Clay, I give you an A++ just for the spelling alone.
And, since this subject is even more volatile than politics or religion, or religious politicians, I believe I'll stop while I am ahead.
I can't wait to see the cans of worms opened on this one. I wish I had time to post, but I slept in this morning.
'till this evening...
Ah, the tyranny of the majority is alive in Maine.
Like interracial marriage, this issue will probably have to be settled by the supreme court.
Until then we'll allow sex addicts, adulterers, murderers, rapists, and child molesters to marry members of the opposite sex and somehow be convinced we are protecting the sanctity of marriage.
If we were really interested in protecting marriage we'd do somthing about the divorce rate. Instead, this kind of legislation denies equal protection under the law.
It was a very disappointing vote. It's a good cartoon, however. It's a beautiful drawing, and a terrific use of an old joke about Maine.
Very nice work, Clay!
I think we, as Tennesseans, have no right to judge what the residents of Maine do/vote/say in their state. If all you enlightened social progressives feel so strongly about gay marriage what are you doing to have the Constitutional Amendment reversed here in Tennessee?
Seriously, what are you doing other than hiding behind a computer (and a cartoon)?
Given the previous posts, it looks like I'll be one of the few to say that the institution of marriage is intended for a commitment between a man and a woman. It is what I believe to be true. It is also a traditional value that apparently is held by the majority of voters in Maine and many other states as well.
Frankly, I don't care if my stance is politically correct or not. I already see many jumping to the conclusions of "homophobe" or "bigot", which is an easy accusation with this debate that is cast on those against gay marriage. My issue pertains to gay marriage only, not people themselves.
moonpie is correct in that there are many errors within our society that allow those who commit sexual crimes to marry without question, as well as have many other rights they should not be entitled to because of their choices. This is why I don't understand why gay marriage is such a mainstream issue when so many worse things are occurring in our society. It's like being concerned with a chip in the windshield when all the tires are missing.
Jhenry, how judgemental of you!
Of course we have the right to judge! In fact, most of us can't help but judge and discern. I see it all the time. I've seen it from you (wait... that statement might be a judgement.... sorry.)
Everything has it's place. There is room for public discourse on forums like this and for legal discourse. Not all of us can do all things.
I do not have the time or legal expertise to challenge Tennessee law, but I would support another person's efforts in that regard.
Besides, Tennessee's discrimination is older than Maine's, so it doesn't get the same amount of attention. It's not exactly news.
Ultimately, as I said before, I think the way these laws will be changed will not at the state legislative level. I think it will be settled at the higher court level.
aces25, you will have a hard time convincing me that you are a bigot. I know that reasonable people have your point of view. Something that has such a long tradition can be difficult to change your perspective on.
To me it's a matter of justice and legal protection between two consenting adults.
I agree with your posts! I can't do better. I've made my stance (on the subject) known on other Clay Cartoons, so I will PROBABLY just read.
I'd love for someone to state and support with evidence a secular reason (not a religious reason) for not allowing gays to marry.
Evolution defines marriage, lkeithlu.
This post has a mature rating (disclaimer for the benefit of the Family Action Council of Tennessee):
Man and woman are created with certain sex organs. Those sex organs are made to be united, man to woman. Through that union, reproduction takes place.
Homosexuals have been around for several millennia, yet neither humans nor apes (since, according to evolution, that is what we once were) have evolved to the point of males being able to conceive a child by having sex with another male. Nor a woman with a woman.
Even if a man cheats evolution and has a full sex change (which I will not describe the process, it’s painful to think about), that male will still never be able bear any children. Since evolution is survival of the fittest, and no reproduction can happen between homosexual couples, that proves it is neither natural, nor conducive to human kind for man to be with man, or woman with woman. Since it is not natural, why should they marry?
Is that a secular enough answer?
Well, my retirement from active participation didn't last long.
The following URL is from the APA,(American Psychiatric Association.)
Be warned! The article is lengthy and there are huge spaces that might make you think the article is finished.
Just keep scrolling down. The first section is a short? abstract, then gets into the study.
Bravo Maine. Like the other 30+ states that have put this issue to a popular vote, you made the right decision.
whoknows, evolution defines marriage?
If I except your argument, then I would say that evolution is change. Marriage is changeable.
If I except your argument that reproductive capacity defines what is natural.... then it is unnatural for sterile couples to wed.
As far as the natural argument in general goes, I'm not sure which part of this fallacy to attack. There are examples of homosexual mating among animals in nature.
Is man outside of nature?
I contend that man is a part of nature. Therefore what man does, by definition, is natural. It's the height vanity to think man is apart from nature.
Marriage is a social contract and a human construct, not a reproductive contract.
If same sex attraction (which occurs in a small percentage of a population of organisms) had a detrimental effect on survival, it would not be selected for if any component was inherited. It may survive if it contributes to group cohesion and stability, as it may in some non-human animals. Since we allow people to marry but do not monitor their sexual behavior (many couples choose not to bear children, and there are certainly couples who are celibate by choice or due to health issues) there is no argument to deny the same rights to same sex couples.
You have no need to read the URL I posted at 10:59am.
I knew about the study, but had never actually read it in detail. The abstract does show that the "treatment" of homosexuality is ineffective and may cause harm.
this is not a matter for the legal system (i.e. the supreme court) to decide. They are designed to uphold and interpret the law not to make new law. So this DOES belong in the hands of the voters. And me saying that even goes against how I believe. I believe that homosexuality is wrong just like sex outside of marriage between a man and woman is wrong.
I will use the Bible and physical evidence as well. The Bible tells us of two cities that were destroyed because of their "sexual orientation", Sodom and Gomorrah. (this is of course where we get the word sodomy) Archeologist are quite sure they have found these cities southeast of the Dead Sea. And by the way, the Quran also has this story in it with the same reason for the destruction. Other historical writings site these cities existence and destruction as well.
Ban gay marriage and protect the sanctity of divorce.
With the divorce rate hovering around or over 50%, the idea of marriage as a solid institution is laughable at best. Thank goodness, all the blame for the failure of this institution can be placed squarely on the shoulders on the heterosexual couples who get married.
Maybe the gay community should work to establish a new institution that has the protections of marriage without all the "straight" baggage that comes with it?
moonpie, by that argument, where does "natural law" come from? The phrase itself implies a moral bounds by which has, and always, exists. Therefore how does one define what is and is not natural law if evolution of the law is possible? And would man know when natural law has or has not been violated if it always under evolution?
lkeithlu, by your stance, what is to prevent the law from opening the gate of the definition of marriage to extend beyond same sex? At one point would line be drawn to say that it is the "civil right" of an individual to have more than one spouse? Or spouses who are siblings? The Defense of Marriage Act (1996) clarified the definition as one man and one woman. As mentioned previously, this is a conclusion of the current majority of US citizens.
You bring up a good point regarding more than one spouse, actually. I can't think of a good reason to ban polygamy or polyandry, as long as it involves adults, not minors. Unfortunately, groups that promote polygamy often engage in marriage with minors, and do not allow women to have more than one husband. Spouses that are siblings would probably not happen unless the siblings were raised apart; they would be advised for inbreeding reasons not to have children (although we breed parents to offspring in domestic animals). Marriage involving minors or anyone that cannot give legal consent should still be prohibited.
I am not sure if "natural law" has an accepted legal definition. What do you mean when you say "natural law"?
Oh, dear, Nurseforjustice:
"I will use the Bible and physical evidence as well. The Bible tells us of two cities that were destroyed because of their "sexual orientation", Sodom and Gomorrah."
Well, when it comes to organizing the vagaries of modern life around legendary traditions and myth I might advise quieta non movere.
Really, once we summon up even one of these old ghosts, what will be the end?
I am of course imagining some alternate universe in which pastors could invoke the punishment of Onan (Genesis 38) as justifying the investigation and execution of all seed-spillers in the congregation.
Inspector, I hope I am not around on the other side of eternity when you kick the "bucket" so I won't have to see where you spend yours... OUCH, that has to burn.
lkeithlu, my question to you, what is to keep your summary from debating on what age a minor actually is or is not? A civil rights argument could be made for such a situation as well. My point is the line should be drawn somewhere, and it has been. To cross the line in one area leaves precedence for such future situations, however far out they may seem at this point in time.
"Natural law" tends to have several definitions, but an easy comparison to relate would be human rights. The term natural law was used in the Declaration of Independence.
The people of Maine have spoken, get over it. Whether you agree with them or not, it is not your concern. If you want to make it so, then move to Maine are have another vote, maybe your numbers will increase and it will pass. Until then, get over it, the majority have spoken.
And being able to marry who you choose, provided you were marrying another consenting adult, would not be a human right? I would say that a consenting adult would be 18+ years old. I don't recall the government being involved in my choosing my spouse. Nor did they dictate how many (if any) children I must bear, or what their names should be.
We drew a line years ago, not allowing people of different races to marry. What was the argument then, and what has changed? As before, I fail to see a negative impact on society caused by same sex marriages, just like there was none caused by marriage between races, cultures or religions.
Those that use the Bible to argue against same-sex marriage are using a religious argument against as state contract. I would like to know what negative impact people predict would occur. Marriages threatened? With a 50% divorce rate, I doubt that. Children threatened? I see neglect and abuse in traditional marriages all the time. Economic reasons? What are they?
lkeithlu says "Those that use the Bible to argue against same-sex marriage are using a religious argument against as state contract. I would like to know what negative impact people predict would occur."
Moral decay. Consider that prophecy. You can bank on it.
Are you suggesting that the Bible is the only source of moral guidance?
Now you are opening a HUGE can of worms that I don't have time for, but yes, I would go that far.
Pity; does that mean that all non-Christians are amoral? What's your evidence for this?
Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God. A marriage certificate is a state document.
Correction: A CHURCH marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. A marriage certificate is a state document. What these folks are asking for is the state document. They are not demanding that any church recognize their union.
The basis of color determining whether or not two people could wed was a smaller issue among many larger ones before it. It is hard to compare to the stand alone argument of justifications for same sex marriage. The line changed when an entire country changed because there was (and is) no reason color should dictate human rights or one's good standing in this country. It was simply a small product of the larger result.
