Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Not as simple as that stuart and I would refer back to my earlier post:


The notion of a referendum on each and every law is completely unworkable for so many reasons but perhaps best illustrated by a few movies that have actually used this concept to great comedic effect.

Some issues need far more considered thought than a simple telephone poll and judgements need to be based on having access to detailed and informed opinions too.

Yes the Will of the majority is a factor but it should never be the only factor. This is a point you yourself will find comforting should you ever find yourself as part of a minority group at some time.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well, there is someone on this forum (who shall remain nameless as I don`t want to drag them in), who disagreed with one of my arguments in a different thread on a religious topic. They got a green rep point from me as I considered their comeback argument to be bang on the money in terms of a logical attack on the comment I was making. I think that demonstrates the fact that I can respect someone who has a viewpoint that is different to my own.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Why don`t you actually read other people's posts before replying? It was never said that you will end up on welfare. The sad fact is that many people plan on working, but it doesn`t guarantee that there will be jobs out there for them, and there is no guarantee these days that you will be in gainful employment for the entirety of your working life.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I am not sugesting that every rule ect is decided in this way.... I am talking about voting on major isues that afect the country...

Normal everyday things will still be handled by MP's .................

In any case if there was to be a poll I am sure that all the arguments and fact would be presented to the public first...

Rememeber - This is not the governments country - It bellongs to the people that live here...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So your idea of freedom is to deny minorities from voting or marriage. Oh well, Orthodox Christians wanting freedom can move to the US and the homosexuals/unemployed can move to Europe.

Democracy is both a curse and a blessing, unfair for minorities etc. That's why the US formed the constitution, but it seems it isn't working.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Is it possible to please all of the people all of the time ???

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So let's see, you'd like to see the following people discounted from voting.

1) People on disability allowance who are unable to work
2) People who may have worked most of their life (and contributed more to their country than you) who suddenly find themselves out of work through no fault of their own and having to rely on benefits
3) The elderly who draw state pensions (after all, now they've worked all their life what rights should you rednecks let them have?)
4) People actively seeking work but are unable to find anything
5) Students (a lot of them claim housing benefit)
6) People with a few children that claim family allowance

the lists goes on, the main thing they have in common is that they all claim some form of "welfare" payment from the state, the other common denominator is that they all have a RIGHT to vote.

You're beginning to paint a rather unrosey picture of yourself.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No but to deliberately deny a minority something for no good reason is bigotry.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Maybe you should make a spin-off thread

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Beginning? I think he has got to the point where is is waiting for the signature to dry while picking out a frame.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:rofl:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You're probably right ...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Conditions 2 and 4 I have a problem with. There is always work is there not? You can walk into McD's and start work tomorrow (as I have done in the past to avoid going on the dole) The problem is that certain people don't want to do certain jobs. But we digress.....sorry :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

edit: moved to separate thread before I derail this thread

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But if you are close to retirement age there is always the risk that they won`t take you on. Things are slowly getting better but there is still a fair amount of discrimination against older people in this country. Another possibility is that they have had to leave work to become a carer.

I can see where you are coming from, but I think there are shades of grey in respect to conditions 2 and 4.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:erm: I suggest you spend some time in a jobcentre

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I used to spend a lot of time in the jobcentre (and reading the papers), trying to find less cr*ppy jobs than the ones I was in.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Actually people *have* provided reasons, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge them.

Whether you call it marriage or civil union or some other term, gays do *NOT* have the same rights as married couples.

If two people have been living together for their entire lives, if they are not married and one partner dies without having made a will, the other partner has *NO* right to inherit *ANYTHING* from their partner. This can result in them being forced out of their home, or, if the partner was supporting them, being made destitute.

If one dies, even if they *have* made a will, the other does *NOT* have a right to part of the deceased partner's pension.

If one partner is taken into hospital, the other has *NO* right to be consulted on what should happen to them as "Next of kin".

These are just a few examples of the way that gays are discriminated against because they cannot form a legally binding union.

And why should gay marraiges/ unions/ whatever *only* be allowed if they are of *benefit* to society? You have this completely backwards, laws should only be passed *forbidding* something if it is of *detriment* to society.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I could have swarn a couple of months or so ago Jerrek was actually pro-gay... I even got the impression he was bisexual

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Just a thought, if you have redundancy insurance on your mortgage and other loans, what happens to the payments if you take a low paid job at McD's?
Do the insurance companies still cover your payments or do they say "ah! you're working so no payments for you!"

