Profile for Stillness

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Wednesday, January 2 2008 11:38 Profile #131
quote:
Originally written by Fires Upon the Aether:

Paranormal causing different brain chemistry is possible, but not scientific.
Not paranormal, but belief in it.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

But this is beside the point. This writer is not a scientist. This writer is a journalist writing for a science-popularizing magazine. Try Nature or Science for real science, not popularizations.
Ok – and I do recognize that he is a reporter - but he’s taking a cue from scientists. Is national geographic science? Because a National Geographic article came up in the infamous Regulation thread that I believe demonstrates the same kind of bias.

T. Rex soft tissue had supposedly survived for tens of millions of years when the max is supposed to be hundreds of thousands for soft tissue. So what we have is an anomaly that could go either way: (1) A 70 million year old bone with soft tissue or (2) tissue less than a million years old in an animal we thought died millions of years ago. I didn’t even see (2) mentioned, even though dates have had to be changed for all kinds of animals when newer or older remains (or the animal alive and well) are found.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html

There are interviews with actual scientists so you can’t say it’s national geographic.

This is me avoiding discussing the insane bias in evolutionary thought.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

But when we make a statement of what is not as if it now is..., well, I am, that I am.
Interestingly, certain churches of Christendom line up with you on this to some extent (although they tend to incorporate the Judeo-Christian God in this power of speaking things to existence). My Dad has a church and this is about what he teaches his flock. I do recognize the power of positive thinking, salesmanship, and hard work, but this tends to sound like delusion of grandeur.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, December 29 2007 21:38 Profile #122
I gave a nonevolution example in the article above. It implies that belief in the "paranormal" is a result of chemicals in the brain. The unwary would walk away thinking there is scientific basis that the supernatural is imagined. The reporter is either blinded by bias or a liar, because the science does not lead to that conclusion.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, December 29 2007 15:35 Profile #120
It wasn't intended as a compliment but as a commentary on the unscientific things scientists try to pass off as science. I'm sure Ghandi liked some Christians. Likewise, I didn't mean it as a personal insult to anyone here...unless...are you a scientist? :P
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, December 29 2007 13:13 Profile #117
Ah, so that is what you meant when you connected me with dualism. It went over my head. I don’t understand God enough to say that I’m either a monist or a dualist (I probably don’t understand monism enough either). As far as human beings go, I would say monism fits my view better. I think we are flesh and blood and nothing more. What affects the body affects the person. What kills the body kills the person, the mind and everything. Kel said we control our biology at the same time that it controls us. I would say we are our biology. That does not preclude a spiritual realm that can act on us though. That was my point. The brain can do some strange things, but all strange things are not stemming from the brain. Some are perceived by it.

I know a few scientists. I actually study the Bible with three and I like all of them. I like you too. Don’t be offended. I was abusing the Ghandi quote(“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”) to make the point about science that he made about Christendom. I thought it was more commonly known than it actually is apparently.

I do sometimes wish that God would answer all of my heartfelt and desperate prayers, but I don’t want him to answer everbody’s based on those same qualifications. So, I understand when he answers mine when, how, and if he pleases.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

God seems to have an inordinate fondness for partial differential equations. I'd like to know why.
Wouldn't we all!
A lot of natural processes can be understood with differential equations?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, December 29 2007 11:08 Profile #113
I like your science. I do not like your scientists. Your scientists are so unlike your science.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, December 29 2007 09:01 Profile #111
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

I didn't see my post, or Stillness's comment on it, as implying anything about Christianity.
That’s ‘cause your assuming muscles is flimsy.

Seriously though, I am a bit confused by your position. In another thread I specifically remember you saying that you prayed for help and heaven responded by assisting you on an exam. If naturalism were the dominant view in psycology, they would generally conclude that you were/are delusional. While that sentiment alone is not dangerous, coupled with other problems it could lead to a wrong conclusion. Let’s say you were under extreme stress and were depressed and sought the help of a psychiatrist. In the interview your belief that God helps you comes out along with a mention that you heard an audible demonic voice telling you to do bad things. It could be that God helps you, a demon spoke to you, and you need a relaxing vacation. In a strictly naturalistic framework, the assumptions could lead to different conclusions. I won’t pretend to be familiar enough with the mind and psychiatry to guess what those might be, but they would not be more meaningful. If anything, they could be harmful.

