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

[Reidar]

That's not really inconsistency. I asked why anyone would do it at all in a rhetorical sense because i didn't, and still don't, think that a wedding is a legitimate field trip.

By posing that as a question to an outlandish instance, you're rhetorically suggesting that the absurdity of it would be its prevention, which is inconsistent with turning around and saying it's actually not "problematic" if used in the context of education.

But in the event that it did/could happen, of course there would need to be a case for it to be educational. The hypothetical basis was not in question.

1.) You were not receptive to the possibility of it as a real-life example in advance, as a sort of "just in case that did happen" safeguard to fall back on, or else you wouldn't have said that she pulled it out of her ass. That's not a statement of, "Well, I don't know if this actually happened, so I'll be neutral about it"; that's outrightly asserting its falsity.

2.) Since you weren't aware of it existing as such, all you could do was challenge it hypothetically, so that was indeed the component in question.

[dosomethin888]

Well, Im going to go read the rest of "Eclipse" and go to bed. Ill be back tomorrow. Night!

[Reidar]

I agree. Teach every theory or none at all. I dont think that is pushing my views.. I think that is equal.

This can't be done when the theories themselves aren't equal in validity and verification.

Well, I found an interesting web page that documents some archeological findings that prove the Bible is historically accurate: Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho..

http://www.defendingyourfaith.org/Archaeology.htm

That site operates on circumstantial reasoning. They point to archaeology that just happens to coincide with something described in scripture - which isn't so far-fetched when you consider that the Bible itself is historically ancient. It's not any different than works of fiction today being set in real-life cities or including actual public figures.

Here's a perfect example of my point.

"Secular archaeologists have suggested that an oil basin beneath the Dead Sea ignited and erupted. Whether or not this is true, 'Such an explanation in no way subtracts from the miraculous quality of the event, for God controls natural forces. The timing of the event, in the context of warnings and visitation by angels, reveals its overall miraculous nature.'"

In there, the author notes that there's actually a perfectly logical and non-ethereal explanation for it, but just because that doesn't disprove the notion that it occurred from powers that the Bible cites (remember, nobody can actually disprove God anymore than one can disprove fairies and unicorns), it could, therefore, be true.

That is the weakest argument for anything that one can possibly make. You're (not "you" as in dosomethin888, but the author) not providing evidence; you're saying, "Well, this right here doesn't mean that it ISN'T true."

You seem very intelligent. But, Im wondering... have you studied the creationism theory as thoroughly as the evolution theory?

As thoroughly? No. I don't dedicate nearly as much time to fiction as I do to science, although the Old Testament was pretty badass to read.

[coconutter]

But, we havent reached that level yet, have we? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
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.
A rational person, thank you.

If you don't understand the theory, you can't criticize it.

shut the f**k up about these stupid field trips

they don't happen in every school, nor will they ever

[brooklyneast05]

shut the f**k up about these stupid field trips

they don't happen in every school, nor will they ever

seriously. i don't get why we're still talking about this field trip thing. that is one isolated occurrence that can hardly even qualify as a "real" field trip. those of you think we should all know every single field trip in the U.S.A. are complete idiots. if you want us to know about an extremely rare trip then link it, duh. this is what nicki has been saying the whole time, and if you don't get why everyone was confused then you're an idiot. i duno why you're arguing with her over that Reidar, it's completely trivial, not relevant, and you knew what she meant and why she said what she said anyway. you're a lot better off arguing with the little kids who think fairy tales should be taught in school instead of technical phrasing with nicki imo...




there are other threads for the evolution debate which i think you guys should go to because this is starting to have nothing to do with prop 8. or you guys could make a new thread, which would probably be more fun since i'm sure the other one has like 15 pages worth of crap that none of us wanna read through again.


if a mod would split this topic and move dosomething and reidars evolution/creationism posts into a new topic so that that debate could continue elsewhere that would be nice...

[Reidar]

i duno why you're arguing with her over that Reidar, it's completely trivial, not relevant, and you knew what she meant and why she said what she said anyway.

1.) If anything, you're derailing the thread by adding another element to respond to on that topic when it was pretty much done and over with.

2.) That was to call her out for telling dosomething888 that she pulled the example out of her ass. Again, not expecting somebody to "know every single field trip in the U.S.A." would equate to taking a neutral stance while asking for a specific citation, not outrightly asserting the falsity of the very notion.

there are other threads for the evolution debate which i think you guys should go to because this is starting to have nothing to do with prop 8.

