Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 9,551-9,600 of 12,463

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: the FSM in particular, whatever it has since become, was a very valid point in the creationism in schools debate.
"

It has only become a valid point, if you see it as a valid point, not everyone does. At best it is a weak illustration.

cerebus wrote: I think I can safely say this is the first time I've seen Christopher Biggins brought into a discussion such as this.

Is this an irrelevant observation, or do you have a reason why a very famous celebrity who happens to be gay and does not hold the same views as yourself should not be mentioned here. I could have used 'Joe Bloggs' who is also gay and holds the same view as I do and who lives in the same village as I do, as an example.

The debate is not two sided in that all gay people are in favour of gay marriage and others are against.

cerebus wrote: At the end of the day it's an appeal to authority though, there is still no valid reason or evidence to support denying the same rights of marriage to same-sex couples.

Who decides in any discussion what is 'a valid reason'?

This is why this thread in general has become a battle of words rather than a discussion. Are you now defining what a 'valid reason is or should be' and others have go conform to that reasoning?

"....it's an appeal to authority" is yet another well remembered phrase just like Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's easy to slot into a debate as though it is some sort of 'trump' card that devalues and brings to a halt, the opposite point of view.

This kind of philosophical definition may have it's place, but not in a discussion group like this. I don't play by those rules, so saying 'it's an appeal to authority' might 'trump' a point if it were made by Gary Travis or Hazel but is not relevant to me.

By showing here that Christopher Biggins has the same view point about gay marriage as I do, and I am not gay and he is, does illustrate that the debate has many sides to it and is not as simple and straight forward as one would like it to be.

Now, rather than play your it's an appeal to authority" card, tell me why me and Mr Biggins should not have that view point. And explain where the homophobia comes into it, if you want to, of course.

cerebus wrote: And similarly for knowing gay people and homophobia.

Correct.

footnote:
I don't think Shanna took my comment as though I was saying she was racist, although I could see reading it back how she could have.

My original point was that Shannon has the right to refer to herself how ever she wants to, since there was no alternative meaning to be taken from her description; where as the 'drunk' remark could be taken to be derisory.

[Shanna]

footnote:
I don't think Shanna took my comment as though I was saying she was racist, although I could see reading it back how she could have.

I didn't, I took it as a misunderstanding. That in all the comments being thrown around you might have gotten the idea that I had made a racist remark, I was merely clearing up what might have been a misunderstanding.
Of course Shannon gets to refer to herself however she wants to, but she doesn't get to put "words in my mouth" or Maria's or nasty little "ism's" either, and the playing of the "drunkard indian" card from a throw away line of Maria's is doing that. Considering this entire thread the only references to her ancestry have been hers, it's a at best a stretch and at worst a nasty little self pitying stab to have connected the two in a parting shot...

[cerebus]

The FSM is a valid point in that when it was introduced creationists were attempting to bypass the problem of introducing religion into schools by saying "we're not saying our god did it, just that there is a designer of some sort" and demanding equal time to evolution. If that is the actual argument then you cannot deny any other postulated designer that same equal time, so the FSM should be given the same time. Strangely the intelligent design crowd didn't like that idea, so it highlighted that their stated intentions were not exactly honest. Yes, the FSM is absurd, it's supposed to be, but simply because It is a newer construct than the christian agenda the id crowd were pushing does not make it an invalid point.

As for Christopher Biggins, or joe bloggs, it is an appeal to authority in as much as it is a claim that someone with an insight that the rest of us don't have happens to have a particular belief. But it's irrelevant, the claim was never "all gays want to get married so it should be allowed" it is a case of there are some gay couples who want to get married and there is no valid (and that is a claim I will stand behind) reason that has been given to deny those that want to the right to do so. Christopher Biggins, Joe Bloggs, they can all have their opinions, from whatever perspective they wish, but that doesn't change the fact that allowing same-sex marriage is a rights issue and there is no valid (yup, there it is again) reason to deny that right.

[cerebus]

To answer your question, Biggins can have whatever viewpoint he wants, that's his right. It doesn't change one iota the discussion on same-sex marriage.....

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: the FSM in particular, whatever it has since become, was a very valid point in the creationism in schools debate.
"

It has only become a valid point, if you see it as a valid point,..."


Actually it is a straight forward and simple debate. A group is being denied a right.

