Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Without coming down on either side of the weight/airline issue, at least there are reasons being given for why it has been proposed that people are charged by weight. This at least ..."Yeah, I never got the 'gay marriage will lead to group marriage!' argument.
Gay marriage is legal in my state and my wife still says I can forget any ideas about getting a second wife. So, I'm skeptical.
Personally, I'm opposed to any law or belief that's used solely to tell someone their family doesn't count. that's a bad way to go.
Think of the foundations of science and religion, then asked, is a world possible without either?
cerebus wrote: "Preserve which version of marriage? And for what reason? As I said, if someone is going to claim a non-faith based reason for rejecting same-sex marriage, there needs to be a reason for it. If some..."Scientists have documented all sorts of strange particles in the study of quantum physics. However, there is only one kind of particle that forms an atom. There is only one protocol to follow for the formation of that atom. There is only one protocol for the orbits of electrons in shells around that atom. All those other particles, the muons and the leptons and the mesons that they are, do not last long enough to form something so permanent (dare I say, eternal) as an atom.
Think of morality as a protocol for the interaction of mankind with itself and with the larger entities in which it lives. Scientifically speaking, there are a lot of natural protocols that don't go well once they have deviated from the norm. The same goes for the formation of the larger entity that marriage is.
Steve wrote: "Think of the foundations of science and religion, then asked, is a world possible without either?"Yes, a world without religion is possible.
Robert wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Preserve which version of marriage? And for what reason? As I said, if someone is going to claim a non-faith based reason for rejecting same-sex marriage, there needs to be a reason..."Sorry, no idea what you're trying to get at here...I don't see any connection between quantum physics and a civil rights issue such as marriage. Marriage has changed over time, has included in the past concepts such as plural marriage for example, what version of marriage is it that should be defended, and if it excludes same-sex marriage, on what grounds do you justify that?
Travis wrote: "Yeah, I never got the 'gay marriage will lead to group marriage!' argument. Gay marriage is legal in my state and my wife still says I can forget any ideas about getting a second wife. So, I'm skeptical."
Ahahahahaha....
Ahahahahaha....
Cerberus wrote: "With no intent to get into Escheresque shenanigans, what is your reason for not believing in fairys?"See my answer to Travis on post 9400 - since which time he employed the term "fairy atheist". Proving you can make a ridiculous term up to trawl through anything if you want to. I used to do the same thing, until about the same time I stopped believing in fairies (qv). See Gary's "capslock authoritarianism" also from a while back, funniest thing I ever read without wetting my own shoes.
Cerberus also wrote: "As for the "pillock" what exactly was it that made him a pillock? What he said? How he said it?" - you had to be there. As I said, it was a whole raft of subtle micro-behaviours, social tics and vocal bluster, much of it absolutely unconnected to this debate. Don't sweat it, it genuinely isn't worth your time. I'm not going to microanalyse why some random bloke in the library is a pillock, so feel free to make a reason up. But better things almost certainly await your attention. They sure await mine.
Robert wrote: "However, there is only one kind of particle that forms an atom."Atoms appear to be made of quarks (in a number of forms) and electrons (in only one). There is no guarantee that quarks are fundamental particles and in string theory are simply vibrating "strings" (I am not saying that string theory is correct here!)
Antimatter is formed from anti-quarks and positrons.
"one protocol for the orbits of electrons in shells around that atom."
Electrons do not "orbit in shells" - the electron's wavefunction can be found (mostly) inside the potential well resulting from the nucleus' positive charge.
"the muons and the leptons and the mesons that they are, do not last long enough to form something so permanent (dare I say, eternal) as an atom
Leptons as electrons and neutrinos do. Muons are leptons. And atoms are not eternal - they were formed just 14.7 billion years ago possibly from a quark-gluon plasma. They can change as and when they absorb or emit energy.
Robert wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Preserve which version of marriage? And for what reason? As I said, if someone is going to claim a non-faith based reason for rejecting same-sex marriage, there needs to be a reason..."Yeah, you lost me.
Unlike physics, morality and marriage are man made things, that have changed along with society.
While it may be deviating from the norm, what damage has been done to the particles of society by giving someone rights?
cerebus wrote: "cHriS wrote: "It only becomes discrimination if there is a law to say it's discrimination."So segregation as practiced in the US before laws were changed was not discrimination? It only became suc..."
This is where threads like this get mixed up. I did not say that, I repeted the what Shannon said. And of course she is correct.
cerebus wrote: Not sure which theories you're referring to with your mention of "where we come from"? …………………………….But it is not the point of science to disprove god, it has just never been a required explanation at any point in any research or theory.I think for the most part we are playing with words here. Most religious people are happy to believe in a god, of sorts. And so do some people who do not have a religion. Again most do not belong to forums where they discuss this topic.
When I wrote my first comment here, I suggested a world without religion. We need science, we can live without religion. I can still believe in a creator. But I was told that was not possible, and so I somehow got hooked into this debate.