If all same sex couples want is marriage certificate, knowing the popular definition is that between two people of the opposite sex, then why is there not a push for a separate "certificate" that holds similar bindings to that of a marriage certificate? The fact is many don't want see the institution of marriage at risk of being manipulated into whatever someone sees fit. Again, this goes back to my previous argument of other situations that a marriage could fall under. While I'm sure many do not think it would be appropriate to marry a goat, I'm pretty sure there is an extreme minority who have no problem with this. It is an ridiculous example, but serves its purpose to make the point.
And you said yourself, "you think" a consenting adult is 18+ years of age. That is a popular opinion shared by many, and it is why it is law today.
See, I knew I was right not to comment early this morning!!
And after all I have read to this point, I have just one thing to add.
All of you who believe what happened in Maine is wrong, while attacking anything of a religious nature used as a 'counterpoint' argument sort of remind me of those who are always arguing against the existence of God, or any Supreme Being.
And to that I say, as I always have; if I am wrong, I have nothing to worry about, but if you are the one who must face the 'truth' in the Here-After, let's hope HE has a sense of humor.
Thank you for your time and attention,
I wonder why so many on this blog are afraid to read the APA's study. It is probably not going to change their thinking, but they seem almost fearful of it.
I really admire your responses.
Thank you for joining us.
"The line changed when an entire country changed because there was (and is) no reason color should dictate human rights or one's good standing in this country."
And being gay is?
Our understanding of human sexuality is getting better due to studies like the one linked above by Clara. Once upon a time people thought other races were 'less human' than whites. We are finding out the being gay is NOT a choice, and that homosexuality is a natural variation in humans. Just like hair color, allergies, learning style, athletic ability, tendency to be heavy or slim, nearsightedness. No amount of practice or desire would make me eligible for the NBA, and I did not wake up one morning in my early teens and said "I think I will be straight and be attracted to the opposite sex".
You can use the Bible to back up discrimination against those you find unlikeable or repugnant, or to control their behavior. It happened to women, blacks, Jews, etc. You can use the Bible to tell women that they cannot wear trousers, or cut their hair. I don't like to think about what happens in the bedroom of any couple, gay or straight. It's their private affair. People can get beyond their discomfort of sex by leaving that a private issue, and focusing only on the love and affection between two people and their desire to have the equal protection under the law. THAT is what this is about. I think a previous poster is right: this will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court as a constitutional issue, of equal protection under the law.
And no, nurse, morality is a human attribute, and does not require a book. Or a church. Or a preacher.
Thanks for your kind words, Clara. I work with teens, and although it isn't easy being a teenager, gay adolescents suffer in unique ways. Even if they keep their orientation secret, they hear those around them condemn gays for being perverse, unnatural, or worst of all, going to hell. Some knew they were different than their peers as early as age 10; they may not have had words to express it, but they knew. Some face a life of denying who they are, or risk losing their families, communities and churches. Some choose suicide because they see no way out.
I cannot think that anyone can say that denying gays the right to a happy and fulfilled life is a moral stand. To discriminate against gays because of something written in a book? Every human is a gift, from God if that is your belief, and all deserve to be loved for who they are, no strings attached. And all have a right to equal protection under the law, as stated in our constitution.
nurseforjustice you are using legal positivism as your argument against why gay people should not be allowed to marry, i.e. since there is not a law permitting it, then it should not be legal. If we followed legal positivism for all the things we do, we'd all be in violation of the law on a daily basis, or have an annotated code that would decimimate the rain forest. Legal positivism just doesn't work here.
As for using the Bible to say what marriage is, then we have crossed a boundary between church and state. The government would be in a bad place if it were promoting religious beliefs of some people over the religious beliefs of the another.
The truth of the matter is that marriage is a human construct and a human institution. It was created by humans for our own benefit. It has many positive uses. A significant use of marriage is legal protection.
If marriage is a human creation, then we certainly have a say in who can get married.
A lot of humans are not threatened by gay marriage. Voting records would show that the majority of people are threatened by gay marriage.
If we relied on the popular vote for freedoms and rights, many liberties you enjoy today never would have come to pass.
People who oppose gay marriage simply are refusing to grant the same benefits to gay people.
This is discrimination against gay people. This does not mean you are a bigot, it means you have chosen to not grant equal protection under the law to gay people. By denying them the ability to marry, you are making the choice to discriminate against another person.
I'm personally not comfortable telling two committed adults that they don't deserve to get married because they are gay.
I have worked for an AIDS resource center. A very high percentage of the gay men who volunteered or who were clients had in fact been married at one time. They were married to members of the opposite sex. Since they were gay, and since our society would shun them, they had to live very unhappy lives until they had the courage to be themselves. By treating these men and women as second class citizens, we promote deceit.
It is time to stop treating people who are gay like second class citizens.
By allowing gay marriage you are not denegrating your own marriage, or mine. My commitment to my wife goes to my bones. It is part of who I am.
My integrity and the integrity of my marriage is not threatened by giving others the same public recognition, and the same legal protections.
Clara, thanks for posting that massive document. I have not read this particular document, but I have read other writings on this issue from the APA in the past. Perhaps you could give us some of the key points.
who knows wrote: "Evolution defines marriage...Through that union, reproduction takes place."
I know left out the middle part of the quote, but it seems to me that you are under the impression that if two people are not married, that they cannot reproduce.
nurseforjustice wrote: "I will use the Bible and physical evidence as well. The Bible tells us of two cities that were destroyed..."
Yet no one can prove conclusively that the Bible is nothing more than a work of fiction. Given the absolute certainty that people over the eons have had their biases inserted in the context of the Bible, I think it does qualify to be defined as at least an amended work of fiction. Aesop's 656 Fables makes far more sense than the Bible ever will.
My take on this issue is very simple. It would be wonderful if some people would mind their own business while letting others do the same.
The people who would marry, if allowed to do so, would not be known by or probably would not live next door to the people who work relentlessly to prevent them from seeking a legal certification of their relationships.
This "sanctity of marriage" argument is and always has been a farce, for all the reasons that others have brought up. Not one marriage between a man and a woman would fall apart or not take place if a Federal law was passed tomorrow, allowing gays and lesbians to marry.
I was particularly impressed with two comments in here today.
Moonpie's, "Marriage is a social contract and a human construct, not a reproductive contract," and Ikeithlu,'s comment, "A CHURCH marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. A marriage certificate is a state document. What these folks are asking for is the state document. They are not demanding that any church recognize their union,"...both absolutely define and simplify the issue to it's core root.
Considering that there are religious people who are in constant turmoil because they feel that their "rights" are being denied every time a religious display is demanded to be removed, or more recently, when Bible banners are prohibited from being displayed by cheerleaders at football games, they fail heartily to see that intolerance is a bad thing, no matter the reason.
I live and let live. It is not my place to say that what may not be right for me, is absolutely wrong for others.
Defaulting this issue to the voters, only indicates just how spineless our politicians are.
Not one soul on earth would be harmed in the least if gays and lesbians were allowed to certify their marriages and to be allowed spousal rights and/or privileges.
What I gathered after scanning the abstract was that the difficulty arose when religious institutions instituted programs to "rehabilitate" their devout Christian, or Hebrew
homosexual worshipers to being heterosexuals in different programs that failed miserably. They reverted to their true nature and were traumatized.
I'm assuming at this point that it was similar to changing a southpaw to being right-handed and leaving him a stutterer: or perhaps it is like having a cat and trying to teach him to be and moo like a cow.
I guess this is a two day cartoon so I'll try to have something for you later.
I do know that these human beings are at a disadvantage in our culture, but unless they have a serious mental illness or are neurotic controllers and/or criminal, or child molesters, I see no reason why they should be classified as offenders. They have a right to be protected and have their rights. They also have their own peccadilos and personalities aside from their sexual proclivities, as don't we all. They are fully human with feelings and should be treated as such.
Then again, as someone pointed out, it's nice to have one homosexual as a friend...if you went out together you wouldn't have to worry about getting date-raped or even pawed.
I'm assuming bi-sexuals have different problems, probably with infidelity. C:-)
Go try to take some honey for a bee hive. The drone worker bees will sting you. Stinging you is a death sentence for the drone workers. They will die to protect the honey, that is there to feed the rest of the hive, and the bee larva that is not their descendants, because the drone worker does not mate.
How does this make evolutionary sense? Why would the drone bee give its life to save the genetic offspring of other bees?
Because those larva are the worker bee's nephews and nieces and cousins. Because they are close genetic relatives, and the worker giving up its life helps to ensure the survival of closely related genes.
You understanding of human sexuality and evolution is not complete.
From an evolutionary perspective, men and women have differential patterns of behavior that result in maximizing their chances of having offspring who will in turn survive long enough to have offspring. Males benefit by "sowing their seed widely" and siring as many offspring as they can. Men produce millions of sperm every day. This is the evolutionary explanation for male behavior such as fighting to win mates. Females, on the other hand, must carry the baby for 9 months and take care of them for years because human babies are dependent on the mother for food and care. Females maximize their genetic potential by having fewer children with stable partners. This is why younger women will marry older men who are more established in the tribe or village, hold property and more resources that they can invest in the fewer number of children to bring them successfully to adulthood.
Subsequent male births from the same mother are more likely to be gay than previous births; 2nd births are more likely than first, third births than second, and so on. Those percentages hold true even if the boys are raised in adoptive households where they are not the younger boy - even if they are the oldest male the percentages are what the biological birth order would be. So it is not experiential, it isn't the impact of living with an older brother. This has to result in biological changes in women's bodies following pregnancies with male babies. But why?
So that in situations with limited possible sexual partners, brothers will not compete with each other. Rather than competing with the homosexual brothers for partners, the gay brother contributes to the extended family by providing food, resources, protection, etc. In that way, this male is able to assist related genes being expressed in subsequent generations without directly competing for the mates. Much like the worker bees in the hive.