[Heather]

cerebus wrote: "The FSM is a valid point in that when it was introduced creationists were attempting to bypass the problem of introducing religion into schools by saying "we're not saying our god did it, just that..."

One thing I've taken to doing when someone argues intelligent design is, I ask the question of why an intelligent designer would put the heart of a bird with only two veins into a human body that ultimately results in the human being very sick or dying young due to a heart attack caused by improper circulation. I also like to ask whose bright idea it was to put testicles outside the body unprotected.

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: Yes, the FSM is absurd, it's supposed to be,

....and it is. And it is being absurdly over used in this thread. It is an absurd comparison and illustrates nothing to anyone, except to others of the same ilk, and it’s own absurdity.

cerebus wrote: the fact that allowing same-sex marriage is a rights issue and there is no valid (yup, there it is again) reason to deny that right.
"

I feel you may be slightly back tracking here.

You are correct, it is a rights issue.

Issue, meaning under discussion or in dispute. And so there are at least two or maybe many points of view, mine and Biggins being just one, which we are entitled to have. And until that issue is resolved, it will remain in discussion because that is what happens in a democracy.

cerebus wrote: some gay couples who want to get married and there is no valid (and that is a claim I will stand behind) reason that has been given to deny those that want to the right to do so

There is nothing wrong with standing behind your convictions, but it is wrong of you to state "there is no valid reason" without adding in your opinion. Unless you do not agree with the democracy thing.

Some gay couples do want to get married, but we don't always get what we want in life.

Some countries allow gay marriage, Canada, I think is one and some states in the US allow it and that is fine. In the UK we seem to have compromised and that is also ok.

And I am sure that those here on this thread who live in the Uk and feel strongly enough about gay marriage, will do more than just protest within this small group. They will join marches, write to their MP, and campaign as much as they can. I may well do some thing similar for other causes.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: I didn't, I took it as a misunderstanding

....... no it was not a misunderstanding and I did not think you made a racist remark, maybe just a case of taking the remark out of context.

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: "To answer your question, Biggins can have whatever viewpoint he wants, that's his right. It doesn't change one iota the discussion on same-sex marriage....."

..... no but it adds to it.

[cerebus]

The FSM seems to irritate believers because they see its absurdity and dislike that it is akin to their own beliefs. I will say it again, it makes a valid point that if as a proponent of id you want to claim equal time for a non-specific creator, then you have to allow all other possible and proposed creators. Irritating though it may be it is not, as claimed, only making a point to the non-believer....in fact it is the "it's a stupid idea" reaction that shows its effectiveness, that reaction to the FSM is the same reaction we have to the idea that id should be taught as science.
Back to Biggins, as I said he is entitled to his opinion, it adds to the debate in as much as it is one person's opinion, but as an opinion it fails to provide evidence for denying equal rights. If Biggins does not want to get married, great, that's his choice, but that is not sufficient reason to deny the option to those who do want it.

[Hazel]

My other halfs uncle is gay, he's lived with his partner for 30 years, neither of them understand why anyone would want to get married, never mind just gay people, but as y others uncle said "if people want to, they should be allowed to be able to."

Though Chris is right on one thing, he is entitled to his opinion, he's just not entitled to have his opinion respected, or not to be called on it when the opinion means specifically denying other people the same rights he has.

This is really simple, everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. Everyone should be allowed to have the chance to marry the person they love.

[Mary]

I love the FSM argument, and I agree it does seem to anger some religious people. But the question is valid, how does someone decide which fantastical, unprovable belief system is "true". I have very religious Christian friends who shake their heads and say " can you believe Muslims think they'll have 72 virgins? Crazy!" Or " can you believe Mormons believe the garden of Eden is in America?" And on and on. I want to tell them that that's how I feel about Christianity too. " jesus turned water into wine? walked on water?" that sounds crazy to me.
i think some must also see that the Bible is just another in a long line of moral tales to help/ scare people into being moral. But then, especially if they were raised in a religious tradition, they have that ingrained fear that admitting that God or their religion is not real will somehow jinx them. We often can't overcome fears we learned at a young age. Indoctrination in youth is a powerful force.

So if I help the poor, give to charity, refrain from stealing, remain faithful to my husband, don't murder, maim or injure others, and raise my children to do the same without religion, why do I need it? If a Muslim, or Hindi or Buddhist or a FSM worshipper can do the same, how can you say that religion is necessary?

