is logically inconsistent with their (and your) stated goals.
That is only because you don't agree with my perspective. If I would follow your logic, then I should be calling for ANY sexual act outside of marriage to be illegal. That would include living together, as well as adultery or homosexual acts.
Let me state this as clearly as I can. I do NOT oppose gay marriage simply because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I am NOT interested in making everything the Bible calls sin against the law. I am NOT interested in making (or "keeping") this a "Christian nation." My opposition to gay marriage is based on an informed conviction that gay marriage does harm to society. You disagree that it does so, but that is beside the point. That is my conviction. It does harm at a fundamental level that is different than just sexual acts outside of marriage. It does harm to the very heart of marriage itself.
At this point we may have to just agree to disagree because you don't accept and/or understand the difference I see between the two areas. Let me attempt one example: Lieing. I would argue that in most cases (excluding the obvious, such as if I was hiding Jews and a Nazi came to my door, do I have the truth, etc.), lieing is harmful. (For the sake of the example, I am not talking about little "white" lies but things such as what happened at Enron, or what some of you think Bush did about WMD's). It is NOT logically inconsistent to say I am opposed to lieing, but I am not going to make telling any lie against the law. Some lies do harm, but only in a limited scope. Others (such as Enron) can cause great harm to others. We have laws against libel and slander, etc., for a reason.
Gay marriage is a different animal than adultery. It IS possible for adultery to be made legally legitimate. For example, if a judge were to rule that adultery was NOT a justifiable grounds for divorce, it would be making it legitimate. That is what is happening with gay marriage. It is taking a private act and making it something with legal standing.
Here's where I challenge your generalizations again.
My wife and I lived together before we were married (sort of ... certainly enough to qualify under your definition, I'm sure). At this point, we've been married for 13+ years and have a thirteen-week-old daughter who brings joy to our lives at a rate far greater than she takes sleep from it (large though the latter is some days).
Your statement above implies that you consider our marriage somehow less moral or less valid than the marriage of a couple who never lived together before marriage.
No, my statement does not say or imply that. My statement says that for there is a far higher rate of divorce for people, like yourself, who did live together. The fact that you have a healthy marriage is great, but it does not change the statistic. My statement also said that children born to single moms are far more likely to live in poverty than any other enviromental factor (education, race, etc.) that you could site.
I'll ask you point-blank: is that your belief?
Let me put my belief this way: It is better for a couple to be married than living together. If a couple who once lived together gets married, I believe they are now in a better situation than before. The term "moral" and "immoral" for me are not a judgment of you as a person but a reflection of whether you are living in a way that is healthiest for the relationship.
A good friend of mine is living with her fiancee now. Another pair of good friends of mine didn't get married until she was already pregnant with their son. Are their marriages less moral than someone who didn't do that? And are you prepared to legislate to that effect?
No, I would not "legislate" it as a criminal offense. But I WOULD do everything I could to write legislation that encouraged them to get married, because that is what would be best for their son. (Whether I think it is "spiritually" moral or immoral is secondary to me. My focus is on what is best, not on simply labeling someone as immoral.)
I think divorce is, by far, a greater threat than adultery to marriage.
Given that the latter rather frequently leads to the former, I'm intrigued by your willingness to make the distinction.
I make the distinction because I have seen marriages pulled apart simply because a spouse decides, I don't love him (or her) anymore." There are a lot more reasons for divorce than just adultery. Furthermore, I have seen marriages survive adultery and actually become better. Adultery does not have to mean the end of a marriage provided the guilty party actually changes his (or her) ways.
You didn't like my Copernican example; fine. Here's another one: 150 years ago, women couldn't vote. The consensus belief for a long period of time was that women couldn't be trusted to make good judgements in that regard. When women got the vote, there was no shortage of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and claims that American democracy was doomed.
Well, women have voted for a while now, and they've proven no worse at it than men.
That was a societal shift -- an action, to use your word, rather than a clarification of existing fact. It was a change that was heavily resisted (including by most Christian churches, BTW), but in the end has strengthened society rather than weakened it.
is there some reason this parallel's not apt?
I would agree that this is a better analogy. It is an example of a change that was good. (Ending slavery is another such example.) In both cases, the changes HAVE had an enormous impact on society. I think overwhelmingly it was for the good. But that does not then mean legalizing gay marriage is also a good thing and would bring good changes. Each case has to be looked at on its own merits. As I suggested before, the advent of no-fault divorce has had an enormously negative impact on our society. While it sought to correct an unfair situation in some cases, overall I believe it has done more harm than good.
Lastly, a question which I hope will give us some more common ground, or at least clarify the terms of the discussion. Kingbobb earlier suggested taking marriage out of the realm of the government entirely, and making all relationships "civil unions" so far as the state is concerned. That would leave any individual faith to define marriage as it saw fit, and those couples who wanted a religious blessing could find an institution willing and happy to give it.
Would that change your support for an anti-gay-marriage amendment? (I will have a follow-up question. :-)
No, it would not. If gay marriage did become law, it might end up being a good idea to protect churches from the lawsuits that I know will come when they refuse to accept or conduct gay marriages. But my opposition comes from more than just a theological standpoint. From a sociological viewpoint I think gay unions will undermine the value and culture of the family.
Let me add this: If over 50% of the nation voted for this to be made the law, I would accept it as law (as long as it did not require my church or my pastors to accept or perform gay marriages within our church). But if this is simply the act of an activist court, I would oppose it. The reality is, as this debate has shown, this issue deals with far more than gay marriage. It deals fundamentally with the concept of what is right and wrong, and with the concept of the role of the church and the state. There are enormous changes being made that are NOT based on democracy but on a minority forcing their will on the majority. That will only cause a deeping of what has been called the "culture wars."
Jim in Iowa
My challenge to you: Find ONE PLACE where JESUS HIMSELF spoke something against homosexuality. One.
There is a false logic in your statement. There are a lot of things Jesus did not speak against. I don't recall him saying anything about incest or rape. You don't find him condemning sexual harrassment.
There is a far more logical reason for why Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality: It was so taboo that it was not even an issue.
What you do find Jesus doing is *raising* the standard. Instead of just condemning the act of adultery, he said that lusting after a person (committing adultery in your head) was equally as wrong.
When Jesus did speak about marriage, he clearly stated it involved one man and one woman. When Jesus encountered those engaged in sexual sin, Jesus BOTH showed them compassion AND he told them to stop sinning.
The challenge really is at your feet: Demonstrate just one example where Jesus accepted what had previously been seen as a sexual sin. Give me one example where Jesus indicated there was any option for marriage that did not consist of a man and a woman. Give me just one example where Jesus came across a clearly gay relationship and chose to say nothing. Just one.
What would Jesus do today with someone who is gay? The same thing he did then: He would love the person but would not hesitate to tell them to quit sinning. If you disagree, show me just one example where Jesus did not deal with sin and a sinner in this manner. If we are using Jesus as our example, then lets be honest about how he actually is recorded as acting. Otherwise, you are equally making him into what you want him to be as you accused the other writers of scripture of having done.
Jim in Iowa
I agree, but it's true. The best we can do is come up with a theory, say "this is how it seems to work" and wait for someone to knock it down. Anything in science that is known as "fact" is actually just a really good theory that hasn't been disproven.
Is that a "fact"?
Okay, so now, what's the scientific definition of "proof"?
"Okay, so now, what's the scientific definition of "proof"?"
It's pretty much the same story. You can't "prove" something. You can show that your hypothesis is "supported" but one cannot say with absolute cosmic certainty that future discoveries won't invalidate what we currently accept as being true.
At some point, of course, a hypothesis or theory has enough evidence supporting it that we don't waste much time repeating the process. Cell theory states, among other things, that all life on earth is made up of 1 or more cells. Has EVERY single insect that has ever been discovered been subject to electron microscopy to show that it is indeed made up of cells? No, who would fund such a dopey project?
Michael Brunner,
PIOTR SAID:
"I may be wrong, but I don't think that in the United States artists can be prosecuted because of creating art that is 'offensive to religious believes."
YOU SAID:
"Unfortunately, they can. See Mapplethorpe and the Virgin Mary portrait, that was at the Brooklyn museum a couple years back."
Oh, please. Nummber One, as conservatives did, you are using two high-profile examples to make a broad case, namely that the government is "prosecuting" art it doesn't agree with.
Number Two, the reason it became such a political issue is because it was ART FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT! It is inane to suggest the government cannot even show displeasure at potentially offensive and inflammatory "art" that it funds.
Number Three, to compare these things to what Piotr is talking about is to really not have a sense of perspective. As far as I know, the artists behind the "art" you mention have not had criminal charges filed against them and neither were the owners of the buildings where they were shown. Criticism does NOT equal "censorship".
When the government literally shuts down publishing houses that produce material that is "offensive to religious beliefs" then your analogy may actually be accurate.
Until then, not so much.
You further stated:
"As the original topic of this thread shows, censorship is still alive and well in the 'land of the free'."
Seeing as how the case that inspired the original topic of this thread is not even being taken seriously and was brought up in arguably THE MOST conservative state in the Union, I don't feel censorship is quite the nationwide problem you are suggesting it is in this statement.
And, as Piotr and friends of mine who have immigrated here (first generation) can tell you, "land of the free" is still a pretty good description of the U.S.
"And it's done by both the left and the right, although the right is much more aggressive about it."
Oh, I don't know about that. Depends on what you choose to focus on.
A.)A few years ago in Brooklyn, a white teacher, teachng a class of Blacks and Hispanics, read a book called "Nappy Hair", written by black author Carolivia Herron. The book tells of a black girl's emotional journey of self-acceptance. In the story, a young girl discovers that her "nappy hair" was given to her by God and is therefore OK.
The children loved it, yet parents (only one of whom had a child in the teacher's class) and community leaders denounced the teacher, calling the book "Napy Hair" racist, shouting racial epithets at the teacher and physically threatening her.
Despite a defense by the book's black author, the teacher transferred and later resigned, saying she feared for her safety.
2.) When (white) major league pitcher John Rocker made idotic redneck remarks about immigrants, Japanese women drivers and homosexuals, leading figures in the press and in the game itself questioned whether Rocker should be Allowed back in baseball!! But no one suggested future (black) Hall of Famer Reggie White should be denied participating n his profession after making stereotypical statements about Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans in front of the Wisconsin State legislature!
3.) In Philadelphia a few years ago there was a concerted effort by black activists to ban "Huckleberry Finn", a move that failed but has been tried in other parts of the country.
4.) A LOT of the opposition and "outcry" over the ridiculaous Terrell Owens Nicollette Sheridan skit on Monday Night Footbal came from liberal Blacks: Men , who feel any such representation of Black men renforces stereotypes, and Women, who simply loathe Black men interacting with white women sexually, ESPECIALLY blondes.
The difference, as I see it, is conservatives generally try to ban in the name of a greater God, while liberals try to ban in the name of a greater Good.
It's pretty much the same story. You can't "prove" something. You can show that your hypothesis is "supported" but one cannot say with absolute cosmic certainty that future discoveries won't invalidate what we currently accept as being true.
Then you're not making sense to me, since the definition of "prove" is to "to show to be true or genuine, as by evidence or argument." Says nothing about being absolutely certain.
So it would seem to me that the standard for "proving a fact" is to show as best you can that it is "true". If it is NOT true, then it is "false" and therefore NOT a "fact".
So what am I missing? Are you saying that science cannot show whether something is true or not through "verifiable and supportable evidence"?
eclark1849 wrote...
Are you saying that science cannot show whether something is true or not through "verifiable and supportable evidence"?
Pretty much. The best you can say is that your prediction was correct on the particular occasion that you made the experiments, and that this result is in line with current theories.
Once an observation has been made that contradicts the theories, and that observation has been replicated a few times, you have to alter the theory to accomodate the new observations.
So what we have when people refer to "scientific facts" would be more accurately referred to as "scientific theories that have a great deal of support and have yet to be disproven."
But then, that's not nearly as simple to say. =)
It would be presumptuous to claim you have "proven" a "fact" since history shows that as our technology has improved it has allowed us to see things that were previously impossible to be aware of. Such things can radically modify perfectly fine theories.
Germ theory will forever be germ theory unless you can come up with a way to utterly disprove the possibilty of curses, ghosts, etc. Since none of those things can be observed or measured they, by definition, can't be disproven. So one must be open to the possibility of htier existance (or some other non-germ factor).
Nevertheless, when I get sick I will go to the doctor, since the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that this would be a better course than going to some guy with a bone through his nose.
So we can't prove anything. We can't disprove anything. That doesn't mean that all possibilities are equally valid. I may well be a butterfly dreaming he is a man...but I'm still going to invest in my 401 K plan.
Posted by Luigi Novi at December 3, 2004 09:47 AM
Sasha: "It's official - the platypus is weird"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1226827.htm If there is one creature out there can prove creationism, that God has a sense of humor, or the existence of extraterrestrial life (I'd easily imagine patypuses -- or is it platypi? -- being descended from the long-abandoned pet of ancient astronauts), this egg-laying, mammalian freak would be it.
Luigi Novi: Not really.
In 1971, two fossil platypus teeth were discovered in the Tirari Desert in South Australia. They are about 25 million years old, and have been named Obdurodon insignis. The modern platypus has only vestigial teeth which are replaced by horny pads when it is still a juvenile. The fossil teeth are similar enough to these vestigial teeth to allow identification, and they show that ancient platypuses had teeth as adults.