My question then and still is, ok give me the scientific alternative. All I have been given to date is ‘nothing’, there is nothing. I don’t buy that, I have not been given any evidence that there is nothing. All I am told is that there is no evidence for a creator, which is not an answer to my question.
cerebus wrote: It is exactly the same as saying mixed race marriages should not be allowed. We may not be "all the same" but that lack of sameness should not be used as a reason for discrimination.
No it is the same at all. Using ’race’ in this discussion is using emotive language in order to demean the other point of view. If the argument for gay marriage is strong enough then eventually it will win the day and we will have gay marriages. If one has to resort to bringing ‘race’ into the debate then to me this shows that the reasons for allowing gay marriages are not as clear cut as perhaps they should be. Most people I speak to and most level debates about this subject seem to agree that a compromise is the right way to go. Of course you will always get the hardliners on both sides where a compromise is not good enough. And those hardliners that are ‘for’ gay marriage will use emotive language and those against will see it as just an immoral act.
cerebus wrote: What is that reason? In all honesty I cannot remember what it was when this was last discussed.
This is where I am coming from……
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/te...
Today’s children and young adults lack ‘boundaries’ there is no longer a line for then NOT to cross, anything goes. Young teenage unmarried mothers, young men who don’t support their children, couples living together without commitment or responsibility, governments who undermine marriage, etc etc. Society is breaking down, and I am speaking from a UK view point only.
One of these boundaries is marriage. Where possible a child should be born into a marriage and have a mother and a father. They need both. They need a family life.
The meaning of marriage should be thought of as a man and a woman having child/children and bringing them up in a family unit. Once you change that view the word marriage is devalued.
That is my view in a nutshell. It’s my view, a view I have the right to have, and many others have the same view as well, although not on this forum. A gay couple who live together have all the rights a married couple have, and MORE rights than a co-habituating male/female couple have. They can have ceremony as well, just don’t use the word marriage.
And before anyone says what about couples that can’t have children, or gay couples can raise children just as well. That is not in dispute.
Already we are separating the marriage ‘thing’ by referring to a same sex marriage as a ‘gay’ marriage. I know given time I will loose my argument and the law will over-ride everything else and the younger generation will not be bothered one way or another and gay marriage will no longer be an issue.
I also think that marriage as a whole will diminish and the world will be a worse place for it. And the ‘gay’ tag will always stick when referring to a same sex marriage. It would be far better to think up a new and original word for the name of the ceremony of gay couples who’s marriage does not involve procreation, but I guess it won't happen.
Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: I'm sorry to hear you feel the idea of stopping telling a portion of the population that their families don't count and they should be treated as second class citizens "..."Why not?
cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: "cHriS wrote: "It only becomes discrimination if there is a law to say it's discrimination."So segregation as practiced in the US before laws were changed was not discrimination? It..."
I understand that, but it leads to the question of whether it is the lack of a law defining it as discrimination makes it morally acceptable, so I guess the question would have been better phrased as "In the absence of a law specifying segregation as illegal, was segregation, as practiced in the US, morally acceptable?"
cHriS wrote: "My question then and still is, ok give me the scientific alternative."The scientific alternative to what?
cHriS wrote: "All I am told is that there is no evidence for a creator, which is not an answer to my question."
But it is the explanation for why some of us are atheists....just saying.....
cHriS wrote: "No it is the same at all. Using ’race’ in this discussion is using emotive language in order to demean the other point of view. If the argument for gay marriage is strong enough then eventually it will win the day and we will have gay marriages. If one has to resort to bringing ‘race’ into the debate then to me this shows that the reasons for allowing gay marriages are not as clear cut as perhaps they should be. Most people I speak to and most level debates about this subject seem to agree that a compromise is the right way to go. Of course you will always get the hardliners on both sides where a compromise is not good enough. And those hardliners that are ‘for’ gay marriage will use emotive language and those against will see it as just an immoral act."
But why is it not the same? Just as race is not something we choose, neither is sexual attraction. It is not an attempt to bring emotion into the discussion, it an equivalence as I see it. Two things that are beyond our control, both have historically been used as grounds for discrimination, and one is now less frequently used. The reason I support same-sex marriage is the same reason I support mixed marriage. In both cases it is between two consenting adults, with no evidence that allowing it will cause any negative effects to either the participants, those connected to them, or society as a whole. In both cases it is something which is purely between two consenting adults. I would be interested for you to elucidate where you see the two cases being different. You talk about compromise, again I would be interested to hear what you consider to be a compromise?
cHriS wrote: "One of these boundaries is marriage. Where possible a child should be born into a marriage and have a mother and a father. They need both. They need a family life."
But this is my problem, you make a claim that a child needs both a mother and a father, but where is your evidence for that? For that to be used as an argument against same-sex marriage you would need to show evidence that there are adverse effects on children from same-sex relationships, and I am not aware of any evidence showing this, in fact there is evidence showing that there are not adverse effects. And whilst I admit none of us, myself included, are never 100% consistent (we're all human after all), I would have thought for consistency you would also then require the definition of marriage to explicitly exclude the possibility of divorce? Or that divorce should not be possible. Is that a position you hold? As you say your view is one you are entitled to hold, but I would suggest that without evidence it is a view you are not entitled to rely on to justify a legal discrimination.
cHriS wrote: "Society is breaking down, and I am speaking from a UK view point only."
