[quote]Mick28 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.
Okay…you metioned God…you’re in for it man. POOKIE? [/quote]
The guy can’t even spell “marriage” or “religious” and is apparently unaware that marriage also has a legal definition in most countries, making it quite possible for a marriage to be entirely secular.
I don’t know about you, but I see no hope for an interesting debate there.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.
So legalities aside, don’t call it marraige that simple.
Oh for those of you who say separatin of church and state. remember being homosexual you don’t reproduce. which means no offspring. So natural selection would have killed you off. It is not a genetically desirable trait.
So a true evolutionist would not accept this a normal trait either.
There is a movement in this country to rip apart the traditional family, if something that is not geneticlly favorable is considered a disease then so is homosexuality and I don’t see why it should be celebrated. [/quote]
Other than revealing your ignorance of the theory of evolution, does this post serve any other purpose.
[quote]doogie wrote:
I don’t see how conservatives can give a fuck if gay people marry each other. [/quote]
But you do see why conservatives could have an issue with a very “liberal” interpretation of the constitution?
[quote]orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.
So legalities aside, don’t call it marraige that simple.
Oh for those of you who say separatin of church and state. remember being homosexual you don’t reproduce. which means no offspring. So natural selection would have killed you off. It is not a genetically desirable trait.
So a true evolutionist would not accept this a normal trait either.
There is a movement in this country to rip apart the traditional family, if something that is not geneticlly favorable is considered a disease then so is homosexuality and I don’t see why it should be celebrated.
Other than revealing your ignorance of the theory of evolution, does this post serve any other purpose.
[/quote]
Ok sorry spelling never was my strong suite, most documents I write have spell checker. and I am trying to type this while working on something else.
like I am saying enlighten me on this theory of evolution.
there are about 10,000 different versions depending on who you talk to or where you study.
I always though evolution was considered a long term biproduct of natural selection.
I am always willing to listen and see if there is something I can learn from what people say, usually why take the most opositional stance I can in any arguement to get to the roote knowledge of the other debators.
I want to know what you know. So teach.
Google it.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.
So legalities aside, don’t call it marraige that simple.
Oh for those of you who say separatin of church and state. remember being homosexual you don’t reproduce. which means no offspring. So natural selection would have killed you off. It is not a genetically desirable trait.
So a true evolutionist would not accept this a normal trait either.
There is a movement in this country to rip apart the traditional family, if something that is not geneticlly favorable is considered a disease then so is homosexuality and I don’t see why it should be celebrated.
Other than revealing your ignorance of the theory of evolution, does this post serve any other purpose.
Ok sorry spelling never was my strong suite, most documents I write have spell checker. and I am trying to type this while working on something else.
like I am saying enlighten me on this theory of evolution.
there are about 10,000 different versions depending on who you talk to or where you study.
I always though evolution was considered a long term biproduct of natural selection.
I am always willing to listen and see if there is something I can learn from what people say, usually why take the most opositional stance I can in any arguement to get to the roote knowledge of the other debators.
I want to know what you know. So teach.[/quote]
We had this discussion a gazillion times and you can look it up via the search function, so let us go through the cliff notes:
First, not every non-favorable trait is a genetic disease, what actually is a favorable trait depends on the circumstances, the key word is sickle cell anemia.
Then, you are playing games with the word “natural”. If nature produces homosexuals and they have not died out yet, they logically must serve a purpose because otherwise, as you have pointed out, they would not exist any more.
I think when it comes to what is “natural” or not the fact that nature does something trumps your opinion.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
please enlighten me with an example, proven, not theoretical model.
and yes without sexual organs producing eggs and sperm, no reproduction. Science and invitro fertilization are not genetic phenomena such mutation.[/quote]
Some species of female plants can become hermaphrodites under stressful conditions. Humans also produce hermaphrodites that are capable of reproduction. Whether or not they can reproduce asexually is besides the point. Nature does try and compensate for given conditions.
The fact that asexual reproduction has been observed in nature proves that it exists. Also you have no idea what may lie ahead in terms of human reproductivity in the future.
To say our concept of family and sexual reproduction should be absolute and unchanging because it has always been understood this way (despite the fact it is the only way we are capable of understanding it) is a false argument. I am trying to break down the moralistic argument by showing that the state of nature as we currently know it is capable of changing. Moral absolutes can only be understood with regard to unchanging natural law.
not the point, trying to see it from orion’s perspective, how does define the theory of evolution.