Maybe we should say it is desired by some, not necessary. Want and need are two different things. Some people want to place the uncertainty, pain, and hardships of life in the hands of a father figure. Others do not.

[Shanna]

One thing I've taken to doing when someone argues intelligent design is, I ask the question of why an intelligent designer would put the heart of a bird with only two veins into a human body that ultimately results in the human being very sick or dying young due to a heart attack caused by improper circulation. I also like to ask whose bright idea it was to put testicles outside the body unprotected.

Actually there is a very valid evolutionary reason for testicles being outside the body, sperm requires a slightly lower temperature than core body temperature for production and maintenance until ejaculation, which is why when couples trying to conceive the male partner is advised to wear boxers and not briefs so the scrotum can hang lower and cooler rather than being gathered against the body. Of course this could regress into why do sperm need a lower temperature (I don't know, I'll look into it) and for the ID crowd why not just make a system that's different less vunerable, but then evolution follows the path of least resistance and if it ain't broke enough to kill you or prevent reproduction then it reproduces. And now I've just explained something you already know, haven't I? :)

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: I didn't, I took it as a misunderstanding

....... no it was not a misunderstanding and I did not think you made a racist remark, maybe just a case of taking the remark out of context."
No worries.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "My other halfs uncle is gay, he's lived with his partner for 30 years, neither of them understand why anyone would want to get married, never mind just gay people, but as y others uncle said "if pe..."

That's my big problem with the anti-gay marriage crowd is they want to be able to tell someone their family doesn't count.
That's just an unacceptable idea to me.

[Colleen]

I am thankful I do not have to choose as I currently live in both worlds. One without the other seems unbalanced to me.

[Heather]

Shanna wrote: "One thing I've taken to doing when someone argues intelligent design is, I ask the question of why an intelligent designer would put the heart of a bird with only two veins into a human body that u..."

You have, but that's okay; I just think it was kind of odd to place something so crucial in a place where torsion easily occurs and can result in infertility. Then again, that's the point of evolution; it's not entirely logical and thus could not, in my mind, have been the hand of a creator.

[Shanna]

You have, but that's okay; I just think it was kind of odd to place something so crucial in a place where torsion easily occurs and can result in infertility. Then again, that's the point of evolution; it's not entirely logical and thus could not, in my mind, have been the hand of a creator.

That's the problem for creationists isn't it, vestigial organs and other structures, and how something so "perfectly designed" so regularly stuffs up due to design faults...

[Hazel]

Shanna, atavism:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comde...

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "Shanna, atavism:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comde..."

Yes THAT's the word I couldn't dredge up from my memory, thanks Hazel, that's a great link, whale feet is tough to explain in an ID world.

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: The FSM seems to irritate believers because they see its absurdity and dislike that it is akin to their own beliefs. .

You and Travis both overstate what others have said when you want to use what they have said in your reply. This demonstrates to me that your argument is really only a virtual argument, and while it may hold water on a thread like this, because there are other like minded folks to back you up, it would lose credibility in the real world.

Now you are talking on behalf of believers,; saying the FSM thing seems to irritate them. If that is the case and you are speaking for all believers, except me, I would guess the irritation comes from the over use of the phrase and the constant putdown of their belief rather than the absurd connection with a flying monster.

If you want to believe that the creator is a FSM in your mind, then you may have a point.

cerebus wrote: evidence for denying equal rights.

…………… I understand what you mean and you use the ‘equal rights’ as part of an argument in favour of these rights. Nothing wrong with that. But you seen to have changed your wording from the last post when you were discussing ‘rights issue’.

Surly it can only be equal rights when the law says it is equal rights, until then it is a ‘rights issue’ that is open for discussion, unless you are Travis who does not really do discussion, instead gets a bit emotive with his language.

Don’t forget that in the outside world more countries recognise partnerships or civil unions. And (and I do stand to be corrected here) but don’t some countries or states that do recognise gay marriage, not always give the same ‘rights’ as a civil partnership would give.

If you or anyone else here wants to defend same sex marriage then why not do so. But the Travis style of defence is to ‘name call’ someone with a different view. It works quite well here because he is with more of the same minded people.

The put down and name calling on this thread ( not your posts) seems to have over taken a reasonable debate in the last week or so……..

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Now you are talking on behalf of believers,; saying the FSM thing seems to irritate them. If that is the case and you are speaking for all believers, except me,"

You seem pretty irritated to me.

