Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Blackheart]

"And I don't even want to discuss my "sound, rational, empirical reasons" behind my opinion that homosexual marriage is harmful to society when the deck is stacked against me; why should I? It's not fair."

Nothing ventured nothing gained. I think I already addressed this odd notion that the "deck is stacked" however. It’s really odd that you seem to think that you are being treated differently than everyone else...

"If I roll over and accept those two unfair tactics, then I am fated to lose, and it will look as if I lost because my reasons were wrong, when in fact I will have "lost" because there was no way to win. I can't score a basket if I am denied possession of the ball. "

Again with the idea that it's unfair for me to make statements and question your assumptions? Look. If you WANT to learn anything out of this discussion I'll tell you right now. First thing, do not hesitate to question someone's assumptions or assertions. Why aren't you questioning the idea that everyone is entitled to equal legal protection, or the idea that it is applicable in all cases, for example?

No one is forcing you to accept anything. But by refusing to challenge assumptions and assertions, you are by default saying that you agree with them. And if you don't challenge the assumptions, then the only thing left to challenge is the conclusion. Which, unless the person has made an obvious flaw in logic that can be easily pointed out, is much more difficult. Because generally, barring flaws in your logic, if the assumptions are correct, the conclusion is generally supported.

"What I want is an acknowledgement that I have a legitimate right to have the ball for awhile. Every person should have this right; do you agree?"

I don't particularly recall anyone saying that you can't "run with it", if you like sport analogies. Nothing is stopping you. Unless you feel hesitant about voicing an argument based on assumptions that are being challenged. Which shows a marked degree of intelligence above the national average....

"- claiming (intentionally or otherwise) that my position suppresses existing rights. This is currently NOT true (in the US and in many, many other places), and many, MANY people feel that it should remain that way. In fact, I believe it is still the majority of people in the US that feel that way."

I believe I addressed the idea that majority rules is a silly way to run a constitutional republic earlier. It wouldn't matter in principle if 99% of the population thought it was a horrible idea. If we don't follow constitutional law, then the entire system falls apart.
The majority cannot impose its will without going through due process. In this case it would involve a constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex secular cohabitation. You need to think about that for a second.

But it's good to see you challenge an assertion. You are correct in one sense. Those rights aren't legally recognized currently. However the fact that they are not legally recognized doesn't mean that they aren't guaranteed in principle by the constitution.
The rights may exist in principle, but until they are legally recognized, they can't be excercised. Effectively anyway, and especially in the legal realm.

Someone semi-intelligent in the right wing camp recognizes this. They realize that the Supreme Court will, if pressed, likely uphold the constitutionality of states to allow same sex civil cohabitation contracts. That's why there is a push for a constitutional amendment. Again, you need to think about this.

What we are talking about here, is changing the constitution, in order to deny a section of individuals, who are different only in their gender preference, equal protection or privileges under the law.

It's not like they are criminals. They are not felons, or non-citizens, or enemy combatants. They are citizens.

Reduced to that level, there's no real difference between this issue, and passing a constitutional amendment that would restrict the rights of citizens of a particular skin color, nationality, or religious persuasion from exercising the right to cohabitation, or voting, or their right to an attorney.

Sure it would be due process. And it would indeed suddenly become constitutional. And there wouldn't be a thing to be done about it. I don't want live in a country where I or my children might be the next target of a constitutional amendment designed to take away rights.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

[Rían]

Good post, BHeart - I had hoped for a few quiet Entmoot hours Thurs and Fri, but had emergencies pop up *is irritated at real life!* - I'll prob. have to wait until Monday to discuss your post.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
If you want to quibble, Advocates for cohabitation aren't trying to get a law passed. They are trying to block a constitutional amendment that would be aimed specifically at them. Which means that, yes, there is a minority trying to impose their will on a section of the public for arbitrary reasons. And no it's not right. Never was right.