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think he became a born again redne..errr Christian.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Oh BTW Graham was the red reps to make me come back and fight you?

:zzz:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I almost red repped you for the earlier ones myself and have actually done so this time as IMHO your post this time deserves it on many levels.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That's your perogative Sociable.
:)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Wibble f'tang, trimple packet of blue pants.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Not had a chance to read through all the thread yet but wanted to say in my experience those people who are majorly anti something are usually trying to deny feelings they hold themselves.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You ok Russ?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Fine thanks, I just thought this debate was getting a little heated so I went for some diverting tactics.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well that's pretty decent of you considering,all in all,that you get more than your fair share of flak in these debates.

Incog. :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So you are saying that I'm gay? :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes, and as I've iterated before, being gay, straight, or bisexual does not automatically form an opinion regarding gay marriage. There are many gays opposed to gay marriage, just like there are many straight people pro-gay marriage.

I dare you to go into a gay bar and ask the people there if they want gay marriage legalized. I think you'd be surprised.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Which, if true, would tend to support a contention that gays are like any other group of people, individuals with individual opinions.

Therefore discriminating against them on the basis of the gender composition of their partnerships is even less logical.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

They're not being discriminated against. They have the same legal rights as heterosexuals: They can marry any woman of their choice. Same status before the law. Equality.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But they want to marry the person they love, and the law gets in the way of that.

What about multiple wives or husbands?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think you're misunderstanding a key point here, Jerrek. An individual gay person has the same rights as an individual heterosexual person. A gay couple, on the other hand, do NOT have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This is the fundamental issue.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ah thats different. Now you enter the world of opinion. And it is my personal opinion that marriage is for a man and a woman.

The law does not guarantee you the right to marry btw.

No I would not support that, neither would I support marriages to dogs, animals, children, or inanimate objects.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

My best buddy and I do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple either, and we don't complain.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So they should have access to some sort of legal framework that gives them the same legal rights as a married couple, but not marriage.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Unless you and your best buddy are planning to pair for life and live together for your mutual comfort and benefit, and want your community to recognise this union, I don't think this is a valid point. If you are planning to live together in this way, I salute your union and wish you the best of luck.

If it confers the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple, then it is starting to look very much like marriage, under the 'quacks like a duck' principle. The exact terminology is fairly marginal to the argument though.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I disagree. The main thrust of this thread imo, is to keep the marriage ceremony for hetrosexual religious types. It isn't against homosexuals being legally recognised as 'married', for want of a better word, in the eyes of the law and the government. Or have I missed something here? (it's entirely possible :D )
btw....I like the 'quacks like a duck bit', that gave me a chuckle :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Answered via PM.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ahem!

Quoting from the European Convention on Human Rights:

In Europe the law *DOES* guarantee the right to marry. Just because the law in *your* home town doesn't (surprisingly!) mean that it holds true *everywhere*!

Also, on a strictly technical reading of the above, it only says that "men and women... have the right to marry" it doesn't say anything about the genders of the parties involved!

Please try to understand the distinction between *consenting adults* and "dogs, animals (aren't dogs animals?!), children or inanimate objects"

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I've kept out of this so far, but this comment just made me laugh for so long I thought it was worth bumping up to the front of the thread again! :LOL: :LOL: :rofl: :rofl:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You don't believe in evolution then Jerrek ?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Is that aimed at me ??? :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Presumably carbon dating is a fallacy, Darwin's theory of evolution is nonsense, dinosaurs did not exist.

Jerrek all the Christians I know regard the Bible as metaphor, I haven't met anyone who considers it the absolute truth. You are entitled to your beliefs of course but to base a rational argument on the book of Genesis is very dangerous territory.

My belief for what its' worth is that Christianity etc. are the latest version of the human race comfort blanket that there is some kind of existence after death and it's going to be a wonderful one if one is virtuous. Greeks and Romans had their theories, now regarded as the myths of Greece and Rome, Christianity will be the same story eventually or will be replaced by a more relevant at the time theory.

That's outside of this thread though, but thought I should explain why it's hard to believe that comment regarding Genesis.

