"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists"

[TheOutsider]

Have not cured HIV yet.... Perhaps you got it wrong. A simple lifestyle change will end HIV. No premarrital sex.

Splendid idea. Does this mean that you will allow homosexuals to get married now? Allowing them the stability of marriage would be the sensible thing to do.

*opens FSTDT in a new window*

 

[atomweaver]

Thanks for addressing my questions. I don't know what to think. There are so many perspectives/interpretations under one roof. I can't keep them all straight.

You're not kidding, there, either!!. I thought more on the topic after an exchange with Oncedeceived in another thread, where she asked a third party to describe what they're thinking of when they say 'creationism'... My response was something snarky, but I had the same response as you did above. What is creationism?

If you're AVVET, its some "sorta but not really" Un-Omphalos invisible nested history with a smattering of ex nihilo apples, based on his peculiar interpretation of the eternally infallible but constantly rewritten "Word of God" until things settled down (for AVVet, anyways) in 1611...

If you're Oncedeceived, creationism is to accept every last bit of verifiable scientific data that points to an old earth and a twin nested heirarchy with common descent and frequency change in alleles, and call God the Supreme key-turner, pre-Big Bang. Anyone else would call her a theisitc evolutionist, but apparently a TE can be a creationist, too.

If you're knowitall, it seems to be an excuse to talk to yourself and about yourself in the third person (although that may have just been a sock-puppet error)

If you're dad, its an opportunity to talk about the invisible yet tangible-and-visible-to-him spirits that inhabit the earth just below the deepest oil drilling depths, and discount obviously measurable data which wasn't verified by anything other than the two horribly fallible eyeballs screwed into the human head...

If you're LittleNipper, its your chance to re-state ad nauseam the same sound-bite assertions about the veracity of his deity's involvement in jsut about everything, with a smattering of homophobia and some blaming of non-Chrisitans for most of the ills of society...

For speakout, supersport, Gottservant and countlless others, its about taking their turn rolling out the endless parade of PRATTs, which have been in serious need of updating since the 1970s (ToE is eugenics, ToE is atheism, atheism is a religion, atheists worship other prominent atheists, atheists worship ToE, "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys", radiocarbon dating doesn't work, Malachite/Moab/Nebraska/archyopteryx/Piltdown fossil fraud, etc.)

I see a solid-half dozen contradictions in both reality and theology, just among the few of our beloved locals, and I'm fairly sure theres almost as many creation views as there are creationists. So then... which is it?

 

[LittleNipper]

Splendid idea. Does this mean that you will allow homosexuals to get married now? Allowing them the stability of marriage would be the sensible thing to do.

*opens FSTDT in a new window*

Only if they can consumate one. If they cannot beget children, they are simply wasting everyone's time and their own energy at the risk of their anal health and the natural upbringing of children for the sake of our society at large.

 

[LittleNipper]

Something I don't understand...if there is a God (for the sake of arguement) and s/he is responsible for the initial "spark" of life, what is so offensive about the concept of common decent?

GOD made man in HIS image. GOD made monkeys in ours.

 

[atomweaver]

Only if they can consumate one. If they cannot beget children, they are simply wasting everyone's time and their own energy at the risk of their anal health and the natural upbringing of children for the sake of our society at large.

So, you're in favor of civil unions, then...

 

[LittleNipper]

So, you're in favor of civil unions, then...

Only where the union is civil. I feel that the government should stop trying to legislate marriage. They need only promote a safe environment to nuture and raise children in a loving caring atmosphere.

 

[Schroeder]

You're not kidding, there, either!!. I thought more on the topic after an exchange with Oncedeceived in another thread, where she asked a third party to describe what they're thinking of when they say 'creationism'... My response was something snarky, but I had the same response as you did above. What is creationism?

If you're AVVET, its some "sorta but not really" Un-Omphalos invisible nested history with a smattering of ex nihilo apples, based on his peculiar interpretation of the eternally infallible but constantly rewritten "Word of God" until things settled down (for AVVet, anyways) in 1611...

If you're Oncedeceived, creationism is to accept every last bit of verifiable scientific data that points to an old earth and a twin nested heirarchy with common descent and frequency change in alleles, and call God the Supreme key-turner, pre-Big Bang. Anyone else would call her a theisitc evolutionist, but apparently a TE can be a creationist, too.

If you're knowitall, it seems to be an excuse to talk to yourself and about yourself in the third person (although that may have just been a sock-puppet error)

If you're dad, its an opportunity to talk about the invisible yet tangible-and-visible-to-him spirits that inhabit the earth just below the deepest oil drilling depths, and discount obviously measurable data which wasn't verified by anything other than the two horribly fallible eyeballs screwed into the human head...