You live in the US, right? And in the US, isn't it still a MAJORITY of people that believe that homosexual marriage is wrong? I think it is. And the reasons aren't "arbitrary" (what, do you think I flipped a coin or something?) And it IS right to take a stand to codify marriage as being between one man and one woman, in my opinion (and in the opinion of MILLIONS of other people) if that's what you think is right. If your objection is that it's wrong because it's a MINORITY trying to impose their will, then you're incorrect because currently, it's a MAJORITY. And clearly, at one point it was a MINORITY that believed that women should vote - were they wrong to try to codify their beliefs? Your argument fails.

See, you can try to use different lines (like minorities shouldn't try to impose their will), but if you follow out your line of thinking, you can see where you contradict yourself. If you just admit that I'm right and that the ONLY thing going on here is that we have different opinions as to what is right on this subject, then we can close down the discussion.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Err. The "real" discussion? Pray tell, what would this real discussion entail? Are we having some kind of psychotic break here? I'm afraid I don't understand why you think the playing field isn't level. No one is suppressing your right to speak, or explain yourself. The only censorship that appears to be applicable is self-censorship.

Sorry, I was having a little pity-party here ("Pity, party of one!" ). You, personally (as well GM, Cirdan, etc), are "playing fair" and offering well-thought-out arguments and responding to my points. I was just making a general complaint about those people who, as soon as I point out logical contradictions, fly for cover and cry "intolerant!" and refuse to talk or think anymore. And when that happens (name-calling and refusal to talk/think), then a "real discussion" can't take place. And that is a sad thing. And that's why I wanted to take up this discussion on tolerance, so those that have had that name flung at them in order to stop a discussion can see how the word, as it is often used, is logically inconsistent.

[Rían]

GrayM - do you have any response to my discussion of your post?

[Blackheart]

"If your objection is that it's wrong because it's a MINORITY trying to impose their will, then you're incorrect because currently, it's a MAJORITY. And clearly, at one point it was a MINORITY that believed that women should vote - were they wrong to try to codify their beliefs? Your argument fails."

I somehow think you keep missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's one person, or a huge voting bloc. It doesn't matter. That's not my argument. That's me pointing out to you that the number of people in favor of or against a proposed legislation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the constitutionality of the proposed legislation.

The fact that a minority of people were in favor of women's suffrage has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the constitutionality of allowing women to vote. They should have had the right to vote under the contstitution before there was an amendment that guarenteed them the right to vote.

In essence, because the general population in this country appears to be pig-headed, traditionalist, and discriminatory, an amendment was needed to identify women as "human". Before that they were regarded as "Chattel".

The numbers mean nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
Neither do the opinions of the majority, or yours, or mine.
The only thing that matters is the constitutionality, and whether the proposed amendment is within the spirit of the constitution.

An amendment designed to make a group of citizens unequal under the law is definately not within the spirit of the constitution, and is a very, very, bad idea.

I think that's as clear as I can make it.

[Rían]

You've said several times something about making things "clearer" because I don't seem to understand them. On the contrary, I DO understand what you're saying; it's some of your underlying premises that I object to.

Originally posted by Blackheart
MMmm… I thought it would have been clearer, but if you want it in plainer language, they are seeking legal recognition of their rights under the constitution, with the idea that they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Advocating to suppress legal recognition doesn't remove their rights, as perhaps you are pointing out, it merely continues to perpetuate a situation where they do not recieve equal legal treatment under the law.

Your point was EXTREMELY clear, and the purpose of my response was to point out your, IMO, faulty underlying premise - that homosexuals have an inherent right (as opposed to a legal right, which they are trying to obtain) to have their unions on the same legal footing as what is currently accepted as a marriage. You're making the same faulty underlying premise again in your "plainer language" response, and I disagree with that premise again.

