Sunday, June 30, 2013

DOMA and Evolution’s Dangerous Cocktail

A Witch’s Brew

Evolution is, if anything, a negative theory. We don’t know how life started in a warm little pond or anywhere else for that matter. We don’t know how fish evolved, or how they transformed into amphibia, reptiles, birds, mammals and all the rest. In short, beyond vague speculation, we don’t know how the species arose. But we do know how they did not arise. The species were not created or designed in any sort of intentional sense. You can see right off that this is a peculiar scientific theory. It arrives at an unlikely conclusion without much of an explanation or justification except that the alternative must be false. But that’s not all. Along with this non empirical, rationalistic, formulation comes two important corollaries: certainty and self-righteousness. It is a dangerous mix in a scientific theory and this week it emerged in American jurisprudence as well.

Evolutionists are certain that evolution is a fact. For if creation and design are false, then one way or another, the species must have evolved. Evolution, they say, is beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists like to compare their theory with gravity, the roundness of the Earth and heliocentrism.

Given this level of certainty, it is not surprising that evolutionists do not suffer dissent gladly. In fact for evolutionists, those who disagree are typically viewed as undermining science and up to no good. This leads to value judgments and the assigning of motives of those who are skeptical of evolution.

So it is not surprising that evolutionists have no compunction about blackballing dissent. Evolution is good and right, and anyone who disagrees has nefarious motives. Here is how one philosopher described this dynamic (speaking of rationalism in general):

The typical rationalist will believe that theories that meet the demands of the universal criterion are true or approximately true or probably true … The distinction between science and non-science is straight-forward for the rationalist. Only those theories that are such that they can be clearly assessed in terms of the universal criterion and which survive the test are scientific … The typical rationalist will take it as self-evident that a high value is to be placed on knowledge developed in accordance with the universal criterion. This will be especially so if the process is understood as leading towards truth. Truth, rationality, and hence science, are seen as intrinsically good. [A. F. Chalmers, What is this thing called science? 2d ed., (Indianapolis, IN.: Hackett Publishing Company, 1982) 102.]

What is dangerous here is the tendency to identify ones theory, not merely as an explanation of the natural world and as explaining certain evidences, but with righteousness. And so those who doubt that the world spontaneously arose, by chance and on its own, are routinely subject to everything from innuendo and silent discrimination to ridicule and blackballing.

All this for an allegation which is patently false. Evolution may be true, but skeptics are certainly not surreptitiously attempting to undermine science. It would be laughable except evolutionists have ruined so many careers and misdirected so many textbooks and students. And like the Witch Trials, once blame has been assigned there is no acceptable defense except to admit to the imagined wrong-doing and accept the sentence.

Such high moralizing, unfortunately, is not limited to the life sciences. Its familiar pattern is too common in today’s cultural disputes and this week it appeared in the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act.

The ruling was, in part, a response to pro traditional marriage propositions that were passed in California. The first one was declared unconstitutional by a judge, so the second (Proposition 8) made the necessary change to the state constitution. It too was overruled, this time by a gay judge in San Francisco.

In his decision the judge accused Californians who had voted for the proposition of bigotry. With the motives of millions of voters determined the judge was confident of his decision. Gay marriage was good and Proposition 8 supporters were bad.

In science there is an old saying, initiated by physicist Wolfgang Pauli, for theories that are not merely incorrect, but make no sense. Such theories are said to be “not even wrong.” The judge’s overturning of Proposition 8 was a legal ruling that was not even wrong. What was amazing was that the judge was oblivious to his own erroneous moralizing.

This week that bizarre opinion not only went uncorrected, but was reinforced when the Supreme Court doubled-down on such high moralizing, this time in its decision on DOMA. Not only did the high court strike down DOMA, it determined that those who disagree with them are out to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings and citizens who are homosexual.

This ruling was not from a lone judge in a lower court but from five of the top judges in the land with a small army of clerks on their staffs. It is astonishing they could produce a judgment so irrational and false. Again, gay marriage was good and DOMA supporters were bad. It would be difficult to imagine a better example of out of touch elites pronouncing judgments from on high.

The status and definition of marriage is no doubt a complex legal issue. But this is not about technical legal details. Evolution’s negative theorizing and moralizing has set a pattern that now seems to be prevalent. What is frightening is that these prosecutors actually believe their charges. Whether we are talking about a scientist or a judge, whatever the color of the robe, they are certain and they are self-righteous.

286 comments:

  1. Wow. You never cease to amaze me, cornelius.

    What does evolution or evolutionary theory have to do with gay marriage?

    Do you have any evidence that shows that the 5 supreme court judges who ruled against DOMA are "evolutionists"?

    Do you have any evidence that shows that those 5 judges are not religious and do not consider themselves christians?

    Were/are homosexual people designed and created by your chosen god?

    Why, in your opinion, are some people homosexuals?

    Why do you care who marries whom?

    Why do you care who has consensual sex with whom?

    Many christian church goers are happy with the supreme court decision. Do you have any evidence that shows that all of those christians are "evolutionists"?

    Should all of the christians who support the supreme court decision be banished from christianity? Should they also be burned at the stake?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And one more question for now:

      Do you have any evidence that shows that all homosexual people are "evolutionists"?

      Delete
    2. TWT:

      Wow. You never cease to amaze me, cornelius. What does evolution or evolutionary theory have to do with gay marriage?

      You have to read the post for that.


      Do you have any evidence that shows that those 5 judges are not religious and do not consider themselves christians?

      Of course they’re religious—they’re moralizers.

      Last time you erroneously accused me of a holy war against evolution even you are the one supporting the religious claims, not me. I asked you for examples, which of course you don’t have. So you repeated your moralizing, saying I am up to no good. That was a good example of how evolutionists often argue. Imagining motives, assigning blame, hypocritical accusations, making value judgments, none of which they can provide any evidence for.

      Delete
    3. cornelius, every article that you've written on this site and at UD is an example of your deranged holy war on evolution.

      Your projection is astounding. You are everything, and more, that you accuse "evolutionists" of being. You're rotten to the core.

      And I'm not surprised that you avoided answering my very relevant questions and the questions that other have asked you. Why are you afraid to answer them?

      Delete
    4. twt,
      And one more question for now:

      Do you have any evidence that shows that all homosexual people are "evolutionists"?


      Just the smart ones are;)

      Delete
    5. Evolution proposes that the fittest will be able to pass their genes to the next generation. Homossexual people do not want to generate a prole, so they are not fit. All homossexual people should assume this and claim "i am not fit".
      My point of view is that the people are homossexual because they change the central point of the life, as seen by Rom 1:
      " Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator".
      So, homossexuality is related with false perception of God.
      This can be seen as religious, but it is more, it is my life.

      Delete
    6. Márcio Lazzarotto

      Evolution proposes that the fittest will be able to pass their genes to the next generation. Homossexual people do not want to generate a prole, so they are not fit.


      Non-hetero orientation (gay, lesbian, bi) isn't 100% genetic so it's not subjected to strong selection pressure. Non-hetero orientation is a combination of genetic factors, in utero hormonal factors, and post-natal environmental factors. The genetic part isn't deleterious enough to be selected out, and there's strong evidence it is maintained due to kin selection effects. The big take home lesson is that no one consciously chooses their sexual orientation, so there is no basis for institutionalized discrimination against it.

      My point of view is that the people are homossexual because they change the central point of the life, as seen by Rom 1:

      What an amazingly ignorant and childish point of view. Sadly, that's typical of most Fundy religious types.

      Why don't you tell us about how you consciously chose to be hetero, assuming you are. What factored into your decision?

      Delete
    7. Márcio Lazzarotto, Prior to becoming a Christian, why did you identify yourself as a homosexual instead of man?

      Delete
  2. "What is frightening is that these prosecutors actually believe their charges. Whether we are talking about a scientist or a judge, whatever the color of the robe, they are certain and they are self-righteous."

    Us YEC's don't need to be frightened. Can the return of Christ to right the wrongs caused by the father of deceit be far?

    "For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning." Psalm 30:5

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the bible, christ's return is way overdue. A couple thousand years or so. That's the trouble with fairy tales. You can't count on them to actually happen. Your imaginary, so-called 'savior' never existed.

      Who or what is the "father of deceit"?

      Delete
  3. Why is not surprising that CH, besides being a paid propagandist and anti-science huckster is also a homophobic bigot?

    Oh well. If you're already going to hell for lying about science and scientists might as well lie about equal rights legislation too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. besides being a paid propagandist and anti-science huckster is also a homophobic bigot?

      So now you are adding moralizing to your lies.

      Delete
    2. corny said: "So now you are adding moralizing to your lies."

      Look who's talking.

      Delete
    3. CH, will you be marching along side Rev. Fred Phelps at his next God Hates Fags rally? You two seem to share common views on gay and bi couples.

      Delete
  4. Why all the rights homo activists are gained by whining and crying to corrupted courts instead of by democratic process?
    Because when the issues are put to referendum they usually lose.
    Why don't they stop whining and crying and carry on with their business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen

      Why all the rights homo activists are gained by whining and crying to corrupted courts instead of by democratic process?


      Those in favor of equal marriage rights for all did follow the democratic process Eugen. The courts are part of the democratic system of checks and balances as established by the U.S. Constitution. One of the main functions of the courts over the years is to protect minorities from unfair and unconstitutional discriminatory laws passed by a the majority, as in these cases. The courts were instrumental in getting equal rights for women, equal rights for racial minorities, and equal rights for religious minorities by invalidating local discriminatory laws.

      Both Prop 8 and DOMA were overturned because they were found to deny equal civil rights to a minority portion of the population while offering those same rights to everyone else.

      These laws which were struck down were no different that the laws prohibiting interracial marriages that were passed in the Southern U.S. in the 50's -60's. They were rightly seen as a form of institutionalized bigotry and were summarily rejected.

      Oh, and for the record, the latest public opinion polls in the U.S. show support for same-sex marriage legality is now approx. 55% for to 40% against, with 5% offering no opinion. So it seems the views of the populace are being served.

      Delete
    2. Eugen,
      Why all the rights homo activists are gained by whining and crying to corrupted courts instead of by democratic process?
      Because when the issues are put to referendum they usually lose.


      The Supreme Court left it up to the states to decide who can get married, so you should be happy.


      Why don't they stop whining and crying and carry on with their business.

      Then quit obsessing on who they have consenting adult sex with.

      Delete
    3. Velik

      I'm obsessed by those ding-dongs? How can you say that?

      They are constantly in our face with their whining or stupid Pride parades. What's there for pervert to be proud of? That he can pound his buddy up the (bleep)?

      Delete
    4. Eugen

      They are constantly in our face with their whining or stupid Pride parades.


      Yeah, what were they thinking? Calling attention to the hatred, bigotry, and discrimination that's been applied to them for centuries. Why don't those damn minorities just shut up and ride in the back of the bus where they belong?

      What's there for pervert to be proud of? That he can pound his buddy up the (bleep)?

      Could you please tell us about when you made the conscious decision to chose your sexuality? I bet you could easily and permanently change your sexual orientation anytime you wanted to, right?

      Delete
    5. Good point in last paragraph...I can't be two things: gay or atheist.

      yeehaw

      :D

      Delete
    6. Eugen

      Good point in last paragraph...I can't be two things: gay or atheist


      Yet you would deny equal rights to those who are.

      How so very Christian of you.

      Delete
  5. Scott has atheistic/deistic epistemology exactly right. By those views, no utilitarian belief is any more plausible/probable than any other. Thus, by those views (and Scott's correct evaluation of their epistemological standing), those 5 judges are utterly confused human beings.

    I saw Doug Wilson call Christopher Hitchens' bluff in that regard. He got Hitchens to admit that he had no knowledge whatsoever of morality, etc, even though Hitchens incessantly used moral claims to argue against theism. Wilson told him that, basically, he couldn't take serious someone who contradicted himself almost every time he opened his mouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dimbulb Creationist Jeff

      he couldn't take serious someone who contradicted himself almost every time he opened his mouth.


      Kinda like no one here can take seriously a moron who ignores 150+ years of consilent corroborating scientific research and claims there's no evidence for evolution.

      Delete
    2. Who is denying that there is evidence for evolution? The evidence is all around alright. But it does not support your brain-dead Darwinian evolution. The evidence strongly supports intelligent design evolution which results in a mostly nested tree of life. This is what is observed.

      Delete
    3. Jeff: Scott has atheistic/deistic epistemology exactly right.

      By suggesting I have a atheistic/deistic epistemology, you've revealed you're either utterly clueless about my position or you're knowing presenting a falsehood. Then again, these are not mutually exclusive

      Delete
    4. Scott, your epistemological approach is the only one left when benevolent/competent theism/design is arbitrarily ruled out. All these other idiots actually believe there's tons of POSITIVE evidence for naturalistic UCA. You and I at least agree that they're wrong about THAT. Unless you've changed your mind in the last few days.

