The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 61    Average: 3.6/5]
207 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 21770
Rating: 3.6
Category:
Date: 07/08/10 06:00 PM

207 Responses to Judge Declares DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 4:32 pm
    Link: Judge Declares DOMA Unconstitutional - Clinton era law defining marriage exclusively between a man and woman, struck down by federal judge.
  2. Profile photo of j061187
    j061187 Male 13-17
    4 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    1996 = clinton era...
  3. Profile photo of turbotong
    turbotong Male 18-29
    600 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    meh. federal district. u know this is going to go to supreme. then it will be worth reading about
  4. Profile photo of Freik
    Freik Male 18-29
    67 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:15 pm
    1996 isn`t Bush era...
  5. Profile photo of Levyn
    Levyn Male 18-29
    210 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    GOOD.
  6. Profile photo of DeadCat
    DeadCat Male 18-29
    38 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    change is in the air, and it smells sweet
  7. Profile photo of gorgack2000
    gorgack2000 Male 13-17
    4682 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:24 pm
    About time.
  8. Profile photo of Exsilium
    Exsilium Male 18-29
    134 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:25 pm
    Epic fail...
  9. Profile photo of MEZA
    MEZA Male 18-29
    333 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:26 pm
    In the end the gays will probably win..
  10. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:34 pm
    Clinton signed DOMA into law.

    Hopefully the federal government doesn`t just say "screw you" to the court that made this ruling. Federal law does supersede state law, but it`s a nonsensical, hateful federal law.
  11. Profile photo of Arandanos
    Arandanos Female 18-29
    223 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:38 pm
    YES YES YES YES YES
  12. Profile photo of Norris
    Norris Male 18-29
    1011 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    i-a-b fail

    1996 = CLINTON
  13. Profile photo of sking7
    sking7 Male 30-39
    117 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:49 pm
    "In the end the gays will probably win.."

    This really isn`t about winning, losing, `beating the breeders` or pushing the `gay agenda.` It`s about getting the government and church out of our bedrooms and not being (il)legally discriminated against. Nothing more than what our heterosexual counterparts have. Right?
  14. Profile photo of baileyabb
    baileyabb Female 18-29
    896 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:50 pm
    tldr, but yey..
  15. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7462 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    good
  16. Profile photo of Siyanor
    Siyanor Male 18-29
    1184 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:01 pm
    I didn`t even know this law existed...

    California passed its own anti-gay marriage law while gay marriage was already illegal?
  17. Profile photo of vorpalsword
    vorpalsword Male 18-29
    1452 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:02 pm
    brown vs board of education of our time?
  18. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:05 pm
    DOMA was a Clinton thing, and it isn`t against gay marriage. It`s a states rights law.
  19. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:06 pm
    DOMA was not a gay marriage law. It was a law that said, that individual states had the right to not recognize marriages that were contracted in other states.
  20. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm
    Madest. Get on here now and admit you saying Bush era law = fail.
  21. Profile photo of MEZA
    MEZA Male 18-29
    333 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:09 pm
    Yeah I mean I`m not gonna say I am a fan of the gay community but who am I to deny someone such rights? Just because I don`t like them or don`t support them doesn`t mean I have any right to take their rights away..
  22. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:10 pm
    i`m a christian and i am pro gay marriage. i am ashamed of the judgement and hypocrisy that comes out of the american church. i feel that as america does not have a national religion, we cannot use law to subject the morals of one group on all the rest. one could argue, "well, then you could have murder!" but that`s ridiculous and everyone knows it. but as a christian, i don`t expect to be forced to follow the call to prayer every day and i don`t think the lgbt community should be legally oppressed by christian morals. i hope that same sex marriage becomes legal in all states. and i also hope the church will start worrying about divorce, affairs, pride and greed with the same tenacity that they worry about homosexuality.
  23. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:11 pm
    They have the right to get married (in some states).

    States also have the right to say whether or not that it`s legal.

    If the people vote for it, and say it isn`t legal, then it isn`t legal.
  24. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:12 pm
    @iluvsporks:

    They do.

    People have been asked to not return to church because of divorce. It happens all the time.
  25. Profile photo of tridirk
    tridirk Male 50-59
    313 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:16 pm
    You can find a liberal or conservative judge to make a ruling in either direction. That`s their job isn`t it? To give judge by their politics.
  26. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:19 pm
    Yes. You are exactly right.

    Problem is, this will get thrown out, because it isn`t the federal government`s job to declare the definition of marriage. It`s up to the states.

    That`s what DOMA says. That the states have the authority to set the guidelines for legal marriage.
  27. Profile photo of gingerlad95
    gingerlad95 Male 13-17
    67 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:19 pm
    `i think they should let the gays marry. if they want to suffer like the rest of us,go for it.`
    a quote that makes some sense from some comedian
  28. Profile photo of sking7
    sking7 Male 30-39
    117 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:20 pm
    "DOMA was a Clinton thing, and it isn`t against gay marriage. It`s a states rights law."

    Incorrect. DOMA did two things:
    1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

    2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

    That`s looks very much like a marriage discrimination law to me.
  29. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:24 pm
    GOOD. Interesting for all sorts of ironic / legal reasons.

    1) Ruled unconstitutional (in part) on STATES RIGHTS grounds. Republicans LOVE states rights, but (some) Republicans HATE gays...blow their minds!

    2) Obama DEFENDED the constitutionality of the law, despite Democrats (in theory at least) being the more gay-friendly party.

    3) For the legally interested, the district court ruled the relevant section unconstitutional UNDER RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW, which *generally* means the government will win if it can provided ANY rational reason for the law. Here, court ruled NO RATIONAL BASIS to single out gays. Didn`t even need to define gays as suspect class.

    I LOVE AMERICA - where JUSTICE transcends party lines, as it should
  30. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:26 pm
    "that individual states had the right to not recognize marriages that were contracted in other states."

    If that was true, which I`m not sure (haven`t read much about DOMA before today) there is an interesting full faith and credit issue, because Congress can`t legislate around the full faith and credit clause even if it wanted - its in the Constitution.
  31. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:27 pm
    Funny how all the knuckle-draggers like to try to pin this on Clinton, yet complain that Democrats are trying to weaken the institution of marriage.
  32. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:31 pm
    "That the states have the authority to set the guidelines for legal marriage."

    Well, it said that, and also that the federal government wouldn`t recognize same sex marriages.

    From DOMA - "the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

    NOTE - The court noted IN FACT that a Congressional Committee report specifically said the law was aimed against homosexuals...

    NOTE - This Judge was a NIXON appointee.
  33. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:33 pm
    "In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.

    By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal
    government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.

    And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE that motivates the challenged classification."
  34. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:34 pm
    EXACTLY - nothing except IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE motivates opponents of gay marriage.
  35. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    @auburnjunky

    i know that does happen in some churches. while i don`t necessarily condone kicking people out of the church for making mistakes, whether that be the divorce OR the marriage, i do at least applaud them for some level of consistency. i went to a very conservative high school and just graduated and the attitude of many of my fellow classmates towards people of any "other" group, whether race, sexuality, faith, etc. was absolutely embarrassing. also, i find it interesting how the church seems to deem its responsibility to wipe homosexuals off the earth instead of blessing others in christ`s love. and a lot of times, homosexuality is viewed as a "bigger" sin than others. biblically, however, the seven abominable sins in the eyes of God are not sexual, they are of the heart... greed, pride, bitterness, hatred, etc. i just didn`t hear a lot of people at my school and church trying to cure proud people, or hateful people.
  36. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:44 pm
    Um...1996 was not the Bush Era- DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
  37. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:50 pm
    "While the American people have made it unmistakably clear that they want to preserve marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, liberals and activist judges are not content to let the people decide," McClusky said in a statement."


    For these people, ANY court ruling they disagree with is by "activist judges" and "liberals." Its NEVER that they might be wrong, or bigoted, no, ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!!


    BTW - again this judge was appointed by a REPUBLICAN, but since he upholds the constitution in favor of gays, he`s an "activist."
  38. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 7:51 pm
    lol, guess who decides whether to appeal? OBAMA. DO THE RIGHT THING YOU BASTARD!
  39. Profile photo of ElSombrero
    ElSombrero Male 13-17
    716 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 8:07 pm
    As a Massachusettian, I`m proud, even if it`s just because I like arguing.

    I have been itching for someone to tell me that marriage is a "holy bond between one man and one woman" just so I can argue "Um... aren`t we secular?"
  40. Profile photo of mvangild
    mvangild Male 30-39
    527 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 8:13 pm
    iluvsporks, lust is one of the seven deadly sins. That`s about as sexual as it gets.

    Beyond that, I`m Catholic, and I`m conservative. But I don`t think the federal government should be wasting its time trying to police who gets married. There are far more important things they should be doing, like making sure the global economy doesn`t collapse. Churches don`t have to marry gay couples, nor do they have to recognize them. That is their perogative. But it should not be up to the government to regulate marriage based on what is acceptable to any one faith.
  41. Profile photo of HKelch
    HKelch Male 30-39
    113 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    Must be great to be a liberal and never have to worry about the facts. 1996 Bush was not president yet.
  42. Profile photo of rissarose
    rissarose Female 18-29
    109 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    A+, Massachusetts! I want to give that judge a hug. About time!
  43. Profile photo of Siyanor
    Siyanor Male 18-29
    1184 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 8:33 pm
    Oh, I think I get it now...

    You can get married legally, but the federal government will just say you aren`t married.

    Is that how it works?
  44. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 8:56 pm
    Another step toward earning that "freedom" flag you guys are always flying.

    Congrats to the folks in Massachusetts!
  45. Profile photo of bobmac
    bobmac Male 18-29
    10 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 9:09 pm
    In 1996, William Jefferson Clinton was president.
    Way to know your US Presidents.
  46. Profile photo of chrn368
    chrn368 Male 18-29
    174 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 9:25 pm
    Mvangild is right. I support gay marriage, however the federal or state governments getting in involved in marriage is unconstitutional to begin with because they are indirectly interfering in separation of church and state.
  47. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 9:32 pm
    Another fine example of "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Time to move on, Madest.