Different people have different OPINIONS (note - opinions) on what is right. Hopefully, they will base these opinions on love and concern for others, which is what I do, to the best of my understanding. Different people base their OPINIONS on what is right on different things - some base it on current popular opinion, for example. Your OPINION seems to be that homosexuals have an inherent right (independent from a legal right) to claim that their union is the same as what is currently defined in the US as a marriage. Upon what authority do you make this claim? For if you cannot show me an authority that we agree upon, then you must admit that it is an opinion.

Some opinions, like the opinion that murdering is wrong, get put into law thru the choice of the citizens in those countries where they are allowed to enter into the codifying process. Other opinions don't get put into law. Whether or not it was right for marriage-related things to get put into law is now a moot point - they ARE interwoven thru our law in many ways. And since it is my OPINION that a marriage, for the best of EVERY citizen in the US (including homosexuals), should KEEP its definition of a union between one man and one woman, then I will strive to do whatever I can to see the federal-level law on this issue passed.

You claim that it's a private matter that doesn't affect me, and that people that hold my opinion are trying to pass laws on private matters. Well, think about it - why would we be trying to pass laws? It's in RESPONSE to the people of the opposite opinion trying to pass laws that change the definition of a marriage ... first. And these laws are not confined to private issues - they will change things in the public arena, too. People that believe as I do were not trying to pass laws on this subject 50 years ago, because there was no attempt to change the legal definition of marriage back then. Right? Right.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
I somehow think you keep missing the point. ...

No, I'm NOT missing your point, and it WAS clear. I am, however, disagreeing with your assumptions, again, and you're apparently missing that. See the above post.

Just one quick note - you say that the amendment under discussion will make "a group of citizens unequal under the law". Again, this is your OPINION, and I disagree with it. But I'll wait until you respond to my post above this one, because that's the heart of our disagreement, IMO.

And I just thought of another example that might make my position a little clearer to you - the situation of our new governor of California.

Mr. Schwarz. cannot run for president, acc'd to the laws of the US. Is he being treated unfairly, IYO?

[Lizra]

Why do you say...the reasons aren't arbitrary Rian? I don't get that. What are your reasons (again , in plain speech) why homosexuals should not be able to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage? Not your opinion, your reasons. They are adults, they what to live with a partner in marraige. Why does the sex of the partner matter?

[Blackheart]

"that homosexuals have an inherent right (as opposed to a legal right, which they are trying to obtain) to have their unions on the same legal footing as what is currently accepted as a marriage. You're making the same faulty underlying premise again in your "plainer language" response, and I disagree with that premise again."

Well now we're getting somewhere. But in order to actually make progress, you're going to have to tell me WHY you disagree with my premise. It is indeed an opinion, however it is one supported by the weight many sound interpretations of the constitution.

You see, you keep saying that I'm saying they have an inherant right. But that (again) is not the point. The point is they have an UNREGOCNIZED LEGAL right. The reason they have that legal right is because your inherant rights (along with everyone elses) are legally recognized under the constitution. That would be the legal authority you were wondering about.

But I'm interested in hearing your explination as to why you disagree with the idea that individuals do not have the right to marry who they choose to, and how the constitution fails to protect those rights.

[Blackheart]

"No, I'm NOT missing your point, and it WAS clear. I am, however, disagreeing with your assumptions, again, and you're apparently missing that. "

Sigh. You may be disagreeing with my assumptions, but you are misinterpreting them. Inherant rights are guaranteed under the constitution. That makes them legal. Because they are currently unregocnized, doesn't make them any less legal, it makes those who are denying them in violation of the constitution. You know, that whole mess about civil rights?

Now, in order to make your position clear, you're going to have to explain why you think that homosexuals don't have the inherant right to marry who they want to.

"Just one quick note - you say that the amendment under discussion will make "a group of citizens unequal under the law". Again, this is your OPINION, and I disagree with it. But I'll wait until you respond to my post above this one, because that's the heart of our disagreement, IMO."

Time to start explaining then.

"And I just thought of another example that might make my position a little clearer to you - the situation of our new governor of California. Mr. Schwarz. cannot run for president, acc'd to the laws of the US. Is he being treated unfairly, IYO?"