      Delete
  6. DrHunter,
    The ruling was, in part, a response to pro traditional marriage propositions that were passed in California. The first one was declared unconstitutional by a judge, so the second (Proposition 8) made the necessary change to the state constitution.


    Shouldn't you have said a " straight judge" ? So since prop 8 was necessary it seems that it was unconstitutional under California law.

    It too was overruled, this time by a gay judge in San Francisco.

    So much prejudice in so few words.

    In his decision the judge accused Californians who had voted for the proposition of bigotry.

    Really? "In August 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger] that Proposition 8 violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples marriage licenses"

    Ok, what are the rational reasons for denying same sex marriage?

    With the motives of millions of voters determined the judge was confident of his decision.

    Since it was based on legal reasons he was confident, and apparently the reasoning was correct," On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, appealed as Perry v. Brown,with more narrow reasoning"

    No information on the sexual preferences of the judges

    The Supreme Court punted and merely declared the plaintiffs had no standing.a

    All the Supremes are married to opposite sex spouses

    ReplyDelete
  7. Evolution is, if anything, a negative theory.

    No, it offers a positive explanation of how life changed and diversified over time after it appeared. It also provides positive evidence for the processes that are necessary for it to occur at all.

    We don’t know how life started in a warm little pond or anywhere else for that matter. We don’t know how fish evolved, or how they transformed into amphibia, reptiles, birds, mammals and all the rest. In short, beyond vague speculation, we don’t know how the species arose.

    No, we don't know how life began. The theory of evolution is not concerned with that. It does, however offer an explanation of how species emerge. The origins of life and the origins of species are two different things.

    But we do know how they did not arise. The species were not created or designed in any sort of intentional sense.

    No, we don't know that either but EID proponents haven't been able to come with any evidence or even a good theory to show that it might all have been designed.

    Along with this non empirical, rationalistic, formulation comes two important corollaries: certainty and self-righteousness. It is a dangerous mix in a scientific theory and this week it emerged in American jurisprudence as well.

    Both sides are prone to unwarranted certainty and self-righteousness. The hard atheist certainty that there is no God is as extreme as the believer's certainty that there is. Of course, if the polls are to be believed, there are vastly more believers than unbelievers so, in terms of quantity, that makes for a lot more self-righteousness on one side than the other.

    Evolutionists are certain that evolution is a fact. For if creation and design are false, then one way or another, the species must have evolved. Evolution, they say, is beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists like to compare their theory with gravity, the roundness of the Earth and heliocentrism.

    The process of evolution is a fact by Gould's definition, just as the the force of gravity, the roundness of the Earth and heliocentrism are. There is also a clear difference between what is observed and the explanations for what is observed. The theory of evolution is not beyond all reasonable doubt but it's the best currently available. There's nothing else that even comes close.

    Given this level of certainty, it is not surprising that evolutionists do not suffer dissent gladly. In fact for evolutionists, those who disagree are typically viewed as undermining science and up to no good. This leads to value judgments and the assigning of motives of those who are skeptical of evolution.

    Not so. There are and have been fierce debates in biology such as between panadaptationists and pluralists and neutralists. Gould and Kimura, for example, faced opposition but they weren't suppressed. They fought their corners and became prominent members of the biological community.

    What are not suffered gladly are attempts to sneak religious beliefs into the science classroom in the guise of science. Unfortunately, stripping out references to God and replacing them with vague notions of some unspecified designer (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) is not enough to turn a creationist text into a scientific theory. And when one of EIDs leading proponents writes "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" that rather lets the cat out of the bag.

    [Continued...]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [...continued]

      All this for an allegation which is patently false. Evolution may be true, but skeptics are certainly not surreptitiously attempting to undermine science.

      No?

      What about the Wedge Document?

      What about Jonathan Wells's admission that he went into biology for the express purpose of destroying Dawinism? I don't remember Einstein ever claiming that the only reason he went into theoretical physics was to destroy "Newtonism".

      In fact I think there are religious groups that see science and the knowledge it produces as a threat to their faith and a challenge to their authority. They would very much like to undermine the credibility of science.

      The status and definition of marriage is no doubt a complex legal issue. But this is not about technical legal details. Evolution’s negative theorizing and moralizing has set a pattern that now seems to be prevalent. What is frightening is that these prosecutors actually believe their charges. Whether we are talking about a scientist or a judge, whatever the color of the robe, they are certain and they are self-righteous.

      So this actually has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. This is all about you being offended by the way these court rulings characterized opponents of same-sex marriage?

      I haven't read the texts of those opinions but I have read outrageous allegations concernig the alleged consequences of allowing gay people to marry their partners. Perhaps the comments were a response to that.

      Personally, I don't understand all the fuss. Allowing gay people to marry doesn't do anything to prevent heterosexual couples marrying and raising families if they choose. If it doesn't harm them one iota, why should they object?

      Delete
    2. Ninth circuit opinion,
      ""For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of the right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class," the opinion states."

      "Tuesday's decision also rejected arguments by supporters of the ban that now-retired federal judge Vaughn Walker should have stepped aside and let another judge hear the case. Walker found Proposition 8 unconstitutional in 2010, and disclosed after his retirement that he is gay and in a long-term relationship, leading Proposition 8 advocates to argue he should not have heard the case."

      Delete
    3. The only reason Prop 8 passed in California at all was due to a huge influx of cash and coercion from the Mormon Church in Salt lake City, Utah. A short time before the election the Mormons dumped approx. $5 million and lots of manpower into a blitzkrieg campaign against same sex marriage. I know because the assclowns rented a house down the street from me for the last month and used it as a local headquarters for their hate propaganda. The Mormons specifically targeted low income ethnic minorities (who tend to be highly religious anyway) and managed to buy enough additional votes to swing the results.

      NY Times story on the duplicity:

      Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage

      Delete
    4. "What about Jonathan Wells's admission that he went into biology for the express purpose of destroying Dawinism?"

      So what if he even did? He had a sense that it was wrong and wanted to straighten it out. Tough cookies. As long as he doesn't find out along the way he was wrong and Still seek to destroy it then you have no point - As usual.

      You guys whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine about the "wedge Document" like anyone really believes Dawkins, Harris and Krauss" don't sit down and talk about how to attack and discredit religion.

      Delete
    5. V: Ninth circuit opinion,
      ""For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of the right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class," the opinion states."

      J: Which portion of the Federal constitution is contradicted by adding the provision to the California constitution? And whence the idea that the "State" and "society" gave the "designation" of marriage to "committed" relationships per se? At the time those designations were recognized by law, other contemporaneous laws made it perfectly clear that the Federal judge you quoted is either a bald-faced liar or an absolute idiot or both. I suspect both. Because lying pathologically tends to make an idiot out of people.

      Delete
    6. Jeff,
      Which portion of the Federal constitution is contradicted by adding the provision to the California constitution?


      I believe it was the Equal Protection Clause,Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right"

      The ruling says ( since gays had the right to marry before the initiative passed)"“By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause” of the federal Constitution.

      " The court took a narrow route in knocking down the same-sex marriage ban, and did not address the issue of whether the Constitution protects the rights of all same-sex couples to marry.

      And whence the idea that the "State" and "society" gave the "designation" of marriage to "committed" relationships per se?

      Marriage is a legal term defined by the law written by the state.

      the time those designations were recognized by law, other contemporaneous laws made it perfectly clear that the Federal judge you quoted is either a bald-faced liar or an absolute idiot or both.

      Make your case or do I have to imagine what your case is for you?

      Delete
    7. jeff said:

      "Because lying pathologically tends to make an idiot out of people."

      Yep, and you should seriously consider how that applies to you and your fellow god pushers who pathologically lie about your motives, agenda, and other things.

      If you and your fellows would honestly and openly admit your actual motives and agenda, and stop all of your dishonest games, you may still be called crazy but it might lessen or eliminate accusations of lying on your part.

      Honesty is liberating. Really it is. You should try it.

      Delete
  8. First, I'd point out that the original book Cornelius quoted from criticizes the idea of a universal criterion of science in which theories are true, approximately true or probability true. Yet, these are the very same grounds on which Cornelius keeps objecting to evolutionary theory.

    Second, the author also goes on to criticize verificatioism, justificationism, empiricism and inductivism as well. Popper's Myth of the Framework addresses the idea of a universal criterion, which is mysteriously absent from his book. Science is part of a tradition of criticism that happens to include empirical tests.

    Third, this quote isn't even in the third edition, which was released fourteen years ago. so I can't tell what he replaced with "…" or in which context it was actually made. However, it does fit in the chapter regarding a universal criterion for science.

    If, as a response to evolutionary theory, Cornelius is implying is that Evolutionists are not consistently applying their own criteria, then he is committing the Tu Quoque fallacy.

    Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

    In science, we start out with a problem to solve. One need not look further than to point out bridges were not redesigned when Newton's laws were replaced with Einstein's theory of gravity. In the same sense, we can have been mistaken about how we though science solves problems, the exact role evidence played, etc., yet still have made progress on the problem of biological origins.

    Again, the problem evolutionary theory addresses is origin of biological adaptations. These adaptations are the result of transformations that occur when organisms reproduce. The instructions that define these transformations are found in an organism's genome. Knowledge is information that tends to persist when instantiated in a storage medium. The origin of those adaptations is the origin of that knowledge. So, the problem in question is, what is the origin of that knowledge. Darwinism explains this knowledge as having been genuinely created by variation and selection.

    Furthermore, this very post illustrates how Cornelius disingenuously lumps "Evolutionists" in with whatever particular subject he disagrees with. For example, I have adopted evolutionary theory not because it's the most likely or most probable or because it's positively supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, but because it the explanatory theory has withstood an overwhelming amount of criticism. So, I'm either not evolutionist, despite having adopted it, which makes no sense, or there is some overarching aspect to evolutionary theory that he objects to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Scott: In science, we start out with a problem to solve

      J: And that's precisely why they, for the most part, completely reject your epistemology. Because by your epistemology one can NOT think it plausible that there is even such a thing as a "problem." Or that there are other "minds." Or anything else that can be stated in a proposition.

      Delete


  9. As I've suggested elsewhere, what Cornelius disagrees with is a reflection of his theological commitment that knowledge in specific spheres comes from supernatural, authoritative sources. Again, this post is yet another example. Its subtitle is "A Witches Brew", which is yet another wink to the supposed evil associated with DOMA and Evolution. Cornelius goes on to say..

    This ruling was not from a lone judge in a lower court but from five of the top judges in the land with a small army of clerks on their staffs. It is astonishing they could produce a judgment so irrational and false. Again, gay marriage was good and DOMA supporters were bad. It would be difficult to imagine a better example of out of touch elites pronouncing judgments from on high."

    How does he know it is irrational and false? Where is the argument?

    The idea that anything particular source is infallible would represent human knowledge, which is itself fallible. IOW, Cornelius, like anyone else, would have to use his own reasoning to conclude any particular source is infallible. That's the rub. To quote this article on uncertainty, which no one has even remotely addressed…

    Nothing can infallibly tell you what is infallible, nor what is probable.

    Both ID and creationism make the mistake of assuming there is some way to derive or extract pre-existing knowledge from experience. The same would apply to whether something is or is not infallible.

    The underlying claim in this post, as with many others, is to deny that human knowledge can genuinely grow, progress can be made, etc. This yet another example.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bleh I gotta be honest.

    I am not feeling this blog entry. Homosexuality was around long before Darwin so connecting the issues seems strained to me. We have to be careful of drawing every moral decline back to Darwin. Its not a strong argument to do so on everything.

    My take on gay marriage is that gays shouldn't take the name itself. Its an institution that belongs to religious roots. You don't want the religious roots go look for another name. Homosexuals tend to be creative people so they should come up with their own name not force a definition change.

    That said though if a guy wants to give another guy all the legal status we give to a wife then he should be allowed to and all legal issues should recognize his choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elijah2012:

      The post does not draw anything back to Darwin. It compares the moralizing and delegitimization of evolutionists with the court's decision as an example of this growing trend.

      Delete
    2. elijah said:

      "We have to be careful of drawing every moral decline back to Darwin. Its not a strong argument to do so on everything."

      Actually, drawing any "moral decline" back to Darwin is ridiculous. Any type of what you thumpers would call "moral decline" had already happened over and over and over again WAY before Darwin lived.

      Delete
  11. Wow! Michele Bachmann (as one example of many) claims that “Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.” Mike Huckabee calls same sex marriage “perversion” and “ungodly and unholy.”

    And you have the nerve to accuse anybody else of “certainty and self-righteousness”? Kennedy was not making a moral judgment, he was describing the oft-stated animus of the religious right to gay people. Such animus is no more a legitimate basis of the civil law that the supposedly Biblical animus toward the “descendants of Ham.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John:

      Kennedy was not making a moral judgment, he was describing the oft-stated animus of the religious right to gay people.

