Actually that ammendment is making it so the government can't set up a nation wide religion. It has nothing to do with "seperation of church and state". It's been twisted to mean that but it doesn't.
Printable View
Actually that ammendment is making it so the government can't set up a nation wide religion. It has nothing to do with "seperation of church and state". It's been twisted to mean that but it doesn't.
No...Read it..Yes, it's main purpose is to prevent a state-sponsered church, but it also serves to keep ANY church from directly influencing the government by not allowing the Congress to make laws with a religious context. There is separation of Church and State, and I'm eternally thankful for it.
I still dont see this part about the church not being allowed to affect government. I still think its being twisted to say that. It doesn't directly set it up. People believe it implies it but it deosn't.
If Gay marriage is made legal so be it...the world is just moving closer to destruction. What I get mad about is what is happening in California where that mayor directly breaks the law and nothing is done. If you want gay marriage you have to have patience till its passed. (if it is)
Without absolutes there is only chaos. Religion sets up absolutes. Without a code of morality the country will decline rapidly.
Our country was founded on the basis of a religion..to completely remove religion from government you would need to remove all the laws because where does morality stem from? religion.
Science sets up absolutes. Morality does not need a religious context; if you're only being a good person because you fear punishment (from god or Man) then you miss the point. Chaos can be just as easily CREATED by religion as it can be prevented. Our country was founded on the basis of FREEDOM and EQUALITY, not religion.
Without Civil Disobediance to unjust laws, there would be no USA. Have we so quickly forgotten the Boston Tea Party? Should all those men have suffered the punishment due to them for breaking the laws? No. They clearly saw the law was wrong and felt that by breaking it they were showing they would not stand for injustice. That is what this country was founded on.
The First Amendment hasn't been 'twisted' to mean separation of Church and State, it has been interpreted as such for the betterment of the American people as a whole. The Supreme Court's job is to intrepret the Constitution, which the Congress amends and the President helps ratify. That's how the system works.
Morality =/= Religion
If you think so, I'll kill you without blinking
me=owned I guess hahaha....although I still believe what I believe. I just don't know enough to successfully debate on it..haha oh well.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nic0
In other words no laws that have anything at all to do with establishing anything religious.
If they only wanted to prevent a state established religion it would have read:
Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.
It was worded that way specifically for that reason. The actual term "seperation of church and state" comes from letters written by Thomas Jefferson who was a firm believer in that. He felt that the government and religion should have no ties whatsoever as it just leads to corruption and problems on both ends.
Actually Jefferson and many of the other Forefathers would disagree with you. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and more were all Deists who believed in Enlightenment principles. They believed that there are integral morals that everyone is born with... they all shared a dislike for the organized religions of their day. Morality stems from Humans and their society, not religion.Quote:
Without absolutes there is only chaos. Religion sets up absolutes. Without a code of morality the country will decline rapidly.
Our country was founded on the basis of a religion..to completely remove religion from government you would need to remove all the laws because where does morality stem from? religion.
But there's no way you are born with morals... because wild children are violent little cunts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
That's a good point (assuming you're serious), the funny thing I see with Atheists and the like is why the hell do you follow any system of morales whatsoever? There's no consquences in a lot of cases and life is short. If I wasn't a Christian and I believed Darwinism in-depth I would probably barricade myself in my house and kill a shitload of people, if I survive then it's cool but if I die what was the point of my existance anyway? I guess maybe I'm just a little crazy and my ties with faith keep me in line...but who knows.
No, you wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Or if you would, you are conforming to the fact that you're nothing more than a deity’s trained lap-dog.
I was serious, but are you joking?
Attributing morals to religion is moronic, especially if you are talking about that fire and brimstone bullshit in the Old Testament. If you don't kill people simply because the fact you're scared satan will PWN your ass, you're a horrible excuse for a human being. The New Testament is less so, because Jesus was pretty Kantian with his philosophies. Jesus is cool by me.
The reason I don't kill people is because of supreme human empathy. I wouldn't want to be murdered and lose my life, and therefore I understand that others wouldn't want me to take their life. I understand it's supremely wrong, I'm not some cunt who's only "good' because he's scared he's going to get a red hot poker inserted up his arsehole. I'm good because I exist in society, not because of religion. Religion reflects morality, morality doesn't reflected religion. You've got the tail wagging the dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
I wasn't completely serious but my point was that according to evolution our society and existance is nothing by randomness and there's no real intelligence in it so why conform to any morales at all, in the end wouldn't this lead to the destruction of our species? I'm not saying that you need to be religious to have morales bur my question is why have any without religion? You explained yourself pretty good Astroblue and that's cool. The reason I follow morales and don't go and do a bunch of bad shit is because I'm a Christian like I said, and Jesus taught patience and love and those are the beliefs and code of morales that I subscribe to.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/...04.html#chap10
Quote:
1936 CONSTITUTION OF THE USSR
CHAPTER X
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS
ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.
There you go. Do you, perhaps, see it now?? I chose my bolding carefully to help in the process... That's the constitution g0zen is going by... Now sure, Stalin was a little more extreme in achieving this glorious goal and others by actually bull dozing churches, decapitating priests, liquidating millions, but here, we're much nicer with our anti-Christian sentiment... So, be happy your courts and other high level institutions have been hijacked by the Left and have groups like the ACLU who will implement the strategy a little differently, gradually... As you can see, the Soviets also felt that the government and religion should have no ties whatsoever (for awhile at least) as it just leads to corruption and problems on both ends. Worked out pretty good too, I would say, depending on your point-of-view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nic0
I bow down to the holy order of common sense and rational thought, myself.
