Why Gay Marriage Is Inevitable
It’s because the world only spins forward, as Anna Quindlen writes in Newsweek, quoting from Tony Kushner’s “Angels in America.” Once, in 1967, there was a case called Loving v. Virginia. Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were rousted out of their bed by the police and charged with a felony. They had just gotten married in DC, but with Mildred being black and Richard being white, they were charged with miscegenation. The judge wrote that God didn’t intend for the races to mix. Thankfully, the Supreme Court saw it differently.
One day, the anti-Gay bigots will also be overruled, superseded by a Constitution and, if necessary, a Supreme Court which will be the real forces on God’s side. Mildred loving is now a mother and a grandmother. No one is bursting into her bedroom to see what she’s doing. But she doesn’t want anyone else to suffer what she did. She says that all Americans, “no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.”
The world only spins forward, the best efforts of regressionists notwithstanding.
Amen.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:51 am
The sooner the better.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:03 am
The courts protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Often, what is popular is not always what is right…..think if we had voted on integration in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, or Mississippi?
Would we have accepted the proposition 8 of those days saying that Black people were not allowed to go to white schools? It was the courts that needed to step in and protect the minority…as it will have to do with protecting the rights of those citizens with alternative life styles.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:27 am
“The world only spins forward…”
And, eventually, America will probably live up to the ideals implicit in its founders’ rhetoric.
We hold these truths to be self-evident…and so forth.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Yes prop 8 must and will be overturned. But that won’t be the last battle.
My people came here on the Mayflower looking for freedom.
We moved west to escape the Puritans, fought in the American Revolution and have been fighting for the constitution ever since.
If there is anything I’ve learned from my own history , it is that there will always be one group oppressing another in the name of God or religion or family, with the best intentions in the world. I ‘d like to suggest that it is good to be reminded of this, and view the struggle to secure equality for all as a process, or an exercise, rather than a war that can be finally won, or a goal that can be finally achieved.
Less pain, and more patience.
Peace.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:32 am
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
–Abraham Lincoln
You sophists may do what you will. May the Almighty have mercy.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:52 am
C Smith,
What does that have to do with gay marriage?
November 17th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Where is the morality in two men or two women seeking so called marriage? And what’s it have to do with fighting a wrong like segragation? And when did the courts become the moral compass of the country? We don’t need and the founding fathers of this great country never intended the courts to be legislators. Why do people of the same sex want to be joined in marriage. To be honest with you, it goes against everything I have learned and read in the Bible.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Where is the IMMORALITY?
Mutual love and respect is more moral than some marriages where there is abuse and exploitation.
To me, it seems like the serial cheaters and divorcers like Gingrich and Rudi are more immoral than a devoted gay couple.
And many don’t believe in the bible anymore than you believe in the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran or the I Ching.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:40 am
You forgot to add the immoral cheaters Bill Clinton and Elliot Spitzer to your list, Old Lefty.
Do they take their vows before God?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:00 am
“Where is the morality in two men or two women seeking so called marriage?”
You don’t want to know, so why bother asking?
“And what’s it have to do with fighting a wrong like segragation?”
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Even if you’re gay.
“And when did the courts become the moral compass of the country?”
Courts have nothing to do with morality. Courts have nothing to do with justice. Courts interpret the law.
“…the founding fathers of this great country never intended the courts to be legislators.”
It’s called “judicial review”. It comes to us, along with most of our legal system, from England. Look up Marbury v. Madison.
“Why do people of the same sex want to be joined in marriage.”
Because they’re human beings. Because they’re Americans. Because they should have the same legal rights as everyone else.
“…it goes against everything I have learned and read in the Bible.”
If you want to be governed by laws based on ancient Christian or Jewish writings, you’re living in the wrong country.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:01 am
But our laws are based the Judeo-Christian beliefs.
You’re getting a little testy ther ol Rottweiler. Living up to that name?
Should we have the legal right to marry more than one woman ?
I should leave my country because I believe in our founding fathers beliefs and how they wrote our laws?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Hey, I gotta go for a while. Need some sleep. Working midnights ya know.
Be back later on.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am
“But our laws are based the Judeo-Christian beliefs.”
So, where does the infamous ’separation of church and state’ fit in? I’m Canadian and I stand by equal rights for ALL.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they’ve tried everything else.”
Winston Churchill
.
.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It was Puritans who were on the Mayflower
Was the American revolution a fight against religious tyranny?
It would probably be more accurate to say that there will always be people who disagree with activities, and social behaviors that they see as harmful
Please share your views on plural marriage, multiple partners, polygamy. What about their rights?
November 17th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
This is a secular country not a theocracy.
It is not based on Christianity, the bible or anything else; it is unique unto itself.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Are you making the argument that there is no abuse or exploitation in gay relationships lefty?
< Mutual love and respect is more moral
A boy loves his dog and his dog loves him, is it wrong for them to engage in bestiality?
That’s a good question
November 17th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
@WILLY: But our laws are based the Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Wrong. Our laws are based on legal principles and concepts of right and wrong which predate Judeo-Christian religion. Do you think there wasn’t any law and order before the Bible?
@TREES…: Please share your views on plural marriage, multiple partners, polygamy. What about their rights?
That’s a red herring. There are aspects of plural marriage and polygamy that make them completely separate issues from gay marriage, such as property, wills, inheritance, etc.
Anti-gay bigots are pushing against a glacier. Progress may move slowly, but it moves unstoppably.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
And it’s the same sex issue that makes it a completely separate issue from heterosexual unions. Your dog won’t hunt.
Polygamists will be able to divide property among more than one partner, just as families divide property between family members.
And anti polygamist bigots are pushing against a glacier too.
Paul, are you opposed to polygamist marriage? Please explain
November 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Given that CA is one of the most liberal states in the union, the failure of Prop 8 isn’t likely because conservatives are forcing their agenda down anybody’s throats. It’s just that the folks don’t like liberal judges CHANGING the law against the will of the majority.
You’re correct that gay marriage likley will be legal in the near future, but it will be because of the will of the people who are compassionate and tend to change their minds instead of because liberal judges change the rules.