Religion: both an opium to the masses and a way of setting behaviour standards, and sadly at its' worst a way to justify the most horrifying atrocities in the name of a deity.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Absolutely not. People are always asking about the missing link, but I'm asking, where is the damn chain!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The fact that you can get readings from the same rock ranging from 100 years to 1 billion years indicate just how inaccurate it is.

Yes. Note the word theory, meaning, it has never been proven.

How do you get that?

Then you have not met any real Christians.

Why? Does my religion offend you? Do you feel threatened that I base decisions on my religion? Is freedom of religion too much for you?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I'm busy so someone else can find links, but the chain is there right from when our forebears were rodents scrambling around during the Jurassic period through progression to primates, homo erectus, and finally homo sapien.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Prove it.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No-one has ever said dinosaurs didn't exist. They're mentioned in the Bible.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Indeed they are. In the book of Job especially, the oldest book in the Bible.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The fossils say 65 million years ago though, not a few thousand.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Can anyone confirm men are still stuck in the homo erectus stage :rolleyes:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as fact, even by various parts of the Christian church.

Dinosaurs existed well before humans were humans, had we co-existed at the same time, they'd have eaten Adam and Eve pretty rapidly!

I have met many Christians who know that true faith lies inside the heart not in believing word for word a book.

Your religion doesn't offend me in the slightest, nor do your beliefs. The fact you base decisions on it concern me, spirituality and rationality are not good partners and don't co-exist too well a lot of the time.

Sadly this avenue of this debate has been completely closed off by that statement though, while I don't agree with your beliefs I do respect them and aren't going to continue this. I do hope though that in the future you have a more questioning attitude over blind faith - the most interesting Christians I know can present both persuasive and scientific reasons for the existence of their deity.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

*Checks*

Nope I'm not even close to erectus sorry :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I'm glad he said that, it saved me from having to do it...!! :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Which parts would that be? Can you provide any links?

Just out of interest.... http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Carbon dating is not used for dating rocks.

http://www.awitness.org/bible_commen...on_dating.html

Scientific theories are never *proven*, they are simply the most "refined" version which is currently available with the present state of knowledge and tools that can be used to test them.

Newton came up with a theory of gravity that worked perfectly well until Einstein came along with relativity. This does *not*, however mean that Newton was wrong.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node8.html

Why does this sound like Ali G saying "Is it 'cos I's black"?

Just as he inappropriately "played the race card", so you are inappropriately playing the religion card. What JustAnotherN00b said has *nothing* to do with being "offended" by your religion, nor that he feels "threatened" by it. It most *certainly* doesn't say anything about denying freedom of religion!

What it *does* say is that any rational person will *not* base an argument on a single source of information, but will check and corroborate it with other sources and test it against known or knowable facts to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

This is, in a nutshell, the *scientific* process whereby theories are tested and validated, something which is an *on going* process as new research techniques and ideas are developed.

Anyone who stands up and says "I have discovered the final, absolute and unadulterated truth" is just asking to be laughed at.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Oh deary me, are people *still* shooting at a totally discredited target?!

Quoting from "The Science of Discworld":

"The question is often asked in the form 'What use is half an eye?', to which you are expected to conclude 'nothing', followed by a rapid conversion to some religion or other. 'Nothing' is a reasonable answer -- but to the wrong question"

The fact of the matter is that the question should be *can* an eye develop to its current form from basic principles? And the answer to that is *yes*.

A study of eye-like structures will show anyone who has an open mind that an eye can evolve from a basic light sensitive patch to a fully functioning optical structure by simple changes.

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

Unfortunately those who want to deny evolution work this backwards by looking at the *finished* product and saying "but if we removed *this* bit it wouldn't work!" which makes as much sense as saying "This cathedral *must* have been created by God and couldn't have 'evolved' from the design of a mud hut, because if we took out *this* pillar the whole thing would fall down!"

See http://www.2think.org/eye_response.shtml for some more interesting stuff...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Then shoot away. :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I wonder if the Greeks and Romans had the same sorts of discussions about their mythologies when they were abandoning them, probably did :) Christianity is our modern equivalent.

Still on the other hand I guess it still helps comfort those who otherwise would fear dying, we are after all the only race apart from Dolphins that as far as we know has enough temporal lobe development to be able to contemplate our own death and be aware of our mortality. That's what it all comes down to really though isn't it? Believing in something to try and console oneself that when you shed off the mortal coil there's something else waiting for you. FWIW I believe that, though not in the Christian sense. I'd bet the Greeks and Romans had equally persuasive arguments and proof of the existence of Jupiter/Zeus.