I don’t know that if we were neuroscientists our approach would be that different in practice. I’m saying, let’s investigate the mind. It’s a wonderfully deep thing that there will always be more to know about. Just know that your view of things can impact findings, even using the scientific method.

Take the article ” Paranormal Beliefs Linked to Brain Chemistry” in NewScientist in which the first sentence is:

“Whether or not you believe in the paranormal may depend entirely on your brain chemistry.”

I deleted my comments on this and instead want to ask you if you see a problem. There’s some real science there, but there’s also some bias. The article is fairly short, but the first sentence is really the giveaway. I’d also like to know if you’d accept high dopamine levels as a plausible explanation for “God’s help” with your exam and maybe for your faith altogether.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Friday, December 28 2007 22:38 Profile #108
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

It's hard to believe for someone that doesn't have the full picture. And I'm not talking about all the details. I'm talking about a world view lacking the spiritual realm.
Dude, Student of Trinity is a Christian. Give your assuming muscles a rest every once in a while, will you?
You're assuming I was implying that he wasn't?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Friday, December 28 2007 05:03 Profile #106
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

The fire is normal consciousness, and it is astonishing how little smoke there is from this fire. When you think about what it must mean to have a zillion nerve cells form a mind, it is almost hard to believe that stark raving madness is as rare as it is.
It's hard to believe for someone that doesn't have the full picture. And I'm not talking about all the details. I'm talking about a world view lacking the spiritual realm. A lot is harder to believe without it once you start to peel the layers. It works on the surface and it's easier in some ways. Everybody who experiences anything unusual is lying or just had a brain hiccup - nice and clean.

I like that approach sometimes, because it does allow us some clarity and gives meaningful answers. For example, I mentioned that I thought my sleep paralysis was a demonic attack the first time I underwent it. That didn’t satisfactorily explain the experiences once I was awake and reasoned on what happened though. In days past I would have been left with nothing but that explanation. Now we know better and I can make sense of things… and even control them sometimes.

Other things are not explained well by naturalistic means, though. If you’re content to say, ”not yet,” and leave it there, don’t let me stop you. That answer is not always the most informative though. As a rule I would tend to agree with you, but at times it becomes awkward to apply and indicative of close-mindedness.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, December 27 2007 23:25 Profile #103
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

It just happens that, in this case, you'd need some pretty impressive evidence to convince me.
That's why this culture's roots in Christendom can be a double-edged sword. They shelter from one from certain realities. Spiritism gets relegated to fantasy. Elsewhere they'd think you slow for doubting the existence of spirits. As I understand it, the naturalistic worldview is particularly rife among psychologists. (Incidentally, I have an in-law from Panama who’s a psychologist that doesn’t like her daughter’s picture spread around because where she’s from they use pictures to put curses on people. She’s been practicing for years, is very well educated, speaks 4 or 5 languages fluently and signs 1 or 2, and someone like you would probably never think she’d be concerned about spirits and curses if you talked to her…and she probably wouldn’t tell you.)

As someone who on occasion suffers from hypnopompic paralysis (which I thought was a supernatural encounter initially), I’m aware of some of the tricks the mind can play. To minimize every uncanny occurrence to mental aberrations or charlatanism becomes awkward and starts to stretch reason, though…at least for me it does. There has to be a lot of smoke and no fire.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, December 27 2007 19:58 Profile #100
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

You'd need to exhaust every possible material cause to prove an immaterial one, and you'd need to do something almost equally difficult simply to give credibility to one.
It seems to me that what constitutes as proof to one person is inconclusive to another. Based on your statement above you are impossible to convince as you require an impossible burden to be met. I guess that's why we get things like hung juries.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, December 27 2007 17:45 Profile #98
I don't think "any significant effect" is what we'd have to look for. I'd imagine that drugs would have an effect on a sane person. What we'd have to see is whether or not the drugs worked the same for everyone. If a patient took the drugs, but still heard the voices, that might tell us something.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Bipolar in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, December 27 2007 14:21 Profile #96
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

If I am aware of plausible or established naturalistic explanations for some strange experience, but the experience itself rather than its cause is the topic of discussion, I might better take spiritualistic descriptions as metaphors, rather than try to correct them as errors.
If we know of naturalistic explanations for certain sicknesses, should we assume that those are the only ones? It may be that "symptoms" that look like mental illness are not symptoms at all. A person might hear voices because of psychosis. Should we assume that's always the case, though?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Why is attempted murder illegal? in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Tuesday, December 25 2007 22:00 Profile #24
quote:
Originally written by The Almighty Do-er of Stuff:

