Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Blackheart]

"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."

Nor would you. They don't issue formal statements on cases that haven't been brought before them...
Go look up the history of related rulings in similar cases however, if you want to know.

"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."

Name calling? No, just telling you that your tactic of rehashing the same statements over and over again is.. cute. I'm pretty sure your point has already been refuted...

"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."

I already did. You can choose to ignore it, or disagree with it, but it has been done, and laid out. I'm sure that if I had missed anything, some other helpful mooter would have gladly jumped on it to point out any flaws.

"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."

You are protesting way too much. If I was going to call you names, I wouldn't be unclear about it at all. All I've done is point out where your statements are aligned with certain types of thinking.

"What, specifically, do you think is "mumbo jumbo", BTW? The part that you can't logically refute?"

No the part where you continue to state the idea that majority opinion is pertinant to the merits of the case, even though it's been clearly pointed out to you that it doesn't matter. It won't matter unless it's put to a vote, in which case all you are saying is might makes right, which I doubt I have to point out the fallacious nature of such thinking.

"..... I have a deep respect and regard for people, and the way I vote reflects that."

You and I definately have different ideas on what is discriminatory, I'll grant you that.

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

You're the one who took the martyr stance, and stated that I was infringing upon your right to vote your opinion. So you tell me.

"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."

I didn't think so. No, I don't feel like going to look.

"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."

Well, you've failed to convince me I'm afraid. In fact, I can tell that the discussion was a total waste of time, becasue you are still saying marriage instead of civil contract... Eventually someone's going to force the issue of the establishment clause with regards to marriage, and the issue will come to the front.

"You're the one that has run out of logical arguments, apparently. "

Again, we obviously live in different realities.... I'm not even sure we think of logic in the same way...

[Blackheart]

"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"."

Negative. In some cultures it has. In other cultures there is no marriage, children are "wards" of the community and everyone is their parent. In other cultures Polygyny (multiple wives) or Polyandry (multiple husbands) was/is the norm. In Sparta and many other cultures, for example, the men and women live seperate lives. Male children are removed from the women around age three and raised by men.

I find it odd that people so blithely assume that the world is what they want it to be, and then, when you go look, it's something completely different.

"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."

That argument can be applied to either side of the issue.

"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 certainly hope so. Why do you care if 4 consenting people want to have a group marriage, of any combination?

"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 would agree that we have a poor understanding of sexual oreintation. But we do understand enough to know that it is most likely hard-wired.

"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 disagree. Repression of individuals probably does more harm to a society than almost anything else...

"It does seem unwise though for us to move in this particular direction."

Unfortunately we aren't standing still. Things never stand still. It would be wiser to move now, and resolve the issue rationally, before the issue resolves itself, which gets messy.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
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?

No, it wasn't meant to be "those gays ...".

I"m glad that you quoted my whole paragraph in this case, not just one sentence, because if you would please re-read it, you'll see that what I'm saying is that ANY change beyond "marriage is one man and one woman" will hurt children, IMO. *pause to allow IRex to re-read the paragraph, which I think he will, because he is a gentleman IRex * Your translation of what I'm saying is not what I was trying to say

If marriage is expanded to include homosexual unions, there is absolutely no logical reason to stop the expansion at that point; how can you then deny any other definition of marriage that anyone wants to have? (1 man, 3 women; or 4 men, a horse and a dictionary; or 15 women and a young boy; etc. etc.). There are no logical grounds to do so, and there is now a precedent set for an expansion of the definition of marriage. Marriage is currently hard enough to keep going, and divorces are terribly, terribly hard on kids. Do you really think that these "new definition" marriages will be more stable?

A one man/one woman marriage is by FAR the norm world-wide, and it is the healthiest and most beneficial environment for children to grow up in.

[Blackheart]

"If marriage is expanded to include homosexual unions, there is absolutely no logical reason to stop the expansion at that point; how can you then deny any other definition of marriage that anyone wants to have? (1 man, 3 women; or 4 men, a horse and a dictionary; or 15 women and a young boy; etc. etc.)."

You are correct that there are no logical reasons to restrict such unions. Other than of course the inclusion of non-humans, and minors. You are ignoring certain legal precedents that are extremely unlikely to be undone.
There is also no evidence that such unions are worse for children than "traditional" unions.