The FSM has just as much credence as any other religion and any associated creation myth: it has a holy, ancient book (2006) and copious amounts of anecdotal "evidence". I often pray to his noodliness and my prayers are answered to the same degree as any other religion (just about on a par with random chance).

You can also purchase many holy relics from the online store (http://www.cafepress.com/venganza). Remember he boiled for our sins! This store maintains alignment with the catholic faith which can provide equally ridiculous crap: http://www.catholic.org/shopping/!

I am just sorry that the true message associated with the revelation of his holy pasta is only available for £8.35 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gospel-Flying...). Surely you would never get christians who have access to the truth charging in this day and (internet) age (http://www.christianbook.com/)!

(Some people, so I have heard, may say that religion is primarily a means of control and making money. FSM forbid!)

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: The FSM seems to irritate believers because they see its absurdity and dislike that it is akin to their own beliefs. .

You and Travis both overstate what others have said when you w..."

again, a group is being denied rights.
Now, subjectively, non-emotively and without derogatory language explain to me why you believe that is okay.

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: The FSM has just as much credence as any other religion and any associated creation myth: it has a holy, ancient book (2006) ..."

Ancient: of or in time long past, especially before the end of the Western Roman Empire a.d. 476: ancient history.......

.....so you got that bit wrong; carry on taking the happy pills.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: The FSM has just as much credence as any other religion and any associated creation myth: it has a holy, ancient book (2006) ..."

Ancient: of or in time long past, especially before the ..."

'happy pills'...is that how we should refer to someone who believes something factually/historically wrong and absurd?

[Asma]

I am glad to have a belief where science and religion come together instead of being on opposite ends of a continuum. Works for me...

[R.J.]

I’ve been gone a few days so I have to go back and comment on a few things from a few days ago.

Post 9658: Shannon said: At any rate, after that, I started doing a bunch of research. Hours worth. Days. Yeah, guess what? The Romans didn't write down everything. They even left out some really big and important things ... things that we know happened.

At one time I generalized that “all” non-believers did their homework before accepting their belief system. That was many years ago. I’ve met too many atheists who, holding University degrees much higher than mine, had no idea what I was talking about when I’d cite history or philosophy or scientific studies. Then again, I’ve met too many Christians who have no idea what I’m talking about when I quote the Bible. I definitely recommend doing some research before doing the talking.

To both Travis and Shannon: I know this is from a few days ago, but I wanted to set the record straight. There is documentation in Roman writing of Jesus. I know he is mentioned several times in various preserved manuscripts, but I can’t find my books on the matter right now (and here I just touted the merits of research) to quote all of them. I’m pretty sure the closest record to the time of Christ was the writings of Josephus, at the latter end of the first century. I know Josephus’ writings don’t go much into the story, but he does place Jesus as a true historical figure at the time in question. I’m pretty sure Josephus called Jesus a “teacher” which is why the Muslim world accepted him as a teacher.

Here we again see the flaw in the demand for evidence before acceptance. Yes, we have a lot of ancient writing and very little of it mentions Jesus. This is not because it was not written—it’s because a lot of it did not survive the last 2000 years. Religious people are not always to blame for this. One of the most famous losses of ancient literature was the complete burning of the Library of Alexandria by the Muslim Caliph Omar. However, much of Rome’s literature was burned piece by piece during the Barbarian invasions that brought on the so-called “dark ages”. This is one of the many instances where legalists can demand “habeas corpus” and win the argument without ever coming within a mile of the truth.

As a historian, I’d like to point out that many of the ancient landmarks destroyed by Muslims were preserved by Muslims for many centuries before power fell into the hands of a single, torch-happy ruler. The same could be said for Christianity as well. Would Peter and Paul have persecuted Gallileo? Would Martin Luther have encouraged the Salem Witch Trials? I think it appropriate to bring up the point I first made on this thread, which is that the true problem is neither religion nor science, but human nature. A sword is only as good, or as evil, as the hand in which it is held. The same goes for law, science, religion, or anything else subject to the whims of human nature.