Also, from an evolutionary perspective, our ancestors benefited from being highly sexually active. So evolution favored development of individuals with very strong sex drives, resulting in some that will find sexual gratification in many ways.
Anyway, your attempt at an explanation based on evolution is a fail.
Well, that is 31 out of 31 states that made informed decisions -- in EVERY case [31 of them] where the voters were given the "freedom of choice"[!| to vote on the same-sex marriage idiocy, they have voted AGAINST it. [That includes California, that bastion of same-sexers and homophiles. They had to threaten their Supreme Court with recall to get their point across.]
That's right --- the majority vote wins in elections. Eat your heart out. Dare I remind you..."I won". Maine voters simply decided their legislativee and executive branches were on the wrong track.
Short title -- Stick to those states that have NOT had the chance to vote against same-sex marriage [or for it, for that matter.] They are the only havens same-sexers and homophiles have left because the legislature or the courts there have given them special "rights".
Kinda tough without ACORN, huh?
rolando!! There you are!! You ran out on our last thread before you could make your argument against evolution. You know, with evidence and everything? I missed you. Have you got it now? I am anxious to be enlightened, and shown for the S&M advocate you accused me of being, in our civil discourse. Remember?
When you are done with that, I'm sure you can contribute something for this discussion regarding gay marriage and why it has a negative effect on our society and should not be allowed (no religious arguments, though, because marriage is a civil contract).
"Inspector, I hope I am not around on the other side of eternity when you kick the "bucket" so I won't have to see where you spend yours... OUCH, that has to burn."
I wish you peace, Nurseforjustice.
"To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause."
I would not believe because of fear of temporal or eternal punishment.
Any faith founded on such fear would be mere groveling, a slave's obedience enforced by means of ignorance, terrorism, and extortion.
I would not wish to fantasize about the temporal or eternal pain of others.
I do believe in love.
Love is simply enough.
A creed is a rod,
And a crown is of night;
But this thing is God,
To be man with thy might,
To grow straight in the strength of thy spirit, and live out thy life as the light.
I am in thee to save thee,
As my soul in thee saith;
Give thou as I gave thee,
Thy life-blood and breath,
Green leaves of thy labour, white flowers of thy thought, and red fruit of thy death.
Be the ways of thy giving
As mine were to thee;
The free life of thy living,
Be the gift of it free;
Not as servant to lord, nor as master to slave, shalt thou give thee to me.
O children of banishment,
Were the lights ye see vanish meant
Alway to last,
Ye would know not the sun overshining the shadows and stars overpast.
I that saw where ye trod
The dim paths of the night
Set the shadow called God
In your skies to give light;
But the morning of manhood is risen, and the shadow-less soul is in sight.
Call of nature took precedence over you, ikeithiu.
I do not normally make an exception to the rule of not carrying one topic to another thread but recognize I did leave abruptly. The thread had nothing to do with proving anything right or wrong, simply correcting a misapprehension.
You are right though, I did run...
In short, a Hypothesis remains that...someone's idea until such time as a prediction expressed in that idea comes true...at which time it becomes a Theory. One of Einstein's ideas just became a Theory...or perhaps it was a Theory that became a Law. Ask Hawkings...he lost his bet.
Nothing in Darwin's Hypothesis of evolution has come true, if he even made any predictions. Homo sapiens appears suddenly [on the cosmic scale] fully formed; no sign of partially developed liver, lungs, fingers, toes, eyes. Neanderthal was the same -- although possibly a different species.
No proof is just that...no proof...ergo Darwin's Hypothesis is shaky.
So you were expecting something religious, were you. You have your beliefs, I have mine. To each his own.
You should know, ikeithlu that same-sex marriage is much more than a simple civil ceremony. If that is all it is, why so few same-sexers taking advantage of civil union -- which has all the civil advantages of a civil marriage.
No, SS marriage goes well beyond the civil aspect...the ultimate goal is full social approval, recognition, and acceptance. Well, that won't be coming any time soon in 31 states at least...
So where do you stand on the issue of a hetero couple living together without marriage? Same rights as a homo couple? Or father-daughter/mother-son marriage/shack-job [consenting adults, of course]. Or let's make it a manage-whatever and make that son-son, sis-sis, son-sis, [consenting adults again. Please don't drop the "Chi-i-i-l-l-ldren" BS] Do they all get the same rights as homo couples?
How about a 17-going-on-18 girl living with a 20 year old boy? Do they get the same rights homo couples do? Now how about a 16 yr old and a 20-something? A 15 yr old? A 14 yr old?
Please provide your reasons -- citing the law doesn't count since you chastise Maine voters and want us to overturn nationwide laws re: same-sex marriage.
BTW, the religious ceremony aspect of this topic is hardly verboten or forbidden to be discussed. Unless you own this forum, of course...
Rolando, I have no "beliefs" concerning this topic, only a basic knowledge of how science works and a lot of reading on the topic. Your use of the words "theory", "hypothesis" and "law" are incorrect, at least in terms of how you relate them to each other.
Animals, including humans, do not evolve from partial organisms. Humans evolved from earlier ape-like primates, sharing a common ancestor with all apes currently living. There are many good intermediate fossils between this common ancestor and modern humans, as well as other species of the genus Homo that have long since vanished, leaving only us.
A Scientific Theory explains a set of observations, data and patterns. The theory of Evolution on a general scale can be stated in a few sentences. To go into detail about all the myriad of organisms, living and extinct, would take a library of volumes. Theories do not become Laws. Laws are simple mathematical relationships between variables, such as the first law of Thermodynamics, or Boyle's Law, or Avogandro's Law.
Darwin's original Theory is still in place today because there is no evidence that contradicts it. However, science has expanded this theory to include all the new evidence and all the new areas of science unknown to Darwin's day, like genetics, DNA analysis, etc. It is not a hypothesis, although it can be used to generate hypotheses. One such hypothesis predicted the existence of a fossil intermediate between fish and land animals in a specific strata in Canada; such a fossil was found. This is just one example of thousands that illustrate the robust status of Evolution.
Your use of scientific terms indicates that you have a lot to learn about how science works. Theories are never proven. They can be discarded if they cannot explain the evidence as well as another theory, or they may have to be expanded or modified to include new evidence. Using Hawking or Einstein to debate biology is rather silly also-neither worked in the area and therefore probably don't have a lot of knowledge. If you want to know more about Evolution, ask evolutionary biologists and scientists in all the related fields.
A little late on my part, but great cartoon, Clay. This one is up to snuff, controversy-wise. Hope that didn't make your leg all tingly...:o)
Regarding same sex marriage: Civil unions are NOT the same thing-they don't carry the same rights and protection. If consenting adults want to live together without benefit (including all the rights and benefits gays want) of marriage, that's their business, not mine or yours. If they want to have children, that's also their business. People under the age of 18 need protection and do not have legal consent, so your example of 14 or 15 year olds is meaningless. As far as related people, although I would find it peculiar, that also is none of our business as long as all involved are mentally competent adults. And yes, the religious ceremony is separate, because you do NOT need a religious ceremony to get married in this country.
So, what was your point? And marrying a dog is also not an extension of this; animals cannot give consent.
While the vote for same sex marriage in Maine was a disappointment, one should not overlook the fact that Maine is one of only seven or eight states that has a gay rights law which even includes protection for the transgendered.
Even with this setback, Maine is more compassionate and less hypocritical than the majority of self-righteous Christians in the Bible Belt.
I never said humans or anything else remain unchanged, ikeithlu. I said there is no evidence that they came from anything but human stock. We weren't always divided by skin color, you know. That was an evolutionary response to UV.
At the same time, there is no evidence connecting us to anything other than earlier forms of human...and those are sketchy and incomplete. Please correct me if I am wrong...I would like to research it.
Finally, your definitions of Hypothesis, Theory and Law are different from mine. I suggest you try something besides Wikipedia, Google and Ask.com.
Rolando, I am not wrong about those terms. These are terms that have different meanings in science than in public use. Tell me where and when you earned a degree in a science field. No? It's obvious from how you talk about these things. I've been a scientist and science educator for almost 30 years, and not in the habit of making this stuff up. I don't use Wiki or Google as my source of information, though they make good starting places. Where is your information from?
There is plenty of evidence connecting us to earlier forms. Start reading up on it. The evidence is in the fossil record, DNA, and anatomy/physiology.
Your statement: "Homo sapiens appears suddenly [on the cosmic scale] fully formed; no sign of partially developed liver, lungs, fingers, toes, eyes. Neanderthal was the same -- although possibly a different species." is what I called you on. Evolution does not claim that humans evolved from creatures with partial organs.
Sorry, but I get my information directly from the sources: evolutionary biologists and scientists in related fields, one of whom I am married to. In this case it is you that needs to do some reading and research, as you have almost NO knowledge of this subject. And argument from incredulity is not effective debate.
Might I suggest one of the best websites ever for laypeople on this and related topics of evolution, earth's age and human origins:
rolando, check it out-you might learn something
Rolando, my hat is off. You've demonstrated once again that no subject at all can ever be simple. It is always fodder to be obfuscated, perverted, and skewed by you, often leaving a reader to scratch their head in wonder as to what exactly you typed and posted, and of course, what exactly it is that you are imbibing at the time.
Do you by chance speak English? You sure don't write it.
You wrote: "We weren't always divided by skin color, you know. That was an evolutionary response to UV."
Hilarious. One minute you're stating that humans suddenly appeared on Earth in modern form, and then the next you're spouting evolution. That controversy aside, it has been quite scientifically proven that skin color is determined by one's DNA.
If your "suntan theory" were remotely related to skin color, dark skinned people would have all but disappeared on this continent, given our very mild climatic conditions when compared to that of eastern continents.
I've extracted 2 paragraphs from the INTRODUCTION for the benefit of those too lazy to do their own work and foist it off on a "secretary." I doubt they will fit on one page.