If you're LittleNipper, its your chance to re-state ad nauseam the same sound-bite assertions about the veracity of his deity's involvement in jsut about everything, with a smattering of homophobia and some blaming of non-Chrisitans for most of the ills of society...

For speakout, supersport, Gottservant and countlless others, its about taking their turn rolling out the endless parade of PRATTs, which have been in serious need of updating since the 1970s (ToE is eugenics, ToE is atheism, atheism is a religion, atheists worship other prominent atheists, atheists worship ToE, "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys", radiocarbon dating doesn't work, Malachite/Moab/Nebraska/archyopteryx/Piltdown fossil fraud, etc.)

I see a solid-half dozen contradictions in both reality and theology, just among the few of our beloved locals, and I'm fairly sure theres almost as many creation views as there are creationists. So then... which is it?

darn it how did i get left out of this. i know i am not the countless others group. I hate being left out.

 

[Molal]

Only where the union is civil. I feel that the government should stop trying to legislate marriage. They need only promote a safe environment to nuture and raise children in a loving caring atmosphere.

Did I read that right? From Lil'Nip?

Wow.

 

[LittleNipper]

Did I read that right? From Lil'Nip?

Wow.

Did I say that I believe homosexual unions to be civil? To promote a save environment a government needs to consider only begetting and the raising of children through natural means, in a family atmosphere ----- Husband & Wife relationship......

 

[Molal]

Did I say that I believe homosexual unions to be civil?

You implied it based upon your responses to questions. In particular see atomweavers question:

So, you're in favor of civil unions, then...

In response to your statement:

Only if they can consumate one. If they cannot beget children, they are simply wasting everyone's time and their own energy at the risk of their anal health and the natural upbringing of children for the sake of our society at large.

And then your response:

Only where the union is civil. I feel that the government should stop trying to legislate marriage. They need only promote a safe environment to nuture and raise children in a loving caring atmosphere.

Did you not mean what you wrote?

 

[atomweaver]

Did I say that I believe homosexual unions to be civil?

Ah. I see. Its a cute little twist of word definitions... again.

Civil
Main Entry: civ·il Pronunciation: \&#712;si-v&#601;l\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin civilis, from civis Date: 14th century 1 a: of or relating to citizens b: of or relating to the state or its citizenry <civil strife>

2 a: civilized <civil society> b: adequate in courtesy and politeness : mannerly <a civil question>

The term "civil union" obviously uses the first definition, and yet you swapped things around, and were using the second. Oh, how cunning* you are, LittleNipper.



* Guess which definition I'm using...

 

[LittleNipper]

You implied it based upon your responses to questions. In particular see atomweavers question:



In response to your statement:



And then your response:



Did you not mean what you wrote?

I feel that the job of the government is to protect its citizens from foreign invasion. Its job is not to legislate moral standards, but to allows its citizens the ability to establish their own without interference of any kind. That means that if the majority of a community of individuals are against homosexual sex, then they should be able to make it difficult for openly contrary individuals to remain part of the community. They need to find their own place and attempt to sink or swim on the merits of their own beliefs/feeling. It such does not work or causes problems for them, it is not for society at large to bail them out. The experiment proved such to be a failure and unworthy of additional consideration.

 

[Naraoia]

You realize, I hope, that he's talking about religion as a meme there. He's not talking about eradicating the hosts of the religious meme, but the meme itself. Dawkins has never ever advocated any sort of violence against religious people. If Dawkins is a "militant atheist", then the rise of atheism would bring about world peace.

"Militant" might not have been the best choice of word, sorry Of course I don't think he wants to shoot all religious people into a mass grave.

We seem to have rather different definitions of peaceful. I think you can be very un-peaceful without even a theoretical drop of blood spilled

 

[thaumaturgy]

I feel that the job of the government is to protect its citizens from foreign invasion.

Why not just limit it to "protect its citizens"?

Its job is not to legislate moral standards,

That means that if the majority of a community of individuals are against homosexual sex, then they should be able to make it difficult for openly contrary individuals to remain part of the community.

This is why I think the government should be in the business of protecting its citizens. That way no one would be able to say to another citizen who is not hurting them in any way "You are to be shunned and kept out of our society".

But that's just me.

Because when I see people advocate for the right to prejudice against another human based on the way they were born and in cases where what they are doing is in no way harmful to those around them (ie consensual adult human relationships) I think that the advocate for such prejudice hasn't thought it through very far.

