I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn’t present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn’t offer books with gay or bisexual characters… but Neil Gaiman has already done the work. Go.
• 
Michael said And that the incident with the angels was an act of inhospitibility. Also, the townspeople who demanded ‘to know’ the visitors wanted to rape them. As I’m sure you’re aware, rape isn’t a sexual act, it’s an act of violence.
Do you think if the townspeople just asked the Angels to please have sex with them, then the city wouldn’t have been destroyed?
“Do you think if the townspeople just asked the Angels to please have sex with them, then the city wouldn’t have been destroyed?”
It still would have been, but there would have been no survivors. The angels were sent to find if there was anyone in the towns worth saving, and only Lot & his wife were. God had already decided to destroy the towns BEFORE he sent the angels, so the town wasn’t destroyed because of the attempted attack on the angels.
After some research, I think I understand why Luigi said evolution is a fact:
“… evolution does not qualify as a theory. A theory allows you to go back and make modifications when an error is discovered. This is not possible with evolution. The premise can
You know, here’s the thing I just don’t get about those who oppose gay marriage based on the idea that “It’ll ruin/undermine the institutuin of Marriage”, or “it’ll tear at the moral fiber of this nation”, I can’t help but wonder, exactly how will it ruin/undermine/bring down the Institution of Marriage? And I mean, seriously, if two grown men, or women, decide that they want to spend the rest of their life devoted to each other, and only each other, and building a life together, just how does that effect anyone else’s marriage?
From Institute for Creation Research:
Their saying things does not make them true. I think “using scientific method” is a much better definition of scientist than “have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science”. Referring to degrees may dazzle people who never went to universities. They’re not that hard to get, if you have the money to see you through. I’ve published articles myself. Publishing books takes patience/a strong will and money, not brains. The number of degrees and books published is not a good way of judging how scientific an author is.
For a different reading, you folks might want to check out
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/index.html
Okay.
I find this entire thing to be INCREDIBLY daft. So what are they going to do? Get rid of English history books with references to Edward II? Toss out books on Wagner because of his male admirer and sponser who was reportedly gay? Toss out all books written by gay or lesbian authors/poets? Well. There goes a good chunk of the library. Oh, but I suppose if people can’t find anything about it in their biographies, it’s okay, or maybe Oscar Wilde’s trial will stand to scare the šhìŧ out of people.
This sort of lack of education will only serve to cause more misconceptions and more hate. I suppose that’s what they want.
Makes it a pleasure to be alive.
And a little thing about being gay… I grew up in a conservative Christian family and held the view that homosexuality is evil for a good long time, and that always scared the SHÍT out of me because I was not physically attracted to males as I should have been. I’m still not. Can you imagine that? Thinking that your own God hates you or part of you because of something you honestly can’t help? Needless to say, I have a raging anxiety disorder because of the stress that and my parents put me through when I was dealing with all this and I have yet to recover. And you know, I don’t think I ever will despite medication and psychiatrist visits.
I fell in love with my best friend the moment I saw her in sixth grade, and oh, I followed her around because I felt this great longing to be part of her life. I denied my real attraction for her throughout middleschool and high school, although we did kiss and cuddle a few times in secret. That was always a wonderful, comfortable, natural feeling, but it frightened me. I knew what it meant. Or I thought I knew.
I tried going out with a boy I “liked” in high school, but I hardly let him touch me. I feared every time I felt obligated to kiss him (always just a short peck) because it disgusted me so much. And I never would cuddle.
Then in college came another boy who I thought I liked even MORE, but the same sort of repulsion came up immediately and ALL I could think about was my best friend. I had tried to separate myself from her, I had tried to communicate less with her, I had tried EVERYTHING to get away from my strong attraction for her, but…it didn’t work. It came to the same point (almost immediately in the relationship) where I loathed each kiss and touch from that boy, to where I was literally FORCING myself to spend time with him in order to grasp a slippery heterosexuality. He also never got any closer to me than those kisses which honestly disgust me to think about. I’m sure it’s similar to the feeling that heterosexual people get when imagining kissing someone of their same sex.
I had never prayed so hard in my life than I did when it came to my feelings for my best friend, and every answer, every dream, every POSSIBLE sign pointed to her as if God was telling me that THIS is who I need to spend my life with, THIS is who can give me comfort and love here on Earth. I know this may sound like absolute crap to some Christian conservatives, but you know, it’s the absolute truth.
The thoughts and dreams of her love (no, they weren’t “wet dreams”…not ONE of them, I’m talking about REAL emotional love, not physical) drove me to the point that I emailed her during a mission trip in June, 2003. I had to get it out or I felt I would literally have a nervous breakdown and I couldn’t talk about it on the phone because of the company. I was scared. I was inches away from losing EVERYTHING I had with her, but I risked it anyway…
And now we’ve been officially together for over a year. I’ve never felt happier, more secure, or more complete in my lifetime.
Is loving someone like this so wrong?
I will say that I disagree with promiscuous behavior, but you know what, it’s amazing how people blather about how promsicuous gays are and yet they turn a blind eye to the crazy heterosexual teenagers and young adults screwing each other blind every chance they get and having a variety of “fûçkbûddìëš”. Methinks some people don’t see the whole picture, but rather pick and choose what they want to see.
Selective sight.
Oh, and it happens when people read the scriptures, too. “Oh, this part was just meant for Jews, but this is for EVERYBODY!” as if they know precisely what they’re talking about. And hm, can anyone here actually read Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? What are the passages REALLY saying?
Oh, so all you know is what some OTHER person interpreted for you?
Well, that’s quite convenient.
I have a VERY hard time trusting translations due to the biases of the translators. Who knows, maybe if I get the crazy need to learn the languages, I’ll find out for myself what may be hidden in the original texts.
Also, just about anyone can take an excerpt from anything and bend it toward whatever direction they please. I’d rather find the entire quote, read it in context, and THEN make my judgment, but unfortunately most people would rather just have their information spoonfed to them. It takes a lot less effort.
From my muddled understanding (I’ve read this, but I haven’t done extensive research on it), that part of Leviticus has to do with things that go on during a pagan ritual and how it’s all an atrocity in the context of that ritual.
