| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2009 01:25:52 PM · #3476 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
In answer to the title of this thread...evolution is certainly in the works.
Vt. judge: Birth mom must give child to ex-partner.
WoooBoy! What a mess, eh? They better get this kind of scenario worked out because it's certainly repeatable. I mean after all, it's not like there's EVER going to be a blood connection between both "parents" with ANY child in a same sex union now is there.
I'm actually on the side of the lesbian Mom in this case. Her partner, and their union, dissolved when the baby was not quite a year old. Can you imagine having to give up your child in a case like this?!
Sure, there's a parallel with heterosexual parents that have a child thru artificial insemination, but at least then, when someone is trying to explain to the kid years down the road "where's Dad?" it's a little easier to sort out (kinda) even if the "Dad" isn't the blood parent. |
Failure to adhere to a court order is not anything new and the legal implications in this instance are the same as if we were dealing with a heterosexual couple.
Perhaps I am missing your point and you could enlighten me a tad.
Ray
|
|
|
|
12/30/2009 02:14:45 PM · #3477 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's a two way street SP. Where were you when I was making an academic argument about how homosexuality and pedophilia may both be genetic predisposition yet we choose to treat them differently? You'd think I'd come over and spit on people's mothers. If I'm going to be involved in a civil discussion, the rules of conduct need to be equal. |
I would imagine that the "un-"civil reaction that you received comes from what, given the context of the discussion and the issue, would be hard to perceive as anything other than an attempt to poison the well in regard to the acceptance of homosexual behavior. By making the comparison, you are exposing your own biases - or at least the biases of such an argument - in that you are tacitly equating two behaviors: consensual sex between adults versus non-consensual sex between and adult and a child.
While both of the behaviors may have roots in genetic predispositions, most "rational, thoughtful, and questioning" adults can see the distinction. The contra argument amounts to essentially arguing that we should treat potatoes and deadly nightshade the same when preparing dinner because both are grown in dirt. It should be obvious that such comparisons are false. The only reason that it would not be obvious is because there is some sort of pre-judgment involved in regard to the two points of comparison.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We ALL make our choices. I've also tried for years to get this point through, but it tends to fall on deaf ears. The attitude is that only the "other side" falls back on their indoctrination and "our side" is free of such encumberances. |
Of course we all make our choices, the point of contention rests on whether any particular choice can be justified outside of its own frame of reference. People could certainly make "the naturalistic choice" unthinkingly or even as the result of indoctrination, however, given the current cultural and social system in which we live, any indoctrination involved is far and away more likely to be found on the side of religious belief than naturalistic explanation.
Message edited by author 2009-12-30 14:27:46. |
|
|
|
12/30/2009 06:10:50 PM · #3478 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have never seen marriage covered under any argument of human rights. |
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
See Article 16. |
|
|
|
12/30/2009 06:18:35 PM · #3479 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's a two way street SP. Where were you when I was making an academic argument about how homosexuality and pedophilia may both be genetic predisposition yet we choose to treat them differently? You'd think I'd come over and spit on people's mothers. If I'm going to be involved in a civil discussion, the rules of conduct need to be equal. |
I don't think that anyone has ever really disputed that there may be a genetic predisposition......we just object to you trying to lump them as being the same.
If you want to go down the two way street, then you must also consider that being a serial killer, or a basketball player are genetic predispositions.
"Our side" chooses to accept gays and basketball players and welcomes them into society, but doesn't have much use for pedophiles or serial killers.
The other thing is that we actually try to ascertain what may possibly be done in the way of genetic engineering, or at least exploration to see if perhaps in the case of things like MS, or Hodgkin's or cancers what might be domne in the way of finding out how it works.
"Your side" really isn't interested in the whys & wherefores, just making sure that it's known that they're off the A list. Period.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, probably some of the strong reaction was due to the fact that really the whole reason I participate in these threads is to expose people to the fact there are thinking, rational individuals on "the other side" of the coin. It is too easy to live life thinking the people who disagree with you are simply non-thinkers. My aim is not to convert you all to Christianity, but if at the end of the day you think to yourself that there may be intelligent people who still hold their faith, then I've accomplished my task. |
I don't think that was ever the issue so much as pointing out the differences in the choice versus how it is. You've never really acknowledged that basic difference.