    Besides, this little pissant district court judge will certainly not have the last word on this. They never do in issue of the constitutionality of a law. He ought to have saved everybody a lot of time and money by just saying, "If you lose, are you going to appeal? How about you? Same thing? Okay, go right ahead. Next case!"
  48. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 9:35 pm
    A challenge on 5th and 10th amendment grounds is a small gain, like a pebble in a wall comprised of boulders, but this is still progress. I would`ve been more pleased to see a 14th amendment challenge to it more in the fashion of the Prop 8 trial (currently pending).

    This was a small tremor, but the earth did move. Are you ready for the next seismic shift bigots? Because that one is gonna knock you flat on your arses.
  49. Profile photo of Siyanor
    Siyanor Male 18-29
    1184 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 9:44 pm
    Um.. chrn...

    MARRIAGE IS A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, NOT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.

    If ANY non-government entity should be remotely involved with it in any way, it`s BANKS.
  50. Profile photo of NotTHATbored
    NotTHATbored Female 18-29
    1101 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 9:44 pm
    @chrn368 marriage as the government sees it has nothing to do with the church, it`s a contract which grants you rights. You don`t have to be any religion to get married.
  51. Profile photo of Salted_Eggs
    Salted_Eggs Male 18-29
    774 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 9:55 pm
    Who. Cares? (besides Glenn Beck, he`s a nutcase)

    They want to be married? Fine, be miserable like everyone else. This whole thing is silliness in the first place.
  52. Profile photo of Lilou88
    Lilou88 Female 18-29
    112 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 9:59 pm
    Well, it`s a start. Although none of the individual state`s decisions to uphold gay marriage will really count until the federal law says that they think it`s ok too. We`ve still got a looooong road ahead of us.
  53. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    @mvangild

    yes, lust is considered one of the "seven deadly sins" however that is more of a catholic clustering, if you will. i am referring to the seven abominable sins listed in proverbs 6:16-19 which state:

    "16 There are six things the LORD hates--no, seven things he detests:

    17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent,

    18 a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong,

    19 a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord among brothers."

    among which lust, adultery and homosexuality are not listed or mentioned.
  54. Profile photo of sleepyjoey
    sleepyjoey Male 18-29
    122 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 10:26 pm
    Yay!
  55. Profile photo of xiquiripat
    xiquiripat Male 18-29
    2422 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 10:40 pm
    If they really wanted to "protect the sanctity of marriage" they would limit celebrities to three divorices per year.
  56. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 10:51 pm
    "Bush Era Law" ??!!

    Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. NOT Bush!
    Wiki - DOMA
    4th Paragraph Down.

    Getting FED UP with the blame Bush for everything crap. Get your facts straight.
  57. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 11:09 pm
    Mvangild is right. I support gay marriage, however the federal or state governments getting in involved in marriage is unconstitutional to begin with because they are indirectly interfering in separation of church and state.
    Marriage was a secular institution long before a religious one. It likely started as a way for men to guarantee their sons were their own, and to ensure their property passed to them after death. Religion only got involved much later. And regardless of the origin of marriage, it is nearly a species-wide constant. Nearly every group of people developed a system of marriage independently of each other.

    Being that it is not limited to any one religion, or even to the religious, the government does have a right to set its own secular marriage guidelines. These do not force a church to consider any particular couple married in the eyes of their faith, it simply forces to the government to consider them married in the eyes of the law.
  58. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 11:14 pm
    "lol, guess who decides whether to appeal? OBAMA. DO THE RIGHT THING YOU BASTARD!"

    Way to know how the US judicial system works D;
  59. Profile photo of axeman929
    axeman929 Male 30-39
    195 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 11:15 pm
    That circuit is about as bad as the 9th. If the 7th circuit had ruled that way it might mean something for all of us. Otherwise...meh. I do not really follow gay rights but when that movement wants to redefine marriage laws that have such a historical and social importance I get concerned. But the again the only marriage I am concerned with is the one the Almighty has ordained.
  60. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 11:23 pm
    That circuit is about as bad as the 9th. If the 7th circuit had ruled that way it might mean something for all of us. Otherwise...meh. I do not really follow gay rights but when that movement wants to redefine marriage laws that have such a historical and social importance I get concerned. But the again the only marriage I am concerned with is the one the Almighty has ordained.
    Oh please. Marriage has been being redefined for longer than you probably believe the earth has existed.

    Read your own Bible. Your god is rather supporting of polygamy throughout the entire thing. In fact, never once does he say "marriage shall be one man and one woman". Many of his favorite pawns had multiple wives. For some, the many wives were a direct blessing from god himself.

    The modern view of marriage, one man one woman, is actually incredibly new. It is not traditional, it is not historical, and it`s social importance is questionable at best.
  61. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 8, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    Damn liberals, with their "rights" and "constitutions." My religion says gays are evil, why can`t we discriminate against them by majority vote?
  62. Profile photo of britt566
    britt566 Female 18-29
    2290 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 1:06 am
    I think it`s terribly sad that we still live in a society where it`s against the law to marry the one you love who happens to be of your gender.

    2010. It`s humiliating.

    What`s even more humiliating, is that in some places, you would be sentenced to life in prison, and even death.
  63. Profile photo of britt566
    britt566 Female 18-29
    2290 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 1:09 am
    It makes me literally sick to my stomach when I think about it.

    I`m ashamed.
  64. Profile photo of Molehouse
    Molehouse Male 13-17
    303 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 1:39 am
    Ah, it looks like some of the more backwards nations are starting to catch up.
  65. Profile photo of Nearl
    Nearl Male 30-39
    34 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 2:18 am
    Damn religious, with their "faith" and "beliefs." My gays mates says religion`s are evil, why can`t we discriminate against them by majority vote?
  66. Profile photo of Nearl
    Nearl Male 30-39
    34 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 2:18 am
    just kidding Gj, couldn`t help myself :) hehe
  67. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 4:15 am
    Yeah hey sorry. You`re right. I`m wrong. Seems Clinton was a gay hater too. Three pages of getting beat up for this mistake. I get it. I shouldn`t post stuff when I`ve been drinking. Sorry Old Ollie, Sorry CJ and AJ. Sorry to everyone else I`ve offended by blaming this on republicans (but it was a republican congress at the time and forced by the right). Bush still was retarded though.
  68. Profile photo of CrzyWhtGrl
    CrzyWhtGrl Female 18-29
    255 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 4:24 am
    The scriptural reference most Christians use to defend their thoughts on homosexuality is referring to catmites...in other words pedophiles. Not homosexuals. And I`m a Christian.

    The problem is that most Christians just read whatever version of the bible, instead of the original text. So they are actually being misled into thinking it has something to do with being gay. It doesn`t. Do some research.

    Even the bible says that YOU are in charge of your own spirituality, and need to take responsibility for your sins and beliefs. God does not see big sins and little sins. By not researching your beliefs properly and condemning gays, you are in essence on the same level of sin you believe them to be. So there gay bashers!
  69. Profile photo of mikeacello
    mikeacello Male 18-29
    112 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 5:34 am
    You know what we need? A totalitarian government. None of this mucking about trying to get rights sorted out. Just a yes or no from our almighty sovereign, and any questioners get beheaded. Mmm, so simple.
  70. Profile photo of TxTnViolence
    TxTnViolence Male 30-39
    197 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 5:44 am
    What we should do is take away religions tax breaks that they get. They go around spreading hate, bigotry and anti-science mumbo-jumbo and we don`t make them pay any taxas like we would anyone else, simply because they believe in Santa Claus. Doesn`t that sound fu$k!ng stupid? Tax those MFer`s like a pack of cigarettes!!
  71. Profile photo of Tigs719
    Tigs719 Male 40-49
    3 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 6:01 am
    Even if all the states governments and the fed government allowed gay marriage, does not mean that that any church that does not belive in gay marriage has to perform that marriage. There are already many churches that allow the marriage. It only means that the churches that do not belive in it can not force there opnion on those who do belive in it.
  72. Profile photo of kilroy5555
    kilroy5555 Male 30-39
    496 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 6:41 am
    I`ve always thought that the government should have nothing to do with validating ANY marriage. Marriage is a committment between two individuals coming together before God. If the government wants to bestow civic rights/responsibilities on people based on marriage, fine; just don`t get involved questioning the legitimacy of what is fundamentally religious.

    That said, I do think our morality comes into play when we decide which marriages to permit/legitimize. If we say that we cannot make moral judgements regarding homosexual couples to get married, then how can we remain consistent and prevent consensual polygamous marriages or consensual marriages between a minor and an adult? There are religions and cultures for which both are commonplace. If we can draw the line and say our morality/culture doesn`t permit such unions, then surely we must recognize that morality legitimately plays into the debate about whether gay marriage should be permitted.
  73. Profile photo of meepmaker
    meepmaker Male 30-39
    6694 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 6:42 am
    Im not touching this one.
  74. Profile photo of JimmyRocks
    JimmyRocks Male 30-39
    145 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 7:03 am
    I`m amazed when anyone speaks against the legality of gay marriage. If you aren`t gay in the first place then it doesn`t concern you.
  75. Profile photo of Dr4k
    Dr4k Male 18-29
    575 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 7:05 am
    I`m with mikeacello.
  76. Profile photo of Cabal
    Cabal Male 30-39
    12 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 7:21 am
    I just think that the American government is totally FU<KED UP. They will allow 18 inmates in a correctional facility to get married on one day, but will not recognize a long term, loving relationship between two people of the same sex.

    This is one of the many reasons that I am happy to live in Canada. Who wants to live in a country that gives more rights to a criminal that someone because of their sexual preference.

    CenterHere is the link to the article.
  77. Profile photo of Thorbjorn
    Thorbjorn Male 18-29
    23 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 7:24 am
    "protecting children and families” from the gay agenda? I keep hearing about this agenda... I wanna see it. Is it like a platform or something?
  78. Profile photo of MrsPoods
    MrsPoods Female 18-29
    547 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 7:51 am
    Victory! One step closer to equality for all!
  79. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36647 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:12 am
    I like the term "Same Sex Marriage"
    After a few years, all marriages are like that. The same sex... nothing new. But it kills 5 minutes so what the heck.
  80. Profile photo of ZNaught
    ZNaught Male 13-17
    351 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:14 am
    MrsPoods: Fantastic! I plan to marry my cat. That should be legal, right? Or better yet, can I marry 2 people at once? I mean why not while we are at it?
  81. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36647 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:16 am
    Clinton cheets
    Edwards cheets
    Liz Taylor - married 8 times
    Sarah Palins kid.... not bothering to marry
    Mike Tyson beats wife up
    Mark Anthony abandons wife and kids for J.Lo

    Considering what straights have done to the "Sacred Institution of Marriage" I say give the gays a chance. They can`t screw it up any more than it has been.
  82. Profile photo of Rattyshirt
    Rattyshirt Male 18-29
    29 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:39 am
    I agree with both Gerry and Znaught; I don`t agree with same sex marriage, I think it does violate the sanctity of marriage. But at the same time, I don`t really believe Americans hold much of anything sacred anymore.