On pp.11 of the Introduction
"In the mid-1970s, on the basis of emerging scientific
evidence and encouraged by the social movement
for ending sexual orientation discrimination, the
American Psychological Association (APA) and other
professional organizations affirmed that homosexuality
per se is not a mental disorder and rejected the
stigma of mental illness that the medical and mental
health professions had previously placed on sexual
minorities.1 This action, along with the earlier action
of the American Psychiatric Association that removed
homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American
Psychiatric Association, 1973), helped counter the social
stigma that the mental illness concept had helped to
create and maintain. Through the 1970s and 1980s,
APA and its peer organizations not only adopted a range
of position statements supporting nondiscrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation (APA, 1975, 2005a"
On pp.12 of the Introduction
"In the early 1990s, some APA members began to
express concerns about the resurgence of individuals
and organizations that actively promoted the idea of
homosexuality as a developmental defect or a spiritual
and moral failing and that advocated psychotherapy
and religious ministry to alter homosexual feelings
and behaviors, because these practices seemed to
be an attempt to repathologize sexual minorities
(Drescher & Zucker, 2006; Haldeman, 1994; S. L.
Morrow & Beckstead, 2004). Many of the individuals
and organizations appeared to be embedded within
conservative political and religious movements
that supported the stigmatization of homosexuality
(Drescher, 2003; Drescher & Zucker, 2006; Southern
Poverty Law Center, 2005).
The concerns led to APA’s adoption in 1997 of the
Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to
Sexual Orientation (APA, 1998). In the resolution,
APA reaffirmed the conclusion shared by all
mainstream health and mental health professions that
homosexuality is not a mental disorder and rejected any
form of discrimination based on sexual orientation."
And the URL to the APA report AGAIN!
You take your definitions, ikeithlu, I'll take mine. And you are wrong. Many so-called "educated scientists" are. I will bet you believe man causes "global warming", too.
The last resort of the overly [and poorly] educated, better-than-thou, intolerant uber-liberal: "My education is bigger than yours."
Finally, to paraphrase; "Nevertheless, it moves."
And you are an infallible paragon of virtue, truthfulness, and sincerity, alprova. Yeah, right. Modern man, aka homo sapiens, is essentially indistinguishable from the first skeletal records of him...he's a little taller but that's attributed to a better diet.
You, sir, are a veritable joke.
I am well aware of the basis for creating the DSM-IV. I am also aware of the conditions by which that tome was "approved" for distribution. Those are the same people who tried to pull pedophilia from the next version; which thrilled NAMBLA to no end, of course. It also guaranteed their undying support of the APA. Simply put, the APA leadership consists of an overly specialized, closed and inbred group in search of a science. They cherry-pick their info to match their theory.
In this area, rolando, you have no credibility. You are not educated in science, nor are you actively working in a science related field. How do I know? Your comments show an extreme lack of knowledge and understanding of the field. That's not a bad thing; no one can "know" everything. But your making claims in an area you know almost nothing about is revealing just how ignorant you are. I would sound the same if I spouted off on economic subjects, sports, or religion, as I have spend almost no time learning about these subjects.
Educated scientists know their fields. Whether you agree with their conclusions are not makes no difference. My education is no more valuable than yours; I just know more about this area than you-I should after all this time of work and study and experience. But of course, in your arrogance, you can't see that.
I think I have a lot to say…
Humphrey: to compare the life of a drone bee to homosexual behavior, well, I just don’t get it. The sole purpose of the drone bee is to gather honey, protect the hive, the hone, the larva, and the queen. Giving his life in his line of duty is his (for lack of a better word) destiny. To guys getting married is nothing similar. It makes evolutionary sense for the drone bee to be thus, because he is performing his duty to the benefit of his colony. And I would like to see where you get your figures on sub-sequential males being gay. I know many, many gay guys. I have been friends with scores of them. Almost all the ones I can think of either were only children, or had no father figure in their life.
Alprova: Do not take things out of context, as you are so keen on doing. I did not say that you have to be married to reproduce. Try to re-read my first post. I said that trough intercourse of man to woman, THAT union leads to reproduction. Therefore, because of that reproductive union, and since evolution has not altered that, therefore evolution defines marriage as one man and one woman. Also, how is it wrong for Rolando to use theistic evolution? He believes we were created, and have sense evolved. It definitely makes more sense for early humans to evolve into modern humans, more so that for humans to have evolved from apes.
Moonpie: Man practices many things out side of nature. If you say that everything man does is according to nature, then using up all the fossil fuels, polluting the air, the water and the land to the point of sickness, and bringing about global warming is all natural. Therefore, we do not need to worry about reversing these things, correct?
lkeithlu, et al.: Since you reject the studies of scientists in any other fields… The purpose of life, as stated by biologists such as George Williams, Richard Dawkins and many, many others is the replication of DNA, and the survival of one’s genes. If that’s the case, how can the support of homosexuality be anything but against what you, as an evolutionist, believe? Or do you disagree with them? Have you published your works or findings about what the purpose of man, and evolution are? If so, what are they? Also, I’d be more careful in throwing off any thing found, discovered, or theorized by other scientists not in your field. Especially astrophysicists and cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Hugh Ross, and many others who do believe in god or God. They might not be looking at the biological form of everything to make their determinations, but they are looking at the universe as a whole. They are trying to solve the meaning of “Life, the Universe and everything else” better than even Douglas Adams did. To discredit the findings of great scientists like that, simply for being in a different field of science, does a discredit to you.
I’m sure I have more to say, but I have a lot of work to do today. Maybe later.
Philosophical musings of great physicists regarding the meaning of life and the purpose of man is not the scientific study of evolution. the study of science has nothing to say about God or anything supernatural. That does not mean that Einstein's or Hawking's thoughts on the matter are not important, but they are not addressing the science of biological evolution. They had the intelligence and the dignity to not discuss the science that they themselves are not experts in. (unlike rolando, by the way)
Discussions about "purpose", "morality", "love" are not scientific, they are philosophical or religious. Different realm, different methodology, different assumptions. That Einstein and Hawking's work led them to contemplate these things is nothing new; Cosmology certainly inspires passion and wonder in those who work in the field. Their fame means that they can easily share their thoughts with others on the matter. I did not "discredit" their findings. They found nothing in the area of biological evolution, because they were not engaged in the study of that area.
In the animal world, homosexuality in group living animals serves a survival purpose. Animals in a group benefit from another set of ears and eyes, partners in hunting and fighting off intruders, care for the young. They may not reproduce, but by staying with the family help those with similar genes be more successful.
Finally, belief is an inappropriate term here. Belief systems are not part of science. I no more "believe" that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on this planet than I "believe" the sky is blue.
It's a slow Friday.
For the past millions of years, plant and animal species have arisen, lived, and died, relentlessly. Scientists label this process "Evolution". What this process of Nature has to do with homosexuality is beyond me. I guess people just want to blame any cultural anomaly on Darwin (one of history's greatest scientists). "Creationists" have a simple (minded) explanation. They just can just say, "God Did It".
Ah, I see. Then there will be things we will never agree on lkeithlu, no matter how good one of our arguements is to the other. See, I'm under the school of people who believe that science, philosophy and religion can all be studied in context with each other. I respect the great minds of Descartes, Newton, Galileo, Francis Bacon, David Hume (and more modern ones of) Einstein, Oppenheim, Hawking, Ross and so on. I'm not saying that you don't respect their minds, (as anyone in science should respect them, especially the first few I mentioned) but that we have a different respect for them. In my opinion, Those scientists are closer to knowing the truth than many of us. Especially those ancients.
I do concede that since these scientists were not in the biological evolution fields, they are not experts in that. However, I do think their fields have a great influence on many, many other sciences (or should have influence), including biology and evolutional sciences.
I'm a student of knowledge. I thrive on knowing as much as I can. My wife makes fun of me so much because I insist on having a phone that I can stay connected to the internet on. The moment I hear something in a conversation, movie, play, book or whatever, that I do not know about, I have to look it up and see what it means and study the reasons or the history of it. I LOVE doing research in just about any field, but especially love the fields of science, philosophy and religion. Those are the three most influencial fields of study throughout history. I see no reason why they cannot be studied together, and considered together. I do not claim to be an expert on ANY of these subjects, however I will continue to strive to learn as much as possible until I can learn no more. That is one of the meanings of life for me.
I'm sorry. I know that last paragraph didn't really have too much to do with everything we have been talking about. I just got excited for a minute. Now, as I have still not finished the work I said I had to do in my last post, I must be off... Good Day!
"Finally, belief is an inappropriate term here. Belief systems are not part of science. I no more "believe" that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on this planet than I "believe" the sky is blue."
Lordy--ahem--by Alfred!--between actually paying attention to the historical evolution, vagaries, and limits of scriptural revelation and "sacred texts" and this last announced terracentric topic of "the sky is blue"--oh my, we are really digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a Hole of Unknowing.
Why is the Sky Blue?
All of this is not to question your scientific expertise, lkeithlu.
Rather, it is to remind us all of what we very well know but too oft overlook in the urgency of the moment, that our perspectives are always and ever limited and mortal and bound by the uncertainty of where and when we stand observing this world and thinking our thoughts about it.
It is perhaps better to stick to pipes and beer and poetry.
All of these other questions just end up upsetting Jack and/or Jill (or Jill and Jill, or Jack and Jack, or &c. &c.) as they come down the hill. . . .
CAIN. Oh God! or Demon! or whate'er thou art,
Is yon our earth?
LUCIFER. Dost thou not recognize
The dust which formed your father?
CAIN. Can it be?
Yon small blue circle, swinging in far ether,
With an inferior circlet near it still,
Which looks like that which lit our earthly night?
Is this our Paradise? Where are its walls,
And they who guard them?
LUCIFER. Point me out the site
CAIN. How should I? As we move
Like sunbeams onward, it grows small and smaller,
And as it waxes little, and then less,
Gathers a halo round it, like the light
Which shone the roundest of the stars, when I
Beheld them from the skirts of Paradise:
Methinks they both, as we recede from them,
Appear to join the innumerable stars
Which are around us; and, as we move on,
Increase their myriads.