Again I would ask what evidence is there that allowing same-sex marriage will contribute further to this "breaking down" of society. I would also be interested to ask what it is that makes you feel that society is breaking down? Societies change over time, they're not static things, so I would certainly agree that society is changing, but I am not sure it is necessarily always for the worse and that today's society (I am familiar with UK society and don't see it as significantly different to the places I have lived) is worse than it has been in the past. I'm not saying that I think we live in a utopia, but it is a common thread that the older we get, the more we view the past as being somehow "better", whereas many statistics (crime levels, life expectancy etc) would appear to show the opposite.
cHriS wrote: "I also think that marriage as a whole will diminish and the world will be a worse place for it."
In my mind and heart, divorce is more likely to diminish marriage and make the world worse.
First, I'm not married, nor have I been. I also don't have evidence to bring to the table ... yet. However, as a teacher, I've seen divorce ravage the psyche of many, many children. Yes, I've heard people say it's better to be happy apart than miserable together. Well, .... Clearly, there are times when that's accurate. At the same time, if people read the writings of children or talked with them, they'd see a pretty dramatic and heartrending picture. Now, I've had some students, whose parents divorced, who were incredibly happy and stable. The overwhelming percentage of children whose parents divorced aren't as happy and stable. Some will write about their parents' divorce and how hard life is for them even years and years after the divorce took place.
In fact, a couple weeks ago, one of the students wrote about prom and what it might be like this year. When she shared the piece, I mentioned that my parents went to their prom together. One of the students said, "Oh, that's why you're a good person."
:o
"I'm a good person because my parents went to prom together?! Why?"
"Well, are the still together?"
"Yes," I answered.
"That's why," the student said. "Your parents are still together and you're not messed up!"
I looked at the class and asked, "Is that what you really think? You think I'm good and not messed up because my parents are still together?" Almost every student nodded or said yes.
I could have fallen over.
So, I'm guessing, when it comes to diminishing marriage and harming society, divorce has a greater impact. But, I'll look into it a bit.
In my mind and heart, divorce is more likely to diminish marriage and make the world worse.
First, I'm not married, nor have I been. I also don't have evidence to bring to the table ... yet. However, as a teacher, I've seen divorce ravage the psyche of many, many children. Yes, I've heard people say it's better to be happy apart than miserable together. Well, .... Clearly, there are times when that's accurate. At the same time, if people read the writings of children or talked with them, they'd see a pretty dramatic and heartrending picture. Now, I've had some students, whose parents divorced, who were incredibly happy and stable. The overwhelming percentage of children whose parents divorced aren't as happy and stable. Some will write about their parents' divorce and how hard life is for them even years and years after the divorce took place.
In fact, a couple weeks ago, one of the students wrote about prom and what it might be like this year. When she shared the piece, I mentioned that my parents went to their prom together. One of the students said, "Oh, that's why you're a good person."
:o
"I'm a good person because my parents went to prom together?! Why?"
"Well, are the still together?"
"Yes," I answered.
"That's why," the student said. "Your parents are still together and you're not messed up!"
I looked at the class and asked, "Is that what you really think? You think I'm good and not messed up because my parents are still together?" Almost every student nodded or said yes.
I could have fallen over.
So, I'm guessing, when it comes to diminishing marriage and harming society, divorce has a greater impact. But, I'll look into it a bit.
cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: Not sure which theories you're referring to with your mention of "where we come from"? …………………………….But it is not the point of science to disprove god, it has just never been a requir..."So, your non-emotive, subjective argument is a variation of "But, think of the children...!' and your discussion of the word marriage is some vague claim of it being devalued if we let the gays get their hands on it.
if society is falling apart, then wouldn't allowing and encouraging more people to be married and have families be seen as a good thing?
If there are even more stable married couples out there who want to be parents and provide a good family life for children then I would think that would be worth having to share a single word with them.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/s...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-... (Stating "only" 25% have significant issues three years after divorce ... issues that need to be dealt with if they're to get back on track.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/hea...
I don't know ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-... (Stating "only" 25% have significant issues three years after divorce ... issues that need to be dealt with if they're to get back on track.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/hea...
I don't know ...
Shannon wrote: "So, I'm guessing, when it comes to diminishing marriage and harming society, divorce had a greater impact. But, I'll look into it a bit. ..."
Well said. All of it.
Somebody I know (Whom I will not identify further) is in a class with a 50% divorce rate. She can see the kids with behavioral issues and the ones who are failing in school. Guess what side of the divorce curve they are all on. Do you think she's going to think divorce is inconsequential when she gets married?
Robert wrote: "Do you think she's going to think divorce is inconsequential when she gets married?"
