I Miss This Guy!

[ERICOPOLY]

Ericopoly,

 

This issue is one that is evolving, as most laws do. You are calling me a bigot, along with millions (billions?) of others who think they are correct, that there are certain reasons why marriage being between 2 people of the opposite sex is a good way to organize society.

 

I am not singling you out, I think all of those millions and billions are bigots too.

 

One of those reasons is SCIENCE, for the perpetuation of the species.

 

Interesting.  Infertile women are allowed to marry.

 

Of course, with today's scientific methods, we see new possibilities. Should tradition just be discarded, to please you, or would it be better to have adult conversations, without politics entering into it?

 

Okay, so marriage should be discarded altogether if all people are allowed to marry?  I'm not following you here.  You need only discard the tradition of excluding same-sex marriage.

 

 

[enoch01]

 

Can you provide an example that would show the difference between a moral violation in a God paradigm versus a no-God paradigm? I'm looking for some method of discrimination that doesn't rely upon being true by definition.

 

A moral violation in a no-God paradigm?  I've been arguing this conditional: if God does not exist, there are no necessarily true moral propositions.  Well, I still think that is true.  As near as I can tell, you agree.

 

My confusion is that you aren't arguing the conditional.

 

Sorry, I didn't see you disagree with it anywhere, so I didn't know you expected me to argue for it.  Do you disagree with it?

 

You simply state is as a tautology.  Obviously, we can come up with many tautologies, but it would be a trivial exercise without some method to identify it in reality, in other words to find reasons that one concept is more likely than alternatives.

 

Let's ignore the word "morality" because we are getting stuck in language. Please identify how we would distinguish the two universes, God and No-God, when someone commits something that may be considered wrong. There must be a non-trivial difference, as opposed to simply stating that God exists in one, and therefore in that one a wrong is immoral.

 

Hm - unfortunately I don't see any difference between this question and the one I answered earlier ("Can you provide an example that would show the difference between a moral violation in a God paradigm versus a no-God paradigm?"), so I don't think there's any more progress to be made between us.  So let's table it.

[AZ_Value]

That is just a silly statement. That law would not even get out of committee.

 

Then is it okay to have bigotry that would pass committee?

 

That's the thing about modern civilizations, at least those that some of us are trying to build. We don't leave issues of equality or civil/human rights to popular votes.

What would it be like if we had left it to a popular vote in 1950's Alabama to decide whether Blacks had the same rights as everybody else? And a government that represents all of us has a role to play in this in my opinion, like MLK said:

 

"It is true that behavior cannot be legislated, and legislation cannot make you love me, but legislation can restrain you from lynching me, and I think that is kind of important."

 

So whatever your "traditional values" are that make you dislike those that are different from you, it's your problem, the rest of us should make sure you don't treat them as second class citizens based on said "values"

[Cardboard]

In any case, it seems to me that some of the atheists on this thread surely sound like extremists and are adamant to make their point heard. Based on the tone, to them you are an idiot if you are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whoever else believe there is something after death. You have something to prove while they don't. They have the exact science, they are smarter than all the philosophers and scholars since the beginning of time (hence my mention of Pascal). I also don't understand why they even support Obama since he always finishes his speaches with: "God bless you, God bless America." Where is the atheist public figure? Well, maybe that he is just hypocrite to garner more votes and by 2016 we will be in a communist state which are quite favorable to that. 

 

On Pascal, I know he was a mathematician genius and since he must have spent a fair bit of time thinking about the topic, I would assume that portion of his logic must be relatively sound. He must be at least as elaborated as some of the posters here whom I am sure are no where near genius status. Some of these same fellow might also want to revisit Socrate and see if they are as smart as they claim.