And contrary to the creationist Straw Man that platypus supposedly links mammals and birds, anyone who reads any evolutionary literature, even at a basic level, will quickly find out that birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals.
Interesting article, btw.
I agree that was interesting just a little nit pick to add if anything the phylum of Monotreme (Which the platypus is part of) would if anything be an evolutionary link between reptiles and marsupials as they only occur on the Australian content which was isolated from the rise of mammals
PolarBoy: My favourite sin which is mentioned far more times than the two obsurce references to homosexuality in the bible is the act of userey which is the act of charging intrest on borrowed monies. I have never once hear of anybody every say that the banks and credit card companies are sinful I don't recall anybody protesting to get these business practices stoped so until somebosy tells me American Express is an abomination of gods law I can in no way take your opinion on what consenting adults do seriously.
Luigi Novi: But isn’t that how banks and AmEx make money?
Thats my whole point we are in effect a society that runs on something stated as a sin in the bible. So I was trying to point out the irony how hot under the collar "Christians" get about homosexuals have legal rights and people having abortions However thing like powerful men in suits rakeing in hundreds of billion doing what is clearly defined as a sin never gets mentioned. A 16 year old who wants an abortion or a gay couple who want there union legal recognised and the same entitlments as the rest of society are easy targets where as Amex are not.
PolarBoy: As for scientific theorey versus law I was taught that something became a scientific fact or law when a theory could be suggested and then proved in a labority with the results then published and that the experiment could then be performed independently of the first achieving the pridicted results.
Luigi Novi: That’s part of it, but I would quibble with the “laboratory” part. If something has to be “proved in a laboratory,” then the “facts” derived from Galileo Galilei’s observations of Jupiter are not really facts (unless you’re saying someone has actually managed to build a laboratory that can hold Jupiter).
OK you have me there where I have used the word labrotory it would have to be a controlled experiment that can be independently repeated.
Jerome:
"The reason it became such a political issue is because it was ART FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT! It is inane to suggest the government cannot even show displeasure at potentially offensive and inflammatory "art" that it funds."
I agree - it's an ambiguous issue. Personally, I believe that the government has the right to decide how its money is spend. It has the right not to fund something that it finds completely useless, crappy etc.
The problem is, such right can easily be misused. It may not be big issue in US, but in my country almost all theaters, galleries and museums are government - funded. So, when government declines to fund art it doesn't like, it effectively BECOMES a form of censorship...
But I agree - it's not such problem as outright censorship, which I wrote about yesterday.
BTW. If I may ask an off-topic question.. Out of curiosity - have there been in US any cases of literal destroying of controversial art? Here in Poland such things have happened in the last few years... For example, on more than one occasion our right-wing members of parliament practically TRASHED art they didn't like. Does it happen in US too?
Polar Boy: Thats my whole point we are in effect a society that runs on something stated as a sin in the bible.
Luigi Novi: So capitalism itself should be abolished? Are you saying that Christianity is ideally communist?
Not Capitalism overall, just banks and credit card companie (actually anyone who charges interest on loans, so actually yes, the whole capitalist system.
Luigi Novi wrote...
So capitalism itself should be abolished?
Maybe not abolished but I'm of the opinion that it's not "working" in the way most people seem to think it's successful. I personally believe that the system is inherently corrupt, and unless some major changes are made to it (don't ask me what, I'm no economist), we will see a total collapse.
I'm a bit of a cynic, though. :)
Jeff Lawson on capitalism:
Maybe not abolished but I'm of the opinion that it's not "working" in the way most people seem to think it's successful. I personally believe that the system is inherently corrupt, and unless some major changes are made to it (don't ask me what, I'm no economist), we will see a total collapse.
You don't know what's wrong, you don't know how to fix it, but you think it's on the road to total collapse. Brilliant.
Capitalism is SUPPOSED to be corrupt. The whole theory is that if everyone looks after his own best interest, wealth will be created. It's far less corrupt than communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, and to the Politburo however they want) or socialism (work ethic? who needs that?) or any other system that anyone's ever come up with. It's not very different from the checks and balances incorporated in the Constitution. People will always look out for #1, so we're far far better off in a system that channels that incentive in a constructive direction.
Capitalism pulled us out of feudalism. Capitalism leads to democracy because it creates a middle class. Capitalism is one of the best things to ever happen to humanity.
I'm a bit of a cynic, though. :)
That's one word for it. Still, I think cynics should LIKE capitalism.
Capitalism is dying or, at the very least, is very sick. Monopolies have smothered it.
Not to mention that patents and copyrights are inherently anti-free-market...
David Bjorlin wrote...
You don't know what's wrong, you don't know how to fix it, but you think it's on the road to total collapse. Brilliant.
That's right, I'm not an expert. If I were to suggest something, it would be a greatly increased degree of government control of the markets, but I'll also readily admit that that would bring problems of its own. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to dislike something without having the clear, expert knowledge required to fix it.
Capitalism is SUPPOSED to be corrupt.
Really, I don't recall that being written into any definitions of capitalism I've ever read, but I suppose I could have forgotten.
It's not very different from the checks and balances incorporated in the Constitution.
Your constitution, not mine, and I have my own opinions on how well your "checks and balances" seem to be working.
People will always look out for #1
Simply untrue.
Capitalism leads to democracy because it creates a middle class.
1) What makes the middle class integral to democracy?
2) How do you account for the widespread notion that the middle class, in the U.S. and elsewhere, is disappearing?
Capitalism is one of the best things to ever happen to humanity.
Your opinion, and a highly debatable one. Capitalism tends to breed exploitation, both of people and the environment. If everyone is dead in a couple hundred years because the capitalists were too busy looking after their bottom line to protect the environment, let me know if you still think it was one of the best things for humanity.
That's one word for it. Still, I think cynics should LIKE capitalism.
You haven't pulled any punches so far, go ahead and tell me just what your word for it would be. I can take it.
My use of the word "cynic" was to indicate that my outlook is often negative, not that I believe all people are motivated by selfishness. My fault for not clarifying I suppose, but I thought the meaning was clear in the context of what I wrote.
Pretty much. The best you can say is that your prediction was correct on the particular occasion that you made the experiments, and that this result is in line with current theories.
I think if you're sitting around predicting outcomes instead of observing outcomes, you've left the world of science and are working for the "psychic friends network".
Bill:
It would be presumptuous to claim you have "proven" a "fact" since history shows that as our technology has improved it has allowed us to see things that were previously impossible to be aware of. Such things can radically modify perfectly fine theories.
I think you, Jeff and Tim are saying that "proof" is equivalent to being absolutely 100% "no-room-for-error" certain. And again I ask you, where has this ever been the case? "Proof" is a preponderance of the evidence sufficient enough to induce or compel belief that something is true.
The old axiom, "Nothing's perfect." springs to mind. Therefore to say that "nothing is provable" is blatantly false. Heh. What's so funny about that is under your definition, you can't even be certain that you're right.
eclark1849 wrote...
I think if you're sitting around predicting outcomes instead of observing outcomes, you've left the world of science and are working for the "psychic friends network".
Nope, that's what science is all about. You make a hypothesis, which is a prediction about the outcome. You run your experiment, and see if the hypothesis is supported. The very purpose of science is to predict future events. After all, what good is studying the force of gravity if you can't predict that if you drop an object, it will fall to the ground? What good is genetics if you can't predict that if you alter this gene, there will be a change in this trait?
I think you, Jeff and Tim are saying that "proof" is equivalent to being absolutely 100% "no-room-for-error" certain.
That is the commonly accepted meaning of proof. If something is "proven," that to most people means that no other possibilities exist. If your personal definition of proof is that sufficient evidence exists that you can believe that something is true, but you are willing to entertain the notion that you're wrong, then I don't have any beef with you.
Piotr,
I appreciate the difference you are stating. That is why I and many others who consider ourselves conservatives in this country are for extremely limited government.
I feel for your situation.
As for your question, I cannot recall any government ordered destruction of art.
But by private citizens? Plenty. Controversial music records have been destroyed in protests on a pretty regular basis, from a famous blowing up of disco records in Chicago in the '70s, to citizens destroying their Dixie Chicks records after their controversial remarks. A beautiful painted mural in Philadelphia of their controversial and legendary mayor Frank Rizzo was splotched with paint and had the words "Free Mumia" painted on it by vandals. Due to a idiotic book, many comic books were destroyed - and many companies put out of business - because they were seen as "corrupting our youth".
For the most part, though, we do a pretty decent job of upholding our ideals.
By the way, just got the lates issue of "Rolling Stone", and it ranked "The 500 Greatest Songs Of All Time".
"New Year's Day", by U2, was #427. In the few paragraphs about the song, Bono described how he came up with the lyrics.
"We improvise, and the things that came out, I let them come out," he said. "I must have been thinking about Lech Walesa being interned. Then, when we'd recorded the song, they announced that martial law would be lifted in Poland on New Year's Day. Incredible."
I never knew this was the inspiration for the song. Did you? It's a pretty cool story.
I can think of one time when public officials actually seized a painting: in 1988 several african-american alderman tore down a painting of the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington that depicted him dressed in women's underwear. They damaged the painting and almost torched it right there on the spot before the police arrested...the painting. Really.
A federal court ruled six years after the fact that they had violated the First Amendment rights of the artist, David K. Nelson.
You can read an interesting account of the whole thing at http://www.thefileroom.org/publication/becker.html
Of course, had Nelson done the same painting with Jesus, Reagan, Bush, Clarence Thomas, etc. he would have been ok.
Damn... nearly 300 posts in three days...
and in all of this, no one has really answered my question, "How will gay marriage ruin the institution of marriage or corrupt morality in the US."
It just seems to me that the only answer that's been presented in this thread so far is "Uh.... because the bible says it will?" and I'd like something more concrete, if you will.
Jerome:
"As for your question, I cannot recall any government ordered destruction of art. But by private citizens? Plenty."
Heh. Than it's definitely different than in Poland. In Poland your average citizen is rather too... apathetic to do something like that. It's mostly politicians who do such things - partly because our politicians are kind of untouchable. It's sad truth, but Polish potician could do almost anything (with an exception of murder) and would not be punished, sued etc.
I recall only one case of vandalizing an art that was NOT carried out by a politician. And even in that case the perpetrator was not "anybody", but one of our most famous actors. It was a really freaky case, actually - that guy has attacked controversial photo exhibition and cut some photos into pieces. With a sabre...
"Due to a idiotic book, many comic books were destroyed - and many companies put out of business - because they were seen as >".
Let me guess - you are talking about "Seduction of the Innocent"? I've read about it...
BTW. There was in Poland one instance of politician destroying a comic book... To be more precise - one of our right-wing policians publicly burnt some copies of Spiegelmann's "Maus". He claimed that this comic book is "anti-Polish" - which is rubbish, but some people are just paranoid...
"I never knew this was the inspiration for the song. Did you?"
Actually, I did :) And I agree - it's really cool.
Bill:
"You can read an interesting account of the whole thing at http://www.thefileroom.org/publication/becker.html"
Thanks!
Slick:
"Damn... nearly 300 posts in three days... and in all of this, no one has really answered my question, >"
You know, I've been asking this question for quite some time - and to this day no one was able to give me a convincing answer... :) But maybe I'm just too liberal...
"How will gay marriage ruin the institution of marriage or corrupt morality in the US."
It won't. That's probably why there hasn't been any answer.
For those conservatives still on the fence--the so-called gender ggap is actually more of a Marriage Gap. Among married people republicans score big time.
So by encouraging gay maariage you might help expand the base!
"How will gay marriage ruin the institution of marriage or corrupt morality in the US."
It won't. That's probably why there hasn't been any answer.
Actually until just now, I never saw the question.
Depends on what you mean. Most people are talking about the single male- single female bonding model when they talk about marriage. That particular model is unique because it is the foundation upon which human society is built.
The fear is that gay marriage weakens the idea of marriage in the traditional sense, and they're quite right, it will, because once you redefine marriage to no longer mean one man - one woman, you open the door to include other definitions, such as one man - two women, a brother and sister, or even communal marriage.
And if you think that's not true, all you have to do is look at how families have been redefined to include almost any combination of people living under one roof. It's not unlike what happened to Xerox. They nearly lost a trademark because the name became so synonymous with copying. they had to resort to suing people to get it's value back.
I don't personally look at gay marriage when I think of the corruption of traditional marriage though. I look at the "shacking up" phenomena as starting the downfall of traditional marriage. when more and more people started living together without the "benefit" of marriage, marriage itself was seen as less and less necesarry. When these unions also produced out of wedlock children, the courts had to begin establishing child rights, so that children would still be provided for should a "union" break up. That pretty much killed the idea of children being "legitimate" or "illegimate". Interestingly enough, you see that same scenario being played out with the use of words like "legal" and and "illegal" aliens.
Me:People will always look out for #1
Simply untrue.
I overshot a bit using the adverb "always." Replace it with "generally" and I stand by the statement. People, as a species, are inherently selfish. They will make exceptions, as David Hume noted, when they feel some overriding affiliation. Family bonds do it, as will nationalism or group dynamics (e.g. a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to shield his buddies), but over time selfishness wins out with most people.