Regarding the continued mention of Druidism, I would like to point out that Celtic Shamanism is alive and strong in the Wiccan religion. Wicca is what I classify as a Type-A religion, meaning essentially that it appeals to the Type-A personality’s desire for control over others and their environment. This is not always done with “magical thinking”. I knew a Wiccan who never tried to play “quid-pro-quo” with the nature spirits, but she celebrated her sexuality because it gave her “control” over men. There are plenty of sects and denominations of Christianity and most of the other big religions that do the same. It’s all about control. It’s not that the religion itself is Type-A trying to control the people, it’s that a Type-A individual has risen to a point of leadership and is now steering the “congregation” in the direction of his or her own personal agenda.

Like I said above, a religion is only as good or as evil as the people who wield it—for whatever reasons they do wield it. I have a friend who was involved in a political demonstration in his college years where a certain Baptist church showed up and all hell broke loose. Guess what, he thinks all Christians are like that. He’s wrong, but his assumption is much more valid because it’s based on real experience. (It’s a lot better than the people who think they know religion because they played as a dwarfish cleric for three years with their DnD friends.) The problem is that many folks eventually experience a similar encounter with a Type-A religious leader who causes them to question their faith. That doesn’t make “all” religion evil.

Regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I should point out that this is not just an argument for Creation. I grew up in an area heavily involved in witchcraft and demonology, and I think I shared one of my stories about a so-called ghost a little earlier. I went hunting for a nature spirit once, and though strange things did happen during the adventure, the darned thing never just popped up in front of me and showed itself. That doesn’t mean the locals didn’t have “something” out there to believe in. The FSM could just as easily apply to an enemy army in the jungle, or a burglar in the bushes. When you start dealing with sentient beings, you have to realize that not everything wants to be scientifically measured, documented as evidence, and announced to the world.

To Heather, asking “why” in regards to intelligent design, that is a good question. That is the heart of science. To say “Because it is an accident” is lazy science at best, and blatant arrogance at worst. There is always a deeper meaning. Look for it. If it leads you to believe in a pattern or an intelligence behind the complexity, then great. If you don’t want to see that pattern or intelligence, don’t go telling others that you have been to the mountaintop and have achieved Nirvana and already have all the answers for them. That annoys me. I’ve met enough of that type in the Universities, and it has made about the same impression on me toward Education as that Baptist Church had on my friend like I mentioned above.

To Cerberus: Still with the “It’s not valid unless I say so” argument? I think it’s a joke how much of a stink Gay Marriage advocates make over their problems when I know plenty of men and women who can’t get married simply because their kids are old enough to hire attorneys to protect the inheritances. There’s plenty of other ways to “be together” than taking the word and institution of Marriage and dragging it into the opium den that homosexuality has become. Identifying it as a “civil right” is silly—especially in a world that medicates its boys for being too “male” in school, sneaks aspartame into the dairy products without listing it on the label, and forces its citizens to drink sodium fluoride…all because the points brought against those violations were found "invalid" by the so-called "experts".

[Heather]

Robert wrote: "I’ve been gone a few days so I have to go back and comment on a few things from a few days ago.

Post 9658: Shannon said: At any rate, after that, I started doing a bunch of research. Hours worth. ..."

It is not that I do not wish to see the pattern so much as there is no pattern to see as far as the hand of a creator goes. I can, however, see traces of one animal in another, as in the brow ridges in a man resembling that of a bonobo or a zygote resembling a fish or mouse in various stages of gestation.

Because I recognize these, I see nature having changed what we are over time; for example, we have evidence of people having only three wisdom teeth or even none at all because we don't need them anymore due to the development of a shortened jaw.

While it is true that we don't have all the answers and may never due to the capricious nature of fossil development, we have enough evidence to prove that evolution does indeed exist. It annoys me to no end to have a class on the fossil record disrupted by some evolution denier arguing with the professor over the veracity of evolution for an hour when the rest of us are trying to learn something new (this happened to me in a college setting). If you find faith in the belief of a god creating you, fine; just leave it out of my science classroom and in the theology classroom or church where it belongs. I say the same thing to my mother in-law, who believes that aliens from the Pleiades bred with Neanderthals to create humans, which is funny when you consider the chances of getting an alien-human hybrid is about as likely as getting a human-artichoke hybrid.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "To Cerberus: Still with the “It’s not valid unless I say so” argument? I think it’s a joke how much of a stink Gay Marriage advocates make over their problems when I know plenty of men and women who can’t get married simply because their kids are old enough to hire attorneys to protect the inheritances. There’s plenty of other ways to “be together” than taking the word and institution of Marriage and dragging it into the opium den that homosexuality has become. Identifying it as a “civil right” is silly—especially in a world that medicates its boys for being too “male” in school, sneaks aspartame into the dairy products without listing it on the label, and forces its citizens to drink sodium fluoride…all because the points brought against those violations were found "invalid" by the so-called "experts". "
So in your case it's homophobia.

