Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Blackheart]

"Actually, it was one human; Moses, who, for those who believe in the Bible in the tiniest degree"

Err. Negative. If you want to do some research the different books may be attributed to Moses, but were actually scribed by many different people over a very long time, not to mention passed down by oral tradition for a significant period of time before THAT.

There were in fact many authors...

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I don't think it matters.

But no, it wasn't written by Moses, any more than Jesus wrote the new testement...

[Rían]

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

And a big roll-eyes back at YOU, m'dear Of course I did, and I object to your interpretation.

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.

*yawn* yes, I realize that.
And if a majority of voting citizens in the US wish to pass an amendment defining marriage in the US as only between one man and one woman, then THAT will be "part of the law of the land." In our system, the people have a right to do that.

"AMENDMENT XIV .... "
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.

Let's see - "privileges", "immunities", "life, liberty, or property", "equal protection" - nope, no mention of homosexual "marriage". Thanks for the quotes, and for proving my point

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.

I doubt if it gets any clearer, too, and that's as clear as mud! If you're calling that "clear", then I have no worries - again, no mention of homosexual marriage, RIGHT?

This reminds me of the people that sue their insurance companies to pay for infertility treatments, claiming that they have a RIGHT to have a child, and therefore insurance companies should pay. Do you think that's a right, too?

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.

I'm not going to quote a source for that, because I'm not making that claim. But I AM making the claim that there is no inherent right for homosexual marriage, and that the people in the US have the right to define what they think marriage should be. And that includes the right to define it as including homosexual unions, for anyone that thinks that is right. Note that I have never said people couldn't vote their conscience.

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

I don't believe I've used it in that way, have I?

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

An interpretation with which I (and millions of others) disagree.

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...

That's right, and you're assuming that I'm making an argument that I have NOT, in fact, made.

You claim that homosexuals have an inherent right to a marriage recognized by civil laws. I asked upon what authority you based that claim, and you said the 14th amendment. I say that your interpretation is wrong.

BTW, if an amendment is passed saying that marriage is between one man and one woman, have homosexuals then lost their inherent right for a marriage recognized by civil law? Or do laws only count when they agree with your viewpoint, and they're wrong otherwise? And if they agree with MY viewpoint but not yours, then they're still somehow wrong?

I'm ready to close this discussion off if you will agree that we have differing opinions on this matter, and we both have a right and responsibility to vote our conscience on this matter, and that matters that involve society are valid things to pass laws about. I think that's what it boils down to. Your claim for inherent rights in this matter is only your interpretation, as your quotes from US law clearly showed.

[Blackheart]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RÃ*an

And a big roll-eyes back at YOU, m'dear Of course I did, and I object to your interpretation."

It isn't my interpretation. It's the one currently being used by the Supreme Court.

"*yawn* yes, I realize that.
And if a majority of voting citizens in the US wish to pass an amendment defining marriage in the US as only between one man and one woman, then THAT will be "part of the law of the land." In our system, the people have a right to do that."

Yes they do. The other mumbo jumbo in your post is just rehashing lawyer crap and cute responses.

You certainly have the right to vote for an amendment that is discriminatory, the same way I'd have the right to vote for an amendment that outlaws religous practice for X type of people, or outlaws free speech for x type individuals. Which, god help me, I could begin to seriously consider now.

You've convinced me, you have the right to vote for it.

Now lets hear WHY you want to vote for it. What's wrong with it?

Or do you need more rope?

[Lizra]

I don't think a majority would vote against gay marriage.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lizra
I don't think a majority would vote against gay marriage.

That's right. I would bet most Americans would not vote to alter the constitution for this issue. It's one thing to be opposed to it, and it's another to expect criminal punishments, which violating the amendment would require. Of course that brings us back to the intolerance thing.

Rian, how would you like you new law to be enforced? Jail time or just a fine? Misdemeanor or felony? Maybe it might even require a new department. How about Dept. of Homeland Insecurity.

I noticed you forgot to mention "pursuit of happiness" with "life" and "liberty". Is that a sin of omission?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
It isn't my interpretation. It's the one currently being used by the Supreme Court.

The Supremes have formally stated a majority opinion that they believe homosexual marriage is a right of US citizens?
Would you please provide the reference? I don't recall any formal statement about that.

The other mumbo jumbo in your post is just rehashing lawyer crap and cute responses.