My challenge to you: Find ONE PLACE where JESUS HIMSELF spoke something against homosexuality. One.
Those other passages? Oh, they’re from human hands writing down laws and guidelines. Humans are fallible creatures with biases; how do we know that this is the Word of God full stop?
We. Don’t.
It’s not our place to make such judgments.
Ah, after reviewing a few things, the bit in Leviticus was likened to idolotry, so what I said was only somewhat correct. My apologies.
Bill:
Thank you for your kind words. I must say it’s quite… pleasant (if unexpected) to know that our Solidarity times are considered as inspiration in your country.
Sadly, Solidarity has become today a kind of “squandered legacy”. It is our national mentality that we unite in times of danger – and can’t stand each other in times of peace. The same happened with Solidarity movement after the fall of communism – politicians and activists that fought together in the past are now arguing, accusing and generally hating each other.
To make things worse, even ordinary folks seem not to have learned anything from the communist days. As I said in my previous post – many people still don’t get such ideas like “freedom of speech”, “constitutional rights” etc. Many people would not object if our country become a catholic religious state – there’s even quite popular saying “If you’re not catholic, you’re not truly Polish”… Today Poland is a country when the Church influences openly our politics, when some people seriously believe that promoting abortion should be banned… and you better not say that you don’t consider the Pope The Greatest Man of Our Times!
I may be wrong, but I don’t think that in United States artists can be prosecuted because of creating art that is “offensive to religious believes”. In Poland, sadly, artists can be (and are) prosecuted because of such crime…
All this really saddens me…
“I may be wrong, but I don’t think that in United States artists can be prosecuted because of creating art that is “offensive to religious believes”.”
Unfortunately, they can. See Maplethorpe or the Virgin Mary portrait that was at the Brooklyn museum a couple years back. Although there is no ‘offensive to religious believes’ law, there are other ways in which the artist and/or exhibitor are prosecuted. Government leaders will use obsenity charges or the threat of loss of funds to try (& sometimes succeed) to censor any art they don’t like.
As the original topic of this thread shows, censorship is still alive & well here in the “land of the free”. As it’s done by both the left & the right, although thr right is much more aggressive about it.
Good call Michael,
The left uses donations and social pressure as censorship, the right uses legal garbage (obscenety charges and theatening galleries and museuems with the the same) and other form of money (goverment grants as opposed to donations like the left uses)
Tim Lynch: I wouldn’t bother, Jeff. Our dear troll is clearly just here to stir things up, not to engage in any sort of discussion.
Luigi Novi: I
“Unfortunately, they can. See Maplethorpe or the Virgin Mary portrait that was at the Brooklyn museum a couple years back.”
Whoops. Sorry to see you’ve got that problem too.
“Government leaders will use obsenity charges or the threat of loss of funds to try (& sometimes succeed) to censor any art they don’t like.”
Here in Poland it’s much more simple… If a politician wants to censor some art, he goes to the exhibition in question, later claims that his “religious feelings” have been offended… and in most cases the exhibition will be immediately closed. Owners of galleries and museums are too scared of trials…
It may sound ridiculous, but it really happens like that. Some bigot yells “I’m offended!” and boom! – “Exhibition closed”.
“As the original topic of this thread shows, censorship is still alive & well here in the “land of the free”. As it’s done by both the left & the right, although thr right is much more aggressive about it.”
I agree, although here in Poland the censorship comes entirely from the right. Our left is composed mostly from ex-communists – who are more concerned with makings shady interests than censoring anything 🙂
Getting back to the original topic – I simply wanted to say that in US even people opposing homosexuality are not in favor of using censorship against gays. You know that such law would be stupid and unconstitutional… In my country you can find many, many people who would support such law vehemently – “Free speech for gays? You’ve got to be kidding! They’re sick – and sick people should not be allowed to spread their illness!”.
Luigi Novi,
You’re doing great. Just to summarize for anyone who might have skipped parts of what he wrote, I think the main point is this:
Many critics of science have no comprehension of what science actually is.
“Imagine that, a Creationist formulating the scientific method. Go figure.”
Of course it might have been very very difficult for many of the Greats to embrace Darwinism when Darwin had yet to be born. It’s like saying that the fact that Aristotle never watched TV means we should follow his example.
“Although there is no ‘offensive to religious believes’ law, there are other ways in which the artist and/or exhibitor are prosecuted. Government leaders will use obsenity charges or the threat of loss of funds to try (& sometimes succeed) to censor any art they don’t like.”
I wouldn’t equate taking away funds with being prosequted. Frankly, inthis country we are more likely to give completely unearned acclaim to “artists” who have done nothing more than be oh-so-shocking. Look! A Madonna made of elephant šhìŧ! See, it’s RELIGIOUS…but I made it out of SHÍT! Give me money! And over here…a crucifix dipped in urine! Crucifix! Urine! It’s postmodern! Where’s my grant?
It’s like the upper crust version of the Mary on the Cheese sandwich. I don’t mind that the untalented now have access to museum walls but it seems to have driven off whatver it was that made the pre-20th century artists so good. Give me a pre-raphealite painting over anything done lately.
This has been a production of Cranky Old Man, inc.
“As the original topic of this thread shows, censorship is still alive & well here in the “land of the free”. As it’s done by both the left & the right, although thr right is much more aggressive about it.”
Probably true, though when the left does it it can be more effective, since it often escapes any condemnation. If some one makes a painting mocking Dr. Martin Luthor King and outraged Black ministers snatch it from the gallery it will not receive 1/10 the attention and outrage that would occur if Jerry Falwell did the same to “Piss Christ”.
Of course, it would also be very difficult to get an anti-King painting exhibited in the first place, which is also telling.
Luigi,
I’ll second Jeff here — nice work. I continue to have my doubts that your sparring partner is actually interested in any sort of debate, but if nothing else you’re certainly educating everybody else!
TWL
The earlier discussion about the scientific method was completely lost on you, wasn’t it?
Apparently. Are you saying that we can’t establish anything as a “fact”? Gee, that blows.
Novfan:
eclark1849…
Are you saying that we can’t establish anything as a “fact”? Gee, that blows.