Robert wrote: "To say “Because it is an accident” is lazy science at best, and blatant arrogance at worst."
Yet to claim that there is a creator who is specifically interested in the day to day happenings of you in particular isn't arrogance? Science does not say "because it is an accident" and leave it at that. Religion says "because it is a creator" and leaves it at that, science attempts to find the answers to explain, and in the absence of a creator adding anything meaningful, testable or explanatory it doesn't postulate one.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "To Cerberus: Still with the “It’s not valid unless I say so” argument? I think it’s a joke how much of a stink Gay Marriage advocates make over their problems when I know plenty of m..."
I'm interested to know what reasons you feel are valid for denying the same rights of marriage to same-sex couples?

[Travis]

Robert wrote: "I’ve been gone a few days so I have to go back and comment on a few things from a few days ago.

Post 9658: Shannon said: At any rate, after that, I started doing a bunch of research. Hours worth. ..."

The opium den of homosexuality...?
Seriously...?

I think I may have found an example of that emotive, derogatory language chris is always going on about.

[Alex]

If you consider MAslow's heirachy of needs, which sums up what humans need to flourish, apart from warmth, food and shelter (all of which can be provided without too much in the way of technology and certainly without science as we think of it) the remainder such as love, acceptance and fulfillment speak very much more of religion than of science. Think of all the wars started by science; WW1 by the Dreadnought arms race between Britain and Germany, WW2 was essentially the sequel to WW1, the Cold War which was sparked by nucelar weapons and the MAD doctrine (Mutually Assured Destruction), the European imperialist wars which were made possible by the superior technology that the Europeans had; Iraq (fear of WMD, anyone), North Korea (probably). Religion is about loving people, and accepting than for who they are and humans need that far more than IPADS, space exploration, or even, believe it or not, the internet

[Travis]

Alex wrote: "If you consider MAslow's heirachy of needs, which sums up what humans need to flourish, apart from warmth, food and shelter (all of which can be provided without too much in the way of technology a..."

While the things you list are important to people, I don't see religion or science being able to lay sole claim on love.
Acceptance and fulfillment, but those could come from any group or community.
Any man made social construct, which is basically what religion is.

and I'm not even touching the bit about wars.
That kind of score keeping ends up being a pointless game and I don't think fear of science is the same as science being to blame.

[cerebus]

Dark matter.

[R.J.]

cerebus wrote: "I'm interested to know what reasons you feel are valid for denying the same rights of marriage to same-sex couples?..."

Here’s another wonderful thought experiment to help illustrate the issue:
Suppose there’s a man who is about to get married. He’s bought the rings, scheduled the ceremony, hired the preacher, invited the guests, and put it all on his credit card. Then he goes to Vegas for his bachelor’s party. I can’t even repeat what he does there, but let’s just say that, if he were married, it would be grounds for divorce. The next day, as he sways groggily beside his bride at the altar, the priest asks “Do you?” Now stop right there. Like Schroedinger’s cat in the box, are there really two alternate universes that could result from his answer? Does it really matter, right at that moment, what his answer is? He is already caught in a paradox. How can he answer “No” to this commitment if he has behaved in the weeks prior to this ceremony as though he already planned to answer “Yes”? And how can he answer “Yes” if he has already broken his commitments with his doings in Vegas as though he had planned to answer “No”?

I’ve seen all sorts of relationships that people call “marriage”. Some of them are really sad—just partnerships for housing and medical benefits, really. Unfortunately, few can agree to what defines a “marriage”, and fewer can hold down a healthy one long enough to give others a good idea what to strive for. Marriage is not something that exists here in the world like a rock or a flower or a piece of wood. Marriage only exists where people come together to agree that it is. But marriage is more than just a concept that we agree to in the same way we agree to the value of Monopoly money and the price of hotels on Marvin Gardens. If I don’t want to play Monopoly, I don’t have to. If I don’t care about Ventnor Avenue, what right does somebody else have to force me to care? How can one claim that gay marriage is a civil rights issue when it infringes upon everyone else’s civil right to uphold marriage to a higher standard than what gays want it to be?