No it's not - and it looks like you're resorting to name-calling now because you can't refute my point using logic or valid examples. There's no way around the fact that many, MANY people believe that a marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, and this is their honest opinion on what is right and good for people. And you can't support the claim that it is an inherent right.
Now other people honestly believe differently, and that's their right. And BOTH SIDES have the right to vote their conscience on the issue. And it's bully tactics, IMO, as well as unfair, for one side to call the other side names, when it's a matter of opinion.
What, specifically, do you think is "mumbo jumbo", BTW? The part that you can't logically refute?

You certainly have the right to vote for an amendment that is discriminatory, the same way I'd have the right to vote for an amendment that outlaws religous practice for X type of people, or outlaws free speech for x type individuals.

And YOU have the right to vote for an amendment that is discriminatory, too. I hope neither one of us will ever vote for anything that we think is discriminatory or harmful in any way. I know that I don't plan to. I have a deep respect and regard for people, and the way I vote reflects that.

You've convinced me, you have the right to vote for it.

But that was never the issue. I doubt if my right to vote was ever in question; was it?

Now lets hear WHY you want to vote for it. What's wrong with it?

Or do you need more rope?

I don't know that I feel like getting into my reasons behind "why", because I don't have the energy to support a minority (on THIS board) opinion right now. I've stated some of my opinions before on the homosexual thread, if you feel like doing a search.
My ONLY interest in THIS particular discussion was discussing the illogical and inappropriate use of the word "intolerant" to label a person that happens to disagree, in all good conscience, with the minority opinion that the definition of marriage should be expanded to include homosexual unions.
What would I need rope for, BTW? You're the one that has run out of logical arguments, apparently. Unless you happen to have some rope made of hithlain? I would enjoy some of that elvish rope.

[Rían]

Lizra, I would be glad to discuss the reasons behind my opinion with you via email or phone, if you would still like to.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
That's right. I would bet most Americans would not vote to alter the constitution for this issue.

You do realize, don't you, that several states have already voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

It's one thing to be opposed to it, and it's another to expect criminal punishments, which violating the amendment would require. Of course that brings us back to the intolerance thing.

Rian, how would you like you new law to be enforced? Jail time or just a fine? Misdemeanor or felony? Maybe it might even require a new department. How about Dept. of Homeland Insecurity.

I don't understand your comment on jail time - basically, if two men (for example) want to claim that they're married, well, they can say it, but they will not be married in the eyes of the law, so what's to go to jail about? I can say that I'm married to Queen Elizabeth, but that doesn't mean that I am, in the eyes of the law.

I noticed you forgot to mention "pursuit of happiness" with "life" and "liberty". Is that a sin of omission?

I was just responding to the particular sections that BH had quoted

But again, that falls into what voting citizens deem as lawful happiness. For a simple example, killing people might make a person happy, but voting citizens have declared that to be illegal. For an example closer to the issue, polygamy might make some people happy, but voting citizens have declared that to be illegal, too. It's a matter of opinion as to what is right.

Personally, I think the def'n of marriage will eventually be expanded to go beyond one man/one woman in the US, and it is the right of the voting citizens to do that. I hope that it will stay one man/one woman, but I doubt it. And I think the consequences will be tragic, especially to children

[Rían]

Originally posted by LutraMage
I know it because it is true.

OK, I will follow your example of what you consider to be valid logic and say that: I know that it's true that God created the world in 7 days.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Lizra, I would be glad to discuss the reasons behind my opinion with you via email or phone, if you would still like to.

Hey Rian...It will be fun to talk...but NOT about that! ...Boring!!! I've read your reasons, you believe the Bible...I don't. End of discussion, more or less!

[Rían]

Nice post, Gwai And I miss you, too!

I've never understood how people get hung up on the 7 day thing more than the making of the entire universe thing Like there's some amount of time where it would be more feasible for an all-powerful, all-knowing God to make the universe? Perhaps 8 days? I think it would either be "I believe there is a God that can make the universe", or "I don't believe there is a God that can make the universe"; NOT "I can't believe God made the universe in 7 days"!

I don't know the answer, of course; neither does anyone with "scientific certainty". And yes, there is indeed poetry and imagery in the Bible (lovely stuff, too! Try Song of Solomon sometimes if you think the Bible is prudish!) But Genesis is written as a history, as far as style is concerned, and I think that it is most probably a literal account. And that's my HO

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Hey Rian...It will be fun to talk...but NOT about that! ...Boring!!! I've read your reasons, you believe the Bible...I don't. End of discussion, more or less!