Guessing she'll be very, very careful in deciding whom to and whether to marry....
Guessing she'll be very, very careful in deciding whom to and whether to marry....
Shannon wrote: "http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/s...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-......"
To my mind, divorce falls into the 'necessary evil' category. Wish it didn't happen, but it does and in some cases that's for the best, but at the same time both adults and kids need to talk and support each other to get through it and figure out about where they go from there.
It's going to leave it's mark, no avoiding that, but for every kid that has problems and ends up 'going to the dark side', there are others that it pushes to want whatever relationship they get into be better and to 'get it right'.
It's not so much the divorce that is the problem, as what comes after and what kind of support net or lack thereof the kids get.
Travis wrote: "It's not so much the divorce that is the problem, as what comes after and what kind of support net or lack thereof the kids get. "I would agree with this....
And as bad as divorce can be, I still do not see an argument for rejecting same-sex marriage (I realise Shannon was not using it in this way)....
cerebus wrote: "Travis wrote: "It's not so much the divorce that is the problem, as what comes after and what kind of support net or lack thereof the kids get. "I would agree with this....
And as bad as divorce c..."
There really isn't an argument for rejecting same sex marriage.
All you will ever hear is variations on 'The bible says...!', 'But think of the children...!' and 'gay people make me uncomfortable.'
The last one is at least a honest reason, though still, not a very good one.
Travis wrote: "It's not so much the divorce that is the problem, as what comes after and what kind of support net or lack thereof the kids get. "
Mmmm....
Yes and no. Without the divorce, ....
It really and truly does start there. What follows, healthy and supportive relationships or bulls**t manipulation, leads to a healthy kid or one who has serious issues. True. But, it starts with the divorce.
I've seen it way too many times and heard the kids talk about it or seen them write about it too many times not to understand how insanely raw and horrid it is for them, with few exceptions. Sometimes, I think, we don't tend to believe what children and teens tell us. Maybe it's easier not to. You know?
Granted, some divorces are necessary and I'm not advocating that we make it illegal. I will say, if we're going to talk about the dissolution of marriage and what messes up kids and society, we can start looking there. Gay marriage? I don't think so. Divorce? I think so, in part.
Mmmm....
Yes and no. Without the divorce, ....
It really and truly does start there. What follows, healthy and supportive relationships or bulls**t manipulation, leads to a healthy kid or one who has serious issues. True. But, it starts with the divorce.
I've seen it way too many times and heard the kids talk about it or seen them write about it too many times not to understand how insanely raw and horrid it is for them, with few exceptions. Sometimes, I think, we don't tend to believe what children and teens tell us. Maybe it's easier not to. You know?
Granted, some divorces are necessary and I'm not advocating that we make it illegal. I will say, if we're going to talk about the dissolution of marriage and what messes up kids and society, we can start looking there. Gay marriage? I don't think so. Divorce? I think so, in part.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "It's not so much the divorce that is the problem, as what comes after and what kind of support net or lack thereof the kids get. "Mmmm....
Yes and no. Without the divorce, .... ..."
I don't mean to downplay or belittle divorce. Just that divorce itself is neither a good or bad thing, it's a thing, what makes it either good or bad is what happens both leading up to and following it.
labeling divorce a bad thing falls into those 'always/never' statements.
The good/bad thing happens case by case and person by person basis.
I'd rather live in the world without stupidity, bias, hatred, and intolerance.
Is anyone else tired of this discussion, because I tuned out about a month ago. Really, just chill out and let it go- no one cares!!
Linda wrote: "Is anyone else tired of this discussion, because I tuned out about a month ago. Really, just chill out and let it go- no one cares!!"Plenty of people, but they usually just stop commenting. Strangely you haven't.....
Linda wrote: "Is anyone else tired of this discussion, because I tuned out about a month ago. Really, just chill out and let it go- no one cares!!"Well, obviously we care.
That's the beauty of it. If you care, you stay, if you don't you wander off and go check out the threads you do care about.
That's why you'll find me here and not on the Twilight threads.
Hp wrote: Atoms appear to be made of quarks (in a number of forms) and electrons (in only one). There is no guarantee that qua..."First off, Hp is wrong that atoms are made of quarks and electrons. Atoms are made when two neutrons join to form the larger entity that is the atom. Yes, there are many different kinds of atoms made up of many different combinations of neutrons and modified neutrons, but the key protocol that forms all atoms is this: when two neutrons meet, one of them changes into a proton by discharging an electron and a neutrino. They cannot continue to get along as a neutron and a neutron without a proton to hold them together.
Electrons “orbit” in probability clouds; there is no better term, so most science I know calls it an orbit. Only two electrons can be found within each probability cloud orbit. Probability clouds expand outwards from the nucleus in groups called shells. I was not wrong in that description. I expect that the reason Hp used so many big words to “correct” me when in fact he stated much the same as I did is that the real intention was to make me look like I did not know what I was talking about. The point still stands: in all levels of the natural world, there are protocols to be followed. Only humans seem to think they can deviate from the natural order and not suffer any consequences. I think the ensuing conversation about divorce and its consequences is a fitting illustration of this point.