I don't know you but from what I've learned of humans and our society is that you make think this but it's not completely true. Your morales are formed from society and likely your upbringing. Our current day morales are left over from the religious orders that used to rule the minds of people in the ancient world. Depending on how you look at it, if no types of religion ever existed we'd probably be a bunch of crazy idiots from our present day perspectives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobo
Word, Jesus knew his shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Ah.. why not? You don't need a diety to know right from wrong, you just need to belong to a society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
There's no randomness in evolution. If it was random it wouldn't be evolution. Traits which are beneficial are selected, and traits which are fatal are destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
I guess I can take that, but Evolution is still based off mostly random development where some survives and some doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Um, the Declaration of Independence references God, and most of the state constitutions mention God in some form or another.Quote:
Science sets up absolutes. Morality does not need a religious context; if you're only being a good person because you fear punishment (from god or Man) then you miss the point. Chaos can be just as easily CREATED by religion as it can be prevented. Our country was founded on the basis of FREEDOM and EQUALITY, not religion.
Most laws of the United States come from christian origin. Else things like polygamy wouldn't be illegal. Morality is defined by society, religion just keeps society's sense of morality stable.
However SOME PEOPLE will take things out of context purposely to do what they want.
No, that's not random. Say that you're a moth and being greyer makes you more likely to survive because owls can't see you on the side of steel buildings. Owls will kill the light moths and the darker moths will survive. It would only be random if their lightness had no effect on the Owls vision and it PWNED them randomly. Selection is the opposite of randomness, so since Natural Selection is the basis of Evolution...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
If there was a Lottery that only selected numbers with a 9 in them out of 30 balls, would it still be completely random? i.e. That all balls have the same chance of being drawn?
There is no such thing as randomness in science, just things that we haven't understood yet. :p
Hmmm, I'm gonna have to think on that one, but the basis and broad scale of Evolution still seems like a lot of random things that came together to me. My thoughts are sort of like this: If a bunch of people just make utterly random posts on TNL without knowledge of what the previous person said then eventually you're going to get a thread that makes sense, even if it takes a million years.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
In Soviet Russia, you save Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
That's not evolution, because that would be random. It would only be evolution if coherent or funny posts were selected; and incoherent posts were moderated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Wow. Way to totally misuse this TNL convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Well lets say that each thread contained 10 random posts and you eventually came up with one thread that makes sense, wouldn't the others naturally be moderated by fading into obscurity because of their lack of intelligent or senseful material?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Awe... You didn't like that. What did I do now?? Is there something wrong with that particular amendment? Cause it looks good to me and there wouldn't be a debate about separation of church and state if it was explicitly spelled out that way in ours. Thus, all would be well across the land evermore...Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Natural Selection still doesn't explain our proposed origins out of random scientific and mathematic impossability.
The events that took place after the Bag Bang were random, as well as our eventual formation from the random collision of protiens and ameno acids.
Natural Selection is as valid a belief as any, but when we're talking about evolution, we're specifically not talking about Natural Selection.
Why? The whole point of the Smirnof convention is to put emphasis on control and suppresion of the USSR. By saying "In Soviet Russian, you save Jesus" I was implying that because religion was so supressed it required the will of the people to maintain Christianity. Sorry if I offended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
The Declaration of Independence does not reference the Christian God, when Jefferson wrote it he was referencing the Deistic God of Nature. In fact he specifically says Nature's God. As I mentioned before Jefferson was a follower of Thomas Paine and the Enlightment principles, he was not Christian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Here's a little secret for you. The US was not founded as a CHRISTIAN nation. It was founded as a FREE nation. And to keep said nation free, religion needs to stay out of the government.
Very cute... except for the fact that the USSR never followed their constitution. Meanwhile we in the US do.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Evolution has nothing to do with creation, it is the explaination of selected change in organisms that already exist. Even if God create life it would still evolve. Saying that evolution doesn't exist because we can't explain how life started would be like saying that God can't exist because we can't explain how he just exists and wasn't created. Natural Selection IS evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
That's like saying "I kill jews because I'm a Nazi and Hitler taught hatred and genocide, and those are things I beleive in".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
You're not really saying anything when you make this kind of claim, you're just begging the question. In order to accept that Jesus and his teachings are right you must already have formed some notion of morality with which to analyze them against. Religion is dependant on ethics. Ethics is not dependant on religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
That's true but there is varying opinions on how much affect Natural Selection has on development and life. You can't deny that it doesn't exist but you can argue over it's influence on the world. Evolution is basically the belief that Natural Selection has formed all of the species from an original and basic organism while the other side is that Natural Selection affects species but it does not create new ones.
To me that seems 100% incorrect. Plenty of people have accepted Jesus with their horrendeous lives (drug abusers, murders, whatever) and have been completely reformed in a very short amount of time. My temptations are to go against in what I believe in because it's human nature to do what you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Oh, the whole "kinds" debate... that's the equivalent of saying I can take a step to walk a foot, but I can't take a thousand to walk a mile.
Sorry, I don't get what you mean and who you're referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
That's a silly way of looking at it. Quantum theory aside, nature is ordered, not random. It follows coherent laws, and creates structure where there was none. To see science and physics as random because they are godless is foolish. Science is Law as much as God is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
There's a peculiar and backward assumption, rarely stated but deeply rooted, made in alot of western theology that lesser complexity (say, man) need stem from greater complexity (say, a wise and thinking creator), when in fact the more complex is built of a foundation of the simpler and more fundamental.
