Vent your frustration here

Of course. The last presidential election was pretty much a referendum on boys kissing. Whole churches and congregations organized bus trips to the voting polls. Then explain why people like you also support the banning of anything remotely resemble marriage, like civil union and such for gay people? See, I would believe you (I really would) if the laws that people like you support didn't have a section attached to it that ban any form of civil union that remotely resemble marriage. I suspect very much that you're just saying this to (1) make yourself look less of a bigot and (2) try to hide your bigotry.But on the other hand, this is the same argument they used to make against interracial marriages. Did you know that a marriage between a white woman and a nigger ruins the institution of marriage? But nem, if that's your requirement then how come you have to tell the world that you regularly engage in vaginal sex? Everytime you introduce your wife to someone as your wife, that's what you're telling him. Again, I'd really like to believe you. I really do. But...

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

My recent suspension by AdminNosy was clearly personal animosity implemented under the color of legitimate moderation.http://EvC Forum: The Definition for the Theory of Evolution -->EvC Forum: The Definition for the Theory of EvolutionThere is nothing worthy of suspension in the post above. Ned had to use his Admin power to obtain what his intellectuality could not.http://EvC Forum: The Definition for the Theory of Evolution -->EvC Forum: The Definition for the Theory of EvolutionMy opponents reply (after I was suspended) simply called me a liar repeatedly. I was under the impression that if a Creationist did what Adequate did then a suspension would most certainly follow. But since Adequate is an Atheist the double standard kicked in.BTW, I am not the least bit offended in being called a liar by anyone who says apes morphed into men, in fact, when these types of persons call me a liar it is the best evidence that I am not.Ray

Well only 12 sprogs that I know of so far but I could have misplaced one or two during a drugged out haze at some point.It's difficult to remember....everything is just so....mangled.Wheeeee

Actually, this isn't true, is it? I did not merely point out that your lies about me were lies, I also pointed out that your lies about me did not answer my questions. If you are going to go around in public telling people lies about me, am I meant to pretend that you're truthful?BTW, that's Dr Adequate to you, thank you so much. I have, of course, never said that "apes morphed into men", because I am not in the habit of babbling out stupid Creationist jargon. That would be, y'know, something you made up which isn't true. Whereas the best evidence that you do tell lies is the fact that you say things which aren't true. Weighing the one against the other in the scales, it would seem, on balance, that you are, how shall I put this, veridically challenged.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I agree to a certain degree. Yes, his point is easily refuted but the refutation is so bleedingly obvious, at least to those of us who have actually thought of this issue, that we honestly don't know why someone like nem would not have thought of it before. That's our frustration. We don't really believe that Nem hadn't thought of the refutation. The only other conclusion we could possibly draw from it is that Nem purposefully brought it up as an emotive argument.Consider the following argument against evolution: If people came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?If a 15 year old wants to use this argument against evolution, I would very patiently explain to him that (1) evolution doesn't say people came from monkeys and (2) just because you were born doesn't mean your parents and brothers and cousins automatically disappeared.But if a matured adult try to use this argument, I'd respond with "if god created people from dirt, how come there are still dirt around?"Do you see the difference? The 15 year old uses this argument because he doesn't know any better. We expect more from adults.Same thing with Nem. Because the refutation to his argument is so bleedingly obvious, we actually can't believe that he'd never thought of it before. If a 15 year old tries to argue against homosexuality by comparing it to pedophilia or rape, then we'd patiently try to explain to him that the two cannot be compared. But Nem is a full grown adult for crying out loud. We expected a lot more from him. Immediately after the thread you mentioned, I engaged with holmes in another thread about this very issue. I pointed out to him that consent is the heart of the issue (I still think it is) and holmes tried to refute this by saying consent is purely a legal issue. According to him, there is no universal way we can determine if a person is capable of consent or not without actually coming up with a law that defines the age of consent. After this, he went off to his philosophical lalaland on this issue.The point is when the issue of marriage comes up, it is inevitable that the issue of morality (or immorality) of homosexuality is brought into question. Oh, so that's what a welsh accent sounds like. All I have to do is put a banana in my mouth and start talking?Haha, sorry, j/k...