Spirituality is one thing..religion is another..for whatever reasons people believe they draw strength from their religion..in my view it still categorizes mankind among other things.Science on the other hand pushes the human race forward..it defines what we see today and where we might be years forward.
It's not hard to imagine a world governed by only religion or only science.But imagining a world void of both religion and science..now that is the real deal.
Can any kind of world exist? or maybe there is a third dimension to it.
Robert wrote: "Hp wrote: Atoms appear to be made of quarks (in a number of forms) and electrons (in only one). There is no guarantee that qua..."First off, Hp is wrong that atoms are made of quarks and electron..."
And Hydrogen, the most common atom in the universe, with no neutrons? You say HP is wrong about quarks, but a proton is made up of quarks. Not sure what you are trying to say with your "only two electrons" bit, but using the concept of shells, the first can only contain two, but the next can contain up to 8, so that's already incorrect. If you are somehow referring to Pauli's exclusion principle then it is also incorrect since no two electrons in an atom can share the same quantum state.
Without meaning to be rude, HP's use of "big words" is much more accurate than your explanation. Comparing bios I would also suggest that HP is the better qualified in the area of physics?
Robert wrote:"I think the ensuing conversation about divorce and its consequences is a fitting illustration of this point."
And we are still to receive an argument with supporting evidence to support rejecting same-sex marriage. Would you like to provide one?
Robert wrote: "First off, Hp is wrong that atoms are made of quarks and electron..."Also what you refer to as "two neutrons join[ing]" sounds more like the decay of an unstable (or free, i.e. not in an atomic nucleus) neutron, which produces a proton and an electron and an electron antineutrino.
Travis wrote: "That's why you'll find me here and not on the Twilight threads. "
Ahahahahahaha....
Ahahahahahaha....
Travis wrote: "Just that divorce itself is neither a good or bad thing, it's a thing, what makes it either good or bad is what happens both leading up to and following it.
labeling divorce a bad thing falls into those 'always/never' statements.
The good/bad thing happens case by case and person by person basis. "
Agreed. I think I said divorce is sometimes necessary. Further, some of the kiddos I've worked with, whose parents divorced, are very stable and healthy. So, clearly, divorce is not always a bad thing.
I do think it can be, though. Why can't a thing be good or bad? Interesting concept. I think things can be good or bad, but I'm willing to consider that they're not ... though I need more info.
Not saying divorce is always bad. It can be, though. And, the evidence seems to indicate it can be very bad for 25% of the children who experience it ... what leads up to it, the divorce, and what follows. Not always. Twenty-five percent of the time.
But, again, my point is ....
If we entertain the idea that something causes the dissolution and devaluing of marriage and a negative impact on society, wouldn't divorce more likely than not play the biggest role ... wouldn't divorce have a greater impact than gay marriage? Personally, I think so.
I know a gay couple who have a child. They've been together for the last, I don't know, close to the last 20 years. They have a child. By all appearances, their child seems healthy, smart, and stable. Clearly, they're committed to staying together and raising their child. I'm hard pressed to understand how they're dissolving marriage and harming society. More concerned about the heterosexual couple I know who divorced. The wife cheated on her husband; the husband was heartbroken. The kiddo called his mother a very, very bad word and won't have anything to do with her. Parents divorced because the mother wanted to move away with her lover since he made her happy. Okay.... So, which devalued marriage and had a negative impact on society?
It has more to do, in my opinion, with how those involved value marriage and how committed they are to marriage than it has to do with whether or not the people are straight or gay.
Of course, that's not to be confused with my family member who divorced her husband because he beat the crap out of her ... finally doing so while she was holding their baby. She divorced him due to the fact that she thought she and her child had value and wouldn't stay in an abusive relationship. She valued commitment and marriage, but wouldn't stay with a man who was abusive and didn't value her, their child, or their vows. Yes, it depends .... In this case, growing up in a violent home would have had a much more negative impact on the child (and society) than divorce.
labeling divorce a bad thing falls into those 'always/never' statements.
The good/bad thing happens case by case and person by person basis. "
Agreed. I think I said divorce is sometimes necessary. Further, some of the kiddos I've worked with, whose parents divorced, are very stable and healthy. So, clearly, divorce is not always a bad thing.
I do think it can be, though. Why can't a thing be good or bad? Interesting concept. I think things can be good or bad, but I'm willing to consider that they're not ... though I need more info.
Not saying divorce is always bad. It can be, though. And, the evidence seems to indicate it can be very bad for 25% of the children who experience it ... what leads up to it, the divorce, and what follows. Not always. Twenty-five percent of the time.
But, again, my point is ....
If we entertain the idea that something causes the dissolution and devaluing of marriage and a negative impact on society, wouldn't divorce more likely than not play the biggest role ... wouldn't divorce have a greater impact than gay marriage? Personally, I think so.