I for one, being as conservative as anyone can be, but don’t give a rat’s hind end if gays wish to marry. I’d have been one who voted for it had I lived in CA.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Yes.
It was nominally about fair representation in Parliament, but the colonists were told to shut up and behave, it’s the King’s will and he has Divine Right.
Part of the reason the United States was founded on a secular reasoning.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hetero couples have been making a hash of marriage since time immemorial. Let the gays have their chance to screw it up, too.
They couldn’t do much worse.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Where is the IMMORALITY?
Mutual love and respect is more moral than some marriages where there is abuse and exploitation.
Are you making the argument that there is no abuse or exploitation in gay relationships lefty?
……………………….
NO, trees are people too!, I’m not.
I’m saying that I don’t think that hetero or homo comes under the purview of morality.
I don’t think bestiality comes into it anymore than it would with heterosexual marriage.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
As a Californian who voted for Prop 8, let me give those of you the reason why. Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman in the religious forum. The radical homosexual agenda is not to just have the same rights as heterosexuals, it is to “make” us accept their lifestyle as normal. It is not that we are intolerant, it is the homosexuals who are intolerant. They already have civil unions which gives them the legal rights that married couples have. They just want to take away our religious rights to have the word “marriage.” The last straw for me was the school case in Mass. and San Francisico. In Mass. a father was arrested because he wanted to opt out his Kindergarten son from sexual tolerance classes. Because he insisted that his right as a father come first, he was arrested. In SF, a first age class took a field trip, on tax-payer time, to watch their teacher marry her partner. This is not tolerance. The agenda is to indoctrinate the children, take away parental and religious rights.
Also, I do not believe homosexuality is a civil right. Skin color or race is something you are born with.
Next, to the history class. Most of your liberal views are wrong. You don’t know your U.S. well, but that is understandable since most of the public school systems, colleges included, do not teach the truth about the U.S. history. The puritans did come over from Europe for religious freedoms–not from religion. The Constitution was created with the acceptance that there is a creator, and sorry Paul, but you are wrong. The laws were created on morals based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. And, yes, there were laws before the Bible, just not any democracys like the U.S.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
nom⋅i⋅nal⋅ly
by or as regards name; in name; ostensibly: He was nominally the leader, but others actually ran the organization.
No, Jim. The primary issue was taxation without representation. They were told to pay taxes to the commonwealth and were not receiving fair representation in parliament in return.
The freedom to practice their religious beliefs was a secondary issue, and interestingly they didn’t identify God and belief in Him as the problem.
Obviously the founders believed in religious freedom, and understood, it, freedom, was granted to men by God.
But the primary fight against the crown was based on economic reasons, not religious reasons. Talk about red herrings.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I’m confused. Are you saying you believe it perfectly moral to practice beastiality?
November 17th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I’m confused. Are you saying you believe it perfectly moral to practice beastiality?
Posted by trees are people too!
…………………….
No, I’m saying that hetero and homo sexual belong in a moral category, while beastiality does not.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Trees, animals aren’t human beings. If you’d like to drop your Hot Wheels and Star Wars action figures for a moment, we’re discussing civil unions between adult human beings.
Again, civil unions. Marriage is regulated most often by government entities. You did get a marriage license issued by your county/state, yes? In our religiously tolerant country (where you are free FROM religion, as well), religion doesn’t have to enter the picture. You can get married by a judge. Or a sea captain, for that matter.
I just don’t see what the big deal is.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
OHHHHH, wait a minute. I get it. I see what the big deal is, now.
This is all about Neocon POWER. Of course! The neocons had a chance to outlaw abortion, didn’t take it (either they didn’t want to or were too stupid), and now this is their newest Rage Issue.
Easy to see why the country’s in such a mess.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Sarah, do you believe in evolution?
November 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
(Hey, Trees– Weird thing…I can see on the “Recent Comments” column to the right, that you just posted a response here….But for some reason, when I clicked on your response, it didn’t show up…And I gotta boogie, or I’d get back to you….So, see you in the funny papers! Back Wednesday, if you’re still interested in exchanging thoughts….)
November 17th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Why not? Lefty if humans evolved, then aren’t we animals too? Who are you to enforce you bigoted anti inter specie morality? Maybe that’s the vehicle for evolutionary change? Who are we, as a society, to tell an individual they can’t have sexual relations with a member of the opposite specie?
November 17th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
What about polygamy? Moral or immoral, please share your views with me
November 17th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Actually I thought the topic was marriage.
Sarah must have gotten confused, to bad she had to run all of a sudden, I would have liked to hear more of her thoughts………….
November 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“They already have civil unions which gives them the legal rights that married couples have.”
Nope. On both counts.
“Should we have the legal right to marry more than one woman?”
If you want to have twelve wives, or be one of a woman’s twelve husbands, I really couldn’t care less, as long as every party to the union consents, and they’re all of the age of legal consent.
“I should leave my country…”
I said “you’re living in the wrong country”. Obey the law and pay your taxes and I’ve got no problem with you or anybody staying or going.
“…because I believe in our founding fathers beliefs and how they wrote our laws?”
You objected to same-sex marriage because it goes against everything you’ve read in the Bible. And that’s fine. Because here in America there’s nothing that says you have to marry someone of your own gender.
“You’re getting a little testy there ole Rottweiler. Living up to that name?”
It happens sometimes. Woof-woof!
Grrrrrr….
November 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Hi rocky, hey if you’re going to post my comments could you please differentiate them from the comments of others. I don’t think you would appreciate my taking your comments and packaging them with the comments of others, would you? thanks, sincerely, trees
November 17th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“What about polygamy? Moral or immoral, please share your views with me.”
It’s immoral for one person to promise fidelity to another person and then go screw around on the side. And it’s moral for three or four people, or five hundred, to promise fidelity to the others, in any combination they choose, and to live by their promise.
And, really, this whole discussion has more to do with Puritans and tribalism than anything in any of the countless versions and translations of the “Bible”.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Is it moral for one person to promise fidelity to an animal and is it acceptable, so long as he remains faithful?
