Religion based intolerance...

[tkhayes 348]

not at all, the universe is generally accepted as an infinite place - therefore infinite possibilities and infinite combinations of energy and matter.

no doubt, life was created by such combinations. (at least life as we know and recognize it)

I think it would be pretty ignorant of us to assume that it was all made for just us and that we are alone out there.
TK

[billvon 2,996]

>You don't believe in a beginning for the human race?

Of course there was a beginning - one we can trace all the way back to a few seconds after the Big Bang. It did not involve an involuntary rib donor, though.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

not at all, the universe is generally accepted as an infinite place - therefore infinite possibilities and infinite combinations of energy and matter.

no doubt, life was created by such combinations. (at least life as we know and recognize it)

I think it would be pretty ignorant of us to assume that it was all made for just us and that we are alone out there.
TK

Not generally. It is generally accepted that there was a “big bang” (I believe God initiated that; some do not; regardless of whether you believe in God or not, something initiated it) which initiated the universe. The universe is also expanding so there has to be a limit somewhere. It’s expanding and, if left on this timeline, will theoretically cease to expand at some point and condense. The stars are also using up their energy and are continuing to die off; therefore, the energy in the universe is quantifiable and not infinite.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>You don't believe in a beginning for the human race?

Of course there was a beginning - one we can trace all the way back to a few seconds after the Big Bang. It did not involve an involuntary rib donor, though.

You're saying that human life originated a few seconds after the big bang? I agree that the big bang has nothing to do with a rib donor.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You’re correct. The state has no business whatsoever interfering in anything you do as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

Ah, now there's our common ground. Personally, I'd take that further and say that the State ought not to be in the business of sanctioning marriage at all, leaving individuals free to regulate their own relationships to each other as they wish.

Quote

That does not, however, mean that you are a legitimate candidate for marriage if you are with a member of the same sex, have multiple partners you wish to marry, wish to marry your sister, or have a thing going for your dog.

My (female, heterosexual, christian) wife will be pleased to hear that I am not a candidate for marriage to anyone else.

Seriously, though, it bothers me exactly zero if any consenting adult person or persons wishes to marry any other consenting adult person or persons. I don't think they ought to get any government benefits for doing so, but I also don't think my wife and I ought to get any benefits from the government for our decision to marry. In fact, if someone wants to declare themself married to their dog, horse, or car, that's just not really any of my business. I'd hope that (given the current societal environment) they would be sure to ensure other ways that the dog/horse/car could be cared for should they die (the provision of such care presumably being one of their primary motivators for invoking the sanction of marriage upon such a relationship).

Decisions as important as marriage and child-rearing just shouldn't be trusted to the government.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,996]

>You're saying that human life originated a few seconds after the big bang?

Human? No. A few seconds after the Big Bang, the universal constants (Planck's, gravitation etc) that allowed matter to exist and clump together (and later form life) stabilized. That led to the eventual precipitation and clumping of matter, the development of stars and galaxies, the condensation of planets, the gradual development of conditions suitable for life, and then the slow start and amazing proliferation of life on at least one of those plants.

And at some point, millions of years ago, one of those forms of life became what we could consider human. Really pretty amazing. For me, one of the proofs that god does exist - god set the constants that allowed all this to happen, for life to flourish without the need of divine intervention or constant twiddling. The complexity of life is incredible, and it all runs on basic chemical and electrical reactions we are slowly beginning to understand.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Seriously, though, it bothers me exactly zero if any consenting adult person or persons wishes to marry any other consenting adult person or persons. I don't think they ought to get any government benefits for doing so, but I also don't think my wife and I ought to get any benefits from the government for our decision to marry. In fact, if someone wants to declare themself married to their dog, horse, or car, that's just not really any of my business. I'd hope that (given the current societal environment) they would be sure to ensure other ways that the dog/horse/car could be cared for should they die (the provision of such care presumably being one of their primary motivators for invoking the sanction of marriage upon such a relationship).

That is one of the motivators for marriage but shouldn't be the primary one. The government sactions marriage by awarding benefits to married people because it is the foundational element for our society and affects everything. It should be promoted.

