|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 16:21:36 [Permalink]
|
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 02/03/2010 : 19:04:48 [Permalink]
|
Some things are just so stupid that the only thing you can do is laugh.
Hat tip to Ed Brayton. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 02/03/2010 : 22:23:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| and given that homosexuals comprise between 5 and 10% of the population |
Umm, not here they don't. Maybe in the places where you hang out.
|
Oh, yes they do. You just don't know about it. With bigots like you and other conservative Christians around, I can understand why they don't want to give themselves up.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 22:48:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| and given that homosexuals comprise between 5 and 10% of the population |
Umm, not here they don't. Maybe in the places where you hang out.
|
Oh, forcryingoutloud. It's no wonder you don't understand averages when it comes to AGW, Bill.
If we conservatively guess that 5% of the national population is gay, then it follows that if over 15% of San Franciscans are gay, then less than 1% of Nowhereville, Iowa will be gay. Spikes in the data have to be balanced by dips, or the average would be wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 00:31:52 [Permalink]
|
| Is it me or what? Some preachers look gay to me. With their funny smile, like Kent Hovind's smile. Some preachers are outed Gay, like ted Haggard. Not that there is anything wrong them being gay AND milking all them Gay haters like there so good at. I'd just love it if Hovind was Gay, it would be like icing on his face. Let's not forget" the Rev. Lonnie W. Latham had supported a resolution calling on gays and lesbians to reject their "sinful, destructive lifestyle" before his Jan. 3, 2006, arrest outside the Habana Inn in Oklahoma City. Authorities say he asked the undercover policeman to come up to his hotel for oral sex". There Republicans too, don't you know. Rev. Peter J. Gomes was a Republican when he gave invocations at the inaugurations of Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush. Even the Onion can't make this shit up. I just got to stop. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 01:18:05 [Permalink]
|
Well, you also have to take into account the fact that Iran has zero gays. They really pull down the global average.
Damn, Iran must look like paradise on Earth to a free thinker like Bill. I guess it's because Allah is stronger than the Christian god.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 03:04:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
and given that homosexuals comprise between 5 and 10% of the population |
Umm, not here they don't. Maybe in the places where you hang out.
|
Ah, and we're back to your problem with averages. A long time I hang out in groups that had none to few homosexuals in them. Lately I started in an acting group and suddenly they're everywhere. In if you survey that overall in most countries (except Iran of course, where there are no gays (right...)), you'll see that this averages out to about 5 - 10% of the population. And that includes the government surveys in your own country.
Really Bill, think before you post.
But hey, if the number is less than you have even less to worry about. Right? Maybe it's 1%, in which case for your argument only 2% of the couples need to make a third baby to make sure that we have a stable population. The lower the number, the more moronic your objection to gay marriage becomes.
[Edited to fix quoting - Dave W.] |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 09:27:50 [Permalink]
|
Nobody is robbing anybody of their civil rights. If Jack wants to marry Jill there are few reasons the government, or the public, would attempt to halt this union. But what the homosexual activists do is they try to redefine marriage. Where the states constitutions and the will of the people define marriage as between one man and one women the activists try to legislate, through the courts, their own re-definition of marriage. Time and time again the folks have stood up and rejected the activists attempts to redefine marriage. So in the end it is clear that the will of the American people is denying no one their civil right to marry. What they are rejecting is the homosexual activists repeated atttempts to re-define marriage, as they see fit, by ramming it through the back door (no pun intended) using the court system and bypassing the will of the people and the will of the state.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 09:51:53 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by tomk80 |
| But hey, if the number is less than you have even less to worry about. Right? Maybe it's 1%, in which case for your argument only 2% of the couples need to make a third baby to make sure that we have a stable population. The lower the number, the more moronic your objection to gay marriage becomes. |
I never objected to gay marriage because they do not have the ability to reproduce. I brought up their inability to reproduce when I was asked to name a difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage, besides the sexes. I have yet to layout my own personal reasons for rejecting gay marriage.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 10:12:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I never objected to gay marriage because they do not have the ability to reproduce. I brought up their inability to reproduce when I was asked to name a difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage, besides the sexes. I have yet to layout my own personal reasons for rejecting gay marriage.
|
You first said that a "homosexual society" went against nature. When I subsequently stated I had yet to see you lay out any specific reasoning against homosexual marriage, you stated that "It goes against the bases for any social structure of a society, whether from a naturalist view point or not."
Several people also already pointed out that pointing to the ability to make children as a difference between homosexual and interracial marriage is bullshit, as marriage is not à priori a committment established for children, but rather for property.
But fine, I'll be happy to leave this rediculous line of argumentation if you are. Which brings me back to my previous point that I have yet to see you give a good argument against gay marriage. Are you going to provide it now?
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 10:40:16 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott.....
You posted:| in the end it is clear that the will of the American people is denying NO ONE their civil right to marry. |
Immediately followed by:| What they are rejecting is the atttempts to re-define marriage |
Therefore it is clear that you believe that the will of the American people is to allow people of the same sex as well as people of opposite sex to marry --as in: "denying no one their civil right to marry"
Consequently, if homosexuals are allowed by the will of the people to exercise their civil right to marry, does not that very act of marriage, in itself, redefine "marriage" as the union of two persons of either sex?
If two homosexuals legally marry, and "marriage" has not been redefined by that act, what is the definition of what those two homosexuals have done?
I have reappraised my opinion of you, Bill scott, due to the fact that several of your recent posts demonstrated that you are quite capable of sensible discourse when you depart from simply repeating fundamentalist dogma.
I apologize for unkind characterizations I may have made of your cognitive acuity in the past. It is frustrating to ask reasonable questions and have them ignored, leading to perhaps unreasonable expressions of anger. I have been guilty of that and I am sorry.