Problems arise, of course, if the man is broke (sold the computer and bought drugs, which he then consumed, etc.). Compensation is still a purpose worth consideration, at any rate.
I have a friend that was riding on a 4-wheeler that he thought belonged to one of his buddies some years ago. The police pulled him over and he found out it was stolen. He was given probation that extended until he made monetary compensation for the theft. Although it took him years to pay, he was able to live, work, and contribute to society, instead of being caged and draining more from the community. It would be nice to see more of that kind of justice.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Tuesday, December 25 2007 19:57 Profile #470
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

And do you really think that government recognition of marriage makes it any more society-sustaining than it'd be if it were a purely private arrangement?
That’s a good question – one I don’t have the answer to. Sorry.

-----

Drew,

1) You were commenting on my response to Kelandon and I told you what Kelandon said that I was responding to for context.
2) I try to cover the main points, but all you have to do is tell me what you think I missed. What is it?
3) Huh?
4) I can’t read lawmaker’s minds, so no comment here.
5) Makes sense.
6) It’s not discrimination. That’s the whole point…Unless you mean the neutral kind of discrimination that Thuryl mentioned a few posts up. I don’t think the Constitution has anything to say about that.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Tuesday, December 25 2007 08:26 Profile #467
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

You still haven't told us why you think the government should support marriage in the first place.
I don’t really have an opinion. Kel’s response about marriage existing to facilitate family law was enlightening. As far as the tax breaks that couples with disparate incomes get, I think Salmon’s guess on politicians wanting to appear to support family and the common man is as good a guess as any. Although, I wouldn’t imagine the decision to be as calculating as he does. I think marriage is seen by many as a stabilizing, civilizing, and society-sustaining arrangement.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Tuesday, December 25 2007 01:05 Profile #464
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

To discriminate is to treat two people, groups or things differently from each other.
Your definition is too broad. Earlier when we were kicking around the definitions of “discriminate,” someone suggested that we just use the one with the negative and legal implications since this discussion involves law.

quote:
Because as a way of categorising people, sex is every bit as narrow and arbitrary as race.
Not when it relates to a sexual institution such as marriage. And not when reproduction is based on sex. It’s natural categorization.

If I’m born with one hand, it doesn’t mean that our species is one-handed. It means that I’m abnormal. If we’re talking about scissors, then the designations “left-handed” and ”right-handed” have meaning. I can’t say they’re bad because I only have one hand. Of course hands vary from person to person, but we are two-handed, nonetheless.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 24 2007 23:14 Profile #462
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

"Prejudice is not illegal" is a straw man, Stillness.
Not when Kel makes the comment, “prejudice and prejudicial discrimination are unconstitutional.”

quote:
What we need to prove (and have, I think) is that sex has nothing to do with marriage for purposes of government recognition and regulation.
…Only in your mind. Why can’t close relatives marry? Why is concealment of impotence, failure to consummate, concealment of STD’s, and sterility legal grounds for annulment? Why is adultery considered grounds for divorce? I think the religious right fears homosexuals far less than it fears the mentality espoused repeatedly on your side that marriage doesn’t mean what has for as long as we know of the institution existing.

quote:
And we aren't speaking out of both sides of our mouth, dude. What we are saying is that irrespective of whether someone fancies the opposite sex or no, this should be of no consequence when it comes to the government's regulation of the institution.
And you are entitled to that opinion as much as the next guy is entitled to his. But if you are saying that marriage is not sexual and that homosexual marriage should be allowed because of sexual orientation then you have distorted reasoning.

quote:
Why do you think there've been all the recent knee-jerk passages of various and sundry "marriage is between one man and one woman" laws and amendments in the several states?
Because they want marriage to be between one woman and one man just like you want otherwise. If and when you get the numbers to swing your way, you’ll strike those laws. This says nothing of constitutionality.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Stillness?
Good. Now you can help your companions pick out logical fallacies.

quote:
Actually, it is discrimination, of exactly the same kind as Jim Crow laws -- there are no different "kinds" of discrimination. It's just that one case has a good reason behind it and the other doesn't.
You’re wrong because you don’t understand the meaning of discrimination, but let’s go with your logic anyway: Why do you say it’s the same kind of discrimination as Jim Crow and then say there are no different kinds? Who decides whether or not a case for discrimination is wrong?

quote:
It ain't me confusing these issues: it's nature. You just want the issues to be clear-cut and not as confusing as they really are because that's the only way your position makes any sense.
I’m addressing the issue as it is. How do you feel nature invalidates my position, which (just for sake of clarification) is that the government recognizing only 1 man-1 woman marriage is not the same as Jim Crow segregation or sexism?