November 17th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
“Is it moral for one person to promise fidelity to an animal…”
An animal can’t consent.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Liberal Rottweiler,
I have to interject here; in CA homosexual couples have civil unions and do have the same legal rights. They just are not called married.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Are you sure about that? there have been chimps trained to communicate with hand signs. Dogs will obey commands, that’s evidence for consent.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Legally all that’s required to imply consent is a nod of the head, wagging of the tail could be considered consent for the dog
November 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
If you can claim vitimhood for a group, then you can start claiming to have your rights trampled on or denied. They have no moral argument. In their heart of hearts they know their lifestyle is not normal or right.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Yeah, we’re sure. As far as I know chimpanzees are not physically attracted to human beings, and neither are dogs, cats, cows, dolphins, etc. Affection and loyalty yes, getting it on… no.
Although! I once read how Cheetah the Chimp from the Tarzan movies had a huge crush on Johnny Weismuller. He used to go absolutely ape when Maureen O’Sullivan would hang out with Johnny on the set. I don’t know that he had marriage on the mind though.
Animals have no concept of the word “fidelity” or “marriage”.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Obeying commands is to conform or submit, that is not consent. Consent implies agreeing after thoughtful consideration. Chimps can only use hand signs they were taught, they can’t elaborate in a conversation. They have no concept of marriage.
Civil union and civil marriage are two separate issues. Civil unions are only recognized at the state level, not at the federal level. They may or may not be recognized state to state. Marriage on the other hand is recognized by all.
Trees- The bible is full of poligamy along with concubines is that wrong? Is your bible wrong?
Activies and social behaviors that are harmful. Whose to decide what’s harmful and how do you govern that? The word marriage is the problem, not with most people only with religious people. The right to be married should be available to all not just the religious. It doesn’t always have to do with religion it has to do with being treated equal as a human being and an American of these United States.
Trees- I will be posting later on the blog here “First Shot Fired in War on Christmas”. See you there.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Ok, polygamy is wrong. Not my words but these; Genesis 2
24Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Culturally the bible allows polygamy in the event of a woman becoming a widow. The society then was oriented towards men as providers. A woman who had lost her husband had lost her provider and so it was permitted and seen as necessary.
The bible has many examples of immoral behavior that were not approved by God. God allows us to make mistakes. Allowing for someone to make a mistake does not mean approval, you allow your child to make his own decisions knowing that some of these decisions will be mistakes. Did you approve when your child made the wrong decision?
Men are sinful by nature; the bible nowhere condones and approves of concubines, instead it gives examples of sinful behavior, illustrates why it is sinful, and rebukes those who willingly practice these sins.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
If a man wants to marry his sister is that wrong?
November 17th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
If a man wants to marry his sister is that wrong?
Posted by trees are people too!
………………………………
I know that no one asked me, but, I’d say, no, and neither can a man marry his brother.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Hmmmm…………so you saw where I was going with that……………
Why not lefty? They can’t procreate, so there’s no medical basis to deny them their freedom, it would seem to me that you’re just making the traditional argument. What changed?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
trees are people too!
Then, I guess the only argument is the same as why you don’t let brother and sister (when one is sterile, or too old), to marry.
I see it as kind of like, in West Virginia, they used to have 14 as the legal age to marry without parental consent.
Someone decided it was not a state’s right issue and we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE, and stick to it.
Or, You are legally old enough too join the military at 18, but NOT to have a beer. The law doesn’t distinguish by saying, “this 19 year old saw combat, so they should be able to drink.”, BUT a friend had a daughter who was 21, married to a 20 year old man….he COULD drink, but ONLY with her permission!?
My tortured point is… according to the law, this is OK, but only on a Tuesday, and only IF there’s a full moon…..
So if you stop fertile hetero siblings from marrying, you stop infertile hetero AND homosexual siblings also.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Good Night, Everybody.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
And I think we have our answer.
We have to draw the line somewhere, and that line has already been drawn, a very long time ago.
It’s where we get the term traditional marriage.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Goodnight lefty.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Trees, you are embarrassing yourself with your logical fallacies.
Before you want to go off about evolution and bestiality as if they’re equal comparisons to gay rights, learn what you’re talking about.
Sex is about power relations. If you don’t understand how things are wrong on the basis of power relations, then go read some Foucault. All your arguments are based on ridiculous comparisons.
Also, please note that you sound exactly like antebellum preachers advocating for the morality of slavery. In 25-100 years, the same arguments you are making are going to be seen as completely bigoted in the light of history.
I can’t believe I’m even responding to you. You’re like the kid who read 1 chapter of the book and thinks he can come to the discussion which is way over his head.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
This is great news! Now me and Fido can come out of the closet! Here, boy!
November 17th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I love women,however the double standard of the far right of the GOP. They want less gov,t in their life,but place gov,t in folks lives because they are gay. Wire taping and phone. Spying my pc and so forth. I like to be in a union job again under the presant standards. Sick of the gov,t destroying the earth. The far right says less gov,t,then let gay folks marry.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
There are four sorts of men: He who knows not and knows not he knows not; he is a fool, shun him…..He who knows not and knows he knows not; he is simple, teach him….He who knows and knows not he knows; he is asleep, wake him…He who knows and knows he knows; he is wise, follow him…for all you morons that can’t figure this out you are beyond help. Get over your stupid predjudices
November 17th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
A red herring, your premise has nothing to do with the institution of marriage
I never made a moral pronouncement. I asked questions that made others determine their own moral parameters.
You seem to dislike any concept of morality and so would instead prefer to engage in abstracts. Abstract thought can blur the concept of reality, which is what you’re attempting to do by comparing the brutality of slavery and ownership of humans beings with societal determinations of parental institutions and what’s considered beneficial.
No one is denying anyone from practicing their sexual preferences; society is practicing its ability to define its own standards.
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
Topic a:
The union of a couple and the tradition of marriage
Topic b:
Slavery
Topic a is abandoned
Yours is the red herring argument. Two brothers being allowed to get married are relevant to the topic at hand.
The people of this country have the right; we are a democracy, to determine what their social institutions are. I’m sorry if you’re disappointed that the inmates are not in charge of the asylum
November 17th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
And so, if two brothers can legally marry, then a brother and sister need to be protected and afforded the same “rights”
November 18th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Rape is the moral equivalent of slavery; are you actually trying to make the argument for the legality of rape
November 18th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Who cares!