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Well you have a point on that matter. I guess I have developed a lower standard for Christian anti-gay types. Well Holmes has a certain point. How are we to determine consent? We obviously don't accept people's words on it in all cases. It inevitably will go down the road to lalaland, the legal system cannot operate in lalaland; it has to be clear. So it makes concrete statements about what consent is and who can give it, along with caveats and exceptions. Even then, the courtroom has to pay attention to the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is about as lala as they can get. I'm not sure about that, but being a debate forum marriage is usually brought up in a debate setting: since there is little debate in heterosexual marriage it generally runs out of steam (though polygamy does come I suppose). classy

First Ringo, now you. I swear, people need to stop agreeing with me so often. What I disagree with holme's philosophy is that I don't think consent has to be strictly a legal issue.Take a look at the definition of human life in regard to the abortion issue. The law currently defines a being as a live human right after birth. But clearly, many people, including myself, feel that this is inadequate to describe human life.For myself, I say that human life begins at the point of conception, and in the past I have also pointed out many times that even if you assume human life begins at the point of conception there would still be no problem with abortion. Hence, even though I don't like abortion because I value human life, I am forced to accept that there is nothing morally wrong with abortion.Sorry for getting sidetracked. The point is consent, like the definition of when human life begins, is not necessarily only a legal issue. It's one of those things that I'd have to say "I know it when I see it."This brings up another question. If the only reason I define the start of human life is at the point of conception simply because it is the safest point to start at, why am I not considering a 10 year old child as having consent? The short answer is a 10 year old child is obviously not experienced enough to have informed consent while I honestly can't tell if the embryo is alive or not. If you want the long answer, I guess I'll explain it in this thread. And since this thread is about venting your frustration, I will add in an eff word or two to keep up the spirit of the thread. Your smilies are giving me too many ideas... sick ideas...See if you get what I mean. If you're straight, you should use If you're gay, you should use

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

No you don't. In most cases - that kind of heuristic rule will suffice. However - informed consent implies a judgement call. When is someone suitably informed? The nature of it being a judgement call implies that different people will call it different ways - accepting this premise means that informed consent involves necessarily grey areas and therein lies the territory of philosophical lalaland.It's an interesting topic - and perhaps worthy of a thread of its own? no waitdamn - I can't make my mind up.

---

Abe: (vent) FUCK! I was just playing Resident Evil 4 when a zombie threw some dynamite at me and it blew up and all the power went out of my house, scaring the crap out of me and losing my progress at the same time. (/vent)Oh! and the zombie was a noted creationist - damn their hides!Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What I don't want is gay marriage, which is a redefining of what a marriage is, encroaching in on the sanctity of the institution.

---

What part of a legal contract, the license to enter into such issued by a secular government, has anything at all to to with something being "sanctified"?

I wouldn't want to be around if or when holmes comes back and participate in that thread. Trying to decipher his lalaland stuff was an experience I do not want to go through again. That is of course if he's still alive. There was a hint in his leave of absence message led me to believe that he had a condition that could be life threatening.Oh well, if he's dead, the world would be one short of a Kant/Hegel wannabe.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

What part of Christian Republic of Jesusland don't you get? Face it, we are a christian theocracy, which is why a legal marriage is sanctified.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Christian Theocracy?Are you that paranoid, man?sometimes I wonder why you go on the crusades which you go on.....But then again, I'm just an X-Man mutant in your eyes, so I probably wouldn't understand the passion!

quote:

---

What part of a legal contract, the license to enter into such issued by a secular government, has anything at all to to with something being "sanctified"?

---

Considering that the rules of marriage today are not found in the Bible, it is amazing that some churches feel that their acceptance or sanctifying of a marriage adds anything.The rules of marriage have changed over time. Just among the Jews, they went from paying for a bride, to fathers essentially enticing potential mates with dowries. The arranged marriages weren't usually based on love, but politics and money. In the Christian and secular U.S., marriage is usually based on love, not politics or money.I agree we should not force religious groups to perform same-sex marriages, since they feel homosexuality goes against their religion; but I don't see that their acceptance or rejection of a same-sex secular marriage is of any consequence. What impact does it really have on the couple?

Let me see if I can make it simple:You are part of the problem, Modulous.You keep legitimizing n_j's argument by treating it as something that makes some sort of logical sense. That is, you debate it on its merits rather than wondering why on earth he is using that analogy to begin with.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

If you intend to help I'll need more to go on than: I know why he is using that analogy for instance. I have described the reasons and they are there for your perusal. For reference, see the painstaking efforts I put to describing the evolution of the debate. Since you haven't absorbed that information I can't see anything else I can say, sorry.But now you have described 'how' I'm part of this problem...I would like to know what this problem actually is - if you'll indulge me. How else can I correct my contribution to it?