" There are no logical grounds to do so, and there is now a precedent set for an expansion of the definition of marriage. Marriage is currently hard enough to keep going, and divorces are terribly, terribly hard on kids. Do you really think that these "new definition" marriages will be more stable? "

Actually, yes. Since they are arranged around the individuals involved, they are probaly more likely to be stable in the long term.

"A one man/one woman marriage is by FAR the norm world-wide, and it is the healthiest and most beneficial environment for children to grow up in."

I'm afraid you are going to have to prove it. Not to mention that children from multiparent families are likely to have more than a single parent after any divorce...

[Valandil]

Blackheart - I see that you are thinking this through somewhat (that's meant as an out-and-out compliment, btw - in case it sounds like I think I have a better handle on it than you) - but I want to challenge two of your contentions. Let's go last one first:

I disagree that existing laws protecting minors can be depended on to do so continually. Our society (including how we think - or maybe how the media tells us to think) is changing rapidly. 40 years ago, it would have seemed abhorent to think that we would abort 1,400,000 unborn babies every year in our country. 25 years ago, doctor-assisted suicide would have been thought impossible (laws would have prevented both!). 15 years ago, cloning human embryos in order to raise them for body parts was unthinkable in society. The laws of the land can be swiftly swept aside... particularly when there's a high rate of judicial activism. Don't be surprised if you see this change eventually come as well... in the name of "children's rights" of course! If you see that day come, will you oppose it?... or will you be more "enlightened" or "sophisticated" about it by then?

Second, your claim that sexual orientation is most likely hard-wired. Totally unknown... and very often otherwise. Was the man molested as a boy hard-wired to the gay lifestyle he went into? There's also a very high correlation of homosexuality with a failure to bond with the same-sex parent (an opportunity removed from some children raised in a same-sex marriage). There's also cultural homosexuality... that practised in prisons, and historically, on long sea voyages, and sadly... in some locker rooms and camps, as relayed in another thread (and, similarly in Sparta - but Sparta is an isolated case in human history - and their society had a lot of baggage we would not want!). My concern here is that the more we create a gay culture, the more children will be drawn into that lifestyle - who would not otherwise have become gay.

I will admit that those instances don't cover all the bases. I've known at least one gay man who became a friend, who had a great relationship with his dad, was not molested and yet was gay. As a youth he agonized over this - and would have wished it away if he could (in fact, being of a family of faith, he prayed much for God to take those desires away from him). He came to a conclusion on it - which I didn't totally agree with - but there it is. This is a complex issue, and most who want to simplify it - probably on both sides - are coming at you with an agenda.

It's probably apparent I'm a Christian, so I'll say this as well. Don't accept all the media stereotyping of Christians / Christianity (the media tend to be big simplifiers!). I don't think those who are gay are an abomination. I do not hate - hate is not of us. Christianity is not about being righteous enough for God. The core teaching is that we're all too unrighteous for God - and incapable of making ourselves any better. God sent His Son Jesus to live a righteous life - so that He could pay the penalty of someone else (all / any of us) with His suffering if we will only accept that gift. Any righteousness we have comes from Him. Oh, we try to be righteous then - but it's an expression of love back to God - and still doesn't improve our standing with Him - because we've already been reconciled! We Christians know and understand that all of us, as people, have things with which we struggle. Some fight with greed, malice, ambition, some with lying or stealing, some with heterosexual lusts and some with homosexuality. So I do not at all think that gays are blights on the face of the earth... at least no more so than the rest of us.

btw - thanks B-heart... and I-Rex, for confirming my statement that same-sex marriage would ease the path to plural marriage!

[Lizra]

I firmly believe sexuallity is hard wired. You can call it "unknown" if you wish....I have seen otherwise, repeatedly.
"Unmolested", normally raised young (and not so young) people, from loving homes...struggling with non heterosexual sexuality...Very obviously (to me) originating from their brain chemistry.
IMO, to believe sexuality is not hard-wired is simply denial. The world is not "perfect"....and does not fit in a book. Trying to sweep the "errors" under the rug has not worked in the past, and will not work in the future. I think it is best to accept the actual reality of the world around us, and try to do good from that starting point. A gay person can be as "good" and wonderful a person as a straight person. There is no need to meddle with some else's sexuality.