Because what is done to the homosexuals today may be done to THEM tomorrow.

But then I actively attempt to fight my darker nature, and I know that's hard for many upright people to do.

They need to find their own place and attempt to sink or swim on the merits of their own beliefs/feeling.

Interestingly enough, I think intolerant people should be forced out of my country too! I think they should go somewhere else, like an island off-shore where they can practice their unique brand of intolerance and hatred to their hearts content.

But then intolerant jerks actively work to make others around them uncomfortable and therefore do a net negative to the matrix society, so I am internally consistent in my demands from governance!

 

[Vene]

Did I say that I believe homosexual unions to be civil? To promote a save environment a government needs to consider only begetting and the raising of children through natural means, in a family atmosphere ----- Husband & Wife relationship......

Which is also an argument for stopping the marriage of sterile couples. Besides many homosexual couples adopt.

 

[Naraoia]

Which is also an argument for stopping the marriage of sterile couples.

And for banning in vitro fertilisation...

Besides many homosexual couples adopt.

Now that's where you can start hurling the stones at me, I'm not entirely sure that's the right thing to do to a child (but then I admit I'm fairly conservative in some of my values). Of course we actually have to try the situation out before we can say anything about how it may influence (if it does) a child's psychological development (one danger I can immediately see is horrible amounts of laughing and pointing at school). Out of curiosity, has this been studied?

 

[LittleNipper]

Which is also an argument for stopping the marriage of sterile couples. Besides many homosexual couples adopt.

Natural husband/wife relationships are the best for the nurture of children. A child needs a male and female model. I feel that in my community it should be wrong for two guys to adopt. It is one thing if a spouse dies. It is another to artificially construct a two male or two female family to raise children. Sterile people cannot be easily discovered unless one does a lot of comprehensive medical testing. Healthcare is already stretched to the limit. two males or two female combinations cannot, do not, never have produced babies. This is a known fact --- both observable medically, historically, and religiously.

 

[Skaloop]

Now that's where you can start hurling the stones at me, I'm not entirely sure that's the right thing to do to a child (but then I admit I'm fairly conservative in some of my values). Of course we actually have to try the situation out before we can say anything about how it may influence (if it does) a child's psychological development (one danger I can immediately see is horrible amounts of laughing and pointing at school). Out of curiosity, has this been studied?

For starters, pretty much every kid gets teased/laughed at/pointed at for something. It's how kids are. We wouldn't prevent overweight parents from having children because the kids would be more likely to be overweight and subject to ridicule for it.

And yes, there have been studies done regarding the parenting ability of gay and lesbian couples. The APA states:

"beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."

 

[TheOutsider]

Now that's where you can start hurling the stones at me, I'm not entirely sure that's the right thing to do to a child (but then I admit I'm fairly conservative in some of my values). Of course we actually have to try the situation out before we can say anything about how it may influence (if it does) a child's psychological development (one danger I can immediately see is horrible amounts of laughing and pointing at school). Out of curiosity, has this been studied?

Actually, they have been several studies on the subject. Here is one: http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php

IMHO, it is better for children to be adopted by a homosexual couple than to not be adopted at all.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why not just limit it to "protect its citizens"?






This is why I think the government should be in the business of protecting its citizens. That way no one would be able to say to another citizen who is not hurting them in any way "You are to be shunned and kept out of our society".

But that's just me.

Because when I see people advocate for the right to prejudice against another human based on the way they were born and in cases where what they are doing is in no way harmful to those around them (ie consensual adult human relationships) I think that the advocate for such prejudice hasn't thought it through very far.

Because what is done to the homosexuals today may be done to THEM tomorrow.

But then I actively attempt to fight my darker nature, and I know that's hard for many upright people to do.



Interestingly enough, I think intolerant people should be forced out of my country too! I think they should go somewhere else, like an island off-shore where they can practice their unique brand of intolerance and hatred to their hearts content.

But then intolerant jerks actively work to make others around them uncomfortable and therefore do a net negative to the matrix society, so I am internally consistent in my demands from governance!

The BIG problem that you are not being told is that HIV is not the major concern. HIV destroys the body's ability to fight diseases. The person infected dies as a result of a secondary infection. The problem comes that people with HIV spead dangerous communicable diseases that were once almost gone from the general population. Healthy people can contract Tuberculosis from a coughing AIDs patient. The same is true of Pneumonia, etc... A healthy person can die of Tuberculosis if not immune. In fact these diseases (once rare) are becoming very widespread. So the homosexual can harm others inadvertantly through his actions. No one is an island.