      The decision, signed by five justices, says that DOMA supporters are out to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings. This is not a specific reference to Huckabee or anyone else, or any group. This is a general claim about DOMA supporters. You are raising a strawman in a failed attempt to whitewash the court’s decision.


      Such animus is no more a legitimate basis of the civil law that the supposedly Biblical animus toward the “descendants of Ham.”

      It is not the basis of DOMA.

      Delete
    2. Then what is the basis of DOMA?

      Delete
    3. "Then what is the basis of DOMA?"

      UMMM hello? its right there in the acronym. People want the term marriage to maintain its historical meaning. Agree with Cornelius completely on the point - mind reading and motive assumptions should have no part in a courts decision.

      I for one back the rights of homosexual to name who they wish to be legally connected to them (and yes while still recognizing it as sin according to the Bible) but there is no reason that the majority should be forced to change their definition of marriage. there is nothing demeaning about that .

      Good short post thought TWT. Those I will end up reading. Your other garbage not so much.

      Delete
    4. Elijah2012

      but there is no reason that the majority should be forced to change their definition of marriage.


      The definition has already been changed dozens of times in the last few centuries. In olden times a wife was considered property, which is why the father had to 'give the bride away'. It use to be defined as royals could only marry royals, peasants could only marry peasants. Marriage used to be defined as only legal between same race couples, and between same religion couples. The definition for a legal age of marriage has varied hugely over time. In some areas marriage was also defined as legal only between couples of the same nationality.

      Sorry but you Fundies don't hold the copyright on the word "marriage" as used in the secular legal system.

      Good on you for supporting equal rights though.

      Delete
    5. elijah said:

      "People want the term marriage to maintain its historical meaning."

      Which "people"? Which "historical meaning"? You don't actually believe that all people of all cultures throughout "history" have always practiced 'one man-one woman' marriages, do you?

      Of course what you're really pushing is what you blindly think is christian/biblical "historical meaning", so let's take a look at the christian/biblical "historical meaning" of marriage:

      http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Biblical-Marriage-Infographic.jpg

      Delete
  12. This is a general claim about DOMA supporters. You are raising a strawman in a failed attempt to whitewash the court’s decision.

    Really? Would you like to go through the statements made by the supporters of either Prop 8 or DOMA before their passage? Google is not your friend! But, if you, like I, do not care to spend months on this, how about you give us a basis for Prop 8 or DOMA that does not disparage gay marriage; is not intended to injure or degrade their relationships; or is not meant to demean or humiliate them as people. And, in particular, give me a basis that is not based on your, not universal, religious views. I'll wait. ...

    It is not the basis of DOMA.

    Try reading Loving v. Virginia and give me the specific differences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you like to go through the statements made by the supporters of either Prop 8 or DOMA before their passage?

      You mean like President Clinton, for example?

      Delete
    2. You mean like President Clinton, for example?

      Heh! You are holding up Clinton as a moral exemplar? Even after the "black dress"? Clinton was a politician. Some think he was trying to head off an even worse constitutional amendment. I think he was just taking the the easiest path. If that is the best you can do, we can conclude your post has nothing to do with reason or evidence; it has to do with partisan and religious politics and nothing more.

      Delete
    3. John Pieret

      If that is the best you can do, we can conclude your post has nothing to do with reason or evidence; it has to do with partisan and religious politics and nothing more.


      Why should this OP be any different than all the other DI-financed ones since this Fundy Christian propaganda site first opened for business?

      Delete
    4. Heh! You are holding up Clinton as a moral exemplar?

      No, I was holding him up as an example as someone who supported DOMA without seeking to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings.


      Clinton was a politician. Some think he was trying to head off an even worse constitutional amendment. I think he was just taking the the easiest path.

      This sounds like special pleading. If the evidence supports my argument, then it is legitimate. Otherwise, it is not legitimate. So all the politicians and the millions of people they represent who support DOMA, without seeking to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, don’t count. Or better yet, just call them bigots, because after all, we all know they must be.


      If that is the best you can do, we can conclude your post has nothing to do with reason or evidence; it has to do with partisan and religious politics and nothing more.

      So you support evolution, a religious theory, and you support moralizing and assigning motives, and *I’m* the one with partisan and religious politics?

      Delete
    5. Why should this OP be any different than all the other DI-financed ones since this Fundy Christian propaganda site first opened for business?

      Hope srings eternal. Maybe ... someday ... no matter how unlikely ... some creationist will ... someday ... slap their forehead and say "What was I thinking?"

      Yeah, I'm not expecting it.

      Delete
    6. John Pieret

      Hope srings eternal. Maybe ... someday ... no matter how unlikely ... some creationist will ... someday ... slap their forehead and say "What was I thinking?


      One sad observation from years of dealing with YEC idiots is they are not just anti-science. Almost always they are also anti women's rights, anti gay rights, anti minority rights, anti religious rights for any religion except their own. They'll do whatever to keep their fat old Christian white males in control of everything.

      Delete
    7. "fat old Christian white males in control of everything"

      Discrimination!!

      What have you against Christian fat white males?
      (stopping feet, tantrum, whining etc)

      I want court supremo to make a law against discrimination towards fat white Christian males in control of everything!!

      (stopping feet, tantrum, whining etc)(stopping feet, tantrum, whining etc)

      We need fat white Christian males parade!!

      (stopping feet, tantrum, whining etc)

      You people are un-be-li-eva-ble.


      (You and French gorilla are getting along so well.)

      Delete
    8. Thanks Eugen for illustrating my point so well.

      Delete
    9. Eugen,
      want court supremo to make a law against discrimination towards fat white Christian males in control of everything


      Quit whining,you sound gay;)

      We need fat white Christian males parade

      St Patrick's Day, or Columbus Day not good enough?

      Delete
    10. Speaking of Clinton

      "The bill passed with overwhelming margins, enough to override a veto. He hoped to avoid calling attention to it with his post-midnight signature. Mike McCurry, the press secretary, got a call at home asking if they should wait until morning to announce it. “His posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996,” Mr. McCurry recalled"
      "Finally this month, he disavowed the Defense of Marriage Act entirely, urging that the law be overturned by the Supreme Court, which takes up the matter on Wednesday on the second of two days of arguments devoted to same-sex marriage issues."

      Delete
    11. cornelius said:

      "So you support evolution, a religious theory, and you support moralizing and assigning motives, and *I’m* the one with partisan and religious politics?"

      Evolution is not a religious theory. In fact, "evolution" is not a theory at all! The theory of evolution is a theory, IDiot! Evolution is the processes/events that the theory of evolution is about! I do not believe that you earned a PhD or any other college degree. You had to have cheated.

      And YES, you and your fellow god pushers are the ones with "religious politics" and bigoted, religious/political "motives". Many people are politically "partisan" but not everyone is religious or politically religious.

      You're the one who wrote the OP. You're the one bitching about gay people and evolution. You're the one who only writes attacks on evolution, evolutionists, Darwin, science, gay people, and whatever else that you think questions or challenges the stupid, IDiotic, IMPOSSIBLE biblical fairy tales that you believe are 'the inerrant word of God'.

      Have you ever said or done anything positive in your entire life? Have you ever contributed anything worthwhile to science and education? Have you ever had sex? Are you going to spend the rest of your life bitching about evolution and freaking out over whom consenting adults love and/or marry and what they do when they have sex?

      What is it with you thumpers and sex? Were you molested as a child? Were you told by your parents and preachers that sex is icky and that gay sex is really icky? Why don't you get some counseling from a sex therapist and a psychiatrist?

      Religion is a disease, and it matters.

      Delete
    12. Velik

      you are from Texas.

      Here is Duke (John Wayne) invited by a homo-activist to a pride parade:

      (with proper Duke accent)
      "Look at them nice flowers on that lady's head....wait a minute, pardner...that's not a lady!! That's one mighty ugly man! What kind of goddamn man wears them flowers on his head??"

      Duke was told that's because parade people are gay:

      " I'm gay, too!"

      Duke after homo-activist tells him what gay means now:

      " I'm not gay!"

      Duke after a homo-activist tells about gay marriage:


      "...say what?? A man wants to marry a man?? Well, I be damned, pardner. That's just plain wrong!! Did someone set up a stupid joke on me? "

      After homo-activists tell Duke that judges decided about gay marriage, Duke wants to talk to judges:

      (Duke kicks the door)
      "Howdy, what the hell's wrong with you goddamn people? I reckon you drank some snake oil! I got to teach you to stay away from the snake oil salesmen!"

      etc

      Listen to your inner Duke.

      Delete
    13. Eugen

      Listen to your inner Duke.


      Sadly Eugen you've been listening to your inner David Duke.

      Do you have any rational basis for your rampant homophobia?

      Delete
    14. Thorton, do you have any rational basis for your rampant heterophobia?

      Delete
    15. Sorry Eugen, I'm not the one demanding a minority be denied equal civil rights for no other reason than my personal prejudices.

      Delete
    16. Duke spoke.End.



      OK, now seriously...I doubt anybody here hates them. We may disagree with their activities but hate - no. It would be polite thing if they would quiet down a little.

      Delete
    17. Eugen

      It would be polite thing if they would quiet down a little.


      Quickest way to quiet the demonstrations is to end the discrimination and give equal rights to all. But that never crossed your mind, now did it?

      Delete
    18. Eugen,
      Here is Duke (John Wayne) invited by a homo-activist to a pride parade:

      (with proper Duke accent)
      "Look at them nice flowers on that lady's head....wait a minute, pardner...that's not a lady!! That's one mighty ugly man! What kind of goddamn man wears them flowers on his head??"


      Though I love the Duke, he was a right wing nut in his personal life, resulting in the so bad that it is good" Green Berets"

      Ever been to Monument Valley? It is holy ground for those of us who love the John Ford westerns. Just across the San Juan from the Goosenecks which Nic thinks were caused by a flood if I remember correctly.

      Some friends and I went to watch a screening of the Searchers, in the top five all time great westerns, outside on an theatre sized inflatable screen

      So you are sitting in your lawn chair watching the Duke in a Western set in Monument Valley, in Monument Valley. Ultimate 3D. Topped by a moonless early August night, pitch dark sky stretching from horizon to horizon with a few sporadic meteors.

      I believe there was whiskey involved as well

      It was Perfect

      Delete
    19. Velik

      man that event and the area you described sound great. We've never visited southwest; it would be nice one day.

      I didn't know John Wayne was too much of right winger. I remember Charlston Heston was with NRA.
      When I was growing up In Europe, every kid loved John Wayne. He was a common sense , no BS, tough guy.
      That’s why we brought him to a pride parade yesterday to give us his common sense, straight talk comments. Duke, the patriot, the common man hero is not happy about where situation is going.

      Perversions are promoted to virtues and handful of judges can overturn the will of the people.

      Why are we playing this democracy charade then? Why didn't your government save Sadam Husein so they can learn dictatorship from the expert himself?

      Delete
    20. Eugen

      Why are we playing this democracy charade then?


      A neat feature of our democracy is the system of checks and balances put in place to protect minorities from what has been termed the tyranny of the majority. That's why we have things like the separation of powers, constitutional limits on powers, and the Bill of Rights.

      The system works pretty well. You should learn about it some time.

      Delete
    21. Situation is that handful of judges - who are not elected but usually appointed for political purposes - can overrule the decision of citizens.

      What's the purpose of voting, what's the purpose of democracy? Why play charade? Can Republicans cry there's "the tyranny of the majority" when they lost last election? Should judges overrule that decision, too?

      If it's dictatorship by a small elite group just call it so.

      Delete
    22. Eugen

      Situation is that handful of judges - who are not elected but usually appointed for political purposes - can overrule the decision of citizens.


      That's the way the system was designed to work. Local majorities can and do occasionally vote for laws that violate the overarching Constitution and Bill of Rights. Happens all the time. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, it checks the constitutionality of what was voted in and rejects laws that it finds violate the Constitution.

      If you don't like the system you're free to lobby to change it, or move to another country where you'd be more happy.

      Delete
    23. That referendum can be overruled by a small elite group of non elected bureaucrats was a shock and an eye opening moment. I assumed citizens have a final say but I guess that's not the case regardless if the official and by the looks of it farce, name of the system is democracy. It's a twisted, upsetting and a grave development.

      In the light of this new situation the best thing is to familiarize yourself with all the variables. I'll take up your idea on studying your system little more. Knowledge will be used elsewhere as a tool for adjusting i.e. fine tuning solutions and strategies. Other than that I'm done with this thread.

      Delete
    24. Eugen

      Knowledge will be used elsewhere as a tool for adjusting i.e. fine tuning solutions and strategies.


      The Nazis came up with a "final solution" to the problem of those evil Gays too. Is that what you mean?

      Delete
  13. All fun aside, how about doing this:

    Give us a "basis for Prop 8 or DOMA that does not disparage gay marriage; is not intended to injure or degrade their relationships; or is not meant to demean or humiliate them as people. And, in particular, give me a basis that is not based on your, not universal, religious views."