Your opinion, and a highly debatable one. Capitalism tends to breed exploitation, both of people and the environment. If everyone is dead in a couple hundred years because the capitalists were too busy looking after their bottom line to protect the environment, let me know if you still think it was one of the best things for humanity.
Absolutely. Poor people in the United States today live like kings compared to the conditions most of humanity has toiled in since its beginnings. The industrial revolution was a good thing. Capitalism, which drove the industrial revolution, was a good thing. Short of Ras al Ghul depopulating the Earth, I challenge you to find a way to support a modern population with modern standards of living without capitalist economies. And if you think capitalism is bad for the environment, take a look at the old Soviet bloc.
As for your queries about the role of the middle class, traditionally the bourgeois is the group of society that clamors for more power, and diffusion of power leads to voting and democracy. Economic and political freedom are mutually reinforcing. Far from capitalism breeding exploitation, capitalism tends to destroy it. (Even Marx thought capitalism was a drastic improvement over anything that came before it. Marx just didn't realize that his idea was a step backwards.) The perception that the middle class is disappearing is just that-- a perception. I've seen no hard data one way or the other, and any data would depend on the definition of the middle class that the compiler of the data was using. I think it's likely that we will never again have an Eisenhower-era economy again, but since that was the product of the rest of the world having gone through a wringer, I'm not sure we should *want* another Eisenhower economy.
// Depends on what you mean. Most people are talking about the single male- single female bonding model when they talk about marriage. That particular model is unique because it is the foundation upon which human society is built. //
Not it isn't. The idea of marriage meaning one man-one woman is realitivly new in human history. (The idea of marrying for love is even newer). For most of human history marriage was 1 man and several women, (and in a significantly large part of the world that is still the case). This was to ensure that the all important male heir would be born. (Female children were considered unimportant, considered property and good only for being married off. It was the 1st male child who inherited the family name and trade.) It was autmatically assumed that if a male heir wasn't produced it was the women's fault. (Used to be thought that women added nothing to the process, they were just there for men to plant the seed, and beliefs like this influenced many religious customs which, unfortunatly, we still have around today). Add on to that the high number of women and children who tended to die in childbirth and you can see why there was an effort to "stack the deck". But hey, if you don't believe me you need not look any further then the Bible, plenty of references to men with multiple wives in the good book, and it's significant to note that the almighty didn't seem to have any problem with the practice. (And there would be even more references in the new testement if people with agendas hadn't edited them out, the same way they edited out Christ extended family, but I digress).
BTW, while we're on the subject, many scientist believe that men were not made for monogamous relationships. That we have a 7 year span on relationships before both partners start basically looking elsewhere. (And that looking elsewhere is basically natures way of telling us to expand the gene pool). Not saying I buy into that, but it's something to think about when you look at the high rate of divorce, and how many of those divorces happen within the first 10 years.
I don't personally look at gay marriage when I think of the corruption of traditional marriage though. I look at the "shacking up" phenomena as starting the downfall of traditional marriage. when more and more people started living together without the "benefit" of marriage, marriage itself was seen as less and less necesarry. When these unions also produced out of wedlock children, the courts had to begin establishing child rights, so that children would still be provided for should a "union" break up. That pretty much killed the idea of children being "legitimate" or "illegimate". Interestingly enough, you see that same scenario being played out with the use of words like "legal" and and "illegal" aliens.
Pretty good summary of what I believe. Gay marriage is not the first or only threat to marriage. Divorce and single parents has done a lot to undermine marriage.
Why is gay marriage a bad idea? I have stated the reason a lot of times, but it is consistently twisted to say something I am not saying. But I will try one more time.
I believe that, to use a cliche, children are the future. Research has shown that the best environment for a child to grow up in is in a loving family with a father and a mother (one of each gender). While children can grow up in other environments (including an orphanage with no parents) history and research agree that the ideal situation is for the biological father and mother to raise a child.
Marriage is not simply an arrangement created by the government. It came about naturally. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, either view would support the idea that marriage, meaning a commitment between the biological father and mother to raise a child, has existed long before any religion or government chose to "bless" such an arrangement.
For almost all of recorded human history, there was not the level of birth control we now have available. So if a man and woman had sex, it was very possible a kid would result from the union. Then as now, a kid being raised in a loving environment by his (or her) biological parents was (all things being equal) the best for the kid.
This does not mean that someone who is married who does not / cannot have kids is not legitimately married. I am simply noting that we are at a unique time in history when it is easily possible to have regular sex but choose to not have a child. Marriage was not solely about having kids. But kids were a very natural and normal result of being married.
Which leads us to today. In order to provide the best environment for kids, it is important to preserve the priority of traditional marriage. This, for me, is what makes this issue more important than simply with whom someone chooses to have sex. Gay marriage would change the importance of traditional marriage. In addition, while I have no doubt a gay couple would be very loving, I consider it less than ideal for a kid to be raised by two people of the same gender. This is not about the child being influenced to be gay, this is about the overall emotional and social development of a child. Just as with single parents where a child is missing one or the other gender, outside role models can help, but it is never the same as being raised by a male and female parent together. While a single parent can be a loving parent, I would not want to promote single parenthood to the level of marriage. Nor do I want to do so with gay marriage.
We are just now beginning to grasp the full impact no-fault divorce has had on kids. We can look to countries such as Russia who, under communism, raised kids apart from their biological parents. In every case I have read, it has been shown to have been less than ideal. It may be better than nothing, but that does not mean we should elevate it to the same status as traditional marriage.
Bottom line, my personal objection to gay marriage is not rooted in just a Bible verse. It is based on what I believe will be the societal impact if we make gay marriage legal.
I do have a secondary reason for my opposition. It is clear that there is a larger agenda behind the desire to make it legal. I believe it is meant by some to force churches to accept homosexuality.
So what is the threat to churches? How would making gay marriage legal be a threat to my church? It comes on a few levels. The most obvious is employment. Currently, a church is allowed to "discriminate" in a few areas based on their moral convictions. If gay marriage was legal, I guarantee that there will be lawsuits demanding that churches hire a gay minister or secretary, etc. This has already happened in California over 20 years ago, even without gay marriage being legal. A friend of my family was a pastor of a Presbyterian Church just outside of San Francisco. They hired a guy as the church organist. About 6 months later, they found out that he was actively gay. They fired him because they considered his position as being part of their worship on Sunday (their position on this matter was in writing, so he essentially lied when he applied for the job). To make a long story short, he sued. Worse than that, the pastor's house was firebombed (fortunately his kids were with their grandparents at the time), and 20 years later, they are still receiving death threats from members of the gay community even though the guy died of AIDS 15 years ago. The church basically went bankrupt simply fighting to maintain their right to practice IN THEIR WORSHIP SERVICES what they believed. They were not picketing against gay rights, they were not trying to get gay people fired from their "secular" jobs. They were just practicing a very clearly held belief.
Another threat: Tax exempt status. Some gay activists have already said that once gay marriage becomes legal, they will begin suing churches who refuse to marry a gay couple to strip them of their tax exempt status. (You may not agree with churches having a tax exempt status in the first place, but that is beside the point. It is wrong to strip them of it simply because of a moral conviction that they hold. That is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.)
Bottom line, there is a concerted effort to force the church to change its view that it is morally wrong to engage in gay sex. It is one thing to try to persuade through reason. It is another when a church is threatened and kept from following its beliefs.
Jim in Iowa
// For almost all of recorded human history, there was not the level of birth control we now have available. So if a man and woman had sex, it was very possible a kid would result from the union. Then as now, a kid being raised in a loving environment by his (or her) biological parents was (all things being equal) the best for the kid. //
A few problems with this statement. 1) The concept of monogmy, realitvly new in human history. For most of human history a family was one guy, multiple wives. Oh and females, (children and wives) were considered property. And of course there's still large chunks of the world where that's still the case. 2) The idea of marriying for love even newer, only about a 150 to 200 years old. For most of human history marriages were arranged or done as a social oblication with the sole objective being to produce a male heir. (Female children being useful only to be married off). And of course there is a sizable chunk of the world where that's still the case today. 3) The idea of kids being raised in a loving eviorment is really, really new. Probably only about 125 years old. Prior to that kids were just seen as an extra hand to have around in the family bussiness, (if they were boys), or a body to be married off as early as possible, (if they were girls). As late as the 1800's there was a debate in this country about manditory schooling, we were a nation of farmers see and farmers didn't want to lose the free labor that was provided by children, (and besides there was nothing school couldn't teach them that they couldn't learn on a farm). Our centering everything around "the children" is a really recent phenomon. Our ancesters regulary put kids as young as 7 years old to work in ways that would be considered "child abuse" today. Even as late as the great depression the idea of a 10 year old with a full time job was not unheard of, (in some cases that 10 year old was supporting the family. Pop Culture aside, this is why audiences of the time didn't have problems with things like Robin the boy wonder. Why should they, Robin just had a job like any number of other kids did. But I digress). The idea of the "happy care free childhood" is really, really recent. (And I agree with Bill Marh, Centering eveything around "the children" was one of the worst mistakes our society ever made).
Bottom line is that you're looking at the wrong end of the glass. You're making the assumption that what marriarge and a family is today was what it always was, and that is just simply not true. The idea of the Mom and Dad who loved each other, and raised thier children in a loving nurturing enviorment practically didn't exist as little as 200 years ago.
"And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing?
Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?
I don't think it is so much picking on homosexuality, but defending societal morals."
Um as the original context of this discussion was about a proposed "law cutting public funding for any books that "promote homosexuality", which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters" then I fail completely to see where you're coming from - except by misinterpreting the scope of my comment completely.
As I have yet to see any reports of proposed legislation to ban, or otherwise restrict, all books in which there are characters who lie, steal, murder or wage war, I can only assume that homosexuality must be considered far worse than all those for it to gain that much intention.
Claiming that homosexuality isn't being singled is simply wrong.
And I'm nowhere near being an advocate for gay rights issues, but even I can recognise the plain hypocrisy (not to mention stupidity) that lies behind this particular plan.
Jim in Iowa, there's several things you mention that make me think...
It seems that your motivation to preserve a "traditional" marriage of one man and one woman really stems from the basis that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. If your starting point is that a father/mother couple is the ideal environment to raise a child (more on that later), then it seems that what you're really concerned with is that by allowing any 2 people to marry, and then have *legitimate* children (natural-born, adopted, etc.), we'll be allowing that arrangements other than father/mother parents are just as effective at raising a child in an ideal case.
So, it seems that your main impetus to define marriage as one man and one woman is to endorse the nuclear family as the paradigm the government should support.
Now I'll ask: why? Research has shown that this pair *can* result in an ideal environment to raise a child. That's no guarantee that it *will* have that result. What about the family where the biological father abuses the children? Or the mother? The family with the father who stumbles home drunk every Friday and beats his son? Or sense those are criminal acts, what about the father who's just plain mean to his kids? Do we supervise his marriage and intervene if he fails to uphold the traditional image of an upright dad who supports and encourages his children, rather than the guy who berats, belittles, and verbally abuses his kids?
Additionally, as others have pointed out, today's *traditional* marriage is really nothing of the sort. Our culture, and it's predacessors, have a longer tradition of marriage for convienence or money, or for political reasons, very rarely for love. We also have a *tradition* of one man, multiple wives (at the same time). Which tradition do we legislate.
Finally, of course there are going to be idiots that are going to try and force some church or religion to change. This has been true since before there was a word for religion. Consider this: perhaps, if gay marriage were accepted as a civil matter, maybe those people who took criminal action against the church might not have.
Or maybe churches need to have blatant disclosures on their application forms, stating that they view homosexuality as contrary to their religios beliefs, and won't hire anyone who practices homosexuality.
But your concern that allowing civil gay marriages will force any church to perform a gay marriage is really unfounded. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Any act by congress or the courts that forces any religious body to act in a certain way (other than administratively for tax purposes) would violate the First Amendment. There's absolutely no way any church could lose it's tax exempt status because they fail to perform a gay marriage.
If such were the case, no churches would already have lost such status. Many churches require you to be a practicing member of the religion before they'll allow you to marry. It's discriminitory, but not only tolerated, it's encouraged.
And that's maybe the main reason why we have both religious and civil marriages. You need a civil marriage to get the legal rights that attach to marriage, regarding property, taxes, inheritance, health care rights, etc. A religious marriage absent a civil marriage license is just a spiritual union that doesn't have those legal rights attached.
Any government act to legislate the definition of marriage in any sense violates the First Amendment. Since marriage is both a civil and a religious convention, it would only take even one church, recognized as such by the government, blessing a gay marriage to make any such government action unconstitutional.
Not it isn't. The idea of marriage meaning one man-one woman is realitivly new in human history. (The idea of marrying for love is even newer).
No, its not., although 'll grant you the marriage for love point. Multiple partner marriages though has almost always been restricted to either the very wealthy, or where it is rather impractical, such as populations where women outnumber the men or where men out number the women. However, even among populations where there were multiple wives or husbands, the FIRST wife or husband was always considered the LEGITIMATE mate.
Oh, and in some cases, such as the Egyptian Pharaohs, even sisters, aunts, cousins and mothers became part of the Pharoahs harem. Of course it's also important to remember that a Pharoah was not necessarily related by blood to all of his mothers, sisters, and cousins.