[billvon 2,996]

> The government sactions marriage by awarding benefits to married
> people because it is the foundational element for our society and
> affects everything. It should be promoted.

The government has no place molding religious institutions to their liking, or in socially engineering the perfect society. Again, you'd be royally pissed if the government forced you to be sterilized after two children, because lower populations would lead to a better society.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Human? No. A few seconds after the Big Bang, the universal constants (Planck's, gravitation etc) that allowed matter to exist and clump together (and later form life) stabilized. That led to the eventual precipitation and clumping of matter, the development of stars and galaxies, the condensation of planets, the gradual development of conditions suitable for life, and then the slow start and amazing proliferation of life on at least one of those plants.

And at some point, millions of years ago, one of those forms of life became what we could consider human. Really pretty amazing. For me, one of the proofs that god does exist - god set the constants that allowed all this to happen, for life to flourish without the need of divine intervention or constant twiddling. The complexity of life is incredible, and it all runs on basic chemical and electrical reactions we are slowly beginning to understand.

I agree that it could have happened that way and I also agree that the causality was from God for reason of design. Who's to say how long it took in reference to what time is to God. Who's also to say that God didn't use evolution in some way to create Adam & Eve (the first to Biblically be considered humans). I don't know and I don't think we will in this lifetime.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The government has no place molding religious institutions to their liking, or in socially engineering the perfect society. Again, you'd be royally pissed if the government forced you to be sterilized after two children, because lower populations would lead to a better society.

I thought we'd already been over that Billvon. The Government's not telling anyone what they can and can't do with their own lives. It also has nothing to do with the scenario of restricting the number of children you can have or social engineering. Marriage is a family institution with purpose. It is not necessarily a religious one. It is to me but not for the State.

[pajarito 0]

Gotta go. Be back later.

BRING THE PAIN!!!

[billvon 2,996]

>The Government's not telling anyone what they can and can't do with their own lives.

And we've been over this. If you were not proposing the the government tell gays they can't marry, then I would have no problem with your position. What gays do with their own lives (including marry each other) is simply none of your business, just as what you do with your wife is none of anyone else's business. If you wish to disregard their union, feel free to. But if you lobby for the government to refuse them the same rights you enjoy, then you are imposing your will upon them, and that's not right.

[billvon 2,996]

>Who's also to say that God didn't use evolution in some way to
> create Adam & Eve (the first to Biblically be considered humans).

If you disregard the whole rib thing (and some of the more literal parts of the creation story) then I agree that the book of genesis may be an allegory for evolution.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I wish we could all discuss these topics seriously but I’ll play along. So, our standard for success should be based on the failures of some.

Everytime you introduce horses or dogs into the subject of gay marriage you make it clear that you don't want to discuss the topic seriously.

[tkhayes 348]

funny, I do not remember much about the big bang in the book of Genesis. There was a lot of building stuff by God. By all accounts from science and our own 'real' beliefs, it certainly did not take only 7 days.

To believe in the Adam and Eve theory, you would also have to believe that we all came from one moment in time, which modern science has proven again and again to be false.

I do not remember all Genesis off the top of my head, but they had kids (one who killed the other), they had kids, those kids had kids, and somewhere not very far from all that, they moved to the 'city'

Where did the city come from? and all those people?

TK

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And we've been over this. If you were not proposing the the government tell gays they can't marry, then I would have no problem with your position. What gays do with their own lives (including marry each other) is simply none of your business, just as what you do with your wife is none of anyone else's business. If you wish to disregard their union, feel free to. But if you lobby for the government to refuse them the same rights you enjoy, then you are imposing your will upon them, and that's not right.

Marriage isn’t just a personal choice of a companion. It is a social institution. What gays do with their own lives does not include entering into what is ”marriage.” The standard for and how that social institution is defined is my business as well as every other US citizen.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

If you disregard the whole rib thing (and some of the more literal parts of the creation story) then I agree that the book of genesis may be an allegory for evolution.