    I would most likely bar most straight couples from marriage because they have no idea what it actually is. "Until you displease me do we part."
  83. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:52 am
    If the sancitity of marriage was really that important wouldn`t divorce be illegal? This isn`t about marriage. This is about Americans God given right to hate a class of people for no other reason than to make themselves feel superior.
  84. Profile photo of slayer50515
    slayer50515 Male 18-29
    988 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:53 am
    @Thorbjorn
    Oh THAT agenda. I think he means the one where they can actually get married and have equal rights.
    F**k discrimination. This ruling is for the best.
  85. Profile photo of Earl_Grey
    Earl_Grey Female 18-29
    131 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:56 am
    YES!!! First we get the right to get married, then, WE TAKE OVER THE WORLD. MWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
  86. Profile photo of startech
    startech Male 30-39
    235 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 9:03 am
    Well said Rattyshirt
  87. Profile photo of startech
    startech Male 30-39
    235 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 9:04 am
    slayer50515 = gayboy
  88. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 9:16 am
    madest

    right on brother! but you forgot to mention that it is also about their right or natural fear of anything they do not understand and desire to stamp it out even if whatever it is is not harming them in any way.
  89. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 9:17 am
    znaught- This is such a transparently stupid argument I shouldn`t even have to say anything but-
    Animals are incapable of giving consent and polygamy functions on sexism and creates unhealthy jealousies. Although if anyone should be behind polygamy it should be the servants of Buybull god himself who is quite enamored with the practice actually.

    The fact that you`ve drug out this pitiful trope to begin with is quite revealing, you`ve scraped the bottom of the barrel now, tossing everything including the kitchen sink at a argument you have no cogent reasoning against.
  90. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36647 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 9:29 am
    the gay lifestyle.... what is that and where can I get some?

    I`m unemployed, my husband has cancer, and I`m getting frickin` old!
    I could use a little gayity in my life.
  91. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 9:38 am
    Its not a legally rational basis to separate a group of people into subgroups because one subgroup is thought by some to be "icky" or engage in "unnatural sex." Why? Because those concepts only derive from a RELIGIOUS / prejudicial worldview.

    The judge said, according to the federal law, the RELEVANT distinction to be drawn between who gets benefits and who doesn`t is based on MARRIED vs. NON-MARRIED COUPLES. To further say that only heterosexual couples can get benefits has no rational basis - it is NOT a legal argument that "The Bible Says So."

    KILROY said: "If we can draw the line and say our morality/culture doesn`t permit such unions, then surely we must recognize that morality legitimately plays into the debate about whether gay marriage should be permitted."

    The "line" has moved. MODERN MORALITY HAS EVOLVED FROM THE DARK AGES. WE DON`T ALLOW BIGOTS TO GOVERN UNDER THE GUISE OF "morality"
  92. Profile photo of pui
    pui Female 18-29
    3574 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 9:41 am
    goaliejerry, I agree with you, but not everyone who is against gay marriage is so because they are religious. There are plenty of non-religious people who think gay marriage is "wrong" because it`s "unnatural" or grosses them out.
  93. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 10:08 am
    Yes, which is NOT a valid reason to discriminate.

    There was a U.S. Supreme Court case out of Colorado decided in 1996 - Romer v. Evans - where a voter referendum passed in that said that no local government unit could recognize homosexuals as a protected class.

    Long story short, the Supreme Court held - using RATIONAL BASIS review (as the dist. ct. used here) that there was simply no rational reason that people could have voted to single out homosexuals in the law EXCEPT prejudice against homosexuals.

    From that case: "Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." The court also noted that the amendment was passed only out of a "bare...desire to harm a politically unpopular group".

    EXACTLY.
  94. Profile photo of pui
    pui Female 18-29
    3574 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 10:14 am
    I never said it was valid. I agree with you.
  95. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 10:23 am
    I know, I type too much.
  96. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36647 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 10:27 am
    Can of worms...

    If they re-define marriage to be more than 1man/1woman and allow 2/man or 2/woman then how else can it be re-defined? 2man/1woman? 1man/13women ?

    Howabout they just abolish all marriage altogether and make legal contracts between unspecified parties for the purposes of domestic cohabitation.

    Terms... say 5 year contract with an option to renew?
  97. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 10:34 am
    That`s a slippery slope Gerry, this does not mean we are going start legalizing bigamy/poligamy. By this judge`s assertion marriage is a permanent legal union between 2 AND ONLY 2 people.
  98. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 10:40 am
    Now ON TO DADT!
  99. Profile photo of Siyanor
    Siyanor Male 18-29
    1184 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 11:29 am
    Umm... Ratty, it seems to me you have no clue what marriage is.

    Marriage is a legal form with provisions for co-ownership of currency.
  100. Profile photo of NDLOgan
    NDLOgan Male 30-39
    218 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 11:51 am
    Seriously, I LOVE it when people compare the possibility of me marrying my boyfriend of TEN years to opening a can of worms where a man could marry a rock or a goat. Really? Two people in love, together, monogamous - and yet although we pay taxes like everyone else, we are not afforded the same rights. Call it what you want - "homorriage" for all I care. Just afford me the same RIGHTS (read: NOT "special rights") as my straight counterparts!
  101. Profile photo of Billy62
    Billy62 Male 18-29
    159 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 12:40 pm
    Now I can marry my illegal immigrant friends. We`ll have a polygamous-gay-green card marriage! What fun!
  102. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm
    here is the bottom line:

    there are absolutely NO legal arguments that show just cause for denying same sex people the right to marry.

    if it is against your morals, then booty freaking whoo for you. all that means is that YOU shouldn`t marry someone of the same sex.

    your morals are not the same as everyone else`s and NEVER should laws be dictated by religious morals...lest ye want to return to relgious oppersion, the likes of which this country was founded on to escape.
  103. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 1:57 pm
    rigghhhttt!
  104. Profile photo of Kalimata
    Kalimata Male 30-39
    661 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 2:36 pm
    Jamie76, Excellent post. Same to everyone else who voiced the same opinion.

    This issue makes me sad, it really does. I`m hetero, and I honestly can`t differentiate between a law banning same sex marriage, and the idea of a law banning inter-racial marriages.

    Substitute the words "Inter-Racial" for the words "Same Sex" and it`s immediately a horrid racist law. So why is it okay to do this to the Gays and Lesbians?
  105. Profile photo of ElSombrero
    ElSombrero Male 13-17
    716 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 2:38 pm
    "your morals are not the same as everyone else`s and NEVER should laws be dictated by religious morals...lest ye want to return to relgious oppersion, the likes of which this country was founded on to escape."

    Wrong good sir!

    While I agree entirely with this judges decision, we were mostly founded because we were being taxed without anyone representing us in the taxpaying body.

    A lot of us did come to the colonies because of religion though.
  106. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    At the end of the day, it boils down to this: This country has laws. Those laws including protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The rights a minority group has should therefore NEVER BE UP TO VOTE FOR. It therefore does not matter what the majority of Americans want. Most did not want blacks to vote. Or women to vote. Or for inter-racial marriage to happen. All on religious grounds. It does not matter, because we are a secular nation with secular laws that include the freedom for all people to live as they see fit, so long as they do no harm to others.

    The day a single person can point out a harm caused by homosexual marriage--a legitimate reason the government may have to strip away the right of every American to marry someone of the same sex if they so choose--I will eat my own freakin` leg.

    Because for a right to be taken away, there must be legitimate reason. And in this case, there is NONE.
  107. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    Why do people keep bringing up the slippery slope argument in the discussion about gay marriage? Marrying a kid or an animal is not the same as marrying another consenting adult. Homosexuals don`t hurt anyone or infringe on anyone`s freedoms, so what`s the harm in letting them marry?

    For that matter, what`s wrong with polygamy? It`s not something I`d be interested in, but, again, it is among consenting adults and it doesn`t infringe on anyone else`s rights.

    And marriage is not a religious institution. First of all, it exists in some form in every culture and not all cultures are Christian, or even religious. Second, there is nothing about it that requires it to be religious. It has perfectly reasonable social uses, like keeping a family together and declaring fidelity to your lover. The church cannot claim a monopoly on a universal social concept.
  108. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 4:50 pm
    That`s a slippery slope Gerry, this does not mean we are going start legalizing bigamy/poligamy. By this judge`s assertion marriage is a permanent legal union between 2 AND ONLY 2 people.

    Why?

    Can you state any good reason why the arguments in favour of homosexual marriage do not apply to polygamy?

    The arguments against homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage are exactly the same:

    i) Tradition.
    ii) The same religions.
  109. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 4:55 pm
    And marriage is not a religious institution. First of all, it exists in some form in every culture and not all cultures are Christian, or even religious. Second, there is nothing about it that requires it to be religious. It has perfectly reasonable social uses, like keeping a family together and declaring fidelity to your lover. The church cannot claim a monopoly on a universal social concept.

    You can claim tradition for that argument, too, even if you restrict yourself to Christian countries. Marriage used to be a legal thing, with religion as an optional extra. The word `wedding` comes from the Old English word `weddian`, which means `to vow`. Even now, even centuries after the Christian church made a power grab over marriage, it`s still the vows that make a marriage. In the old days in many countries, you could marry by simple statement - if two people said they were married, they were.
  110. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 4:56 pm
    @ green_batman: They bring up the slippery slope argument because it`s the only argument they have. There`s no legitimate argument, so they must fabricate arguments out of nonsensical maybes.

    These people are not rational. They do not see the distinction between "consenting adults engaging in an activity" and "abusing children and animals". They see only "the bronze-age goat herders my parents told me to believe unquestioningly say it`s wrong".
  111. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 5:02 pm
    Call it what you want - "homorriage" for all I care. Just afford me the same RIGHTS (read: NOT "special rights") as my straight counterparts!