Yes, prop 8 passed and gays can no longer get married in california…for the moment.
Yes, the people clearly voiced their opinion on the gay marrieage issue.
Yes, prop 8 will be overturned in the courts if the courts feel that it violates the constitution.
No, none of these are reasons for either side to get bent out of shape.
In the end “Americanity”, the true religion of this country, will prevail and hopefully we will get one step closer to being a nation that holds noone down or back in the name of GOD.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:24 am
I’ve never heard of your religion, can you please explain your beliefs?
November 18th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Hear, hear! And then we can start working on getting polygamist rights established too!
If a group of five bisexuals want to get married who are we to discriminate?
November 18th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Most heterosexuals find homosexuality to be ridiculous behavior. It’s why they don’t engage in it.
Who are you to determine bestiality as ridiculous?
November 18th, 2008 at 2:17 am
The bible condones polygamy.
David, Solomon, Gideon, and several other biblical heros were polygamists.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Provide proof; quote the scriptures where God instructs men to be polygamists.
Men break God’s moral laws, men have always broken God’s moral laws, and this does not make God immoral.
This is what the bible illustrates in these stories, it exposes their transgressions. If the bible was not the inspired word of God, the immorality of David and Solomon would never have been documented.
What do we see in the story of David? He is documented as a murderer and adulterer, who then shamefully repents and asks God for His forgiveness.
Solomon takes pagan women for his wives, against the instructions of God and this decision is what causes him to turn away from God. Even the wise Solomon transgresses.
These stories show us the true nature of man, his fallen state and need for redemption.
All have fallen Boogie.
God does not make you do immoral acts, you have free will, and you make your own choices.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Polygamy was never ordained by God, it was permitted, and there is a huge difference between the two.
A good parent allows his child to make mistakes; he doesn’t encourage him to make mistakes.
God is allowing humans to make mistakes today, you’re conscience will verify this. We all are aware of the transgressions we make.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Goodnight Boogie, your friend trees
November 18th, 2008 at 4:44 am
“Most heterosexuals find homosexuality to be ridiculous behavior. It’s why they don’t engage in it.”
Talk about ridiculousness. Most heterosexuals don’t engage in homosexual “behavior” because …
SURPRISE! THEY’RE NOT HOMOSEXUALS! Wow. Imagine that.
Was just reading a CNN article this morning about gays in the military and how many military personnel are now against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Very interesting read including this:
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 75 percent of respondents supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military, up from 62 percent in 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
Article: 104 retired military brass against ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html
Ya can’t stop progress. Amen.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:26 am
No, Jim. The primary issue was taxation without representation. They were told to pay taxes to the commonwealth and were not receiving fair representation in parliament in return.
Of course not, that would start a negative precedent towards religion and the FF wanted the country to be based on freedoms and liberties.
Obviously it was granted by God? Obviously they had free will, just like any man, including those that lived in areas relatively untouched by Christianity for thousands of years. We have free will because there is no guiding force to arrange things for us. No god is necessary. In fact - the threat of God is possibly the most detrimental argument of a Christian about free will. Apparently this God fellow knows all that was and will ever be, so that means my life is fated, predestined if you will. Kinda puts the kibosh on the ‘free’ part of that.
Nonsense. The taxes levied on the colonies were negligible. The problem was there was no Colonial seat on Parliament.
The fight was absolutely not based on economy, for the taxes made almost no difference in the economic line. They were extremely low, and most of them were actually repealed before America declared Independence.
The Stamp Act was a half cent seal for documents (comparable to finding a notary public today who’ll notarize and seal your paper for about 85 cents) which was repealed because colonists rioted against ANY of their money going to someone who claimed it due to divine right. I.E. “I don’t actually do anything for you, but God made me king so do what I say.”
The Boston Tea Party, just in case you try to bring that up, was a protest against low taxes. Parliament lowered taxes for all tea traders in the colonies, but the East India Company (which was what class? An extension of the Crown military by this time) had a ZERO tax, which allowed them to undercut the colonial tea traders by a TON. The silly thing is that even if EIC was taxed at 100%, the money would go to the same place.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I get so tired of when some one doesn’t agree with a life style, their a bigot. Give me a break.
It is impossible to rightly govern the world with out God and the Bible. George Washington
November 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Gayle, nobody is making people like the ‘lifestyle’ (poor word there to describe it) or forcing them to live it (picture that if you will - if you don’t laugh you aren’t human).
If you are under the (mostly false) belief that homosexuality is a simple choice, and are against it, don’t be gay. Your involvement past that is unnecessary, and treasonous. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. You are attempting to deny those basic rights to gay people - you and they would be better served just by leaving them alone. Live your life and let them live theirs. They aren’t hurting you or anyone else.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:43 am
For 10,000 years mankind has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Since I have no problem with that definition, I have become a bigot.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Jim from Jersey says…”Live your life and let them live theirs. They aren’t hurting you or anyone else.”
That’s where you are wrong, Jim. They WON’T leave us alone until they take away OUR rights and freedoms. Our parental rights, our religious rights, our freedom of speech. Need I go on. What part of this don’t you understand?
November 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Who is taking away your rights?
November 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
That’s exactly what I want to know. As far as I have observed, nobody is telling you not to go to your church, nobody is telling you you can’t marry a woman, nobody is telling you you can’t yell at them and tell them they’re icky sodomites who are going to burn in hell.
The only infringement of rights I see is someone saying “All men are created equal - except the fags, they aren’t allowed to have the same rights we have”
4Patriots, the evidence is that the Christian Right is the one attempting to suppress freedom. Religious (Better not be a Muslim or Wiccan!)and Civil (No Adam and Steve, only Adam and Eve!). You have no right, morally or otherwise, to tell someone how to live their life. Even your Bible tells you that, but that’s just another case of faux Christians taking what they want and damning the rest.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
That’s exactly what I want to know. As far as I have observed, nobody is telling you not to go to your church, nobody is telling you you can’t marry a woman, nobody is telling you you can’t yell at them and tell them they’re icky sodomites who are going to burn in hell.
