Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[HOBBIT]

sorry, but I disagree with you Lizra.

You definitely CANNOT tell in Second grade.

For all you know, your kid could end up to be gay - but so what?

Most kids can't tell until high school or college.

What do you mean identifying more with girls? In elementary school I indentified more with girls - and I can tell you that I'm not gay.

And you can't really look at somone - (especially a SECOND GRADER) and say - "oh I bet hes gay"


I mean, come on!

Having crushes in elementary school is cute, but silly - and people who are gay or turn out to be gay can have girlfriends or boyfriends - so what?

[Lizra]

I can. If you read my post carefully, you will note I've observed this wonderful child for three years now.....I didn't just look at him and pronounce him gay.

[HOBBIT]

If you say so

[Lizra]

Hey...I could be wrong! I hope so, because his parents are very religious...and I don't mean Episcopalian!

[Valandil]

Been away from comp-mooter!

I-Rex - thank you... er, unless I should take your kind words with a grain of salt - your being quasi-evil and all.

Lizra - for my part, I hope your comment to me wasn't a jab. I'd rather begin to make a friend I can disagree with than an adversary - and I enjoy your wit & humor. Frankly, I'm not afraid of any person or word that starts with an "h". Abuse does happen to children - and it WILL have grave effects on them for the rest of their lives. Maybe you don't live in a big city - where you get just about everything. Like most others, Chicago has a large gay community. Most gays here probably consider themselves to be just naturally gay (whether they're right or not - we're all, self included, capable of a bit of self-deception) - but even those who were influenced by abuse would probably only admit that to very few people (this could include gays you know as well... are you sure they'd TELL you if they'd been abused?).

I do know one man who was abused physically by his father - and later sexually - by whom I don't know. He's also mentally/emotionally ill - but able to function on his own (don't know if that's a result of or independent of the abuse). Generally straight, but admits that he struggles with other temptations as well (w/ children in particular). He'll tell you that the abuse causes a lot of confusion - and I won't go into details of why.

If you're trying to ask about my reaction if one (or more) of my children were to be gay: would I still have moral problems with it(as a Christian - not to say they should be banished from society)? Yes. Would I be sad? Yes. Would I disinherit them? By no means. Would I still love them? Every bit as much!

And I too wonder about you identifying a second grader as gay. You may be right... but are you and similar-minded adults influencing him in that direction by making the assumption? Will he use your thoughts about him (as they become evident) as a guidepost for himself?

As for the talk about plural or group marriages... I don't think I'll even get into that anymore. Just think about what you're saying, folks.

[Lizra]

Of course not a jab! Not me! Molestation warps anyone, I would worry about sickos, not gay people. What I mean is...gay people are like everyone else, good ones, bad ones. Being gay does not make you lust for little boys, but being a pedophile would.

You guys don't take me seriously about the 2nd grader! I WAS a teen aged fag hag, and have had gay friends ever since. There are certain predispositions and mannerisms that someone immeshed in the culture would pick up on. It's just this little boy's whole way of being. He certainly doesn't like boys or anything! I can't put it into words....and I really don't want to. Let's call it a very, very educated guess! I nailed my ex brother-in-law the first day I met him....to bad he didn't tell my sister-in-law till seven years later. whatever.

Anyway, I wouldn't influence him, why would I do that? But I also wouldn't try to "change" him. He's fine the way he is. In the bad old days, they even tried to change left handed children into right handed...for their own good, of course!

I would never want to be in a plural marriage. If everybody is happy, that's fine...but so many of these Mormon offshoot arrangements make it sound like the daughters are physically forced into plural marriages with some dirty old man. SICK!

[cassiopeia]

Um, sorry to interupt, but if there is no more discussion about evolution/creationism, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread. By all means keep discussing this if you like, but I don't want to be part of it.

[Blackheart]

"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."

All the more reason to re-evaluate the relevancy of what we view as "reality". In many societies children are "adults" at age 13/14, and it was once so in our culture. We have of course seen a gradual increase in the age of majority, probably due to the complexity of our culture.

"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.

Your point being? Abortion has been practiced for millenia. It's not nearly as abhorent as wars costing millions of lives, which can be directly linked to overpopulation. Euthansia is also a longstanding practice, with or without a doctor assisting.