Wonder what the Dolphins' religion is, maybe they are strong enough to pull themselves through life without requiring the crutch of prayer, a higher purpose, a higher power, nor convincing themselves that they are immortal.

Either way this argument has hit an empass now, as most do as soon as religion is brought into the equation. Usually religion starts arguments (and wars) rather than close them.

Jerrek - your irrational hiding behind a blind faith, your inconsistent, inflexible and inconsiderate views of the world around you, and your facist using absolutely in this case as it's absolutely true, I dare someone to disagree views are among the most un-Christian I've seen, you care nothing for those less fortunate than you, yet claim that the book of Genesis is absolute fact. How you can have so little regard for your fellow human being yet call yourself a true Christian because you can blindly hide behind a book is completely beyond me, and I hope that age and what will probably be quite bitter and painful experience teach you in every possible way that your view of the world and the people within it will bring you at best indifference and at worst anger from others.

Hopefully though they will be more flexible, reasonable and tolerant in their views than you are.

I'm just bluntly saying what a lot of people are thinking...

P.S. Shooting as requested *bang*

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You're raping the definition of fascist again. Should we look it up in a dictionary? Please clarify how I'm fascist.

Fascinating. Do you know what I eat for breakfast too? Dare I ask how you know this and make this claim as a fact?


If flexible means accepting evolution (which hasn't been proven), then no, I'm not flexible. Just because I don't conform to YOUR cookie-cutter view of the world doesn't mean I am not flexible. Instead if means YOU are the inflexible one.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Actually, lets see what fascism is:

"fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government."

Now explain to me how I support transferring control of property to the government. Please.

and



Hello fascism:




Now I'm awaiting your response to how I fit into this.

I strongly suspect that you dislike me, or my opinion, or how I form my opinion, or a mixture of these, and at this point you're grasping at straws which is slipping from your hand, and your last desperate act is to start throwing in random descriptors that you know little or nothing about, similar to how Sociable laughed at me pointing out that fascism and socialism are both left-wing systems, without actually providing factual evidence that says something to the contrary.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Just read the stuff you've posted about how those who don't contribute don't vote, those who have paid into a social security fund don't get back what they have paid in, your attitude towards welfare, your comments on USA wanting brightest and best, others being irrelevant.

My view of the world isn't cookie cutter, I just give a fsck about those who I have no direct contact with, but appreciate I have a responsibility to as we are all above all else citizens of the human race, not just American, Canadian, English, whatever.

Regarding facism: semantics and exact meanings aside you have wonderfully intolerant views of those who don't work, you are so insanely to the right it's pretty much fitting with a common albeit incorrect view of facism.

I think your view will change a lot when you grow up, let's just say that much, though I do think you'll fit in quite nicely in the deep south of the US.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That makes near zero sense. First,

Citation please.

Is exactly the opposite of:

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

As should any nation. How does this relate to fascism by the way?

Hmmm, nice, but I don't buy into that. I don't have any authority over other nations and the citizens, nor do I wish to bugger into their business. It is their business, not mine. If they ask for help, then we may consider interfering. If they threaten an ally or myself, then we may consider interfering. How does this relate to fascism?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No. No. NO. You will not brush this aside by dismissing it as semantics. I'm awaiting an explanation how I am a fascist. Please. I want exact meanings.

Explain?

Explain. Please. Please please please explain how I'm a fascist. PLEASE. I've outlined fascism above. From Hitler's own mouth.

Oh I do. I really do. I get along very well, as long as I don't mention other guys look cute.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

More food for thought:

Indeed. I'm right, not left. I'm a capitalist, not a fascist/communist.


More info regarding the marriage of communism and fascism:

And of course, the killer part:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I'm going to bed now. I do believe that the marriage discussing is over, and has been for quite some time, so I don't mind changing the subject a bit of this thread.

For those of you that are blowing off steam regarding my posts: Please don't attack the author. Rather, attack the arguments she is presenting and provide your own to substantiate your beliefs should you be disagreeing with me. It just so happens that I am a very big fan of Ayn Rand and that she states the arguments better than I can, hence all the quotes.