LUCIFER. And if there should be
Worlds greater than thine own - inhabited
By greater things - and they themselves far more
In number than the dust of thy dull earth,
Though multiplied to animated atoms,
All living - and all doomed to death - and wretched,
What wouldst thou think?
CAIN. I should be proud of thought
Which knew such things.
CAIN: A MYSTERY
I gotta get back to work too, but I have to disagree. Science, religion and philosophy cannot be studied together because science must limit itself to naturalistic explanations backed by physical evidence. That does not mean that scientists are not religious, or contemplate the meaning of their and other's existence. But the whys of the matter are not material, and therefore cannot be studied using the methodology of science. As soon as a scientist tries to delve into the supernatural, or apply "meaning", he or she has stepped out of science into something else.
I am not making this up. It is what it is; as a scientist I must restrict myself to evidence-based conclusions. As a human being, though, I don't. However, I must recognize that they are separate activities.
"Science, religion and philosophy cannot be studied together because science must limit itself to naturalistic explanations backed by physical evidence. That does not mean that scientists are not religious, or contemplate the meaning of their and other's existence. But the whys of the matter are not material, and therefore cannot be studied using the methodology of science. As soon as a scientist tries to delve into the supernatural, or apply "meaning", he or she has stepped out of science into something else."
Well-put and a very reasonable admission of your limits and our limits, lkeithlu.
Now someone please take us back to Jack & Jill versus Jack & Jack and Jill & Jill. . . .
The stories that we live by &c.
Humphrey: Also, from an evolutionary perspective, our ancestors benefited from being highly sexually active. So evolution favored development of individuals with very strong sex drives, resulting in some that will find sexual gratification in many ways.
(And that is why we have more sexual diseases and fall-out from hyper-sexuality today than in all of history, including the Babylonian/Sodom era. By the way, when is the last time you had a conversation with a doctor of proctology who treats gay anal disease; a Paramedic in San Fran or San Diego whose job is to pick up the human bloodied remnants of gay S& M parties? Too harsh for your little ears? Hey, we're talking "science", let's get medical people. Humans, esp. man are NOT just "animals" (and I love all animal life) What differentiates us is Spirit which envelops creativity, cognitive thinking, the ability to CHOOSE between right and wrong, the ability to envision great things and to accomplish much. Where does that Spirit come from-the primate mind, a blob of swamp slime? Okay, those of you who desire to have such ancestry, be my guest. That is more myth, conjecture, plain ignorance and close-mindedness than what I CHOOSE to believe and have seen the evidence of).
Humphrey: Anyway, your attempt at an explanation based on evolution is a fail.
(There are plenty of Evolutionary Biologists/Scientists who believe in The Great Designer/Artist who would shoot your little arguments down in a minute Humphrey. Instead, they choose to debate their peers and can certainly hold their own. Of course, the deniers claim "their" side has won. Ah, I love the equalizing factor. The Deathbed and Judgement Day) :)
Ikeithlies: Rolando, I have no "beliefs" concerning this topic, only a basic knowledge of how science works and a lot of reading on the topic. Your use of the words "theory", "hypothesis" and "law" are incorrect, at least in terms of how you relate them to each other.
Using Hawking or Einstein to debate biology is rather silly also-neither worked in the area and therefore probably don't have a lot of knowledge. If you want to know more about Evolution, ask evolutionary biologists and scientists in all the related fields.
(Here we have the resident "expert" who previously bragged on another forum that he knows all in the realm of evolution as he has studied all the "sides" and perspectives for ("10 years" or "30 years"-take your pick which one is true-now he says he has "only a basic knowledge of science"); he and the little Troll-Gollums who follow him, stalk those of us who have chosen to disagree with him and DEMAND we answer his "evidence". One of his Gollums, "librul" (how about librawler) likes to steal my Canary handle and rant in a drug-crazed frenzy. The other, TinaFrench thinks I like to see my "name" in print. Well, now I have it in print double the time-woo-hoo. She wonders why I cannot print my real name? Maybe she'll ask the same questions of you Left-leaners here who are "allowed" to disagree with others? These are the 'rational' great thinkers we have on this site-need I say more?)
(Einstein and Hawking have more knowledge in a complex variety of 'science', physics and creative thought than anyone of us here or probably anyone in the last century has. We do not have to agree with all their conclusions, but to discredit and denigrate them as this person does here and on other forums is the height of ARROGANCE and only illuminates the very narrow perch and state of mind this Gollum Leader exists in. )
(For every "study" noted on this cartoon, such as the 50% divorce rate, primates/hominids, APA claiming that homosexuality is natural and inborn, there are myriads of studies that claim the exact opposite. So, the bottom line is, not who can claim to cite the most studies and stats, but where does the Human Spirit come from and more importantly, when are the close minded going to learn to search out and look at all sides in order to at least-ATTEMPT to know the truth?
Einstein: "Those with great spirit have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds"
Canary! You are back! (after bolting from the last thread when asked for evidence) Let's stay with the topic; if we want to continue our science discussion on the thread you left, we can go there.
Your myriad of studies? Sources please? We would all like to see them for ourselves.
Kudos to Rolando and our very own Lightnup (wherever you are today) for non-mediocre thinking and willingness not only to seek out the truth, but declare it bravely in the face of so much...slathering over the politically correct, agenda-driven malarkey and baloney here in the US of A :)
It seems that most of the postings on this issue are concerned with either the morality or scientific basis of homosexuality. I think that perhaps a more helpful way of viewing this is as a civil rights issue. While there is room for debate on the religious and moral aspects of the issue, and even on the science involved, I feel the legal aspects are fairly straightforward.
The federal law (laid out in the Defense of Marriage Act) and the state laws of the 31 states to have outlawed gay marriage (made through amendments to state constitutions) provide different rights and remedies for two classes of citizens : straight and gay. This is discriminatory on its face. I think that we have seen gay marriage succeed in the courts first because the judges involved (many of them conservative) see that gay marriage is really a civil rights issue. If we think back to Brown v. Board of Education, I I think it's safe to assume that the majority of the state populations in the south would have voted against integration of the school systems, and yet no one today would make an argument that voters in the majority should have been allowed to vote the government into a discrimnatory stance.
While many (indeed, if the latest elections are any indication, a majority) of Americans may not support gay marriage, I don't think it's inappropriate for the courts to "force" the issue, as our system of checks and balances is in place to ensure that the majority cannot rob the minority of their civil rights. Allowing gay marriage would have no impact on those would not choose to engage in such an act.
Simple solution: End government licensing of marriage. Then we won't have to debate whether government is enforcing any particular religion's morality or legitimizing what some see as immoral conduct.
Think about it. You don't need a government license to baptize your child, take communion, or hold a Bar Mitzvah. Why on earth do you need permission from the state to marry?
Answer ... you didn't until less than a hundred years ago. Marriage licensing was created as a way to restrict the rights of interracial couples to marry. Now it is being used as the rope in a tug-of-war between gay rights activists and religious conservatives. Remove the rope and there is no tug-of-war.
Turn marriage back over to the churches and other religious institutions where it belongs, and get the government out of the equation. Your church can marry whoever it wants and other churches can recognize or not recognize the union as they see fit.
Gosh, that was easy. Got any other issues I can fix?
Well, I wondered when someone would pull the old "inter-racial marriage" saw into the picture.
Marriage licenses are a tax, that's all. More money for the gov't.
Sigh. Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else. That is guaranteed in what the SCOTUS has left us of the Constitution.
Ho-hum. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege taxed and controlled by the state.
Rights are inborn and are not taxable. [Wait for the "firearms license" saw next. Simple. It is unconstitutional...ask Vermont.]
The church is the last great wall against which the homosexuals and homophiles rail, weep and gnash their teeth. They cannot wait for the chance to file suit in federal court once marriage is deemed a right.
They already have ALL the rights of US citizens and the rights of Civil Unions that entail the same rights as hetereosexual marriage. The Gay agenda always sounds nice on paper, similiar to Marxist theory-fine in theory, a nightmare in practice.
This is an Agenda-driven, Activist-driven Purpose to wrest the God-given right to marriage away from hetereos. Problem is they don't stop there. In CA where white, Christian hetereos are despised, called "Breeders" and nastier names than can be printed here; homosexuals purposely apply for jobs in companies and organizations (Boy Scouts, churches eg), that they know have open statements re: their hiring practices. When they are denied employment or eventually hired, they go into full attack mode and the lovely, unbiased ACLU comes into the picture. the result: The Boy Scouts of So. Cal lost all the free campgrounds they have used for generations and other organizations had to shut down business.
If "rights" were really the issue instead of "assumptions" of how the majority would vote, then the Gay/Lesbian Lobby would be content to have the full rights of Life, Liberty and partner-unions, as they do right now. However, facts and actions do not lie. Thinking and believing that it's "OK" to use the Judiciary (who BTW was heavily Liberal-Left for years) branch instead of the Legislative branch to make/interpret Law is the worst sort of undermining and deviousness imaginable concerning the Constitution (which some Americans seem to want to trash anyway).
*Disclosure: I have had many friends over the years with diverse backgrounds. Some of them, including gay and transgender people came from abusive, fatherless or motherless homes. I have cried with them, comforted and loved them as I do anyone who needs comfort from a friend. I did not 'hang out' in their circles nor did they in mine, yet they knew I would always care about them as a person, when they needed someone to talk with. They knew and understood that I could not support their lifestyle, yet I could still love them. They in turn, used to laugh and tell me-"well, we don't support yours either!"
We can always argue legal, scientific or sexual-animal reasons all day long. I prefer to know the person and see the results of actions. I prefer not to deal with the Left's Agenda. It just causes my stomach to rumble and my mouth to grumble.
MountainJoe: your suggestion has a lot of appeal, but it wouldn't be quite as simple as that. Quite a lot of other legal issues hinge on "marriage" visiting rights, being included on insurance; filing taxes; etc. If we stopped letting the government have a way of officially deciding who is and isn't married, we'd need to address all those scenarios also. People could simply register that they are "married" for those purposes, but it wouldn't solve the problem that some of us don't want others of us to be allowed to do that.