The fact is that planets, oceans, and life are not created despite physical nature, but rather that, because of the laws of physical reality we call science that life cannot but be created given the infinate expanse of time. Call it godless, but I think it's no less a miracle.
Right, but they knew that what they were doing was wrong. They had developed a sense of ethics and turned to christianity as a result. It's possible to trangress one's own sense of morality, and it's possible for one's sense of ethics to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Some creationist accept evolution but say it's impossible for it to create any new "kinds" other than the "kinds" that God already made.
Evolutionist usually post pictures of all the different breeds of dogs (all coming from a single species of wolves) and of pigeons, created through selection of specific traits.
Creationist usually then point out that all dogs can breed and all pigeons can breed. And that a "kind" is defined as a group of organisms that can breed with each other, thus having the same chromosome counts. Since they say new chromosomes cannot be madeor destroyed
Evolutionist then usually bring the polymorphic karyotypes of certain species into play, and the fact that "Human Chromosome 2" is basically two Ape Chromosomes fused. Which explains why we have 23 pairs and they have 24.
It usually gets messy after that any many a Bible quote is quoted.
Most Creationists who care to debate seem to agree to all the compents that allow evolution to happen, but seem to take issue with the vast amount of time it takes for them to occur. For some reason, things which develop very slowly, and involve a bit of forward and backward motion along the way are seen as "random" by alot of people because the amount of time it involves is very difficult to comprehend, and the notion of sheer chance in an uncomfortable one. But evolution is fairly predictable and explainable. It's not random.
I don't mean to rag on any of the religious folks here. I find religion's critiques of science to be generally (in fact, almost invariably) very poor, but that doesn't mean that the religion itself is.
No offence taken, I was just making a joke. Usually, in Soviet Russia, something controls you, not the other way around, as you had stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Just being a jerk. :p
Having read the majority of your past posts concerning this topic, and being made aware of your extremely limited and downright poor knowledge of all things relegious, but particularly Christian, I find it hard to believe that you're even aware of a few arguments creationists hold to, let alone "most."Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Meh. Undone by a technicallity.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
I'll get you some day, AstroBlue. I'll get you, and your little dog, too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
And those religious orders that use to rule the minds of people in the ancient world would have never had the chance to take control if not for cavemen knowing not to set each other on fire soon after discovering it. Long before people had the creativity to even make up the concept of a god, they knew not to kill each other. If not how could they have gotten to the point of being orderly enough to come up with religion? Religion isn't the origin of morality. Common sense is.
Actually, one of the German bishops used John's gospel to justify it. In their eyes, they did nothing wrong. While Germans already hated the jews, it took Hitler to order them to kill the jews before doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Morality is taught by society. And within each Countries society there is usually some form of religion that makes the ethics for that society.
Common sense is not natural, it is learned. Say a childs parents are committing fraud, until the child learns that concept of fraud, they won't see anything wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobo
As for people not killing each other, they only didn't because they didn't need to. Until only a few hundred years ago we were still using black people as slaves. Common sense now dictates that slavery is wrong.
By saying this you're going by the concept that religion did not exist at all periods of human existance and there's really no way you can know that. In one way or another it has always seemed that humans believed in a higher power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobo
I never said it was natural, I just said that commen sence was around before religion.
A higher power isn't necessarily a deity. It could be a scientific law, or the concept that fire brings warmth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
The First Amendment does call for a separation of church and state in a literal sense. However, you're correct in that it doesn't prohibit the government from creating laws from concepts based on religion. I don't think laws should be based on religious principles, but I'm not the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nic0
Anyone who opposes gay marriage bans on First Amendment grounds is wrong. The real issue is whether such a ban would violate the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment (or in the case of state laws, the Fourteenth.)
And if an amendment is passed...an amendment cannot be unconstitutional because it is the Constitution.
I agree with your first sentence. Kinda. I don't think the church as an organization can affect the government but that doesn't mean religious priniciples can not guide it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nic0
The mayor of SF is breaking a law he sees as violating the state constitution. He's not just being a maverick.
There's no reason gay marriage violates any necessary code of morals.
What the Hell are we doing talking about Evolution in a thread about gay marriage?
Knock it the Hell off. I can't believe I got sucked into it.
So what exactly are you trying to say? People use "common sense" too broadly. Are you saying that people learned not to steal before religion? This is kind of a grey area. Group mentality exists in the animal kingdom exists naturally, however so do killing each other if they need to.... I don't think much has changed. :pQuote:
I never said it was natural, I just said that commen sence was around before religion.
Because I care enough about the people around me and because I'm curious enough about the next sixty years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
That's what's holding me back, basically.
*points to Gohron*Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
*blinks innocently*Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
morale =/= moralQuote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
I'm saying that people don't need a religion to make rational, and in the sense of society, "morally just" decisions. I believe those come about naturally through evolution, not from just being told to do so by a chosen deity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Haha, sorry for de-railing the thread guys, that wasn't my original intention.
I emphasize because these are your words not mine. Get off your high-horse and know what you're talking about before you speak cause right now you sound like an insensitive idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
And what I'm talking about is how my grandparents' struggle for equality is being used as a damned leveraging tool to push some fucking political agenda while completely disregarding the pain, suffering and emotional baggage that came with it. I've talked at length and in depth to my parents and grandparents about the days of Jim Crow laws and all the other government sanctioned bullshit that went on in those days.
You don't know that pain, I do. So kindly shut up.