This seems to be an attempt to muddy the waters.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

What you need to prove is that sex has nothing to do with marriage.
Why on earth would I need to show that?
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

It’s only discrimination when gender has nothing to do with a matter. Since gender does have something to do with sex and sex is related to marriage it is not wrong to make a distinction on the basis of sex. For the same reasons, you can marry my sister, but I can’t. That’s not discriminatory. Again, you may think it should be allowed and make a case for it, but this doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

You then replied that the government is within its rights to try to promote opposite-sex intercourse. I then replied that, according to legal decisions from Griswold v. Connecticut out to Lawrence v. Texas, that is not true. The government cannot legislate on the nature of the sex that takes place. A constitutional right to privacy, first articulated in Griswold and most recently extended to same-sex intercourse in Lawrence, prevents that.

You have yet to respond.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

The government can’t interfere, but is it obligated to recognize religious status. I’m not an expert on the Constitution, but if I made a religion that had the rank “Chief of Police” would the government recognize me as the Chief secularly? I think they’d say, “Call yourself whatever you want, but we ain’t buyin’ it.” If my religion is polygamous I can have all the “wives” I want, but if I try to legalize the marriages I get locked up right?
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I don’t think the government’s treatment of marriage makes for inequality or takes away liberty. You can have a union with 2 men and 2 women so that each bisexual will have a way to fully express themselves, have a ceremony, a reception, live in a house together or whatever you want. The government not recognizing you doesn’t stop any of that. Does the Constitution say the government has to recognize every decision that a person makes?
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Does it really? I don’t think so. I think it says the government can’t interfere in the bedroom, not that sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex. Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am, it would seem you have the law in your favor
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

You all will have to explain how you think Lawrence v. Texas relates to this issue, because I’m not seeing the connection. It struck the law criminalizing homosexuality, right? We aren’t talking about action against, but inaction in not recognizing.
I object every time you bring this up, but I’m the one not getting a response. And by “interfere in the bedroom” I mean illegalize private sexual behavior.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 24 2007 17:37 Profile #458
Wiz, sorry for implying you misquoted me. I didn’t think I had made that statement. I agree with you on some level. I think it’s possible that some people may have some genetic disposition towards homosexuality. To a large extent I believe that these feelings are a result of nurture over nature, though. Whatever the case humans are not subject to whatever feelings pop into our heads so that these would excuse wrong actions. So it’s not homosexuality itself that I think is a sin, but giving in to those desires. A person may have some disposition to criminal behavior and may have been raised to steal through no fault of their own (I had a friend growing up whose mother taught him to steal as she and her sister did and he grew up to be a thief). But, that does not excuse theft.

-----

Thuryl, what is your religious belief on whether or not banning gay marriage is discrimination in the same sense that Jim Crow laws are? Why is your religious belief leading you to illogical conclusions?

Recognizing gender differences is not necessarily discrimination. For example: Some states require that strip searches be done by someone of the same sex. This is not discrimination for reasons related to gender. (In fact, one could make a case that not making a distinction is discriminatory.) It’s only discrimination when gender has nothing to do with a matter. Since gender does have something to do with sex and sex is related to marriage it is not wrong to make a distinction on the basis of sex. For the same reasons, you can marry my sister, but I can’t. That’s not discriminatory. Again, you may think it should be allowed and make a case for it, but this doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Why does the government need to fit every person into the categories of "male" or "female" anyway? What compelling interest does it have in knowing what sex every single citizen is, by some arbitrarily-chosen definition of sex that varies with each person?
I think “varies with each person” is stretching things a bit. You’re talking about abnormalities. I think there is definitely call for some reevaluation of gender evaluation and categorization. But, in most of the “inter-sexed” there is still a definite sex even if at birth this is not easily discernable. Chromosomal or inspection of internal organs would reveal it. For the .018% that can’t be classified I don’t know that any relationship they have could be classified as homo or heterosexual by nature so as to have any real bearing on this discussion. Let’s not confuse these issues.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