    Not to mention the difference between DOMA/Prop 8 and Loving v. Virginia.

    Again, I'll wait...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. how about doing this: Give us a "basis for Prop 8 or DOMA that does not disparage gay marriage; is not intended to injure or degrade their relationships; or is not meant to demean or humiliate them as people. And, in particular, give me a basis that is not based on your, not universal, religious views." Not to mention the difference between DOMA/Prop 8 and Loving v. Virginia.

      Again, I'll wait...


      Classic evolutionary fallacy. In the case of evolution, claim it is a fact that the world arose spontaneously. When called on your claim, demand an alternative explanation, as though the burden lies with the skeptic. If not falsified, then true. Hilarious.

      In the case of this post, assign nefarious motives and reasoning to DOMA and anyone who would support it, and when questioned demand an alternative explanation. Sorry, but unlike you and your Supreme Court wizards, I’m unable to read minds. I certainly know people who don’t fit the justices silly stereotypes, but since they are divining motives, they can always just contrive ulterior motives It is an unfalsifiable decision.

      Delete
    2. Careful CH, you're going to throw your back out if you keep Gumby twisting like that to avoid answering questions.

      Delete
    3. CH: Classic evolutionary fallacy. In the case of evolution, claim it is a fact that the world arose spontaneously. When called on your claim, demand an alternative explanation, as though the burden lies with the skeptic. If not falsified, then true. Hilarious.

      This is yet another example of refusing to take a theory seriously for the purpose of criticism.

      In the case of evolution, it's not just random mutations. Nor is it just natural selection. It's both variation and selection. It's an error correcting process. We keep pointing this out, yet you keep making the same mistake over and over again.

      In the case of the growth of human knowledge, it's not just conjecture. Nor is it just criticism, it's both conjecture and criticism, which is also an error correcting process. So, no, we're not just demanding an alternative explanation for the biological adaptations we observe. We're asking for an alternative that that explains even more phenomena and has withstood even more criticism. ID does neither of these things. To quote the above referenced article….

      Fallibilism, correctly understood, implies the possibility, not the impossibility, of knowledge, because the very concept of error, if taken seriously, implies that truth exists and can be found. The inherent limitation on human reason, that it can never find solid foundations for ideas, does not constitute any sort of limit on the creation of objective knowledge nor, therefore, on progress. The absence of foundation, whether infallible or probable, is no loss to anyone except tyrants and charlatans, because what the rest of us want from ideas is their content, not their provenance: If your disease has been cured by medical science, and you then become aware that science never proves anything but only disproves theories (and then only tentatively), you do not respond “oh dear, I’ll just have to die, then.” (Emphasis mine)

      Moral knowledge, as with all human knowledge, starts out with conjecture, such as homosexuality is wrong, gay marriage is wrong, etc. Without criticism, all we have is a guess.

      Specifically, I don't think my sister and her husband, who oppose gay marriage, seek to intentionally “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings. Rather, they think that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative, supernatural sources. This is despite historical examples of the growth of moral knowledge due to criticism, such as slavery, separatism, etc. And it's this same belief that leads them to the circular conclusion that an authoritative source told us that knowledge comes from authoritative sources, or that we use induction to determine we use induction, etc.

      The assumption that we cannot use rational criticism to make progress beyond a specific point in a piecemeal fashion is anti-rational. So, again, I'm suggesting the issue is epistemological in nature, not evidential.

      Delete
  14. No, I was holding him up as an example as someone who supported DOMA without seeking to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings.


    Why ever would you think that? I mean really? This was the same guy who bought "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and helped discharge thousands of gay soldiers which was definitely intended to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" them. I was a JAG officer in the Army before DADT but there was no question what happened to gay people in the military was exactly that.

    So all the politicians and the millions of people they represent who support DOMA, without seeking to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, don't count. Or better yet, just call them bigots, because after all, we all know they must be.

    Go ahead. I've asked you to give the "reasons" that DOMA and Prop 8 didn't intend to injure gays. So far all you've done is said that 'a lot of people agree with me'. Want to compare your numbers with those who agreed with George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door?

    The fact that you find bigotry okay doesn't mean we should accept it now and certainly the fact that people in the past found bigotry okay (or, at least, not fighting as they should have) is a justification for what we do now.

    In the case of this post, assign nefarious motives and reasoning to DOMA and anyone who would support it, and when questioned demand an alternative explanation. Sorry, but unlike you and your Supreme Court wizards, I'm unable to read minds.

    But many of the supporters of these laws can somehow ... cough ... divine that gays are sinful and out to "destroy marriage." Never mind. For the third time I am asking you to give us the "nefarious motives and reasoning" for DOMA and/or Prop 8.

    WAITING!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why ever would you think that? I mean really? This was the same guy who bought "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and helped discharge thousands of gay soldiers which was definitely intended to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" them. I was a JAG officer in the Army before DADT but there was no question what happened to gay people in the military was exactly that.

      OK. I’m certainly no Clinton expert. So Clinton had it out for gays. I’ll check that one off the list. That leaves a whole bunch in the congress who voted for the bill. Then we go on to the people they represented. That’s a lot of mind reading.


      The fact that you find bigotry okay …

      This sounds like more assigning of motives and mind reading. This one now aimed at me, so I now know for certain that you are issuing untruths. It is this sort of thing that the OP was getting at.

      This sort of thinking is common amongst evolutionists and it speaks volumes. Evolutionists simply take it as their right to cast all kinds of aspersions, which have no basis in fact, on those who don’t go along with their bizarre claims. If you doubt that the world arose spontaneously you will be called anti science, dishonest, etc., according to imagined charges by those who mandate that the world spontaneously arose. And when you disagree it is your fault.

      Delete
    2. Why are you getting your nose out of joint CH? You made the gay-bashing OP, not anyone else.

      It's your right to be a homophobic bigot if you want. It's also everyone else in the country's right to reject such narrow mined bigotry. Ain't freedom wonderful!

      Delete
    3. For the third time I am asking you to give us the "[non] nefarious motives and reasoning" for DOMA and/or Prop 8.

      WAITING!!!!!


      Your displays of impatience do not obviate the fact that I have already answered your question. You are the one who is making the heroic claim, not me, remember? I realize you are an evolutionist, and evolutionists use this "true-by-default" fallacy as standard fare. But it is a fallacy. Your claim is not true by default, and you don't get a free pass by shifting your burden of proof to me. You have made an absurd claim and now you are avoiding owning up to it.

      Delete
    4. Cornelius Hunter

      You displays of impatience to not obviate the fact that I have already answered your question.


      LOL! Of course you didn't answer his questions about the motives and reasoning behind Prop 8 and DOMA. The faux indignation with the evasion was cute though, probably make a few of your equally bigoted Fundy readers do a fist bump.

      Don't worry CH. The repeal of DOMA/Prop 8 doesn't mean the Pink Police are going to kick down your door and make you have a same-sex marriage. It's just now you legally can have one if you so desire.

      Delete
    5. I have already answered your question

      Really? Where?

      I realize you are an evolutionist, and evolutionists use this "true-by-default" fallacy as standard fare.

      The claim that because I am an "evolutionist" you don't have to answer isn't a fallacy?

      It's simple. I can show that the proponents of DOMA and Prop 8 made multiple statements showing that they had animus against gays based on their religious beliefs (or worse, just plain bigotry). But that would take a lot of time and effort of both of us. If you believe that they weren't animated by religious or bigoted animus, neither of which is an acceptable basis for American civil law, just give those reasons or, I suppose, give us the reasons why religious or bigoted animus are acceptable bases for the civil law ala Loving v. Virginia.

      Under our system of law, denying people rights that others enjoy puts the onus for justification on those who would deny the rights, not on the ones being deprived of them. Just give us the acceptable reasons under American law for depriving gays of rights you and other enjoy.

      Oh, and yeah, I'm still waiting!

      Delete
    6. It's simple. I can show that the proponents of DOMA and Prop 8 made multiple statements showing that they had animus against gays based on their religious beliefs (or worse, just plain bigotry).

      That is not the claim. The claim from the justices is that DOMA support, in general, has the motive to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate.” That is a broader claim which they, and I thought you, are making. But when I point out the problem you then backpedal and narrow the scope to a few individuals and groups. I’m happy to grant that for purposes of discussion.


      Under our system of law, denying people rights that others enjoy puts the onus for justification on those who would deny the rights, not on the ones being deprived of them. Just give us the acceptable reasons under American law for depriving gays of rights you and other enjoy.

      Will you next ask me why I steal candy from 2 year olds? When you ask an evolutionist to justify their claim that the world arose spontaneously, they will respond by asking why you are anti science, lying, dishonest, etc. They assume no responsibility for justifying their claims because they are right, by definition. In this case, the claim is that DOMA support necessarily entails immorality, bigotry, etc. The motive is to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate.” When you ask them to justify that claim, they ask you why you are denying people their rights. Again, they are in the right, from the beginning. I am not the one denying anyone their rights. Nonetheless I am told I am supporting bigotry and denying people their rights, all for merely pointing out the obvious absurdity in the Supreme Court decision on DOMA.

      Of course the claim that DOMA support necessarily entails the motive to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” is undefendable. That is clearly a false claim. There is plenty of bigotry, to be sure, but that does not mean that DOMA support necessarily entails it. And there are plenty of people who love gays but would support DOMA. The claim is just silly, at least to anyone in the real world.

      Traditionally, marriage is between one man and one woman. Now people want marriage to include homosexuals. That is a big change, and it immediately raises the question: what is the new definition of marriage? Yet no definition is offered. Instead, people are told if they don’t go along, then they are bad people. They are bigots with all kinds of nefarious motives. This is moralizing—argument by accusation and intimidation, because the argument makes no sense.

      Delete
    7. Cornelius Hunter

      Traditionally, marriage is between one man and one woman. Now people want marriage to include homosexuals. That is a big change


      So? As pointed out before, the "traditional" definition of marriage has undergone many big changes in the last few centuries.

      and it immediately raises the question: what is the new definition of marriage? Yet no definition is offered.

      False. Since 1971 in California Civil Code the legal definition of marriage has been "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." Note that it is race-neutral, religion-neutral, and gender-neutral, as it should be. Various attempts have been made to add gender-specific "one man one woman" language to the definition but all have been struck down as unconstitutional.

      Can you offer any compelling reasons for denying non-hetero consenting adult couples the same constitutional rights as hetero consenting adult couples are granted? Your religious-based bigotry or personal distaste are not compelling reasons.

      Delete
    8. Thorton:

      Your religious-based bigotry or personal distaste ...

      What "religious-based bigotry or personal distaste" would that be?

      Delete
    9. OK, so you have no compelling reasons for denying non-hetero consenting adult couples the same constitutional rights as hetero consenting adult couples are granted.

      Thanks for clearing that up.

      Delete
    10. CH: Traditionally, marriage is between one man and one woman. Now people want marriage to include homosexuals. That is a big change, and it immediately raises the question: what is the new definition of marriage? Yet no definition is offered.

      Let me guess: you mean no definition has been offered that meets your particular criteria for moral knowledge, right?

      Next thing you know, you'll be telling us no explanation as been offered in regards to evolutionary theory either.

      Delete
    11. Let me guess: you mean no definition has been offered that meets your particular criteria for moral knowledge, right?

      No.

      Delete
    12. Thorton:

      Thanks for clearing that up.

      So far your response, to this OP about the problem of moralizing, is to moralize.

      Delete
    13. Cornelius Hunter

      So far your response, to this OP about the problem of moralizing, is to moralize.


      LOL! Pot -> kettle --> black.

      Delete
    14. That is not the claim. The claim from the justices is that DOMA support, in general, has the motive to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate."

      As a matter of constitutional law you are wrong. I am a lawyer but didn't want to turn this into a constitutional law class. Justice Kennedy noted that it is clear from the statements of the proponents of DOMA that their motive was animus of a religious sort or just plain bigotry. Motives are always relevant in the law.

      But the law requires, as a minimum, a rational basis for treating people in similar circumstances differently. Under DOMA, people who are legally married under state law (which has always been the determinant of who are and are not capable of marrying) are treated differently. Neither the proponents nor you have been able to come up with a rational basis for that. That's what I've been asking you for but you haven't been able to provide one.

      Traditionally, marriage is between one man and one woman.

      Well, quite apart from the fact that Abraham, Isaac, David and (in spades!) Solomon didn't think that marriage was between one man and one woman (and Yahweh seemed OK with that), "tradition" is not a rational reason for treating people differently ... or we'd still have slavery, women who couldn't vote and anti-miscegenation laws.

      There is plenty of bigotry, to be sure, but that does not mean that DOMA support necessarily entails it. And there are plenty of people who love gays but would support DOMA. The claim is just silly, at least to anyone in the real world.

      Well, at least you admit that bigotry is involved. That's a first step.