3) The idea of kids being raised in a loving eviorment is really, really new. Probably only about 125 years old. Prior to that kids were just seen as an extra hand to have around in the family bussiness, (if they were boys), or a body to be married off as early as possible, (if they were girls).
Kids were expected to pitch in and help from a certain age on, true. This does not mean that they weren't loved and cared for. And girls were expected to work just as hard as the boys when there weren't any boys around. Milkmaids are often not the dainty little things you see when when you sing about "eight maids a miliking". That activity alone tends to build up some upper body strength.
(Female children being useful only to be married off).
Depends mainly on the culture I think, but in many cultures, the potential husbands had to PAY for their brides, so a many with several daugthers stood to profit quite handily while a man with several sons was expected to give a portion of his land and property to his son for purchasing a wife.
Prior to that kids were just seen as an extra hand to have around in the family bussiness, (if they were boys), or a body to be married off as early as possible, (if they were girls).
Well, it's also important to remember that people didn't live as long then as they do now. For a woman childbirth was easier when they were in their teens to mid-twenties. Survival for mothers during childbirth dropped drastically after the age of twenty-five. It wasn't until Louis Pastuer came up with the idea of washing your hands before dealing with each new patient to reduce infections did the mortality rate start to drop and people started living longer.
Bottom line is that you're looking at the wrong end of the glass. You're making the assumption that what marriarge and a family is today was what it always was, and that is just simply not true. The idea of the Mom and Dad who loved each other, and raised thier children in a loving nurturing enviorment practically didn't exist as little as 200 years ago.
Doesn't really matter, Hude, Some places consider eating rats a delicacy. Here, we're likely to arrest someone if they tried to feed you that. Its the idea as they perceive it that counts. If we look at marriage through your historical veiwpoint, riddled with inaccuracies as it was, why would ANYONE in their right mind, gay, straight, or bi, want to marry?
Doesn't really matter, Hude, Some places consider eating rats a delicacy. Here, we're likely to arrest someone if they tried to feed you that.
No, here we just call it "Reality TV."
"If we look at marriage through your historical veiwpoint, riddled with inaccuracies as it was, why would ANYONE in their right mind, gay, straight, or bi, want to marry?"
I'm sure there are plenty of married people out there who ask themselves this very question every day....
As I have yet to see any reports of proposed legislation to ban, or otherwise restrict, all books in which there are characters who lie, steal, murder or wage war, I can only assume that homosexuality must be considered far worse than all those for it to gain that much intention.
The big difference is that in 90% of the books with lying, stealing, and murder, it is shown as being wrong and having consequences. I would wager less than 1% of books depicting the homosexual lifestyle do that.
Again, not so much 'picking on' as defending.
eclark: I think if you're sitting around predicting outcomes instead of observing outcomes, you've left the world of science and are working for the "psychic friends network".
Luigi Novi: Which shows that you obviously do not understand what science is. Of course you observe outcomes. But you do so after hypothesizing what they’re going to be. This is why the theory of gravity is a confirmed fact. It makes correct predictions on movements of the planets.
Ken posted:
"The big difference is that in 90% of the books with lying, stealing, and murder, it is shown as being wrong and having consequences. I would wager less than 1% of books depicting the homosexual lifestyle do that.
Again, not so much 'picking on' as defending."
That's bullshit, Ken. What "consequences" are there for being gay? You *are* picking on gays simply by suggesting that. For the better part of the past century, Hollywood's depictions of gays and lesbians was filled with "consequences" (when not some outrageous stereotype) and it hasn't been until the last couple of decades that being gay or lesbian was presented in a sympathetic manner (though, such a character generally had no on-screen sex life); however, the largest portion of those sympathetic portrayals also tended to be portraits of AIDS sufferers (Philadelphia, Jeffrey) or frequently had some sort of AIDS connection. For most gay men and lesbians, they don't suffer any "consequences" simply because of their sexuality. Sexuality is, for most of the GLBT community, merely part of their overall existence (just as most straight people would say about their own sexuality) just as their skin or hair color is or their religious practices or even their political persuasion.
In short, the reality is that being gay is nowhere nearly as horrible as lying, stealing or murder, except to homophobes.
The big difference is that in 90% of the books with lying, stealing, and murder, it is shown as being wrong and having consequences. I would wager less than 1% of books depicting the homosexual lifestyle do that.
The difference is, people who lie, steal or murder hurt other people. People living as homosexuals have not effect whatsoever on anyone other than themselves.
The big difference is that in 90% of the books with lying, stealing, and murder, it is shown as being wrong and having consequences. I would wager less than 1% of books depicting the homosexual lifestyle do that.
Ken, I'm not going to argue about whether that statement is true. Joseph W. is already doing that a few posts up and I don't have any statistics. I'll only point out that under the law in question, ANY fiction book that with gay or bisexual characters is considered just as bad regardless of how sympatheticly those characters are presented. If you got your wish list of books that presented homosexual characters dealing with some sort of negative consequences of their sexuality, it would still be out because it those characters in it. It's a stupid, evil bill and if it's passed it will be a stupid evil law.
Look, the question and the subsequent follow-up was about why homosexuality is being 'picked on' rather than 'picking on' murder, lying and stealing. I answered that by pointing out that there aren't in-your-face (or really any) organizations that are promoting lying, stealing, and murder as acceptable.
If there were these organizations, the same people would defend against them.
When it was brought up that this was unfairly targeting books that promote the homosexual life over books that promote lying, stealing, and murder, the truth is that it boils down to glamourizing it.
And to say that there are no consequences in a sexual lifestyle, be it homosexual or adulterous or care-free, is ignorant.
Also, no where have I said that this was an acceptable bill. I was just responding to the suggestion that homosexuals are targeted unfairly.
The bill is bad, but mainly because it wasn't thought out very well, and the writing of it is very naive.
Actually, just to tie the "lying, stealing, and murder" discussion to my own comments from yesterday, I would venture that the current corporate system encourages both lying and stealing. Murder might be a stretch, though.
When it was brought up that this was unfairly targeting books that promote the homosexual life over books that promote lying, stealing, and murder, the truth is that it boils down to glamourizing it.
Anyone remember the days when "freedom of speech" meant all speech, not what sort of activity it was "glamorizing?"
I miss those days.
Ugh. That should have read "No matter what sort of activity."
Gotta proof read better.
Jim in Iowa wrote:
So what is the threat to churches? How would making gay marriage legal be a threat to my church? It comes on a few levels. The most obvious is employment. Currently, a church is allowed to "discriminate" in a few areas based on their moral convictions. If gay marriage was legal, I guarantee that there will be lawsuits demanding that churches hire a gay minister or secretary, etc. This has already happened in California over 20 years ago, even without gay marriage being legal. A friend of my family was a pastor of a Presbyterian Church just outside of San Francisco. They hired a guy as the church organist. About 6 months later, they found out that he was actively gay. They fired him because they considered his position as being part of their worship on Sunday (their position on this matter was in writing, so he essentially lied when he applied for the job). To make a long story short, he sued. Worse than that, the pastor's house was firebombed (fortunately his kids were with their grandparents at the time), and 20 years later, they are still receiving death threats from members of the gay community even though the guy died of AIDS 15 years ago. The church basically went bankrupt simply fighting to maintain their right to practice IN THEIR WORSHIP SERVICES what they believed. They were not picketing against gay rights, they were not trying to get gay people fired from their "secular" jobs. They were just practicing a very clearly held belief.
There may very well be lawsuits and argument, but isn't that the way our system is supposed to work? I note that this part of your message does not state the court's decision. Did the organist win? I'll bet he didn't. That church's decision is, IMO, completely justified because of the nature of the organization. Religious organizations may discriminate against those who do not follow their beliefs, and I encourage their ability to do so. I'm pretty sure the law does, as well.
Gay marriage (or civil unions for all) will not change that. In the same way that gay marriage does not really change incest, polygamy, or bestiality laws, gay marriage would not take a single thing away from churches. Churches right now are free to refuse anyone's request to be married, and they will be free to do so when gay marriage is recoginized.
(BTW, the firebombing stuff is terrible, and I am very glad the children--or anyone, for that matter--were not hurt. However, the actions of some clearly radical and disturbed people should not scare us away from doing what is right. We might disagree on the definition of "right" in this case, but surely the threat of private violence should not determine the opinion of the court in a matter such as this!)
Another threat: Tax exempt status. Some gay activists have already said that once gay marriage becomes legal, they will begin suing churches who refuse to marry a gay couple to strip them of their tax exempt status. (You may not agree with churches having a tax exempt status in the first place, but that is beside the point. It is wrong to strip them of it simply because of a moral conviction that they hold. That is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.)
I, and many folks here, I'm sure, completely agree with you that churches should not be stripped of their TE status because of how they treat gay marriage. But again I ask, why would this happen? What causes you to think that this would actually come to pass? People might sue over it, sure, but people sue over anything these days. Again, the legal idiocy of the few is no justification to limit the freedom of the many.
Further clarification on your points would be greatly appreciated.
Eric
That first paragraph above should be bolded, as well. Sorry.
Eric
The idea that gay couples could sue to force a church to marry them is ludicrous. I am not Catholic, but my wife was raised Catholic and in order for us to get married in a Catholic Church, I had to promise to raised any kids we might have Catholic. If I said no, they would have refused to marry us and there was nothing we could've done about it.
Might people try to sue? Probably, but courts have consistantly ruled that religious organizations have the right to require conformity of belief for membership and I don't see legal recognition of gay marriage changing that.
There may very well be lawsuits and argument, but isn't that the way our system is supposed to work? I note that this part of your message does not state the court's decision. Did the organist win? I'll bet he didn't. That church's decision is, IMO, completely justified because of the nature of the organization. Religious organizations may discriminate against those who do not follow their beliefs, and I encourage their ability to do so. I'm pretty sure the law does, as well.
Actually, the courts went back and forth. One court ruled for one side, it was appealed, and it went the other way. (Remember, this is California. I love the state, but the judges can make some off the wall rulings.) Ultimately, the church won. But it literally took over a million dollars. That is wrong. A church should never have had to have spent over a million dollars on what was clearly a frivolous lawsuit. It was money that was not used for the many charitable works of the church, as well as for the day to day operation of the church. It does not matter whether you win or lose if the other side can keep appealing. I agree that one radical faction of the gay community is not typical of all of them, but that radical faction can be very destructive and harmful. And these radical factions are getting a lot of money from somewhere to be able to pursue a lawsuit such as this. The organist did not pay for it himself.
I, and many folks here, I'm sure, completely agree with you that churches should not be stripped of their TE status because of how they treat gay marriage. But again I ask, why would this happen? What causes you to think that this would actually come to pass? People might sue over it, sure, but people sue over anything these days. Again, the legal idiocy of the few is no justification to limit the freedom of the many.
If you look through the first 150 years of American history, churches were allowed to be quite vocal in their political beliefs. Churches in the Revolution backed the revolution. Many churches in the 1800's opposed slavery and led the charge against it. Up until the 1950's, a church could even talk about specific candidates. If a given candidate supported views contrary to the religious beliefs of the church, the church was free to say so.
Then a little line was added to a bill (I believe it was around 1954). A congressman ran for office and didn't like that a number of churches were critical of his positions and his moral actions. He managed to be elected. He added a line to a bill that basically said if a church endorsed or denounced a candidate, they would lose their tax exempt status because they were crossing the line of "church and state." Who was that congressman? Lyndon B. Johnson. Over 150 years of freedom of speech was suddenly denied to religious institutions.
It may seem unlikely that a church would have its tax exempt status removed. But I don't think so. Let me put it this way. There is, at least, a very strong radical wing of homosexual activists who do not like that some Christians say homosexuality is morally wrong. They want to silence that religious objection. Threatening a church's tax exempt status is one way of doing so.
If I understand your last point, you seem to be saying that it is stupid to deny gay marriage because a few will use it to attack a church. I agree. My point was more on the lines that this issue is not *just* about gay marriage. This is about who gets to say what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral. There is a clear agenda at work that goes beyond simply making gay marriage legal. My opposition against gay marriage is because I believe it is an attack on marriage itself.
Jim in Iowa
The idea that gay couples could sue to force a church to marry them is ludicrous. I am not Catholic, but my wife was raised Catholic and in order for us to get married in a Catholic Church, I had to promise to raised any kids we might have Catholic. If I said no, they would have refused to marry us and there was nothing we could've done about it.
I suggest it is not as ludicrous as you think. I agree that most of the population would vote against such an idea. But 50 years ago it would have been ludicrous to think that a man marrying a man would have been a legal option. Fifty years ago it would have been ludicrous to think a church would not have the freedom of speech it had for 150 years to speak about specific candidates.
I don't think this change would happen the next day. But I do believe it is clearly the next step. And recent court decisions don't give me much confidence in this matter.
It is a school, not a court matter, but surely you have heard what is happening in California. A teacher is suing the school district because he has been prohibited from even mentioning the word "God" or "Almighty," etc., in history class when teaching things like the Declaration of Independence or when using speeches written by George Washington. This is not a ridiculous bill suggested by one legislator in Alabama. This has been actual censorship mandated by a school district, preventing a teacher from simply talking about the historical fact that the founding fathers dared to mention "god" in their writings.