Obviously. That wasn't my point. *points to above repsonse*Quote:
Marriage isn't the only way homosexuals are discriminated against. You don't need to be a crybaby liberal to see that there is a long history of violence and prejudice against gays and lesbians.
I'd rather sound like an insensitive idiot than a hypocritical bigot.
Just because you had a nice chat with Grandpa about the civil rights movement doesn't mean that a different class of Americans aren't struggling with the same thing today. Sure, there are gay extremists involved for political gain, but extremists in the civil rights movements didn't make the case for civil rights any less pressing.
You should probably bitch and moan less and attempt to justify your argument that blacks should be more equal than gays more.
You just continue to show your ignorance don't you? Anti-semitism and attacks on Jews had been growing in leaps and bounds since the late 19th century in Eastern Europe and Germany. Hitler just keyed into that and organized the attacks on a more massive scale. It's not like the day before Hitler came into power no Germans ever attacked or killed any Jews. Attacks on Jews in Europe had been going on for years, they didn't need Hitler's orders to kill them... they just needed him to organize the killing on a more massive scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
I think you need to take a few history classes before you start spewing on about things you obviously know nothing about.
Boo fucking hoo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
So just because your parents and grandparents were discriminated against, you think it gives you the right to discriminate against another group of people?
If you understand the pain of discrimination then you should more easily empathise with another minority being discriminated against. Otherwise, it makes YOUR discrimination worse because it shows you only care about discrimination when it's target at people you identify with and therefore you're a self-serving bigot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Aparthied banned the marriage of two responsible adults simply because they produced different amounts of melanin, how is that different to banning the marriage of two responsible adults simply because they have the same set of chromosome 23?
You believe that everyone is equal (different but deserves equal rights) or not. Decide, or fuck off and shut up.
And your point is? I never said none of them had a real reason(in their minds) to kill jews before Hitler, I said that Hitler and the bishop gave them justification for ALL of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
You should really look up the word "generalising". :p
Bad day today?
Not to agree with master of 7s or anything but the bad treatment of african americans in the past is abused in current gay politics. Yes, both deserve to have rights, the same as any other person alive, but it really feels that some groups are only using the history of slavery and the hard work of african americans to gain equality, for it's shock value.
It is wrong to use the pain of another group to get what you want. When you do that you are using it as a tool and devalueing everything that group went through.
Gay people deserve equal rights because of the logic of it, not because someone else who didn't have rights got hanged and forced into a life of slavery. One does not make the other wrong, logic makes both wrong.
I guess that's why I've devoted so much time to the academic study of religion, then. And I've never debated Creationism with you before this thread. And I grew up religious, have alot of religious freinds and family, and have great respect for religion. And I'm a religion minor in school, where I've studied Judiasm, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, Rastafarianism, Voodoo, Santaria, and traditional African religion, and currently studying religion in Latin America. So STFU, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
I'm really hoping you've just confused me for someone else.
Blacks were treated like second-class citizens during the civil rights movement, and gays and homosexuals are being treated in much the same way with this issue.
No, no confusion. It's definitely you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Studying about relegion in a academic environment is hardly "studying relegion," though admitting your relegion minor has garnered a bit more respect from myself. And though you are correct that we've never debated on the topic of anything at all, let alone creationism, that doesn't mean I am wholely unaware of the majority of posts you've made addressing this topic. I've read them, and I've chosen not to respond to them. I am well aware of certain misconceptions you've cited, as well as a general misunderstanding of what Christianity is, and what Christians believe.
I, myself, am an ordained Reverand (I've been mentioning this one a lot recently, but it seems as though not as many people on these here forums know this as I had initially expected), and so feel confident in my ability to comment correctly on this matter. You see, even if you are a relegion minor, which again I have much respect for, you're still on the outside looking in. I, on the other hand, am inside looking around. I stand a much better chance, when the same item is given to both of us to examine, of gaining a correct insight and understanding, and subsequent teaching, on the topic, because not only am I observing it with a profound knowledge and insight into Christianity, but I am able to rationally and reasonably understand the motivations behind such beliefs, as I am a part of the Christian culture.
Keep in mind we both have our biases, as you have a particular aversion to Christianity, while I have a particular aversion to secular philosophy.
So, my initial comment stands. Compared to myown, you really do have little and poor knowledge of what it is Christianity is all about. I'm sorry if this offends you, but that's just the way it is. And I still doubt you are aware of "most" of the arguments that Christians adhere to.
Incedentally, I've studied nearly all of the relegions you have, but unlike you, I don't pretend to know as much about them as someone who devoutly practices them. I know I have much more to learn from someone of any particular faith than any given scholar or professor, and as such, I understand my information may very well be incomplete, or totally incorrect for that matter. To this end, I discuss my knowledge with members of any given faith when given the chance, totally expecting for my information to change and morph into a more correct, more clear view of their faith. You don't seem to do this, at least in so far as you've been interacting with Christians here at TNL.
Doesn't it take like an hour to become and ordained reverand? Or am I thinking of becoming a minister?
That's a good point. But if that's what 7s was saying, something got lost in the translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Sounds to me like you don't believe one can truly understand a religion without practicing it. If that's the case, then there's no point in arguing with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
On average, I'd say that one who has an interest in a religion has a better reason to understand that faith. But there are plenty of people who believe completely yet understand nothing. As well as those who once believed and practiced but no longer do - it's not as if everything they learned is lost.