I agree, but it’s true. The best we can do is come up with a theory, say “this is how it seems to work” and wait for someone to knock it down. Anything in science that is known as “fact” is actually just a really good theory that hasn’t been disproven.
Jeff and Tim, thank you.
Now can SOMEONE please teach me how to format a link into text??????? Someone offered the procedure to me (on another board, I think), but it didn’t work. 🙂
Tim,
Sorry, I was out of touch. If you are still following this thread, here is a reply.
But not to the point of LEGISLATING AGAINST IT. Adultery is condemned more often and more strongly in the Bible than homosexuality is — it’s one of the Commandments, for heaven’s sake. And, as I said before and you more or less brushed aside, adultery is directly responsible for more failed marriages than any aspect of any homosexual relationship.
It was mentioned more because, like today, it is a larger problem. I did not brush aside what you said about adultery. I did say that divorce happens for a lot more reasons than just adultery, so I consider no-fault divorce to actually be the larger problem. And I *would* be in favor of some changes to this law. Except for adultery and abuse, divorce should be more difficult and be seen as more of a problem.
You can say “oh, they’re against adultery too” if you like — but based on their actions and the battles they choose to fight, they (and you) consider homosexuality the threat and not adultery. That is logically inconsistent with their (and your) stated goals.
That is only because you don’t agree with my perspective. If I would follow your logic, then I should be calling for ANY sexual act outside of marriage to be illegal. That would include living together, as well as adultery or homosexual acts.
Let me state this as clearly as I can. I do NOT oppose gay marriage simply because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I am NOT interested in making everything the Bible calls sin against the law. I am NOT interested in making (or “keeping”) this a “Christian nation.” My opposition to gay marriage is based on an informed conviction that gay marriage does harm to society. You disagree that it does so, but that is beside the point. That is my conviction. It does harm at a fundamental level that is different than just sexual acts outside of marriage. It does harm to the very heart of marriage itself.
At this point we may have to just agree to disagree because you don’t accept and/or understand the difference I see between the two areas. Let me attempt one example: Lieing. I would argue that in most cases (excluding the obvious, such as if I was hiding Jews and a Nazi came to my door, do I have the truth, etc.), lieing is harmful. (For the sake of the example, I am not talking about little “white” lies but things such as what happened at Enron, or what some of you think Bush did about WMD’s). It is NOT logically inconsistent to say I am opposed to lieing, but I am not going to make telling any lie against the law. Some lies do harm, but only in a limited scope. Others (such as Enron) can cause great harm to others. We have laws against libel and slander, etc., for a reason.
Gay marriage is a different animal than adultery. It IS possible for adultery to be made legally legitimate. For example, if a judge were to rule that adultery was NOT a justifiable grounds for divorce, it would be making it legitimate. That is what is happening with gay marriage. It is taking a private act and making it something with legal standing.
Here’s where I challenge your generalizations again.
My wife and I lived together before we were married (sort of … certainly enough to qualify under your definition, I’m sure). At this point, we’ve been married for 13+ years and have a thirteen-week-old daughter who brings joy to our lives at a rate far greater than she takes sleep from it (large though the latter is some days).
Your statement above implies that you consider our marriage somehow less moral or less valid than the marriage of a couple who never lived together before marriage.
No, my statement does not say or imply that. My statement says that for there is a far higher rate of divorce for people, like yourself, who did live together. The fact that you have a healthy marriage is great, but it does not change the statistic. My statement also said that children born to single moms are far more likely to live in poverty than any other enviromental factor (education, race, etc.) that you could site.
I’ll ask you point-blank: is that your belief?
Let me put my belief this way: It is better for a couple to be married than living together. If a couple who once lived together gets married, I believe they are now in a better situation than before. The term “moral” and “immoral” for me are not a judgment of you as a person but a reflection of whether you are living in a way that is healthiest for the relationship.
A good friend of mine is living with her fiancee now. Another pair of good friends of mine didn’t get married until she was already pregnant with their son. Are their marriages less moral than someone who didn’t do that? And are you prepared to legislate to that effect?
No, I would not “legislate” it as a criminal offense. But I WOULD do everything I could to write legislation that encouraged them to get married, because that is what would be best for their son. (Whether I think it is “spiritually” moral or immoral is secondary to me. My focus is on what is best, not on simply labeling someone as immoral.)
I think divorce is, by far, a greater threat than adultery to marriage.
Given that the latter rather frequently leads to the former, I’m intrigued by your willingness to make the distinction.
I make the distinction because I have seen marriages pulled apart simply because a spouse decides, I don’t love him (or her) anymore.” There are a lot more reasons for divorce than just adultery. Furthermore, I have seen marriages survive adultery and actually become better. Adultery does not have to mean the end of a marriage provided the guilty party actually changes his (or her) ways.
You didn’t like my Copernican example; fine. Here’s another one: 150 years ago, women couldn’t vote. The consensus belief for a long period of time was that women couldn’t be trusted to make good judgements in that regard. When women got the vote, there was no shortage of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and claims that American democracy was doomed.
Well, women have voted for a while now, and they’ve proven no worse at it than men.
That was a societal shift — an action, to use your word, rather than a clarification of existing fact. It was a change that was heavily resisted (including by most Christian churches, BTW), but in the end has strengthened society rather than weakened it.
is there some reason this parallel’s not apt?
I would agree that this is a better analogy. It is an example of a change that was good. (Ending slavery is another such example.) In both cases, the changes HAVE had an enormous impact on society. I think overwhelmingly it was for the good. But that does not then mean legalizing gay marriage is also a good thing and would bring good changes. Each case has to be looked at on its own merits. As I suggested before, the advent of no-fault divorce has had an enormously negative impact on our society. While it sought to correct an unfair situation in some cases, overall I believe it has done more harm than good.
Lastly, a question which I hope will give us some more common ground, or at least clarify the terms of the discussion. Kingbobb earlier suggested taking marriage out of the realm of the government entirely, and making all relationships “civil unions” so far as the state is concerned. That would leave any individual faith to define marriage as it saw fit, and those couples who wanted a religious blessing could find an institution willing and happy to give it.