I know a gay couple who have a child. They've been together for the last, I don't know, close to the last 20 years. They have a child. By all appearances, their child seems healthy, smart, and stable. Clearly, they're committed to staying together and raising their child. I'm hard pressed to understand how they're dissolving marriage and harming society. More concerned about the heterosexual couple I know who divorced. The wife cheated on her husband; the husband was heartbroken. The kiddo called his mother a very, very bad word and won't have anything to do with her. Parents divorced because the mother wanted to move away with her lover since he made her happy. Okay.... So, which devalued marriage and had a negative impact on society?
It has more to do, in my opinion, with how those involved value marriage and how committed they are to marriage than it has to do with whether or not the people are straight or gay.
Of course, that's not to be confused with my family member who divorced her husband because he beat the crap out of her ... finally doing so while she was holding their baby. She divorced him due to the fact that she thought she and her child had value and wouldn't stay in an abusive relationship. She valued commitment and marriage, but wouldn't stay with a man who was abusive and didn't value her, their child, or their vows. Yes, it depends .... In this case, growing up in a violent home would have had a much more negative impact on the child (and society) than divorce.
Robert wrote: "Hp wrote: Atoms appear to be made of quarks (in a number of forms) and electrons (in only one). There is no guarantee that qua..."First off, Hp is wrong that atoms are made of quarks and electron..."
and only humans have religion.
Another example of humans deviating from the natural order, perhaps?
Still don't see what quarks have to do with marriage, since one is part of the natural world and the other is a social construct we made up.
Shannon wrote: "I know a gay couple who have a child...Clearly, they're committed to staying together and raising their child. I'm hard pressed to understand how they're dissolving marriage and harming society."You're absolutely right, they're not. At all. No more than me lighting a candle would melt the Arctic Circle. The whole position of saying it does is a lot of deluded drivel and whoever believes it should be embarrassed with themselves. Society will carry on just as it did before if gay people are allowed to marry - straight people will still occasionally marry badly and unfortunately screw their lives up (as will gay people obviously), the Religious right will continue to rant ridiculously about matters they should shut up about, and I imagine there'll still be Kardashians (which may be the worst news of all). And there'll still be Biblical epic films on TV at Easter. Only the truly intolerant will really suffer, but that I believe is just tough luck. Painkillers and dyspepsia medicine are available.
For context, if it helps (and it might), I am neither gay nor an atheist - I just know a load of fallacious and irrelevant (and frankly doomed) nonsense when I hear it.
Travis wrote:Travis wrote: and your discussion of the word marriage is some vague claim of it being devalued if we let the gays get their hands on it..Again emotive language. Are you not able to put your point over without it?
I would question your ‘the gays’ comment. It sounds derogatory on your part, although I understand that your are trying to make it look as if that is what I am insinuating.
Travis wrote: if society is falling apart, then wouldn't allowing and encouraging more people to be married and have families be seen as a good thing?
I understand and yes it could be a good thing. But I don’t want to see marriage tampered with. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Also things may not be the same in all countries. Here in the UK marriage has been slowly been devalued over the years.
Travis wrote: "But, think of the children” .
That is the point, the children, that is what marriage and the family is all about. Without the children you don’t need marriage. Gay or non gay."
cHriS wrote: "But I don’t want to see marriage tampered with. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. "
I saw this and was going to say, "With a 50% divorce rate in the US, I wouldn't say marriage isn't broken." It would be like getting an F on a test, after all. Broken.
But, then, I wanted to check. Was I right about the percentage? Hence, I turned to Google and the following.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_...
After reading the section on divorce rates, I sort of wish I hadn't looked it up. Wow! For example, interracial couples, supposedly, are more likely to divorce?! What will the stats be for gay couples?
But, you know, after going down that path in my brain and even after considering not posting this information, I started thinking along different lines.
Much as I think divorce has a negative impact on people, so what? (Notice you didn't tackle divorce, cHriS.) Let's say we were to say divorce devalues marriage and harms society. Let's just say ... though, I know not all would agree.
Does that mean we make divorce illegal? Ummm.... No.
Does that mean we don't allow certain groups to marry?
Interracial couples?
Or, how about people who lost their virginity before turning 18? Should they not marry due to the fact that they might have a greater chance of divorcing and devaluing marriage?
Women who were raped? Should they be told they can't marry?
People with anxiety disorders?
I mean, seriously, if we were to look at what MIGHT truly devalue marriage and harm society, shouldn't we look at what groups of people are more likely to divorce? Shouldn't we tell them they can't marry? Or, maybe assign a certain tax to groups that pose a higher risk to the state of marriage? (A nod to overweight passengers...) If so, shouldn't we target all groups who pose a risk? Why only target gays? Because they're an easy target...? Because certain people have looked down on them, sort of like people look down on obese individuals, ...? What if it turns out that fewer gay couples divorce? Should they be allowed to marry and heterosexual couples not be allowed to marry?
Does anyone else feel like throwing up or bathing? I do.
Should we really be in the business of judging people and whether or not they can marry, etc... based on how their choices might impact us?