Just dismissing it as "semantics" as JustAnotherNoob did isn't exactly a valid argument in a philosophical discussion.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Your attitude towards the unemployed, your opinion that there should be equal % tax paid by all therefore transferring less wealth from rich to poor, complete incomprehension that you may ever come to rely on the state and will always be employed and relatively wealthy, your support of George Bush and his cabinet, which is certainly a somewhat less than democratically elected dictatorship of the rich, they seem to be as often as not millionaires, and certainly are quite happy to line pockets of the rich at the expense of those who will end up paying for the borrowing.

I would love to go to bed, sadly not an option right now, however I'm not posting any further on this now, I've said my piece, and certainly consider neo-conservatism and far-right views such as yours pretty close to facism. As I said before hopefully experience will teach you a little humanity and humility, maybe even a taste of the real world rather than hiding behind the good book and a belief that life will always be good, and you will always be on the higher side of life, employed and independently solvent without having to rely on anyone else. The real world will bite you in the backside in a big way one day.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Why should more of my wealth be transferred to the 'poor'?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I'm puzzled here. You're using Hitler's words to support your argument that you're not a fascist? I can't help feeling this rather undermines your position. Either you believe him which means you're extremely gullible or a Hitler supporter, or you don't believe them in which case why hell use them to support your argument?

I'll read the rest later. One or two interesting points raised.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You are aware that carbon dating isn`t used to date rocks? I'd hate to think you were spouting off about something that you don`t know anything about again. I trust you also know that carbon dating can only measure over a limited time-frame, and *no* scientist would make the claim that it can date something 1 billion years old. At the very best it can date things within a range up to 100,000 years from present, and that is only using some advanced techniques.

Try again :rolleyes:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Because one day you might through no fault of your own end up poor too ... then you'll be glad of it.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No I wouldn't.
As I've posted about 4 times in this thread (maybe you should read em) gays are asking for their union to be legally recognised, not a marriage

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Just because some far right philosopher with a chip on her shoulder says it doesn't make it true, it is her rather unusual opinion. She may argue it, but I see countless flaws in her logic. By her definitions an absolute Monarchy would be left wing.:rolleyes:

BTW have you seen this game - I'd like to see how your country turns out:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi


So let me get this straight, you support the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, right wing capitalism, yet reject evolution (the same principles).

You are orthodox Christian, yet reject the unconditional love of Jesus Christ.

You support the American constitution yet believe religion should influence the government George Orwell invented a word for this - it was 'doublethink'

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

With regards to Darwin, it does amaze me the number of religious people who denounce his theories even though they have never even gone near his work let alone actually read it :rolleyes:

I remember the JW's trying to use the "how can an eye evolve?" question.
Darwin actually answered many questions like this in his work, but that's ignored by the creationists because they don't want their questions answered, or maybe it is just because they've never actually bothered to read his work prefering to listen to the uneducated opinions of their religious colleagues (uneducated in that their religious colleagues have also not bothered to read Darwin)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Jerrek has his dating methods confused, although there is some truth to the conclusion he's trying to draw. Radiocarbon dating is claimed effective back to approximately 70,000 years BP (Before Present). Beyond that, there is too little Carbon-14 remaining in the object for its ongoing decay to be detected. You's reright, Doc, in that C-14 dating only works on organic matter.

Potassium-Argon dating, on the other hand, is a geologist's tool for dating rock claimed to be more than 100,000 years old and up to 4.3 billion years old (the apparent age of Earth). It measures the rate of decay of potassium in volcanic rocks into argon gas. What the geologists don't like to admit is that if the rock sample has ever been immersed in water, its apparent age becomes vastly greater. And those who argue for a 'young Earth' generally also argue that the entire planet was flooded by water at one point.

What's this got to do with gay marriage? :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But that would only affect the surface rocks not rock that has been ejected from the mantle by volcanoes.

Your guess is as good as mine :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Spot on :)

Post # 147

Talk about going around in circles :erm:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Remember there has been not ONE archeological descovery which has proven the Bible wrong.

The problem with the links you provide is that the site seems to take a very anti-creationalism stance, so can hardly be seen as independant. I must follow this up however with ackowledging that a great many pro-creationalism site are also very anti-evolution. This leaves the only option of it being up to the individual to decide for himself/herself.