[Valandil]

Lizra, then how do you explain those who are gay due to circumstances beyond their control - ie, molestation, etc? In my prior post, I was allowing for BOTH explanations. You seem to be willing to settle for just one - even if not every circumstance lines up with it. Is that the case?

[Rían]

2 quick points ...

Originally posted by Blackheart
Nor would you. They don't issue formal statements on cases that haven't been brought before them...
Go look up the history of related rulings in similar cases however, if you want to know.

Then why did you say that "It isn't my interpretation. It's the one currently being used by the Supreme Court."? You can't provide a reference that the Supremes have interpreted the law to say that homosexuals have a right to marry, because there IS no reference. Am I right?

In fact, I can tell that the discussion was a total waste of time, becasue you are still saying marriage instead of civil contract...

I thought it was pretty clear that I'm NOT talking about a religious marriage - I'm talking about marriage as recognized by the state and US authorities. And if you look at your US tax forms (ugh!), both federal and state, you'll see right there on the first page, "Married" as one of the options - you do NOT see "civil union", right? So it is perfectly fine to use the term "marriage" and "married" in the sense of a union that is recognized by governing authorities. Would you agree?

[Cirdan]

The bottom line is that people will do what they want. Single parents can adopt children, lesbians can get pregnant, and people can change "lifestyles" after having children. There is nothing that allowing gay marriage or defining marriage as strictly heterosexual can do to change that. I find it amusing that people think that there would be an increase in homosexuality if gay marriages went unchecked; as if this would be some great funor that there is a mass of people waiting for gay marriages to be legal so they can "cross over".

The only thing that might come about from any ban would be less visibility for the homosexuals, which is possibly the real goal in the first place.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil
My concern here is that the more we create a gay culture, the more children will be drawn into that lifestyle - who would not otherwise have become gay.

this reminds me of Rians comment about gay marriages being bad for our children somehow (which, just to acknowledge, she later reworded). Why do Christians always get so upset about gays converting their children? Ive never understood that. Why do you assume they always have an interest in your children any more then your heterosexual neighbor does? Is it simply the “gay influence” (converting our kids to the homosexual life style) that you are paranoid about or do you equate being gay with liking little boys and therefore becoming a sexual danger to kids?

All that being said I don’t think people “become” gay just because they see a sit com with a gay character or even because they are raised by a gay parent. I don’t think it works that way biologically. And I certainly do think its hard wired but to such a complex degree that it cant be easily explained. I think there are physical reasons, psychological reasons, environmental reasons, genetic reasons, all sorts of reasons and they all come together to determine sexual preference. Its NOT a choice NOR is it a simple one gene answer. But its more then likely got some sort of hard wired basis. Otherwise people who didn’t want to be gay wouldn’t be gay. Also you wouldn’t see homosexual behavior in animals and you do.

btw - thanks B-heart... and I-Rex, for confirming my statement that same-sex marriage would ease the path to plural marriage!

you never answered why group marriage is such an evil thing.

[Valandil]

Maybe it is silly of me... I don't know. But Cirdan, I-Rex... are either of you fathers? I have three small boys (ages: 5 1/2, almost 3 and just turned 1). Maybe any concerns I have are irrational. However, I would just as soon forstall for a few years any "facts of life" discussion - on even the basic straightforward heterosexual stuff. It seems to me that this discussion is preferably held prior to the one about "alternatives". Yet, with the way children are curious and pick up on things... and the way we just see so much in our society (it's a very challenging time to raise kids, let me tell ya), I won't be surprised if the second discussion is forced on me before I can cover the first.

And maybe it's discarded Freudian stuff (I scraped by in college Psych 101 - so I'm not well-versed in this), but isn't there a theory about our capability to love: going from first - love of self, to second - love of like (ie - same-sex affections, friendships) to third - love of unlike (ie - ability to love opposite sex). Again, maybe these notions are discarded, but I recall them from the college course a long, long time ago (seemingly in a galaxy far, far away ). Is it a valid concern that a child in that second stage would identify with and drift toward homosexual leanings when exposed to it? Or am I loony?