Would that change your support for an anti-gay-marriage amendment? (I will have a follow-up question. 🙂
No, it would not. If gay marriage did become law, it might end up being a good idea to protect churches from the lawsuits that I know will come when they refuse to accept or conduct gay marriages. But my opposition comes from more than just a theological standpoint. From a sociological viewpoint I think gay unions will undermine the value and culture of the family.
Let me add this: If over 50% of the nation voted for this to be made the law, I would accept it as law (as long as it did not require my church or my pastors to accept or perform gay marriages within our church). But if this is simply the act of an activist court, I would oppose it. The reality is, as this debate has shown, this issue deals with far more than gay marriage. It deals fundamentally with the concept of what is right and wrong, and with the concept of the role of the church and the state. There are enormous changes being made that are NOT based on democracy but on a minority forcing their will on the majority. That will only cause a deeping of what has been called the “culture wars.”
Jim in Iowa
My challenge to you: Find ONE PLACE where JESUS HIMSELF spoke something against homosexuality. One.
There is a false logic in your statement. There are a lot of things Jesus did not speak against. I don’t recall him saying anything about incest or rape. You don’t find him condemning sexual harrassment.
There is a far more logical reason for why Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality: It was so taboo that it was not even an issue.
What you do find Jesus doing is *raising* the standard. Instead of just condemning the act of adultery, he said that lusting after a person (committing adultery in your head) was equally as wrong.
When Jesus did speak about marriage, he clearly stated it involved one man and one woman. When Jesus encountered those engaged in sexual sin, Jesus BOTH showed them compassion AND he told them to stop sinning.
The challenge really is at your feet: Demonstrate just one example where Jesus accepted what had previously been seen as a sexual sin. Give me one example where Jesus indicated there was any option for marriage that did not consist of a man and a woman. Give me just one example where Jesus came across a clearly gay relationship and chose to say nothing. Just one.
What would Jesus do today with someone who is gay? The same thing he did then: He would love the person but would not hesitate to tell them to quit sinning. If you disagree, show me just one example where Jesus did not deal with sin and a sinner in this manner. If we are using Jesus as our example, then lets be honest about how he actually is recorded as acting. Otherwise, you are equally making him into what you want him to be as you accused the other writers of scripture of having done.
Jim in Iowa
I agree, but it’s true. The best we can do is come up with a theory, say “this is how it seems to work” and wait for someone to knock it down. Anything in science that is known as “fact” is actually just a really good theory that hasn’t been disproven.
Is that a “fact”?
Okay, so now, what’s the scientific definition of “proof”?
“Okay, so now, what’s the scientific definition of “proof”?”
It’s pretty much the same story. You can’t “prove” something. You can show that your hypothesis is “supported” but one cannot say with absolute cosmic certainty that future discoveries won’t invalidate what we currently accept as being true.
At some point, of course, a hypothesis or theory has enough evidence supporting it that we don’t waste much time repeating the process. Cell theory states, among other things, that all life on earth is made up of 1 or more cells. Has EVERY single insect that has ever been discovered been subject to electron microscopy to show that it is indeed made up of cells? No, who would fund such a dopey project?
Michael Brunner,
PIOTR SAID:
“I may be wrong, but I don’t think that in the United States artists can be prosecuted because of creating art that is ‘offensive to religious believes.”
YOU SAID:
“Unfortunately, they can. See Mapplethorpe and the Virgin Mary portrait, that was at the Brooklyn museum a couple years back.”
Oh, please. Nummber One, as conservatives did, you are using two high-profile examples to make a broad case, namely that the government is “prosecuting” art it doesn’t agree with.
Number Two, the reason it became such a political issue is because it was ART FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT! It is inane to suggest the government cannot even show displeasure at potentially offensive and inflammatory “art” that it funds.
Number Three, to compare these things to what Piotr is talking about is to really not have a sense of perspective. As far as I know, the artists behind the “art” you mention have not had criminal charges filed against them and neither were the owners of the buildings where they were shown. Criticism does NOT equal “censorship”.
When the government literally shuts down publishing houses that produce material that is “offensive to religious beliefs” then your analogy may actually be accurate.
Until then, not so much.
You further stated:
“As the original topic of this thread shows, censorship is still alive and well in the ‘land of the free’.”
Seeing as how the case that inspired the original topic of this thread is not even being taken seriously and was brought up in arguably THE MOST conservative state in the Union, I don’t feel censorship is quite the nationwide problem you are suggesting it is in this statement.
And, as Piotr and friends of mine who have immigrated here (first generation) can tell you, “land of the free” is still a pretty good description of the U.S.
“And it’s done by both the left and the right, although the right is much more aggressive about it.”
Oh, I don’t know about that. Depends on what you choose to focus on.
A.)A few years ago in Brooklyn, a white teacher, teachng a class of Blacks and Hispanics, read a book called “Nappy Hair”, written by black author Carolivia Herron. The book tells of a black girl’s emotional journey of self-acceptance. In the story, a young girl discovers that her “nappy hair” was given to her by God and is therefore OK.
The children loved it, yet parents (only one of whom had a child in the teacher’s class) and community leaders denounced the teacher, calling the book “Napy Hair” racist, shouting racial epithets at the teacher and physically threatening her.
Despite a defense by the book’s black author, the teacher transferred and later resigned, saying she feared for her safety.
2.) When (white) major league pitcher John Rocker made idotic redneck remarks about immigrants, Japanese women drivers and homosexuals, leading figures in the press and in the game itself questioned whether Rocker should be Allowed back in baseball!! But no one suggested future (black) Hall of Famer Reggie White should be denied participating n his profession after making stereotypical statements about Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans in front of the Wisconsin State legislature!
3.) In Philadelphia a few years ago there was a concerted effort by black activists to ban “Huckleberry Finn”, a move that failed but has been tried in other parts of the country.
4.) A LOT of the opposition and “outcry” over the ridiculaous Terrell Owens Nicollette Sheridan skit on Monday Night Footbal came from liberal Blacks: Men , who feel any such representation of Black men renforces stereotypes, and Women, who simply loathe Black men interacting with white women sexually, ESPECIALLY blondes.
The difference, as I see it, is conservatives generally try to ban in the name of a greater God, while liberals try to ban in the name of a greater Good.