The only infringement of rights I see is someone saying “All men are created equal - except the queers, they aren’t allowed to have the same rights we have”
4Patriots, the evidence is that the Christian Right is the one attempting to suppress freedom. Religious (Better not be a Muslim or Wiccan!)and Civil (No Adam and Steve, only Adam and Eve!). You have no right, morally or otherwise, to tell someone how to live their life. Even your Bible tells you that, but that’s just another case of faux Christians taking what they want and damning the rest.
Here’s a couple quotes I find quite enlightening:
I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows.
Susan B. Anthony
The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.
Richard Francis Burton
November 18th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
That’s exactly what I want to know. As far as I have observed, nobody is telling you not to go to your church, nobody is telling you you can’t marry a woman, nobody is telling you you can’t yell at them and tell them they’re icky sodomites who are going to burn in hell.
The only infringement of rights I see is someone saying “All men are created equal - except the fags, they aren’t allowed to have the same rights we have”
November 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
4Patriots, the evidence is that the Christian Right is the one attempting to suppress freedom. Religious (Better not be a Muslim or Wiccan!)and Civil (No Adam and Steve, only Adam and Eve!).
You have no right, morally or otherwise, to tell someone how to live their life. Even your Bible tells you that, but that’s just another case of faux Christians taking what they want and damning the rest.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Here’s a couple quotes I find quite enlightening:
November 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Here’s a couple quotes I find quite enlightening:
November 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Jim from Jersey,
I am not telling anyone how to live. You persist in telling me how to live, think, etc. Anyone who wants to live the homosexual lifestyle has every right to. I don’t hate the or wish them ill harm. Just because I wish not to let them tell me that I have to accept their way of life as normal and try to deny my rights as a parent to raise my children, is not hate or bigotry. It appears to me, the hate and intolerance is coming from those who lost the electionn.
Christians are commanded to love, even those who hate God and the truth. But we are also commanded to speak out against the sin in truth and Love.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm
Victory in the French and Indian War was costly for the British. At the war’s conclusion in 1763, King George III and his government looked to taxing the American colonies as a way of recouping their war costs.
They were also looking for ways to reestablish control over the colonial governments that had become increasingly independent while the Crown was distracted by the war. Royal ineptitude compounded the problem. A series of actions including the Stamp Act (1765), the Townsend Acts (1767) and the Boston Massacre (1770) agitated the colonists, straining relations with the mother country. But it was the Crown’s attempt to tax tea that spurred the colonists to action and laid the groundwork for the American Revolution.
The colonies refused to pay the levies required by the Townsend Acts claiming they had no obligation to pay taxes imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation.
In response, Parliament retracted the taxes with the exception of a duty on tea - a demonstration of Parliament’s ability and right to tax the colonies.
In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before.
However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament’s right to tax them.
Tea was a staple of colonial life - it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.
The colonists were not fooled by Parliament’s ploy. When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land.
In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution.
In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction.
The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked.
A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty.
A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty.
Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men disguised as Indians assembled on a near-by hill.
Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.
Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement.
In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston. The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.
When the Orwellian, “big brother government”, comes to pass I’m nominating my Friend Jimmy for the Ministry of Truth offices.
Hi, Jimmy, just thought I’d say good morning, hope youre doing well, sincerely your friend trees
November 18th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
?????????????????????????????????????????????????
November 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament’s right to tax them.
Seems like the people who fought the revolution felt is was about unfair taxation.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
It was, and Parliament used the “Divine Right” argument in their reasoning for the taxes.
Many, many letters and documents from the era support secular government because of that idea.
Also, if you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, our country was born from terrorism. Look up “Sons of Liberty”.
The Townshend Acts, and Stamp Act were repealed in 1770, just for further clarification, and were not in effect during our revolutionary days.
The Tea Act was enacted in 1773, which was a direct precursor to the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party.
Britain responded with the Restraining Acts (called Coercive, or Intolerable Acts depending on who’s side you were on) which closed Boston Port until EIC was repaid for the lost tea, changed the government of Massachusetts, an act which allowed British Officials to demand trial in Britain, which Colonists could not afford to travel to, and of course, and act which allowed British Soldiers run of anyone’s house in the name of God and the King.
The rest, as they say is history. There is absolutely no mention of God in the Constitution, and there’s a reason for that.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
And so you feel that the judicial branch needs to over rule the legislative branch, and the will of the people, to “officially recognize” a particular behavior and association that has not been traditionally recognized, so that a minority can impose their beliefs and foster their “lifestyle choices on the majority”?
The judiciary is emboldened with the responsibility to interpret law and not to create it. Where in the constitution is the institution and tradition of legal marriage defined?
Nobody is outlawing gay unions. Nobody’s rights have been denied. The institution of marriage is established to recognize familial relationships, reinforce traditional parental authority, and acknowledge rights to procreate and raise children, and give stability to society by the establishing of a uniform standard.
Homosexuality does not conform to this standard. It is an unnatural act as evidenced by their inability to produce offspring.
The people of California have spoken.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
To all of you right wing holy nuts. YEE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE 1ST STONE. Since all of us are full of sin. Please let GOD do his job and quit being hypocrites?
November 18th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Steve, as for myself, I am not judging–God has already judged the homosexual act. As I have said before, I do not hate homosexuals nor do I wish any harm. But marriage has always been defined as between 1 man and 1 woman, even without God’s input.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
No. Because if they were imposing their beliefs on you, they would be forcing you to marry a member of your own sex.
They are not, so your whole argument is falling flat here.
They are asking to be left alone and left to live their lives as they wish. You have no right to judge them. I know you’re a religious man, so ask God if you’re supposed to be persecuting homosexuals.
Marriage has been defined as a politically binding union. It has been used to join families of political influence together, feudal societies, and the like. It has traditionally been between a man and a woman because offspring from a union would have bloodright to both family’s properties (including political holdings and land) but there is nothing in ANY ‘definition’ anywhere that says it has to be a man and a woman.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:40 am
And there is nothing anywhere that says it has to be between two human beings either.
A boy and his dog, or his chimp, or all three, could be married following your logic which ignores common sense.
Two brothers could be married. Explain why they wouldn’t, or couldn’t.
If you tear down the tradition to establish a new covenant then you’ve ventured onto the slippery slope.