    That`s how the issue was resolved in the UK, some years ago now. It`s just officially called a union rather than a marriage. It`s exactly the same thing, it`s even defined that way in the law, but simply using a different word allowed it straight through without any bother. It became a non-issue. Didn`t even really make the news. People tend to call them marriages anyway, so it`s probably the fastest way to get the word "marriage" into use as well.
  112. Profile photo of Nicolicious
    Nicolicious Female 18-29
    58 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    How about we define marriage as a union between two adults who love each other? Seems simple enough.
  113. Profile photo of NoFixedAbode
    NoFixedAbode Male 30-39
    1 post
    July 9, 2010 at 5:46 pm
    www.narth.com
  114. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 5:58 pm
    Hey nofixedabode- You got a site that will help me cure my terminal heterosexuality yet?

    Angillion-Polygamy is a practice established on Patriarchy and the relationship between Owner and Property. No sane woman today wishes to return to the days when we were chattel and I can think of no man, much less a whole group of men that would want to become part of a collection of possessions for a woman.

    Besides the Inevitable jealousies that would erupt in such relationships there is the whole issue of marital law itself which would be a nightmare in polygamy. In case of divorce who gets the kids/cash/property? Who gets the inheritance?

    Again we`ve had Mormons here for upwards of 150 yrs. and even they don`t practice polygamy anymore, they split with the FLDS who still do over precisely that issue. Today FLDS are a cultural anomaly and a lasting embarrassment to the LDS.

  115. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 6:10 pm
    @Queen Zira: Polygamy is not innately patriarchal. Polygamy is a generic term for any marital relationship which contains more than two persons. "Polygyny" is the term for a relationship with one man and many women, while the reverse is "polyandry".

    Also, I know many people in poly relationships. None of them feel or are treated as someone else`s property, as the relationships are built on mutual love and trust, like any romantic relationship. They simply contain more than two participants. Of course, such lifestyles are not for everyone--someone with jealousy issues should definitely avoid poly relationships.

    As for the laws regarding marriage, "because it`s hard to figure out" is no reason to legally restrict something. It simply means we need less lazy legislators and judges.
  116. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 7:24 pm
    [quote">Angillion-Polygamy is a practice established on Patriarchy and the relationship between Owner and Property.[/quote">

    Some other feminists say the same thing about heterosexual marriage.

    They`re also wrong.

    Polygamy is simply marriage with more than two people. polys (many) + gamos (marriage).

    EDIT: If you want to learn more, there`s a wealth of information at the polyamory society.
  117. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 7:31 pm
    Besides the Inevitable jealousies that would erupt in such relationships

    I know people in polyamorous relationships. You obviously don`t. I am interested in why you think jealousy is inevitable but only in poly relationships. Jealousy can exist in any relationship, monogamous or polygamous.

    there is the whole issue of marital law itself which would be a nightmare in polygamy. In case of divorce who gets the kids/cash/property? Who gets the inheritance?

    It does complicate legal matters, but that`s hardly a reason to outlaw it. You can use the same basic structure as with current marital law. Inheritance is easy - it`s the same as with monogamy.
  118. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 7:57 pm
    Polygamy was a practice used to contain and control women throughout history, read teh Buybull or the Koran and see for yourself how the female property was treated. The practice of polygamy began to diw out over time and the growing realization of the humaness of women. Very rarely if ever was polyandry a reality and then only because of the scarcity of women, so all the men could have a chance at a sexual partner.

    Furthermore, polygamy is a practice that has the potential to engulf a non consenting member of a relationship e.g, "Hey honey I`m home! I`d like you to meet jennifer, she`ll be a wonderful addition to the family!"

    Mostly I oppose polygamy because of that most dear value to the western heart, Independent Individualism- I reject the depersonization of someone relegated to becoming a codependent conglomerate.
  119. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 7:59 pm
    Dept. of corrections: die*

  120. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:24 pm
    @QueenZira: Correction. Religion was a practice used to contain and control women throughout history. Polygamy, in both forms, is a natural reproductive scenario in social organisms like humans. It was twisted by religion into something oppressive. Separated from the misogyny of religion, polygamy is no more or less moral than any other relationship structure.

    Your problem about consuming non-consenting partners is a non-issue. No responsible polygamist enters into a relationship without clearly explaining that monogamy is not to be expected. To do otherwise is cheating on your partner, which is wrong, and the offended partner should dump the offender.

    And your last statement is just laughable. "I reject ideas different to the ones I hold because I want to be an individual! Everyone should believe and behave exactly as I decree, so I can be unique!"
  121. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:26 pm
    Yaeza whatevery- your last sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE. Actually your whole platform makes NO SENSE.
  122. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 8:40 pm
    Yaeza whatevery- your last sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE. Actually your whole platform makes NO SENSE.
    My last remark was referring to how you seem to be big into individualism--so long as that individual expression is one you approve of. In other words, the exact opposite of the idea of individualism.

    Individualism is about being able to freely make your own decisions in life. Yet you would deny that choice to people who have an honest desire to practice polygamy, because you personally disagree with it.

    You are the exact opposite of an individualist.
  123. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 9, 2010 at 10:53 pm
    @Yaezakura

    "Religion was a practice used to contain and control women throughout history. Polygamy, in both forms, is a natural reproductive scenario in social organisms like humans. It was twisted by religion into something oppressive. Separated from the misogyny of religion, polygamy is no more or less moral than any other relationship structure. "

    I have a couple of questions about this. First, while religion has been used by cultures to oppress women, I don`t understand how it is its main function... especially considering that Christ, (in my case,) was a bit of a feminist for His time. Second, how has polygamy been twisted by religion to make it oppressive? Third, outside of religion there are no moral standards, so you`re last statement doesn`t prove you`re point at all.
  124. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 12:55 am
    I have a couple of questions about this. First, while religion has been used by cultures to oppress women, I don`t understand how it is its main function... especially considering that Christ, (in my case,) was a bit of a feminist for His time. Second, how has polygamy been twisted by religion to make it oppressive? Third, outside of religion there are no moral standards, so you`re last statement doesn`t prove you`re point at all.
    I never said oppressing women was religion`s main function. Simply that religion was used as a means of oppressing women. Because the Abrahamic religions are incredibly misogynistic. The Bible and various other related texts constantly refer to women as property, to be bought and sold, or even stolen for personal use.

    Which is how it twists polygamy, by making women property to be owned, instead of people. Religion is not solely to be blamed, but it was a huge factor in the objectification of women.
  125. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 12:58 am
    Continued from below:

    As for the last of your questions, morality existed before religion did. Morality is not religious in nature. It is human in nature. Morality is the result of us being a social species.

    Killing each other is bad for the society. So it is immoral. Stealing from each other is bad for society. So it is immoral. Sharing with one another freely is good for society. So it is moral to share.

    Religion has co-opted our instincts as a social species and tried to claim it alone is the source of morality. But this is blatantly untrue. Religion, if anything, is the greatest source of immorality in the world, as causes us to hate and kill each other for no reason whatsoever other than believing in the wrong imaginary friends.
  126. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 8:58 am
    @Yaezakura

    Obviously we come from different worldviews. Perhaps the Abrahamic religions, Islam and Judaism have been used to objectify women. I am a Christian, and Christ was an absolute social revolutionary in His day. He was the only one who taught biblical teachings to women. He ate with women. He blessed a prostitute. Jesus came to change and fulfill the levitical law. Unfortunately, many christians confuse new testament and old testament law... but Christianity is not inherently oppressive.

    As for morality existing before religion, that is impossible. Religion, in essence, requires a god who creates a purpose for the person. You don`t have to believe in "God" to have something in your life that functions as one. Most people, whether they are religious or not, as you said, have a sense of morality given to them by their society and parents. However, this is not innate. You claim that people know to share (morals) because it`s good for the common good. Ye
  127. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 9:02 am
    Continued:

    ... and I have never seen a child who was born with a sharing spirit. I have seen thousands of children take a toy from another and yell, "Mine!" Everyone is born with that same spirit. Somewhere along the line, something beyond a broken society had to determine that sharing was a good idea and teach it to people. And that right there, is the essence of religion. You may not call it "God", "faith" or "belief" and it might actually be "success", "family", "wealth" or "the common good of society" but it is still religion nonetheless. Something intangible is determining your actions to give you purpose.
  128. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:01 am
    @iluvsporks: Christianity is an Abrahamic religion. The term refers to all religions that follow the God of Abraham. You cannot separate it from its roots just because you think it`s pretty and special. And if you think Christianity is not inherently oppressive, you really should read your holy book. But I`m guessing you only read the nice, hopeful verses the pastor points out in his sermons. They have this wonderful habit of skipping all the ones that would make decent people cringe.

    As for it being impossible for morality to predate religion, I can only laugh. Let`s take a look at wolves. If one is sick or injured, the others will care for it, bringing it food and defending it from other predators. Various monkey species will freely give away their excess food to monkeys who don`t have enough.

    So, we have moral behavior coming from creatures that don`t even have a concept of religion or gods. Because in the end, moral behavior is simply social behavior.
  129. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:25 am
    iluvsporks: We do have innate morality and I doubt that religious morality would have developed without it. Our innate morality is based on fairness and reciprocal altruism. As a child, you only need to know the word `fair` before you are able to express judgments about fairness. You don`t need individual cases explained to you, you just know how to apply the concept. Reciprocal altruism is the idea of doing something good for someone who has done something good for you, or someone who may do good for you in the future. People innately know to feel guilty when they don`t reciprocate and people who are blown off feel anger because the person blowing them off isn`t being moral. There are higher level moral behaviors that may need to be explained to a child, but follow logically from those basic premises. Don`t steal because it is harmful and the person you stole from can morally reciprocate and do some form of harm to you. Don`t kill for the same reason.
  130. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:25 am
    Mostly the ideas are based on the concept of universality of morals; what you can be allowed to do can be allowed to others, so you can`t do anything harmful to others without expecting harm to yourself. Essentially, the Golden Rule.