 

Cardboard

[racemize]

In any case, it seems to me that some of the atheists on this thread surely sound like extremists and are adamant to make their point heard. Based on the tone, to them you are an idiot if you are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whoever else believe there is something after death. You have something to prove while they don't. They have the exact science, they are smarter than all the philosophers and scholars since the beginning of time (hence my mention of Pascal). I also don't understand why they even support Obama since he always finishes his speaches with: "God bless you, God bless America." Where is the atheist public figure? Well, maybe that he is just hypocrite to garner more votes and by 2016 we will be in a communist state which are quite favorable to that. 

 

On Pascal, I know he was a mathematician genius and since he must have spent a fair bit of time thinking about the topic, I would assume that portion of his logic must be relatively sound. He must be at least as elaborated as some of the posters here whom I am sure are no where near genius status. Some of these same fellow might also want to revisit Socrate and see if they are as smart as they claim.

 

Cardboard

 

nice use of hyperbole (I hope).  I doubt anyone in this thread would agree that your characterizations are remotely close to what they are saying or believe, but please do go on and demonize the atheists as is apparently your want!

[Liberty]

In any case, it seems to me that some of the atheists on this thread surely sound like extremists and are adamant to make their point heard. Based on the tone, to them you are an idiot if you are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whoever else believe there is something after death. You have something to prove while they don't. They have the exact science, they are smarter than all the philosophers and scholars since the beginning of time (hence my mention of Pascal). I also don't understand why they even support Obama since he always finishes his speaches with: "God bless you, God bless America." Where is the atheist public figure? Well, maybe that he is just hypocrite to garner more votes and by 2016 we will be in a communist state which are quite favorable to that. 

 

On Pascal, I know he was a mathematician genius and since he must have spent a fair bit of time thinking about the topic, I would assume that portion of his logic must be relatively sound. He must be at least as elaborated as some of the posters here whom I am sure are no where near genius status. Some of these same fellow might also want to revisit Socrate and see if they are as smart as they claim.

 

Cardboard

 

1) Yes, I want my point of view heard, which is why I explain my reasoning in a calm and civil manner. I have nothing to be ashamed about.

 

2) It doesn't matter how smart people are, they can say things that are untrue. I'm sure you agree with this in the investment field, and it's the same thing when it comes to metaphysics (especially for people who were alive hundreds of years ago before the scientific method and academic freedom). All that matters (and I mean all) when it comes to determining if something is true is the evidence for it and the soundness of the logic. You could have Einstein tell you that the sky is green because of fairies, and the evidence would still be against him, and you could have the village idiot say that 1+2=3 and it would still equal 3.

 

3) Appealing to authority will never convince me anymore than someone saying that Alan Greenspan or the creators of EMT were smart and distinguished so they must've known what they were doing and thus be right. Besides, I can also find distinguished and smart people who believe what I'm saying and appeal to their authority. What then? Should we compare the resumés of the distinguished people on each side and whoever has the most prestige gets to determine what reality is? No. We can only figure out what reality is by looking at the evidence and testing falsifiable hypotheses.

 

4) If I and other posters had been writing about things that support your point of view, I doubt you would be writing this. You are attacking us ad hominem by implying we're arrogant and extremists because you disagree with us. That's unfair and frankly I resent it. All I ever did is explain my point of view on various topics and spell out why I disagree with certain claims made in this thread. That's what rational civilized people do. Extremists and fundamentalists try to stop discussion and obscure facts, not promote discussion and point to facts.

[alwaysinvert]

In any case, it seems to me that some of the atheists on this thread surely sound like extremists and are adamant to make their point heard. Based on the tone, to them you are an idiot if you are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whoever else believe there is something after death. You have something to prove while they don't. They have the exact science, they are smarter than all the philosophers and scholars since the beginning of time (hence my mention of Pascal). I also don't understand why they even support Obama since he always finishes his speaches with: "God bless you, God bless America." Where is the atheist public figure? Well, maybe that he is just hypocrite to garner more votes and by 2016 we will be in a communist state which are quite favorable to that. 

 

On Pascal, I know he was a mathematician genius and since he must have spent a fair bit of time thinking about the topic, I would assume that portion of his logic must be relatively sound. He must be at least as elaborated as some of the posters here whom I am sure are no where near genius status. Some of these same fellow might also want to revisit Socrate and see if they are as smart as they claim.