Not really, because it lead to the fundamental reason why dosomething888 was in favor of the motion to begin with. Believing in creationism and Prop. 8 are paralleling variables that feed off of one another. You could even consider creationism a direct reason for that incentive.

[brooklyneast05]

it might be a "fundamental reason" but there's no need to argue historical/archeological/scientific ect technicalities of evolution in this thread.

[Reidar]

A technicality is a detail mattering only to the inclination of catching the other person on a wrong spot, rather than addressing the core dissent. Not only are we doing the opposite of that by delving into the aforementioned "fundamental reason", but we're not even doing it in a technical sense. I pointed out her website's specious methods that didn't actually provide evidence for anything. That's not operating technically, as if on a minute point-by-point plane, but broadly and logically.

[brooklyneast05]

this topic is about prop 8. if that somehow relates to creationism for someone...ok, but not everyone wants to read about a whole different debate inside this one.

wait, let me put this into something easier to understand...

this topic is about prop 8. if that somehow divulges toward an admission of belief in creationism for someone...alright, however, not every person yearns to bury oneself in cogitation and contemplation of creationism and evolution. i feel this is an altercation that can be detached from the prop 8 disagreement and examined and contended elsewhere.

[Reidar]

this topic is about prop 8. if that somehow relates to creationism for someone...ok, but not everyone wants to read about a whole different debate inside this one.

Then they should make a new argument about it that someone can address.

i feel this is an altercation that can be detached from the prop 8 disagreement and examined and contended elsewhere.

In the context of addressing the incentive that a religious person would have for supporting Prop. 8, no. The conditions for it would be completely different when isolated.

[*paperplane*]

2.) That was to call her out for telling dosomething888 that she pulled the example out of her ass. Again, not expecting somebody to "know every single field trip in the U.S.A." would equate to taking a neutral stance while asking for a specific citation, not outrightly asserting the falsity of the very notion.

How about not "calling me out" on things when you can't even keep your facts straight? I said that to joss-eh-lime or whatever her name is, not dosomething888. This is a stupid argument, so let's move on.

[dosomethin888]

That site operates on circumstantial reasoning. They point to archaeology that just happens to coincide with something described in scripture - which isn't so far-fetched when you consider that the Bible itself is historically ancient. It's not any different than works of fiction today being set in real-life cities or including actual public figures.

Here's a perfect example of my point.

"Secular archaeologists have suggested that an oil basin beneath the Dead Sea ignited and erupted. Whether or not this is true, 'Such an explanation in no way subtracts from the miraculous quality of the event, for God controls natural forces. The timing of the event, in the context of warnings and visitation by angels, reveals its overall miraculous nature.'"

In there, the author notes that there's actually a perfectly logical and non-ethereal explanation for it, but just because that doesn't disprove the notion that it occurred from powers that the Bible cites (remember, nobody can actually disprove God anymore than one can disprove fairies and unicorns), it could, therefore, be true.

That is the weakest argument for anything that one can possibly make. You're (not "you" as in dosomethin888, but the author) not providing evidence; you're saying, "Well, this right here doesn't mean that it ISN'T true."

Maybe it is a historical text, but if evidence found through archeological findings can match up to the dates in the Bible, that shows some accuracy to the Bible.

Sure, I have not extensively researched Creationism or Evolution. Well, Im gonna start now so maybe I wont be so out-of-the-loop with you. You've obviously done your research, more on the side of evolution, tho.

Haha, and ya its pretty badass.

If you don't understand the theory, you can't criticize it.

shut the f**k up about these stupid field trips

they don't happen in every school, nor will they ever

I had already stopped talking about the field trips a while back...

[Reidar]

How about not "calling me out" on things when you can't even keep your facts straight? I said that to joss-eh-lime or whatever her name is, not dosomething888. This is a stupid argument, so let's move on.

Except I pointed out your failure to cohere well before I even mentioned the recipient's name. The fact that I didn't even bother to differentiate is testament to how inconsequential that is; it could have been Santa Clause and it would have made no difference. You're hardly on any grounds to object to that after having no explanation for how the "hypothetical basis was not in question", when it had to be in order for you to even comment on something that didn't actually happen.