People choose the discriminatory path......actually, if you fall back onto indoctrination, it doesn't appear quite so badly as it does making the willful, and conscious choice to try and block others' rights.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We ALL make our choices. I've also tried for years to get this point through, but it tends to fall on deaf ears. The attitude is that only the "other side" falls back on their indoctrination and "our side" is free of such encumberances. |
That's correct......but your choices are to discriminate, willfully, and not try to work it out.
You choose to accept that your faith and beliefs are correct, and along with that, you accept the condemnation of more than half of the human race for one reason or another.
From where I sit......that pretty much sucks.
Message edited by author 2009-12-30 18:20:35.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2009 06:58:02 PM · #3480 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
"Our side" chooses to accept gays and basketball players and welcomes them into society, but doesn't have much use for pedophiles or serial killers. |
You guys may finally be getting my whole argument. I totally agree with you Jeb. We choose to accept some activity with a predisposition as "good" or "neutral" and others as "bad". The whole point is we do not give a blanket "free pass" to an activity just because it has a genetic predisposition. If that last statement is true, then when you argue "you are wrong for disagreeing with homosexuality because it is genetic and they can't help being that way" you are making a poor argument. I'm not saying that you should automatically lump homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia (I don't), but it needs to be weighted on its own merits and not simply given the "free pass" because people haven't chosen to be like that.
Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
12/30/2009 07:41:02 PM · #3481 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
"Our side" chooses to accept gays and basketball players and welcomes them into society, but doesn't have much use for pedophiles or serial killers. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You guys may finally be getting my whole argument. I totally agree with you Jeb. We choose to accept some activity with a predisposition as "good" or "neutral" and others as "bad". The whole point is we do not give a blanket "free pass" to an activity just because it has a genetic predisposition. If that last statement is true, then when you argue "you are wrong for disagreeing with homosexuality because it is genetic and they can't help being that way" you are making a poor argument. I'm not saying that you should automatically lump homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia (I don't), but it needs to be weighted on its own merits and not simply given the "free pass" because people haven't chosen to be like that.
Does that make sense? |
But that's not your whole argument. I choose to accept gays based on how I interact with them and how they treat me as people......gays have always seemed pretty much normal people to me, so I have a hard time deciding out of hand that there is anything wrong with them......or at least anything more wrong than any other person that I encounter.
You choose to follow a belief system that does not account for the knowledge that we have in this day and age that really indicates that perhaps......the old beliefs are flawed in the categoric dismissal of homosexuality as an abomination.
Assuming that you may eat, pork, seafood, and rye bread, this is willful, and selective prejudice.
What I want to know is.....can there be any way that your church can recant, take another look, perhaps show some acceptance, and learn just as we have learned other things over the past 2000 years that perhaps......the writings do not hold such rigid enforcement today as they did then?
Just as we know slavery is not a good thing, and that those pesky women deserve an equal place in society.......is it possible that you could move forward in other areas as well?
|
|
|
|
12/30/2009 08:00:07 PM · #3482 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
"Our side" chooses to accept gays and basketball players and welcomes them into society, but doesn't have much use for pedophiles or serial killers. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You guys may finally be getting my whole argument. I totally agree with you Jeb. We choose to accept some activity with a predisposition as "good" or "neutral" and others as "bad". The whole point is we do not give a blanket "free pass" to an activity just because it has a genetic predisposition. If that last statement is true, then when you argue "you are wrong for disagreeing with homosexuality because it is genetic and they can't help being that way" you are making a poor argument. I'm not saying that you should automatically lump homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia (I don't), but it needs to be weighted on its own merits and not simply given the "free pass" because people haven't chosen to be like that.
Does that make sense? |
But that's not your whole argument. |
I never said it was my whole argument, but it was all I was speaking to when I brought up the pedophilia. Capiche? |
|
|
|
12/30/2009 08:08:32 PM · #3483 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I never said it was my whole argument, but it was all I was speaking to when I brought up the pedophilia. Capiche? |
Yes.