      But go ahead ... give us the "real world" reasons you, who doubtless "love" gays, would nonetheless deny them simple things like the ability to file a joint tax return like every other legally married couple or avoid estate taxes like every other legally married couple.

      Need I say I'm still waiting?

      Delete
    15. cornelius said:

      "Traditionally, marriage is between one man and one woman."

      Really? In whose 'tradition'?

      http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Biblical-Marriage-Infographic.jpg

      And this will surely surprise you, cornelius, but there is much more to the world than your claustrated creobot mind can comprehend and there are or have been a lot of 'traditions' throughout the history of the world. Should all 'traditions' that anyone anywhere has ever practiced be kept and practiced by everyone everywhere?

      Delete
    16. John:

      As a matter of constitutional law you are wrong. I am a lawyer but didn't want to turn this into a constitutional law class. Justice Kennedy noted that it is clear from the statements of the proponents of DOMA that their motive was animus of a religious sort or just plain bigotry. Motives are always relevant in the law.

      If that is true then why did the dissent say this: "To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual." ?

      Delete
    17. Cornelius Hunter

      If that is true then why did the dissent say this:


      Scalia said it because he's a sarcastic knob who was ticked that his arguments lost and the majority voted against him.

      Antonin Scalia's Gay Marriage Dissent Is Dripping With Contempt And Sarcasm.

      Whining when you lose is an age old American legal tradition. The ID-Creationist clowns at the DI have lost enough court cases by now that you should know.

      Delete
    18. Well, not to put to fine a point on it, Scalia is an ideologue. Scalia has said that the 14th Amendment does not require equal protection of the law to women. Do you agree with that?

      I'm not claiming that Kennedy is, without question, right. But the law still requires a rational basis for any sort of discrimination. Did your reading of Scalia's dissent discover one? If so, why haven't you quoted it? If not, why haven't you given one of your own?

      Delete
    19. Oh, and may I just point out that you have still not advanced any "real world" reasons to deny gays simple things like the ability to file a joint tax return like every other legally married couple or avoid estate taxes like every other legally married couple.

      I'm sure it was just an oversight and that you will shortly correct the error.

      Riiight!

      Delete
    20. CH: Traditionally, marriage is between one man and one woman. Now people want marriage to include homosexuals. That is a big change, and it immediately raises the question: what is the new definition of marriage? Yet no definition is offered.

      Scott: Let me guess: you mean no definition has been offered that meets your particular criteria for moral knowledge, right?

      CH: No.

      No? Then why don't you point out exactly where you view differs? Where did I get it wrong? Please be specific.

      Then again, that generously assumes you're actually interested in presenting the kind of criticism designed to actually enable progress. What was I thinking?

      Delete
    21. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, [but] Scalia is an ideologue. Scalia has said that the 14th Amendment does not require equal protection of the law to women. Do you agree with that?

      The dissent was signed by three justices, not one. So I don’t think your explanation that Scalia is to blame holds water. If the dissent didn’t make sense the other two didn’t have to sign it. Furthermore, how is being “an ideologue” relevant anyway? Ideologues are committed to particular causes and ideas. Does that mean they make blatant errors? I’d be happy to learn that the dissent got it wrong, and the decision said nothing of the sort. The OP is based on this premise, and if it is wrong, then it is wrong. But you’re not giving us much to go on here. Are there other commentators (or even the justices themselves) pointing out this error in the dissent?


      But the law still requires a rational basis for any sort of discrimination. Did your reading of Scalia's dissent discover one? If so, why haven't you quoted it? If not, why haven't you given one of your own?

      Because I made no such claim. That was your strawman, remember? My point was that supporting DOMA does not necessarily entail nefarious motives, as the opinion claimed. I realize you have been steadily backpedaling on that claim, even to the point of now claiming the opinion says no such thing, even though three justices indicated it does. If you’re right then we’d love to know that, but “because Scalia is an ideologue” without any explanation from the opinion, or references to scholars or justices pointing out the error, isn’t exactly convincing.


      But go ahead ... give us the "real world" reasons you, who doubtless "love" gays, would nonetheless deny them simple things like the ability to file a joint tax return like every other legally married couple or avoid estate taxes like every other legally married couple.

      Need I say I'm still waiting? …

      Oh, and may I just point out that you have still not advanced any "real world" reasons to deny gays simple things like the ability to file a joint tax return like every other legally married couple or avoid estate taxes like every other legally married couple.

      I'm sure it was just an oversight and that you will shortly correct the error.

      Riiight!


      Wait, I thought all those politicians and all those millions of people were all bigots? Now you’ve backpedaled to taxes? If that’s the genuine concern then I don’t suppose we could change the tax code? For example, how about a flat tax, supported by economists all over the spectrum? Of course that would mean no more IRS harassment, so I guess that’s not acceptable. Yeah, let’s just remove the definition of marriage without providing a new definition (and call everyone a bigot who doesn’t wholeheartedly agree with us).

      Delete
    22. Scott:

      No? Then why don't you point out exactly where you view differs? Where did I get it wrong? Please be specific.

      I mean no definition has been offered, period, in the DOMA decision. If you say "we are now going to have gay marriage" and that is all, then what you have done is invalidate the old definition without providing a replacement. That's irresponsible, short-sighted governance. If the old definition has problems, then let's change it. But that requires a new definition, not merely invalidating the old.

      Delete
    23. Nothing quite so pathetic as a homophobic religious zealot trying to justify his bigotry.

      Delete
    24. I'd be happy to learn that the dissent got it wrong

      The Supreme Court, dissent or majority, has gotten it wrong many times before ... ever heard of Dred Scott? I'm content to allow Scalia's dissent to be judged by history but that is still not the point.

      My point was that supporting DOMA does not necessarily entail nefarious motives

      So what? Do you have to realize you are a bigot to be one? Even you admit that bigotry is involved. That means, under our Constitution, that the supporters of DOMA have, at least, to show that there is a rational, non-nefarious, basis for the law. It doesn't matter under our Constitution whether or not each and every person supporting a law thinks that they are being a bigot, it only matters that they are acting like a bigot.

      And all you have to do to negate that point is give us a rational basis for treating legally married people differently.

      Oh, right, you can't, can you? What does that make you?

      Delete
    25. Just to expand on this point a bit. Suppose a law is passed that says that the incomes of non-Christians are to be taxed at 20% but the incomes of Christians are to be taxed at 30%. Now, the proponents of the law say that the difference is because Christians are "sinful" and "evil" and "unholy." Let's also assume that the majority of people who support this law don't outright say these things. They may just think that the fact that they are only being taxed 20% is good and don't care what is happening to anyone else. In judging whether the law is constitutional, do you think that the animus of the proponents is relevant? Do you think the indifference of the majority is somehow excused? Or do you demand that the government show that there is, at least, a rational basis for treating Christians differently than anyone else?

      Delete
    26. I'm content to allow Scalia's dissent to be judged by history but that is still not the point.

      I see. So first you defend the court’s claim that support for DOMA entails the motive to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate." Then you backpedal. Then you say the court never actually said that anyway, and that three justices were in error in pointing that out, and now when asked for details you backpedal in the other direction, saying you’ll let history decide. And oh by the way, that’s not the point anyway.

      Of course it’s the point. It is the premise of the OP and what is wrong with the court’s decision. If the court did not, in fact, make that silly claim (which would be great news), then there would be no problem.


      CH: My point was that supporting DOMA does not necessarily entail nefarious motives.

      JP: So what? Do you have to realize you are a bigot to be one?


      Wow, there’s just a million ways to moralize, aren’t there. I would have thought given the OP’s point you might have at least tried to maintain some rationality. The “So what?” is that, I’ll remind you yet again, that was the court’s silly claim. You defended it, backpedaled, claimed it wasn’t actually the claim after all, failed to support that and backpedaled in the other direction, and now you’re dropping the ball altogether with a final “So what?” and the usual diversionary moralizing.


      Oh, right, you can't, can you? What does that make you?

      Sounds good doesn’t it. Rhetorical moralizing is even better than the overt kind. Make a silly claim and then go on the offensive. People can support marriage without mal intent. So far you have failed to explain why upending marriage is the only way to fix a tax problem, and why changing marriage without providing a new definition is a good idea. Instead, you just make accusations. The nuclear option means you don’t have to deal with such details. Everybody who doesn’t agree with you is just a bigot.

      Delete
    27. Cornelius Hunter

      Make a silly claim and then go on the offensive.


      That's high praise coming from a professional shill like you who has mastered the technique. Of course you're getting paid by the DI to push their "wedge" religious strategy. I didn't realize that also included homophobic attacks in the equation but in retrospect it's not surprising.

      Someone on another site pointed out that anti-SSM bigots like you are going to be viewed by history the same negative way the 1960's Southern segregationists are. How does that make you feel CH?

      Delete
    28. And BTW Dr. Hunter, you still have not provided the "[non] nefarious motives and reasoning" for DOMA and/or Prop 8.

      You also have not provided a single reason for why giving equal marriage rights to non-hetero couples will harm hetero marriages in specific and/or society in general. No one in this thread has.

      Delete
    29. anti-SSM bigots like you are going to be viewed by history the same negative way the 1960's Southern segregationists are. How does that make you feel CH?

      Weeellll Soooooonnnnnn, it kinda makes me feel lik' the feller in Monte Python who paid for an argument, and all he got was lies. Does it ever get tiring?

      What is really ahh, amazing, is how you perfectly you have fulfilled the OP, apparently without realizing it.

      Delete
    30. Cornelius Hunter

      Weeellll Soooooonnnnnn, it kinda makes me feel lik' the feller in Monte Python who paid for an argument, and all he got was lies. Does it ever get tiring?


      You tell us CH. You're the paid professional here.

      Delete
    31. You tell us CH. You're the paid professional here.

      Hmm, I guess you don't subscribe to the "When in a hole, stop digging" rule.

      Delete
    32. Cornelius Hunter

      What is really ahh, amazing, is how you perfectly you have fulfilled the OP, apparently without realizing it.


      I do have to give you credit for the OP. In a few short paragraphs you managed to show the strong connection between Christian Fundamentalism, scientific ignorance, and the inherent bigotry and intolerance taught by the church. That's some serious writing talent there.

      Don't ever think the scientific community doesn't appreciate your continued efforts to document the fraud and deceit behind the Discovery Institute's anti-science and anti-equality political dallying. We do. You're the perfect exemplar to demonstrate all that's good about Creation Science.

      Delete
  15. Sorry, that shold have been the "non-nefarious motives and reasoning" for DOMA and/or Prop 8.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eugen,
    Velik

    I'm obsessed by those ding-dongs? How can you say that?


    Not sure,you seems to be thinking about what other people are doing with theirs. Here's some bad news,some gay people don't have ding dongs.

    They are constantly in our face with their whining

    Just like those black people whining about discrimination

    or stupid Pride parades.

    Do you watch many Gay Pride parades Eugen?

    What's there for pervert to be proud of?

    Perhaps they don't feel like they're preverted and even if ,why is any of your business, if it is legal.

    That he can pound his buddy up the (bleep)?

    Perhaps it would be better if you didn't dwell on what people do in their bedrooms, it is really none of your business.

    They as citizens deserve the same rights and protections as everyone else. Even if it makes you feel threatened.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have a terrible feeling about this regarding the poor children who will pay a heavy price when they are forced by the state to live with a gay couple. The best case is for a man and a woman to raise a child. The best case should be the standard. But in this day and age, wisdom has no place and everyone wants to be the first to do away with ancient wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcus,
      I have a terrible feeling about this regarding the poor children who will pay a heavy price when they are forced by the state to live with a gay couple


      If it makes you feel better,there is no evidence of paying a heavy price. It is weird,being straight does not make someone a good parent.

      The best case is for a man and a woman to raise a child. The best case should be the standard

      Then the gays are the least of your problem, you need to first outlaw divorce, then mandate birth control or prohibit sex between unmarried citizens since 10x ish more children live with a single parent than live with a gay parent.

      And finally, since many of the children living in a gay household are the biological children of one parent you will need to put those children up for adoption.

      Is it ok for the state to force people to live the way you think is right?

      But in this day and age, wisdom has no place and everyone wants to be the first to do away with ancient wisdom.

      No, people don't want to be forced to live by your rules

      Delete
    2. Vel:"No, people don't want to be forced to live by your rules"

      Marriage is between a man and woman. God made that rule not me. That's it. Gays realize they can't have children because they have not evolved to become asexual yet. It's a wonder why evolution has not solved that problem yet? Anyway, go figure. It's easier to just change the problem into a civil rights issue. Heritage Foundation says most of the studies show a healthy man and healthy woman married make the best scenario for raising healthy productive children. Why are so willing to toss those studies out?
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/why-marriage-matters-consequences-of-redefining-marriage

      Delete
    3. Marcus

      Marriage is between a man and woman. God made that rule not me


      We're not talking about "God's rules'. We're talking about government endorsed secular laws.