It always amuses me when someone scrambles to save face, and only after that do they become a diplomat and say, "But anyways, let's drop this." If you really wanted to drop it, why did you even respond? Nobody's forcing you to participate.

Maybe it is a historical text, but if evidence found through archeological findings can match up to the dates in the Bible, that shows some accuracy to the Bible.

It shows accuracy in regards to depicting a real-life setting that the authors observed and recorded, not on the validity of creationism.

[dosomethin888]

It shows accuracy in regards to depicting a real-life setting that the authors observed and recorded, not on the validity of creationism.

It partly does, tho. Creationism is based on the Christian faith which is based off the Bible. If more and more evidence shows that the Bible is accurate, that is more evidence that Creationism is true.

[Reidar]

It partly does, tho. Creationism is based on the Christian faith which is based off the Bible. If more and more evidence shows that the Bible is accurate, that is more evidence that Creationism is true.

This is like saying the Bible was written in intelligible human language, so it must lend legitimacy to creationism by the mere fact that it has something authentic. Of course it's going to take place in actual cities and eras. The only thing that says about anything is that whoever wrote it A.) was not a vegetable, and B.) did not live on Jupiter.

[*paperplane*]

Except I pointed out your failure to cohere well before I even mentioned the recipient's name. The fact that I didn't even bother to differentiate is testament to how inconsequential that is; it could have been Santa Clause and it would have made no difference. You're hardly on any grounds to object to that after having no explanation for how the "hypothetical basis was not in question", when it had to be in order for you to even comment on something that didn't actually happen.

It always amuses me when someone scrambles to save face, and only after that do they become a diplomat and say, "But anyways, let's drop this." If you really wanted to drop it, why did you even respond? Nobody's forcing you to participate.

It's not saving face because the entire thing was unimportant to the topic at hand. You can't talk about how me catching your mistake is inconsequential when everything you've been saying in regards to my point on the field trip is equally as irrelevant. if you can pick at minor peripheral points, so can I.

[Reidar]

It's not saving face because the entire thing was unimportant to the topic at hand.

That's what "saving face" is: atoning for personal derisions.

You can't talk about how me catching your mistake is inconsequential when everything you've been saying in regards to my point on the field trip is equally as irrelevant. if you can pick at minor peripheral points, so can I.

Except you're unable to tie deranging the names with the tangibility of the issue, while I can with each of your discrepancies.

The clause, "The ball was kicked by Phil" doesn't lead to a change in the subject constituency if we change it to, "The ball was kicked by Mary" when "Phil" isn't the sum of the matter. The condition of the ball remains.

On the other hand, asserting falsity in a premature stage is at odds with later accepting the premise. That isn't a mere prop for establishing the argument, like a name is; that is the argument.

The same applies to claiming that "the hypothetical basis was not in question." By using this to set the record straight, you're adopting top priority with the statement, so when it's called out for being wrong, you need to have support invested in it, not dismissal of it as somehow being irrelevant.

[dafto]

This is a tricky one for me. Would I vote for Prop 8? Yes. Is it a bit tougher saying why on these forums? Yes.

I am a conservative person and Im getting distraught over how liberal this country is becoming: Gay Marriage, Abortion (Partial Birth Abortion which is murder, no way to deny that), legalizing prostitution, the amount of sex, drugs, nudity and language available to young children, taking away our 2nd ammendment right... It is deteriorating our society morally from within.

Homosexuals are SO loud. I think the percentage of homosexuals in the US is like, what, 8% and somehow with so few of them, we are debating gay marriage? With how loud they are and how liberal they are in their views, once gay marriage is legalized, they are going to be wanting more. Like taking children on a field trip to see a homosexual wedding. Thats wrong. And introducing a book in elementary school about two Princes falling in love. Thats wrong.
But these people doing these things.. obviously dont see this behavior as wrong. Just like brainwashing your kids to sing "I love (enter presidential candidate's name here)!" Brainwashing children at all is wrong. I say teach EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM in school. Ya, creationism has no scientific basis but there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is accurate on more than one account and evolution has enough freakin holes in it. So.. options, options, options.

I guess the main reason I am against gay marriage is because it opens the doors to more morally void things to be pushed into this society. What happens when you take morals out of a society? It crumbles. Well, at least I think so.