But here’s the deeper question. How can a person who, knowing they came from the natural union between a man and a woman, choose to “marry” a person of their own gender and still “see” it as the same kind of union? It’s a paradox. It makes no sense. How can you really believe you’re “married” when you know it’s not the same as what brought you into this world? I suppose, if you cheapen the definition of the word to only mean “health care benefits”, it might start to make sense, but how are you going to convince the man and woman, married for forty years, that your definition holds water compared to theirs?

[R.J.]

Travis wrote: "The opium den of homosexuality...?
Seriously...?

I think I may have found an example of that emotive, derogatory language chris is always going on about. ..."

I did not use the term “opium den” to conjure up emotions, but to illustrate an image of a dark and dingy world where people do not come out better than when they go in. The people I know who have embraced homosexuality have become shadows of the people I once cared about—they slipped into a dark world where I cannot follow.

I do not view homosexuality as a “choice” or as a “sin”. It is a wound. But wherever I’ve seen it fester through acceptance, and pursued as a righteous cause, it causes much worse wounds to both the individual and to their closest loved-ones. To those of you who are looking for an excuse to go out and beat gays over the head or to hate them, don’t look to me. I have friends and family members who are “married” to their same-sex partners, and though I don’t approve of their lifestyle, I see their behavior as symptoms of their deeper wounds, not as “sin”. But I also see the bigger picture, the selfishness, the self-destruction, and the rebellious behaviors exhibited elsewhere in their lives that they need to stop accepting (and demanding that we accept as well) and do something to curb...before they destroy themselves and those around them.

I’ve walked with a limp since I was injured in the knee at a very early age. It is always going to hurt—for the rest of my life. At one point in my life I embraced that wound, claimed that it was my right to special privileges, and demanded disability. Then I had children and I realized that, if I was going to be a good parent, I needed to take them for walks, go for long hikes in the woods, and be physically active. It’s not healthy to encourage my children to embrace my wound. So I got up, got some good shoe inserts, a walking stick, a knee-brace when I need it, worked on my healthy eating habits, and learned how to live with the pain. I’m not completely cured, but I know that there is a “healthy” way to live with this wound, and there is an "unhealthy” way. The same goes for a person’s sexual orientation.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "but how are you going to convince the man and woman, married for forty years, that your definition holds water compared to theirs? "
Because if a marriage, of any kind, is about love between two people, then it is the same. Why can't a same-sex couple be married for 40 years in the same way as the man and woman you describe? (other than the technical explanation that it has only recently become available in certain jurisdictions)
And I'm sorry but your description of homosexuality as a wound is bizarre. If same-sex attraction is a wound, then so is opposite sex attraction....do you see your presumably opposite sex attraction as a 'wound'?
Even if the people you know who are homosexual have "slipped into a dark world" (although I have no idea what that is actually describing, since it could well just be your view on homosexuality), if what they are doing is between consenting adults and is not harming anyone, then on what grounds do you object? If you don't like that "world" you don't have to join in. Same thing with same-sex married....if you don't want to get married to someone of the same sex, great, don't, but don't deny others that right.

Robert wrote: "How can one claim that gay marriage is a civil rights issue when it infringes upon everyone else’s civil right to uphold marriage to a higher standard than what gays want it to be?"
And what is that "higher standard"?? You reference marriages of convenience, am I also to assume that you feel divorce should be banned? Or that you feel that marriage should be denied to opposite sex couples whose intentions are not part of this "higher standard"?

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "But I also see the bigger picture, the selfishness, the self-destruction, and the rebellious behaviors exhibited elsewhere in their lives that they need to stop accepting (and demanding that we accept as well) and do something to curb...before they destroy themselves and those around them."
And these "behaviors" are unique to same-sex couples? And how are these "behaviors" going to "destroy....those around them"??

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "Here’s another wonderful thought experiment to help illustrate the issue:"
I have no idea what relevance this "wonderful" thought experiment has to do with the issue of same-sex marriage. Unless you are proposing that there is some kind of "Marriage Police" that I assume you will be part of, deciding who meets the criteria for your definition?

[Travis]

Robert wrote: "cerebus wrote: "I'm interested to know what reasons you feel are valid for denying the same rights of marriage to same-sex couples?..."

Here’s another wonderful thought experiment to help illustra..."

Or you could cheapen the definition by meaning two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together and at the same time don't want to be treated like second class citizens.