Censorship is alive and well. It is happening in ways this post has not even touched.
Jim in Iowa
It seems that your motivation to preserve a "traditional" marriage of one man and one woman really stems from the basis that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.
Let me put it this way: You can have a healthy marriage without children. But to raise healthy children, the best environment is a healthy marriage.
Let me put it another way: If sex did not create children, I don't think marriage would be necessary. The sexual revolution of the 60's came about, in part, because we reached a place where it was reasonably possible to have lots of sex without the fear of pregnancy. That is not to say some would not want to create a "life together" and end up living together. But marriage, not just the legal standing but the actual commitment to stay together, comes from not only a love or commitment to the other person but also from a desire to raise the children.
If your starting point is that a father/mother couple is the ideal environment to raise a child (more on that later), then it seems that what you're really concerned with is that by allowing any 2 people to marry, and then have *legitimate* children (natural-born, adopted, etc.), we'll be allowing that arrangements other than father/mother parents are just as effective at raising a child in an ideal case.
So, it seems that your main impetus to define marriage as one man and one woman is to endorse the nuclear family as the paradigm the government should support.
Yes, that would be true. I am suggesting the nuclear family be at the hub, though clearly an extended family can also play a crucial role.
Now I'll ask: why? Research has shown that this pair *can* result in an ideal environment to raise a child. That's no guarantee that it *will* have that result. What about the family where the biological father abuses the children? Or the mother? The family with the father who stumbles home drunk every Friday and beats his son? Or sense those are criminal acts, what about the father who's just plain mean to his kids? Do we supervise his marriage and intervene if he fails to uphold the traditional image of an upright dad who supports and encourages his children, rather than the guy who berats, belittles, and verbally abuses his kids?
Umm, actually we already do intervene when abuse reaches a certain point. Just because some biological fathers and mothers are less than ideal does not mean the pattern/model is wrong. Let me put it this way. Your example can be true of a single parent, of two parents of the same gender, or in a "traditional" marriage. The parenting arrangement alone does not guarantee that the parents will raise the child with love and respect. On the otherhand, I do suggest that does not mean we should not strive for what is clearly best for the child, which is a loving mother AND father raising a child. Other arrangements may be necessary when this fails, but I think it is wrong and harmful to a child to not acknowledge that if it is at all possible, a "traditional" marriage is better for a child.
Jim in Iowa
A few problems with this statement. 1) The concept of monogmy, realitvly new in human history. For most of human history a family was one guy, multiple wives. Oh and females, (children and wives) were considered property. And of course there's still large chunks of the world where that's still the case.
I would disagree. The concept of monogamy has been around for a long time. It has been practiced for quite a while. The fact that some also had multiple wives does not mean there were not also some with just one wife. Most could not afford multiple wives.
But this argument also misses the point. At its core, this is still a marriage between one man and one woman. The man does not marry the women as a team. His union is with each one individually. I don't think having multiple wives is a healthy arrangement. There is no doubt it leads to a lot of other problems, including favoritism among the wives and the kids. But the concept of marriage, even in polygamy, was still the union between a man and a woman.
2) The idea of marriying for love even newer, only about a 150 to 200 years old. For most of human history marriages were arranged or done as a social oblication with the sole objective being to produce a male heir. (Female children being useful only to be married off). And of course there is a sizable chunk of the world where that's still the case today.
I would agree with your point, but don't see how it contradicts what I have said. These marriages were done to produce an heir. In other words, it was done for the sake of having a kid. It is true that this did not mean the kid necessarily had a "loving" environment in which to be raised, but the goal of marriage was not just a declaration of love between two people. At its core, they understood that marriage was the "legitimate" way to have a kid, and by this union, join two different families / bloodlines together.
3) The idea of kids being raised in a loving eviorment is really, really new.
Our obsession with it may be new, but the concept has been around for a long time. Go read ancient literature. Greek tragedies were written to illustrate what happened when this did not take place. The Bible is filled with stories that illustrate both the good and the bad in child raising. The commands in the Old and New Testament were very much about how to properly love ones children.
I agree that in many ways our culture has gone too far in its obsession about kids. But it is historically inaccurate to say that families throughout history did not try to raise their kids with love, etc.
Jim in Iowa
bzzzt! wrong answer, Jim.
you say "It is a school, not a court matter, but surely you have heard what is happening in California. A teacher is suing the school district because he has been prohibited from even mentioning the word "God" or "Almighty," etc., in history class when teaching things like the Declaration of Independence or when using speeches written by George Washington. This is not a ridiculous bill suggested by one legislator in Alabama. This has been actual censorship mandated by a school district, preventing a teacher from simply talking about the historical fact that the founding fathers dared to mention "god" in their writings."
actuality says:
these articles copyright their respective writers and websites.
excerpted here for your edification
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=446
Declaration Of Independence banned!
The seemingly preposterous headline made major waves on the conservative Drudge Report and Fox News network Wednesday, joining Reuters and the Associated Press, in a misleading story that exhibited serious reportorial negligence, RAW STORY has learned.
The story, which reports that a California teacher has been banned from giving students documents from American history that refer to God, including the Declaration of Independence, is said a product of right-wing spin.
In fact, Cupertino public school principal Patricia Vidmar banned documents relating to God because the teacher had been forcing students to listen to what some felt was Christian propaganda, a media watchdog site reports. According to the site, the school had told him to stop but he did not comply, at which point the principal required that he submit his lesson plans to her in advance.
...
None of the major news agencies reporting on the story included quotations from the school or the principal, stating that a spokesman had referred them to a staff attorney. The articles suggest they did little research beyond the statements provided by William’s attorneys.
Reuters included scant information about the group who sued on Williams behalf, saying only that the group advocates “religious freedom.”
...
“The school did not ‘ban the Declaration of Independence’ – that is just a lie,” Editor Dave Johnson, who is a fellow at the Commonweal Institute, wrote. “This story is like when you hear that a man was ‘arrested for praying’ and you find out he was kneeling in the middle of a busy intersection at rush hour and refused to move.”
California’s Education Code does allow “references to religion or references to or the use of religious literature … when such references or uses do not constitute instruction in religious principles … and when such references or uses are incidental to or illustrative of matters properly included in the course of study,” as William’s lawyers have pointed out.
It does not, however, allow for forced religious dogma in public schools.
----------------
to reiterate. teacher banned from proseltyzing and preaching christianity to children. used handouts promoting christian agenda. told to stop kept doing it. sued for discrimination. represented by People for the American Way, a watchdog group, ADF was founded by 30 Christian ministries to serve as a counterbalance to the American Civil Liberties Union. A Group against civil liberties, according to their mission statement. Rightwing radio stations and other media outlets pick up story, promote it one-sidedly.
Also, from Seeing The Forest:
http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_seetheforest_archive.html#110134337110716232
"Declaration Of Independence Banned" - It's A Lie!
The school did not "ban the Declaration of Independence" -- that is just a lie. This story is like when you hear that a man was "arrested for praying" and you find out he was kneeling in the middle of a busy intersection at rush hour and refused to move.
This is the BIG STORY today, on Rush, and Drudge, and the rest of the Usual Suspects. And it is a carefully planned and carefully timed lie.
The story is timed for this afternoon so that it cannot be refuted until Monday.
It is timed to cause fights and hatred at family Thanksgiving dinners across the country.
It is part of a strategy to reinforce a "conventional wisdom" notion that "liberals" are "going too far" with their demands of separation of church and state.
"b"ADF also defends the right of Christians to 'share the gospel' in workplaces and public schools, claiming that any efforts to curb proselytizing at work and school are anti-Christian."b"
See the forest. See how this stuff works!
Update - I have a more few pre-holiday minutes to spend on this... To be clear about this story, the school said the teacher could not use handouts that included quotes from the Declaration and other documents. A San Mateo Times story (where I live) says,
"She then prevented Williams from giving students several handouts including:
- Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence with references to "God," "Creator," and "Supreme Judge."
And from the Alliance's press release,
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit yesterday against the Cupertino Union School District for prohibiting a teacher from providing supplemental handouts to students about American history because the historical documents contain some references to God and religion.
Sorry, #2 above should have been bolded to show it was a quote.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa
You make your point more clear here: "My point was more on the lines that this issue is not *just* about gay marriage."
And you're right. Science and economics are real good at looking at things in vacuums, but we all know life doesn't occur in one. Actions often have unforseen and unpredictable repurcussions. It's one of the main reasons our Founders made a general Constitution, so that we would have a living document that could adapt and adopt to changing times.
As to a church (or any fiscally challenged entity) needing to spend itself into bankruptcy to defend against a frivolous lawsuit isn't the fault of our laws. Responsibilty for that lies with our judges and individuals filing suit. That suit should never have gone on as long as it did. Judges (afraid of publicity, taking a stand, whatever) can and do fail to issue a strong determination to dismiss a suit. I'm not famliar wit CA courts much, but, if like many state judges, the bench is elected, this would be even more common. Don't want to lose that cushy bench seat job with a controversial ruling.
What's important here is that you recognize where the failing is: Not in someone trying to push his or her beliefs onto a religion (which the Constitution expliciity prohibits), but in the court system for failing to protec the church from such actions.
As to LBJ's bill or rider or whatever prohibiting churches from participating in the political arena, there's 2 sides to that. As we've seen in this most recent election, religion can and does play a large role in politics. That law not only protects the candidates, but it also, to a certain extent, protects the voters. A church endorsement is a powerful tool. And if that tool were to be co-opted through means of corruption, mistake, etc., that could heavily influence an election.
Besides which, churches still can express their political opinions, just have to be careful of hot endorsing a particular candidate. Just today I was shown a phamphlet that all but screamed "VOTE FOR BUSH" on it.
Further still, would it really be all that bad if churches lost TE status? Just like a business would pass cost increases on to customers, they could always turn to the congregation for support.
This is the BIG STORY today, on Rush, and Drudge, and the rest of the Usual Suspects. And it is a carefully planned and carefully timed lie.
The story is timed for this afternoon so that it cannot be refuted until Monday.
This type of attack ignores the issues involved. It makes an assumption that cannot be proved (regarding the timing of the filing of the lawsuit). Either way, it is the facts that matter. The reality is that neither side has proven its case. You do not have evidence that the teacher lied. So your story is at least as biased as the first.
As your final paragraph mentions, the specifics given were that he could not give a handout because it mentions the founding fathers talking about religion. If new information were to show he was doing more than this, then I would re-evalutate. But I would want to know specifically how they think he was trying to prosyletize.
In fact, Cupertino public school principal Patricia Vidmar banned documents relating to God because the teacher had been forcing students to listen to what some felt was Christian propaganda, a media watchdog site reports. According to the site, the school had told him to stop but he did not comply, at which point the principal required that he submit his lesson plans to her in advance.
Statments like this can be just as loaded as the ones that said they were "banning" the Declaration of Independence. There are not clear examples given to refute his claim, just allegations that he was forcing kids to listen to Christian propoganda. In the week since the story came out, there has not been any evidence that this was the case beyond the fact that he was using documents that mentioned God.
If the evidence shows he did something wrong, then I agree it was not censorship. But the details given still suggest that it was censorhip.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa,
Coming from a *broken home*, I grew up wishing I had a "normal" family. I would have really liked to have been able to come home to a mother AND a father.
In reality, if my parents had stayed together, I would have come home to house filled with unhappy people resenting each other (and quite possibly me), filled not with love, but with loathing and hate. Instead, I had a home filled by a struggling single mother, who loved her children and gave them everything she could. And also had a father who, while not living in the home, still supported and loved his children, and provided for them best he could.
We didn't fit the paradigm. And maybe, in spite of the *odds*, my brother and I turned out pretty decent. I know that we had home environments better than some of the *traditional* nuclear families around us.
And some of those were just fine.
Point being, I don't think it matters so much what the arrangement is...what matters are the people invovled in the arrangement.
And here's the flip side to legislating marriage, based on the idea that husband/wife teams present the ideal child-rearing setting:
It's a step toward a time where having children can be legislated. If we proceed from the viewpoint that man/woman pairs are the ideal environment for child rearing, we're just a short hop away from ONLY allowing that arrangement to raise a child. Which means that a widowed father could lose his children if he doesn't marry soon enough after his wife's death.
It sounds far fetched, but this is the role of the responsible legislator. To try and see where legislation *may* take society. If it could be used for an end not intended by it's writers, then the law needs to be better written.
As to LBJ's bill or rider or whatever prohibiting churches from participating in the political arena, there's 2 sides to that. As we've seen in this most recent election, religion can and does play a large role in politics. That law not only protects the candidates, but it also, to a certain extent, protects the voters. A church endorsement is a powerful tool. And if that tool were to be co-opted through means of corruption, mistake, etc., that could heavily influence an election.
Besides which, churches still can express their political opinions, just have to be careful of hot endorsing a particular candidate. Just today I was shown a phamphlet that all but screamed "VOTE FOR BUSH" on it.
So you are saying that in some cases, censorship is permissible? That if you are religious organization, you have to limit your free speech in a way that others do not? If your point is true, then Labor Organizations and Unions should not endorse candidates. There is a far greater reason to fear corruption than with churches since there is a far more direct financial tie.
You see, that is the problem with the argument. It is solely based on a denial of the right to free speech for a religious group.