With regards to opinions on religion in general, I would trust the person who has studied as many world religions as possible yet practices none of them. Most that practice a religion are going to believe theirs is the single correct one so there is little chance of them viewing religion in general from an objective point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Except that wasn't your initial comment. You said I had "extremely limited and downright poor knowledge of all things relegious" which is a load of shit. I never said I know more about Christianity than you. I would never make such a stupid claim. But I do have well rounded knowledge of religion in general, and I'm not ignorant to the teachings of Christianity. Don't write me off as some cynical smart-ass who scoffs at religion, because it is FAR from the truth. I have a great deal of respect for religion and I consider it very important, and I actively persue religious learning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
When have I ever pretended to know more about any religion than someone who practices? I just claimed to be less than ignorant.Quote:
Incedentally, I've studied nearly all of the relegions you have, but unlike you, I don't pretend to know as much about them as someone who devoutly practices them.
Bear in mind I say alot of things for the sake of debate that I don't neccessarily agree with, because it's regarding a point that I find contentious. i.e. I mean it as an objection, not an answer. (I'm a philosophy major, btw... debate goes hand in hand with that).Quote:
You don't seem to do this, at least in so far as you've been interacting with Christians here at TNL.
Even in this thread I added the disclaimer to my post that I don't consider what I said an attack on christianity, but a defense of science. You are not a scientist (nor do I claim to be) and all the bible in the world doesn't make you any more qualified with regard to your objection to natrual selection posted in this thread. That's what I was trying to drive home. Not debunking creationism. I have no intrest in debunking creationism. I just wanted to contest the notion that randomness is a neccessary component of the scientific account of the universe. It's not. And accepting that it's not doesn't threaten Christian doctrine in any way.I have no such aversion. Perhaps you're confusing my rants against the religious right as attacks on the religious aspect. They're not. They're attacks on the political aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
And when you say you have an aversion to secular philosophy, do you mean the sum total of philosophy independant of the church, or do you mean the contemporary philosophy of secularity? Because I find an aversion to the former, which includes all of logic, debate, ethical theory, political philosophy, etc to be somewhat worrysome... I wouldn't even know how to begin debating with someone who didn't beleive in the ability to conclude things through reason alone.
I was going to go into a long winded rant about this, but then I see Frog did a decent job of it. So I'm just going to go with STFU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Am I a communist or a witch? Because you seem equally ready to burn me at the stake for not sharing your views on religion or how to interpret the First Amendment. I'm glad you're just a zealot on a message board and not someone with social or political influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
You said exactly what I was trying to get across Iron Plant. Thank you, at least there is ONE critical thinker in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
And I like someone to point where I said gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. I wholeheartedly stood in agreement with the idea that the government should take itself out of the whole process of marriage and leave it with the church where it belongs.
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. I mean, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
READING COMPREHENSION GET!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
:lol: Yeah, my best friend is gay, my homegirl is gay and I frequently visit two dearly loved gay family friends and I'm a hypocritical bigot. OK. Judge much based on nothing do you?:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
That was never my argument, that's what you came up with in your head. Try actually READING what I wrote next time. I said the struggle is not the same and shouldn't be compared not that one was inherently better than the other.Quote:
You should probably bitch and moan less and attempt to justify your argument that blacks should be more equal than gays more.
I don't think the gay rights and black rights movements have much in common, only the prejudice and arguments made against them. If you can't see parallels between the arguments for segregation and prohibiting gay marriage, then you don't know enough about the issue.
(to Master of 7s) You have a point about that last line. That said, you haven't explained just why the two struggles are so different as to be incomparable. The movement for racial equality is about as much of a "fucking political agenda" as the movement for sexual orientation equality.
Are they different in the details? Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Are they both about minorities that are treated unequally and unfairly under the law? Absolutely.
Gays don't need to sit in at soup kitchens and boycott buses to make the comparison.
I DO empathize, that's why so many of the people I love are gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
There is no difference, I thought that was obvious. The United States government outlawed marriage between certain types of adults not to long ago and now Bush is trying to pull the same bullshit using God as an excuse. I never said I agreed with it, I said that the government needs to take God's name out of the whole process and just deal with the legal aspect of marriage and leave the rest to the churches. Ultimately that is all this is about anyway. Gays gaining the same legal rights as partners that any married heterosexual couple gained by saying "I DO". I have no problem with this. Just keep God's name out of it.Quote:
Aparthied banned the marriage of two responsible adults simply because they produced different amounts of melanin, how is that different to banning the marriage of two responsible adults simply because they have the same set of chromosome 23?
I have decided.Quote:
You believe that everyone is equal (different but deserves equal rights) or not. Decide, or fuck off and shut up.
I decided the day my best friend told me he prefers dudes and I said "...................Ok, whatever. We're still friends."
I decided whenever I lovingly embrace my gay family friend and his lover as brothers and fellow human beings.
I decided whenever I console my homegirl because her girlfriend is being a prissy bitch.
You don't know me or what I am to a lot people whom I love and whom love me. So you are in no position to judge me. Now kindly shut up.
A black man can do everything that a white man can. They are functionally identical. They should have equal rights.
A gay couple can not do everything that a heterosexual couple can. They can't have babies on their own, or provide the best, most traditional family structure to the child. They are not functionally identical, and because of that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with denying them access to an institution (marriage) which exists to promote the exact things those gay couples are not capable of. Equal protection guarantees equal rights to equal people, correct?
The comparison between the struggle for black civil rights and the homosexual desire to push mass acceptance of homosexuality on the country by breaking and entering their way into historical traditions is bullshit.
