CA's Prop 8, FL's amendment 2 and Arizona's prop 102/ Defining marriage, Surprised this never got mentioned here. Rating Options

[Blaqheartedstar]

Surprised this never got mentioned here. CA's Prop 8, FL's amendment 2 and Arizona's prop 102, and the whole defining gay marriage. With election coming up pretty soon, Prop 8 has been a big issue.

The argument is that Prop 8, amendment 2 and prop 102 will define that marriage between a man and a woman will be the only legal kind of marriage in California for prop 8, Florida for amendment 2, and Arizona with prop 102.

Some people argue that it has nothing to do with gay rights, or about gays in general
yet mention that if it doesn't pass parental rights, and religious freedom gets taken away.

Others mention that it does (take away gay rights), If the law passes Same sex couples will not be able to
1. Marry the person they love.
2. Those who are already married will lose the rights that come with it.


There is also the argument that Marriage is about love regardless of gender (Love is Blind).
yet others strongly believe that marriage is a religious, spiritual union between a man and a women.

To start a discussion here are several questions
1. what do you feel will happen if these laws passes and soon spreads to other states?
2. What do you feel marriage is, and should the idea of same sex marriage be allowed?
3. What do you think will happen to the children whose parents happen to be both male or female, If these laws passes what do you think will happen to the children?

[*paperplane*]

Not at all, and this is why I avoid debates about evolution/creationism/whatever, because it all sounds like shit to me. But I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to teach something in science class that has no scientific basis.

I don't think it's an aspect you can take out of school, though. Kids are going to wonder how we came to be, and there needs to be at least a tentative answer. If you want creationism included in that answer, send your kids to Sunday school.

[dosomethin888]

Not at all, and this is why I avoid debates about evolution/creationism/whatever, because it all sounds like shit to me. But I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to teach something in science class that has no scientific basis.

I don't think it's an aspect you can take out of school, though. Kids are going to wonder how we came to be, and there needs to be at least a tentative answer. If you want creationism included in that answer, send your kids to Sunday school.

Well, I just disagree with the fact that there is, in fact, two sides to the argument. Creationism and Evolution. Sure, there is no "scientific basis" for creationism because it is not a scientific theory. Evolution is, therefore it is going to have plenty of "scientific basis." But it also has many, many holes in it and connections that cant seem to be made.
There are archeological findings that prove that the Bible is accurate on more than one account. And since the Bible is the basis of the Creationism theory, I think that is considered to be evidence enough.

But, I dont like how only evolution is taught when there is clearly an alternative... Its biased. Its not giving the children in the schools a chance to make a decision for themselves. Just imagine if only creationism was taught... how unfair would that be?

Yes. Yes, it is.

Enlighten me, please.

Except that's what she said: they would do that, in order to illustrate how it doesn't make sense to chalk up secular issues like this as "brainwashing" when young children are systematically indoctrinated to believe in something they don't even understand under religious exaction. "Would" is conditional.

We're over the brainwashing thing. I said I was wrong. *sniff*

[Reidar]

But it also has many, many holes in it and connections that cant seem to be made.

This is a given in any scientific subject. The role of science is to patch these holes as more information comes to fruition through research and evidence-based piecing.

Enlighten me, please.

We not only have systematic alterations through consecutively-occurring instances of time in the fossil record, but we have physically observed evolution on the microbial level, such as the development of antibiotic resistances in bacteria.

We're over the brainwashing thing. I said I was wrong. *sniff*

I actually agree with you on the point of those kids singing praise to Barack Obama. That's why I liken teaching religion to young children who don't understand what it is that they're believing to indoctrinating them under a certain political belief.

[dosomethin888]

This is a given in any scientific subject. The role of science is to patch these holes as more information comes to fruition through research and evidence-based piecing.

But, we havent reached that level yet, have we? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

We not only have systematic alterations through consecutively-occurring instances of time in the fossil record, but we have physically observed evolution on the microbial level, such as the development of antibiotic resistances in bacteria.

You dont have to try to impress me with your big words. I barely understood anything you just said.

So, its a complex theory.. still has holes and cant be connected at certain places.

I actually agree with you on the point of those kids singing praise to Barack Obama. That's why I liken teaching religion to young children who don't understand what it is that they're believing to indoctrinating them under a certain political belief.

A rational person, thank you.

[Reidar]

But, we havent reached that level yet, have we? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

We're on a far, far lower level without the evidence and information that we do have once you turn to creationist explanations.

You dont have to try to impress me with your big words. I barely understood anything you just said.

In other words, we have cases of very slight changes in fossils that incrementally occur as time passes on. For example, there are instances of fish that are identical to their predecessors except for having morphed primitive forelimb arrangements more similar to amphibian patterns.

So, its a complex theory.. still has holes and cant be connected at certain places.

I'd go so far as to say that I can address any hole you perceive evolution to possess.

Would it not have to be described as a "teachable moment" to qualify for a field trip at all?

It would. That's why it doesn't make sense for you to have thought that it didn't.

You're reading too much into this. I thought her mentioning that when I didn't know better was absurd because I did not think any wedding would be an acceptable field trip.

This wasn't it. You didn't merely say, "That would never happen." If you had, there would be no inconsistency. You actually asked why anyone would even do that all. Both are a declination to objection, and are different from later saying, "So what if that even happens, when it would be educational?"