It’s pretty much the same story. You can’t “prove” something. You can show that your hypothesis is “supported” but one cannot say with absolute cosmic certainty that future discoveries won’t invalidate what we currently accept as being true.
Then you’re not making sense to me, since the definition of “prove” is to “to show to be true or genuine, as by evidence or argument.” Says nothing about being absolutely certain.
So it would seem to me that the standard for “proving a fact” is to show as best you can that it is “true”. If it is NOT true, then it is “false” and therefore NOT a “fact”.
So what am I missing? Are you saying that science cannot show whether something is true or not through “verifiable and supportable evidence”?
eclark1849 wrote…
Are you saying that science cannot show whether something is true or not through “verifiable and supportable evidence”?
Pretty much. The best you can say is that your prediction was correct on the particular occasion that you made the experiments, and that this result is in line with current theories.
Once an observation has been made that contradicts the theories, and that observation has been replicated a few times, you have to alter the theory to accomodate the new observations.
So what we have when people refer to “scientific facts” would be more accurately referred to as “scientific theories that have a great deal of support and have yet to be disproven.”
But then, that’s not nearly as simple to say. =)
It would be presumptuous to claim you have “proven” a “fact” since history shows that as our technology has improved it has allowed us to see things that were previously impossible to be aware of. Such things can radically modify perfectly fine theories.
Germ theory will forever be germ theory unless you can come up with a way to utterly disprove the possibilty of curses, ghosts, etc. Since none of those things can be observed or measured they, by definition, can’t be disproven. So one must be open to the possibility of htier existance (or some other non-germ factor).
Nevertheless, when I get sick I will go to the doctor, since the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that this would be a better course than going to some guy with a bone through his nose.
So we can’t prove anything. We can’t disprove anything. That doesn’t mean that all possibilities are equally valid. I may well be a butterfly dreaming he is a man…but I’m still going to invest in my 401 K plan.
Posted by Luigi Novi at December 3, 2004 09:47 AM
Sasha: “It’s official – the platypus is weird”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1226827.htm If there is one creature out there can prove creationism, that God has a sense of humor, or the existence of extraterrestrial life (I’d easily imagine patypuses — or is it platypi? — being descended from the long-abandoned pet of ancient astronauts), this egg-laying, mammalian freak would be it.
Luigi Novi: Not really.
In 1971, two fossil platypus teeth were discovered in the Tirari Desert in South Australia. They are about 25 million years old, and have been named Obdurodon insignis. The modern platypus has only vestigial teeth which are replaced by horny pads when it is still a juvenile. The fossil teeth are similar enough to these vestigial teeth to allow identification, and they show that ancient platypuses had teeth as adults.
And contrary to the creationist Straw Man that platypus supposedly links mammals and birds, anyone who reads any evolutionary literature, even at a basic level, will quickly find out that birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals.
Interesting article, btw.
I agree that was interesting just a little nit pick to add if anything the phylum of Monotreme (Which the platypus is part of) would if anything be an evolutionary link between reptiles and marsupials as they only occur on the Australian content which was isolated from the rise of mammals
PolarBoy: My favourite sin which is mentioned far more times than the two obsurce references to homosexuality in the bible is the act of userey which is the act of charging intrest on borrowed monies. I have never once hear of anybody every say that the banks and credit card companies are sinful I don’t recall anybody protesting to get these business practices stoped so until somebosy tells me American Express is an abomination of gods law I can in no way take your opinion on what consenting adults do seriously.
Luigi Novi: But isn
Jerome:
“The reason it became such a political issue is because it was ART FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT! It is inane to suggest the government cannot even show displeasure at potentially offensive and inflammatory “art” that it funds.”
I agree – it’s an ambiguous issue. Personally, I believe that the government has the right to decide how its money is spend. It has the right not to fund something that it finds completely useless, crappy etc.
The problem is, such right can easily be misused. It may not be big issue in US, but in my country almost all theaters, galleries and museums are government – funded. So, when government declines to fund art it doesn’t like, it effectively BECOMES a form of censorship…
But I agree – it’s not such problem as outright censorship, which I wrote about yesterday.
BTW. If I may ask an off-topic question.. Out of curiosity – have there been in US any cases of literal destroying of controversial art? Here in Poland such things have happened in the last few years… For example, on more than one occasion our right-wing members of parliament practically TRASHED art they didn’t like. Does it happen in US too?
Polar Boy: Thats my whole point we are in effect a society that runs on something stated as a sin in the bible.
Luigi Novi: So capitalism itself should be abolished? Are you saying that Christianity is ideally communist?
Not Capitalism overall, just banks and credit card companie (actually anyone who charges interest on loans, so actually yes, the whole capitalist system.
Luigi Novi wrote…
So capitalism itself should be abolished?
Maybe not abolished but I’m of the opinion that it’s not “working” in the way most people seem to think it’s successful. I personally believe that the system is inherently corrupt, and unless some major changes are made to it (don’t ask me what, I’m no economist), we will see a total collapse.
I’m a bit of a cynic, though. 🙂
Jeff Lawson on capitalism:
Maybe not abolished but I’m of the opinion that it’s not “working” in the way most people seem to think it’s successful. I personally believe that the system is inherently corrupt, and unless some major changes are made to it (don’t ask me what, I’m no economist), we will see a total collapse.
You don’t know what’s wrong, you don’t know how to fix it, but you think it’s on the road to total collapse. Brilliant.
Capitalism is SUPPOSED to be corrupt. The whole theory is that if everyone looks after his own best interest, wealth will be created. It’s far less corrupt than communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, and to the Politburo however they want) or socialism (work ethic? who needs that?) or any other system that anyone’s ever come up with. It’s not very different from the checks and balances incorporated in the Constitution. People will always look out for #1, so we’re far far better off in a system that channels that incentive in a constructive direction.
Capitalism pulled us out of feudalism. Capitalism leads to democracy because it creates a middle class. Capitalism is one of the best things to ever happen to humanity.
I’m a bit of a cynic, though. 🙂
That’s one word for it. Still, I think cynics should LIKE capitalism.
Capitalism is dying or, at the very least, is very sick. Monopolies have smothered it.
