Why do people have sex (apart from for reproduction)?

[Larry Mondello]

My "filthy language argument"? What language? What argument?

And, how does one 'dodge' one's own argument?

I erred. Confused you with a previous atheistic poster.
Removed that statement.

 

[selfinflikted]

For the record, I'm not one who trashes evolution proponents.
Tend to think both sides have merits and science can certainly point to new things.

Both sides may have merits, but only one side has scientific merit.

Personally I don't care for the vile and emotional reaction many evolution proponents use anytime in the media there's a story of an evolution conflict.

I'm sure, if there's a reaction like that, that it stems from the exhaustion of having to "defend" a bona fide and quite useful scientific theory from the psuedo-science that is Intelligent Design.

The "scientists," the ones abusing their authority in dominating the school system often sound like they want to ban other viewpoints out of textbooks. Smacks of the Middle Ages and the church vs. Galleleo....

There are no other scientific viewpoints that I'm aware of. The only other viewpoint I can imagine you're talking about is Intelligent Design, and again, this is not science, so it should not be taught in a science classroom. The Theory of Evolution dominates in the classroom because it is the most evidenced and most widely-accepted theory that explains the diversity and spatial distribution of life that we see on this planet.

Scripture isn't a science book, though it possesses scientific truths.

Like what?

Science isn't the ultimate authority on things spiritual, though it too can show truths in the physical.

Science isn't an authority on anything spiritual.

 

[Gadarene]

The "scientists," the ones abusing their authority in dominating the school system often sound like they want to ban other viewpoints out of textbooks. Smacks of the Middle Ages and the church vs. Galleleo....

Yeah, it is similar.

One side has facts and evidence, the other doesn't, and wants to circumvent that by legislating their beliefs in circulation.

Which side is which - that hasn't changed. Science has the goods, and religion is still playing catchup.

 

[Larry Mondello]

What if visiting the park was perceived to be forbidden in the Bible?

Not wanting to get into the whole debate, but short version...

If your interpretation of the Bible says "don't go to the park", then I guess you'd better not go to the park, and whats more, you should be completely free to decide not to participate in any park going.

But just because you understand the Bible as saying "don't go to the park" doesn't give you any right, at all, to stop people who don't share that understanding from going to the park.

If we were talking about something that unarguably harms others, like murder or arson or stealing, then there's a case to be made for stopping people from doing it, even if they don't see why its wrong. But in a purely religion derived morality, like "Bible sez-dn't go to the park", you have no grounds for stopping anyone who believes there's nothing wrong with going to the park from going to the park.

Of course, you should always be free to try to convinc people that going to the park is wrong. Thats fine. But legislating against park goers, based on nothing more than your personal beliefs, is wrong.

I hope this little analogy helps make my position clearer.

Your answer is perfect

Nonsensical. As the doubters give themselves high-fives.

Sorry, what part of it did you find nonsensical?

Your analogy is off-mark.
"Going to a park" is hardly comparable to a major moral issue.

Just bec. someone wants something, doesn't mean it's desirable as a law or worthy of changing the country's laws.

A 12 y.o. child may want to sue his parents bec. they wouldn't let him watch TV past a certain hours or didn't feed him doughnuts, but the mere wanting doesn't make a worthy cause.

Someone may think they're "offended" by a city council or school reciting the pledge of allegiance.
Merely bec. a miniscule number of people are against an activity doesn't make such activity wrong.

And bec. atheists are "offended" they can't lead campus religious groups, no way by law such groups should be forced to include such dissidents and antagonistic members into their groups' leadership positions.

A little common sense applies to such cases.

 

[selfinflikted]

Your analogy is off-mark.

The analogy was spot-on.

"Going to a park" is hardly comparable to a major moral issue.

You wouldn't be saying that if Leviticus said going to the park was punishable by a stoning to the death.

Just bec. someone wants something, doesn't mean it's desirable as a law or worthy of changing the country's laws.

Nope, sure doesn't.

 

[Gadarene]

Your analogy is off-mark.
"Going to a park" is hardly comparable to a major moral issue.

It is comparable to homosexuals getting married as there is no harm in general in either visiting the park or allowing homosexuals to get married.

The only thing Christians who are against the prospect of gay marriage have going for their stance is their belief that God says it's bad. And frankly, that's not much at all as it is utterly baseless on every level.

Just bec. someone wants something, doesn't mean it's desirable as a law or worthy of changing the country's laws.

Depends what ideals your laws are based on. If you claim to be in favour of freedom, then there is no reason to maintain laws that restrict freedom. Legal endorsement of heterosexual marriage only is one of those laws.

A 12 y.o. child may want to sue his parents bec. they wouldn't let him watch TV past a certain hours or didn't feed him doughnuts, but the mere wanting doesn't make a worthy cause.

Sure. But lack of sleep and a sugar only diet is demonstrably harmful.

Someone may think they're "offended" by a city council or school reciting the pledge of allegiance.
Merely bec. a miniscule number of people are against an activity doesn't make such activity wrong.

Which isn't why they say it's wrong. They say it's wrong because it violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

A little common sense applies to such cases.

Indeed.

So, whenever you want to start using it....

 

[quatona]

Why do I get this feeling that if we were slaying evolution or some other irrational atheistic sacred cow, you guys would be dredging up the tiniest spec of evidence to support your case?

I don´t feel in the position to tell you how you and why you create your feelings. Maybe they help you sleep at night, or something.