Further still, would it really be all that bad if churches lost TE status? Just like a business would pass cost increases on to customers, they could always turn to the congregation for support.
It would have an enormous impact. Would the church survive? Yes. But it would have an enormous impact on the many charitable works done by churches. The Salvation Army is more than just a charitable organization. It is a church. It is also, consistently recognized as being one of the most dependable organizations to actually send a high percentage of donations to the needy rather than just paying high salaries to leaders. It has a high degree of respect because it is very careful with the money given, a faithfulness that is based greatly in its religious convictions.
The list could go on. Churches play a vital role in society. And they do so in a way that does not produce a tangible product as do other businesses. Removing the tax exempt status would have a large impact on more than just the Christian church, it would impact synagogues, mosques, temples, and other places of worship. The state is not subsidizing churches to keep them open, but by not taxing them, they allow religious organizations to be use the maximum of what is given to provide services to the community.
Removing the tax exempt status from a church would ultimately hurt society because it would remove a lot of the infrastructure that exists. My church alone gives thousands of dollars a month to help those in our community who cannot pay rent or medical or electric bills. Who is going to cover those costs? For the vast majority of religious organizations, they are doing more than just meeting to worship. They are having a positive impact on the community. To remove the tax exempt status would be a very bad idea.
Jim in Iowa
We didn't fit the paradigm. And maybe, in spite of the *odds*, my brother and I turned out pretty decent. I know that we had home environments better than some of the *traditional* nuclear families around us.
I agree with your basic point. Which is why I would not want to go to the other extreme and legislate everything about a family. While divorce always does some harm, it can also be the lesser of two evils.
Point being, I don't think it matters so much what the arrangement is...what matters are the people invovled in the arrangement.
I would disagree on one level. IF you could choose between being raised by TWO parents who DO love each other and love you, would you not agree that is a better arrangement than being raised by your mom and with only a distant support from your dad? Most churches, such as mine, that opposes most divorces, also offer counseling and other means to help the family be a healthy place for the kids. And in many cases it does work. So a better alternative does exist, at least for some, than just getting divorced.
And here's the flip side to legislating marriage, based on the idea that husband/wife teams present the ideal child-rearing setting:
It's a step toward a time where having children can be legislated. If we proceed from the viewpoint that man/woman pairs are the ideal environment for child rearing, we're just a short hop away from ONLY allowing that arrangement to raise a child. Which means that a widowed father could lose his children if he doesn't marry soon enough after his wife's death.
I understand your point but disagree that it is a threat. There is over 3,000 years of recorded history where a widowed father has raised his kids. There is absolutely no desire on the part of conservatives to take the kids away from a single parent. But there is a desire to push for, wherever is healthy and possible, that a child be raised by a father and a mother. You can raise up an ideal while allowing for reality and understanding there can be exceptions.
Jim in Iowa
thats why i directed you to read the whole websites.
from the San Mateo County Times:
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2556644,00.html
The lawsuit alleges the school's principal Patricia Vidmar required Williams to submit his lesson plans and the supplemental handouts he planned to use in his classroom for review.
She then prevented Williams from giving students several handouts including:
- Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence with references to ``God,'' ``Creator,'' and ``Supreme Judge.''
- ``George Washington's Prayer Journal.''
- ``The Rights of the Colonists,'' by Samuel Adams, which includes passages excluding Roman Catholics from religious tolerance because of their ``doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.''
- George W. Bush's presidential 2004 Day of Prayer proclamation, with a supplemental handout on the history of the National Day of Prayer.
- Several excerpts from John Adam's diary, including the July 26, 1796 passage, ``Cloudy ... The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the black guard Paine say what he will; it is resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man.''
Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson of the Alliance Defense Fund, said the principal's policy is a violation of the teacher's First Amendment rights and is blatant censorship of the writings of great men because they mention God or Christianity.
It is a matter of history that the founders were ``men of deep religious faith,'' Thompson said. ``To hide this fact from young fifth grade students is shameful and outrageous. We're not founded by the Boston agnostic club.''
The Alliance Defense Fund includes more than 700 attorneys across the country and focus on legal issues supporting religious freedom, anti-abortion efforts and marriage between a man and woman only.
District officials would not comment on the lawsuit, saying only they received it and referred it to their attorneys.
Speaking from his home Wednesday, a school holiday, Williams said the problems started last year after he responded to a student who asked why the Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase, ``under God.''
from the blue lemur: Steve Williams needed to have his lesson plans approved because he was passing out materials about George Bush’s national day of prayer and articles like “what great leaders have said about the bible” Patty Vidmar had approved lessons about the origins of Thanksgiving and the history of religious celebrations, but when she drew the line at a lesson on Easter, which has no historical significance in US History, he found it necessary to sue, using the Declaration of Independence as his reason for being persecuted.
Though the other documents that were rejected seem innocuous enough, Vidmar had already received a complaint about Williams’ propensity for distributing religious materials, so one would expect that Vidmar would be especially sensitive to any exclusively Christian material presented in class. And remember, it was the lesson plan being evaluated and rejected, not the document… imagine the original Constitution’s 3/5 clause being used to support black slavery or the Declaration of Independence’s natural rights arguments being used to justify Palestinian terrorism in the hopes of gaining a Palestinian state…
I suggest it is not as ludicrous as you think. I agree that most of the population would vote against such an idea. But 50 years ago it would have been ludicrous to think that a man marrying a man would have been a legal option.
50 years ago we had the first amendment guaranteeing religious freedom. We have it today. We'll have it 50 years from now.
Fifty years ago it would have been ludicrous to think a church would not have the freedom of speech it had for 150 years to speak about specific candidates.
This past election we had bishops telling their flock that it was a sin to vote for Kerry. Some were even stating that he should be refused communion. What freedom t speak about specific candidates are you claiming that they have lost?
Jim, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. IF I had been given a choice, I surely would have chosen to have my parents stay in love and together. As not-first choices go, I think I did pretty well having 2 parents, separated, who loved and supported me. Better off than the kids who had drunken dads sleeping around on their wives and beating their kids.
Was I better off than the kids who had 2 loving parents? I dunno...they always seemed to have more toys than me...
"There is absolutely no desire on the part of conservatives to take the kids away from a single parent."
I'b be willing to say that this is true...today. And there's the biggest problem with proceeding with legislation in this direction. Because, as with most laws, it's not how that law is applied *today* that worries me. It's how it's going to evolve and be used in 20 or 30 years that worries me. Tomorrow's conservates (heck, or liberals) might take such a law and go the next step.
As to censorship in some cases being ok? I agree. I'd say that businesses, newspapers, corporations, unions, anything that is not a *person* shouldn't be allowed to make political endorsements. The potential for abuse I described in a church is, just as you suggest, even more present in non-religious organizations. Individuals have a hard enough time deciding which candidate to support. How can any organization, which represents hundreds or thousands of indivudals, distill all those opinions into a single endorsement?
This past election we had bishops telling their flock that it was a sin to vote for Kerry. Some were even stating that he should be refused communion. What freedom t speak about specific candidates are you claiming that they have lost?
And there were bishop talking about refusing communion to anyone what voted for any canidate that didn't say they were against abortion. That's more than an endorsement. That's outright strongarm tactics. "Do this or I'll personally make sure that you're damned."
This past election we had bishops telling their flock that it was a sin to vote for Kerry. Some were even stating that he should be refused communion. What freedom t speak about specific candidates are you claiming that they have lost?
You must not be aware that a church in 1992 that said voting for Clinton was a sin has lost its tax exempt status. It is appealing that ruling. Granted, this has not happened often. But it has happened.
Most churches know of this law and so they may hand out literature stating where the candidate stands on given issues, but they cannot say "vote for Bush" or "vote for Kerry."
Jim in Iowa
And there were bishop talking about refusing communion to anyone what voted for any canidate that didn't say they were against abortion. That's more than an endorsement. That's outright strongarm tactics. "Do this or I'll personally make sure that you're damned."
Exactly. When bishops are telling their flocks that they will need to go to confession if they vote for a certain candidate, I find it hard to believe that they don't have the freedom to speak about specific candidates.
Here are a few examples of censorship of free speech by churches both in Canada and in America:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39971
Jim in Iowa
Exactly. When bishops are telling their flocks that they will need to go to confession if they vote for a certain candidate, I find it hard to believe that they don't have the freedom to speak about specific candidates.
The fact that some defy the ban does not mean it does not exist.
Jim in Iowa
I'b be willing to say that this is true...today. And there's the biggest problem with proceeding with legislation in this direction. Because, as with most laws, it's not how that law is applied *today* that worries me. It's how it's going to evolve and be used in 20 or 30 years that worries me. Tomorrow's conservates (heck, or liberals) might take such a law and go the next step.
Ok, I understand your point. What is ironic, though, is that when I use a similar type of argument about the future effect of a law legalizing gay marriage, I am told I don't know what I am talking about. :-)
Jim in Iowa
Here is a link to info on the restrictions on churches. I only skimmed it, but it seemed to not be biased in its explanation of the rules. What it does make clear is there is currently a prohibition on churches from endorsing or opposing a given candidate. This is clearly a restriction on the free speech of a church.
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2004/804/infocus/p20.htm
Jim in Iowa
"Ok, I understand your point. What is ironic, though, is that when I use a similar type of argument about the future effect of a law legalizing gay marriage, I am told I don't know what I am talking about. :-)"
Oh, my, I hope that wasn't me.
One difference that I can think of is that the protections for religion are contained within the Constitution. There'd have to be a lawsuit/law trying to force a church to perform a gay marriage, or accept gay members. The Constitution *should* be an absolute protection against things like that. *Should*, but as you've demonstrated, failings in the legal system have and will allow such challenges to proceed.
Sexual preference is currently not a protected status under the anti-discrimination clauses of the Bill of Rights, so it currently lacks any Constitutional protection (last I checked, leastways).
So there *is* a slight difference in the positions, although it's more a matter of legal perception, and less a matter of common sense. You'd have to have more than the layman's understanding of precedent and legal evolotion to be able to see some of the distinctions.
But your point is well made. In the legal arena, anything, given enough time, is possible.
thats why i directed you to read the whole websites.
I did. I am interested to see what facts are actually proven to be true in this case to see whether or not it was censorship. For example, if he was trying to promote Easter, then I can see how that crossed the line. None of the other things mentioned would automatically do so. It all depends on how he is portrayed as presenting the given material.
My wife, my sister, and my sister-in-law have all taught in school. I don't take what the principal (or the teacher) says at face value until there is more documentation. Since the teacher is the one who initiated the lawsuit, that would suggest he thinks he has the documentation to prove his case. We will see.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
I read both your articles and if they are believed, the bans are essentially meaningless since even if a church cannot endorse a specific candidate, nothing restricts individual members of the clergy from speaking out for or against certain candidates, even when they are speaking in their official capacity.
The worldnet article even states that no church has ever lost its tax exempt status over these regulations, despite the that fact that numerous clergy are active in politics on both sides of the aisle.
Like the "school bans the Declaration of Indenpendence," all the hysteria over this issue looks like much ado about nothing.
Sexual preference is currently not a protected status under the anti-discrimination clauses of the Bill of Rights, so it currently lacks any Constitutional protection (last I checked, leastways).
I think you are write in regards to the Bill of Rights, but in practice, I thought this was now law (or federal code, executive order, whatever) that you could not discriminate in hiring practices based on sexual preference. So it has reached a place of protected status.
I don't have a problem with that, per se, in the workforce. But I do have a problem when it comes to forcing organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, to admit homosexual leaders, and of course for churches to hire someone who is actively gay. There should be some room for religious and similar organizations to determine criteria for their memebership. Currently, churches are protected. Groups like the Boy Scouts are another matter.
Jim in Iowa
I think you are write in regards to the Bill of Rights, but in practice, I thought this was now law (or federal code, executive order, whatever) that you could not discriminate in hiring practices based on sexual preference. So it has reached a place of protected status.
It is only in terms of hiring federal employees. There is no federal law or regulations banning descrimination by private employers based on sexual preference.
There should be some room for religious and similar organizations to determine criteria for their memebership. Currently, churches are protected. Groups like the Boy Scouts are another matter.
They are. The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts can exclude gays from being scout leaders. That was four years ago.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/
I read both your articles and if they are believed, the bans are essentially meaningless since even if a church cannot endorse a specific candidate, nothing restricts individual members of the clergy from speaking out for or against certain candidates, even when they are speaking in their official capacity.
The worldnet article even states that no church has ever lost its tax exempt status over these regulations, despite the that fact that numerous clergy are active in politics on both sides of the aisle.
What about the church who lost their status in 1992? I agree that it has been rare (2 cases), so far, but it has happened. That is a documented fact. Not sure why the article would say otherwise.
The CPA website says the following: "IRS regulations are clear that, while churches and parachurch organizations are restricted from endorsing or opposing a particular political candidate, they may educate about candidates’ viewpoints."
How is their being restricted from endorsing or opposing a candidate not a restriction on their free speech? If labor unions were under the same restriction, I am certain they would complain their free speech was restricted.
Jim in Iowa
Churches should ALL lose Tax-Exempt status, they're so deeply involved in politics anyway.
The taxes on the catholic church alone would probably end up covering a lot of the budget holes...