Jim, tradition is established over time by the people. There has never been Homosexual marriage and there will not be homosexual marriage if the people are allowed to be free to determine their own societal norms.
This is not persecution.
No one is being harmed.
Why are you in favor of Judicial tyranny seeking to invert the natural order of things?
November 19th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
It also doesn’t say it has to be between any men or women.
Maybe we need an age gap prohibition. No more old coots marrying young chicks.
Tradition USED to be that marriages were arranged by parents for political or financial gain, but we don’t think much of that anymore.
As for:
“Why are you in favor of Judicial tyranny seeking to invert the natural order of things?”
I think that it is more a matter of the judiciary overturning the tyranny of the mob, if it is not constitutional.
And remember, once people thought slavery was the natural order of things.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Yeah, well, I happen to be a follower of Christ, who said NOTHING about homosexuality, neither for nor against.
Incidentally, the situation of brothers who marry (yes, what a common thing THAT is, these days….Not) would bring up the issue of incest, which is not what we’re discussing. Neither are we discussing bestiality or polygamy, two more junior-high-school-grade fascinations among today’s “intelligent” Christians.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Incidentally, there have always been fags. Period. Even some animals are (so, so much for the “unnatural act” argument).
The Grecians and Romans accepted bi- and homosexuality. Which is probably why many Bible-writers abhorred it so much.
Richard the Lionhearted, the original caped Crusader, was gay. So was King James, who commissioned the King James Version of the bible (well, bi-, actually). Lots of popes, priests, cardinals, etc. Many of the major artists…
November 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Sarah,
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:19 am
I am in favor of Civil Rights for minority groups. The only tyranny here is the emotional abuse and constant judging of homosexuals by the Christian Right.
And the ‘natural order’ of things has been established. It occurs in nature with approximately the same frequency as it does in mankind. That dog won’t hunt.
As Sarah mentioned (and you chose conveniently to ignore, as is your wont) Greek soldiery practiced homosexuality for hundreds of years. Plato (author of REPUBLIC - the philosophical cornerstone of Republican governmental ideals) was gay. Alexander the Great was gay. The Sacred Band of Thebes was world renowned for their ferocity and honor in battle in ancient times, and it was a small army of 500 gay men. Many people in Rome practiced homosexuality while it was a Republic, and the practice began being looked down upon while Rome was in transition to a tyrannical empire.
King James (the one who commissioned English versions of your Bible) had one gay lover after another. The first being his own cousin Esme Stuart. Stuart was made a Duke. He then took a boy named Robert Carr as a lover, and countless others, both of nobility and page boys and peasants. He sometimes murdered or had hanged the ones that didn’t please him enough. And to top all that off, King James said Jesus was a homosexual, and was lovers with the Apostle John.
Most of the New Testament’s references to same sex acts appear to be applicable to prostitution, when not taken out of context as a single line. Especially in the KJV.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Where do you guys get this stuff. When In Rome I guess would apply. If that is the case then we should start worshiping gold statues or bring back slavery or any of other immoral practice of olden times. Jesus was a homosexual? where does this stuff come from? I guess all the other people of history that weren’t Homo’s aren’t important or what they had to say is relevant
November 20th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Nobody is saying that MK - one is simply saying that there is a long history of homosexuality and that it occurs in nature and in human nature with relative frequency. It only has a negative connotation due to religious influence, and that should not apply to a supposedly secular society or government. You live your life, let them live theirs.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am
In my opinion this should be left up to the states. Citizens had a chance to legalize gay marriage in California and they voted against it. The fact is, and overwhelming majority of Americans do NOT feel like gay marriage should be legal.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am
No, with all due respect, Jim’s motivation is to undermine and erode traditional Christian values. He’ll wrap himself in a cloak of religious indifference as he presses forward, claiming a freedom from religion is his motivation, but He’s way out their on a slippery slope.
In fairness to Jim it’s possible that he just suffers from near-sightedness, a kind of rational ignorance, or is just being cleverly malevolent. I’ll post something from a previous topic and let everyone decide for themselves.
from a previous thread, I said;
• Funny how men always attempt to minimize or explain away wrongful actions, (sinful disobedience) as though sometimes it’s OK.
Here I’ll paste myself Jim,
I think stealing is wrong, because I think it’s wrong to take from someone else.
That’s ok; we’ll just start with this one.
I disagree with you. I am just a product of blind evolutionary forces that determine survival based on animal strength. You have things I want, and I’m stronger than you. You try to prevent me from taking them and in the process I kill you, eliminating you from the gene pool. I then have sex with your wife producing a superior offspring, since after all my stronger genes get passed along instead of your weaker inferior genes.
The natural world has just been improved according to the laws of natural selection.
Where am I wrong?
And so Jim, I’m really not wrong as long as there is a rational reason for my behavior.
I believe the Indians you mentioned thought along the same lines……………….
Posted by trees are people too!
November 14th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Jim replies,
I said;
• So, from a purely carnal perspective what the white man did was perfectly OK, in your book.
I am just a product of blind evolutionary forces that determine survival based on animal strength. You have things I want, and I’m stronger than you. You try to prevent me from taking them and in the process I kill you, eliminating you from the gene pool. I then have sex with your wife producing a superior offspring, since after all my stronger genes get passed along instead of your weaker inferior genes.
The natural world has just been improved according to the laws of natural selection.
And conquest and subjugation is normal and natural and healthy, its natures way, natures plan.
And so theology aside what was wrong here?
Because you seem to be making the argument that white domination of the new world and conquest, (your idea, not mine, I would never present it thusly, and I would never rationalize it as good) of the American Indians is somehow wrong.
According to you, Jim;
I query;
If the strongest survive and perpetuate their species, regardless of how it’s achieved then where’s the harm? The natural world is made better for it, right?
Posted by trees are people too!
November 14th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Jim’s response;
•
I stated;
Not true Jim. It is possible to be completely good, to never break any moral laws, the potential for it exists, however humans are incapable of obtaining that standard by themselves.
Please, explain this paradox
Posted by trees are people too!
November 14th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I don’t know, it seems to me Jimmy has an axe to grind with Christianity, and will take up the banner of homosexual rights, if it promotes this agenda.