You also seem to be confusing the difference of blastosphere and embryo when discussing cloning technology.

"The laws of the land can be swiftly swept aside... particularly when there's a high rate of judicial activism."

One can only hope so. The vast majority of laws in our society are archaiec and need considerable thought and rework.

"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?"

What exactly do you mean by "this"? Rather hard to form an opionion about "this" if it's unlear. Do you mean all of the above you listed? In that case I'm already for it...

"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 <snip>)."

You need to do some reading. Especially on current research. Molestation produces molestors, not homosexuals. Abuse produces abusers. As for the discredited theory of failure to bond with a same-sex parent, one would think that if you really believed that, you'd be in favor of multiple parent families.

"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!)."

You've also left out several south sea cultures, as well as other aboriginal cultures. Yes, homosexuality is a cultural phenomenon. But I think you actually have it backwards. It's only in European/American culture that homosexuals are regarded as a particular class of people. In fact, the first use of the word wasn't even recorded until 1912...

If you're really interested you can read some about it here, as well as the history of related laws...
http://63.172.85.108/flagpole/FMPro?...d=36825&-find=

"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 think again that you need to read up on the current literature on androgynization and the genetic links. People don't choose to be gay, any more than they choose to be black, or white, or asian... or alcoholic. The perpetuation of myths like these are one of the reasons that ear and ignorance prevail in our society.

"I will admit that those instances don't cover all the bases. I've known at least one gay man who became a friend, <sniped for length> are coming at you with an agenda."

I would venture to point out that your "friend" is quite probably in the majority, and his experience probably meshes with over 95% of individuals who identify themselves as homosexual.

"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!). -snip-"

Actually, I understand quite well the difference between fundamentalists, mainsteam christains, xians, unitatians etc. I will also point out that it's against my principles to judge individuals based on the actions of their general culture... that's what's generally known as sterotyping.

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

Yes it would. It would of course seem that we disagree on whether that would actually be a bad thing. I think not.

[Blackheart]

"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?"

No. See the link above.


"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?"

No. It's a violation of the establishment clause.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Um, sorry to interupt, but if there is no more discussion about evolution/creationism, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread. By all means keep discussing this if you like, but I don't want to be part of it.

Yes, it does seem to have moved more into a discussion about the evolution of society rather than what one would normally expect...

[Rían]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
"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?"

Originally posted by Blackheart
No. See the link above.

OK, I read thru your link, and I see ... absolutely NOTHING where the justices of the Supreme Court (as opposed to the writer of the article or some people he/she quoted) said that homosexuals have a right to marry. Did I miss it, or are you trying to put words into their mouths that are not there?

--------------------------------

Originally posted by RÃ*an
"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?"

Originally posted by Blackheart
No. It's a violation of the establishment clause.

That's your OPINION. I guess I'll have to reword my statement so as to make it less vulnerable to being answered by your OPINION. How's this: Considering that on many official United States and State forms, including tax forms, the word "marriage" appears, would you say that "marriage" is a union currently recognized by these governing authorities? Assuming that your answer is Yes, then it makes perfect sense to talk about marriage in the context of a union recognized by our government, right?

[Rían]

Hi Cass - Yes, it looks like we're done - at least, I'm done - with the creationism/evolutionism discussion.

[Lief Erikson]

Lizra, I'm answering a part of one of your posts in the gay/lesbian thread. I don't think that the conversation completely belongs here.

[Rían]

One quick note:

Originally posted by Blackheart
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.

The only reason I pointed out the majority opinion thing was to answer your statement about how it's wrong for a minority to try to force their opinion on others for "arbitrary reasons" (you wrote: "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.") It's NOT a minority in the US, it's the majority. And the reasons aren't arbitrary, either.

But you try to have it both ways, and I won't let you When I pointed out that in this case, it's a majority, then you turned around and say that it doesn't matter what the majority opinion is. Well, if your side eventually comes to be the majority opinion, will you then change your tune again? Let's stick to honestly discussing things, and not do this switching around thing, shall we?

In my opinion, every person is responsible to carefully consider their opinions, and then suppport their own views, independant of whether they're in the minority or the majority.

And please don't put words into my mouth - I am NOT saying that might makes right. I'm just observing that many people think the same way that I do on this issue. You don't need to point out the "fallacious nature of such thinking", since I'm not thinking this.