 

Cardboard

Where did the outrage come from? If you postulate something, and even more so if you draw conclusions from that on how other people should lead their lives in order to be moral, it's on you to prove that.

 

I hope you do also realize that pretty much all classical philosophers and scientists lived in times when it was dangerous to question religious doctrine. Spinoza suffered greatly from it even though he never suggested anything as radical as atheism. Rosseau had to hide out with Hume in Scotland for a while. And as you sure know, Socrates was executed. Opinions weren't non-consequential in those days. Do you remember what happened to Galilei?

 

Darwin was a non-believer and a genius in repressive times even though he never spoke up on the subject of God, for fear of repercussions and/or of respect for his devout wife.

 

I really don't see your point, seems like angry ramblings, to be honest. If you are going to appeal to authority, don't be satisfied with Pascal; use God, for heaven's sake!

[SouthernYankee]

"I am not singling you out, I think all of those millions and billions are bigots too."

 

racemize and Liberty,

I did not write this, you would have to ask the person who wrote it what he meant, but it is pretty clear. If Cardboard did not mean what he said, a person reading this thread could find creedence with what he wrote. Ericoploy tends to be over the top in these discussions. I am still trying to figure out why Parsad keeps starting threads like these. This might be fun for him considering how the Canucks let him down year after year!

 

Cheers!

[Liberty]

"I am not singling you out, I think all of those millions and billions are bigots too."

 

racemize and Liberty,

I did not write this, you would have to ask the person who wrote it what he meant, but it is pretty clear.

 

What has this to do with racemize and myself? Do you now believe in collective responsibility for what others say? There's no hive mind on this forum.

[bmichaud]

Ericopoly,

 

This issue is one that is evolving, as most laws do. You are calling me a bigot, along with millions (billions?) of others who think they are correct, that there are certain reasons why marriage being between 2 people of the opposite sex is a good way to organize society.

 

I am not singling you out, I think all of those millions and billions are bigots too.

 

One of those reasons is SCIENCE, for the perpetuation of the species.

 

Interesting.  Infertile women are allowed to marry.

 

Eric,

 

Perhaps I missed a previous explanation, and perhaps this question is ignorant....but how could the human race expand had it begun with either two dudes or two women? Yes using the example of an infertile woman is a neat little trick, but in all seriousness, how is homosexuality inherently natural if said act cannot inherently reproduce? An infertile woman was inherently created to reproduce....

[SouthernYankee]

Liberty,

 

I was trying to show you what Cardboard may have read to lead him to write what he wrote. That is all. I did not blame you, I was giving a reason why another poster may have written what he wrote, which you responded to.

[ERICOPOLY]

"I am not singling you out, I think all of those millions and billions are bigots too."

 

racemize and Liberty,

I did not write this, you would have to ask the person who wrote it what he meant, but it is pretty clear. If Cardboard did not mean what he said, a person reading this thread could find creedence with what he wrote. Ericoploy tends to be over the top in these discussions. I am still trying to figure out why Parsad keeps starting threads like these. This might be fun for him considering how the Canucks let him down year after year!

 

Cheers!

 

I will agree to use the phrase "one who is intolerant" instead of "bigot".

 

The phrase is effectively the definition of the other, but if not a politically correct term then I'll not use it.

[SouthernYankee]

Ericopoly,

You cheapen both words.

 

[Liberty]

Eric,

 

Perhaps I missed a previous explanation, and perhaps this question is ignorant....but how could the human race expand had it begun with either two dudes or two women? Yes using the example of an infertile woman is a neat little trick, but in all seriousness, how is homosexuality inherently natural if said act cannot inherently reproduce? An infertile woman was inherently created to reproduce....

 

Before going any further, I gotta ask: Why is any of this important?