I have no problem with gay people. And, I would have little problem with gay marriage if a majority of the country believed gays ought to be able to get married. A majority doesn't, and it's not even particularly close.
Because gay marriage is in no way a civil rights' issue, I believe forcing the topic on the country is undemocratic.
Although I don't want to see the constitution amended, that constitutional amendment protects the views of more of the country than the snowballing effect of state gay marriage legalization would.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Neither can some heterosexual families, so that's an invalid point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Contrary to what you may have heard the "best" and "most traditional" are not necessarily the same thing. There have been no conclusive studies that a child raised by a gay couple are in any way more prone to any sort of psychological or physical malady than one raised by a straight couple. The dedication and love of the parents for a child is what raises a healthy and productive member of society, not thier sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
The institution of marriage shouldn't be within the government's jurisdiction in the first place, so yes there is something wrong with denying them the same rights as any other American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
It's not like they're forcing you to be there at the marriage, watching them kiss. This has NOTHING to do with forcing homosexuality on you or your family. The 'traditions' (and therefore history) of this country is NOT the furtherment of one religious or moral standpoint over the rights guaranteed to the citizens therein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I find it ironic you asserting people are ignorant when none of your argument is supportable by facts.
A black man with no legs is unable to play soccer like a white man with legs. The vast majority of black men can do the exact same things the vast majority of white men can. The vast majority of gay couples (in fact all of them), are incapable of a number of things that the vast majority of heterosexual couples can do. It is not an invalid point.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
If you're arguing that marriage should no longer provide any special status to any American, then that's a worthwhile point. There's no connection between "the government shouldn't be involved with marriage" and "marriage is a civil right."Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
They are not functionally identical, and because of that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with denying them access to an institution (marriage) which exists to promote something those gay couples are not involved with.
The institution of marriage shouldn't be within the government's jurisdiction in the first place, so yes there is something wrong with denying them the same rights as any other American.
There haven't been enough examples to perform a comprehensive study. It's simple common sense to infer that a child with parents of different sexes, or multiple parents (rather than one) will be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints, people, and personal histories, and as a result of that will have a more well-rounded personality when he grows up.Quote:
Contrary to what you may have heard the "best" and "most traditional" are not necessarily the same thing. There have been no conclusive studies that a child raised by a gay couple are in any way more prone to any sort of psychological or physical malady than one raised by a straight couple. The dedication and love of the parents for a child is what raises a healthy and productive member of society, not thier sexuality.
Physical malady? Hah.
Outside of all that, if the traditional family structure was not the best environment in which to raise children, then it couldn't have remained the predominant method in which to raise human children in all of western civilization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I don't see how being able to reproduce is a basis for greater privilages under the law. Don't the Chinese do that for their citizens? Promoting those who reproduce, while punishing childless families? They used to only favor male offspring and one a pop, but now that's led to massive depopulation of some of their major metropolitan areas so they've completely reversed their policy.
The above facts about China can be found here and in related websites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
No, but because one isn't followed the other must be. Since government IS involved in marriage, then under the freedoms guaranteed all American citizens by the Constitution, there is no credible reason to deny it to anyone.
Exactly, so there isn't any proof that parents being heterosexual has anything to do with their child being brought up better. It is NOT common sense to infer that just because a parent is heterosexual that alone will impart some wealth of information onto thier offspring. Such diffusion of knowledge has everything to do with the dedication of the parent, NOT their sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Well, if we go by the studies done, there are endless amounts of information that children raised in a 'traditional family' have been beaten, molested, tortured, neglected, psycholocially abused, and generally treated like shit. On the other hand, there is no evidence of any of this in a homosexual or 'non-traditional family'. Why? Because theres been no chances to allow such a thing. Even so, it would have everything to do with the people who raised the child and NOTHING to do with their sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
The pain is the same, the heartache is the same, the bullshit suffered at the hands of the ignorant is the same, but the reasons for all this pain are worlds apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Blacks were considered to be no different or better than animals. We were livestock and property as far as the government was concerned. Hell, even Abraham Lincon said that the Civil War had nothing to do with black people. His only concern was keeping his country from tearing itself apart over the issue.
Black people had to overcome hatred based on skin color, hatred based on sexual jealously, hatred based on stereotypes and faulty character assumptions based in ignorance. People still have similar jealously, believe certain stereotypes, and make similar assumptions today, but at least it won't get you lynched these days (at least not often).
Aside from the skin color aspect, gays suffer the exact same thing with one exception.
Nobody made slaves out of them, robbed them of their language, culture, religion and most basic of human dignity.
Nobody made them to be less than animals and approved of their toture, rape, and general mistreatment.
They aren't viewed as barbarians and savages the way we once were.
No one is trying to intimidate them away from voting booths or making their votes worth less.
And they definately don't have to live in fear of a bunch of ignorant, sadistic, doufusses in white bed sheets breaking down their door in the middle of the night, raping the women (and children) and hanging the men from a tree they way we used to.
The pain is the same, the struggle is not.
There are no politics involved in wanting be seen as a human being rather than as an animal. We are talking about the right to be able to live life as safely and securely as any other human being without the threat of hatred burning a cross on your lawn or raping your daughter on her way home from school because some asshole wanted some "nigger pussy" to prove his manhood. The civil rights movement was about making sure that generations to come would never have to go through the same pain and suffering that its pioneers did in this country.Quote:
The movement for racial equality is about as much of a "fucking political agenda" as the movement for sexual orientation equality.