Not to mention that patents and copyrights are inherently anti-free-market…
David Bjorlin wrote…
You don’t know what’s wrong, you don’t know how to fix it, but you think it’s on the road to total collapse. Brilliant.
That’s right, I’m not an expert. If I were to suggest something, it would be a greatly increased degree of government control of the markets, but I’ll also readily admit that that would bring problems of its own. I’m pretty sure I’m allowed to dislike something without having the clear, expert knowledge required to fix it.
Capitalism is SUPPOSED to be corrupt.
Really, I don’t recall that being written into any definitions of capitalism I’ve ever read, but I suppose I could have forgotten.
It’s not very different from the checks and balances incorporated in the Constitution.
Your constitution, not mine, and I have my own opinions on how well your “checks and balances” seem to be working.
People will always look out for #1
Simply untrue.
Capitalism leads to democracy because it creates a middle class.
1) What makes the middle class integral to democracy?
2) How do you account for the widespread notion that the middle class, in the U.S. and elsewhere, is disappearing?
Capitalism is one of the best things to ever happen to humanity.
Your opinion, and a highly debatable one. Capitalism tends to breed exploitation, both of people and the environment. If everyone is dead in a couple hundred years because the capitalists were too busy looking after their bottom line to protect the environment, let me know if you still think it was one of the best things for humanity.
That’s one word for it. Still, I think cynics should LIKE capitalism.
You haven’t pulled any punches so far, go ahead and tell me just what your word for it would be. I can take it.
My use of the word “cynic” was to indicate that my outlook is often negative, not that I believe all people are motivated by selfishness. My fault for not clarifying I suppose, but I thought the meaning was clear in the context of what I wrote.
Pretty much. The best you can say is that your prediction was correct on the particular occasion that you made the experiments, and that this result is in line with current theories.
I think if you’re sitting around predicting outcomes instead of observing outcomes, you’ve left the world of science and are working for the “psychic friends network”.
Bill:
It would be presumptuous to claim you have “proven” a “fact” since history shows that as our technology has improved it has allowed us to see things that were previously impossible to be aware of. Such things can radically modify perfectly fine theories.
I think you, Jeff and Tim are saying that “proof” is equivalent to being absolutely 100% “no-room-for-error” certain. And again I ask you, where has this ever been the case? “Proof” is a preponderance of the evidence sufficient enough to induce or compel belief that something is true.
The old axiom, “Nothing’s perfect.” springs to mind. Therefore to say that “nothing is provable” is blatantly false. Heh. What’s so funny about that is under your definition, you can’t even be certain that you’re right.
eclark1849 wrote…
I think if you’re sitting around predicting outcomes instead of observing outcomes, you’ve left the world of science and are working for the “psychic friends network”.
Nope, that’s what science is all about. You make a hypothesis, which is a prediction about the outcome. You run your experiment, and see if the hypothesis is supported. The very purpose of science is to predict future events. After all, what good is studying the force of gravity if you can’t predict that if you drop an object, it will fall to the ground? What good is genetics if you can’t predict that if you alter this gene, there will be a change in this trait?
I think you, Jeff and Tim are saying that “proof” is equivalent to being absolutely 100% “no-room-for-error” certain.
That is the commonly accepted meaning of proof. If something is “proven,” that to most people means that no other possibilities exist. If your personal definition of proof is that sufficient evidence exists that you can believe that something is true, but you are willing to entertain the notion that you’re wrong, then I don’t have any beef with you.
Piotr,
I appreciate the difference you are stating. That is why I and many others who consider ourselves conservatives in this country are for extremely limited government.
I feel for your situation.
As for your question, I cannot recall any government ordered destruction of art.
But by private citizens? Plenty. Controversial music records have been destroyed in protests on a pretty regular basis, from a famous blowing up of disco records in Chicago in the ’70s, to citizens destroying their Dixie Chicks records after their controversial remarks. A beautiful painted mural in Philadelphia of their controversial and legendary mayor Frank Rizzo was splotched with paint and had the words “Free Mumia” painted on it by vandals. Due to a idiotic book, many comic books were destroyed – and many companies put out of business – because they were seen as “corrupting our youth”.
For the most part, though, we do a pretty decent job of upholding our ideals.
By the way, just got the lates issue of “Rolling Stone”, and it ranked “The 500 Greatest Songs Of All Time”.
“New Year’s Day”, by U2, was #427. In the few paragraphs about the song, Bono described how he came up with the lyrics.
“We improvise, and the things that came out, I let them come out,” he said. “I must have been thinking about Lech Walesa being interned. Then, when we’d recorded the song, they announced that martial law would be lifted in Poland on New Year’s Day. Incredible.”
I never knew this was the inspiration for the song. Did you? It’s a pretty cool story.
I can think of one time when public officials actually seized a painting: in 1988 several african-american alderman tore down a painting of the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington that depicted him dressed in women’s underwear. They damaged the painting and almost torched it right there on the spot before the police arrested…the painting. Really.
A federal court ruled six years after the fact that they had violated the First Amendment rights of the artist, David K. Nelson.
You can read an interesting account of the whole thing at http://www.thefileroom.org/publication/becker.html
Of course, had Nelson done the same painting with Jesus, Reagan, Bush, Clarence Thomas, etc. he would have been ok.
Ðámņ… nearly 300 posts in three days…
and in all of this, no one has really answered my question, “How will gay marriage ruin the institution of marriage or corrupt morality in the US.”
It just seems to me that the only answer that’s been presented in this thread so far is “Uh…. because the bible says it will?” and I’d like something more concrete, if you will.
Jerome:
“As for your question, I cannot recall any government ordered destruction of art. But by private citizens? Plenty.”
Heh. Than it’s definitely different than in Poland. In Poland your average citizen is rather too… apathetic to do something like that. It’s mostly politicians who do such things – partly because our politicians are kind of untouchable. It’s sad truth, but Polish potician could do almost anything (with an exception of murder) and would not be punished, sued etc.
I recall only one case of vandalizing an art that was NOT carried out by a politician. And even in that case the perpetrator was not “anybody”, but one of our most famous actors. It was a really freaky case, actually – that guy has attacked controversial photo exhibition and cut some photos into pieces. With a sabre…
“Due to a idiotic book, many comic books were destroyed – and many companies put out of business – because they were seen as >”.