But my reasons are not only "the Bible says so, so there!" I hope you've read enough of my (numerous) posts to at least see that I don't discuss things that way; I like to look for reasons behind things.

But as you like

Hey, did you think (movie) Theodred (Theoden's son) was cute? I wish he and Eomer reversed roles!

[Lizra]

Now don't you know I'm HOT for Theoden! Warm, blond, wise cuddly King Theoden! Fur rugs, fine wine, and Lizra!

Sheeana can have Eomer! I do like him when he's mad...which is most of the time!

Theodred...I didn't see enough of, he looked like Eomer, sort of.

I'll certainly check that out in the x edition!

[Rían]

Eomer's almost really cute - he just needs to trim his 'stache! Whenever I see him, I get this urge to whip out some moustache trimmers and take a bit off his moustache - it's just too long!

Do you have a DVD? I love that "pause" button!

Theodred would look better if he weren't almost dead (that just does something to one's looks!) but one can see that he's be awfully cute if he spruced up a bit ....

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You do realize, don't you, that several states have already voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Painfuly so. There aren't many political topics that don't get coverage here in D.C. Many states, yours included, are strongly in favor of equal status.

It's a matter of opinion as to what is right.

It's not that simple. Murder could not be made legal through amendment by popular opinion as it violates the primary protections of the constitution.

And I think the consequences will be tragic, especially to children

You wouldn't say that if you saw the conditions that children in foreign orphanages live under. I know that these children are better off being adopted by a loving gay couple than they would be left to grow up in those places. Children suffer all sorts of things under the watch of traditional parents.

It is unlikely that anything will come from this amendment talk. They don't want to alienate a large minority when they can mollify the larger minority with lip service.

Note: No fan girl action here.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Note: No fan girl action here.

Sorry, that just slipped out

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
I'll certainly check that out in the x edition!

I saw some previews of the x edition, and they showed Theodred even WORSE - totally dead! (as opposed to partially?) and as white as a ghost!

Try the "pause" feature (when he's still alive) if you have a DVD - nice high cheekbones

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

Personally, I think the def'n of marriage will eventually be expanded to go beyond one man/one woman in the US, and it is the right of the voting citizens to do that. I hope that it will stay one man/one woman, but I doubt it. And I think the consequences will be tragic, especially to children

pardon?? was this meant to be translated as "those gays will corrupt the minds of our youth with their dispicable life style!" or is some rewording in order here?

[Valandil]

For those of you who support gay marriage, consider: Throughout all history, marriage has been understood to be between man and woman. The only variable has been that in many cultures, the woman part becomes plural - "women". I don't understand our rush to change what has "stood the test of time" so to speak. And I question whether we can begin to understand all the consequences.

Just about any argument made in favor of same-sex marriage could be applied to plural marriage (with much more cultural / human history to support it). Would THIS be seen as a desireable goal in our society (I think most would say not)? If we allow same-sex marriage, do we then allow fringe "Mormon" (I use quotes because they're not part of the official LDS) groups to have multiple wives? Or for Muslim men to have the four wives permitted by their religions? We decided over a century ago that we would not. Do we revisit this one soon?

I sympathize with those who consider themselves gay - who want to bind themselves with someone they love. I don't think we fully understand "sexual orientation" though - as a society. And much of what is currently shaping that understanding is totally PC based. I just do not think we should make this change. I think it will cause great confusion - and do us more harm than good as a people.

I don't know what the "ultimate" answer is for our society (though I have opinions about a completely ultimate answer) - and don't know what to offer to gays here as an alternative. Alas, my wisdom has its limits. It does seem unwise though for us to move in this particular direction.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil


Just about any argument made in favor of same-sex marriage could be applied to plural marriage (with much more cultural / human history to support it). Would THIS be seen as a desireable goal in our society (I think most would say not)? If we allow same-sex marriage, do we then allow fringe "Mormon" (I use quotes because they're not part of the official LDS) groups to have multiple wives? Or for Muslim men to have the four wives permitted by their religions? We decided over a century ago that we would not. Do we revisit this one soon?

Actually Ive never really understood why having multiple wives/husbands is considered so horrible. Same with group marriages. what the heck is wrong with it? I kind of think it could be a good idea if you have the right people involved. and the bottom line is you cant go telling people YOU cant do something thats very important to you simply because I am uncomfortable with you doing it even though it doesnt effect me whatsoever. And even though I can do it whenever I want.