Government was built on the idea that it is impartial and it does away with church. So morals really have nothing to do with it, it's about rights.

I don't understand how people can toot the horn for heterosexual marriage when the divorce rate is at least 50%

Homosexuals are "loud" what does that even mean? That is such a generalized and ignorant statement.

Further more, you obviously being someone who feeds into propaganda should realize

1. They don't teach marriage in school, I have never been taught about it, nor has anyone I have met.

2. Has anyone ever gone on a fieldtrip to a wedding? Not that I know of, and in case you didn't know ALL fieldtrips require parent permission

3. The "fieldtrip" they talk so much about in the news, was nothing of the sort, the two children were taken to attend their parents wedding, hardly a crime, and yet it is seen as such a bad thing because the couple happened to be gay? right...


4. and as far as evolution vs. creationism, science vs. stories, there are more holes in creationism than there ever could be in science, science can be proven, creationism is part of a book of handed down stories.



proposition 8 simply comes down to whether or not you want to infringe upon the rights of a sector of society that doesn't even affect most people. It's selfish to say that gay people shouldn't have the ability to marry when in reality, it won't change a thing for those who aren't gay. No one is asking heterosexuals to go out and have a gay marriage.

It's giving people in love the chance to have the same rights as everyone else.


The argument that allowing gay marriage to happen is like allowing a man to marry his dog, is the most ignorant argument of them all, just because something is different doesn't mean its deviates into the darkest corner of society, get a grip on reality.

People are allowed their differing opinions though.

[coconutter]

I really hope this doesn't get passed, taking away rights it's just stupid.


What if your right of free speech got taken away because you like oranges? HMM? HMMMMM? Who cares what religion you are, and what the people who practice it believe. The point is, do you believe in taking rights away from citizens?

[dafto]

I really hope this doesn't get passed, taking away rights it's just stupid.
What if your right of free speech got taken away because you like oranges? HMM? HMMMMM?

I seriously hope it doesn't pass either!

MAYBE if it does get passed we should start proposing all kinds if bills to take away rights, people would like that wouldn't they... just saying...

[coconutter]

I seriously hope it doesn't pass either!

MAYBE if it does get passed we should start proposing all kinds if bills to take away rights, people would like that wouldn't they... just saying...

The people opposing it due to religious beliefs don't understand, you're not taking away love: you're taking away rights. Since when was that ever moral? Never.

[dafto]

The people opposing it due to religious beliefs don't understand, you're not taking away love: you're taking away rights. Since when was that ever moral? Never.

Exactly, never. People seem to get waaay too sidetracked by the propaganda instead if taking into account the actual facts, its about rights, not religion.

[Joss-eh-lime]

Ya.... but it might happen again. People are bold. You think something like this will only happen once? Maybe not the exact thing, but people are still going to try to push their lifestyle on others. On children.

so true!
gays can have their lifestyle. no one is hating on that.
but do not try force it on ANYONE and dont try to change what has been considered a traditional marraige since the beginning of TIME. man and woman=marriage.
come up with a new term for gay marraige!
dont change up the meaning of the term marraige when its been the same for sooo long.

[brooklyneast05]

^seriously tell me how taking kids to church is not forcing lifestyles on children but letting the same sex marry is. i don't understand why people worry about gay lifestyles when everyone is pushing their own lifestyles on their kids anyway.


traditional marriage isn't anything that amazing, divorce rate is over 50% now, what's sacred about that?


i'm pretty sure the marriage you're talking about hasn't been the same since the beginning of time anyway though. i mean some people could have multiple marriages, but that changed. you really feel that strongly about a word though why do we need to come up with a new word when it's the same thing???

[dafto]

so true!
gays can have their lifestyle. no one is hating on that.
but do not try force it on ANYONE and dont try to change what has been considered a traditional marraige since the beginning of TIME. man and woman=marriage.
come up with a new term for gay marraige!
dont change up the meaning of the term marraige when its been the same for sooo long.

Force it? Who's trying to force it? Gay people just want the right to marry, it passed now all the ignorant bible thumpers are trying to overturn that. No ones asking anyone to even condone the lifestyle.

Its about discrimination. To name gay marriage something other than marriage is like saying when they had whites only bathrooms and "colored" bathrooms and water fountains was okay. It wasn't, it was blatant discrimination and banning gay marriage is just that.