I had already connected not allowing same-sex marriage to prejudice.
Prejudice is not illegal. And making distinctions between sexes is not necessarily discrimination. What you need to prove is that sex has nothing to do with marriage. The very designation of what you’re pushing for – homosexual marriage – belies any such claim. You all can’t say it should be allowed because some are sexually attracted to their own gender out one side of your mouth and then say it’s not a sexual issue out the other.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Domiciles Wholesale:

...banning Judaism ...
Judaism is not a recognized secular entity, nor are it’s rites and titles. If the Jews received a "message from God" that rabbis were now to bear the title “policeman” they would not be able to pull you over and write traffic tickets. You all seem to consistently confuse banning actions and banning official recognition of those actions. I know you’re sick of me saying “equivocation” because I’m sick of repeating it. You keep doing it though.

Banning of Judaism would be analogous to making sodomy illegal again. Then you would have a valid legal argument.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Sunday, December 23 2007 04:17 Profile #451
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Everyone but you thinks that you've already been proven wrong. We're analysing your religious beliefs in an attempt to figure out why you don't agree.
Maybe we should analyze yours to understand why you've come to an incorrect conclusion.

EDIT for Thuryl's edit:

quote:
I explained a couple of pages ago why banning gay marriage is sexual discrimination: a woman can legally marry a man, but a man can't. Your response was to say that you'd been waiting for someone to make this point, and you offered no counterargument whatsoever -- which suggests that you already knew that it was sexual discrimination and were hoping we weren't smart enough to figure out why.
I asked a question in response to this argument that has as yet been unanswered and asked that we pursue it. No one seemed to want to, so I was asking Alex for clarification to see if he was raising the same point again. To be clear: I don't think that not recognizing same-sex marriage is discrimination of any sort.

[ Sunday, December 23, 2007 04:24: Message edited by: Stillness ]
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Sunday, December 23 2007 04:02 Profile #449
quote:
Originally written by Najosz Thjsza Kjras:

So if a man and a woman are infertile, that makes them gay. Is that right?
Right, except you forgot to add the part about them being executed to purify the nation.

quote:
I'd like to know if you share that concern about 'societal interest' when it comes time to pay your taxes.
I don’t quite know what you mean, but I was thinking that the government might have had the interests of society, not just political ones, behind the decision to give tax considerations to couples.

quote:
Uh, the constitution actually prohibits that 'action'.
Are we both talking about changing tax law? That’s the ‘action’ I was talking about. A statue is just a law. An amendment is a change to the Constitution. Right?

quote:
The problem is that you're making an argument that is only coherent for a right-wing evangelical, or someone else who starts from the assumption that gay marriage is harmful to society.
But, I agree that some good argument can be made for recognition of gay marriage. Positions like, providing homes for children and discouraging promiscuity in the homosexual community that would make a 60’s hippie blush are solid secular reasons if you can back them up. You want to make my stance about religious beliefs, but it simply is not. It’s about the legal and logical basis for your position. What you keep doing is called circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. It’s when you point to the relationship a person’s circumstances have to his assertion instead of attacking the assertion itself. It’s a logically flawed argument.

What you have to do to prove me wrong is show the logic of your position, not talk about my religious beliefs. Your inability to see that after I have repeatedly stated and restated what I’m saying speaks to your lack of reason. And now I see Salmon is doing the same thing in the post immediately after yours. Unfortunate.

Read carefully and see if you note any reference to my religion, your religious beliefs, or how these relate to the price of tea in China in the following:

Regardless of whether your opinion is that the US government should recognize non-hetero pairs as legally married and you have good reasons for believing so, denying this recognition is not analogous to illegal practices, such as discriminatory sexism or racism.

quote:
your aggressive disdain for gay marriage has no place in the American system of government.
Can you look at the statement above and see why this argument is a straw man?

quote:
America is a country founded on certain basic rights, entitlements, and protections; gay rights fall as squarely within them as other civil rights, and if you want to be empowered to deny your neighbors the protection the state affords you, this isn't the right country for you.
This also is strawmannery, but you throw in some prejudicial language to boot. Your arguments drip with illogic.

quote:
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious [gender] discrimination.
How are you saying it’s gender discrimination?