Actually there is current discussion underway about a possible repeal of this provision in the constitution. It is discriminatory. There's no doubt about that.

What people fail to understand is that sometimes, if there is a pressing enough reason, the constitution can allow for discriminatory practices. Such as during a war for example. The problem is when inertia keeps those practices in place. It is hard to change the constituion, and rightfully so.

The provision prohibiting nationalized citizens from becoming president was included (according to most historians) in order to stop a European power from running it's own candidate, and thus effecting a sort of Coup d'etat. This was a concern in the early days when the US was still a nascent power.

I am of mixed opinion as to whether repealing this provision is a good idea or not in the current climate. But there is no doubt whatsoever that it is unfair and discriminatory. The only question is whether the reasons for it are currently neccesary.

[Insidious Rex]

I think there is some talk now about establishing a period of time whereby an expatriot from another country can have lived here long enough to have the right to hold office. I guess they figure if they have put up with living in this country for 20 or 30 years then they have been brain washed enough by our irresistable culture into not being anything less then a red blooded capitalist american.

[Cirdan]

They are also changing the rules to accomodate internationally adopted children.

[LutraMage]

The world as we know it was created over 4.5 billion years and did not spring to life in seven days. If there is a creator (and I'm not saying there isn't) it would make far more sense for him to bring his great work to fruition in a subtle and throughly thought out manner - not wave a magic wand and declare the world created and then stop for a rest on the seventh day because he was tired.

The fact that a few humans decide to write a book putting down all the stories they had heard trying to explain how the Earth came into being and how life was created and, because they were genuinely ignorant of the truth, got it wrong, does not invalidate the existance of a creator - but it equally does not make sense to keep trying to pretend that the book they wrote was in any sense literally correct.

If you want to belive that there is a God, then why does he have to be Marvo the Magician? Why can't he be a creator with infinite patience and a strong sense of the beauty of a throughly developed and well worked creation?

[Insidious Rex]

harrah! we're back on topic. Lets see if it holds

[Rían]

Originally posted by LutraMage
The world as we know it was created over 4.5 billion years and did not spring to life in seven days.

And you KNOW this how?
My goodness, at least say "IMO" or "the best scientific guess" or something. There's no way you can know.

Originally posted by IRex
harrah! we're back on topic. Lets see if it holds

I'm done with that topic, personally Perhaps we should move the "tolerance" discussion to its own thread? I don't know ... opinions? I didn't think it was going to go on this long.

Originally posted by Lizra
Why do you say...the reasons aren't arbitrary Rian?

I'll have to answer that next week - we're getting ready to head off to our annual beach camping trip in a few hours (beach camping in October - only in California! ) with a bunch of good friends that we've been camping with for 12 years now. I want to take my time to answer questions like that, because there's so much emotion behind the topic and I need to answer as well as I can, to try to show the compassion that I truly feel with everyone involved.


Blackheart - good post again; I'll get to it next week. In the meantime, could you please answer my question on what authority you name when you claim that homosexuals have an inherent right to marry each other? Thanks

[Blackheart]

"Blackheart - good post again; I'll get to it next week. In the meantime, could you please answer my question on what authority you name when you claim that homosexuals have an inherent right to marry each other? Thanks "

Hrmm. You didn't really read that part about the constitution, did you?

Then lets see if I can recall the pertinent parts... First the pertinent civil parts.

"RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz."

That means that amendments are part of the law of the land. In fact they are part of the very foundation of our government system.

"Amendment IX-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

That means that just because a right is not specifically listed in the constitution, it doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. Therefore abridgement of any right must be carefully considered.

"AMENDMENT XIV - Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means that by law, everyone must receive equal treatment under the federal, state, and civil laws. There is no mention of race, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

The fact that civil recognition of cohabitation is not extended to a certain class of people is contrary to the constitution. I doubt it gets any clearer than that. So much for the civil portion.