    I`m agnostic, but I still feel strongly motivated by morals. My morals come from logic and philosophy and, yes, an innate moral sense, though. The concept of universality (the Golden Rule) is a very logical basis for morality that does not require religion.
  131. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 3:07 pm
    @Yaezakura

    i`m glad you find me funny. i try. yes, i know that christianity has abrahamic roots as it stems out of judaism, however, the term abrahamic religions directly refers to judaism and islam as they come from isaac and ishmael, abraham`s sons. second, i have read my holy book... even the ugly parts. i`ve actually read about 85% of it and the parts i`m missing are in the happy new testament. third, i typically disagree with my pastors or the people preaching to me. fourth, there are parts of my faith i still have a hard time understanding and i find that incredibly frustrating. however, i have a logic based faith and the lifestyle that christianity promotes and its explanation of our origins is the most logical one i have found after extensive research. as for animals, wolves and monkeys are known to be cannabalistic and monkeys will eat their young. they do what`s best for themselves...

    which gets into my response to green_batman:

    the idea of doing s
  132. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 3:16 pm
    continued:

    something good for someone who has done or can do something good for you is not morality... that`s selfishness. and not stealing because someone can harm you in return is not morality, that`s fear... you should do something for someone to help them, even if you don`t get thanks let alone a prize. you shouldn`t steal because it`s wrong to take what isn`t yours. by your definition of morality, i can steal from elderly, disabled and mentally disabled people because they don`t have the capacity to harm me.

    again, with the innate moral sense. i have yet to have proof of someone who is innately moral with no teaching. feral children have no concept of right and wrong. society has dictated to people from a young age, through their observation and teachings from parents and other adults what is acceptable in a society and what isn`t. for instance, we think murder is wrong except in some cases (death penalty, for those who are for it). in many cultures, honor killi
  133. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 3:17 pm
    continued (again...):

    killings are very standard. a turkish teenage girl was buried alive by her family for talking to a boy. that, to our society is absolutely wrong, but in her society, it is what she deserved. if we all had an innate sense of morality, we would have the same morals... but why then are societal standards different?
  134. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    however, i have a logic based faith and the lifestyle that christianity promotes and its explanation of our origins is the most logical one i have found after extensive research.
    Logic and faith are mutually exclusive concepts. Faith is, by definition, belief without evidence. Logic is reaching conclusions in the light of available evidence. Faith and logic cannot co-exist.

    Believing in the Christian explanation of our origin is not logical. For it to be logical, there would have to be some evidence that supports the Christian explanation to be true. There is none. There are mountains of evidence that support that it is wrong. When the evidence directly contradicts what you believe, and you believe it anyway, you are not being logical.
  135. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 3:38 pm
    Furthermore, polygamy is a practice that has the potential to engulf a non consenting member of a relationship e.g, "Hey honey I`m home! I`d like you to meet jennifer, she`ll be a wonderful addition to the family!"

    Mostly I oppose polygamy because of that most dear value to the western heart, Independent Individualism- I reject the depersonization of someone relegated to becoming a codependent conglomerate.

    Ah, I see. You have no understanding of what it is and don`t want to learn.

    Your objections are about as good as those some people make against allowing homosexual marriages.
  136. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 3:51 pm
    @Yaezakura

    first, faith and logic can coexist... blind faith and logic cannot coexist. i believe what i believe because the evidence available seems to point to it. i cannot trust that we happened by chance because the entire theory goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that order cannot be derived from disorder. science shows that the world is getting more chaotic and that entropy is constantly increasing, not decreasing. the evolutionary theory is riddled with missing links and every "missing link" found thus far has been debunked as parts of various different animals pasted together. the complexity of our world and we humans that inhabit it and our inherent search for purpose point me to think their is something bigger than me that got me here. the bible is a book that has been tested against thousands of historical books that support the stories it tells. i can`t prove at this moment that there is a god, but you can`t prove at this moment there
  137. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    luvsporks - I shall apply your own line of argument to your own position.

    By your own argument, morality cannot possibly exist in most, maybe all, religions. Certainly not in Christianity, i.e. your religion, because it contains promises of extreme benefit if you follow its rules and promises of extreme harm if you don`t. By your own argument, it therefore isn`t morality.

    Your own words:

    The idea of doing something good for someone who has done or can do something good for you is not morality... that`s selfishness. and not stealing because someone can harm you in return is not morality, that`s fear...

    That applies MUCH more strongly to Christianity than to society because if you believe in Christianity then you believe that the rewards and punishments are far greater and far longer-lasting. So by your own argument any Christian conforming to Christian morals is motivated by extreme selfishness and extreme fear.
  138. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 3:55 pm
    i can`t see the wind, i can`t talk to the wind, i can`t catch the wind or tell why it exists or where it came from, but i can see its effects and i know it exists.

    my faith is based on logic because i refuse to believe something that doesn`t follow a cohesive flow of thought. i don`t believe things that are contradictory to other aspects of my faith. many people think that science represents logic and religion represents blind faith, but i feel that science can and does coexist with faith and can support it.

    may i ask what specific pieces of evidence you have to disprove the christian theory of origin? you sound like you have a lot and i always am curious to know the basis for people`s arguments.
  139. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 3:57 pm
    however, i have a logic based faith and the lifestyle that christianity promotes and its explanation of our origins is the most logical one i have found after extensive research.

    Twaddle. You`re just trying to pretend that your faith is some form of science, presumably so you can pretend that your faith shares the strength and dependability of science. It doesn`t. Science and religion are innately seperate things. A person can do both, as long as they understand the two don`t even overlap.

    If you are using faith, you`re not using logic. If you`re using logic, you`re not using faith. Take your pick.
  140. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 4:01 pm
    i cannot trust that we happened by chance because the entire theory goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics

    Are there really still people ignorant enough to state this argument as if it made sense?

    Really? It never made sense, but surely by now everyone should have seen at least one of the many explanations as to why it doesn`t make sense?

    I`m really quite pissed off at theists trying to usurp and corrupt science and logic in order to turn them into tools to promote theism. It`s parasitical.
  141. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 4:02 pm
    @anglion

    i can see where you would get that, however, that only applies to a system of works-based salvation. i believe in faith based salvation. i think jeffrey dahmer is saved. what he did was absolute despicable, terrible and immoral, but that is not what gets you into heaven. in fact, i have a real issue with the legalistic nature of the american church because that attitude is contradictory to the teachings of christ. while jesus was on the cross the thief on the cross next to him professed his name and jesus responded with, "today you will be with me in paradise." he did no good works to earn his salvation, but he had it because he truly believed. christians are supposed to do good things because we are supposed to bless others, not because it gets us into heaven. islam, judaism and mormonism are much better examples of salvation by works and therefore, more in line with what you are talking about.
  142. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 4:05 pm
    @anglion

    i`m confused by your statement... which part of the argument doesn`t make sense... the fact is scientists claim that we got order out of disorder... and one of the fundamental laws of science that they teach is that you CANNOT get order out of disorder... that in fact, order naturally goes to disorder.

    that seems like a pretty solid logical issue to me... seeing as they are contradicting themselves on a basic pillar of their belief.
  143. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 4:05 pm
    may i ask what specific pieces of evidence you have to disprove the christian theory of origin?

    There is no such thing. It is not a theory. From a scientific point of view it is at best an untestable hypothesis. If you`re going to claim any sort of scientific credibility, you should know what the terms mean. Although you might be more effective in infecting science if you use the wrong terms and hope most people don`t know or don`t notice.
  144. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    @anglion

    for someone shouting, "NO PROOF!" you haven`t brought much to the argument.
  145. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    I`m going to have to ask this explicitly, because it`s mond-boggling.

    Are you seriously arguing that all scientific work on the development of the universe is invalidated by the second law of thermodynamics?

    Oh,, wait. I`ve just seen a part of one of your posts that I missed before, in which you talk about evolution and missing links, blah blah blah.

    You simply don`t have a clue about what science really is, only the part of your faith that you`re trying to pass off as science as part of the process of corrupting it, like a virus infiltrating a cell by abusing the receptors meant for other parts of the host.

    The stuff you`re saying is rubbish that many people have already wasted many hours debunking. It doesn`t help - the rubbish is just repeated anyway. The infection spreads.

    Maybe tomorrow I`ll feel that it`s less futile to resist and post one of the many thousands of links debunking it. Again.
  146. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    for someone shouting, "NO PROOF!" you haven`t brought much to the argument.

    I`m tired today and as a result I`m thinking that the infection you and too many others are spreading to corrupt and destroy science is unstoppable. It`s so much easier to repeat lies than to debunk them, so the situation in innately rigged in favour of your side. You`ve made statements that have been debunked in detail millions of times over lifetimes - but the statements are still being made as if they were viable arguments.

    In short, you`re winning and right now I can`t summon the energy to continue a pointless fight.
  147. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 4:29 pm
    @anglion

    apparently i need to brush up on my evolutionary theory because i`ve cited examples about every aspect of it i can think of. however, you`ve started mudslinging about how religion is infecting your science and how science is all logic and how religion is lacking in proof and you haven`t supplied the argument at hand with anything other than your opinion. if there has been a new discovery in the world of science that i am unaware of, i`d love to hear about it. i like learning things and i like research and i like to make sure my beliefs are well founded. i hope you have a good night sleep in order to reduce your level of futility and perhaps we can finish this civilly at a different time.
  148. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    @iluvsporks: Okay. Let`s cover a few basics.

    The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. It constantly receives energy from the sun and stars, grows greater in mass due to meteorite impacts, etc. The universe itself is not a closed system. New particles are generated constantly, entirely at random, everywhere. Most only last for in incomprehensibly short time, but sometimes they stick around, adding to our universe. The laws of thermodynamics do not apply under these circumstances.

    (continued above)
  149. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 5:27 pm
    (from below)

    Yes, there are holes in evolutionary chains. Those holes do not automatically become filled by "god did it". That is a non-answer. You are replacing an unknown with an unknowable. More "missing links" are found every day. Every single day, the evolutionary paths of modern life become clearer. There was only ever 1 legitimate hoax that ever fooled anyone, and it was debunked by SCIENTISTS. One hoax does not negate the the thousands and thousands of other human ancestor fossils.