May we stipulate that there is the rough equivalent in difference between a pedophile and a gay person as you would expect between a basketball player and a serial killer, Dennis Rodman excluded?
|
|
|
|
12/30/2009 09:02:21 PM · #3484 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is too easy to live life thinking the people who disagree with you are simply non-thinkers. My aim is not to convert you all to Christianity, but if at the end of the day you think to yourself that there may be intelligent people who still hold their faith, then I've accomplished my task. |
Then you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Nobody has ever said that believers were unintelligent or incapable of rational thought. Indeed, we've stressed the opposite, but you keep trying to read this ridiculous notion in between every line in multiple threads. Pay attention here: Benjamin Franklin and Socrates were two brilliant people who each held strong convictions in their respective faiths, but that doesn't mean that either of their supernatural beliefs were based upon evidence or reason, nor does it mean they were stupid people for believing it. However, the claims made by those beliefs are still irrational and unsupported. Smart people can believe things that don't make sense. So what? My respect for those individuals is not diminished in the slightest for their beliefs any more than I would think less of someone for being convinced he's picked the winning lottery ticket. I can still ask (in apparent futility) if there's any rational basis for arriving at that conclusion, though.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The whole point is we do not give a blanket "free pass" to an activity just because it has a genetic predisposition. If that last statement is true, then when you argue "you are wrong for disagreeing with homosexuality because it is genetic and they can't help being that way" you are making a poor argument. |
Nobody's made that claim either. The discussion of genetics was a response to the idea that homosexuality is a 'free will decision to sin,' when it's almost certainly no different than our predisposition to NOT prefer guys or a southpaw's "choice" to use his left hand. In other words, being "made" that way eliminates choosing to sin as justification for discrimination. Then you went off on a tangent to equate a behavior that you think is bad with evils rather than neutral predispositions like left-handedness. It was a seriously flawed argument, and you got called on it. Of course we don't give a blanket free pass to every genetic behavioral trait, but we also don't declare those traits illegal just because they're different. Those with the potential to harm others (psychosis, pedophilia, etc.) get legislative attention, while the rest are supposed to be treated with the dignity and respect of any other citizen going about his own private life... so that line of reasoning doesn't help your cause either. You are wrong for disagreeing with homosexuality as a conscious decision to sin because it is genetic and they can't help being that way, and equally wrong for trying to paint their private lives as a public menace on par with murder when it really doesn't harm anyone. Capiche?
Message edited by author 2009-12-30 21:22:54. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 12:21:41 AM · #3485 |
I'm sure that some of you have noticed my absence from the discussion this week. I was with the family for Christmas, if that wasn't obvious.
Anyways, I got a new book from one of my cousins that I've been reading, and I can't help but thinking about some of you here while I flip through the pages. The book is, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller. I'm not hopeful that any of you will get this book and read it, but the reason why I've been thinking about some of you is that the book actually answers many of the questions that have been proposed in this thread, and it does so in an intellectual way. The author is a pastor from Manhattan, but if anyone is brave enough to read a book that is written by a Christian pastor, I think you might be surprised at what you find. At any rate, Keller was a non-believer and skeptic himself until he went to college, and I think he relates to skeptics very well in his book. I would like to share some of the book with you here, but it would be much more efficient if you read it yourselves.
Like I said, I don't really expect anyone to actually read it but I would be impressed if you did. Also, it would be fun to start a thread about the book and discuss it in detail. It's a New York Times bestseller, so maybe you've heard of it or possibly even read it already. I haven't finished the book yet, but it's been interesting enough to keep me away from this discussion. So many of the ubiquitous questions that I've been asked in this thread are addressed in the book.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 01:01:56. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 12:54:41 AM · #3486 |
| Please, please don't post long passages from books in this thread. Please don't derail the thread even more by discussing your current reading material. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:30:54 AM · #3487 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Also, it would be fun to start a thread about the book and discuss it in detail. |
By all means do so.
You made your position here pretty clear when you stated that your Bible is infallible and that you accept it verbatim.
That coupled with the statements that you don't accept facts nor consider human logic, well.....logical, pretty much eliminates any hope I'd have for reasonable, open discourse.
Have a nice day.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 06:31:18.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 11:58:05 AM · #3488 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Also, it would be fun to start a thread about the book and discuss it in detail. |
By all means do so.
You made your position here pretty clear when you stated that your Bible is infallible and that you accept it verbatim.
That coupled with the statements that you don't accept facts nor consider human logic, well.....logical, pretty much eliminates any hope I'd have for reasonable, open discourse.