Back on to the main subject - I don't think people on my side of the argument are against gays having some kind of ceremony, it's just to call it marriage would go against what *we* believe it should be for. And if the main thing most gays want is just recognition and legal rights as couples, I'm sure we can all meet in the middle somewhere.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

What about the dead sea scrolls - Did they not cause some concern a while back ?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That's only because acheological findings can't be used to prove a philosophical idea.
It's like trying to disprove nuclear fusion with biology.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes, they showed that the way the Old Testament is written today is exactly the same way it was written in ancient times, thereby disproving the theories of those who try to say the wording of the OT has been changed over hundreds of years to suit any given purpose.

Not quite, it means that the dates, times, circumstances etc mentioned in the Bible have not been proven wrong by any descoveries.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But the dates etc aren't part of the philosophical idea that is the religion.

Of course there's the "world flood" mentioned in the bible which was actually localised to the black sea...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Surely the fact that Dinosaurs are now know not to have co-existed with humans disproves some of the statements above that say they were told of in the bible (book of job I beleve). :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think the Bible may well prove that people noticed events such as floods inundating them or people being convicted and executed and wrote about it. Quite why you should base your beliefs and behaviour around this escapes me. After all you can read much the same thing in your local paper.

It would be bizarre if the Bible were completely made up, but perfectly logical that it should refer to historical events. The question remains, why do you base your behaviour and belief system on it?

Apart from being printed on paper in English, rather than written on papyrus, animal skins and copper, in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages with little punctuation. In fact 'not written in exactly the same way as it was written in ancient times' would appear to sum it up*

*Unless Russ actually reads it in Hebrew and Aramaic from papyrus and animal skins with no punctuation in which case I marvel at his dedication.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Didn't they just re-translate the nativity and found that the three men might not have been men, nor wise?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Now, you yourself have admitted to being right wing (although not extreme), and sometimes come across as being intolerant. Maybe thats what Justanothernoob meant

I find it interesting that people (not aimed at you in particular Jerrek) are willing to accept the Bible as proof (and let's face it, the bible could be fictional), but dismiss Evolution as unproven.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Like many, you call for absolute proof of evolution, but are happy to believe as Gospel words in a book written 2000 years ago with tales of magic and gods. Its faith I guess that makes the difference.

I have more faith in science myself.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Jerrek doesn't except definitions from the oxford dictionary (or dictionary.com) he says they are left wing biased.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yep. I remember...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Looks like at least one person in the US had decided to take things into his own hands...

same sex marrage

Looks like this is going to be decided one way or the other in the courts now, should be an interesting fight!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The theory makes perfect logical sense:

Random mutations that can be inherited (science has proved this bit)
Those who can't survive the current conditions (which are subject to change) die preventing their genes from being passed on, it's as simple as that.

It's hard to prove that we specifically came from monkeys, but that doesn't debunk the entire theory.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ah, I see the movable goal posts are back out of storage again...!

Firstly I was not talking about *archaeological* discoveries (the study of man's past through the material remains of his culture), I was talking about the nonsensical claim that the eye "proves" the existance of god because if you take any part away from it, it stops working.

Secondly absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence.

No, it takes a *scientific* stance which says that if you're going to claim something, it's a good idea to back it up with demonstrable facts and *permit* those facts to be analysed and scrutinised by others to determine their validity or falsity, not simply say "That's what it says in the Bible, therefore it's right".

I suggest you look a bit deeper into what some of the "Concerned Christian" or "Moral Minority" groups out there are actually saying about the idea of *anything* to do with gays viz http://www.godhatesfags.com/ for instance.

I suggest you research the phrase "separate but equal" eg http://boston.indymedia.org/feature/...9615/index.php

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think we have to clarify something about the difference between science and religion - one of the biggest confusions (deliberately, I think) in the whole creationism debate is to equate the position of a key part of Christianity with that of a small part of the body of science. I don't think they're remotely comparable in scope or size.

In particular the language used is important here -
proof:

'The Bible proves...'

'Science proves...'