As for an inherent right, what source are you going to quote me that heterosexuals have an inherent right to cohabitate? The Koran, the Bible, The Torah? In which case I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree, because these books also tell me I have an inherent right to own slaves too... And slay mine enemies, and take unto me concubines.

Religious law is inapplicable in a discussion about civil law. It cannot be called upon as a source or denier of "inherent rights".

For that matter I'd posit that it shouldn't be brought up in any discussion of ethics based on egalitarianism AT ALL, because the first thing religion does is divide humanity into US and THEM, and then proceed to tell US how WE are superior to THEM. Which means that it is completely at odds with the notion that all "men" are created equal... (Though there are some interesting and laudable sects that are expectable from this...)

The inherent right of homosexuals AND heterosexuals to cohabitate comes from the very same documents we established this society with. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is how they are generally enumerated.

Their right to have their cohabitation recognized by civil law derives from the constitution, particularly the 14th amendment.

In other words, no, I do not recognize divine law or divinely granted rights as applicable or permissible in any system of government, unless you want to call it a theocracy. We don't have a theocracy...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by LutraMage
The world as we know it was created over 4.5 billion years and did not spring to life in seven days. If there is a creator (and I'm not saying there isn't) it would make far more sense for him to bring his great work to fruition in a subtle and throughly thought out manner - not wave a magic wand and declare the world created and then stop for a rest on the seventh day because he was tired.

Not because He was tired, but because mankind needed a day of rest and communion with their Creator. The Sabbath was an example to us. But you see, I believe in an omniscient and perfect Creator; the Creator I believe in could create the world as thoroughly "thought out" in a split second as He could in all of eternity; seven days was merely the time that He chose.

The fact that a few humans decide to write a book putting down all the stories they had heard trying to explain how the Earth came into being and how life was created and, because they were genuinely ignorant of the truth, got it wrong, does not invalidate the existance of a creator - but it equally does not make sense to keep trying to pretend that the book they wrote was in any sense literally correct.

Actually, it was one human; Moses, who, for those who believe in the Bible in the tiniest degree, was in an extraordinary degree of communion with God. I would say that it does not make sense to claim that science, which is, (I think Sheeana used the word "fluid" some time back); it is always expanding, always discovering, and always learning something else. As a matter of necessity, this means that science is imperfect, and does not present a perfect and full picture of truth. If you take it the logical step forward, you can crown science's (albeit glorious) imperfection, by saying that science will NEVER have all the facts, that there will always be something beyond her grasp. I personally prefer to trust a God whom I believe to be perfect and omniscient to a science which I believe to be neither (though still a very good thing), and I might say that it does not make sense to place your faith in Man rather than God; but that would be kinda rude, wouldn't it?

If you want to belive that there is a God, then why does he have to be Marvo the Magician? Why can't he be a creator with infinite patience and a strong sense of the beauty of a throughly developed and well worked creation?

Again, I bleieve that He could create it just as thoroughly developed, beautiful, and well-worked in the thousandth of a second as in eternity. Seven days was merely the time He chose.

[Lizra]

Hi Gwai! Miss ya! With all due respect....gotta say, it sounds like a dream. And a very lovely one to boot! I personally prefer to believe a science that is real, than a god that is legendary.

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And you KNOW this how?
My goodness, at least say "IMO" or "the best scientific guess" or something. There's no way you can know.

I know it because it is true. How else do we know anything? The sky is blue - who says? What is blue? Does a colour blind person's view of the sky mean anything? If so, then are the rest of us wrong to state that the sky is blue?

You claim that the world was created in 7 days by a creator. I claim the world was created in 4.5 billion years probably by a creator. What's the difference. You know what you want to belive, I know what I want to belive. I have external evidence to back up my belief based on physics and common sense. You have the evidence of your faith. I know which I will place reliance on.

But in the end, blind faith which is prepared to push aside any and all earthly evidence that doesn't fit in with every tiny detail of its vision is little more than self-delusion. Sad, but true.