 

[Larry Mondello]

Originally Posted by groups postings

"Going to a park" is hardly comparable to a major moral issue.
​

You wouldn't be saying that if Leviticus said going to the park was punishable by a stoning to the death.

Two separate things.
Like eating pork vs. lusting toward your neighbor's hot wife.
Most understand the difference.

Understand you're homosexual, so am not going to get into discussion of that topic.

Originally Posted by groups postings

Just bec. someone wants something, doesn't mean it's desirable as a law or worthy of changing the country's laws.
​

Nope, sure doesn't.

Good. Glad you agree.

For others, someone's feelings or viewpoints alone don't merit major changes in law.

Let's say someone wants to be a lawyer or physician and has a hard time passing the exams.
So enough of those flunkies lobby state legislatures and urge for repeal of laws regarding lawyers, the practice of medicine, etc., essentially "dumbing down" said degrees so anyone -- just bec. they "feel" like it -- can become a lawyer or doctor or Indian chief.

That would be good law?
Based only on feelings?

 

[Gadarene]

Two separate things.
Like eating pork vs. lusting toward your neighbor's hot wife.
Most understand the difference.

Which apparently doesn't include the writers of Leviticus, who used the same word (rendered today as "abomination") to describe both eating something considered ritually unclean and homosexual activity.

Whoops.

 

[Larry Mondello]

Originally Posted by groups postings

Just bec. someone wants something, doesn't mean it's desirable as a law or worthy of changing the country's laws.
​

Nope, sure doesn't.

Maybe this is a better analogy:

Lets say a minority group moves into a country.
They keep urging that country's laws be changed so their strict and narrow religious laws can be enforced on others.

Eventually, they become the majority population and elect like-minded people to the country's legislature.

Then one day people wake-up to this:
- requirements to pray toward a certain Middle Eastern city 5X a day,
- women aren't allowed to wear modern clothing and now must wear restrictive covers over their heads,
- women are prohibited from voting
- women are prohibited from driving
- women are prohibited from appearing in public with men.
- women have no legal rights in courts
- women aren't allowed to divorce
- women are stoned for committing adultery.

and worst of all,
-people are now by law prohibited from practicing the religious and political beliefs of their choice...
....this affects atheism too, as that belief isn't tolerated, along with homosexuals and other "undesirables."

This all bec. some minority "felt" the law needed to be changed.

So... to base laws on "feelings" is nonsensical....

 

[Gadarene]

Maybe this is a better analogy

For the general point, sure.

But no-one is requiring that gay marriage be mandatory for everyone.

 

[selfinflikted]

Two separate things.
Like eating pork vs. lusting toward your neighbor's hot wife.
Most understand the difference.

So then, without getting too deep into a gay debate.. why is it that gays shouldn't allowed to be married again? Is that one more along the lines of lusting after your neighbor's hot wife or eating pork? Because, as I understand it, you guys pick and choose which Biblical laws to adhere to, and which to ignore completely.

Understand you're homosexual, so am not going to get into discussion of that topic.

Yep. Gay as the day is long. Gay as Christmas in Bloomindale's.

Good. Glad you agree.

I do.

For others, someone's feelings or viewpoints alone don't merit major changes in law.

Let's say someone wants to be a lawyer or physician and has a hard time passing the exams.
So enough of those flunkies lobby state legislatures and urge for repeal of laws regarding lawyers, the practice of medicine, etc., essentially "dumbing down" said degrees so anyone -- just bec. they "feel" like it -- can become a lawyer or doctor or Indian chief.

That would be good law?
Based only on feelings?

No, that would be a horrible law. But gays aren't lobbying for marriage rights just because they "feel" like it (though, we do feel like it, but that's not why).

 

[selfinflikted]

Maybe this is a better analogy:

Lets say a minority group moves into a country.
They keep urging that country's laws be changed so their strict and narrow religious laws can be enforced on others.

Eventually, they become the majority population and elect like-minded people to the country's legislature.

Then one day people wake-up to this:
- requirements to pray toward a certain Middle Eastern city 5X a day,
- women aren't allowed to wear modern clothing and now must wear restrictive covers over their heads,
- women are prohibited from voting
- women are prohibited from driving
- women are prohibited from appearing in public with men.
- women have no legal rights in courts
- women aren't allowed to divorce
- women are stoned for committing adultery.

and worst of all,
-people are now by law prohibited from practicing the religious and political beliefs of their choice...
....this affects atheism too, as that belief isn't tolerated, along with homosexuals and other "undesirables."

This all bec. some minority "felt" the law needed to be changed.

So... to base laws on "feelings" is nonsensical....

Right. But that's exactly what's happening in some states of the U.S. States are ammending their constitutions to ban gays from marrying, because they "feel" like it. Not for any good reason, you understand.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Yes, it means that each partner to the relationship has a monopoly on sexual activity with the other.

Should our love lives be monopolies?

 

[Mling]

Should our love lives be monopolies?

I don't think so, no.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I don't think so, no.

If our love lives shouldn't be monopolies, then what should they be?

 

[Mling]

If our love lives shouldn't be monopolies, then what should they be?

Free markets

 

[JoeyArnold]

Free markets

If our love lives shouldn't be monopolies, then the alternative is capitalism. Does that mean my love life should involve plenty of stocks & bonds from international partners who invest in me to see me flourish?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Should our love lives be monopolies?

If you are asking me, I prefer serial monopolies.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mling]

If our love lives shouldn't be monopolies, then the alternative is capitalism. Does that mean my love life should involve plenty of stocks & bonds from international partners who invest in me to see me flourish?

If you can find a sponsor, go for it.