If so, should we do that in a logical way, which would require us, I think, to look at divorce rates and high risk groups?
Again, eeww.... Not sure I have the stomach for that. Do people really have the stomach for that?
I saw this and was going to say, "With a 50% divorce rate in the US, I wouldn't say marriage isn't broken." It would be like getting an F on a test, after all. Broken.
But, then, I wanted to check. Was I right about the percentage? Hence, I turned to Google and the following.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_...
After reading the section on divorce rates, I sort of wish I hadn't looked it up. Wow! For example, interracial couples, supposedly, are more likely to divorce?! What will the stats be for gay couples?
But, you know, after going down that path in my brain and even after considering not posting this information, I started thinking along different lines.
Much as I think divorce has a negative impact on people, so what? (Notice you didn't tackle divorce, cHriS.) Let's say we were to say divorce devalues marriage and harms society. Let's just say ... though, I know not all would agree.
Does that mean we make divorce illegal? Ummm.... No.
Does that mean we don't allow certain groups to marry?
Interracial couples?
Or, how about people who lost their virginity before turning 18? Should they not marry due to the fact that they might have a greater chance of divorcing and devaluing marriage?
Women who were raped? Should they be told they can't marry?
People with anxiety disorders?
I mean, seriously, if we were to look at what MIGHT truly devalue marriage and harm society, shouldn't we look at what groups of people are more likely to divorce? Shouldn't we tell them they can't marry? Or, maybe assign a certain tax to groups that pose a higher risk to the state of marriage? (A nod to overweight passengers...) If so, shouldn't we target all groups who pose a risk? Why only target gays? Because they're an easy target...? Because certain people have looked down on them, sort of like people look down on obese individuals, ...? What if it turns out that fewer gay couples divorce? Should they be allowed to marry and heterosexual couples not be allowed to marry?
Does anyone else feel like throwing up or bathing? I do.
Should we really be in the business of judging people and whether or not they can marry, etc... based on how their choices might impact us?
If so, should we do that in a logical way, which would require us, I think, to look at divorce rates and high risk groups?
Again, eeww.... Not sure I have the stomach for that. Do people really have the stomach for that?
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:Travis wrote: and your discussion of the word marriage is some vague claim of it being devalued if we let the gays get their hands on it..Again emotive language. Are you not able to ..."
How are your vague claims of 'devalued marriage' not emotive language?
It's a nice sounding phrase to throw around, but maybe you need to define it or stop using it, as you don't appear to be practicing what you preach.
All your talk of protecting the children from a threat that only exists in your view is not subjective.
As are your claims that the tampering of letting gay people be treated like the rest of us will devalue marriage.
And since marriage is all about the children, then gay couples with kids must be okay to join this exclusive club.
How about we tell all the sterile and childless couples they are losing their rights and we'll give those rights to the gay people with kids.
Kids protected and we get rid of those childless riffraff that have been devaluing marriage.
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "But I don’t want to see marriage tampered with. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. "I saw this and was going to say, "With a 50% divorce rate in the US, I wouldn't say marriage isn't ..."
What you are talking about is what I think of when people mention the 'slippery slope' of gay marriage. To me, the slope is, if they can tell one group of people ' your family doesn't count', then why are the rest of us safe?.
Personally, I don't see how the gays can be worse at marriage then the rest of us.
Between Britney Spears, Newt Gingrich and the Kardashians, I don't think the marriage bar is set that high.
Shannon wrote: In my mind and heart, divorce is more likely to diminish marriage and make the world worse. I understand Shannon, about divorce. But that was not the point. In order for divorce to diminish marriage, there has to be marriage in the first place. If marriage starts to erode there would be little need for divorce.
Shannon wrote: Now, I've had some students, whose parents divorced, who were incredibly happy and stable. The overwhelming percentage of children whose parents divorced aren't as happy and stable
And I think it should be made harder to get a divorce if there are children involved. Marriage is a contract and a commitment to look after and raise children (if there are any) until they are of an age to look after themselves. Even after a divorce that commitment stands.
Shannon wrote: because my parents are still together?"
Marriage is or should be a contract with regard to having and raising children. At least with a mother and father agreeing the future looks a bit brighter for the kids. Contracts can be broken, defaulted on or whatever, but at least is a better way to start out.
That’s why I think marriage should be kept for what it was intended for. If a couple want to live together, not get married and have a child… where is the commitment?
Added.........
Shannon wrote: I mean, seriously, if we were to look at what MIGHT truly devalue marriage and harm society, shouldn't we look at what groups of people are more likely to divorce? Shouldn't we tell them they can't marry? Or, maybe assign a certain tax to groups that pose a higher risk to the state of marriage? (A nod to overweight passengers...) If so, shouldn't we target all groups who pose a risk? Why only target gays? Because they're an easy target...? Because certain people have looked down on them, sort of like people look down on obese individuals, ...? What if it turns out that fewer gay couples divorce? Should they be allowed to marry and heterosexual couples not be allowed to marry?