Politics had nothing do with what my grandparents fought so hard for back then and I don't appreciate it being trivialized either by gay, political activists or you.
Yeah, again, I think it should be reiterated that the comparison between the black civil rights struggle and the gay rights movement is bullshit.
Black people have suffered more and harder than anyone else on earth, including the Jews. We may have had a longer history of shit happening to us, but that's only because we've been around white people longer.
Ah, holy crap. We could go on about this for days, but for one, how about what homosexual priests have done to Catholic children? You've got two older men raising a young man, the older guys aren't getting along that well...that kid's not really his son, is it?Quote:
Well, if we go by the studies done, there are endless amounts of information that children raised in a 'traditional family' have been beaten, molested, tortured, neglected, psycholocially abused, and generally treated like shit. On the other hand, there is no evidence of any of this in a homosexual or 'non-traditional family'. Why? Because theres been no chances to allow such a thing. Even so, it would have everything to do with the people who raised the child and NOTHING to do with their sexuality.
The absolute only reason that there isn't "endless amounts of information" about homosexual abuse of their children is because they haven't had the chance yet, you're right. If the chance was given on a massive scale, it would spring up.
I don't know if you were aware of this, but men and women are different. Physically different, socially different, and mentally different. The gap between two gay guys is far less broad than the gap between a man and a woman. That "gap" should, obviously, provide massive benefits to a child's scope when depicted over the course of a healthy childhood. It's not the parent's heterosexuality that imparts the wealth of information, it's the fact that there are parents of two sexes that imparts the wealth of information. Balance.Quote:
Exactly, so there isn't any proof that parents being heterosexual has anything to do with their child being brought up better. It is NOT common sense to infer that just because a parent is heterosexual that alone will impart some wealth of information onto thier offspring. Such diffusion of knowledge has everything to do with the dedication of the parent, NOT their sexuality.
That's a far leap in logic. The homosexual priests weren't raising those children, they weren't their legal guardians, but what about the parents who allowed (and in some cases covered up) the abuse? Your second sentence makes no sense in the context of the debate. The same could just as easily be said for foster parents or step-parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
They'd have a long way to go if they want to catch up with thier heterosexual counterparts. Who've been documented as abusing thier children for centuries. Again, it has everything to do with the individuals doing the parenting, nothing to do with their sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I don't know if you were aware of this, but PEOPLE are different. They are all physically different, socially different, and mentally different. We aren't cast from some cookie-cutter mold. The 'gap' you're talking about seems to exist only in your mind. The sexuality of the parents has NOTHING to do with how they raise thier children. If the parents are dedicated to making sure that child has a happy, healthy childhood then it will. If they aren't, then it won't. Being 'gay' or 'straight' has nothing to do with how you raise children. There is no 'gay-way' of raising a child any more than there is a 'straight-way'. There is only good parenting, and shitty parenting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Yeah, because all gay people are crazy sex beasts. *rolls eyes* What a fucked up, offensive comment....Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Priests are often put in the position of being foster parents.Quote:
That's a far leap in logic. The homosexual priests weren't raising those children, they weren't their legal guardians, but what about the parents who allowed (and in some cases covered up) the abuse? Your second sentence makes no sense in the context of the debate. The same could just as easily be said for foster parents or step-parents.
And, yes, foster/adoptive parents could be just as likely to sexually abuse their children as homosexual parents might be. However, there's the traditional distate of pedophilia, and the perception of incest in a foster/adoptive family, all working to keep something like that from happening.
What happens in a gay family, with that millenia-long connection between homosexuality and pedophilia (think greek) and no sense of tradition (who needs it, marriage is a civil right), to keep that from happening?
It's laughable if you honestly think that there are not fundamental differences between the sexes. The sexuality of a person has a large part in how they live their life - you can't honestly think that it doesn't, can you?
There are traditions that exist to protect children from relatives, their brothers, their sisters, older people, whatever. Remove those traditions, and what happens?Quote:
Yeah, because all gay people are crazy sex beasts. *rolls eyes* What a fucked up, offensive comment....
And, look, it's difficult to deal with, but there is a historical connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. That's a fact.
It's hard to even think about this stuff without sounding like some sort of Christian Crusader, but ignoring it is potentially extremely dangerous for these children, who we may be putting in harm's way.
The traditional distate of pedophilia is a social more, not a heterosexual bylaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
That's an insane assertion with absolutely no basis in reality. Just because the ancient greeks might have thought homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand, does in NO WAY mean that homosexuals of today think in the same way. Marriage is a religious institution, gays have found churches who will perform the ceremonies before, without incidient. The debate here is that they should recieve the same benefits under the law that any other married couple gets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I've found a lot of what you've said to be laughable, but much more to just be disappointing. The sexuality of a person does play a part on how they live, but not on how they parent. If the parents are gay, and good parents, then why should they be condemned when compared to straight parents who beat, molest, and neglect thier children? This brings me back to the point I've been trying to get across to you all afternoon: Parenting depends on the PARENTS, not their sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Give me sources, give me supporting information. Because I don't see how being homosexual someone means you're a pedophile by default.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
There's a big fucking difference between homosexuals and pedophiles. Just because they're attracted to people of the same sex does not mean they're attracted to children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I'm assuming that you're attracted to women. Does this mean that you want to have sex with 10 year old girls?