I have Gene VII, Mapping our Genes, and Evolution in Psychology next to me on my desk and can get a different version of the theory from each.
ORION and LIFTICVSMAXIMVS
Thank you exactly what I meant.
Some would also argue that everything is subject to the theory of evolution(i.e., religion, morals, societies). That being the case some species of morals must remain the way they are and if you try to eliminate they will fight as though their “species” depends on it. just like the newer one will fight for it’s existence. And just like evolution new doesn’t correlate to better. A new species can die off just as well as the old one.
everything is relative to your perspective.
I actually have what might be some unfavorable thoughts on genetics and reproduction, but would never force anyone else to believe them. I subscribe to an adaptation of eugenics philosophy.
but again would never force this on anyone. it is my own belief.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
…In several states:
There’s always a silver lining, my friends.[/quote]
I have not posted in a long time, but I can’t resist gloating just a tad. As I stated to forlife in our very lengthy debate a while ago, most Americans are simply not in favor of Homosexual marriage. When the voters have a say in it they vote it down just about every time.
Nice to see traditional values still matter.
As happy as I am about Obama moving into the white house, I’m disppointed by the anti-gay propositions that passed in four states (3 against gay marriage, 1 against gays adopting children).
I was especially holding out hope for California, since it tends to be a touchstone on social issues for the rest of the country. There is a 4 point margin favoring Proposition 8 right now with 95% precincts reporting, so it seems likely to pass. It will be interesting to see how the state resolves the existing marriages that have taken place since the supreme court ruled that gays have the right to marry under the current constitution.
Oh, and hi Zeb 
It’s not like Marriage needs to even be a political issue. Just get the government out of Marriage, dead issue. Churches will still marry, lawyers will still right up contracts, etc.
I agree Sloth, but I think religious people would still oppose gay civil unions on moral grounds.
[quote]doogie wrote:
doogie wrote:
I don’t see how conservatives can give a fuck if gay people marry each other.
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think they all do. I know if I had a vote on it I might vote for gay marriage and I would certainly vote for some sort of civil union.
Most people are pissed that the courts are trying to circumvent the will of the people by finding something that isn’t there in state constitutions.
That is the real battle.
I agree that activist courts are a problem. But when given a choice, why do conservatives vote against gay marriage?[/quote]
It’s not just conservatives who vote against gay marriage. Look at the exit polling data for California. It passed 53-47 - and Cali is a decidedly liberal state.
People in general are against the idea of allowing a lifestyle choice to be forced upon them.
People love to vilify the religious right for ramming religion down their throats - which has not happened in this country in almost 100 years. But the same people have no problem with ramming their version of morality down everyone else’s throat.
Gay marriage is not a liberal-conservative issue. At least not in Cali.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
doogie wrote:
doogie wrote:
I don’t see how conservatives can give a fuck if gay people marry each other.
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think they all do. I know if I had a vote on it I might vote for gay marriage and I would certainly vote for some sort of civil union.
Most people are pissed that the courts are trying to circumvent the will of the people by finding something that isn’t there in state constitutions.
That is the real battle.
I agree that activist courts are a problem. But when given a choice, why do conservatives vote against gay marriage?
It’s not just conservatives who vote against gay marriage. Look at the exit polling data for California. It passed 53-47 - and Cali is a decidedly liberal state.
People in general are against the idea of allowing a lifestyle choice to be forced upon them.
People love to vilify the religious right for ramming religion down their throats - which has not happened in this country in almost 100 years. But the same people have no problem with ramming their version of morality down everyone else’s throat.
Gay marriage is not a liberal-conservative issue. At least not in Cali.
[/quote]
Again, it’s a moot point either way. Gay marriage advocates don’t reproduce at higher levels than gay marriage opponents, the lion’s share of whom happen to be Mexicans in places like California, so they’re unlikely to get the votes on the next time around. Actually, the more they push the issue, they more likely they are to become a stench in everyone’s nostrils and cause the opposite effect of their intent. Unless gays are planning on outbreeding the married, this issue is more or less finished.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
I like how conservatives say “We need smaller government which stays out of our lives.” Then they vote to regulate the family life of private citizens. LOL
At least on Cali’s Prop 8 - it is the hispanic vote that is the most influential.
Hispanics are hardly a conservative demographic.
Do you talk out of your ass like this on a regular basis, or is it just an election season thing?