Although we could take your suggestion, and then have people register their "partners" for legal/tax purposes, and stop trying to restrict that definition. Live alone with your elderly mother? Go ahead and put her on your health insurance? Lifelong couple that never got married? Go ahead and file your taxes together. You want your best friend to visit you in the hospital? Go ahead and register her.
Those studies, Canary? or are you going to bail on this one like you did the last?
Go find them yourself. You know full well what they are and where they are (unless I'm right and you're a Fake).
I don't do homework for the likes of you. :)
McCormick - thanks for the feedback. Let me try to address your issues....
Visiting rights ... not sure exactly what you are talking about ... maybe hospital visitation? Surely that could be taken care of by a simple form that could be filled out (sort of like a living will) by the parties in question. Have it notarized if you like. No marriage certificate needed.
Inclusion on insurance? Leave it up to the free market. Some companies could offer individual coverage, some could offer couple coverage (with couple defined however they wish), some could offer "family" coverage (whatever that might mean), etc. Each gay or straight person could choose which insurance to buy. If your employer doesn't offer the kind of coverage you want, you would be free to change jobs and/or purchase health insurance on your own. (Allowing it to be offered across state lines would help!) Insurance is not "fair" now. For example, my employer only offers single coverage or "family" coverage. With no children at home, I have to pay the same premium to cover my wife, as another employee pays to cover his wife and 6 kids. Fair? No, but I have the option of changing employers or living with the benefits that are offered.
Filing taxes? Easy. We need to get rid of the income tax anyway, and replace it with a national sales tax (and/or a lot less federal spending). Eliminate the income tax, and there is no reason for the government to care whether you are married or not. Meanwhile, I don't see where it would hurt to let any two people file a joint return if they so chose. It's not exactly like I have ever sent in my marriage certificate with my tax return. The feds are just taking my word for it that my wife and I are "legally" married. So why not allow any couple (same or opposite sex, married or not) to do the same?
Basically, I agree with your idea of "registration" but not in the sense of having to fill out some government-mandated form. Simply draw up an agreement similar to a power of attorney listing the person you wish to "partner" with, sign it (and have it notarized if you want some sort of official "legitimacy" to it) and provide copies to your insurance company, hospital, child care provider, etc.
Again, problem solved, with no help from Washington D.C. or Nashville needed or wanted.
That's what I thought, Canary. Once again you make claims you can't back up. Why am I not surprised? Guess all those scientists, published papers, research and forums blowing Evolution out of the water were in your imagination, too. The studies don't really exist.
The drone bees are a comparison to make the point for you - there is an evolutionary benefit for the drone bees of protecting their nieces and nephews, so that genes related to theirs will be passed on to the next generation.
In humans, one strategy for males to pass on their genes is to make as many babies as they possibly can. This is the predominate strategy. But there may be other strategies that result in passing on your genes as well. One could be not competing with your older brother for mates (in Humans, polygamy is usually one male and several females), but instead providing resources to the extended family to help that next generation survive - helping your nieces and nephews survive by contributing to the extended families needs without competing for female mates.
the big brother effect is the strongest known predictor of male sexual orientation - we all know anecdotes and examples that run contrary to the statistics of anything, but if you look at enough data you see the trend -
I'm sure that google could help you find more.
there was the care recently of two women in Miami. One fell unexpectedly ill and was in the ICU; the other was her partner for something like 30 years and had the signed power of attorney for her partner, but the hospital still wouldn't let her visit her in the ICU as she died because she wasn't a relative.
Although I agree with you MountainJoe in that I think there should be a separation from the legal rights of marriage - a contract, license, civil union, whatever - and the religious aspects that some hold as important and others do not. Atheists get married legally everyday.
canaryinthecoalmine: "They already have ALL the rights of US citizens and the rights of Civil Unions that entail the same rights as hetereosexual marriage." AND "If "rights" were really the issue instead of "assumptions" of how the majority would vote, then the Gay/Lesbian Lobby would be content to have the full rights of Life, Liberty and partner-unions, as they do right now."
Please do research before making such across-the-board statements. I recommend checking out civil unions in Wiki as a quick fact check. Civil Unions are only available in a handful of states and aren't recognized in most of the remaining states. It is obvious that you are not in touch with the legal system and ideology of the South.
The last thing we need here is the propagation of falsehoods and untruths.
WOW, I have been too busy to look here but what a ride with these post... I do feel I need to answer a couple of folks.
lkeithlu: "Pity; does that mean that all non-Christians are amoral? What's your evidence for this?"
No one is amoral and christian or non, everyone is immoral. That is the precise reason we need redemption of which the Bible teaches.. (and you opened that can of worms not me).
lkeithlu: "And no, nurse, morality is a human attribute, and does not require a book. Or a church. Or a preacher."
Someone or Something has to set the standard. And the fact that the Bible contains the most ancient of writings is a very good place to start. Not to mention that it is compiled of 66 books written by approximately 40 men over a period of centuries without contradiction. That in itself is amazing.
moonpie: "nurseforjustice you are using legal positivism as your argument against why gay people should not be allowed to marry, i.e. since there is not a law permitting it, then it should not be legal. If we followed legal positivism for all the things we do, we'd all be in violation of the law on a daily basis, or have an annotated code that would decimimate the rain forest. Legal positivism just doesn't work here."
WOW, you are really reaching. Your statements are utterly ridiculous. This is not just a legal issue as so nicely pointed out by Canary. There is an agenda. And moral decay will be its end. We as a nation are almost morally bankrupt now.
Alprova: "Yet no one can prove conclusively that the Bible is nothing more than a work of fiction. Given the absolute certainty that people over the eons have had their biases inserted in the context of the Bible, I think it does qualify to be defined as at least an amended work of fiction. Aesop's 656 Fables makes far more sense than the Bible ever will."
And as woody said, I don't have anything to lose by trusting in God's word. And if I am right, where does that leave you? I am sorry for being so straight forward but I think that is the only thing you will understand.
Inspector: "I wish you peace, Nurseforjustice."
As I do you. And be assured that I will pray for you as well.
Now back to the subject of the toon. Over my 50 yrs of life, I have had so many gay friends it is ridiculous. But all of them knew where I stood, and stand, without judgement from either side. One of my best friends was gay. He would not talk to me about it because he knew it was an unwinable fight for both of us. He knew I would not budge on my beliefs and I knew he would not budge on his. I happily sang at his funeral because, even tho he was living immorally, I knew where he ended up for eternity.
I have even been accused of being gay many times myself because, as a male, I have chosen to work in a predominately female field. But nothing could be further from the truth.
And as for humans just appearing... well yes they did, when God created Adam and then a little later Eve. And I can even answer; what came first, the chicken or the egg?
The chicken of course. Since God created Man and not a baby.
Ok, now you can all blast away again... I am a big boy and can take it...
GAintrigue: Please do learn to read before you so eagerly tear down someone's premise. I said Civil unions (as most places where I've lived have them), not ALL states have civil unions. Gays CAN and do make their own partner unions and some churches even bless those-in the South and elsewhere. If and when the rest of the states or the Feds make civil unions legal, that won't be enough for the L/G activists. It's never enough for some people.
I believe your Agenda crowd is the one that needs to stop propagating lies and falsehoods, including the one that equates African-American slavery and their fight for equal rights on the same level as the gay right-to marriage issue. Many Conservative African Americans in this country disagree vehemently with you guys. Like I said above, all the stats, data and boring drivel from the left show us two things:
1) the Left-atheists in this country have no sense of humor and
2) reality, history, life experience, real-people interactions and viewing honestly the results of actions over decades allows the Truth to emerge
Pages of bone-dry statistics, data that's been manipulated to suit ones agenda, droning on and on about this or that study-well it serves two things. It puts everybody to sleep and it distracts from the real issues and the joys of life.
whoknows: I loved your post about how you are always eager to learn and are a perpetual student of many subjects. It reminds me of a gentleman who applied to enter the U of Toronto around 25 years ago when he was almost 90 years old. The Grand Poohbahs at U of T were flabbergasted as the man had no more than a second grade education and could not produce any papers proving even that. So they tested him. His IQ score and test scores in all subjects went off the charts. He wrote an exam in AstroPhysics (his favorite subject) and aced it plus. I know his isn't the only example in history to have silenced the proud but it's one I think illustrates the point-the humble will rise while the Arrogant are like grass that burns up in the oven.
I've scanned all of the URLs you posted at 1:47pm today.
I figure that pretty much identifies the source of homosexuality as pre-natal. I can easily accept the theory.
Gee whiz, though! Now we women can be blamed for more things, even though it seems to be a natural process. C:-)
Thanks. I'm glad you presented the list.
I'd like to address to the general clientel of this blog, that the laws laid down in the Christian and Catholic Bibles, and later, in the Mormon rendition, are based on very early Jewish law, and those were adopted from other beliefs even earlier. Some of our bloggers are so conservative that they call up their arguments from sources that had NO real scientific basis as a standard, only some empirical knowledge, for instance... eating pork was not allowed, probably because it became evident that, although "pink pork" was not an evident factor of illness, those that ate pork got sick. The Jewish 10 commandments are identical with the Muslim and Christian renditions.
I've posted it before. King David in Pslam 139 seemed to grasp certain curious events in, what I would call, evolution.
God gave us brains. Lots of us don't exercise our privilege to full extent. Me included!
Speak for your self Clara (about the God-given brains). I use both my brain and my heart-something you Pretenders seem to know nothing of.
Now that you too have mastered posting numerous studies, you have suddenly become expert in all manners of science, the Bible and Jewish Law. Your interpretations above negate that. Proof that you "know not whereof you speak". I am quite capable of debating Torah and Christian Biblical law but will not with you or any other person on this forum that has exhibited a hostile, closed mind and heart when it comes to Christians and Jews (and Conservatives).
Good day, m'lady
whoknows, I will concede that not all things in nature are good for man's immediate or long-term prosperity, or for the status quo. I certainly never meant to imply that they were. Murder, for example, occurs naturally. And yes, I do strongly oppose murder.