I take back what I said, and I apologize. I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. Guess I jumped to conclusions a bit to fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
:nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Sorry. I misunderstood your position, and for that I apologise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Exactly. There's no political agenda by giving Gays the rights to marry, like there was no political agenda regarding the abolishment of segregration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Don't try to deny it. We all know you secretly lust to have sex with children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora
:rolleyes:
Yeah, all those gays (therefore peodophiles) may sprinkle fairy dust on them and give them TEH GAY. And then they will use there pink money to crush our economy and force us to listen to k.d.lang and techno music, and wear pink hotpants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Why are children being thrown into the mix? People outside of marriage can have children, and people inside a marriage can not have children if they wish. Marriage and a family don't come hand in hand.
All gay couples want are the same legal rights as a hetero couple. You know, tax and mortgages. The children thing is a whole other debate.
Ever heard of "gay bashing"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
I really didn't want to get into this anymore, but you can't really compare them can you? I mean, one side even had an organisation that kills them for doing something that offends them and then kills them on the side just for fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Of course African Americans were/are far more suppressed, discriminated against, brutalised, etc etc. than homosexuals. But that's not the point! So you must be suppressed beyond a point before you deserve equal rights? That's bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by KKK
Equal rights is a position, not a counter-point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
So why are you comparing them? Anyway, I didn't know the KKK went after the jews and "faggots" aswell. I guess it was just seen that way because people can't hide the fact that they are black and hence the KK went after them more?
Don't sweat it. It's got more to do with me not being able to get my point across clearly in the first place than you misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Because they are both civil rights issues. I am not saying that "the struggle of gays is like the struggle of blacks" I am just saying that the core issues of discrimination cannot be discriminated. Both are situtations in which people have been marginalised because of what they are, not who they are. It's not devaluing the Civil Rights movement of the sixties, it's just showing people that "you obviously supported that, so why don't you support this?".Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Yes, but victims of gay bashing have a better chance of surviving said hate crime than victims of a lynch mob hellbent on murder. No one is saying one hate crime is better than the other, but an organized mob of idiots hunting you down and burning everything you hold dear (churches, home, family) in an effort to "teach these niggers their place" is a shade worse than maybe a group of three or four idiots (usually "christians") beating you senseless because you happen to like men.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Ah, I see. You were just drawing a parallel. You might need to work on your tactfullness and wording about it though. I know that I have a shitload of work to do in both department. It's like everyday I somehow piss off 10 people that way. :\Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Open your mind before opening your mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
OK.Quote:
When have I ever pretended to know more about any religion than someone who practices? I just claimed to be less than ignorant. Bear in mind I say alot of things for the sake of debate that I don't neccessarily agree with, because it's regarding a point that I find contentious. i.e. I mean it as an objection, not an answer. (I'm a philosophy major, btw... debate goes hand in hand with that).
Well then, it seems that we agree more than I had initially surmised. I, too, hate the incorporation of relegion into politics, but I'm nearly certain it's not for the same reasons. ;)Quote:
Even in this thread I added the disclaimer to my post that I don't consider what I said an attack on christianity, but a defense of science. You are not a scientist (nor do I claim to be) and all the bible in the world doesn't make you any more qualified with regard to your objection to natrual selection posted in this thread. That's what I was trying to drive home. Not debunking creationism. I have no intrest in debunking creationism. I just wanted to contest the notion that randomness is a neccessary component of the scientific account of the universe. It's not. And accepting that it's not doesn't threaten Christian doctrine in any way.I have no such aversion. Perhaps you're confusing my rants against the religious right as attacks on the religious aspect. They're not. They're attacks on the political aspect.
I should have clarified. I have an aversion to the secular philosophy concerning Christianity, though I'm sure that went without saying.Quote:
And when you say you have an aversion to secular philosophy, do you mean the sum total of philosophy independant of the church, or do you mean the contemporary philosophy of secularity? Because I find an aversion to the former, which includes all of logic, debate, ethical theory, political philosophy, etc to be somewhat worrysome... I wouldn't even know how to begin debating with someone who didn't beleive in the ability to conclude things through reason alone.
Just look at the comment that started this:
I may just be unable to read between the lines, but where does that infer that the struggle of the African American is exactly like the struggle of the Homosexual? Because to me, it reads as it is: The same peson who would discriminate against Blacks would discriminate against gays; it's the same mindset.Quote:
"those who would prevent same-sex marriages, would also put Rosa Parks at the back of the bus."
I think the "also" in that phrase does it. It implies same level of intensity or treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Like:
versusQuote:
Those that would beat up X kid would aslo beat up Y kid.
Quote:
Those that would beat up X kid would beat up Y kid.
Your second sentence is grammatically incorrect. You need "also" to link the sentence, otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Does that sentence imply the people who drink vodka drink exactly the same volume of scotch?Quote:
Those who drink vodka, also drink scotch
But it's because of that objective point of view that you'll never gain anything more than superficial truths concerning any given relegion.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater
Frog, clear out your PM in-box.
Dammit, I just forgot the comma in both of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Quote:
Those that would beat up X kid, would aslo beat up Y kid.
Quote:
Those that would beat up X kid, would beat up Y kid.
Quote:
Those who drink vodka, drink scotch
http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources...ransitions.htmQuote:
Comparing and establishing degree: and, similarly, in like manner, in the same way, just as, so ... that, also, more than, less than, beyond this
You simply omitted the also from those sentences in informal language, it didn't change the meaning. It's "connecting" both concepts to one party, not "connecting" the concepts together, the party is the linchpin to the whole sentence. "Also" only establishes comparison of degree in certain usage, in the usage we are using it establishes addition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transitional Devices
The act of the concepts is equal, but not the actual concepts.