Hispanics, however, are a very religious demographic. This will influence their opinions on social issues like this.[/quote]
But they vote overwhelmingly liberal.
Blaming the conservatives for defeating gay marriage just shows the utter stupidity of some people.
Even if every fucking Republican in California voted for prop 8 - they still needed considerable help from the left. And it looks like they got that help.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
doogie wrote:
doogie wrote:
I don’t see how conservatives can give a fuck if gay people marry each other.
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think they all do. I know if I had a vote on it I might vote for gay marriage and I would certainly vote for some sort of civil union.
Most people are pissed that the courts are trying to circumvent the will of the people by finding something that isn’t there in state constitutions.
That is the real battle.
I agree that activist courts are a problem. But when given a choice, why do conservatives vote against gay marriage?
It’s not just conservatives who vote against gay marriage. Look at the exit polling data for California. It passed 53-47 - and Cali is a decidedly liberal state.
People in general are against the idea of allowing a lifestyle choice to be forced upon them.
People love to vilify the religious right for ramming religion down their throats - which has not happened in this country in almost 100 years. But the same people have no problem with ramming their version of morality down everyone else’s throat.
Gay marriage is not a liberal-conservative issue. At least not in Cali.
[/quote]
I agree completely,
It is the reason we have a separation of Church and State to save the Church from having to give on it’ morale ground because some special interest group cries and wants them to change.
What I don’t get is why we have special interest groups in the first place. isn’t justice supposed to blind, and everyone equal. Then why do we have to handicap people, that what a lot of the civil liberities movements have done, not taken away oppression, just simply moved it somwhere else.
Good post from Rod Dreher on this today, especially the last paragraph:
The votes have been counted, and Californians have amended the state’s constitution to overturn the state Supreme Court’s decision granting same-sex marriage rights.
"We caused Californians to rethink this issue," Proposition 8 strategist Jeff Flint said.
Early in the campaign, he noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.
"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.
This is important as a matter of law because it binds the State Supreme Court, which doesn’t have the authority to declare the constitution itself unconstitutional. Until and unless voters in California go to the polls again to change the state constitution to permit same-sex marriage, gay marriage is null and void in California.
Several things to be said:
Don’t gloat over this. While I would have supported Prop 8 had I been a Californian, because I do not think there exists a right to same-sex marriage and I fear for the religious liberty implications of constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, I recognize that this is a tremendous blow to good men and women who disagree. It seems to me to be unseemly, even cruel, to rub salt in their wounds.
Barack Obama’s candidacy made this win by the Prop 8 folks possible. Black voters went for Prop 8 by a margin of 9 to 1. Hispanics split, and whites voted against it. Without such a huge black turnout, it probably wouldn’t have passed.
Most importantly, this result shows the strategic risk of trying to carry out a social revolution via the courts, without consulting the people. I don’t doubt that barring some unforeseen cataclysm, same-sex marriage is going to be the law of the land in my lifetime. If you look at the actuarial tables and the demographic charts, it’s clear that younger voters accept it. Had gay activists in California pursued a gradualist strategy building democratic support for same-sex marriage measures incrementally, they would be well on their way to getting what they want. Even though I’m against gay marriage, I could live with compromise legislation that erected a zone of protection around religious liberty. I suspect you could built a workable majority of voters who’d support something like that.
But by appealing to the courts to impose something as radical as same-sex marriage, something that has never in the history of human society existed, they invited this backlash. Now, traditional marriage has been constitutionalized, and same-sex couples are worse off than before, because they only way they can get marriage now is by amending the state constitution. It was a foolish strategy, and if the US Supreme Court should in the next decade or so discover a same-sex marriage right in the US Constitution, there will swiftly arise a movement to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. Yes, the Federal Marriage Amendment failed in the Senate in 2005, but I think that’s because the idea of court-imposed gay marriage was an abstract threat. In California, it was a reality, and that appears to have galvanized voters.
Think about it in another context. It’s 2002, and you passionately support going to war in Iraq. Your neighbor does not. If you said, “Well, he’s nothing but a lousy appeaser!”, it might give you an emotional charge to disdain your neighbor, but you have not listened to him, or tried to imagine why he opposes war with Iraq. He might just be a lousy appeaser. But maybe he has other reasons, reasons that you may not agree with, but which are serious, substantive and rational. How would you know if you decide at the outset that no possible opposition to your point of view can be either sane or morally licit?
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/11/voters-outlaw-gay-marriage-in.html#more