I’m not saying that I believe the whole “rib” thing is literal or figurative. I certainly think that God could do it if he wanted to. However, the Bible does use figurative language sometimes to be taken symbolically. Parables are also used sometimes to explain ideas. On the other hand, the Bible also uses language sometimes inferring specificity. I’m not prepared to say, in reference to the “rib” thing, that it was either. To me, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t take away from the fact that God created Adam and Eve.

[tkhayes 348]

yes it is a social institution, and we wish to change that institution. Which is our/their right to do so, adn then the definition would be part of every US citizen.

Slavery was also a social institution that changed, as were many others,

Again, I see NO ill effects for the purveyors of 'normal' marriage should gay marriage be allowed. This is a free country and unless you can come up with something that is going to cause ill-harm to society, then we/they should be free to pursue it.

not only in marriage, but in everything. We too often have to prove that something is 'safe' to do.
TK

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Everytime you introduce horses or dogs into the subject of gay marriage you make it clear that you don't want to discuss the topic seriously.

That is a legitimate point. Are you telling me that there aren’t US citizens that would wish to and think it should be legal to enter into marriage with an animal (pet)? If so, wouldn’t that be discriminating against them just like homosexuals? If not, why not?

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

What you do in your bedroom is not the government’s business. It is the government’s business who can legitimately enter into marriage.

In some states there are sodomy laws still on the books that govern what people can do in their own bedrooms. Insane.

Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,996]

>What gays do with their own lives does not include entering into what
> is ”marriage.” The standard for and how that social institution is
>defined is my business as well as every other US citizen.

If that's the case, then you have no right to object if the US further defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman that produces no more than two children - for the good of the US, of course. Or if they say that a marriage is indissoluble, and that a woman must stay with a man who beats her. After all, that's in the vows, right? And by your own admission, the standards for marriage ARE everyone else's business.

Either you believe that no one else can tell you or anyone else what to do with your wife, or you believe the government CAN tell two people how they can or can't marry. You can't have it both ways - have your rights 100% protected while denying another group (blacks, gays, jews, you name it) theirs.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

funny, I do not remember much about the big bang in the book of Genesis. There was a lot of building stuff by God. By all accounts from science and our own 'real' beliefs, it certainly did not take only 7 days.

The Bible says that it happened in 6 days, not 7.

Who’s to say what a day is to God.

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 8-9

Quote

To believe in the Adam and Eve theory, you would also have to believe that we all came from one moment in time, which modern science has proven again and again to be false.

What’s been proven again and again and what’s considered “theory?” Are you referencing the theory of Evolution?

I do not remember all Genesis off the top of my head, but they had kids (one who killed the other), they had kids, those kids had kids, and somewhere not very far from all that, they moved to the 'city'

Where did the city come from? and all those people?

I would imagine that, once the population grew, they formed into families, then communities, and then broadened into cities. Hence, the beginnings of civilization.

The two brothers were Cane and Abel.

[billvon 2,996]

>Are you telling me that there aren’t US citizens that would wish to
> and think it should be legal to enter into marriage with an animal
> (pet)? If so, wouldn’t that be discriminating against them just like
>homosexuals? If not, why not?

On what level? Religious? If you belong to the Order of the Big Dog, you should be able to proclaim any kind of union you want with your dog.

Civil? Animals don't have civil rights.

Legal? Animals don't have legal rights.

So if you want to marry your dog, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. Since it is not a person there is no contract to be entered into, no legal standing to be altered. As any pet owner, you are still 100% responsible for the actions of your pet no matter what your relationship is - and the animal still has no civil rights.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

If you disregard the whole rib thing (and some of the more literal parts of the creation story) then I agree that the book of genesis may be an allegory for evolution.

I prefer to believe in Grandmother Spider.

Peace~
Lindsey

I’m not saying that I believe the whole “rib” thing is literal or figurative. I certainly think that God could do it if he wanted to. However, the Bible does use figurative language sometimes to be taken symbolically. Parables are also used sometimes to explain ideas. On the other hand, the Bible also uses language sometimes inferring specificity. I’m not prepared to say, in reference to the “rib” thing, that it was either. To me, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t take away from the fact that God created Adam and Eve.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[DrunkMonkey 0]

I like beer.




(just wanted to lighten up an otherwise vicious thread...)