So, once you scrape off the metaphorical BS you are going for the 'gay people make me uncomfortable' argument?
Slightly more honest then chris and his variation of 'think of the children...!', except you can't seem to actually come out and say it so resort to a lot of overdone metaphor.

It's not a sin, but a wound...?
Yeah, that will make all those people who you want to deny rights feel better.

So, can you yell us who gets destroyed when two gay people get married?
No wonderful thought experiments, just give us the list of destroyed people will be fine.

[Michael]

Robert wrote: "how are you going to convince the man and woman, married for forty years, that your definition holds water compared to theirs?"

Simple. No one needs to bother. If people don't like someone's perfectly harmless lifestyle (forget the stultifying dribble about society being damaged because that's a load of bollocks) they can always go off and mind their own business and let other people get on with their's. The amount of stickybeak proscriptive meddling into people's lives that some see as justifiable, especially with this issue, is occasionally mind-numbing.

And blimey, Cerebus we agree on the homosexuality as as a wound thing. A wound? I mean, really... c'mon! I'll be thinking that's cobblers until roughly 20 minutes after the heat-death of the Universe.

[Hazel]

I posted this several pages ago, I feel it is relevant again here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxi...

As is this, which just amuses me:

[Shanna]

It's strange to me that people insist on climbing an eight foot fence to be offended over something that is none of their business. There isn't a reason in this world to justify refusing two consenting compus mentis adults a civil right, civil not religious. It boils down to this you don't like gay marriage then don't YOU have one, but where does anyone get off dictating such a thing to others.

Robert wrote: "how are you going to convince the man and woman, married for forty years, that your definition holds water compared to theirs?"

Your point is? Somehow it degrades heterosexual marriages? how?
What exact traits are there in heterosexual marriage (excepting the genetic male/female) that define it as marriage that cannot be present or achieved in a homosexual marriage?

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "I posted this several pages ago, I feel it is relevant again here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxi...

As is this, which just amuses me:

"

Great cartoon. I'll have to check out the site.

[David]

You could do away with science as a field of endeavor. But the laws underlying science are there whether you want them or believe in them. Wishing them away makes no difference.

In the same way you could do away with religion but God is still there no matter what you wish.

[Maria]

Cerebus said: "If same-sex attraction is a wound, then so is opposite sex attraction....do you see your presumably opposite sex attraction as a 'wound'?"

Actually, I think Robert is using the Genesis account as his guide to what is a wound and what was "meant to be". (I know, we've been through all this, but maybe Robert hasn't read back that far...)

In the Garden of Eden, God did not present Adam with Eve and Steve, then say, ok Adam, see which one you're attracted to, either will be fine, then you can marry that one. If it's Steve, then I'll make someone else to mate with Eve so we can populate the earth - you and Steve just go on about your business.

God made a big deal out of presenting him with A WOMAN.

[Travis]

David wrote: "You could do away with science as a field of endeavor. But the laws underlying science are there whether you want them or believe in them. Wishing them away makes no difference.

In the same way ..."

So, science goes away and society falls apart, religion goes away and...we get to sleep in on sunday and everybody can eat bacon.

Choices, choices....

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Cerebus said: "If same-sex attraction is a wound, then so is opposite sex attraction....do you see your presumably opposite sex attraction as a 'wound'?"

Actually, I think Robert is using the Gen..."

and that woman got us kicked out of paradise and we now have the possibility of burning in hell for all eternity constantly hanging over our heads.

and that's the natural/traditional/ biblical view of marriage.

[David]

"So, science goes away and society falls apart"

Cute but still hyperbole. There was society before the pursuit of science and there still would be. It would just be different.

Look at the flip side of that coin. Science without moral constraints could easily doom not only society but mankind itself. At this moment there are enough nuclear warheads to kill most of the population instantly and the rest over time. A mistakenly released biological experiment could kill us all.

Has religion ever posed such a threat? The answer of course is no.

But you make an excellent point in your last phrase... is a life without bacon worth living?

[Maria]

Travis said: "and that woman got us kicked out of paradise and we now have the possibility of burning in hell for all eternity constantly hanging over our heads.

and that's the natural/traditional/ biblical view of marriage."

No arguments here. But that's where (I think) Robert is getting his "wound" thing. Everyone is asking him how he could possibly think of it that way - that is why. Believe me, I was taught that way as well, and it's hard to rebel.