 

Pretty much everything we do goes against what would happen in nature. We build houses, we find cures for diseases, we cook food, drive cars, use contraceptives, watch TV and listen to recorded music, read books, wear clothes, have weapons to kill predators and each other, fly in planes, wear glasses, get surgery with anesthetics, take antibiotics and do large scale agriculture of species that have been selectively bred over generations to be molded to our needs, etc.

 

So why is it suddenly so bad if something isn't how it would be in nature? Do you live in a cave?

 

Not that homosexuality isn't natural, as it's found in lots of other species, as well as humans (those who think it's a choice are funny; did they choose to be heterosexual? And if it was a choice, who would make that choice when it's so much harder to live like that? Maybe those that had to force themselves to make the choice and constantly claim it's a choice (such as preacher Ted Haggard) are actually just repressed homosexuals who don't realize that real heterosexuals don't have to choose, that they are just naturally attracted to the other sex). The fact is, homosexual have kids; lots of gay men are in the closet and have kids with women, and lots of gay women live with men and have kids. They also share genes with their sibblings and help increase the chances of survival for nephews and nieces. They're part of the gene pool. But it's also very possible that straight parents have gay kids. It's only recently that more have come out of the closest to live strictly with the other sex, but they've always been there, as documented in ancient roman times and greeks and such.

 

People who love each other and aren't hurting anyone. A total non-issue to me.

[Liberty]

Liberty,

 

I was trying to show you what Cardboard may have read to lead him to write what he wrote. That is all. I did not blame you, I was giving a reason why another poster may have written what he wrote, which you responded to.

 

I guess that's not impossible, but I find that improbable because of the way it was worded. If it was in response to a single thing by a single poster, it would have been a lot clearer than the blanket statements made here. But I can't read minds, so I can't be sure. Oh well, I said what I had to say on that.

[SouthernYankee]

Liberty,

 

Keep government out of the marriage business. I agree with you.

 

[Rabbitisrich]

Ericopoly,

 

This issue is one that is evolving, as most laws do. You are calling me a bigot, along with millions (billions?) of others who think they are correct, that there are certain reasons why marriage being between 2 people of the opposite sex is a good way to organize society.

 

I am not singling you out, I think all of those millions and billions are bigots too.

 

One of those reasons is SCIENCE, for the perpetuation of the species.

 

Interesting.  Infertile women are allowed to marry.

 

Eric,

 

Perhaps I missed a previous explanation, and perhaps this question is ignorant....but how could the human race expand had it begun with either two dudes or two women? Yes using the example of an infertile woman is a neat little trick, but in all seriousness, how is homosexuality inherently natural if said act cannot inherently reproduce? An infertile woman was inherently created to reproduce....

 

That's an error of extrapolating aggregate birth/death rates from individual cases. For example, homosexuality may be supportive of family fertility despite its effect on an individual person's fertility. If there are limited available resources, then 2 aunts to one child may be more adaptive than 2 moms to 2 children. There are other what ifs, but the point is that you can't assume maladaption by looking only at direct effects of not reproducing. Also, defining natural by the quality of contributing to fertility is an idiosyncratic use of the term. That would imply that all extinct species were unnatural and that in vitro fertilization procedures are natural.

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric,

 

Perhaps I missed a previous explanation, and perhaps this question is ignorant....but how could the human race expand had it begun with either two dudes or two women? Yes using the example of an infertile woman is a neat little trick, but in all seriousness, how is homosexuality inherently natural if said act cannot inherently reproduce? An infertile woman was inherently created to reproduce....

 

I have a book for you to read.

 

Biological Exuberance:  Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.

 

The author is Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D.

 

[Rabbitisrich]

 

 

On Pascal, I know he was a mathematician genius and since he must have spent a fair bit of time thinking about the topic, I would assume that portion of his logic must be relatively sound. He must be at least as elaborated as some of the posters here whom I am sure are no where near genius status. Some of these same fellow might also want to revisit Socrate and see if they are as smart as they claim.

 

Cardboard

 

Why the ad hominems? Was there something specific about my response with which you disagreed?