Still, I would say that anything man does is natural. To say that homosexuality is unnatural is just false. If you had said homosexuality is less common in nature than heterosexuality, we would have had no disagreement.
I will throw a log onto your fire with this statement: even the laws banning gay marriage are constructs of nature, if they were man made.
To say that man can act outside of nature is certainly something that you would have great difficulty in proving.
The point is, we are creatures who have a limited view, a limited insight to nature, into our world. We make choices which will alter our enivornment. This has its blessings and curses. Sometimes we choose well, sometimes we choose poorly. And sometimes we think we know more than we actually do. (I don't know anyone who is immune from this, but I know a lot of people who don't recognize it in themselves.)
If you wish to debate if this less common natural act is a detriment to our society... well, that's a different story isn't it? That's something we could actually debate.
Will you concede this small point so that we could debate the issues on its real merits?
Ya know, Canary, sometimes science is dry and boring. The data that is collected and analyzed by countless scientists may not reveal the bigger picture right away, but eventually it does. But if you are going to make a claim that is scientific, you must back it with the evidence, or else it isn't scientific. Of course, if you don't accept the validity of science, none of this matters. I would not want my medical science to be based on religious belief or speculation. I'd want cold hard facts.
However, since we are not discussing the scientific support for evolution on this thread (it was on the thread canary bolted from when asked for evidence) it does not pertain here. This has switched to a discussion on civil rights, something I am not as up on. Signing out..
You sound just like Barry Goldwater when he spoke of the "moral decay" in the 60s when opposing Civil Rights.
Moral decay was not uncommon language in those days.
This "moral decay" is now celebrated by many conservatives who tout American Liberties granted by progressive thinkers of the past.
I see a trend among conservatives with the use of this phrase.
I'm not saying you're racist, or a homophobe.
I'm saying your language has been used to promote discrimination in the past and likely does not represent your beliefs about United States liberties. (I'm giving you the benefit of doubt, here.)
Sometimes "moral decay" is ethical enrichment.
Preserving discriminatory traditions is not always a good thing.
Granting equal liberties to people who are not inflicting harm on others is not moral decay. It's justice.
I thought you were a nurse for justice?
Where is the justice in you wanting to deprive others equal protection under the law?
Humphrey. Thanks for the posts.
I read through them all. And as always, to every "finding" there is another group that negates it. Or tries to.
Also, the studies showed that only 1 in 7 gay men owe their orientation to fraternal birth order. That's just over 14%. Nearly 86% not owing their orientation to FBO is quite more significant. I'm sure there are more studies out there that we could both find, but I'm too busy. However, even the studies you presented were said to, as of yet, be inconclusive by the very ones who did the studies.
Moonpie: I'll agree to this statement you gave: "The point is, we are creatures who have a limited view, a limited insight to nature, into our world. We make choices which will alter our enivornment. This has its blessings and curses. Sometimes we choose well, sometimes we choose poorly. And sometimes we think we know more than we actually do. (I don't know anyone who is immune from this, but I know a lot of people who don't recognize it in themselves.)"
However, I never said that homosexuality was a detriment to our society. I mainly got involved in this discussion because of lkeith's challenge for a secular reason. I love challenges.
For my personal thoughts? I think homosexuality is wrong. And I do believe that the construct of marriage is between a man and woman. As I mentioned before, though, I have several gay friends. My sister-in-law is even a lesbian. She knows how I feel, and I know how she feels. She is for gay rights, for obvious reasons, but frankly, I don't care. Whether gays are given a marriage contract or not does not state they can or cannot be together. Sorry to those of you who think that sounds heartless, but it doesn’t matter to me.
I do think it's funny that in our day in age, when marriage is being belittled by an increase in divorce rates, an increase in extra-marital affairs, and an increase in people living together and/or conceiving children outside of marriage that gays are getting more and more bent out of shape about not being able to be recognized as married. Not that I think it’s funny to them, just that it is ironic.
lkeith, I know you already "signed out" of this discussion, but I just wanted to say, I enjoyed our back and forth ealier. I always love talking to intelligent people (whether I agree with them or not). It challenges me to learn more!!!
Anyway, thanks all. It's been a fun cartoon! And I must say that Clay's use of wording for the Maine speech was priceless! I have to think way to hard when I'm talking to people in that area... :)
I'm out too. See you all next week, I'm sure, for another rousing conversation.
OK, fellow bloggers, what do you think Canary's outrage and fulmination against me has accomplished?
whoknows the only point of that was that someone said there was no argument against gay marriage except for religious ones; you replied trying to use evolution as an example, because you asserted that evolution would not explain homosexuality; I gave you examples of how evolutionary theory does allow for homosexuality.
That's the point.
nurseforjustice wrote: "Someone or Something has to set the standard. And the fact that the Bible contains the most ancient of writings is a very good place to start. Not to mention that it is compiled of 66 books written by approximately 40 men over a period of centuries without contradiction. That in itself is amazing."
Do you really believe that only 40 people had anything and everything to do with the Bible you read today? Your statement is amazing.
"And as woody said, I don't have anything to lose by trusting in God's word. And if I am right, where does that leave you? I am sorry for being so straight forward but I think that is the only thing you will understand."
What I understand is very simple. The Bible is not "God's word." It is the words of literally hundreds, if not thousands of people who have been involved in creating what most of us read and consider to be the guidebook to religious values. The Modern day Bible was translated from archaic languages consisting of tens of thousands of words, into English that at the time, consisted of roughly a thousand original words.
Read a little about King James, who pretty much rewrote the Bible we read today. The man was literally insane.
I additionally understand that God gave me a brain to think with, to reason with, to question what does not make sense to me. I am not a brainwashed soul who listens to a preacher each week, nodding my head in full agreement with their interpretation of scripture.
I gave up worrying or caring about being condemned by others a long time ago. I consider the Bible as relevant as any other collections of stories meant to make us think, ponder, and to form moralistic values upon reflection.
My God loves everyone, regardless of their faults, shortcomings, or for being different from the accepted "norm." I don't believe in fire and brimstone. People who worship that book more than the God they believe in are nothing short of silly, in my humble but stern opinion.
You believe that the Bible is God's word because you have been taught that it is. I've never met one person who has arrived at that opinion after doing countless hours of research on the subject by weighing what has been written on both sides for centuries.
Clara, I think outrage and fulmination frequently says a lot more about the person doling it out than it does about the recipient. I would apply that statement to myself, as well.
To go one step further,
You are a person who does not predictably fall on one side of an argument. You are humble. You admit your weaknesses and short-comings. You seem to seek the truth.
We may not always agree, but it seems you approach new situations not with the idea of how to fit the situation into your preexisting mind-set, but with the recognition that it's possible that a new situation or new details could alter your mindset.
You are open minded, but don't blow with the wind. You will question. In my experience, rigid people respond angrily to being questioned. Rather than answering respectfully to questioning, or with facts, or a lucid argument, they frequently answer with insults and/or opinions presented as facts.
A personal attack on you is at best a sign of immaturity. At worst it's an admission that they have no better argument.
I think it's been observed here that people who claim to be the most tolerant, are frequently the least tolerant.
I think there is some truth to that. I have been dissapointed by people who preach tolerance then fly with rage at others just because they dissagree.
I don't think that kind of response is unique to a particular location on the political continuum. I think it's a reflection of how rigid an individual is.
Rigidity is a troublesome quality in people no matter their political persuation. Investigtions into origins of terrorism have shown that terrorism is most likely to arise in countries which are 1) socially rigid, and 2) deny women reproductive and political freedoms.
Most terrorists, both domestic and abroad were very rigid thinkers. Think of Timothy McVeigh, for example. Think of some of the Symbionese Liberation Army.
I think it's natural that none of us like to be questioned. We'd all like to be right all the time. Rigid people are threatened by questioning more than average.
In my personal experience, I have discovered in retrospect that I was very unhappy because I was being too rigid about one thing or another. I try to guard against it. When I disagree with someone, I certainly try to acknowledge the valid points another person makes. I think aces25, whoknows, and you are very good at that. scottym is as far right as anyone on this site, but he's also less rigid and can acknowledge valid arguments that oppose his.
Bottom line is: I don't know why anyone here feels compelled to make degrading comments toward others. My guess is that they are particularly threatened by you or simply lack the ability to respond maturely. Sometimes it's hard to know.
ACES 25, very well stated. As far as being"politically correct," I really do not give a damn any more. I am so tired of awaking to the news each day and seeing all this garbage on every news channel and every newspaper. I do not condone gay relationships, but I do not condemn either. Your choice, as far as I am concerned. There are so many other issues that have to be dealt with before we lose our values and morales that this country was founded on. The needless killings, especially among our younger generation, is the first problem that has to be dealt with. I still say and believe that taking the Bible and The Pledge of Allegiance to The United States out of our school system was absolutely the biggest mistake this country has made. All because we have to be "Politically Correct," because we are stepping on the toes of less than 10 percent of the country. Give me a break. I and many others of the other 90+ percent are fed up and want our country back to the way it was in the 50's and 60's. Sorry about the ranting, but enough is enough.
I could be wrong, but I think the real issue that a lot of Christians and Conservatives have with gay marriage is the idea of calling it marriage. If they would call it something else, such as a union or partnership, and give homosexuals the same rights ,such as joint filing on income tax returns, family insurance plans, and upon death, be able to leave one's possessions with the other without the other having to pay insane amounts of taxes, then I don't it think that it would cause as much of a problem. Christianity recognizes marriage as a holy union, and the Bible teaches homosexuality as being wrong. Since the Christians believe homosexuality to be wrong, they don't want homosexuals to be able to enter into something that is holy to them. It is like a slap in the face to their beliefs.
The government should realize that this is a slap in the face to the majority religion and not upset them. The government is so worried about offending minorities of race, religion, national origin, and everything else, but they don't seem to care as much about offending the majorities. The idea doesn't sound too good to me. Upset the masses and you have a rebellion on your hands.
Easy solution: Give homosexuals the same rights. Call it something different.
"A personal attack on you is at best a sign of immaturity. At worst it's an admission that they have no better argument."