I would appreciate your direct responses to the various questions I have asked you in this thread. I will be happy to return the courtesy. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 10:40:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
I have yet to see you give a good argument against gay marriage. Are you going to provide it now?
|
First thing is first. So you agree that no one is denying anybody their civil right to marry and that it is the homosexual activists who are trying to redefine the definition of marriage as established by states constitutions and the by the will of the people and that they are trying to ram their own definition of marriage through the back door by using the courts, thus avoiding the will of the people, right? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 11:18:21 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by bngbuck |
I have reappraised my opinion of you, Bill scott, due to the fact that several of your recent posts demonstrated that you are quite capable of sensible discourse when you depart from simply repeating fundamentalist dogma.
I apologize for unkind characterizations I may have made of your cognitive acuity in the past. It is frustrating to ask reasonable questions and have them ignored, leading to perhaps unreasonable expressions of anger. I have been guilty of that and I am sorry. |
Thank you. I am sure I am not completely innocent of unkind characterizations myself so I apologize for that.
| I would appreciate your direct responses to the various questions I have asked you in this thread. I will be happy to return the courtesy. |
Sure.
| Therefore it is clear that you believe that the will of the American people is to allow people of the same sex as well as people of opposite sex to marry --as in: "denying no one their civil right to marry" |
Ah, I think I see where you misunderstood my point. When I said that no one was denied the right to marry I was talking about "marriage" under the definition of my states constitution and by the will of the people. Therefore, if Adam wants to marriage Eve there is little reason the government or the folks would fight this union. Adam's civil right to marry was not denied. But if Adam wants to marry Steve this does not fall under the definition of marriage, according to the state constitution and according to the will of the people, and so therefor, denying Adam from marring Steve is not a violation of any body's right to marry as it fails to meet the definition of marriage. If Adam wants to marry eve, which does meet the definition of marriage, then Adam has a green light to marry. If Adam is denied marriage to Steve this is not a violation of his right to marry as a union between two men, or two women for that matter, is not, or even in, the definition of marriage. He can't say he is denied the civil right of marriage if what he wants to do is not even defined as marriage.
| Consequently, if homosexuals are allowed by the will of the people to exercise their civil right to marry, does not that very act of marriage, in itself, redefine "marriage" as the union of two persons of either sex? |
If homosexuals are allowed by the will of the people to exercise their new civil right to marry then the will of the people would have redefined marriage. No?
| If two homosexuals legally marry, and "marriage" has not been redefined by that act, what is the definition of what those two homosexuals have done? |
I am not sure what you mean here by (marriage" has not been redefined by that act,). |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 02/04/2010 11:24:46 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 11:28:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
First thing is first. So you agree that no one is denying anybody their civil right to marry and that it is the homosexual activists who are trying to redefine the definition of marriage as established by states constitutions and the by the will of the people and that they are trying to ram their own definition of marriage through the back door by using the courts, thus avoiding the will of the people, right?
|
Nope. I don't. I never said I did.
In current conditions homosexuals do not have the same possibilities of spending their life with the person they love as heterosexuals have. This is a violation of their civil rights. It is a violation of their right of equal treatment.
And because it is a violation of their civil rights, they have every right to try to change the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in states has been changed before (it used to allow multiple wives in a number of states) and this has been turned around. It can be changed again.
And even if I agreed with you on the "proper" definition of marriage, homosexuals have every right to fight to redefine it in every legal way possible, whether through public opinion or through the courts, just as everyone else has on any legal issue in the USA. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 11:35:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Nobody is robbing anybody of their civil rights. If Jack wants to marry Jill there are few reasons the government, or the public, would attempt to halt this union. But what the homosexual activists do is they try to redefine marriage. Where the states constitutions and the will of the people define marriage as between one man and one women the activists try to legislate, through the courts, their own re-definition of marriage. |
You've got cause-and-effect backwards. Gay people wanted to get married, and so government and the public worked to halt such unions by passing laws and amendments to define marriage as "one man, one woman."
Look at the amendments to state constitutions, Bill. Not one of them was enacted before 1998. GBLT people have been arguing for the right to get married long before then, when they were denied such rights on other grounds.
Your argument fails by being the opposite of actual history.
(Oh, and the funniest of the amendments is Virginia's, which says in part, "This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage." That must include straight marriage, so nobody in Virginia can be married, at all, regardless of sexual orientation.)
| Time and time again the folks have stood up and rejected the activists attempts to redefine marriage. |
No, time and time again the folks have stood up and rammed their bigoted ideas down the throats of the GBLT community.| So in the end it is clear that the will of the American people is denying no one their civil right to marry. |
See above.| What they are rejecting is the homosexual activists repeated atttempts to re-define marriage, as they see fit, by ramming it through the back door (no pun intended) using the court system and bypassing the will of the people and the will of the state. |
Which is the only proper thing to do when the executive, the legislature and the public are denying a minority their civil rights.
You also wrote:| ...thus avoiding the will of the people, right? |
Again, Bill, the will of the people should be avoided if it is immoral, illegal or otherwise stupid. Good grief, the argument in California right now is over whether their constitutional amendment is itself illegal. If there's no compelling, positive reason in favor of Prop 8 (and it looks for all the world like the rationale behind it was only to deny gays their civil rights), it will be overturned. If it doesn't pass muster as a properly-passed law, why should "the will of the people" be heeded at all? That's what the difference is between our government and an angry mob.
Or do you really think, Bill, that as soon as 51% of any community becomes atheist, they should be allowed to criminalize Christianity? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Deceiving in the name of Jesus, again