They are. The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts can exclude gays from being scout leaders. That was four years ago.
True. My point was that they are not protected by their being a church or religious organization. As I recall, the vote was 5-4. In other words, it is one vote away from being changed.
I did not know that it was only federal employees that could not be discriminated against. I know many companies put this into their policy (which is their right). So you are saying if a small business knows that an applicant is gay, they can legally discriminate and not give him (or her) a job?
Jim in Iowa
Churches should ALL lose Tax-Exempt status, they're so deeply involved in politics anyway.
The taxes on the catholic church alone would probably end up covering a lot of the budget holes...
Over 85% of the churches in America are less than 75 people in their actual attendance on a given Sunday. Most do not have the "big pockets" of the Catholic church. You would be causing a great hardship on the overwhelming majority of churches that exist in America.
I am not Catholic. But it is short sighted to not realize the large amount of good they have done over the history of this country. They have founded hospitals, cared for the needy, and been a source of help in times of emergencies.
Churches are not perfect, but they have often been the leaders in social reform in this country. Dr. Martin Luther King, and other black preachers, played a major role in the civil rights movement. Pastors of the 1800's led the revolt against slavery.
Whether you agree with religion or not, religious organizations from a variety of faiths have done much throughout our history.
Jim in Iowa
True. My point was that they are not protected by their being a church or religious organization. As I recall, the vote was 5-4. In other words, it is one vote away from being changed.
Given the current political trend in America and the kinds of justices the Bush is likely to appoint, I'd say Roe v. Wade is more likely to be overturned first.
I did not know that it was only federal employees that could not be discriminated against. I know many companies put this into their policy (which is their right). So you are saying if a small business knows that an applicant is gay, they can legally discriminate and not give him (or her) a job?
Yes. In fact that is exactly what happened in my city a few years ago. An accountant was fired from his firm after his employer learned that he had attended a pride rally.
eclark: I think if you're sitting around predicting outcomes instead of observing outcomes, you've left the world of science and are working for the "psychic friends network".
Luigi Novi: Which shows that you obviously do not understand what science is. Of course you observe outcomes. But you do so after hypothesizing what they’re going to be. This is why the theory of gravity is a confirmed fact. It makes correct predictions on movements of the planets.
Actually, I do, but it turns out that I'm also in a forum where the talk is about the paranormal. I happen to be the resident skeptic there and one of the topics right now is on "psychics".
That said, I don't want to get into another linguistics battle on what the meanining of "is" is. But I cringe at the use of the word "prediction" when in comes to its use in connection with science. Still, I guess its better than saying an "educated guess".
eclark1849 wrote...
But I cringe at the use of the word "prediction" when in comes to its use in connection with science.
I see what you're saying, but it's hard to come up with a better definition than "To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge."
Science would be the means of obtaining the "special knowledge" needed.
Churches should ALL lose Tax-Exempt status, they're so deeply involved in politics anyway.
I've never understood this type of reasoning, and it might just be that I come from a background where the churches played a important role in helping me and a lot of other blacks secure our civil rights. It was one of the few places where blacks were allowed to meet in any great number without reprisal until word of what was going on in the churches got back to those who disapproved.
The church is nothing more than a meeting place, but everybody in that church, synagoue, or mosque DOES pay taxes, and their rights shouldn't have to stop at the door.
Given the current political trend in America and the kinds of justices the Bush is likely to appoint, I'd say Roe v. Wade is more likely to be overturned first.
Interesting topic for another time. I am not sure it will actually happen, at least not in a true reversal where abortion is considered illegal. I could see the the "right to privacy" part struck down, and the matter being returned to the states for a vote. And recent polls show more than 50% want to keep abortion at least an option. Bottom line, while there is no doubt that the "status quo" might change, I am not sure it actually means abortion will return to being illegal. We will see what actually happens.
Jim in Iowa
This will probably shock you, Jim, but I agree that Roe v. Wade was improperly decided and is an improper application of the right to privacry, but, as you said, a topic for another day.
This will probably shock you, Jim, but I agree that Roe v. Wade was improperly decided and is an improper application of the right to privacry, but, as you said, a topic for another day.
I would admit I am surprised, but you have been consistent in your other arguments, so I am not shocked.
Jim in Iowa
Ok, here is a link that will probably confirm for some of you that most of the nation is "stupid." A Newsweek poll showed 79% believe in a literal virgin birth. While I believe in the virgin birth, I would never have said that I had that many who would agree with me. I would suggest this is not simply a matter of ignorance or stupidity, but a reflection that the majority of this country believe in a supernatural reality.
Here is the info from Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/
Jim in Iowa
So what?
I do a lot for my family but I can't claim tax-exempt status, why should they?
There's no good reason for churches to NOT pay taxes. They want to be part or America and American life? Then they should pay the same costs as the rest of us.
There's no good reason for churches to NOT pay taxes. They want to be part or America and American life? Then they should pay the same costs as the rest of us.
Pay taxes on what? Any "profit" made by a church for any unrelated business they engage in is taxed. Employees of the church are taxed. The main tax exemption is for property taxes and for donations given to the organization/church/synagogue/mosque/etc. This is the same as for any other charitable organization. The desire is to allow the maximum amount of the donation to go to the work of the organization. It would be absurd to tax donations to the Red Cross so that disaster victims get less. Churches offer free services to the community, and by not taxing the donations, it allows the church to spend the money on the community. While the "need" is not as obvious as a disaster victim, the help it brings is no less important.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, I hope you're still reading this, as I've just finished reading the long thread and there are several points you make that I would like to discuss with you.
It was mentioned more because, like today, it is a larger problem. I did not brush aside what you said about adultery. I did say that divorce happens for a lot more reasons than just adultery, so I consider no-fault divorce to actually be the larger problem. And I *would* be in favor of some changes to this law. Except for adultery and abuse, divorce should be more difficult and be seen as more of a problem.
First of all, I agree that the rate of divorce is a thing of concern. I think that the most comon cause for divorce is the existence of divorce. If it weren't so easy to break the union, I'm sure a lot of people would think a lot harder about entering into it. However, there are a few places where I disagree with your evaluation of the situation.
My opposition to gay marriage is based on an informed conviction that gay marriage does harm to society. You disagree that it does so, but that is beside the point. That is my conviction. It does harm at a fundamental level that is different than just sexual acts outside of marriage. It does harm to the very heart of marriage itself.
You state elsewhere that this is your informed opinion. But I have yet to see a single argument about how gay marriage does harm at a undamental level. Either to socierty or to marriage itself.
Gay marriage is a different animal than adultery. It IS possible for adultery to be made legally legitimate. For example, if a judge were to rule that adultery was NOT a justifiable grounds for divorce, it would be making it legitimate. That is what is happening with gay marriage. It is taking a private act and making it something with legal standing.
OK, you're saying that the fact that adultery is a justifiable ground for divorce is the one thing that's keeping it from being legally legitimate? In that case a sexual disfunction is legally ilegitimate?
I make the distinction because I have seen marriages pulled apart simply because a spouse decides, I don't love him (or her) anymore." There are a lot more reasons for divorce than just adultery. Furthermore, I have seen marriages survive adultery and actually become better. Adultery does not have to mean the end of a marriage provided the guilty party actually changes his (or her) ways.
So is it your position that it's preferable for a couple who doesn't love each other anymroe remain unhapily married, beign miserable and providing a hostile enviroment for their children than being divorced and maybe finding happiness, just because the only reason for divorce is that lack of love?
No, it would not. If gay marriage did become law, it might end up being a good idea to protect churches from the lawsuits that I know will come when they refuse to accept or conduct gay marriages.
You keep stating that passing a law to allow gay marriage will put pressure on churchs to marry gay people. This is simply not true. We need to diferentiate between the legal act of mariage, which is the purview of the state, and which is what would be affected by such a law and the religious ceremonies of marriage which, as others have mentioned before, already eclude on a lot of reasons (starting with being of the faith of the church). Are there many law-suits from atheist whom churches are refusing to marry? Because if there aren't I don't see much reason to expect this will change.
But my opposition comes from more than just a theological standpoint. From a sociological viewpoint I think gay unions will undermine the value and culture of the family.
How? I keep hearing this a lot yet I have yet to hear an actual argument of how this would happen. Redefining who could vote (be it women or african-americans) did not undermine the people who could already vote. Sure, it made them afraid because they were losing power (which was used for repression), and that is what I see as the true basis for all the "undermining" arguments. If I decide to get married to a guy it will in no way, shape or form, undermine your marriage to your wife. If I were gay, I wouldn't go marrying a woman anyway, so it's not like it's affecting ANY potential man-woman marriage.
Let me add this: If over 50% of the nation voted for this to be made the law, I would accept it as law (as long as it did not require my church or my pastors to accept or perform gay marriages within our church). But if this is simply the act of an activist court, I would oppose it. The reality is, as this debate has shown, this issue deals with far more than gay marriage. It deals fundamentally with the concept of what is right and wrong, and with the concept of the role of the church and the state. There are enormous changes being made that are NOT based on democracy but on a minority forcing their will on the majority. That will only cause a deeping of what has been called the "culture wars."
I might be way off-base here. But doesnt' the above pretty much describe the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Right's movement, and so on? In every case of revolutions which we aknowledge as a good thing, the majority WAS against it at the time.
What would Jesus do today with someone who is gay? The same thing he did then: He would love the person but would not hesitate to tell them to quit sinning. If you disagree, show me just one example where Jesus did not deal with sin and a sinner in this manner. If we are using Jesus as our example, then lets be honest about how he actually is recorded as acting. Otherwise, you are equally making him into what you want him to be as you accused the other writers of scripture of having done.
Mechants in the temple?
Marriage is not simply an arrangement created by the government. It came about naturally. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, either view would support the idea that marriage, meaning a commitment between the biological father and mother to raise a child, has existed long before any religion or government chose to "bless" such an arrangement.
That is incorrect. The idea of marriage, or even of tying one woman to one man came about with the advent of private property. Before that the tribes lived all comunaly, and no one knew who the father of anyone was (thy obviously knew who the mother was). That is pretty much the natural state of man. Just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Once private property was established however, men wanted to be sure that theiy would be passing it on to their offspring, not someone else's, hence the idea of a "nuclear" family. to keep track of private property.
Gay marriage would change the importance of traditional marriage.
How? What about traditional marriage ties it's value intrinsically to the fact that gay people can not get married? Why does the legitimacy of the institution lie in an exclusion? Im my view the importance of marriage lies in what it IS, what it entails, not what it isn't.
I do have a secondary reason for my opposition. It is clear that there is a larger agenda behind the desire to make it legal. I believe it is meant by some to force churches to accept homosexuality.
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea how you get from point A to point B. As I stated before, any law concerning gay marriage will only affect civil marriages, carried out by the state. This has absolutely nothing to do with churches. I honestly want to know how you arrive at that conclussion, since I don't see it.
I would disagree. The concept of monogamy has been around for a long time. It has been practiced for quite a while. The fact that some also had multiple wives does not mean there were not also some with just one wife. Most could not afford multiple wives.
How is that an argument to support monogamy as what is right? Basiccally what that says is that the only reason those people were monogamous was because they couldn't afford other wives, not becasue they didn't want one.
Den,
normally I would ask you over on AIM, but since this computer doesn't have it, hope you read this:
Why don't you think that Roe v Wade is a good application of privacy Law?
Well Al, I'm not an attorney, but the US Constitutional right of privacy is based in the 4th amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches of their person or property. The decision in Roe v. Wade extended this right to state that banning abortion violated a woman's right to privacy. I don't see it supported in the language of the amendment. A more solid legal argument would be under the equal protection clause.
Okay, So can't we just say that Evolution is the process by which we were created, I mean doesn't it make sense that an omniscient Supreme Being would create life that has the capability to adapt and change? Why does everything always have to be a literal biblical explanation?
A few posters have mentioned left-handed people.
My mother is left-handed and she grew in the
thirties. A boneheaded teacher crushed her by
trying to "cure" her of being left-handed. It's not too different from what society does to gay
and lesbian people today. People like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and that idiot legislator in Alabama are just bigots and bullies. They twist selected scripture passages to their own ends. You just can't deal with the fact that you hate people for being who God made them to be>
Jim in Iowa: "I would disagree on one level. IF you could choose between being raised by TWO parents who DO love each other and love you, would you not agree that is a better arrangement than being raised by your mom and with only a distant support from your dad?"
Ok, Jim, I'll bite, if those "TWO parents who Do love each other and love [the child]" just happened to be two men or two women, exactly what is the problem?
You can argue that one man/one woman might be the ideal situation for raising a child, but I think that having a child raised in any loving and caring enviornment (be it one man/one woman, two men or two women, or single parents, or even being raised by extended family) where they're nurtured and raised to be a loving and caring person is the ideal situation.
I agree with Den. The Roe opinion reached the political settlement that I would have chosen, but it did a very poor job of explaining how the heck you get to that settlement from a right to privacy. It basically boiled down to "the woman's right to privacy and the state's right to protect future life are both important, so there has to be a balance and here's the line we're drawing." The opinion begins by acknowledging that there is no explicit right to privacy within the Constitution. However, because there are several provisions in the Constitution that would be consistent with a privacy right, the opinion concludes that there must be some privacy right in whose penumbra the enumerated rights exist. This is a common law rationale applied to a statutory scheme (i.e. the Constitution) or, as they say in philosophy circles, a category mistake.