    And just a tip: It`s not really research if you get all your information from anti-evolution websites, which are the only places you`d find such junk information in the first place. You want facts, read scientific studies and journals. Not Ken Ham`s blog.
  150. Profile photo of turbotong
    turbotong Male 18-29
    600 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 9:37 pm
    wow... i remember posting on this. I have 2nd post. i revisited the link today. somehow comments went from

    Thursday, July 08, 2010 6:05:28 PM
    "1996 = clinton era..."

    to

    Saturday, July 10, 2010 5:27:42 PM
    "Yes, there are holes in evolutionary chains. Those holes do not automatically become filled..."
  151. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 10:34 pm
    Iluvsporks: The 2nd Law of Thermodymanics works with our knowledge of how life developed. The Earth was once a chaotic place, with energy roiling about and chemicals interacting. Certain chemical compounds will form spontaneously, others will form given enough energy. Certain chemical compounds are more stable than others. Carbon has four valence electrons, meaning it creates four bonds, often leading to very non-polar molecules, which are more stable. It is also most likely to form covalent bonds, which are much stronger than ionic bonds. Carbon forms very stable compounds. Stable compounds are stable because they are typically low-energy, requiring an energy input to break them. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that a system will tend toward the lowest energy possible.
  152. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 10:35 pm
    Given the amount of energy available in the environment, it is likely that more complex carbon chains were able to form. Hydrogen bonding gave shape and stability to the larger carbon groups, allowing it to form strings of amino and nucleic acids. There were probably errors and dead ends along the way, but, given about a billion years, life was able to form. The sheer variation that can happen in an energy-rich, element-rich environment over a billion years is staggering. It’s not that hard to think that certain variations just happened to be stable enough to lead to complex and self-replicating molecules.
  153. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 10:35 pm
    Every act that you do for others has some selfish motive. If you do things for others simply because it is good to do so, you are following the selfish motive of perfection. You want to better yourself, so you do good for others because it makes you better. And, no, you still can’t steal from the elderly and disabled because there are people who would harm you in return. Humans are social animals. We act together and few of us are truly solitary. Even those who are solitary can expect to be avenged because society does not tolerate immoral people. If a person shows that they are willing to take advantage of the weak, society will fight back because that person may take advantage of more people. Haven’t you ever read a news story about a criminal act which made you angry? This sense of justice that we have extends to more than just our own immediate self interests.
  154. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 10:36 pm
    All of those examples of killings were done as a form of “justice”, even though some of them are not warranted. These are not examples of random murder. These are examples of people repaying a wrong, or a perceived wrong. It is another example of reciprocal altruism, or in this case, reciprocal harm. Certain things do vary in their moral value to a particular culture, but this is often a matter of social training, which is often, though not always, inflicted by religion. People aren’t always rational. Telling them that they will have some form of transcendent reward for doing something they may normally consider wrong can motivate people. Many people want to hear that there is eternal life within reach if you just do the right things to get it. It’s a lie that plays on our fear of mortality.
  155. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 10:36 pm
    Why do you think that the Biblical creation story is the most logical? Given the fossil evidence, carbon dating, and DNA, what in the Bible logically overrules the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang?

    I think it’s rather sickening that the Christian ideology is that even the most terrible person can get eternal bliss for believing that there is a God. No matter that they defy his rules, that they may act and believe that they are a god among men, that they cause misery to other of “God’s creations”.
  156. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:05 pm
    @Yaezakura

    thanks for the information about the closed system bit. that`s something new i`ve learned and i find it interesting. that argument was something i learned in middle school and i wasn`t as thorough of a researcher then as i am now. now this is just for curiosity`s sake, but how do we really know whether or not the universe is a closed system? don`t you have to know the limits of the system to determine whether or not there is outside influence? and last time i checked we hadn`t found the limits of the universe.

    as for missing links, i have found quotes from evolutionists and scientists claiming that ida, lucy, piltdown man, etc. are not real missing links, yet they still get promoted as such. and i am not trying to fill in gaps by saying "god did it" i`m saying, "because god did it, there are no gaps..."
  157. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    cont.

    and i know what research is... my english teacher, one of the best teachers i`ve ever had, taught me very well what bias is, how to identify it, how to deal with it and how to avoid it in my own work. when i debate stuff like this i establish my worldview for people so they know where i am coming from and i try to make sure that every argument i put forth is based in reason and not opinion or emotion.
  158. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:15 pm
    @green_batman

    i suck at chemistry, i always have and i always will. i vaguely remember what you`re talking about and tried to keep up. however, even my study of chemistry (as much as i despised it,) points me to thinking that we didn`t get here by chance. the very complexity of the statements you made about a very simple, basic element and every specific thing that is required for that bond to go right and each following, to achieve the complexity of a human who has the ability to conceive its possible existence, design a means of finding it, categorizing it, defining how it behaves and why it does the way it does and for you to ultimately learn that and reason that into an intelligent argument... every aspect of that being real speaks to me that there is something bigger than me. how incredible all that is blows my mind. i, as a complex human being cannot recreate that. i don`t know anybody who can take some energy and create life, and therefore, i cannot make myself believe
  159. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:28 pm
    cont.

    that some energy randomly appeared, randomly combined and bonded until something worked, and continued being random with no direction for a really long time to achieve what we perceive and experience as life.

    i have issues and doubts about my faith sometimes. it`s true. i think we all do, but a lot of people don`t admit it because it makes them "bad christians"... sometimes i step back and think, how could that be possible? and yet when i look at the earth around me and i consider how incredibly complex the simplest organisms are and how important they are in the grand scheme of things, that if one thing were to go wrong that all would be lost, when i think about my life and how crazy it seems and then that there are 6 billion people maybe thinking the same thing, i can`t believe it just... was.

    i don`t see issues with the fossil record because i don`t think there are transitionary species, so the lack of real proof of transitionary species do
  160. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:42 pm
    @iluvsporks: What you are expressing is a common logical fallacy known as "argument from incredulity". It basically boils down to "I cannot comprehend how it can be otherwise, so it must be this way". While this is a common and in some ways very natural way for humans to think, that doesn`t make it correct, especially in the modern era where we have the aid of science to help us move beyond such base reactions.

    And here`s a tip: Every single fossil ever is a transitional species. Humans are a transitional species. Because species never stop changing. Just a look at the fossil record of whales shows us a great deal. Modern whales have hip bones. That`s odd for a creature with no legs. We also have fossils that are whales with stubby legs. And ones that are whales with longer legs and differently shaped tails. We can trace this fossil record back to when whales were land-bound animals. The further back you go, the more built for land whales are.
  161. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:45 pm
    cont.

    i see the fossil record as it is and i am okay with it because i don`t think it needs to be more than it is. to me, trying to find things to support a theory and hoping you`ll find them versus making judgement about what`s already there doesn`t make sense.

    i don`t really find any compelling DNA evidence for evolution. while apes and humans are genetically similar, that doesn`t mean we evolved from each other. it is purely logical for similar species to have more similar DNA than more unique species. a cow and a whale (mammals) are characteristically and therefore, genetically closer than a cow and an earthworm. but considering that DNA is where we store the information that forms a map for our makeup, you would expect there to be similarities. i hope that made sense. its getting late where i live. :D
  162. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:53 pm
    as far as junk DNA and things we can`t determine functions for being part of our evolutionary past, darwin and his original followers thought the same thing about most of our vital organs. just because we haven`t found something`s purpose yet, does not mean it doesn`t have one... especially considering the complexity of the human life form.

    and just on a side note, i know that every good act is usually rooted, somewhere along the way, in selfishness... because i believe that people are inherently bad and that they don`t have an innate sense of morality. i don`t do good things to be perfect and i try not too. doing good things does make you feel good, which is selfish too. but doing good things also makes other people feel good. and i like to make other people happy when i can. i try to be my best so that i don`t let other people down and so that i can make their lives just a little better.
  163. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 10, 2010 at 11:57 pm
    finally, whether or not i`m right at the end of this doesn`t really matter. if i`m right, i go to heaven. if i`m wrong, there is nothing and well, it never mattered anyway. but my faith on earth has motivated me to study hard, get good grades, get into a good college, have aspirations for my life, create incredible relationships with really interesting people, have a free mind and be hungry for knowledge; it`s made me find joy in my life, see beauty in life (i`m an artist), and try to be a good person and bestow that upon other people. at the end of my life, of course there`s some choices i`d like to take back, but i will have had a good life, whether or not there`s something after it...

    and as for bad people going to heaven... i`m a huge fan of grace. i know i need a lot of it sometimes.
  164. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:00 am
    @Yaezakura

    the fact is, we`ve reached a point in our argument that we will never get passed. i`m not going to admit i`m wrong and neither are you because we`re both looking at the same thing but with different opinions as to what it means. i see the fossil record through the lense of my faith and you see it through the lense of your non-faith. i believe there is intelligent design and you believe it`s chance. unless someone`s changing their belief system, which i don`t forsee soon... we`re wasting our written breath and cramping up our fingers because the arguments repeating itself... agreed?
  165. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:03 am
    i don`t really find any compelling DNA evidence for evolution.
    Frankly, you are not a biologist. Evolutionary biologist and orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky once wrote an essay titled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". This faithful Christian man savagely attacked the idea of Biblical creationism by using his scientific knowledge to explain how the facts of the world do not make sense except with knowledge of evolution. Plants and humans do share some DNA. The only, only, ONLY way this idea makes the barest bit of sense at all is if at some point in the distant past the early ancestors of humans and the early ancestors of modern plants shared a common parentage. We are more closely related to chimpanzees than to dogs, and more closely related to dogs than to plants, but we are related to them all. And those are the words of a man who believes in the divinity of Jesus.
  166. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:03 am
    What the drat happened here?

    Please step away from the post.
  167. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:06 am
    @Yaezakura

    there are a lot of people who are christians that i don`t agree with... like the ones against gay marriage that started this whole debate... or the ones that teach people that if they pray they will be healed and their lives will be perfect and they`ll get lots of money... or the one like benny hinn and jerry fallwell and bob jones. and there are a lot of christians who believe in evolution. they just believe that it is combined with intelligent design. essentially, god planted the ooze that became us. however, that goes against the bible and i trust that more.
  168. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:16 am
    however, that goes against the bible and i trust that more.
    And that right there is a mindset I will never understand. There is no reason to believe the Bible over actual evidence. Much of what it says is demonstrably false. The rest is absolutely untestable. It has no more merit than any other holy book does. And far less than some, given the abundant and obvious inaccuracies it contains that other books of faith do not.
  169. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:19 am
    please point out some of the inaccuracies because i`ve actually tried to find them and i can`t... and which holy books have you found to be more accurate, because you don`t scream "religious" to me. and i`m going to sleep because i`m gonna pass out so i won`t be responding for a while. i`ll come back in the morning.
  170. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:52 am
    please point out some of the inaccuracies because i`ve actually tried to find them and i can`t

    Genesis 30:37-39. Cattle conceiving while seeing patterns will give birth to babies with those patterns. Demonstrably false, and physically impossible.