IR - I think most of the ladies would assert that plural marriages are not good for women (Lizra, Rian, others - consensus?). I suppose the situation only gets more complicated if one goes for a group marriage. Can you imagine all the possibilities for jealousies and infighting? I don't think it would be a desireable thing. Those who think so, IMO are deluding themselves - probably thinking of what (they THINK) they could GET from the arrangement, not what they could give.

[Insidious Rex]

as a father of three young boys i can see your concerns, both rational and irrational, about sexual issues in this age of Jerry Springer and MTV. Sure. And personally I think the whole "Heather has two mommys" approach to "alternative life style education" is as big of a joke as the Rush Limbaugh crowd does. It can get rediculous. But I would urge you to (when the time comes) teach your children to accept and love people no matter how different they are and not to approach it with the point of view of well if they act gay around my kids Im going to worry about contamination and influence. Because you could substitute quite a few adjectives that describe certain human features in that sentence (in place of the word "gay") and youd be going down a much more dangerous road. You know the flash terms which I speak of Im sure.

Now I dont fear this fate for your kids as you come across as a thoroughly kind and decent, respectful and patient person in all your posts. And i trust as their primary influence you will pass these traits on to your sons in kind. and the world will be a better place because of it. but teaching children to be open minded of others and not to fear differences is just as important as Im sure you well know...

Originally posted by Valandil

IR - I think most of the ladies would assert that plural marriages are not good for women (Lizra, Rian, others - consensus?). I suppose the situation only gets more complicated if one goes for a group marriage. Can you imagine all the possibilities for jealousies and infighting? I don't think it would be a desireable thing. Those who think so, IMO are deluding themselves - probably thinking of what (they THINK) they could GET from the arrangement, not what they could give.

Oh I agree it could be quite messy considering human nature (and considering how possessive certain people are) but I disagree that its such a horrible thing if ALL the people involved genuinely want it. Why tell them they cant? Even if its one man 4 women, if all 4 women are happy with that situation why cant they do it? I don’t really understand why its illegal. And the argument well the guy has them all brain washed or coerced doesn’t work with me. Because then you get into telling people how they should think and that thinking outside that way is wrong no matter what they feel is right. And that’s thought police territory. And anyway that type of marriage seems to me to be something that is cultural so we are discriminating against other cultures really when we say you CANT do this YOUR way but you CAN do it OUR way.

Uniform life styles are favored with most people because they are comfortable, they are non threatening and they are self reinforcing. They give you a feeling of “hey Im living the right way because everyone else I see is living the same way. What a relief.” But we cant legislate to make everyone behave the same just for that reason. We have to “put up” with some diversity in order for us all to truly be free and liberated in this society. Not putting up with it or expecting other ways of living to give way to yours is a recipe for disaster.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
this reminds me of Rians comment about gay marriages being bad for our children somehow (which, just to acknowledge, she later reworded).

No, No, NO, Rexy, you Quasi-evil being, you - I didn't REWORD my statement - I just pointed out that you misinterpreted it

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I think most of the ladies would assert that plural marriages are not good for women

This reminds me of a really funny comment I heard, from an Islamic-turned-Christian guy, about Islam's idea of heaven....Forgive me if I don't have the numbers quite right, but IIRC, one of the higher realms of heaven for a good Islamic man includes nice living quarters with 70 perpetual virgins at his beck and call. He was pointing out the inequities of the situation (one good thing about the Christian picture of heaven is that women are treated equally, BTW!) and wondering if perhaps good Islamic women should be offered nice living quarters with 70 perpetual virgin men ... then decided that it would NOT be heaven for the woman! ("Will you guys just leave me ALONE for a few minutes while I finish doing my hair and nails? Sheesh! Bug off!")

I thought that was pretty funny

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
... Those who think so, IMO are deluding themselves - probably thinking of what (they THINK) they could GET from the arrangement, not what they could give.

Now this is a really great insight into the root of the whole problem, IMO.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Valandil
Lizra, then how do you explain those who are gay due to circumstances beyond their control - ie, molestation, etc? In my prior post, I was allowing for BOTH explanations. You seem to be willing to settle for just one - even if not every circumstance lines up with it. Is that the case?

I've never met anyone like that. I've known/know lots of gay people, and they've all just felt different, no horror stories of molestation. Homophobics are quite fond of these tales though.