It doesn't help that the proposed privacy right emanates from the Due Process Clause. The chimera of "substantive due process" (yes, substantive process) is an artifact of a nineteenth-century case from which the Supreme Court has been retreating for decades without being willing to overrule; the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to be almost empty of meaning, but the rights that most observers would believe to be privileges of immunities of US citizens have been snuck through the back door of the Due Process Clause. To reiterate, this has not been helpful.
In short, Roe was a poorly written and badly reasoned opinion that set national abortion policy by Supreme Court fiat. The unimportant fact that I like the political settlement that Justice Blackmun shoved down all our throats doesn't make the opinion itself any less of a train wreck. The fact that I would like there to be a right to privacy in the Constitution doesn't help Blackmun's logic escape inanity. I wrote earlier that there are no major cases in which any statute has been struck down as violative of the Ninth Amendment. This could have been the one. The US District Court in Roe actually tried that tack, but the Supreme Court veered away from it. Had they tried to write a principled defense of a right to privacy based in the Ninth Amendment, the Court would have had my respect and possibly my backing; there would still be debates, but at least it would escape the appearance of being naked result-oriented judicial lawmaking, because at least the Ninth Amendment seems to invite some degree of judicial lawmaking if done respectfully and carefully. This form of weaselry has neither my respect nor my support.
What would Jesus do today with someone who is gay? The same thing he did then: He would love the person but would not hesitate to tell them to quit sinning. If you disagree, show me just one example where Jesus did not deal with sin and a sinner in this manner. If we are using Jesus as our example, then lets be honest about how he actually is recorded as acting. Otherwise, you are equally making him into what you want him to be as you accused the other writers of scripture of having done.
Mechants in the temple?
I think his righteous anger in that situation was justified. Furthermore, it was NOT a sinner coming to him. It was him coming upon sinners who were harming others and he took action to stop it. Good example, but I would argue a far different context. (If Jesus came across someone harming a child, he would not have just politely said "stop it." He would have taken action. There is a difference when you come across sin against another person "in the act.")
Marriage is not simply an arrangement created by the government. It came about naturally. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, either view would support the idea that marriage, meaning a commitment between the biological father and mother to raise a child, has existed long before any religion or government chose to "bless" such an arrangement.
That is incorrect. The idea of marriage, or even of tying one woman to one man came about with the advent of private property. Before that the tribes lived all comunaly, and no one knew who the father of anyone was (thy obviously knew who the mother was). That is pretty much the natural state of man. Just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Once private property was established however, men wanted to be sure that theiy would be passing it on to their offspring, not someone else's, hence the idea of a "nuclear" family. to keep track of private property.
Just where, exactly, do you get the idea that we lived communally as you describe? I know it has been suggested, but it is by no means proven. On the contrary, marriage arrangements are attested to quite early in history. But this will lead to a long debate about evolution, and that has already been done ad naseum on this site.
In regards to your other comments, I have given what I feel are very real and legitimate reasons why gay marriage is destructive. We will have to just disagree since you don't think they have merit. I won't just rehearse them over again since they have not changed and I have not seen anything to convince me my reasons are wrong.
Jim in Iowa
Gene Hall,
I'm glad you brought this topic up. I always noticed my father has pretty lousy penmanship. Then I noticed he wrote with his right hand instead of his left, and he told me the reason was that the NUNS at the Catholic school he went to felt that being left-handed was not "normal". So if he tried to write with his left hand, he would be whacked across the knuckles with a ruler. Needless to say, he "learned" to write with his right hand.
This was quite common.
So I know firsthand how inane organized religion can appear to be.
And I still say all this time, effort, energy and political capital being spent on gay marriage could be spent on many other liberal causes, like saving the rainforest, ending the drug war, etc.
You're like the Kingpin in the "Born Again" storyline. You've won. Homosexuals are all over the tube. AIDS research has been increased tremendously. Even president Bush aproves of civil unions, and many cities and corporations extend benefits to gay couples as they do heterosexual couples.
But you're obsessed with defining it as gay "marriage", common sense, patience and the will of the people be damned. And you have already incurred a backlash, and will consider to do so for the forseeable future.
Yet you don't see
A.) What you already have
B.) What you are risking losing.
Believe me when I say this. I have gay friends. ot one of them is as obsesses about it as some of the people on this board. They're happy.
I live within this man's district and went to high school with two of his children.
It's quite unfortunate for me to have a "representative" who would go to such lengths to censor material.
I am saddened and disgusted by Mr. Allen's actions.
They're happy.
Yet they don't necessarily have the benefits in teh example you described, nor the ability to marry (in 49 out of 50 states).
I have to wonder whether you just assume they are happy, because your gay friends certainly don't speak for all gays.
Even president Bush aproves of civil unions
He SAYS he does. You'll forgive me if I have some serious doubts in that regard, given that he's publicly supported schools which frown on INTERRACIAL relationships, let alone same-sex ones.
I'll believe he's being truthful when he takes some actual actions in support of civil unions -- he's said an awful lot of things which wind up disappearing when push comes to shove.
(Jim and others, I'll try to post some sort of responses to things you said earlier in the thread sometime, but this is a crazy week at school --it may not happen for a while.)
TWL
To say Bush supports civil unions is not accurate. What he has said is that states could have the right to recognize civil unions for gays (but not marriage), so long as other states weren't forced to recognized them.
In regards to your other comments, I have given what I feel are very real and legitimate reasons why gay marriage is destructive. We will have to just disagree since you don't think they have merit. I won't just rehearse them over again since they have not changed and I have not seen anything to convince me my reasons are wrong.
I've been lurking on PAD's site for quite some time now, Jim, and I've yet to see you provide a single argument against gay marriage that wasn't entirely rooted in your personal religious convictions. And personal religious conviction is, unfortunately for you, totally irrelevant and inadmissible in any debate. You want to prove that gay marriage can and does have a detrimental impact on society? Then actually do it. Come up with some solid evidence that actually supports your hypothesis. Give us cold hard FACTS, not arbitrary faith. Give us statistics, psychological studies, documented cases where gay marriage has somehow "hurt" society.
Your faith clearly means alot to you, but faith means absolutely jack squat in a debate like this.
(Jim and others, I'll try to post some sort of responses to things you said earlier in the thread sometime, but this is a crazy week at school --it may not happen for a while.)
You mean some of you have a real life and don't just sit in front of your computer all day? ;-)
No problem. You probably are doing something that will help you more in life than just debating on this thread.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
Mechants in the temple?
I think his righteous anger in that situation was justified. Furthermore, it was NOT a sinner coming to him. It was him coming upon sinners who were harming others and he took action to stop it. Good example, but I would argue a far different context. (If Jesus came across someone harming a child, he would not have just politely said "stop it." He would have taken action. There is a difference when you come across sin against another person "in the act.")
So if he came across to gay men kissing he would go and break that up? Just to clarify, I'm not saying Jesus would bash gays. I don't think he would. Just providing the example you asked for.
Just where, exactly, do you get the idea that we lived communally as you describe? I know it has been suggested, but it is by no means proven. On the contrary, marriage arrangements are attested to quite early in history. But this will lead to a long debate about evolution, and that has already been done ad naseum on this site.
You are right, that statement is based on evolution (and anthropology). Of course, if you beleive we came into being in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were basically married, then we can't really discuss it as we're parting from two different premises.
In regards to your other comments, I have given what I feel are very real and legitimate reasons why gay marriage is destructive. We will have to just disagree since you don't think they have merit. I won't just rehearse them over again since they have not changed and I have not seen anything to convince me my reasons are wrong.
You really haven't. Nor have I said they're without merit, "defend them!" You have repeatedly stated that gay marriage would undermine regular marriage without ever once stating why that is. I just asked you in what way gay marriage would accomplish this. I'm not even trying to convince you your reasons are wrong since you have yet to give the reason.
There was also the part about adultery being legally not legitimized because it's grounds for divorce. Or the point where I ask you if you think it's better to have a loveless marriage just so the institution is preserved? (something that would most certainly create a harmful enviroment for the kid). You have not answered any of these, and if you have please just point me to where you did, because I'm geninuely interested in reading them.
There are a few things I wanted to write at the end of the last post, but due to it's legth I forgot. First, while we might disagree on pretty much every single point 8but not all), I find you to be an intelligent person who can argue in an articulate and respecful manner, which is why I'm trying to start a dialogue with you (as opposed to responding to the trolls or just those who will jsut shout their opinion and not hear any arguments).
Also, while I'm usualyl confident in my english, when engaging in deeper debate I do feel a little insecure sometimes, fearing I can't get my points across as clearly as I would like. So I apologize for any mistakes caused due to my grasp of your language.
WOW! I go away for a few days and look at it. WHEEEEEE! O.K. Let's answer some stuff.
JiminIowa "Let me put it this way. Your example can be true of a single parent, of two parents of the same gender, or in a "traditional" marriage. The parenting arrangement alone does not guarantee that the parents will raise the child with love and respect. On the other hand, I do suggest that does not mean we should not strive for what is clearly best for the child, which is a loving mother AND father raising a child."
PROVE that it's what's best for the child Jim. Give me statistics and facts and figures not just your belief. PROVE it. In your own sentence, you actually contradict yourself IMO,"The parenting arrangement ALONE DOES NOT GUARANTEE that the parents will raise the child with love and respect," but yet, you want us to judge it as being right BECAUSE it's supposed too?
Most would say that the children would get teased about having a same sex parentage and they're just trying to protect the children. BULL. Let's face it, kids are cruel because they haven't learned the social "norm" yet. They tease kids for being fat, wearing glasses, being poor and not having a Mother/Father.. They're going to be teased about something, NO MATTER WHAT. A good parent can help their child through that and help them deal with it. And in ALL actuality, if kids didn't learn fear and hatred from their own family, this might not happen either. I agree that kids ARE the future, so why don't we help teach them tolerance NOW? Wait...that would probably eliminate the argument against it, my bad.
"Pay taxes on what? Any "profit" made by a church for any unrelated business they engage in is taxed. Employees of the church are taxed. The main tax exemption is for property taxes and for donations given to the organization/church/synagogue/mosque/etc."
And NONE of those charities (as a whole) have endorsed any candidate now, have they? For a church to be able to back a candidate, they would have to be expressing an opinion, a right that is granted to the citizens of the United States. Those are people that pay taxes and have Social security cards so they can get benefits from said taxes. Meaning the church, to be a legal person in the eyes of the system, would have to pay taxes. If you want a church to be able to support legislature and candidates then they need to pay taxes for that right. Business do it and they are a LEGAL entity becasue of it. Sorry. It's just the right thing to do. Go to it!
"What would Jesus do today with someone who is gay?"
has said about homosexuality....wait...here...no wait, I'm sorry, I can't find it because Jesus DIDN'T say anything. Never has.
"A few posters have mentioned left-handed people."
O.K. let me clear what I meant when I posted it. Apparently, I didn't make it clear and I apologize for that. If you look at what I wrote, it said basically, If you're using NATURE to mean the MAJORITY (as in, it's not natural because MOST people don't do it) then neither is being left-handed.
Not saying that being left handed is against any notions in reality but just using peoples own arguments against them.
eclark "The church is nothing more than a meeting place, but everybody in that church, synagogue, or mosque DOES pay taxes, and their rights shouldn't have to stop at the door."
So, you're willing to deny people the ability to have a civil union by law and deny them their rights, but you don't want the same thing done to you?
Again, their rights SHOULD stop at the door of the church because the church doesn't pay taxes. I explained the reasoning earlier in this post.
If you want to go with the taxes thing, let's go with this:
1.)Homosexual pay taxes that are used to send other peoples kids to schools. Kids they cannot adopt in states because they frown on single parents adopting a child and they can't have a "civil union" because it is not recognized, so they can't have a child that way. WHY should they pay taxes that support the schools?
I can hear it now:"Becuase they used tax dollars to go to school themselves."
O.K. fine, but they only went to school for what, 12 years? So does that mean they can stop paying by the time they're thirty? I think that's fair.(I ALSO think this is fair for straight people too. Pay taxes on schools for the amount of years you went.)
2.)Gay people cannot be in the armed services openly. So, why pay taxes to support the armed forces?
"Because they protect the homosexuals too."
Not if they can't be gay and open about it. What are they protecting for homosexuals? I worked on the Navy base in Great Lakes as a DJ, BELIEVE me, you should be thankful that the "don't ask don't tell" policy is in place. Just about, if not half the people I met there were gay or bisexual. And AFTER 9/11 the ones that went AWOL were usually straight kids.
Just looking for answers,
Larry
If two parents are better than one (which USUALLY [but not always] they are), then why does the gender of the two matter? Or for that matter, why not three or four? Ultimately, if all spouses know each other and agree to the arrangement, then 4 or 6 parents would be 2 or 3 times better than just 2!
Who is the "you" in the title?
I bloody hate that.
I think there's some deliberate confusion of conservatives with fascists, but I'll never know.
I know that I'm not banning books in Alabama or refusing to fund or procure books in Alabama, but I am sure that if I were asked to fund or procure books in Alabama I damn well wouldn't, because I live in Michigan.
That's not censorship.
End Communication.