    Leviticus 11:5-6. Rabbits chew cud. Demonstrably false. Rabbits do not chew cud. This is repeated in Deuteronomy 14:7.

    Ezekiel 7:2 and Daniel 4:7-8 both imply the earth is flat. Demonstrably false.

    Job 26:11 says the sky is held up by pillars. Again, demonstrably false.

    Job 39:13-16 says ostriches abandon their eggs after laying them. This is blatantly untrue. I dare you to approach a wild ostrich`s eggs.

    Daniel 8:10 says stars can fall to earth and be stepped on. This would be quite the feat, considering even the smallest star is larger than the planet earth.

    There`s a lot more. But I think you get the picture.
  171. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 5:07 am
    apparently i need to brush up on my evolutionary theory because i`ve cited examples about every aspect of it i can think of.

    You haven`t made any references to actual evolutionary theory.

    You`ve made references to something creationists have made up and fraudulently passed off as evolutionary theory. It`s sort of like libel on a larger scale.

    however, you`ve started mudslinging about how religion is infecting your science

    Not all religion. Just those theists from some religions who are trying to destroy science by infecting, usurping and corrupting it so that they can falsely claim the strength and dependability of science for their religious statements of faith. Which is what you`re doing.

    It`s the parasitical nature of it that disgusts me. Also, the dishonesty. Theists who don`t pretend their faith is science don`t bother me in that way.
  172. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 5:26 am
    I`d also like to make clear a distinction which is usually glossed over by creationists (who may well not know it exists, given that they are deliberately ignorant of science in general and the theory of evolution in particular) and frequently lost in these arguments:

    Evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis.

    Evolution is about the *development* of life. The theory is very strongly supported by a vast amount of evidence. It`s gone way past what would in day to day life be considered enough to prove something true.

    Abiogenesis is about the *beginning* of life, the arising of life from lifeless matter. It`s entirely seperate from evolution. Theories about it are far, far less supported by evidence than evolutionary theory. Which, presumably, is why creationists like to smear the two together - they can undermine the very strongly supported evolution by falsely associating it with the far less supported spontaneous abiogenesis.
  173. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 5:40 am
    finally, whether or not i`m right at the end of this doesn`t really matter. if i`m right, i go to heaven. if i`m wrong, there is nothing and well, it never mattered anyway.

    That`s a false dichotomy. No doubt comforting from your point of view, but obviously false.

    It cannot be said that the only two possibilities are the afterlife of your version of Christianity or nothing.

    Perhaps it`ll be the afterlife of another version of Christianity and you`ll be punished for picking the wrong version, maybe more so than an atheist.

    Perhaps it`ll be the afterlife of another religion and you`ll be punished for picking the wrong religion, maybe more so than an atheist. Jupiter, for example, would probably still be pissed off at Christianity.

    Perhaps it will be an areligious afterlife and something else will happen.

    There are many possibilities, not just two.
  174. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:26 am
    @yaezakura

    as for genesis 30, i`ll honesty say i don`t know. most people accept that the sticks didn`t actually do anything, but where a folk method employed by jacob, but his breeding worked by the grace of god as a blessing.

    leviticus- if you go back to the original hebrew, the phrase is not "chew the cud" as its been translated in english, but rather to "come out and scrape the throat" which refers to both the process of rumination and refection in which an animal has their food come out of one end or another and then reprocesses it

    ezekiel and daniel- the ezekiel verse specifies which land it is talking about, the land of israel. isreal had defined borders and therefore has corners. he`s not talking about the world. and your daniel verse i think is the wrong one because its talking about daniel meeting belteshazzar to divine his dream.

    job- most of the bible is written in poetry or a poetic style. the pillars refer to the mou
  175. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:39 am
    @yaezakura continued

    the second job passage about the ostriches is not as harsh in the original hebrew as it sounds in english. the word means to leave as in to leave behind, not to forsake. second, considering ostriche behaviours, its quite valid. ostriches lay communal nests because the dominate male will have several hens. they all lay eggs together, but only about 20 can be incubated, whereas up to 78 (highest recorded number) can be laid. the dominate hen will kick out the eggs of the other hens in order to assure her young survive, leaving them out in the open to be crushed or eaten. also, it is typical for the majority of the outer eggs to be eaten by wild animals if she leaves to get food. also, the male is usually the one who takes care of her young. so on several occassions she has left behind her young. in some cases shortly after the hatching, the hen and rooster will "renew sexual activity" and become hostile to all of the fledglings deserting them to a
  176. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:49 am
    @yaekazura continued, again...

    as for the final verse from daniel- again, the bible is written largely in a poetic style, and this is a prophesy. all the prophesies employed great symbolism. the stars are not simply stars but in most translations, the host of heaven... they symbolism, as wesley put it, "The church of God militant, who worship the God of heaven, who are citizens of heaven, whose names are written in heaven" and that the army of the prophesy will take down some of God`s people and destroy them with its great power.

    @anglion

    again, thank you for teaching something new. i`ve never actually heard of abiogenesis and now i have and now i know. and its true that our conversation has centered mostly around abiogenesis but we have dipped into the fossil record a bit. i do know basic evolutionary theory, the path life evolved on, survival of the fittest, so on and so forth, and i have yet to see anything i really find compelling. care to share
  177. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:54 am
    @anglion

    (side note, i have to say i like debating with you best because you`re the only one i can remember how to spell their screen name... so for that, i thank you.)

    perhaps my statement was a false dichotomy. and yes, there are other options for the after life, i suppose. the likelihood of their being a different brand of christianity and therefore a different christian afterlife is pretty unlikely, again, no on really knows. but the closest i can think of it that regard is mormonism.

    if its a different religion, then again who knows...

    its something i`ve often thought of and its also why i don`t believe in relative truth. i believe what i believe with conviction but other people believe things completely different with equal or more conviction... it`ll take us all dying to really find out what`s up with this crazy place we call home and sometimes i`m like, "kill me now so i can stop thinking about this stuff and just know!"
  178. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:55 am
    @anglion continued

    but then the rest of me thinks that i`d like to get in a few more chocolate chip cookies and cups of coffee and maybe some time with my family before i go... haha.

    dang. i`m going to have some intense typing skills at the end of this...
  179. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 11:44 am
    @anglion

    (side note, i have to say i like debating with you best because you`re the only one i can remember how to spell their screen name... so for that, i thank you.)

    You`re spelling it wrong, though.

    It`s an odd name and many people spell it wrong in various ways. No biggy.
  180. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 11:57 am
    perhaps my statement was a false dichotomy. and yes, there are other options for the after life, i suppose. the likelihood of their being a different brand of christianity and therefore a different christian afterlife is pretty unlikely, again, no on really knows. but the closest i can think of it that regard is mormonism.

    For centuries, Christians eagerly murdered each other over quite small differences in faith. Different sects of the same religion. It was a root cause of many wars, including two civil wars in England. It was a root cause of the division and conflict in Ireland. It was the motivation behind the actions of the only British monarch to be given the epithet `bloody` (and that`s saying something given how bloody British history is). No doubt it caused massive suffering in Europe too - I`m only familiar with English history.

    Maby Christians from each variant were convinced the others were heretics who were going to hell.
  181. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:05 pm
    again, thank you for teaching something new. i`ve never actually heard of abiogenesis and now i have and now i know. and its true that our conversation has centered mostly around abiogenesis but we have dipped into the fossil record a bit.

    Which is part of the point I made - the two very different things are very often smeared together by creationists. The only reason that makes sense is in order to undermine the certainty of evolution by smearing it with the uncertainty of hypotheses of abiogenesis.

    i do know basic evolutionary theory, the path life evolved on, survival of the fittest, so on and so forth, and i have yet to see anything i really find compelling. care to share

    You see evolution in action every day. It`s behind many news stories (e.g. the problems caused by over-use of antibiotics). Surely you must have heard of MRSA?

    You will not find any evidence compelling because you`ve chosen faith over evidence.
  182. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:13 pm
    Bah, an unclear typo a couple of posts down. `Maby` should be `Many`.

    There are even examples of variants of Christianity being entirely destroyed by other variants of Christianity, all believers killed as heretics. Then there`s the internal war in the very early years of Christianity, probably as soon as Jesus died.

    My point being that many Christians have been convinced that Christians from other sects are heretics. Heretics, of course, are even worse than unbelievers. So another possibility is that you`ll be treated as a heretic in the afterlife because you chose a wrong version of Christianity.
  183. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    Incidentally, do you want a list of verses in which the Christian bible contradicts itself and/or reality? You provide good counter-arguments for the half a dozen previously mentioned, but I`m confident about finding over a hundred.
  184. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm
    Also on the issue of evolution - there are a multitude of examples of major changes being made by humans using selective breeding of animals and plants. That is evolution in action, with humans selecting which evolutionary pressures to impose. Your life probably depends on it, as it`s been crucial to farming.

    Evolution is fact, simple as that.
  185. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    iluvsporks: Complex organisms often have redundant DNA and vestigial organs. If we were created as is by God, why do we have tail bones, tonsils, and appendixes? These things are easily explained by the fact that DNA does not go away during the evolutionary process, so we will often retain extra organs that are simply smaller and non-functional. We evolved from some form of primate that had a tail, but our species found less use for a tail and so it got smaller, but never actually disappeared, because DNA doesn`t just fall out of the genome. Humans, whales, bats, and many other mammals have a five digit structure where their "hands" would be. Whale fins have no need of five digits, but they have them because, again, the DNA doesn`t just fall out of the genome. They adapted what they had to their new environment. Bats would probably fly more gracefully if they were bird-shaped. But, because they evolved from an animal with five digits, they had to adapt what they had to be abl
  186. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    cont:

    able to fly.

    And doing good for the sake of others is still selfish. It makes you feel good. There is some motive that you have, even if you aren`t consciously aware of it, that does good for you while you do good for others. And humans are not inherently bad. Just because we`re selfish doesn`t mean we`re going to go around killing each other at random. It is evolutionarily more sensible to do good for others at least part of the time. We are social animals and we are more successful when we have the help of others. Lending help to others means that you can expect to receive help in the future.
  187. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 1:23 pm
    You are expressing Pascal`s Wager, when you say that you have a higher likelihood of personal gain (in this case, a good afterlife) by being Christian. The flaw in Pascal`s Wager is that it pays no mind to the idea of truth. I`ll use Saint Agustine`s philosophy to appeal to your Christian sensibilities. If God created the world, the nature of physical reality is an expression of him. Learning about science and nature makes one closer to God because one is using the rational mind given by God to it`s fullest potential to learn about God. By ignoring truth, you are turning your back on the talents given to you by God and the knowledge of God that can be gained by studying nature. Therefore, Pascal`s Wager, which does not take truth into account, is a rather hollow way to come to worship God.
  188. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm
    Correction: I think it was Aquinas that expressed that argument. I studied Augustine and Aquinas around the same time, so I sometimes get the two mixed up.
  189. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm
    @ angilion

    "You`re spelling it wrong, though.