[Rían]

And it looks like you cannot support your claim that the justices of the Supreme Court of the US have interpreted existing laws to say that homosexuals have a right to marry; is this correct?

[Blackheart]

Rian, I think that the movement to have an amendment passed against such an interpretation of marriage/civil unions should clue you in to something.

Namely the fact that it's a quite likely interpretation. However I'm done discussing it on this thread anyway.

[Rían]

Blackheart -

I don't need to be clued-in, thanks, because of course I'm well aware that it is AN interpretation - even a "quite likely" interpretation - I just don't think it's the CORRECT interpretation.

However, I DO object to your trying to claim that it was the the Supreme Court's interpretation, because I don't think that's true at all.

When I said, in answer to that claim: "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?"

you said: "No. See the link above."

This is what disturbs me - you're obviously fairly intelligent, and it's hard to believe that you actually thought the link supported your claim, since if one reads the link, there is no such statement by any member of the Supreme Court. So it seems like a deliberate lie on your part to try to support your claim. I would hate to think this! - was this the case, or were you just honestly wrong?

This is a very emotional issue, with people feeling very strongly on both sides - that's why it's important to have truthful discussion, don't you think? To deliberately lie to try to support your side in a discussion is never right, IMO, and I hope that was not the case here.

But regardless of whether it was a lie or an honest mistake, at least now it is clear that the Supreme Court of the United States has NOT issued a statement that it is their interpretation that the definition of marriage should be expanded to include homosexual unions.

I'm pretty much done here, too, now that this point is cleared up.

[Blackheart]

"When I said, in answer to that claim: "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?""

Courts do not offer interpretations on cases they haven't heard. You SHOULD know that. Already one justice has had to recuse himself from an upcoming case, because he shot his mouth off about the pledge issue. If they had already heard the case then we wouldn't be discussing this.

I'm pretty sure I pointed this out earlier, so I find your request for a specific ruling disingenuous. What I pointed out was that recent opinions SUPPORTED that interpretation.

However since you can't seem to be bothered to find that material for yourself I will provide it for you. In the following post.

[Blackheart]

This is why I'm done with this discussion. You are either incapable of understanding legalese, or you are being deliberately obtuse. The link above is to an editorial opinion on the case of Lawrence v. Texas.

All you needed to do was to dig a little. Instead you decided it would be easier to say I was wrong or lying. That's another reason why I'm done.

In the decision handed down the justices state that the original position held by the court in Bowers v. Hardwick was “deficient� and that furthermore:

“Where a case’s foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.�

The opinion goes on to state that:

“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.�

“Bowers’ rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers JUSTICE STEVENS concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty� protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled.�

If you do not understand that this is a major reversal from previous legal opinions, and that it is a major change in the way the court identifies homosexual people, then perhaps you should consider the Plaintiffs first statement:

“1. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct� law—which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples—violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws?�

In the accompanying text the opinion issued by the court states that:

(in) “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.�

You will note the reference to MARRIAGE in the above opinion.

If you want it any clearer than that, you’re going to have to ask someone else. But you really should do some research before you go arguing that someone is being purposefully misleading, and issuing fiats that such a thing doesn’t exist.

If you want to read the entire opinion it is posted here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/02-102.pdf

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Courts do not offer interpretations on cases they haven't heard. You SHOULD know that.

Yes, I do know that. Then why did YOU claim that they HAD???

I'm pretty sure I pointed this out earlier, so I find your request for a specific ruling disingenuous. What I pointed out was that recent opinions SUPPORTED that interpretation.

That's not true - your claim was NOT only that "recent opinions" supported that interpretation, it was that, specifically, the SUPREME COURT interpreted it that way. How can you deny this? I quoted you saying it!

However since you can't seem to be bothered to find that material for yourself I will provide it for you. In the following post.

Let's see - you object to my asking you to back up your claim (which is false) that the Supreme Court interpreted the law to support homosexual marriage? You actually object to my asking you to back that up? Well, if that's the case, then I claim that the Supreme Court issued a ruling that marriage should always and forever consist only of a man and a woman, and I don't expect you to ask me to back that up. My goodness, Blackheart, typically when someone makes a claim, it is only reasonable for them to back it up. I don't get where you're coming from here, I really don't.