[Lizra]

Just reading this stuff...geez! IMO.....If your sons happen to be gay, they were born that way, and there's not much to do about it. They would still be wonderful people, deserving of all the good things in life a straight person deserves. Color blind, dyslexic, gay....these are differences that people are born with, and can live with. (and have a wonderful life none the less....as long as intolerants don't go around harassing them )

Don't sweat it! More than likely they're not. Anyway nobody is going to "turn" them gay! Really!! It just doesn't happen like that.

I have a seven year old. He isn't gay...I can tell. But there is a kid that has been in his kindergarten, first grade, and now second grade class that I'd bet $$ is. It's rather obvious in his case. and already some of the creepier boys are harassing him! It just makes me sick....but this homo hatred seems to be rather ingrained in our society at this point in time. I am thrilled to see shows like "queer eye for the straight guy" becoming popular, and can only hope that the tide begins to turn for gay people in the USA.

[HOBBIT]

I don't think you can tell as early as second grade...?

What do you mean you think he is gay? Thats pretty mean. Calling kids that in elementary school and middle school is a very common mean thing to call a kid. Does he go around kissing all the guys or something?


What do you mean your seven year old isn't gay? What, does he tell you about the crushes he has on the other seven year olds?

People you might think to be straight end up gay and those who you think are gay may end up straight.

Hormones don't kick in until at least 6th grade I'd say - around there. I always liked girls, but never was like physically attracted to them until I was around 11 or 12. I highly doubt that your 7 year old is attracted to girls at such an early age .

[Lizra]

Sorry HOBBIT, Your sexuality is about more than the hormones that kick in at seventh grade. Gay males identify strongly with females, gay females identify with males. Your sexuality is about more than who you want to make love to.

My son has had two crushes already, both upset him (when the girls didn't like him back) quite a bit, the first (in kindergarten) caused him to cry in disappointment at school. He regrets that now! I've talked to him about "being cool" but he has no qualms about "worshipping" the prettiest girl in his class! He's rather intense and competitive!

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Lizra
If your sons happen to be gay, they were born that way, and there's not much to do about it. They would still be wonderful people, deserving of all the good things in life a straight person deserves. Color blind, dyslexic, gay....these are differences that people are born with, and can live with. (and have a wonderful life none the less....as long as intolerants don't go around harassing them )

Hear hear! Just another parent's tuppence worth: if my son or daughter turned out gay, my main worry would be the prejudice (from casual to institutional) they would encounter which might stop them from living the full life they deserve.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Hear hear! Just another parent's tuppence worth: if my son or daughter turned out gay, my main worry would be the prejudice (from casual to institutional) they would encounter which might stop them from living the full life they deserve.

I agree. I've also got 3 children, and if some of them should turn out to be homosexual I would worry because there are so many people having prejudices against homosexuals. The suicide rates among young homosexuals, especially boys, are much higher than among young heterosexuals. Even hubby who is the nicest kindest man I know, was prejudiced, until he actually learned to know some gay men and found (surprise!) that they were just ordinary people.

Originally posted by Valandil
I think most of the ladies would assert that plural marriages are not good for women (Lizra, Rian, others - consensus?). I suppose the situation only gets more complicated if one goes for a group marriage. Can you imagine all the possibilities for jealousies and infighting? I don't think it would be a desireable thing.

You know, I think some people already practise such plural 'marriages', though they're not legally formalised of course. I don't see why they shouldn't if everyone involved is happy with it. It is true that I myself would not be comfortable with sharing my husband with other women, and hubby would not like to share me with other men, but all people are not like us, and who are we to deny them to live life the way they want, as long as no one get hurt? I do not think plural marriages would be more unstable than a conventional marriage. Already about 50% of all marriages ends up in a divorce.

Those who think so, IMO are deluding themselves - probably thinking of what (they THINK) they could GET from the arrangement, not what they could give.

Maybe I don't understand you right, but isn't it so with people getting into a conventional marriage also? I don't see the difference. Look at the high divorce rates. I chose the man I wanted to marry out of reasons that were good for me, and luckily he found that it would be good for him to live with me. Giving comes from caring, and IMO the number of people involved doesn't change that.