Thank you! I'd been thinking along those lines myself, after reading some of the comments posted here. They never seem to have a real response, just vituperation.
Clara, you keep sending me to the dictionary!
At any rate, I wish you peace.
That goes for everyone else here, too.
"And be assured that I will pray for you as well."
Thank you, Nurseforjustice. I am better for your thoughts.
Please note that I do not rally or rouse casually.
I only care to push back when I see the postings ending with fantastic notions of hellfire--or even worse, with gleeful fantasies of temporal or eternal torture.
Humankind most certainly has had enough of that sort of wrongheaded thinking. We Americans are currently set head-to-head with another world culture that perceives that citizens of "the Zionist Crusader States of the West" must be exterminated solely because America and Americans are hellbound and expendable. Fort Hood, miles away from my birthplace, you are in my thoughts tonight.
That sort of hateful and destructive thinking is the only Hell from which there is a need for saving, and I will push back against Islamicist fantasies of extermination as I will push back against Christian Crusader fantasies of a world cleansed by hellfire or rapture.
Maine-stream America....We're not buying gay marriage. Do whatever you like in your bedroom. We really don't care. Just keep it out of our face.
If Heather has 2 mommies, so be it. Just keep the book at home; our kids should not be forced to read it. You're not forced to read the Bible and our kids should not be forced to read about your lifestlye.
If you truly think you're born gay. I can accept you. It's not a problem. Just don't be a drama queen flaunting it in my face.
I have gay business clients and I have no problem with them. They don't flaunt their homosexuality and I don't flaunt my heterosexuality. We get along fine. We go to dinner together. They bring their partner and I bring my wife. We treat each other with respect and we have a great time. I don't have my hands all over my wife in public and they don't either.
My wife worked for a gay man for 5 years. We went to the opera with him and his partner. We went to dinner together numerous times and we treated each other with respect. I can respect another human being as long as they repect me. I don't condone their lifestyle but I don't condemn them either.
I'm sorry but I can't accept gay marriage. Maybe I could accept a domestic partnership but not marriage.
The gay community could help their cause by sending the drama queens to anger management class. The tantrums and screaming over little issues drives us all nuts. It makes me wish some of you would move back into the closet. I can't believe you would even go out in public with a partner like that. I'll never for get that dinner. It was the last with that client and his drama queen partner.
Hate crimes are bogus. Every human life should be equal. Regardless of race or sexual orientation.
I've got a double whammy to offer, if anyone is interested.
Here's an example of how gay people are treated in our society, and how Wal-Mart treat's their customers.
I've read no less than fifty of these kind of stories over the past few years. This one takes the cake though...
Speaking of morality
I haven't the time, or inclination, to rebut those of you who oppose gay marriage or disapprove of homosexuality. You have a right to be bigoted against anyone or anything you like. But when the laws of our land reflect the biases of such bigotry, it's unconstitutional.
Whether you're gay or straight, it's an instinctual orientation, not a 'lifestyle choice'. Most people, by nature, are heterosexuals. A minority of the population is gay, but they are also, by nature, homosexuals. But while the majority group enjoys full rights and unconditional acceptance, the minority community does not. Gay people in America currently have no federal protection to equal treatment in the workplace and no federal right to legally confirm a committed relationship.
Both of those injustices will be corrected, and it won't happen by the will of the voters in any state, but by the federal courts. It will not happen through the establishment of new law, but by simply enforcing current law to its full and rightful extent.
So, get used to the idea of full and equal rights for gays. It may not happen in my lifetime (although I pray to the god who created me the way I am that it will), but it will happen one day, just as sure as you're reading this right now.
You can't stop the world from turning, guys... and you can't stop justice from finally, one day, being fully realized.
Humphrey: Anyway, your attempt at an explanation based on evolution is a fail.
Where's the hatred and anger? Not one of you accusers answered any facts of the conservatives here or on other forums in this paper, except to denigrate us (you too Clara-and I surely do doubt you are who you say you are) and our beliefs. The Haters and the close-minded of you lot have proved yourselves again. More proof of just who are the "rigid" ones always attempting to shut us up.
alprova, for some unfathomable reason, wrote: "Here's an example of how gay people are treated in our society, and how Wal-Mart treat's their customers."
I've never been treated that way in Wal-Mart and am quite certain that 99.9% of Wal-Mart customers are not treated that way.
Your ridiculous claim that this one incident is an example of the way Wal-Mart treats it's customers is just another reason why it's so hard to take anything you say seriously.
"(There are plenty of Evolutionary Biologists/Scientists who believe in The Great Designer/Artist who would shoot your little arguments down in a minute Humphrey. Instead, they choose to debate their peers and can certainly hold their own. Of course, the deniers claim "their" side has won. Ah, I love the equalizing factor. The Deathbed and Judgement Day)"
Sources? Names of these scientists? Places where they publish? Forums where these debates are being held? Haven't we been here before, canary?
While we are at it, we would like evidence to support this statement:
"And that is why we have more sexual diseases and fall-out from hyper-sexuality today than in all of history, including the Babylonian/Sodom era."
I have read your posts. I have not seen you actually articulate an argument or a fact that pertains to this issue.
You have alluded that there are facts that support your beliefs, but have not stated them.
After reading your posts, I'm not exactly sure what you are even arguing. You seem to be in strong opposition to a theory of evolution. I get that. You seem to oppose the concept of gay marriage. I get that.
But you don't really articulate your reasoning.
Perhaps if you outlined your argument more clearly we could discuss it. If you wish to be understood and convince me or other people here that your point of view is correct, some clarification would be needed.
Hours later and the response from canary:
This is becoming a pattern-inflammatory statements and outrageous claims, then bolting when evidence is requested.
I am proud that at least 78 people in my tiny northern Maine town voted to keep our gay marriage law. That's quite a feat since this area is considered the 'bible belt'of Maine. Unfortunately we 'no' people were outnumbered by homophobias and religiosity. The people that are against gay marriage shouldn't get too comfortable here because they did not win by a wide margin. This is a civil rights issue and it shouldn't have even come up for a vote with the general population. I resent the fact that religious people think they have a right to interfere with our government and our private lives.
"There are plenty of Evolutionary Biologists/Scientists who believe in The Great Designer/Artist who would shoot your little arguments down in a minute Humphrey. Instead, they choose to debate their peers and can certainly hold their own. Of course, the deniers claim "their" side has won. Ah, I love the equalizing factor. The Deathbed and Judgement Day) :)"
I think you have missed the point here. I will try to help you by summarizing.
Someone asked if there was any argument against gay marriage that was not based in someone's religious beliefs.
Someone else posted that an evolutionary view would not account for homosexual behavior, because homosexuals would not pass their genes to the next generation.
I explained how an evolutionary view does allow for homosexual behavior.
That was the only point I was making, and you kind of went random from there.
You can argue about whatever you would like to, but right now you simply aren't arguing about the point that was being made here. The point is:
I'm pretty sure that on occasions when the majority doesn't agree with your religious beliefs you agree with #3.
Well it has been a few days since the last post on here but I have just now had time to go back and read the last few. So I would like to respond to Alprova.
Alprova: "Do you really believe that only 40 people had anything and everything to do with the Bible you read today? Your statement is amazing."
Yes I do believe that only 40 or so men wrote the Bible because most books are identified with a writer either by the writer himself or by scholars.
Alprova: "No contradictions? The bible is filled with glaring contradictions, right from the very first book of Genesis, where there is controversy in that very book as to whether the Sun was created on the first day or the fourth day. Genesis contradicts itself as to when trees, birds, animals and even whether man or woman were created before the other."
People who THINK there are contradictions in the Bible are either Biblically illiterate or very misinformed. Many things are taken out of context and then touted as being a contradiction.
Alprova: "What I understand is very simple. The Bible is not "God's word." It is the words of literally hundreds, if not thousands of people who have been involved in creating what most of us read and consider to be the guidebook to religious values. The Modern day Bible was translated from archaic languages consisting of tens of thousands of words, into English that at the time, consisted of roughly a thousand original words."
WOW!!! What planet did you say you come from? The original manuscripts were written in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament), not hardly archaic languages. And as for it "Not being 'Gods Word'", you can not prove that anymore than I can prove to you that it is. It is just something that you have to accept by faith. This is the foundation of anything else we would have to talk about. Because if you don't see it as God's Word then you will not see it as truth.
Aprova: "Read a little about King James, who pretty much rewrote the Bible we read today. The man was literally insane."
Me thinks thou didst not read enough. King James only asked several scholars to interpret the Bible in the language of his day so he could read it for himself. He had nothing to do with the actual translating. Before the "King James" Translation, only those schooled in Hebrew and Greek could read the Bible and then told others what the Bible said. Thankfully, that was not good enough for King James. So therefore, we got the Bible in english. It was old english and hard for us 20th century folks to understand. So some other scholars got together and came up with some other translations directly from the original Greek and Hebrew. Some of those translations are: The New American Standard, The New King James, The New English, The New International Version... just to name a few.
Continued from above:::
Alprova: "I am not a brainwashed soul who listens to a preacher each week, nodding my head in full agreement with their interpretation of scripture."
Hey now we actually agree on something. I am also not a "brainwashed soul". While I do go to Church every week, I do not always agree with everything that is said. Yes God did give us a brain and does expect us to use it. We should always take what anyone says and compare it to the scriptures to see if it lines up with "God's Word".
Alprova: "You believe that the Bible is God's word because you have been taught that it is. I've never met one person who has arrived at that opinion after doing countless hours of research on the subject by weighing what has been written on both sides for centuries."
You have now met someone who actually has done countless hours of studying on this subject. Yes it was what I was taught but as I said earlier, I do think for myself and for you to tell me otherwise would show your ignorance of me, as you have shown ignorance of the Bible.
Alprova, I would never condemn you. It is my desire for you to come to faith in God. That is also God's desire for your life since He came in the form of a man to give His life just for you. You can not claim Jesus as a myth since His mere appearance on this earth changed the calendar.
I will pray for you as well Alprova.