      Heritage Foundation says most of the studies show a healthy man and healthy woman married make the best scenario for raising healthy productive children. Why are so willing to toss those studies out?

      Actually the studies say that by far the most important factors in a child's well being are the security of a stable parental relationship along with adequate social and financial support. The sexual orientation of the parents has very little to do with the child's development.

      Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian
      American Academy of Pediatrics

      Abstract: Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.

      Why are you ignoring all that data?

      Delete
    4. I start from the perspective that the Bible is correct. God puts limits on what we are allowed to do with our bodies. If a new study comes out that explains homosexuality is beneficial, I suspect the study is somehow incorrect or biased right off the top, and I ignore it. I KNOW that is closed minded of me that I don't spend my time reading every idiot's fallacious claims.

      Why do you say people who support the traditional meaning of marriage are bigoted and prejudicial? There is virtually no difference between men of different races. The basis of predjudice and bigotry. But there is a huge difference between genders. We have always established different ways of dealing with each other. Think about it for 30 seconds, we each use different bathrooms for starters. Whats to stop you from telling me I'm bigoted for stopping a man from going into a woman's bathroom? We would normally call that guy a pervert and throw im in jail.

      It seems you are ready to publicly humiliate anyone who disagrees with your childish opinions. Just like all totalitarians. Thank God you don't have any power.

      Delete
    5. Marcus: Marriage is between a man and woman. God made that rule not me. That's it.

      No, Marcus. That's not it. When taken seriously, for the purpose of criticism, this is a claim that human knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources.

      Is this a correct assessment? Or do you even take your own claims seriously?

      Delete
    6. In addition to the OP, here is another good article explaining this issue coherently. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2012/10/30/why_a_good_person_can_vote_against_samesex_marriage/page/2

      Delete
    7. I wrote...

      Scott: Rather, they think that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative, supernatural sources. This is despite historical examples of the growth of moral knowledge due to criticism, such as slavery, separatism, etc. And it's this same belief that leads them to the circular conclusion that an authoritative source told us that knowledge comes from authoritative sources, or that we use induction to determine we use induction, etc.

      And here's just one such example from above...

      Marcus: I start from the perspective that the Bible is correct. God puts limits on what we are allowed to do with our bodies. If a new study comes out that explains homosexuality is beneficial, I suspect the study is somehow incorrect or biased right off the top, and I ignore it. I KNOW that is closed minded of me that I don't spend my time reading every idiot's fallacious claims.

      Delete
    8. Scott, yes my opinion is an appeal to authority. I have to start with God. From there I must consider what He is telling me. I must consider what He desires for my life through the scriptures. Because I am not perfect or have perfect knowledge about any issue, I agree with infallibility to a degree. But I know God exists through his creation and the amount of knowledge He has made known to me through His word is enough to make that conclusion. You need more information I guess. I just hope you find the information before you die.

      I am learning everyday and I appreciate your willingness to explain these details in a kind way.

      Delete
    9. I start from the perspective that the Bible is correct. God puts limits on what we are allowed to do with our bodies.

      Again Marcus, we are not talking about your personal religious views. We're talking about secular laws that unfairly discriminate.

      If you personally believe SSM is a sin then don't have one. But you don't get to deny other people their rights based on your personal prejudices.

      In the U.S. at least it's always been the case that equality for all under law is the norm and those demanding legal discrimination against specific minorities need to show compelling reasons for the discrimination.

      It has taken a while but slowly discriminatory laws are being erased - discriminatory laws against women, against racial and ethnic minorities, against non-hetero minorities.

      Why do you say people who support the traditional meaning of marriage are bigoted and prejudicial?

      "Traditional" doesn't mean right. Many times "traditional" involves bigoted and prejudicial actions. There's also a big difference between living your own life by what you consider "traditional" rules and demanding that everyone else be forced to do so too. Again, if you are against SSM then don't have one. Just don't deny other the rights that you enjoy. That's all that's being asked for - equality under law.

      Delete
    10. Scott: "Rather, they think that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative, supernatural sources. This is despite historical examples of the growth of moral knowledge due to criticism, such as slavery, separatism, etc. And it's this same belief that leads them to the circular conclusion that an authoritative source told us that knowledge comes from authoritative sources, or that we use induction to determine we use induction, etc."

      So, I tell my child not to cut his finger off with a knife because there will be lots of pain and he will be missing a finger. I can scientifically prove if you use a knife to cut flesh, indeed the flesh will be cut and separate from the other tissue. So, the parts missing is clear but the pain part is not because we have not tested it. But from prior experiences with pain we can deduce there will be pain if the knife cuts the finger off.

      If my son quotes me to his friend, then my son is using a form of circular reasoning when he explains how knives work on fingers? Yet he never actually used the knife on his own finger to understand the consequences.
      Please don't think I'm trying to be funny, I use a simple example because it's simple for me to understand.
      Am I following you here?

      Delete
    11. Marcus: I have to start with God.

      You *have* to start with God? Is someone coercing you? Is that someone God?

      Marcus: Because I am not perfect or have perfect knowledge about any issue, I agree with infallibility to a degree. But I know God exists through his creation and the amount of knowledge He has made known to me through His word is enough to make that conclusion.

      Apparently, you're confused, since a lack of perfect knowledge about all issues would also include a multitude of things, including if you've interpreted the Bible correctly if it were an infallible source, if the authors interpreted an experience of a source that was infallible, If they recorded it correctly, etc.

      IOW, it ultimately comes down to your fallible human reasoning to determine if something is fallible.

      Furthermore to quote from the referenced article...

      A related useful thing that faith tells you, if you take it seriously enough, is that the great majority of people who believe something on faith, in fact believe falsehoods. Hence, faith is insufficient for true belief. As the Nobel-Prize-winning biologist Peter Medawar said: “the intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not.”

      You know that Medawar’s advice holds for all ideas, not just scientific ones, and, by the same argument, to all the other diverse things that are held up as infallible (or probable) touchstones of truth: holy books; the evidence of the senses; statements about who is probably right; even true love.


      Are Muslims really wrong about Mohammed being the true prophet, rather that Jesus? Do you right them off as having less faith that you do?

      Delete
    12. Marcus: So, I tell my child not to cut his finger off with a knife because there will be lots of pain and he will be missing a finger. I can scientifically prove if you use a knife to cut flesh, indeed the flesh will be cut and separate from the other tissue. So, the parts missing is clear but the pain part is not because we have not tested it. But from prior experiences with pain we can deduce there will be pain if the knife cuts the finger off.

      Yes, Marcus. I realize you subjectively think you're using past experience when reaching this conclusion. However, this idea does not withstand rational criticism.

      For example, where does your conclusion that using a knife on a finger will continue to have the same effect exist, "out there" in any number of past, singular sense experiences? Kindly point out where it is. It's really that simple.

      Furthermore, the future is actually unlike the past in most ways. See an example of this here. However, once given the explanation for those drastic changes in earlier patterns, they are easily understood. But the explanation always comes first.

      Or, to put it another way, fill in the blank without using conjecture and criticism.

      01. Raw sense data
      02. ???
      03. Inductive conclusion

      Specifically, for anyone to have actually used it, one would need to formulate a "principle of induction" that is well defined enough that they can actually be applied in a reliable way to obtain guidance on any subject, in practice. However, no one has actually done this.

      However, being open to criticism, feel free to enlighten us by filling in the blank without using conjecture and criticism.

      Delete
    13. marcus said:

      "Just like all totalitarians."

      Yep, you certainly are.

      Delete
    14. 01. Raw sense data
      02. Inductive conclusion and/or add imagination
      03. Take Action.

      If I spend all my time thinking about whether I'm correct or not I'll never get anything done.
      I will keep you in my prayers.
      Good day

      Delete
  18. If "ancient wisdom" is so great, why don't you give away all of your modern possessions and go live in a cave? Never go to a doctor again. Never get your food or clothing or medicine or tools or anything else from a store. Never use any modern wisdom or anything else modern ever again.

    Oh, by the way, according to the bible people owned and beat slaves, some had several wives, many kidnapped and raped girls, many murdered men, women (including pregnant ones), and children. Many killed animals just for the viciousness of it or to 'sacrifice' them. 'God' not only condoned and commanded such horrible acts but also personally carried out plagues, murders, slaughters, destruction, genocide, etc. 'God' even raped mary, mother of 'jesus'.

    Yeah, "ancient wisdom", and especially christian "ancient wisdom" is sweet, eh marcus?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Twt: If "ancient wisdom" is so great, why don't you give away all of your modern possessions and go live in a cave."

      The ancient wisdom helped the Pilgrims, Puritans, the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean War then in the 60's it all went to hell in a hand basket.

      Delete
    2. I should say, ancient wisdom helped America through the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean War.

      Delete
  19. I don't understand something. Homosexuals are claiming that they want equal marriage rights. But they already have equal marriage rights. A homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman that the heterosexual man has. And a lesbian already has the same right to marry a man that a heterosexual woman has. So they are not asking for equal rights. They already have equal, even identical rights. They are asking for a new right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, but now you can have the same right as well. Win,win.

      Delete
    2. Sure nat. In the 1950's a black man had the right to marry a black woman, a white man had the right to marry a white woman. Why did those whiners need special rights for interracial marriages?

      In the 1920's a Jewish man had the right to marry a Jewish woman, a Catholic man had the right to marry a Catholic woman. Why did those whiners need special rights for interfaith marriages?

      Hetero couples now have the right to legally marry the person they love, with all the state recognized benefits that go along with marriage. Same-sex loving couples have been denied that right. Even a clueless boob like you should be able to sort out the wrong in that one

      Delete
    3. Thorton:

      A black man did not have the same righto marry a white woman that a white man had. Different laws for different races. A homosexual has the same right to marry any woman that a heterosexual has. And a the same law prohibiting same sex marriage applies to a heterosexual as well.

      And what does love got to do with it? I love my sister, my female cousin, etc. I love my next door neighbor's wife. Why can't we do a threesome? Or a foursome? I really, really love dogs. Why not?

      Delete
    4. Thorton:

      "Hetero couples now have the right to legally marry the person they love, with all the state recognized benefits that go along with marriage. Same-sex loving couples have been denied that right. Even a clueless boob like you should be able to sort out the wrong in that one"

      The issue isn't whether same sex marriage should be criminalized. Most people are not advocating putting same sex couples in jail. The question is whether society should give the same benefits to same sex couples as it does to heterosexual couples. It is in society's interest to support heterosexual marriage because same heterosexual marriages produce children, society's future. Homosexual relations don't. Did i sort it out okay?

      Delete
    5. natschuster

      A black man did not have the same righto marry a white woman that a white man had.


      Why is discrimination based on the physical skin color wrong while discrimination based on genitalia is OK? Sexual orientation is based on lots more than a person's physical plumbing. Give us a good argument for your bigotry.

      The issue isn't whether same sex marriage should be criminalized.

      Not criminalized nat. Legalized as to give equal rights to everyone. The thing you Fundies hate.

      It is in society's interest to support heterosexual marriage because same heterosexual marriages produce children, society's future.

      Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't stop hetero couples who want children from having them nat. It doesn't affect hetero marriages at all. If anything legalizing SSM will help society by enlarging the pool of families willing and finally legally able to adopt unwanted children.

      Also, having children isn't a legal requirement for marriage. By your reasoning we should deny marriage rights to all infertile couples, and all women who have hit menopause.

      I really, really love dogs. Why not?

      You're free to make your case in public for the right to marry your dog. SSM advocates made their case in public and won their equal rights. Deal with it.

      Any other knee-jerk bigoted homophobic arguments you want to try?

      Delete
    6. Nat,
      And what does love got to do with it? I love my sister, my female cousin, etc. I love my next door neighbor's wife. Why can't we do a threesome? Or a foursome?


      Fine, but I would be careful hitting on your neighbors wife, in Texas that will get you shot and no jury will convict the husband.

      I really, really love dogs. Why not?

      Can a dog sign a contract? After all that is what marriage is legally. If not, you can't marry your dog.

      Delete
    7. Thorton:

      "Why is discrimination based on the physical skin color wrong while discrimination based on genitalia is OK? Sexual orientation is based on lots more than a person's physical plumbing. Give us a good argument for your bigotry."


      There is no legal discrimination against homosexuals. They have always had the same rights as heterosexuals to marry.

      Delete
    8. natschuster

      There is no legal discrimination against homosexuals. They have always had the same rights as heterosexuals to marry.


      LOL! Keep lying to yourself nat. The rest of the country is moving on past your brand bigotry and hatred.

      Sexual orientation isn't a choice, it's an innate physiological characteristic just like skin color. A hetero person has the right to marry another consenting adult with hetero orientation. Why shouldn't a non-hetero person have the same right to marry another consenting adult with non-hetero orientation?

      The only two reasons ever given are 1) my religion teaches it's a sin, and ) I personally find it distasteful. Neither of which are a sufficient basis for legal discrimination.