If anyone wants to check for context, original post “the war on Christmas” Nov 12
November 20th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Context is very important. Survival of the fittest is indeed the natural way of the world, Trees - but civility is knowing when to let others live their lives.
I don’t appreciate you labeling me anti-Christian. I’m anti-religion - personally. I don’t give a crap what you practice, and I told you before this multi-thread debate started not to do it because I knew what the result would be. Typical ignorance of fact supplanted by begging for me to take things on faith. Thank you for reassuring my original doubts about it.
I have an axe to grind with cultural aspects of life that throw progress, civility, and discovery to the curb in support of belief in a metaphysical being that does nothing to further the human condition. That’s not just Christianity, it’s ALL organized religion.
You may have a great life, but God didn’t do it - YOU did with hard work and willpower. Your belief may have buoyed your willpower, but that’s the extent of it.
And for his last line; it’s a Christian dogmatic belief, one with which I disagree. Morals are generally relativistic depending on society, although ones based on physical harm are pretty standard all the way through.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
DEFINITION
Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms.
In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.
To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”
It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so.
Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles.
You see Jim, the fact is that you are anti Christian. Throwing anti religion in the sentence doesn’t eliminate that fact, it supports it.
What “facts” am I ignorant of? Because you haven’t presented any. You present opinion that you believe is factual, supported by scant evidence. You conveniently ignore or dismiss anything that doesn’t support your presupposition.
Your belief in atheism is a faith, and you worship at its altar, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Your inability to be completely obedient to the moral law is evidence that you are not your own master, you are a slave to disobedience, you succumb to and practice wrong behavior, as do all of us, but you seek to justify wrong behavior, as do most men. This is what I refer to when I say “willfully ignorant”. It is not intended to be offensive, the intent is to promote self awareness.
My hope is that over time you will come to realize that we are not the creators of life, God is. Our continuing to reproduce is His will, He allows it.
The thinking that life is self actualizing and self organizing, with the introduction of new information and modification without an external creative benefactor is ultimately the spiritual downfall of man.
It’s why evolution and God cannot co exist.
God doesn’t need evolution, evolution needs God.
It’s the stumper that makes even the smartest men look stupid. How did life begin in the first place?
The atheist evolutionists answer?
We don’t know, but we’re absolutely sure God didn’t create life.
If you start with the wrong presupposition you can never achieve the correct answer.
Ask yourself this, why can’t man produce life from inorganic material? Man can only toy with life that already exists.
I’ll ask you again, if life just spontaneously emerged, why can’t men create life from inorganic material?
But one thing I do know, that whereas I was blind before, now I see.
26So they said to him, What did He [actually] do to you? How did He open your eyes?
27He answered, I already told you and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Can it be that you wish to become His disciples also?
28And they stormed at him [they jeered, they sneered, they reviled him] and retorted, You are His disciple yourself, but we are the disciples of Moses.
29We know for certain that God spoke with Moses, but as for this Fellow, we know nothing about where He hails from.
30The man replied, Well, this is astonishing! Here a Man has opened my eyes, and yet you do not know where He comes from. [That is amazing!]
31We know that God does not listen to sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and a worshiper of Him and does His will, He listens to him.
32Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind.
33If this Man were not from God, He would not be able to do anything like this.
34They retorted, You were wholly born in sin [from head to foot]; and do you [presume to] teach us? So they cast him out [threw him clear outside the synagogue].
35Jesus heard that they had put him out, and meeting him He said, Do you believe in and adhere to the Son of Man [b]or the Son of God ?
36He answered, Who is He, Sir? Tell me, that I may believe in and adhere to Him.
37Jesus said to him, You have seen Him; [in fact] He is talking to you right now.
38He called out, Lord, I believe! [I rely on, I trust, I cleave to You!] And he worshiped Him.
39Then Jesus said, I came into this world for judgment [as a Separator, in order that there may be [c] separation between those who believe on Me and those who reject Me], to make the sightless see and to make those who see become blind.
40Some Pharisees who were near, hearing this remark, said to Him, Are we also blind?
41Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no sin; but because you now claim to have sight, your sin remains. [If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but because you insist, We do see clearly, you are unable to escape your guilt.]
Enjoy your life Jimmy, I’m always your friend, trees
November 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
You see Jim, the fact is that you are anti Christian. Throwing anti religion in the sentence doesn’t eliminate that fact, it supports it.
What “facts” am I ignorant of? Because, Jimmy,you haven’t presented any. You present opinion that you believe is factual, supported by scant evidence. You conveniently ignore or dismiss anything that doesn’t support your presupposition.
Your belief in atheism is a faith, and you worship at its altar, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Your inability to be completely obedient to the moral law is evidence that you are not your own master, you are a slave to disobedience, you succumb to and practice wrong behavior, as do all of us, but you seek to justify wrong behavior, as do most men. This is what I refer to when I say “willfully ignorant”. It is not intended to be offensive, the intent is to promote self awareness.
My hope is that over time you will come to realize that we are not the creators of life, God is. Our continuing to reproduce is His will, He allows it.
This thinking that life is self actualizing and self organizing, with the introduction of new information and modification without an external creative benefactor is ultimately the spiritual downfall of man.
It’s a big reason why evolution and God cannot co exist.
God doesn’t need evolution, evolution needs God.
It’s this question that’s the stumper that makes even the smartest men look stupid. How did life begin in the first place?
The atheist evolutionists answer?
We don’t know, but we’re absolutely sure God didn’t create life.
If you start with the wrong presupposition you can never achieve the correct answer.
Ask yourself this, why can’t man produce life from inorganic material? Man can only toy with life that already exists.
I’ll ask you again, if life just spontaneously emerged, why can’t men create life from inorganic material?
Enjoy your life Jimmy; I’m always your friend, trees
November 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Definition;
Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms.
In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.
To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”
It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so.
Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I didn’t say that I was not anti Christian, but I am not SPECIFICALLY anti-Christian. I don’t subscribe to that kind of targeted bias. I am not anti-religion for others either, just personally, as I stated.
I don’t want religion forced on anyone.
Now, as per my statement of FFAF last week, I will continue to ignore your baiting and let people see your flawed statements for what they are, just popped in to defend my character against your impugning it.