Let me guess – you are talking about “Seduction of the Innocent”? I’ve read about it…
BTW. There was in Poland one instance of politician destroying a comic book… To be more precise – one of our right-wing policians publicly burnt some copies of Spiegelmann’s “Maus”. He claimed that this comic book is “anti-Polish” – which is rubbish, but some people are just paranoid…
“I never knew this was the inspiration for the song. Did you?”
Actually, I did 🙂 And I agree – it’s really cool.
Bill:
“You can read an interesting account of the whole thing at http://www.thefileroom.org/publication/becker.html“
Thanks!
Slick:
“Ðámņ… nearly 300 posts in three days… and in all of this, no one has really answered my question, >”
You know, I’ve been asking this question for quite some time – and to this day no one was able to give me a convincing answer… 🙂 But maybe I’m just too liberal…
“How will gay marriage ruin the institution of marriage or corrupt morality in the US.”
It won’t. That’s probably why there hasn’t been any answer.
For those conservatives still on the fence–the so-called gender ggap is actually more of a Marriage Gap. Among married people republicans score big time.
So by encouraging gay maariage you might help expand the base!
“How will gay marriage ruin the institution of marriage or corrupt morality in the US.”
It won’t. That’s probably why there hasn’t been any answer.
Actually until just now, I never saw the question.
Depends on what you mean. Most people are talking about the single male- single female bonding model when they talk about marriage. That particular model is unique because it is the foundation upon which human society is built.
The fear is that gay marriage weakens the idea of marriage in the traditional sense, and they’re quite right, it will, because once you redefine marriage to no longer mean one man – one woman, you open the door to include other definitions, such as one man – two women, a brother and sister, or even communal marriage.
And if you think that’s not true, all you have to do is look at how families have been redefined to include almost any combination of people living under one roof. It’s not unlike what happened to Xerox. They nearly lost a trademark because the name became so synonymous with copying. they had to resort to suing people to get it’s value back.
I don’t personally look at gay marriage when I think of the corruption of traditional marriage though. I look at the “shacking up” phenomena as starting the downfall of traditional marriage. when more and more people started living together without the “benefit” of marriage, marriage itself was seen as less and less necesarry. When these unions also produced out of wedlock children, the courts had to begin establishing child rights, so that children would still be provided for should a “union” break up. That pretty much killed the idea of children being “legitimate” or “illegimate”. Interestingly enough, you see that same scenario being played out with the use of words like “legal” and and “illegal” aliens.
Me:People will always look out for #1
Simply untrue.
I overshot a bit using the adverb “always.” Replace it with “generally” and I stand by the statement. People, as a species, are inherently selfish. They will make exceptions, as David Hume noted, when they feel some overriding affiliation. Family bonds do it, as will nationalism or group dynamics (e.g. a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to shield his buddies), but over time selfishness wins out with most people.
Your opinion, and a highly debatable one. Capitalism tends to breed exploitation, both of people and the environment. If everyone is dead in a couple hundred years because the capitalists were too busy looking after their bottom line to protect the environment, let me know if you still think it was one of the best things for humanity.
Absolutely. Poor people in the United States today live like kings compared to the conditions most of humanity has toiled in since its beginnings. The industrial revolution was a good thing. Capitalism, which drove the industrial revolution, was a good thing. Short of Ras al Ghul depopulating the Earth, I challenge you to find a way to support a modern population with modern standards of living without capitalist economies. And if you think capitalism is bad for the environment, take a look at the old Soviet bloc.
As for your queries about the role of the middle class, traditionally the bourgeois is the group of society that clamors for more power, and diffusion of power leads to voting and democracy. Economic and political freedom are mutually reinforcing. Far from capitalism breeding exploitation, capitalism tends to destroy it. (Even Marx thought capitalism was a drastic improvement over anything that came before it. Marx just didn’t realize that his idea was a step backwards.) The perception that the middle class is disappearing is just that– a perception. I’ve seen no hard data one way or the other, and any data would depend on the definition of the middle class that the compiler of the data was using. I think it’s likely that we will never again have an Eisenhower-era economy again, but since that was the product of the rest of the world having gone through a wringer, I’m not sure we should *want* another Eisenhower economy.
// Depends on what you mean. Most people are talking about the single male- single female bonding model when they talk about marriage. That particular model is unique because it is the foundation upon which human society is built. //
Not it isn’t. The idea of marriage meaning one man-one woman is realitivly new in human history. (The idea of marrying for love is even newer). For most of human history marriage was 1 man and several women, (and in a significantly large part of the world that is still the case). This was to ensure that the all important male heir would be born. (Female children were considered unimportant, considered property and good only for being married off. It was the 1st male child who inherited the family name and trade.) It was autmatically assumed that if a male heir wasn’t produced it was the women’s fault. (Used to be thought that women added nothing to the process, they were just there for men to plant the seed, and beliefs like this influenced many religious customs which, unfortunatly, we still have around today). Add on to that the high number of women and children who tended to die in childbirth and you can see why there was an effort to “stack the deck”. But hey, if you don’t believe me you need not look any further then the Bible, plenty of references to men with multiple wives in the good book, and it’s significant to note that the almighty didn’t seem to have any problem with the practice. (And there would be even more references in the new testement if people with agendas hadn’t edited them out, the same way they edited out Christ extended family, but I digress).
BTW, while we’re on the subject, many scientist believe that men were not made for monogamous relationships. That we have a 7 year span on relationships before both partners start basically looking elsewhere. (And that looking elsewhere is basically natures way of telling us to expand the gene pool). Not saying I buy into that, but it’s something to think about when you look at the high rate of divorce, and how many of those divorces happen within the first 10 years.
I don’t personally look at gay marriage when I think of the corruption of traditional marriage though. I look at the “shacking up” phenomena as starting the downfall of traditional marriage. when more and more people started living together without the “benefit” of marriage, marriage itself was seen as less and less necesarry. When these unions also produced out of wedlock children, the courts had to begin establishing child rights, so that children would still be provided for should a “union” break up. That pretty much killed the idea of children being “legitimate” or “illegimate”. Interestingly enough, you see that same scenario being played out with the use of words like “legal” and and “illegal” aliens.