      Go ahead nat, keep trying to justify your homophobia and bigotry.

      Delete
    9. natschuster: I really, really love dogs. Why not?

      Really? They cannot give consent, that's why. Or perhaps you think marriage has nothing to do with joint consent?

      Delete
    10. Scott and Vel:

      A dog doesn't give consent to be owned. So why do we need consent for it to marry?


      Thorton:

      It isn't in societies interest to support incest, so it is not legally recognized. It isn't in societies interest to support homosexual relationships, so it shouldn't be recognized.

      And it is somewhat as to how innate homosexuality is. Even so, it is irrelavent. They have the same rights as heterosexuals. They are asking for a new right. Or more correctly they are asking for privileges and recognition. Granting those privileges and recognition might not be in societies interest.

      Delete
    11. Pedophiles claim that what they do is perfectly natural. They even have an advocacy group. We don't accept the argument that it is natural, therefore it should be legal.

      Delete
    12. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      It isn't in societies interest to support incest, so it is not legally recognized. It isn't in societies interest to support homosexual relationships, so it shouldn't be recognized.


      Incest is demonstrably harmful to individuals both emotionally and often physically. Non-hetero orientation is not harmful to individuals or society in any way, shape, or form.

      The hatred and prejudices levied against non-hetero folks by bigots like you certainly is harmful to them which does negatively affect society, but that's a different matter.

      They have the same rights as heterosexuals.

      Not yet, but getting there. But do keep lying to prop up your disgusting bigotry nat.

      Pedophiles claim that what they do is perfectly natural. They even have an advocacy group. We don't accept the argument that it is natural, therefore it should be legal.

      Pedophilia is demonstrably harmful. Non-hetero orientation is not.

      No one makes the argument that SSM should be legal because it is natural. SSM should be legal because it's a right granted a majority that is unfairly denied to a minority with no compelling reason for the discrimination.

      Delete
    13. Scott: Really? They cannot give consent, that's why. Or perhaps you think marriage has nothing to do with joint consent?

      Nat: A dog doesn't give consent to be owned. So why do we need consent for it to marry?

      Again, if marriage has anything to do with joint consent, then a dog would need to give something it does not understand and cannot provide: consent.

      Spouses do not own one another:

      Delete
    14. Thorton:

      "Incest is demonstrably harmful to individuals both emotionally and often physically. Non-hetero orientation is not harmful to individuals or society in any way, shape, or form."

      How is sex between two consenting adults who happen to be siblings harmful?





      ""They have the same rights as heterosexuals.""




      "Not yet, but getting there. But do keep lying to prop up your disgusting bigotry nat."

      A homosexual man has the exact same right as a heterosexual man to marry a woman. How is that not equal?

      Delete
    15. Keep that hateful bigotry train rolling nat. You're making quite the spectacle of yourself.

      Delete
    16. Guys:

      It seems that there is considerable evidence that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle.


      http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm

      http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full


      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/jun/05060606

      Suicide rates among homosexuals seem to be higher too:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447240/


      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447240/

      So maybe society should proceed with caution before we give homosexuality the same recognition and support. Yes, I know. I'm a homophobe and a bigot

      Delete
    17. Thorton:

      Should society support smokers? If I say that society should not support smoking, does that make me a hater of smokers, a bigot, etc?

      Delete
    18. natschuster

      It seems that there is considerable evidence that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle.


      Another lie from the bigot. First, homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle". It's a innate physiological trait that by itself is no more unhealthy that heterosexuality.

      Second, there is considerable evidence that being subjected to social ostracism and institutionalized discrimination leads to all sorts of health problems, including self-destructive behavior like alcoholism, drug use, and suicide. Those stats are true for ALL discriminated-against minorities.

      There is no evidence at all that non-hetero orientation per se is less healthy than hetero orientation.

      But it's easier for homophobic bigots to blame the victim, right nat? Easier to discriminate since those damn fags brought it all on themselves, right nat?

      I'm a homophobe and a bigot

      You are indeed, and it's quite ugly.

      Delete
    19. nat, why did we repeal the laws prohibiting interracial marriages?

      After all, a black person had the same rights as a white person - each could marry a member of their own race. Why did we give those interracial couples new rights?

      Why aren't you arguing for the re-adoption of racial discrimination laws in marriage?

      What "new rights" will same-sex couples have if SSM laws are passed that you won't have?

      Delete
    20. It would seem that STD rates are higher among homosexuals:

      http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

      How is homophobia making gay men engage in activities that spread STD's? How is this blaming the victim?

      Delete
    21. Thorton:

      A Black person did not have the same right as a White person to marry a White person. A homosexual man has the exact same right to marry a woman that a heterosexual has. The legal rights are identical.

      If same sex couples can marry, then I will also acquire a new right to marry a person of my sex. But that is not the point. The point is that homosexuals already have equal rights.

      Delete
    22. natschuster

      How is homophobia making gay men engage in activities that spread STD's? How is this blaming the victim?


      Promiscuity and lack of safe sex are both self-destructive behaviors caused in large part by social ostracism and institutionalized discrimination. Again, that is true for ALL discriminated against minorities. The feeling of despair and hopelessness leads to an attitude of "society keeps telling me I'm worthless, so I might as well live for today and act worthless".

      That is well documented in the medical literature nat. Like this study from the CDC

      Stigma and discrimination: The Effects of Negative Attitudes About Homosexuality

      "Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:

      - Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM

      - Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance

      - Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts

      - Affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk

      - Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health"

      If you weren't such a homophobic bigot you'd look it up yourself. But you are, so you won't.

      Delete
    23. natschuster

      A Black person did not have the same right as a White person to marry a White person.


      They each had the identical right to marry someone of their own race. Interracial couples asked for new rights. According to you we should have denied the request.

      Keep using those 1960's arguments nat. Make yourself look even more like a hateful bigot.

      Delete


    24. How do you know a dog knows you own him? Second, marriage is a contract

      "A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them."


      "The elements of a contract are "offer" and "acceptance" by "competent persons" having legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of obligation."

      Sorry Nat,you are just going to have to live in sin with your dog.

      Pedophiles claim that what they do is perfectly natural. They even have an advocacy group. We don't accept the argument that it is natural, therefore it should be legal.

      Children are not considered as competent persons legally, the key is consenting adults.

      A homosexual man has the exact same right as a heterosexual man to marry a woman. How is that not equal?

      And now you have the right to marry man, no special rights for the gays.

      Delete
    25. Thorton:

      A black man did not have the same right as a white man to marry a white woman. That's different. A homosexual has the same right to marry a woman that a heterosexual has. That's the same.

      Vel:

      "Children are not considered as competent persons legally, the key is consenting adults."

      The point I was making is that we don;t accept the argument that just because something is considered natural, it is legal.

      "And now you have the right to marry man, no special rights for the gays."

      Yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights now, and hey had equal rights before. I didn't say that homosexuals have more rights now. The point was that they aren't asking for equal rights, they have that. They are asking for a new right.

      Delete
    26. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      The point was that they aren't asking for equal rights, they have that.


      LOL! Sure thing nat the homophobic bigot. Non-heteros have the "right" to do something as repulsive and distasteful to them as having a same-sex encounter would be to you.

      Your concept of "equal rights" would be hilarious if it wasn't so hurtful to so many good people.

      Delete
    27. natschuster said:

      "It isn't in societies interest to support incest, so it is not legally recognized."

      Then why did your imaginary 'God' create just two people, which forced them to have incestual sex with their children, and forced their children to have incestual sex with their parents and siblings?

      To have a society requires more than two people and to get those extra people requires sex, pregnancies, and births. Your imaginary, 'omnipotent God' would surely know that yet 'he' only created two people, knowing that they would have to have incestual sex to produce more people.

      How was 'God' being considerate of future society's "interest" by creating only two people who, along with their children and children's children, etc., were forced to commit incest to expand the number of humans?

      And if adam and eve are the parents of all humans, then all humans are the product of their incest and the incest of their children, etc.

      Tell me nat, did eve legally marry her son(s) before having incestual sex with him/them? Did adam have incestual sex with his daughter and did he legally marry her first? Did adam and eve get a legal divorce from each other before having incestual sex with their children?

      Delete
    28. Nat,
      The point I was making is that we don;t accept the argument that just because something is considered natural, it is legal.


      Of course, but no one is making that argument but you. Not
      allowing the federal government to recognize marriages allowed by the individual states is just flat out discrimination.

      Just as if federal government decided that the definition of marriage was only same sex,it would discriminate against those who wanted to marry the opposite sex.

      Yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights now, and hey had equal rights before. I didn't say that homosexuals have more rights now

      Good,that would have been ludicrous.

      The point was that they aren't asking for equal rights, they have that. They are asking for a new right.

      They always had the right,Congress just passed a law which infringed on it. They were reclaiming a stolen right. Just like if some law took away your right to own weapons, you are not asking for a new right to restore your right to bear arms.

      That is what the court found, gay people's right to choose if deemed legal in the state they resided, the same rights as straights used when choosing to marry a person of the opposite sex, were being infringed by the federal government
      Discrimination.

      All this other stuff you have been shoveling out is irrelevant, gay people have the same rights as straights, if the state recognizes the marriage so does the federal government, the power to determine what marriage consists of ,is the realm of the states.

      Delete
    29. Are you saying that homosexuals always had a right to marry? Where did that come from?

      Delete
    30. natschuster

      Are you saying that homosexuals always had a right to marry? Where did that come from?


      It's a basic human right that has been recognized by various societies for well over 5000 years.

      History of same-sex unions

      "While it is relatively new to modern history that same-sex couples are widely being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions and marriages around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

      A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome, ancient Mesopotamia, in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history. These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

      Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men. Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man."

      It's only when the Christians came to power that state dictated discrimination against same sex unions started. Kill those who don't follow your religion to the letter, another fine invention by Christianity.

      Delete
    31. natschuster said:

      "A homosexual man has the exact same right as a heterosexual man to marry a woman."

      Many homo/bi sexual men have married women, and many homo/bi sexual women have married men. Many have done so because of their own religious beliefs and/or pressure from their family and/or friends and/or church and/or the society they live in, and many have done so because they wanted to have 'legitimate' children in the eyes of the church and/or law.

      As being 'gay' has become more acceptable in some countries you might have noticed that more people are coming 'out of the closet', including people who are or have been married to a person of the opposite sex.

      A long time ago I knew a guy who was homosexual, but I didn't know that at the time. He had a girlfriend and acted pretty much like any other guy. A few years later I heard that he had moved to Seattle so that he could find enough homosexual people to make him feel welcome. At that time AIDS was barely known of and he ended up dying from it.

      I was surprised to find out that he was gay and felt bad that he couldn't 'come out' to his family and friends in his hometown for fear of being ridiculed and ostracized. I also felt terrible about his death, especially since he was only in his twenties.

      How he must have struggled with his homosexuality, and his desire to be treated as a worthwhile person. He obviously felt that he had to leave his secretive existence and find people somewhere else who would accept him as he really was.

      He was a nice, generous, likable guy. I miss him.

      Delete
    32. Had he stayed in the closet, he might be alive today.

      Delete
    33. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Had he stayed in the closet, he might be alive today.


      More "blame the victim" from the ugly homophobic bigot.

      Thanks for showing us another fine example of your Christian compassion.

      Delete
    34. My wife's aunt was a heavy smoker. She died from lung cancer. Had she not smoked, she might be alive today. If we say that she shouldn't have smoked, does that make us bigots?

      Delete
    35. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      My wife's aunt was a heavy smoker. She died from lung cancer. Had she not smoked, she might be alive today. If we say that she shouldn't have smoked, does that make us bigots?


      Smoking is a conscious choice you homophobic ass. A person's sexual orientation is not.

      Telling people that you're prejudiced against they ought to hide their true personality so hateful bigots like you won't abuse them is about as despicable as it gets.

      You're really sucking the slime off the river bottom on this one schuster.

      Delete
    36. Nat,
      Are you saying that homosexuals always had a right to marry?

      Good point, that should have been " already"

      Where did that come from?

      Some from the state constitution,some from referendums.

      Had he stayed in the closet, he might be alive today.

      Being in the closet had nothing to do with it, having unprotected sex was the issue

      Delete
    37. Twt:"How he must have struggled with his homosexuality, and his desire to be treated as a worthwhile person."

      Why do you think he found more value identifying himself as homosexual than a human man? Perhaps he was really struggling with what it means to be human?

      Delete
    38. Twt:"He obviously felt that he had to leave his secretive existence and find people somewhere else who would accept him as he really was."

      This is a very insightful comment about your friend Twt. Perhaps that is one characteristic we all share, to be loved, to be valued, and have purpose.

      Delete
    39. Marcus

      This is a very insightful comment about your friend Twt. Perhaps that is one characteristic we all share, to be loved, to be valued, and have purpose


      Which is exactly why so many of us fight against the bigotry and intolerance. So that those who are different from the majority can find acceptance instead of being driven away by hatred.