-----

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

they are suspicious that your personal ethos denies equality to homosexuals. Is this correct, or incorrect?
It’s incorrect, because my “personal ethos” is that I should treat homosexuals equally, and I do. In fact, there was a gay man coming to my previous congregation’s meetings a few years back and he was a very pleasant fellow. I was quite fond of him. The congregation in general was also welcoming. This was in spite of him being known to have HIV or AIDS (I can’t remember which). The openness with which he was received was impressive to me. But, I digress…

If I hated homosexuals with a passion this would have no bearing on whether my position is wrong or right. If I hate kittens, does that mean I’m wrong when I say the argument that cats should not be spayed or neutered is illogical? Stick to the issue.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

the reason that this has anything to do with rights or the Constitution is that denying gay marriage fails all of the levels of scrutiny associated with the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, since its only basis is in prejudice against homosexual people.
This is a fallacy of distraction called complex questioning. It’s when you present two unrelated points together as a single proposition. The two points are (1) prejudice against homosexual people and (2) denying gay marriage. Homosexuals are entitled by law to equal protection. That does not mean they are entitled to do something that no one is entitled to do, namely, marry someone of the same sex.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Wiz:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I believe homosexuality is a sin
My main problem with this point of view is that i don't believe its a choice.
Wiz, are you misquoting me? You shouldn’t do that. My view on this issue is a bit more complex than this quote you attribute to me implies.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Friday, December 21 2007 23:54 Profile #443
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Marriage exists entirely to facilitate family law…
Thank you. That simple and succinct statement and your explanation is helpful (I’m assuming that by “marriage” you mean “official recognition of marriage”). I think my view was not quite right until I read this.

So the government is saying that this is a legal matter because of the intrinsic connection to society and the abundance of the institution. There are concerns with efficiency and fairness. They don’t want to have to rework the same case over and over, so the classification “married” allows them to apply the best and most equitable decision to many family cases.

If you say it makes sense for the government to extend the classification “married” to unions beside hetero pairs (e.g. polygamous marriage; homosexual pairs; group marriage; members of the immediate family that don’t reproduce) for the same reasons, that seems logical to me. What I don’t see is how this has anything to do with rights or the Constitution.

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Now Mary gets pregnant, and suddenly the income is cut to 35000, with 8,750 in taxes removed, leaving 26,250. This is a 15,000 reduction, and that 26,250 has to feed, shelter, and cloth at least 2 people. The taxation change let Joe and Mary keep more of that 35,000, which in turn put more food on the table, kept money circulating in the economy, and reduced stress on the family. Not worrying about every penny allowed Joe and Mary to better themselves education, gave them free time to maintain relationships in the community, and created happier people.
This was along the lines of what I was thinking, except that you seem to be attributing it to political and self-interest, not societal interest. Let’s say you’re right. Was it unconstitutional or a violation of rights beforehand? It doesn’t seem so to me in your example of what might have been. It seems some people didn’t like something and put pressure on their representatives and got action.

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same, uniform government benefits that hetero couples enjoy?

For that matter, what sort of behaviors do you think the government should be trying to promote through providing legal benefits to married couples? Why would these benefits be bad for monogamous, married same-sex couples? THe only reason they wouldn't be is because it's blasphemy in your eyes.
Please take this argument and aim it at the nearest right-wing evangelical. Nothing in your last post applies to me or my argument here.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

It strikes me that you're actually trying to justify the laws by demeaning the nature of same sex relationships, as if those relationships are "lesser" than hetero ones. Your justifications, however, are based purely on your personal (religious) prejudices. I'd like to see you rise above that.
I think the problems we're having with him run even deeper than that.
No, the problems here are quite shallow. It’s lack of ability to understand the topic of the discussion, let alone stick to it. After a zillion pages of discussion some people are still attacking my faith and what they suppose is my position on whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriage. This only illustrates the point in my original posts on this thread regarding the lack of logic, emotionalism, and close-mindedness of the brand of secularism sweeping the West. At least the right knows they’re religious.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, December 20 2007 20:52 Profile #437
If I'm not getting your point, it's because I'm not getting answer to key questions. Answer this please:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Why did the government create benefits for married couples? Why not just say, "Hey, if your wife doesn't want to work, that's your problem"? Just saying it's a cultural norm leaves much to be desired in the way of an answer.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, December 20 2007 19:35 Profile #433
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