Pretty good summary of what I believe. Gay marriage is not the first or only threat to marriage. Divorce and single parents has done a lot to undermine marriage.
Why is gay marriage a bad idea? I have stated the reason a lot of times, but it is consistently twisted to say something I am not saying. But I will try one more time.
I believe that, to use a cliche, children are the future. Research has shown that the best environment for a child to grow up in is in a loving family with a father and a mother (one of each gender). While children can grow up in other environments (including an orphanage with no parents) history and research agree that the ideal situation is for the biological father and mother to raise a child.
Marriage is not simply an arrangement created by the government. It came about naturally. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, either view would support the idea that marriage, meaning a commitment between the biological father and mother to raise a child, has existed long before any religion or government chose to “bless” such an arrangement.
For almost all of recorded human history, there was not the level of birth control we now have available. So if a man and woman had sex, it was very possible a kid would result from the union. Then as now, a kid being raised in a loving environment by his (or her) biological parents was (all things being equal) the best for the kid.
This does not mean that someone who is married who does not / cannot have kids is not legitimately married. I am simply noting that we are at a unique time in history when it is easily possible to have regular sex but choose to not have a child. Marriage was not solely about having kids. But kids were a very natural and normal result of being married.
Which leads us to today. In order to provide the best environment for kids, it is important to preserve the priority of traditional marriage. This, for me, is what makes this issue more important than simply with whom someone chooses to have sex. Gay marriage would change the importance of traditional marriage. In addition, while I have no doubt a gay couple would be very loving, I consider it less than ideal for a kid to be raised by two people of the same gender. This is not about the child being influenced to be gay, this is about the overall emotional and social development of a child. Just as with single parents where a child is missing one or the other gender, outside role models can help, but it is never the same as being raised by a male and female parent together. While a single parent can be a loving parent, I would not want to promote single parenthood to the level of marriage. Nor do I want to do so with gay marriage.
We are just now beginning to grasp the full impact no-fault divorce has had on kids. We can look to countries such as Russia who, under communism, raised kids apart from their biological parents. In every case I have read, it has been shown to have been less than ideal. It may be better than nothing, but that does not mean we should elevate it to the same status as traditional marriage.
Bottom line, my personal objection to gay marriage is not rooted in just a Bible verse. It is based on what I believe will be the societal impact if we make gay marriage legal.
I do have a secondary reason for my opposition. It is clear that there is a larger agenda behind the desire to make it legal. I believe it is meant by some to force churches to accept homosexuality.
So what is the threat to churches? How would making gay marriage legal be a threat to my church? It comes on a few levels. The most obvious is employment. Currently, a church is allowed to “discriminate” in a few areas based on their moral convictions. If gay marriage was legal, I guarantee that there will be lawsuits demanding that churches hire a gay minister or secretary, etc. This has already happened in California over 20 years ago, even without gay marriage being legal. A friend of my family was a pastor of a Presbyterian Church just outside of San Francisco. They hired a guy as the church organist. About 6 months later, they found out that he was actively gay. They fired him because they considered his position as being part of their worship on Sunday (their position on this matter was in writing, so he essentially lied when he applied for the job). To make a long story short, he sued. Worse than that, the pastor’s house was firebombed (fortunately his kids were with their grandparents at the time), and 20 years later, they are still receiving death threats from members of the gay community even though the guy died of AIDS 15 years ago. The church basically went bankrupt simply fighting to maintain their right to practice IN THEIR WORSHIP SERVICES what they believed. They were not picketing against gay rights, they were not trying to get gay people fired from their “secular” jobs. They were just practicing a very clearly held belief.
Another threat: Tax exempt status. Some gay activists have already said that once gay marriage becomes legal, they will begin suing churches who refuse to marry a gay couple to strip them of their tax exempt status. (You may not agree with churches having a tax exempt status in the first place, but that is beside the point. It is wrong to strip them of it simply because of a moral conviction that they hold. That is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.)
Bottom line, there is a concerted effort to force the church to change its view that it is morally wrong to engage in gáÿ šëx. It is one thing to try to persuade through reason. It is another when a church is threatened and kept from following its beliefs.
Jim in Iowa
// For almost all of recorded human history, there was not the level of birth control we now have available. So if a man and woman had sex, it was very possible a kid would result from the union. Then as now, a kid being raised in a loving environment by his (or her) biological parents was (all things being equal) the best for the kid. //
A few problems with this statement. 1) The concept of monogmy, realitvly new in human history. For most of human history a family was one guy, multiple wives. Oh and females, (children and wives) were considered property. And of course there’s still large chunks of the world where that’s still the case. 2) The idea of marriying for love even newer, only about a 150 to 200 years old. For most of human history marriages were arranged or done as a social oblication with the sole objective being to produce a male heir. (Female children being useful only to be married off). And of course there is a sizable chunk of the world where that’s still the case today. 3) The idea of kids being raised in a loving eviorment is really, really new. Probably only about 125 years old. Prior to that kids were just seen as an extra hand to have around in the family bussiness, (if they were boys), or a body to be married off as early as possible, (if they were girls). As late as the 1800’s there was a debate in this country about manditory schooling, we were a nation of farmers see and farmers didn’t want to lose the free labor that was provided by children, (and besides there was nothing school couldn’t teach them that they couldn’t learn on a farm). Our centering everything around “the children” is a really recent phenomon. Our ancesters regulary put kids as young as 7 years old to work in ways that would be considered “child abuse” today. Even as late as the great depression the idea of a 10 year old with a full time job was not unheard of, (in some cases that 10 year old was supporting the family. Pop Culture aside, this is why audiences of the time didn’t have problems with things like Robin the boy wonder. Why should they, Robin just had a job like any number of other kids did. But I digress). The idea of the “happy care free childhood” is really, really recent. (And I agree with Bill Marh, Centering eveything around “the children” was one of the worst mistakes our society ever made).
Bottom line is that you’re looking at the wrong end of the glass. You’re making the assumption that what marriarge and a family is today was what it always was, and that is just simply not true. The idea of the Mom and Dad who loved each other, and raised thier children in a loving nurturing enviorment practically didn’t exist as little as 200 years ago.