Those usages equate biblical and scientific knowledge through terminology, and as say I don't think they're comparable. Scientific proof doesn't really exist as a concept, mathematical proof does and is much, much harder. Science tends to use hypothesis and theory, for very valid reasons, to whit:

All scientific theories are one step away from refutation, as they exist to lay out an explanation of observed phenomena on the basis of evidence and new evidence can come along at any time to upset the apple cart. In the case of religion no new evidence has come along for an awfully long time (ever?) hence religious beliefs are not open to refutation in this way. Hence scientific theories and religious beliefs are not comparable. Good scientists are willing to change or abandon theories in the face of new evidence. You quite often see religious anti-science arguments along the lines of 'you can't be right, you keep changing your mind, I don't change my mind, therefore I'm right'. I think this, as usual, misses the point.

belief:

'I believe in Jesus Christ our saviour'

'I believe in evolution'

Again equating biblical and scientific knowledge. I try and be careful to use belief to mean 'I accept this as so but I can't actually present any evidence' and prove to mean 'I accept this and have solid evidence I am willing to put forward to back me up.

I don't often use either word in fact, belief is too shaky and open to question and prove is too open to refutation. Science provides a decent half-way house, 'hypothesise' meaning 'I'm putting forward a view, here's the evidence I've gathered'. This separate word is required due to the emotional connotations of both 'proof' and 'belief'.

Going back to the start, therefore, if we are to compare biblical creationism with scientific evolution, we need to compare like with like. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader the rewriting of the Book of Genesis as a scientific theory, then we can compare directly. Alternatively rewrite On the Origin of Species as the Book of Darwin.

As a parting word on this etymological mayhem, the word belief really doesn't have a lot of meaning beyond the emotional - a police officer who went into a courtroom and said 'I believe the defendant did it' and didn't present any evidence would be told to get out and stop wasting everyone's time.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

And this all relates to fascism, HOW EXACTLY? You have failed to answer my question.


However, regarding what you said, a few points:

- why should MY wealth be transferred by the government? Why can't I help people on my own accord?

- "your support of George Bush and his cabinet" -- What about this?

- "which is certainly a somewhat less than democratically elected dictatorship of the rich, they seem to be as often as not millionaires, and certainly are quite happy to line pockets of the rich at the expense of those who will end up paying for the borrowing." -- Explain in detail the following:

-- How is the current administration a dictatorship?

-- How do they line the pockets of the rich?


You have FAILED to demonstrate how my views are fascist, and you are exactly proving my point that you have no clue what fascism is and you're using it as a cool word to throw around to make me look bad. When confronted with WHY and HOW, you just say "I've said my piece" and imply you're right, everyone is wrong. Who is intolerant now?





BBKing, I'm using Hitler's own words how he described what nazism (fascism's brother) is. He implemented a Nazi state. Now I want you and others to explain how I fit into the beliefs, because as I pointed out, it is clearly the opposite of what I believe and quite similiar what socialists believe.



Actually no. Charity, perhaps, not not forced charity by the government. That isn't charity, that is stealing. And I thought all of you have to pay this national insurance!



And as I've said several times over, BRING ARGUMENTS to support your point, and ARGUMENTS to counter my points. However, you keep falling into this hole of attacking the author.

Second, I believe I've also quoted Hitler, a man who implemented Nazism, and I've also quoted the goals of Nazism.

Now bring some arguments to the table.


Please clearly explain how you relate right-wing capitalism to evolution.

One is a theory to explain the origins of the universe, the other is an economic and social model of individual freedom.

They are not related.


Please explain this too.


Please provide a citation where I said this.

I do believe I've said I should be allowed to have religion form my opinion. I never said the government and church should marry.



Well my apologies. I should have said radiometric dating.



Fascinating. Yes I'm aware some dictionaries love to apply right-wing to fascism and nazism, but please, bring ARGUMENTS TO THE TABLE.. I have supplied ample evidence. Just saying "because they said so" isn't enough. EXPLAIN to me how fascism is right-wing, and I guarantee you if you can do that, I'll change my mind.


Then by all means!!!! Present the proof here and I will believe it! PLEASE!


Aaah, excellent point! And I prefer to put my faith in God rather than humanity.


I'm not accepting it, because, it doesn't make sense. All I'm asking for is an explanation. That is all.



[quote]Please provide me with proof of this. I do not believe you.






All I'm asking for is clarification how and why you put fascism on the right (not just a definition from some dictionary), and, conclusive proof of evolution.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Top Post BBK sage words as always.

At the risk of being shot down is this perhaps an ideal closing point for the debate which has become so polarized neither side is going to back down?

IMHO Now is the time for all good men/women to politely agree to disagree and move on.