    It`s an odd name and many people spell it wrong in various ways. No biggy."

    haha. the irony. i apologize. i need new glasses. glad there`s no offense taken.

    and you make a good point about the history of the church. it`s unfortunate and certainly a large blemish on the records. and its true that sects of the church have been more than happy to kill each other over petty differences. and while that doesn`t happen so much anymore, it certainly does in the more metaphorical sense. the arguments within the church between congregations have always bothered me. i`ve had people get very mad at me because i believe that jesus died for everyone and they don`t and it hasn`t been fun. so perhaps they`re right and i`m going to hell anyways! :-D

    as for using the less supported abiogenesis argument to undermine the evidence for evolution, i can see how creationist do often lump those together.
  190. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 6:01 pm
    @angilion continued

    and you make a good point. it makes me wonder, while they are separate, how much you can take one without the other? if you believe that we all started as primordial ooze that grew more and more complex over time, you have to wonder where the ooze came from, if you follow? out of curiosity, what is your opinion on abiogenesis?

    as for viruses becoming immune to antibiotics and such, i consider that to me adaptation, not evolution. i have pretty severe allergies and we adopted a stray cat. after about two years of living with it on medicine, i was able to slowly stop taking it because i was building up an immunity... adaptation, but when i have kids, i am not creating a new species of humans with no allergies to cats. animals do things to make themselves prosper, but i don`t believe that adaptations result in new species.

    as for the bible verses, give me your top ten offending verses and i`ll see what i can do?

  191. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 6:07 pm
    @ angilion continued

    as for selective breeding, i think there is a huge difference between selective breeding and evolution. selective breeding is a matter of simple genetics that is caused by human intervention in the natural world. evolution is a self-driven process that happens simply with time. the lizards didn`t sit down and cross breed themselves based on who had feather-like traits to create birds. and if humans, say, the highest level on the evolutionary chain, breed based on traits, we aren`t going to create a new extra-human species... if so we would have by now considering historical cross breeding families. in fact, breeding with similar characteristics and genes usually results in defects that cause that person lesser health and therefore, survival of the fittest picks them out.
  192. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 7:55 pm
    @iluvsporks: Adaptation on a species-wide level is evolution. The species is now different than it used to be. The difference may be small, but when you add up all the very small differences that happen over the course of millions and millions of years, you have quite drastic changes. In just 10,000 years, we have gone from wolves to chihuahuas. Imagine what a million would do. And while yes, humans did direct the change from wolf to ankle-biter, we merely accelerated what was already possible.

    Adaptations do lead to new species. We have observed the creation of new species, both in the lab and in the field. For a good example, you should research "ring species". These are species that form rings in their habitats that eventually come to overlap. A can breed with B, B can breed with C, but A cannot breed with C. A and C are too different. They are different species. But a living transitional stage between A and C exists in B, which is able to breed with both.
  193. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:21 pm
    if you believe that we all started as primordial ooze that grew more and more complex over time, you have to wonder where the ooze came from, if you follow? out of curiosity, what is your opinion on abiogenesis?

    The default position of science - I don`t know. It seems very likely that it happened, as the alternative is that life always existed in this universe, but there isn`t enough weight of evidence for any one of the hypotheses concerning how it happened for me to think that one is most likely to be true.

    as for viruses becoming immune to antibiotics and such, i consider that to me adaptation, not evolution.

    I don`t consider there to be a difference between an adaptation that confers significant change in response to evolutionary pressure and evolution. That`s a fairly decent working definition of what evolution is.
  194. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:29 pm
    i have pretty severe allergies and we adopted a stray cat. after about two years of living with it on medicine, i was able to slowly stop taking it because i was building up an immunity... adaptation, but when i have kids, i am not creating a new species of humans with no allergies to cats.

    There`s a key difference - the adaptations I referred to are inherited. Your counter-argument only applies to adaptations that are not inherited, which aren`t evolution anyway.

    I may be wrong, but you also seem to be using the "new species" counter-argument. That fails right at the start, because evolution does not require the immediate production of new species. With a species as long-lived as humans, that would be expected to take many millenia. It`s also surprisingly hard to define a species anyway, so it would be hard to tell if a new homo species had evolved.
  195. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:37 pm
    as for selective breeding, i think there is a huge difference between selective breeding and evolution. selective breeding is a matter of simple genetics that is caused by human intervention in the natural world. evolution is a self-driven process that happens simply with time.

    The process is the same. Evolution is not self-driven - it is strongly affected by external forces. Essentially, evolution favours changes that make a species better suited to those forces. In nature, those forces are environmental change, the introduction of new predators (though that can also be caused by humans), etc. In selective breeding, those forces are human choices. Selective breeding is evolution directed by humans.

    If evolution was impossible, selective breeding wouldn`t work because the animals or plants would be unchanging.
  196. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:45 pm
    Contradictions and untrue statements in the Christian bible...here`s a convenient link to a few dozen.

    Cud is not dung, and many others
  197. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:51 pm
    @green_batman

    tailbones aren`t useless. they are a connection point for several muscles that aid in well, defecation, and they also help us sit properly and remain balanced. i don`t find those abilities to be useless, and well... i quite like being able to sit up and not soil myself regularly.

    as for the appendix, a recent study found that the appendix is likely a safe house in our bodies for helpful bacteria that aid in digestion and fighting off germs. the appendix can be removed with little consequence since we (mostly) live in developed countries that have good sanitation and health services to keep our immune systems in order. its similar to the gall bladder, which serves the purpose of breaking down fats but can be easily gone without.

    similarly, tonsils produce lymphocytes which aid in fighting off infection, and while they don`t always do their job to handle the new things that civilized life has exposed us to, they are particularly good at handling &
  198. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:53 pm
    @green_batman continued

    your appeal to my faith does work because i agree that learning about the world helps me to learn about God... and that`s where i find the disconnect with people who trust science but hate religion because i look at the world and am in absolute awe... and everything i`ve observed has pointed me to thinking there is something bigger than myself... not that this is all random.

  199. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm
    If you want an example of rapid evolution in action in humans, I suggest CCR5-delta32. It`s an *inherited* mutation that is far more common in people whose ancestors lived in a specific part of the world ~700 years ago. That appears to be the result of a very extreme force driving human evolution - The Death. The mutation occurs naturally in a tiny number of people, but that evolutionary force strongly selected for it. That occured in less than two years.
  200. Profile photo of iluvsporks
    iluvsporks Female 13-17
    51 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 9:04 pm
    @angilion and yaekazura

    i`m absolutely exhausted and i need some more time (and coffee) to read through what you`ve brought through the table and process it. there`s a reason i`m an artist and not a scientist... this stuff makes my brain hurt! i will formulate a reply for tomorrow after i get back from work... so don`t expect any more from me this evening. and just a general thanks for the intriguing conversation and the civil debate. i like having my brain stretched.
  201. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 9:04 pm
    and that`s where i find the disconnect with people who trust science but hate religion because i look at the world and am in absolute awe

    So do they, in many cases. Certainly scientists feel awe at the world and the universe, although most of them don`t actually hate religion.

    You have a disconnect with your own image of them, which isn`t the same thing as them.

    and everything i`ve observed has pointed me to thinking there is something bigger than myself...

    Obviously there is - the rest of reality. That doesn`t in any way imply, let alone require, any gods, let alone the one you choose to believe in.

    not that this is all random.

    Who says it has to be random? If it was all random, science couldn`t exist. Scientists don`t claim the universe is all random.
  202. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 9:14 pm
    tailbones aren`t useless. they are a connection point for several muscles that aid in well, defecation, and they also help us sit properly and remain balanced.

    Which in no way requires them to be a vestigal tail.

    But it goes much further than that. Human embryos have tails. Some humans have tails. They`re usually removed by surgery, but the point is that humans still have the genetic coding for tails.

    It`s not an isolated example, either. Whales still have the genetic coding for legs. Horses still have the genetic coding for toes. Many animals carry genetic coding from species they evolved from. It`s just not used any more.
  203. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 10:09 pm
    A little more on science and awe...the man in this video is a scientist. Neil Degrasse Tyson - he`s an astrophysicist.

    When I look up at the universe, I feel large

    He isn`t unusual in that attitude. It`s normal for scientists, especially those involved in astrophysics and astronomy. Nor is it recent - it goes back to the very beginnings of science and continues throughout it.

    Trying to explain how the universe works doesn`t diminish awe at its existence, nor does knowing the scale of it diminish humanity.

    Stephen Hawking on humanity:

    [quote">We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the universe. That makes us something very special.[/quote">

    The universe is spectacular and staggering and genuinely awesome. The more I learn about it, the more a
  204. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    July 11, 2010 at 10:11 pm
    Cut off, as usual.

    The universe is spectacular and staggering and genuinely awesome. The more I learn about it, the more awesome I know it is. We, too, are awesome. We are made of stars and we think.
  205. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 12, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    iluvsporks: I am aware of all of those functions, but the difference is that those organs don`t have the same function in other animals. The tailbone typically is much longer, comprising an actual tail. The appendix is used to store bacteria that digest cellulose in herbivorous animals. The tonsils simply don`t function as well as the once did, being susceptible to infection and generally not functioning particularly well.
  206. Profile photo of green_batman
    green_batman Female 18-29
    728 posts
    July 12, 2010 at 8:33 pm
    I am awed by nature as well, but I don`t attribute it to an intelligent creator. The universe did not come about in a "random" manner; it follows causality. It has specific rules for how it functions and every action sets off a reaction that follows these rules. Everything that happened in the universe up until life evolved happened the way it had to happen. Whether sapient beings have the ability to actually choose their actions, or whether they are subject to the same determinism is a matter still up for debate among philosophers, though current science would suggest that we don`t truly have choice.

Leave a Reply