I think this is a case of ‘over egging the pudding’, Shannon, why not just keep it simple. : )
Man woman children………………marriage, contract. Anyone else just get over it. As I have said we are all equal but not all the same. Once you start to devalue something it looses it meaning.
It’s harder to buy a gun in the US (and that is easy enough) than to commit to raising your own child.
We should not look at what groups are more likely to divorce…… but we should look at why the groups that do divorce, divorce. Maybe it is those that do marry to young because they made a baby by ‘accident’. Maybe it is the poorer paid in society. Maybe one partner drinks, gambles, uses drugs, cheats. Either way they should not be able get out of the marriage contract that easily.
Travis wrote: " To me, the slope is, if they can tell one group of people ' your family doesn't count', then why are the rest of us safe?"
Exactly!!
Exactly!!
cHriS wrote: "I think this is a case of ‘over egging the pudding’, Shannon, why not just keep it simple. : )
Man woman children………………marriage, contract. Anyone else just get over it."
Not sure that life is that simple.
Not sure it's my right to tell other people to get over it.
Especially not sure that it's my right to tell some groups to get over it when the reasons for the "devaluation" of marriage and harm to children aren't that simple.
Man woman children………………marriage, contract. Anyone else just get over it."
Not sure that life is that simple.
Not sure it's my right to tell other people to get over it.
Especially not sure that it's my right to tell some groups to get over it when the reasons for the "devaluation" of marriage and harm to children aren't that simple.
Travis wrote: And since marriage is all about the children, then gay couples with kids must be okay to join this exclusive club. How about we tell all the sterile and childless couples they are losing their rights and we'll give those rights to the gay people with kids.
Kids protected and we get rid of those childless riffraff that have been devaluing marriage..."
Do gay couples have children? Or are you thinking about adopted children?
Travis wrote:sterile and childless couples.
?????
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:sterile and childless couples.
????? "
We've gone down this path before. At another time when discussing the idea that marriage should be for procreation ....
I said, truthfully, that I shouldn't, perhaps can't, have children. Given that, does it stand to reason that I shouldn't get married? If marriage is about children and I shouldn't/can't have them, ....
Now, in point of fact, I haven't married ... in large part due to this issue. Is it that I think marriage is for procreation? No. It's that I wouldn't visit childlessness on another person; it's sad enough for me. Further, I'd have a hard time trusting that he wouldn't turn to me at some point and say, "You know, you were right. I really do want my own children, so...." Obviously, that's my own hangup.
I'm pretty sure that's what Travis was getting at. Well, not the part about my hangup. ;)
????? "
We've gone down this path before. At another time when discussing the idea that marriage should be for procreation ....
I said, truthfully, that I shouldn't, perhaps can't, have children. Given that, does it stand to reason that I shouldn't get married? If marriage is about children and I shouldn't/can't have them, ....
Now, in point of fact, I haven't married ... in large part due to this issue. Is it that I think marriage is for procreation? No. It's that I wouldn't visit childlessness on another person; it's sad enough for me. Further, I'd have a hard time trusting that he wouldn't turn to me at some point and say, "You know, you were right. I really do want my own children, so...." Obviously, that's my own hangup.
I'm pretty sure that's what Travis was getting at. Well, not the part about my hangup. ;)
cerebus wrote:But this is my problem, you make a claim that a child needs both a mother and a father, but where is your evidence for that?It is generally accepted by most of society (UK at least) that it is better for a child to have a male and a female influence in their life as they grow up and that is usually a mother and father. Circumstances sometimes dictate that this is not always possible and another member of the family may take over the role.
Are you saying that it does not matter if a child does not have mother or a father or neither. That they won't be concerned when they are older who their parents were and why they did not raise them as they as supposed to?
Yes sometimes a single parent has to raise a child alone and if the other parent is not around then the alone parent should get as much help from the state as is needed to insure that the child has a good upbringing. But there is no substitute for the original parent.
(I will try to address the other points from your last post asap.)
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: And since marriage is all about the children, then gay couples with kids must be okay to join this exclusive club. How about we tell all the sterile and childless couples they are lo..."
they can have both.
So, if there are children, then it must be okay for them to be married.
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:sterile and childless couples.????? "
We've gone down this path before. At another time when discussing the idea that marriage should be for procreation ....
I said, ..."
Sorry to hear it, Shannon. Didn't mean to drag anything upsetting up.
But, yeah, if marriage is only about cranking out the next generation, then excluding gay couples with kids, but letting in couples that either can't or don't want to have kids only shines a spotlight on what a hypocritical argument it is.
Travis wrote: they can have both. So, if there are children, then it must be okay for them to be married.
"
Are you being serious? If a gay man for example, fathers a child, that's fine. He was either married or not, I don't see an issue there. But you don't mean that do you?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Cos I reached puberty some time ago would be my guess.
On the gay marriage subject, I'm with..."
So, you hit the age of reason and quit believing in an imaginary thing...omigosh, a fairy atheist!