There are no logical or legal arguments to prevent any two people from forming a union we call marriage. You certainly haven't presented any.
Exactly! That is not my position. I knew you didn’t get it.

quote:
Lingering legalities around marriage merely reflect historical/religious relics, prejudices, and hangups, which are today shifting dramatically after centuries of achingly slow progress or stagnation, including a long period we affectionately term The Dark Ages. It is amusing that we imagine there is a difference between the laws of our land and our dominant collective religious beliefs. They are a product of it. There is no actual possible separation of church and state unless the majority of people no longer are churched. Since that may finally be the case, our laws are shifting to reflect a different "morality."
Here’s the funny thing…I actually agree to a certain extent, and this was my original argument. They took it to gay marriage and I followed. But I was initially saying that it’s morality v. morality, not reason v. religion if you look at the first few pages of my posts.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

You haven't given any reason — ever — for the government to favor same-sex couples that holds up to rigorous scrutiny.
They think it’s good for society. That’s it. Like it or not. As I said before, the development zone could be a colossal failure in ten years. But the city has the right to try if they have calculated it will produce. If someone thinks the zone should be expanded, then the onus is on them to make a case for it. My argument is not that the government should favor hetero pairing, but that the position for other unions being favored in the same way is flawed as it is often presented. All the same I did give a list of benefits to society. I think they do show that marriage in its current form is worthwhile. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

-----

Dikiyoba,

The female canal is built for reproductive activity. It’s tough and thick. The anal canal is not. The colon lining is thin and fragile and tears easily. It is designed to expel solid waste, so it absorbs fluid. That’s why disease is spread so easily throughout the homosexual community. It’s also why infection and disease can occur without either partner having STD’s. One of the things you probably learned early on is the direction to wipe. Why? Fecal matter has disease-causing material. My first reference connected anal cancer to homosexual contact, the third connected having homosexual partners and rectal infection, and to quote the second “a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.” It’s no wonder. There’s not really a comparison.

It’s not difficult to reason on, unless you’re clinging to a belief that things are equal because we want them to be. Nature doesn’t care about culture and belief systems. It does what it does regardless.

I don’t know what a link with an abnormality does to further your case. Interestingly, this woman does what a person with a normally functioning anal canal has to do if they want to use it for sex – use lubrication.

I don’t really have much more to say on this. If you can’t see the difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex, then more explanation probably won’t help.

By the way, I’m not saying one’s better than the other as you implied. You went there on your own.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, December 20 2007 10:44 Profile #423
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Marriage cannot be legally recognized in order to promote a particular kind of sex. That's unconstitutional. That's what the cited court cases have to do with this.

All this is attempting to do is show that your argument doesn't work, not present an argument for the other side. It's just an objection to your reasoning.
Well, that's why I didn't get it, because that's not my reasoning. My reasoning is that the government sees marriage between a man and a woman as good, so it supports it. It's allowing everybody to do what they want romantically/sexually/socially (just like you can live where you please), but if you marry one person of the opposite sex, regardless of your feelings toward them, you get benefits (just like living in the development zone).
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, December 20 2007 10:02 Profile #420
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

I will always seek to remember to respect another, even when I disagree with their basis for their belief, in this case, belief that the Bible reliably communicates God to humanity. I haven't seen any convincing argument for any natural or moral reason that gays deserve to form a "marriage" any less than any other two people who want to commit to a partnership together.
Out of curiosity, are you aware that this is not what the discussion I've been in is about? Just so you know, the discussion is about the logical and legal arguments for legalization of non hetero-paired marriage...Unless your comments were directed elsewhere. If so, go right ahead.

EDIT:
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Legally, same-sex intercourse is equivalent to opposite-sex intercourse, and neither (by the rights to privacy that trace back to Griswold v. Connecticut) can be regulated by the government except in issues of consent and the like.
Delineate your logic please. To me it sounds like:

Since the government can't regulate sex
and Opposite-sex pairs can be subsidized
Same-sex pairs should be subsidized

It has a major logical disconnect. Fix it for me so I can understand.

[ Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:11: Message edited by: Stillness ]
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00

Pages