Have a nice day. |
Why is it that everything I say in this thread is assumed to the most extreme degree?
I said that I don't think human logical is always logical. I obviously consider human logic. Logic is probably one of the best ways to argue the case for God. If I just threw logic out the window, I probably would never have believed the Bible at all. It's not that I completely disregard logic, I just happen to believe that there is a higher level of intelligence and logic than what humans can muster. I believe God is the source of all truth, knowledge, and understanding, so I spend my time reading about him rather than reading about logic. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 12:27:28 PM · #3489 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You made your position here pretty clear when you stated that your Bible is infallible and that you accept it verbatim. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
My faith is based 100% on the Bible and I will continue to adjust my life according to the Bible until the day I die. Like I just said, there is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't stress over proof, evidence, or facts like many of the people here in this thread, because I don't feel like I need to. I don't need evidence to continue living in my faith because I'm not trying to find the truth anymore. I believe I've already found it. People try to use evidence and scientific "fact" to make me falter and lose my faith. It doesn't work because I don't believe science is truth. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That coupled with the statements that you don't accept facts nor consider human logic, well.....logical, pretty much eliminates any hope I'd have for reasonable, open discourse. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
People try to use logic on me, but I don't believe that human logic is very logical at all. I think the Bible is logical and humans aren't. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Why is it that everything I say in this thread is assumed to the most extreme degree? |
He only repeated your own words!
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 01:20:44 PM · #3490 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
He only repeated your own words! |
More like paraphrased my words.
I basically said that the Bible is more convincing than logic... I didn't say that logic was useless. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 01:22:07 PM · #3491 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
He only repeated your own words! |
More like paraphrased my words.
I basically said that the Bible is more convincing than logic... I didn't say that logic was useless. |
Under that scenario, logic IS useless. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 01:37:56 PM · #3492 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
He only repeated your own words! |
More like paraphrased my words.
I basically said that the Bible is more convincing than logic... I didn't say that logic was useless. |
Under that scenario, logic IS useless. |
Well... then I guess we're all on the train to nowhere as it seems that many of you logical folks believe the Bible is useless. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 02:09:35 PM · #3493 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I basically said that the Bible is more convincing than logic... I didn't say that logic was useless. |
Yes, you pretty much did.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
People try to use logic on me, but I don't believe that human logic is very logical at all. I think the Bible is logical and humans aren't. |
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 02:18:17 PM · #3494 |
Johnny, PS: your use of the word "logic" is vernacular. You aren't using it properly at all. Much like the word "theory", "logic" has a very specific meaning, and in relation to argument, its use must be restricted very specifically. When you use the word "logic" to describe the contents of the bible, or when you use the word "theory" to describe an opinion, you are redefining purposed terms and scuttling the debate solely to benefit your position. It's extremely bad form, and anything you propose from such a position is essentially worthless.
Instead, you should offer the facts: you find the bible to be the inspiration of your faith, and that inspiration is better than logic. Here, the terms are defined correctly, and we needn't continue, because your position is clear (and unassailable, making discussion pointless). |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 02:20:18 PM · #3495 |
| Johnny - PS - never debate Louis. Or Jason. :-) |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 02:28:58 PM · #3496 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Johnny - PS - never debate Louis... |
No, do! No better way to open a window. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 03:01:29 PM · #3497 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Johnny, PS: your use of the word "logic" is vernacular. You aren't using it properly at all. Much like the word "theory", "logic" has a very specific meaning, and in relation to argument, its use must be restricted very specifically. |
That's funny, that's the same point I was making with regards to "free will", and that didn't seem to faze y'all one bit :-)
R. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 04:06:05 PM · #3498 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
Johnny, PS: your use of the word "logic" is vernacular. You aren't using it properly at all. Much like the word "theory", "logic" has a very specific meaning, and in relation to argument, its use must be restricted very specifically. |
That's funny, that's the same point I was making with regards to "free will", and that didn't seem to faze y'all one bit :-)
R. |
Oh, snap! :P |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 04:26:38 PM · #3499 |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 04:29:16 PM · #3500 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's funny, that's the same point I was making with regards to "free will", and that didn't seem to faze y'all one bit :-) |
I guess I missed that.....could you give me the quick tour?
|
|