[bmichaud]

Eric,

 

Perhaps I missed a previous explanation, and perhaps this question is ignorant....but how could the human race expand had it begun with either two dudes or two women? Yes using the example of an infertile woman is a neat little trick, but in all seriousness, how is homosexuality inherently natural if said act cannot inherently reproduce? An infertile woman was inherently created to reproduce....

 

Before going any further, I gotta ask: Why is any of this important?

 

Pretty much everything we do goes against what would happen in nature. We build houses, we find cures for diseases, we cook food, drive cars, use contraceptives, watch TV and listen to recorded music, read books, wear clothes, have weapons to kill predators and each other, fly in planes, wear glasses, get surgery with anesthetics, take antibiotics and do large scale agriculture of species that have been selectively bred over generations to be molded to our needs, etc.

 

So why is it suddenly so bad if something isn't how it would be in nature? Do you live in a cave?

 

Not that homosexuality isn't natural, as it's found in lots of other species, as well as humans (those who think it's a choice are funny; did they choose to be heterosexual? And if it was a choice, who would make that choice when it's so much harder to live like that? Maybe those that had to force themselves to make the choice and constantly claim it's a choice (such as preacher Ted Haggard) are actually just repressed homosexuals who don't realize that real heterosexuals don't have to choose, that they are just naturally attracted to the other sex). The fact is, homosexual have kids; lots of gay men are in the closet and have kids with women, and lots of gay women live with men and have kids. They're part of the gene pool. But it's also very possible that straight parents have gay kids. It's only recently that more have come out of the closest to live strictly with the other sex, but they've always been there, as documented in ancient roman times and greeks and such.

 

People who love each other and aren't hurting anyone. A total non-issue to me.

 

We have evolved from living in caves and not being able to treat diseases - how is homosexuality part of that evolution?

 

I just struggle with the answer to my question - how would the human race continue if it started with two dudes? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

A loving homosexual couple isn't harming anyone. Doesn't mean they need to redefine marriage though - it is equally as offensive to those who believe in the sanctity of marriage as not wanting to redefine marriage is to those who do not believe in the sanctity of marriage.

[ERICOPOLY]

I had a manager (manager's manager) at Microsoft that underwent a sex change.  He is now a she.

 

Here is his story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4394493&page=1

 

He isn't gay though.

 

He is now a woman married to a woman.

 

I suppose that's  loophole that hasn't been closed yet -- a man married a woman, but then the man became a woman and now it's just two women together.

 

 

[bmichaud]

Eric,

 

Perhaps I missed a previous explanation, and perhaps this question is ignorant....but how could the human race expand had it begun with either two dudes or two women? Yes using the example of an infertile woman is a neat little trick, but in all seriousness, how is homosexuality inherently natural if said act cannot inherently reproduce? An infertile woman was inherently created to reproduce....

 

I have a book for you to read.

 

Biological Exuberance:  Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.

 

The author is Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D.

 

Thanks

[Rabbitisrich]

I had a manager (manager's manager) at Microsoft that underwent a sex change.  He is now a she.

 

Here is his story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4394493&page=1

 

He isn't gay though.

 

He is now a woman married to a woman.

 

I suppose that's  loophole that hasn't been closed yet -- a man married a woman, but then the man became a woman and now it's just two women together.

 

I wonder whether there would be a positive change in lifetime productivity of any child they adopt. Probably, and probably upwards.

[bmichaud]

I had a manager (manager's manager) at Microsoft that underwent a sex change.  He is now a she.

 

Here is his story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4394493&page=1

 

He isn't gay though.

 

He is now a woman married to a woman.

 

I suppose that's  loophole that hasn't been closed yet -- a man married a woman, but then the man became a woman and now it's just two women together.

 

How silly of me, didn't think of that!

[rkbabang]

I was just thinking that a bunch of people located around the world in different countries and time zones having a discussion in almost real-time over a global computer network is completely unnatural and should probably be banned as it is almost certainly an abomination in the eyes of the almighty god.