This is more science related rather than religious, so I’ll answer this one –
–with a link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/
November 20th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Dear Jim,
But one thing I do know, that whereas I was blind before, now I see.
So they said to him, What did He [actually] do to you? How did He open your eyes?
He answered, I already told you and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Can it be that you wish to become His disciples also?
And they stormed at him [they jeered, they sneered, they reviled him] and retorted, You are His disciple yourself, but we are the disciples of Moses.
We know for certain that God spoke with Moses, but as for this Fellow, we know nothing about where He hails from.
The man replied, Well, this is astonishing! Here a Man has opened my eyes, and yet you do not know where He comes from. [That is amazing!]
We know that God does not listen to sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and a worshiper of Him and does His will, He listens to him.
Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind.
If this Man were not from God, He would not be able to do anything like this.
They retorted, You were wholly born in sin [from head to foot]; and do you [presume to] teach us? So they cast him out [threw him clear outside the synagogue].
Jesus heard that they had put him out, and meeting him He said, Do you believe in and adhere to the Son of Man [b]or the Son of God ?
He answered, Who is He, Sir? Tell me, that I may believe in and adhere to Him.
Jesus said to him, You have seen Him; [in fact] He is talking to you right now.
He called out, Lord, I believe! [I rely on, I trust, I cleave to You!] And he worshiped Him.
Then Jesus said, I came into this world for judgment [as a Separator, in order that there may be [c] separation between those who believe on Me and those who reject Me], to make the sightless see and to make those who see become blind.
Some Pharisees who were near, hearing this remark, said to Him, Are we also blind?
Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no sin; but because you now claim to have sight, your sin remains. [If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but because you insist, We do see clearly, you are unable to escape your guilt.]
November 20th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
That first cell of synthetic life —
— may not seem like much to non-scientists. For one thing, you’ll have to look in a microscope to see it.
Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:
•
•
•
Jimmy, they haven’t created anything. They’re attempting to manipulate already existing organic substances.
Jim, does the information I’m sending you right now, these printed thoughts, do they have an intelligent designer? Or are they just appearing on your computer?
Are the scientists who are rearranging organic material, are they intelligent?
Did this synthetic cell create itself?
Jim, where does the genetic information come from? Information is evidence of intelligence, there are no random systems that develop complex organized information.
Newspapers don’t print themselves. There is more information in one strand of human DNA than contained on all of the world’s newspapers for today, vastly more.
“and professing themselves wise they became fools and their foolish hearts were darkened”,
not my words, but Paul’s, from the book of Romans.
Have we become Rome?
November 20th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Trees, take small steps.
Small steps.
Things don’t happen instantly, you have to start somewhere.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Trees, take small steps.
Small steps.
Things don’t happen instantly, you have to start somewhere.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Trees, take small steps.
Things don’t happen instantly, you have to start somewhere.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/829/hazy-origins-life-earth
November 20th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/10/20/did-lightning-and-volcanoes-spark-life-on-earth/
November 20th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
The information and evidence is there for evolution and electric life generation based on amino acids and methane in the atmosphere.
There is no evidence for other methods of generating life.
I hate this blog software.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Hmmm…
A planet in a solar system that happens to be just the right distance from a yellow dwarf to allow for amazingly consistent and an extremely narrow band of temperature tolerances resulting in conditions that allow for life.
A planet that is somehow 2/3 covered with water, a condition that remains unobserved elsewhere in the universe. And not just any water, but water that has just the right salinity to not only promote life, but prevent runaway bacterial growth.
A planet that has at its core a molten iron furnace that develops a strong magnetic field, that interestingly performs a variety of useful functions, one of which is to repel harmful life ending cosmic rays. Because of this molten core and corresponding tectonic plate activity it has an uneven topography that allows for land masses to extend upward, providing for “dry land”.
The yellow dwarf that this planet rotates around was once considered to be extremely plentiful, but now they are thought to be relatively scarce based on observation by astrologists.
Of considerable interest is the satellite that orbits this living planet we call earth.
This moon does a double duty, in addition to acting as a gravitational attractor and absorbing numerous celestial objects that would impact against the earth otherwise, it also governs the ocean tides and is responsible for causing the earths oceans to circulate. Anyone who has a pool of standing water in his backyard can attest to what happens to water that does not circulate. It stagnates. This moon is some of the strongest evidence that refutes the billions of years of time theories that once dominated scientific thought, and the theory of evolution to explain life’s origins. A simple wave of the wand does away with that and the new hypothesis is that it was somehow captured by the earth. Unfortunately for the wand wavers physicists have demonstrated a mathematical impossibility of the chance occurrence that would allow for an object the size of the moon to be captured without causing catastrophic impact with the earth.
In addition it is also just the right size to permit the viewing of an event known as a total lunar eclipse.
It was because of this that viewing of the suns corona was possible and this is what led to the discovery of the varying U.V. light spectrums, which in turn revealed the extremely dangerous and inhospitable nature of other places in the universe. Our medium yellow sun produces radiation that is of a relatively safe nature, unlike the radiation generated by other stars.
These are some of the evidences that point to an Intelligent, Benevolent Creator.
But alas, men would prefer to create a different god than that which was revealed to them. A god of their own making or a god of disbelief. Why? Because they don’t like His, God’s, perfect nature.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Anyone who wants to can click here
http://www.illustramedia.com/tppinfo.htm
November 20th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
God, you are the spin master.
Most Astrophysicists subscribe to the idea that Earth and our moon formed at roughly the same time, and it was not ‘captured’.
There are billions of stars in just our OWN galaxy, several million of which share properties with our own star. We are just now getting to the point where we can visually see other planetary bodies in the galaxy, all of which are (relatively speaking) quite close. Just this June we found that there is water on Mars, and there could have been MUCH more on there.
Every planetary body larger than a certain size has a general magnetic field. Ferrite is a very common element, and necessary to generate the mass required to form a large body. It’s present in vast quantities in certain stars.
In any case, you are an Evangelical, and don’t believe in tectonics or a 4.6 Billion year old earth. You think Dinosaur bones are fake and whatnot. Are you a listener of the great fraud Kent Hovind?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:50 am