      Delete
    40. Thorton,
      Why do you think homosexual people identify themselves as homosexual instead of human man or human woman?

      Delete
    41. Marcus

      Why do you think homosexual people identify themselves as homosexual instead of human man or human woman?


      Because they're honest.

      Try to find anyone who doesn't identify with their innate sexual orientation. Start with yourself. Do you self-identify as being hetero?

      Delete
    42. Thorton: "Because they're honest.

      Try to find anyone who doesn't identify with their innate sexual orientation. Start with yourself. Do you self-identify as being hetero?"

      No, I identify myself as human man created in God's image. We are ALL humans created in God's image and thus eternally valuable.

      Why do you think we have a desire to be honest? Where does that come from?

      Delete
    43. Marcus

      No, I identify myself as human man created in God's image.


      Define 'human man'. Is that just your physical body with genitalia or does it include your innate sexual orientation too?

      We are ALL humans created in God's image and thus eternally valuable.

      Then why don't you speak up against the bigotry and intolerance shown by the gay-bashers here?

      Why do you think we have a desire to be honest? Where does that come from?

      It's an evolved behavioral trait that helps the overall survival chances of our socially-oriented species. At least that's what the evidence indicates.

      Delete
    44. Thorton: "Define 'human man'. Is that just your physical body with genitalia or does it include your innate sexual orientation too?"

      That is a very deep question, I'll rephrase, what does it mean to be a human man? It's more than a sexual experience, that's for sure. I think it's a great tragedy for a human to reduce their value to a specific conduct. There is so much more to life than a single behavior. I don't mean to sound trivial but it's worth thinking about.

      Delete
    45. Marcus,
      Gays realize they can't have children because they have not evolved to become asexual yet


      Think you need a new argument,science is apparently not far from being able to do that.

      I think it's a great tragedy for a human to reduce their value to a specific conduct

      So being a Christian isn't a defining aspect of your identity?

      Delete
    46. ""My wife's aunt was a heavy smoker. She died from lung cancer. Had she not smoked, she might be alive today. If we say that she shouldn't have smoked, does that make us bigots?"

      Smoking is a conscious choice you homophobic ass. A person's sexual orientation is not.

      Telling people that you're prejudiced against they ought to hide their true personality so hateful bigots like you won't abuse them is about as despicable as it gets.

      You're really sucking the slime off the river bottom on this one schuster."

      Are you sure about smoking being a conscious choice? There is something called an addictive personality. People try and try to overcome their addictions, but it just doesn't work. My wife's aunt tries to quite numerous times. I guess when
      I say that people shouldn't smoke because of the consequences I'm a bigot and I'm not letting people be true to their own selves.

      Delete
    47. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Are you sure about smoking being a conscious choice?


      Taking up smoking is still a conscious choice you homophobic ass, whether you eventually become addicted to nicotine or not.

      A person's sexual orientation is not a conscious choice.

      No one that I know of was ever denied the legal right to marry, or tied to a fence post and beaten to death because of smoking.

      Telling non-hetero folks they should hide their sexual orientation just because natschuster the homophobic bigot personally disapproves is the act of a despicable coward.

      You're determined to suck right through the slime on the river bottom, aren't you?

      Delete
    48. Having an addictive personality is not a conscious choice.

      And I don't recall saying people should hide their orientations because of me. I don't expect anybody to do anything because I disapprove. The question is whether society should support certain behaviors.

      Delete
    49. Nat,
      . The question is whether society should support certain behaviors.


      So you are favor of elimating the rights of marriage for people who smoke,don't exercise, drink, are overweight as well?

      Now since all gay people don't have stds or live a dangerous life style is ok if they get married, lesbians are notoriously healthy.

      Or should we just assume because someone has one thing in common with someone else they have everything in common?
      Must be a word for that.

      Do tell Nat, how do we decide who does not have equal protection under the laws.

      Delete
    50. Vel:

      Our society as a whole does not encourage smoking because it is bad. Same thing with obesity. Giving homosexuals the same marital rights as heterosexuals is encouraging that behavior.

      No body is saying that two men, or two women can't get together, have a ceremony, and call themselves a married couple. The question is should society support that.

      And homosexuals have equal protection under the law. They have the exact same rights as heterosexuals to marry some of the opposite sex.

      Delete
    51. This study seems to indicate that lesbians are not all that healthy.

      http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2007/04/04/american-scientist-gays-die-younger-than-smokers/

      Delete
    52. velikovskys

      Do tell Nat, how do we decide who does not have equal protection under the laws.


      Go ahead nat, answer the question.

      Say you've just been made Grand Imam of the Christian Taliban, and your word is law. What "behaviors' should society outlaw, and why.

      Delete
    53. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      This study seems to indicate that lesbians are not all that healthy.


      LOL! "The Family Research Institute, a Colorado based think-tank well-known for their anti-gay views, studied same-sex marriages in Denmark and Norway."

      Gee nat, what a find! A bunch of Christian homophobes trying to justify their prejudices with fraudulent "science" again.

      Ever hear the term correlation doesn't equal causation? In your bogus and dishonestly skewed "study" many of the gay couples in Denmark and Norway only got married when one of the partners was already fatally stricken with AIDS. Marriage was for many a last sign of support and love for their partner. Of course the average life span is shorter. It's incredibly dishonest to take that data and claim "marriage for gay men and lesbians is more dangerous than smoking." like the title in your article states.

      Besides, I already showed you the data that ALL discriminated against minorities tend to have worse physical and psychological health, and shorter lifespans than the oppressors. But being the good little bigot you are you completely ignored it.

      Look nat, African-American males have a life span at least 7 years shorter than white males, and African-American females live 5 years less.

      Whites Outlive Blacks in the US

      Under natschuster the bigot logic shouldn't we make it illegal to live the black "lifestyle"? Why should society support black "behavior'?

      Keep digging that pit schuster you disgusting slimeball

      Delete
    54. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      No body is saying that two men, or two women can't get together, have a ceremony, and call themselves a married couple. The question is should society support that.


      No bigot, the question is what compelling reason is there for denying equal rights under secular law to a minority.

      And stop with the damn lie "gays already have equal right". You look like a big enough asshole already.

      Delete
    55. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Our society as a whole does not encourage smoking because it is bad. Same thing with obesity. Giving homosexuals the same marital rights as heterosexuals is encouraging that behavior.


      You've never established that homosexual behavior is in the least bit harmful to hetero marriage or society. That's just your bigoted and unsupported claim.

      I have established that continued discrimination is definitely harmful to homosexuals and also to society by all the extra costs incurred for health issues, lost wages and taxes, etc.

      Do you have any arguments besides your disgusting prejudices?

      Delete
    56. I still don't see how having identical rights means they don't have equal rights.

      And I didn't say that homosexuals will harm society. Smokers don't harm society. But since they are harming each themselves, society does not encourage it.

      And one reason Black people tend to have shorter lifespans is that there is more smoking, obesity, etc among Black americans. Society is doing something about that.

      Delete
    57. Here's something about the health risks among lesbians:

      http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.91.4.591

      Is this one okay. I'll find more if you want.

      Oh, and unhealthy behavior does come at a cost to society in the form of higher insurance costs, more medicaid spending for people without insurance, etc.

      Delete
    58. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      I still don't see how having identical rights means they don't have equal rights.


      Laws that favor a majority and discriminate against a minority may be identical applied to both groups but they certainly aren't equal to both groups. It's like if a law was passed making kosher food illegal. Jews who keep kosher would point out the unfair discrimination but nat the bigot would tell them "you have the same right to eat a ham sandwich as a non-Jew, so the law is equal". Nat the bigot understands the concept but insists on being an asshole.

      And I didn't say that homosexuals will harm society. Smokers don't harm society. But since they are harming each themselves, society does not encourage it.

      Keep blithering bigot. You've never established that homosexual behavior is in the least bit harmful to hetero marriage or society or themselves. You've never established anything harmful about being non-hetero AT ALL.

      It's the intolerant bigots like you that are harmful to others and to society. That's why your brand of hatred is on the way out.

      Delete
    59. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Here's something about the health risks among lesbians:


      From the study

      " In comparison with adjusted estimates for the US female population, lesbians/bisexual women exhibited greater prevalence rates of obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use and lower rates of parity and birth control pill use. These women were also less likely to have health insurance coverage or to have had a recent pelvic examination or mammogram."

      We've already established that a major reason for the poorer health and self-destructive behavior is the social ostracism and discrimination foisted on non-heteros by bigoted jerks like you.

      Post all the "gays have poor health" stats you want. It won't change the fact that your hateful bigotry and intolerance is a root cause.

      You're the kind as ass who would demands gay be excluded from public buildings because when you shoot them they bleed and mess up the carpet.

      Delete
    60. Kpsehr slaughter has been banned:



      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_ritual_slaughter

      No one seems to be arguing that it should be permitted because of equal rights. The usual argument is individual religious freedom.

      Delete
    61. Nat,
      Our society as a whole does not encourage smoking because it is bad..


      That is only a recent development, a there are still huge corporations which do everything possible to encourage addiction.

      Same thing with obesity

      It what way?

      Giving homosexuals the same marital rights as heterosexuals is encouraging that behavior.

      Then we should take away the martial rights of any other group whose behavior we don't want to encourage. After all,people can have as much sex as they want without being married.

      Until recently we as a society did everything possible to discourage homosexuality, probably resulting in that higher level of suicide. A yet it persists, it persists where the punishment is death. The human sex drive is a powerful thing

      So your theory is marital rights is the only thing that keeps people straight?

      No body is saying that two men, or two women can't get together, have a ceremony, and call themselves a married couple.

      They don't need your permission in twelve states, the Supreme Court it is contrary to the constitution for the federal government to not recognize those legal marriages. You are not giving anything except equal protection under the law. You got a problem with that,pass an amendment to the constitution.

      The question is should society support that.

      If it support anyone's legal marriage,it must support everyone's legal marriage.You can always repeal the 14 th and 10th amendments

      Delete
    62. Vel:

      Marriage does not encourage smoking. Recognizing homosexual marriage means that society is giving it's stamp of approval on homosexual relationships. Marital rights are not the only thing that keeps people straight. But it might be a factor.
      Homosexual men married women.









      Delete
    63. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Kpsehr slaughter has been banned:


      Leave it to nat the bigot to completely ignore the point.

      Being gay doesn't cause alcoholism.
      Coping with ostracism and fear of harm for being gay causes alcoholism.

      Being gay doesn't cause a lack of health insurance.
      Losing or getting denied a job because you're gay causes a lack of health insurance.

      Being gay doesn't cause suicide.
      Depression and hopelessness from being told you're worthless because you're gay causes suicide.

      But nat the bigot doesn't care. He's not the one being discriminated against.

      Delete
  20. TWT:

    Could you provide some examples, please? The Bible does say that if a person injures his slave, the slave goes free. That would seem to indicate that the Bible does not approve of beating a slave.

    And as far a raping women, I assume you referring to the the of an attractive woman found among war captives. The commentaries say that a soldier is permitted to take her once, then he has to make her his wife. She is entitled to all the rights and privalliges of a wife. See, war is hell, and soldiers rape. IF the Bible prohibited raping outright, it would have no more effect than when General Eisenhower said that any GI raping a German woman would get the firing squad. G.I.s raped German women anyway. My father was there at the time. He told me G.I.'s raped German women. The Bible is attempting to mitigate a bad situation.

    The Bible does prohibit muzzling an ox treading corn, slaughtering a mother and her offspring on the same day, and taking a nest with the
    mother bird. So the Bible is concerned with humane treatment of animals.

    And what exactly would be the basis for your morality beyond your own intuitive moral sense? And what would be your basis for saying your morality is better than the Bibles?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh come on, nat. Read the bible and don't ignore the parts that don't fit your delusions of 'love, peace, mercy, and forgiveness'.

      My morality is better than the bible's, way better, because I'm not a despicable monster like your imaginary 'God' and 'his' worshipers.

      Th "basis" for my morality is my genetic content, what I was taught by my parents and others, and what I've observed and learned throughout my life.

      Delete
  21. So, in other words, it is based on your subjective opinion. That doesn't make it better than the Bible's, except in your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Your religious indoctrination has been very thorough, nat. Congratulations on being a mindless puppet for an imaginary, sky tyrant and the associated, monstrous fairy tales.

    ReplyDelete
  23. To Cornelius Hunter

    Thanks for this eye opening post (and all the other ones) and the thread that developed in reaction to it. I just realized our atheist critics don't mean well to us or the society. It took me a long time to realize that probably because of clowning around and not taking issues seriously. In my small European nation we say there is a moment when "the devil takes fun (joking) away". This is an enormous issue that has to be taken very seriously, the fun and joking are gone.

    Situation is grave, it's like a runaway train going of the cliff. I 'll use the info gained here and upon more studying, inform and discuss this issue with the pro family oriented political parties elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete