[QUOTE=davar55;356013]

I personally can still feel respect for the people who accept their
religious beliefs, though the beliefs themselves get no respect
from me.[/QUOTE]

That's as good a way of stating it as any.


[QUOTE=davar55;356013]

Didn't mean to (momentarily) hijack this thread.[/QUOTE]

bah, this thread has become an echo chamber anyway. I eagerly await the return of "The moving goalpost" Zetaflux.

Speaking of goalposts, one thing holding back acceptance of gay marriage is a larger problem with acceptance of LGBT people and issues. So it is germane to notice trending improvements in more general acceptance too. Harvey Milk will be on a US postage stamp next year.

[URL="http://www.salon.com/2013/10/11/gay_political_icon_harvey_milk_gets_his_own_stamp/"]Gay political icon Harvey Milk gets his own stamp[/URL] [noparse][salon.com][/noparse]
[QUOTE]The Harvey Milk Foundation announced the news on Facebook, noting that the stamp will feature one of Milk’s “most enduring” messages, “Hope will never be silent.”

“On behalf of the Milk family and the Harvey Milk Foundation, we are thrilled that our campaign for the stamp has succeeded and we thank all our partners including the USPS in this effort,” said Stuart Milk, Milk Foundation president and founder. “Harvey’s story, example and courage continues to inspire across the globe and the issuance of the first U.S. postage stamp for a openly LGBT in my uncle’s name will not only educate but will provide hope, hope that is still critically needed today.”[/QUOTE]

Tonight for Halloween I'm dressing up as a Pro-Gay Marriage Bill. I don't believe there's any way I make it out of the House.

[COLOR="White"]Actually I'm going to turn out all the lights and huddle underneath a heavy blanket until all the little Ghouls and Goblins go away![/COLOR]

[QUOTE=chappy;358049]Tonight for Halloween I'm dressing up as a Pro-Gay Marriage Bill. I don't believe there's any way I make it out of the House.

[COLOR=White]Actually I'm going to turn out all the lights and huddle underneath a heavy blanket until all the little Ghouls and Goblins go away![/COLOR][/QUOTE]
All the little ghouls and goblins are sent out by the likes of Bryan Fischer, E.W.Jackson and Linda Harvey. They will be absolutely terrified of you when they see you as Bill.:devil:

New "third gender" provision for births in Germany
 

[URL]http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/131030/germany-allow-third-gender-option-at-birth[/URL]

It's interesting that Germany, which is now in a minority of countries in Western Europe in that marriage is still restricted to opposite sex couples with the government having no plans to change that, should be the first European country to allow for children whose gender is as yet undetermined. The new law takes effect today.

Marriage is just one area which is as yet unclear with regards to how people with undetermined gender are provided for. Perhaps most people whose gender is undefined at birth will have registered as male or female by the time they marry, but genuinely intersex adults occur too. And as the article mentions, life for children growing up is highly oriented towards whether they are boys or girls, and it is not clear what this will mean for those children not assigned a gender.

The above paragraph just concerns the new legal situation in Germany, of course. There has always been the problem for some people in society that they have been assigned the wrong gender at birth and have to deal with the consequences when this becomes clear to them, which is often quite early in childhood. The difference now is that the law is acknowledging this, or at least making a start.

Is this new "third gender" law in Germany, brought in while other areas of the law and society in general still hold fast to gender-specific areas of life, the right way to have gone about providing for trans and intersex people?

[YOUTUBE]ovKa2wXUO-0[/YOUTUBE]

apparently I don't care about teh gayz. only about my evil plots.
At least we know that Ted came by his crazy naturally.

[QUOTE=chappy;358397]apparently I don't care about teh gayz. only about my evil plots.
At least we know that Ted came by his crazy naturally.[/QUOTE]
Fascinating stuff! It's so jaw-dropping in fact that I'm keen to know more about the scientific credentials of this man (he identifies himself as "a scientist" in the video as a means of imploring people to "trust" his wisdom) but I've drawn a blank. Google turns up plenty of other activity by this father of a US senator but is less informative about his credentials. Wikipedia only seems to have heard of the Brazilian footballer of the same name. Can anyone help?

Well, the guy is the best proof that god does not exist, or, if it exists, it is insane. Because only an idiot god could create a man like that... Sorry if I offended any christians here...

[QUOTE=Brian-E;358486]Fascinating stuff! It's so jaw-dropping in fact that I'm keen to know more about the scientific credentials of this man (he identifies himself as "a scientist" in the video as a means of imploring people to "trust" his wisdom) but I've drawn a blank. Google turns up plenty of other activity by this father of a US senator but is less informative about his credentials. Wikipedia only seems to have heard of the Brazilian footballer of the same name. Can anyone help?[/QUOTE]

Ted's birth certificate claims that Rafael Bienvenido Cruz is a 'geophysical consultant' whatever that means. Geological engineer of some sort?

According to [URL="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/28/20733447-7-things-to-know-about-sen-ted-cruz-r-tx?lite"]this article[/URL] he received a degree in mathematics from UT Austin

many news clippings I've read refer to him as a pastor of some sort or other.


aha! [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356934/rise-rafael-cruz-robert-costa/page/0/1"]the motherload[/URL]! forget all that speculation above. Mathematics and Chemical Eng. from UT. worked for an oil company that moved him to Canada where he became a citizen. Moved to US (Texas) worked for himself in an oil related business, converted from Catholicism to an unspecified Evangelical Protestant denomination. Started his own church. (still vague on what sect if any) and became a US citizen in 2005.

So not really a scientist of any sort.

Geophysicist is kind of a catch-all for oil exploration, though I suppose it could have other meanings. It is used a lot in that industry.

Rafael Cruz probably has some fascinating theories about where oil comes from then. He sounds like a scientist you can really trust. Like those scientists you so often used to see on television, wearing impressive white coats, whose function apparently was to test different brands of washing powder to find out which one (always singular, amazingly) could remove underarm stains.

[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/11/07/enda_criticisms_we_rank_the_dumbest.html[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;358670][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/11/07/enda_criticisms_we_rank_the_dumbest.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
Thanks for posting this interesting article. The first two criticisms of ENDA - "LGBT people deserve discrimination", and "LGBT people don't suffer discrimination so what is the problem?" which the author notes are very familiar to me, but the third, "LGBT people are more interesting when they suffer discrimination" is one I haven't heard before.

I must admit I somehow missed hearing about this proposed ENDA legislation and it's wonderful to read that it's now been passed by the Senate.

The Senate passing ENDA is an encouraging step, but the road is long. This iteration will never see the light of day in the House of Reps.

This has been said many times, in many ways. I might add that the ones not eating shrimp are having cheeseburgers.

[QUOTE=kladner;358891]This has been said many times, in many ways. I might add that the ones not eating shrimp are having cheeseburgers.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm. I think I understand the references to shrimp and clothing of mixed fibres, but the cheeseburgers are surely okay with Leviticus because their remnants on the griddle in the cooking area count as burnt offerings creating a pleasing aroma for the Lord, right?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;358913]Hmmm. I think I understand the references to shrimp and clothing of mixed fibres, but the cheeseburgers are surely okay with Leviticus because their remnants on the griddle in the cooking area count as burnt offerings creating a pleasing aroma for the Lord, right?[/QUOTE]Milk and meat.

[QUOTE=kladner;358891]This has been said many times[/QUOTE]
hehe, b-e-a-utiful! I have to print that and hang it on a wall...

[QUOTE=Brian-E;358913]Hmmm. I think I understand the references to shrimp and clothing of mixed fibres, but the cheeseburgers are surely okay with Leviticus because their remnants on the griddle in the cooking area count as burnt offerings creating a pleasing aroma for the Lord, right?[/QUOTE]

It is offensive to consume the offspring in/with its own mother's milk. I suppose this might mean that you could have goat cheese with your beef burger.

[QUOTE=xilman;358923]Milk and meat.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;358928]It is offensive to consume the offspring in/with its own mother's milk. I suppose this might mean that you could have goat cheese with your beef burger.[/QUOTE]
Ah, thankyou both for the enlightenment.

I have committed the sin of only studying parodies of Leviticus and not the learned text itself, and I was unaware of its ban on meat with own mother's milk, probably because this one's too reasonable to parody.

[QUOTE=kladner;358850]The Senate passing ENDA is an encouraging step, but the road is long. This iteration will never see the light of day in the House of Reps.[/QUOTE]

It's procedurally invalid, since it includes spending for enforcement and such bills must originate in the House. So even if it were to pass (hard to imagine) it would still get a blue slip.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;358949]It's procedurally invalid, since it includes spending for enforcement and such bills must originate in the House. So even if it were to pass (hard to imagine) it would still get a blue slip.[/QUOTE]

Article 1 section 7 requires that bills that raise revenue start in the House, there is no requirement about bills that spend money starting in the house.

This probably belongs in the WTF?? thread
 

[url]http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/15/nigerian-post-graduate-student-uses-elementary-school-science-to-prove-homosexuality-is-impossible/[/url]

[QUOTE]A Nigerian post-graduate student at the University of Lagos in Nigeria has allegedly conducted some supposedly groundbreaking research to prove, without a doubt, that marriage equality is not only wrong, but also physically impossible…using magnets, along with other very simple experiments and mathematics. [/QUOTE]

I don't see how we are going to argue with magnets. There's got to be a monopole joke here somewhere. I'll get back to you.

I just wish I hadn't sent this guy $1000 to help him get his family's fortunes out of the country.

[QUOTE=chappy;359094]I don't see how we are going to argue with magnets. There's got to be a monopole joke here somewhere. I'll get back to you.

I just wish I hadn't sent this guy $1000 to help him get his family's fortunes out of the country.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the good laugh on the family fortune. :smile:

A married man and woman who ran a hotel in England and were taken to court by a male couple to whom they refused to give a double room five years ago, have just finally lost their appeal in the Supreme Court (after going to steadily higher and higher courts over the years since the incident) against the damages to the male couple which were awarded against the Christian hoteliers for discrimination. I found the short, sarcastic article in "The Independent" about it quite amusing:

[URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/martyrs-guesthouse-owners-who-turned-away-gay-couple-on-religious-grounds-are-nothing-of-the-kind-8967077.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]Spare a moment for that persecuted, oppressed minority: homophobes. [...][/QUOTE]

Good to hear. :goodposting:

[url]http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/12/19/catholic-students-revolt-after-church-fires-school-vice-principal-for-being-gay[/url]

#keepmrz2013

[QUOTE=chappy;362534][url]http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/12/19/catholic-students-revolt-after-church-fires-school-vice-principal-for-being-gay[/url]

#keepmrz2013[/QUOTE]
Sin is so damn cool, and it's much more fun when you do it in a group.

If holding your breath was declared immoral by God, asphyxiation deaths would go up a thousand times.

[QUOTE=jasong;362546]Sin is so damn cool, and it's much more fun when you do it in a group.

If holding your breath was declared immoral by God, asphyxiation deaths would go up a thousand times.[/QUOTE]
If I have followed the story correctly, this dedicated and popular teacher has been with his male partner for many years with the school's full knowledge of this. His sacking (more accurately, forced resignation) is as a result of his announcement that he was to finally marry his partner. Why is marrying the guy now sinful when living with him unmarried apparently was not?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;362549]If I have followed the story correctly, this dedicated and popular teacher has been with his male partner for many years with the school's full knowledge of this. His sacking (more accurately, forced resignation) is as a result of his announcement that he was to finally marry his partner. Why is marrying the guy now sinful when living with him unmarried apparently was not?[/QUOTE]Gives a whole new interpretation to the old phrase "living in sin".

[QUOTE=Brian-E;362549]If I have followed the story correctly, this dedicated and popular teacher has been with his male partner for many years with the school's full knowledge of this. His sacking (more accurately, forced resignation) is as a result of his announcement that he was to finally marry his partner.[/QUOTE]

I haven't been following this story at all, but I can imagine the scenario...

I would like to suggest this could actually work out to be in the gentlemen's best interests...

He's now a "free agent", skilled in a very important domain (in this case, teaching children).

He makes his Teaching availability know to more liberal schools.

He takes a stand (I think this is already clearly happening).

He might consider suing his previous employer, or at least threaten to, to get rightful compensation (not always only (or even) money; truth is also very valuable...).

[QUOTE=xilman;362550]Gives a whole new interpretation to the old phrase "living in sin".[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;362551]I haven't been following this story at all, but I can imagine the scenario...

I would like to suggest this could actually work out to be in the gentlemen's best interests...

He's now a "free agent", skilled in a very important domain (in this case, teaching children).

He makes his Teaching availability know to more liberal schools.

He takes a stand (I think this is already clearly happening).

He might consider suing his previous employer, or at least threaten to, to get rightful compensation (not always only (or even) money; truth is also very valuable...).[/QUOTE]
Great comments!

I'm sorry, I should confess at this point that I posted in haste and was confusing in my mind this recent story from Seattle, as linked by Chappy, with [URL="http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/petition-more-45000-signatures-delivered-catholic-high-school-fired-gay-teacher080813"]another recent story[/URL] from Glendora, California in which another teacher at a catholic school was sacked for marrying his same sex partner, and the details I sketched refer to that story and are inaccurate with regards to the new one. That California incident also resulted in mass protests by the students against the school's decision to sack the teacher.

Some number of years ago, the same thing would have happened for an administrator getting divorced and remarried. And we would hear the same narrow-minded chants about sin being wrong no matter what.

Let's turn the tables a little and ask, what if God said don't eat shrimp or turtle soup, or catfish, or snails. Perhaps we might imagine that God would forbid us to eat fat or blood. Maybe God might say don't walk around without a hat or with torn clothes, or mixed fabrics, or tattoos, or mixing a few different kinds of herbs in a garden. And we might imagine a God who forbids us American Football, not because it interferes with the Sabbath--since that is Saturday and people conveniently ignore that specific rule and worship on the same day as the Romans set aside for Sol Invictus the Sun god, you know it as Sunday--but because it is unclean to touch the dead carcass of a pig.

Men without two testicles can't go to church in this imagined scenario and no bastards are allowed either. Women shouldn't braid their hair, wear gold or pearls, or expensive clothes either.

So perhaps Sin is so damned cool. Especially when you do it in a group. Like every Sunday. When you go to church to hang out with all the others defying G-d's word in deed and action.

What denomination of sinners do you belong to?

[QUOTE=jasong;362546]Sin is so damn cool, and it's much more fun when you do it in a group.

If holding your breath was declared immoral by God, asphyxiation deaths would go up a thousand times.[/QUOTE]

Forgive him, FSM. He is totally deluded, and not very christian in his attitudes toward others. There is a powerful whiff of supercilious Pride here, at the very least. This could also be termed self-righteousness.

Jason, I sincerely suggest that you work on your own karma, and leave that of others to them.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

[QUOTE=chappy;362554]...can't go to church in this imagined scenario and no bastards are allowed either.[/QUOTE]

Interesting...

So, then, Jesus Christ wouldn't be allowed in Church, if not for the claim of his "immaculate conception"?

What sometimes seems to be missed is conception doesn't always require penetration.

I apologize if this causes offense.

[QUOTE=chalsall;362559]Interesting...

So, then, Jesus Christ wouldn't be allowed in Church, if not for the claim of his "immaculate conception"?

What sometimes seems to be missed is conception doesn't always require penetration.

I apologize if this causes offense.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/unc-scientists-find-45-virgin-births-national-survey/story?id=21262729"]'Strange Nativities': Scientists Find 45 'Virgin Births' (and Some Virgin Fathers)[/URL]
[QUOTE]"We were analyzing data for a separate project -- people who were still virgins once they were adults. But we were surprised to discover a number of them reported pregnancies. Once we confirmed these were not programming errors, we thought there were some interesting factors."

These seemingly miraculous births were not a result of in vitro fertilization, according to the survey results. The authors also said the findings suggest the need for more -- and better -- sex education.

"We found [the "virgin birth" phenomenon] was more common among women who signed chastity pledges or whose parents indicated lower levels of communication with their children about sex and birth control," said Herring.

The immaculate conception group may have been small, but researchers did find an even larger group, whom they called "born again virgins."

"They reported in an earlier study a pregnancy, then later said they were virgins," said Herring. "Those may have been a misclassification issue."[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102[/url]
[QUOTE]What this study adds
In a large survey representative of the US population, around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Quote:
What this study adds
In a large survey representative of the US population, around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births [/QUOTE]A critical question in such cases would be in regard to the gender of the resulting offspring. If this were true parthenogenesis, that gender would almost have to be female, unless the mother had some strange genetic makeup.

Giving birth to a male, when one is only endowed with x chromosomes is a trick which might truly require divine intervention, such as having a bird or a crucifix fly in one's ear.

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Meister_der_Braunschweig-Magdeburger_Schule_001.jpg[/URL]

(I am, unfortunately, unable to locate the "crucifix-in-the-ear" painting of the annunciation. I am sure that one of the learned ones hereabout will be able to fill in this gap.)

Obviously someone is conflicted. But, let's not look at this as some kind of mandate. Womendates are also allowed under the ruling.

[QUOTE=chalsall;362559]So, then, Jesus Christ wouldn't be allowed in Church, if not for the claim of his "immaculate conception"?[/QUOTE]

I generally ignore wild claims which fly in the face of science and reason -- even more so when they are based on obvious mistranslations of original source material, as the above claim is.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362767]I generally ignore wild claims which fly in the face of science and reason -- even more so when they are based on obvious mistranslations of original source material, as the above claim is.[/QUOTE]

So, then, what is the answer to the question?

Just so's we are clear, Jesus' birth is not the immaculate conception, you are confusing it with the virgin birth. The Immaculate Conception is the birth of Mary the mother of Jesus.

If you are going to criticize the concept you should at least start there.

Alan Turing "pardoned""
 

[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315[/URL]

Our bad, chappy - but the similarity of the 2 themes (Mary's freedom from original sin, Jesus' virgin birth) obviously makes confusion/conflation inevitable.

OT: I find it interesting how similar the views of Mary/Jesus in Islam are to those in Christianity. It is the Christian belief that Jesus is son-of/one-with God that arguably provides the most serious rift between the 2 faiths [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus]on the subject of Jesus[/url]:
[quote]According to Islamic scriptures, the belief that Jesus is God or Son of God is [i]shirk[/i], or the association of partners with God, and thereby a rejection of God's divine oneness ([i]tawhid[/i]) and the sole unpardonable sin.[/quote]

[QUOTE=davieddy;362780][URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315[/URL][/QUOTE]

Good of 'em, eh? I'm sure 'e feels a whole lot better.

But seriously: it's about time. Talk about gratitude, not to mention the un-brilliant decision to wreck one of the most brilliant men in his field.

[QUOTE=kladner;362789]Good of 'em, eh? I'm sure 'e feels a whole lot better.

But seriously: it's about time. Talk about gratitude, not to mention the un-brilliant decision to wreck one of the most brilliant men in his field.[/QUOTE]The radio is struggling to do full justice to him which I suppose is not very surprising. How many of the audience have heard of these?
Godel
The UTM
Church
Von Neumann
Shannon
...or even Bletchley Park until 1995. (On my doorstep BTW).

David

[QUOTE=chappy;362770]If you are going to criticize the concept you should at least start there.[/QUOTE]

So, then, what you are saying is according to the Bible Mary might have gotten a really good "spanking" to produce Jesus, but her mother didn't to produce her?

Just trying to figure out the logic.

[QUOTE=chalsall;362848]So, then, what you are saying is according to the Bible Mary might have gotten a really good "spanking" to produce Jesus, but her mother didn't to produce her?

Just trying to figure out the logic.[/QUOTE]

No, that's not what I am saying. That's not even what the Catholics are saying.

These concepts fail on their own merit without making up straw men. Even for comedic effect.

There is, of course, nothing in the Bible about Mary's conception. Which is why protestants who among the 5 solae include sola scriptura and disregard the Catholic notion of immaculate conception which was controversial even in the church until the 1800's. It's one more layer of made up tradition becoming doctrinal. On it's surface though it is no crazier than any other single piece of theology.

[QUOTE=chappy;362853]It's one more layer of made up tradition becoming doctrinal. On it's surface though it is no crazier than any other single piece of theology.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your honesty.

And Merry CHRISTmas.... :smile:

Did the nine-year-olds who wrote and produced their own nativity play get it about right then with the following fragment of their script?

INN KEEPER: I'm sorry, the inn is full.

JOSEPH: But we need somewhere to stay, and my wife Mary here is heavy with child.

INN KEEPER: Well, that's not my fault.

JOSEPH: It's not mine either.

Cue Pythons:

Brian's mother: He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! Now, piss off!

[i]Due to Terry Jones' refusal to allow certain cuts, [url=www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470]this film[/url] was banned for one year in Norway for blasphemy, being released with an '18' rating and a warning from the censors at the beginning. Thus, it has been marketed in Sweden as "The film that is so funny that it was banned in Norway!"[/i]

The IMDB memorable quotes collection misses one of my favorite lines, so we had to resort to [url=http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Life_of_Brian/2.htm]the nuclear option[/url]: here -- my only quibble with the manger sketch is that I would have done the Myrrh bit a little differently, more along these lines:

MANDY [Brian's mother]: Go and praise someone else's brat! Go on!

WISE MAN #2: We--

WISE MAN #1: We were led by a star.

MANDY: Or led by a bottle, more like. Go on. Out!

WISE MAN #1: Well-- well, we must see him. We have brought presents.

MANDY: Out!

WISE MAN #2: Gold. Frankincense. Myrrh.

MANDY: Well, why didn't you say? He's over there. Sorry the place is a bit of a mess. Well, what is myrrh, anyway?

WISE MAN #3: It is a valuable balm.

MANDY: A bomb? What are you bringing it in here for?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;362549]If I have followed the story correctly, this dedicated and popular teacher has been with his male partner for many years with the school's full knowledge of this. His sacking (more accurately, forced resignation) is as a result of his announcement that he was to finally marry his partner. Why is marrying the guy now sinful when living with him unmarried apparently was not?[/QUOTE]
The marriage isn't the issue, the problem is that we have a school full of kids celebrating the sin.

[QUOTE=chappy;362554]Some number of years ago, the same thing would have happened for an administrator getting divorced and remarried. And we would hear the same narrow-minded chants about sin being wrong no matter what.

Let's turn the tables a little and ask, what if God said don't eat shrimp or turtle soup, or catfish, or snails. Perhaps we might imagine that God would forbid us to eat fat or blood. Maybe God might say don't walk around without a hat or with torn clothes, or mixed fabrics, or tattoos, or mixing a few different kinds of herbs in a garden. And we might imagine a God who forbids us American Football, not because it interferes with the Sabbath--since that is Saturday and people conveniently ignore that specific rule and worship on the same day as the Romans set aside for Sol Invictus the Sun god, you know it as Sunday--but because it is unclean to touch the dead carcass of a pig.

Men without two testicles can't go to church in this imagined scenario and no bastards are allowed either. Women shouldn't braid their hair, wear gold or pearls, or expensive clothes either.

So perhaps Sin is so damned cool. Especially when you do it in a group. Like every Sunday. When you go to church to hang out with all the others defying G-d's word in deed and action.

What denomination of sinners do you belong to?[/QUOTE]
I belong to New Life. And you're right, Christians sin. That's the point of Jesus' death on the cross. He didn't come for the righteous, He came for sinners. If there were even one righteous person on the Earth, Christ's death would be unnecessary. Christ was a bandaid, because otherwise the "earth experiment" would've been a total washout.

And I don't comdemn homosexuals, I condemn homosexuality. Everybody sins, it's just the specifics that are different. I'm not claiming homosexuals go to Hell just for being homosexuals, but homosexuality is a sin and it isn't a good idea to practice or endorse it.

[QUOTE=kladner;362557]Forgive him, FSM. He is totally deluded, and not very christian in his attitudes toward others. There is a powerful whiff of supercilious Pride here, at the very least. This could also be termed self-righteousness.

Jason, I sincerely suggest that you work on your own karma, and leave that of others to them.

Judge not lest ye be judged.[/QUOTE]
I'm not judging the sinners, I'm judging the sin. And, while I'm not perfect, I know for a fact it's a bad idea to flaunt one's disrespect for God.

[QUOTE=jasong;362919]And I don't comdemn homosexuals, I condemn homosexuality. Everybody sins, it's just the specifics that are different. I'm not claiming homosexuals go to Hell just for being homosexuals, but homosexuality is a sin and it isn't a good idea to practice or endorse it.[/QUOTE]
Are you at all concerned that receiving this message day after day, and/or dealing with the attitudes of peers who receive this message, would appear to be a major cause of suicide amongst LGBT teenagers? This group of young people is at much greater risk of suicide than the general youth population. Would you alter your message at all if you are specifically speaking to a young person trying to come to terms with his or her sexuality?

[QUOTE=jasong;362920]I'm not judging the sinners, I'm judging the sin. And, while I'm not perfect, I know for a fact it's a bad idea to flaunt one's disrespect for God.[/QUOTE]

I have seen too much disrespect for humans and other living creatures/beings to really be that concerned about some people's superstitions of invisible friends.

EDIT: You are welcome to believe whatever you wish. You are protected in such beliefs in the US of A. However, those who do not share your beliefs can exercise their protected free speech by disputing your arrant nonsense.

[QUOTE=jasong;362918]The marriage isn't the issue, the problem is that we have a school full of kids celebrating the sin.[/QUOTE]

Take off your blinders man! Did you even read either of the stories. Even following your narrow-minded view of the world they are celebrating the person not his lifestyle. To use your oft quoted and meaningless to anyone who doesn't accept your definitions phrase: They love the sinner whether or not they think he is a sinner.

What we have is a school full of kids willing to stand up against bigotry.

[QUOTE=jasong;362919]I belong to New Life. And you're right, Christians sin. That's the point of Jesus' death on the cross. He didn't come for the righteous, He came for sinners. If there were even one righteous person on the Earth, Christ's death would be unnecessary. Christ was a bandaid, because otherwise the "earth experiment" would've been a total washout.

And I don't comdemn homosexuals, I condemn homosexuality. Everybody sins, it's just the specifics that are different. I'm not claiming homosexuals go to Hell just for being homosexuals, but homosexuality is a sin and it isn't a good idea to practice or endorse it.[/QUOTE]

Nobody on earth is righteous, and whose fault is that? I know what your going to say, you should already know what my response is.

As for the second paragraph, that line of thinking gets old see my above response.

And most importantly you still missed the whole point of my post. Christians like you pick and choose which "sins" you want to condemn. You come up with the most ridiculous excuses for it. You say these utterly stupid pat phrases anytime anyone calls you on it and don't think a whit about just how wrong and illogical your whole world view is.

I've said it before in the Atheism thread, we still live in the time when most Atheists and Agnostics (in the US) grew up in the Christian church, and we actually read the Bible which turned us into Atheists and Agnostics.

[QUOTE=jasong;362920]I'm not judging the sinners, I'm judging the sin. And, while I'm not perfect, I know for a fact it's a bad idea to flaunt one's disrespect for God.[/QUOTE]

Hey look! There it is! and extra pat phrases so you don't even have to think about how what you have to say has real world effects on people... (and you don't "know for a fact" you believe it to be the case--fine. As Kieren says later you are free to do so, but don't expect us to buy into your nonsense. You might also think about what a terrible witness for your G-d holding onto such obviously wrong headed views are. As exemplified by the kids in these schools. They get it. #samelove

[QUOTE=Brian-E;362923]Are you at all concerned that receiving this message day after day, and/or dealing with the attitudes of peers who receive this message, would appear to be a major cause of suicide amongst LGBT teenagers? This group of young people is at much greater risk of suicide than the general youth population. Would you alter your message at all if you are specifically speaking to a young person trying to come to terms with his or her sexuality?[/QUOTE]

An example of real world effects on people. But, of course, tempering the message would show actual love of the "sinner" instead of hate of the "sin" which is the real message. Lack of empathy, tacit bigotry, and a lifetime of psychological problems exacerbated by trying to cling to an ancient and nonsensical worldview.

See also: Our Southern Culture Wars gone fowl.

[QUOTE=chappy;362942]I've said it before in the Atheism thread, we still live in the time when most Atheists and Agnostics (in the US) grew up in the Christian church, and we actually read the Bible which turned us into Atheists and Agnostics.[/QUOTE]

Hear hear!!!

I actually tried to read the Bible. But then I cheated and read the last page, and found out the guy died -- it ruined the story for me.... :wink:

[QUOTE]Christ was a bandaid, because otherwise the "earth experiment" would've been a total washout.[/QUOTE]

Interesting that you believe this.

1. God is all knowing and all powerful. This is standard conservative christian doctrine, omnipotence of God.
2. Jesus came to earth, the son of God, yet he existed from the beginning and he "was God". (see John 1)
3. Since God is all knowing, it follows that he knew Adam and Eve would sin.
4. Since Jesus was with God from the beginning, he knew that he would have to come to Earth before God made Adam.
5. Therefore it follows that Christ coming to Earth was NOT a bandaid.
6. And it also follows that Earth was not an Experiment, after all, God knows everything, why would he experiment.

Society has a way of sandpapering down any misfits, especially people who don't fit the popular stereotype. I happen to be a serious misfit in society, more intelligent than average, introvert, quiet type. I got quite a bit of sandpapering in school. It made me a bit more judicious in applying sandpaper to others because of how they live or who they are. I still disapprove of homesexuality, but I don't shove it in anyone's face.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;362957]I still disapprove of homesexuality...[/QUOTE]

A sincere question.

Why?

Sincere reply. Because the origin of a family was - and still is - to provide a supportive environment for children. Homosexual couples can't have children without external assistance. This leaves homosexual couples lacking in ability to created a functioning family. And yes, I see way too many male+female families that are totally dysfunctional but that is a topic for a different thread. This is as far as I will carry the topic because it gets "in someone's face" from this point on.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;362969]Sincere reply. Because the origin of a family was - and still is - to provide a supportive environment for children. Homosexual couples can't have children without external assistance. This leaves homosexual couples lacking in ability to created a functioning family. And yes, I see way too many male+female families that are totally dysfunctional but that is a topic for a different thread. This is as far as I will carry the topic because it gets "in someone's face" from this point on.[/QUOTE]

I would argue that just because someone cannot have children (or choose not to have them, as I have), does not mean they cannot be supportive of children.

I often say to friends, "I like children as I like dogs. I can tolerate them for brief periods, so long as they belong to someone else....

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;362969]Sincere reply. Because the origin of a family was - and still is - to provide a supportive environment for children. Homosexual couples can't have children without external assistance. This leaves homosexual couples lacking in ability to created a functioning family.[/QUOTE]Therefore, it needs to be illegal for any childless married man to have a vasectomy, or any childless married woman to have a tubal ligation, right?

Furthermore, any such persons found to have undergone one of those illegal procedures must be forced to divorce immediately, right?

And [i]in vitro[/i] fertilization must be prohibited, correct?

Any unmarried person who undergoes either of those sterilization procedures (such as me, for example) thus forfeits the right to marry, right? The doctor who performed mine should have had a legal obligation to report me to the authorities, right?

Or was the court clerk who issued marriage licenses supposed to have required me to produce a sperm sample and to have my intended bride undergo an internal examination sufficient to determine that her reproductive tract was fully functional?

Or do you have some word-dance around those logical consequences of your declaration about the relationship between homosexuals and families?

Or are you going to duck this challenge?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;362971]Therefore...[/QUOTE]
:goodposting:

The discussion about marriage and its relationship to procreation has been done at length in the thread already - instead of rehashing and YAFW (yet another flame war) I suggest to folks interested in that to read roughly the first 200 posts of the thread. If after that you feel you have something genuinely novel to add...

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362977]The discussion about marriage and its relationship to procreation has been done at length in the thread already - instead of rehashing and YAFW (yet another flame war) I suggest to folks interested in that to read roughly the first 200 posts of the thread. If after that you feel you have something genuinely novel to add...[/QUOTE]

rAmen! Ditto for the Factor-Depth Debacle.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362977]The discussion about marriage and its relationship to procreation has been done at length in the thread already - instead of rehashing and YAFW (yet another flame war) I suggest to folks interested in that to read roughly the first 200 posts of the thread. If after that you feel you have something genuinely novel to add...[/QUOTE]I'm willing to have my argumentative post, above, replaced by a link back to where most of those points were previously made.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362977]The discussion about marriage and its relationship to procreation has been done at length in the thread already - instead of rehashing and YAFW (yet another flame war) I suggest to folks interested in that to read roughly the first 200 posts of the thread. If after that you feel you have something genuinely novel to add...[/QUOTE]
It is true that it has already been discussed at length in this thread, but I still have difficulty with your suggestion. My gut feeling is that those who really have something to learn about the subject are not, in the main, going to go back and read old posts to enlighten themselves. That's a time consuming exercise and quite an unnatural one if someone has preset ideas which they don't anticipate changing. Or which they are scared to change. I don't, generally, read old threads on subjects in which I have little interest even though they would teach me a lot if I studied what people had written back then. I don't think I'm particularly unusual in that.

I think the main function of a discussion area like the soap box is to let people be encouraged to, and encourage others to, confront preconceived ideas by discussing them in a live environment.

This thread was at its height about five years ago. Since then a lot of attitudes have changed on the issue of same sex marriage. Also many members of the forum have come and gone. What was discussed back then is not necessarily the whole story now.

I share your concern that it should not degenerate into a flame war, but I think everyone who is taking part now, and in fact almost every active member of mersenneforum.org, tends to debate the arguments rather than attack individuals. And most can take a little heat. Those who can't don't take part in the soap box anyway.

In particular, right now I would love to read any answer jasong cares to post to chappy's recent post, and ditto Fusion_power to cheesehead, and I admire their courage in debating the issue in a largely hostile-to-them environment.

[QUOTE]Any unmarried person who undergoes either of those sterilization procedures (such as me, for example) thus forfeits the right to marry, right? The doctor who performed mine should have had a legal obligation to report me to the authorities, right?[/QUOTE]

Your argument is a strawman, postulating a set of circumstances and suggesting they counter my statement. Whether you are or would have been a good parent is something only you can answer. Whether or not you have the right to be married is your business, not mine. I am acquainted with several childless couples. Only one such couple is childless by choice. I think they might be aliens from a different world sent here to monitor the humans.

Cheesehead, I'm 54 years old. I have 4 children and one very nasty ex wife. I know what it means to feel like a failure as a parent. I have a good relationship with all of my children. Very few fathers could have managed that given the circumstances.

Why not ask yourself what needs a mother and a father fulfill in a family? It would be nice to see you and Laurv, Brian-E, Chalsall, and Ewmayer have a go at this.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;363005]Why not ask yourself what needs a mother and a father fulfill in a family?[/QUOTE]

I, personally, believe that what children need is a safe and supportive environment within which to grow and learn. This, IMO, does not [I]require[/I] a man and a woman to be fulfilled.

As an example, I had a employee in Canada who was a lesbian. She and her partner adopted, and IMO raised their son in a manner which was as good if not better than most "traditional" families. Edit: Oh, and to speak to another common "straw-man", he grew up to be "straight".

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;363005]Your argument is a strawman, postulating a set of circumstances and suggesting they counter my statement.

Why not ask yourself what needs a mother and a father fulfill in a family? It would be nice to see you and Laurv, Brian-E, Chalsall, and Ewmayer have a go at this.[/QUOTE]

not a strawman, I think you mean false analogy. Though, even if true, you've only attacked one of his argument by counterexamples.

The real question is whether or not any one group has a right to determine what constitutes a marriage. I'm pretty sure that you'll lose that one, but I look forward to the discussion.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;363005]It would be nice to see you and Laurv, Brian-E, Chalsall, and Ewmayer have a go at this.[/QUOTE]
I am close to your age but I was not so productive. I am not homosexual, but as well I am not religious. I have a nice family, which I love, my wife is religious. We respect each other's view on religion, and I assume other people are religious in spite of the fact I am not. Following the same logic, I assume some people are not heterosexual (here in Thailand I can see a lot of them). There is no reason why I should not respect them, as long as they are "ok" as humans, as colleagues at work, etc. I hate thieves and violent people and I would break their neck without any resentment if I can get my hands on them in a real situation, without asking them if they are white, black, christians, buddhists, atheists, gays or straight guys. Between me and my wife is not everything only about sex, you know, since many years... :blush: there are other things that matter, beside of growing our children together, and I imagine that between gay people it is the same, it is not only about sex. People can stay together if they share common things, common thoughts, whatever, no matter their color, religion, sex orientation, blah blah. The fact that I can't understand them has nothing to do with me respecting them, as long as they "do their part" for the society. Our force, as humanity, is the fact that we are different. If we would be all the same, the first thing (disease, virus, alien, sorrow, whatever) that would kill one, would kill all. We survive because we are different. Pretending to other people to be same as you is not only "short sight", in my opinion, but just plain idiocy.

[QUOTE=chappy;363010]The real question is whether or not any one group has a right to determine what constitutes a marriage. I'm pretty sure that you'll lose that one, but I look forward to the discussion.[/QUOTE]

If by "marriage", you mean, "has a legal marriage license", then I'd say it's the one that issues the marriage license that gets to define what constitutes a marriage: the government.

What others call a marriage can be different. E.g. a church should have the right to not perform a gay marriage if it is against their beliefs. I also believe that right should extend to business owners: if a photographer doesn't want to work gay weddings, he should not be compelled to.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;363005]Why not ask yourself what needs a mother and a father fulfill in a family?[/QUOTE]
As Chalsall put it so well, a safe and supportive environment is what children need, provided by whichever people turn out to take on the role of parenting. And mutual respect and love keeps families together as LaurV rightly indicated. To those comments I would just like to add that adults need to ask themselves whether or not they think they would make good parents and should choose whether or not to be parents based on that decision. They should most certainly not act on any pressure from society to fit into specific parental roles which do not suit them, which would not be in any children's best interests.

Cue discussion of whether children benefit from having role models of both sexes...

[QUOTE=ewmayer;363062]Cue discussion of whether children benefit from having role models of both sexes...[/QUOTE]

At the same time, let us discuss the practice of "home schooling".

In my experience, it is only the extremely religious who school from home (or those who live very far from schools).

Those who are a little more liberal will allow their children to experience the world. Within which many excellent "role models" are available for observation. Men and women, of various orientations, are doing amazing things.

IMO, the greatest thing we can teach our children is to think for themselves....

This short article provides a general review of the position of gay rights around the world at the end of a year which has seen several crushing setbacks or otherwise enactment of anti-gay legislation which had been threatened for some time (Russia, India, Uganda, Australia) after a decade of general world progress. The author puts a positive gloss on it, however, concluding that the "tipping point was passed some time ago, and the clock will not be turned back".

[URL]http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4293561-gay-rights-suffer-major-defeats/[/URL]

[url]http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/01/louie-gohmert-isnt-expert-human-plumbing-he-seems-think/357054/[/url]

(the raw footage--with about five other minutes of stupidity to sit through)

[url]http://crooksandliars.com/2014/01/gohmert-judges-need-basic-plumbing-lessons[/url]

(Gohmert's comments at around 3 minute mark)

[QUOTE=Brian-E;363485]This short article provides a general review of the position of gay rights around the world at the end of a year which has seen several crushing setbacks or otherwise enactment of anti-gay legislation which had been threatened for some time (Russia, India, Uganda, Australia) after a decade of general world progress. The author puts a positive gloss on it, however, concluding that the "tipping point was passed some time ago, and the clock will not be turned back".

[URL]http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4293561-gay-rights-suffer-major-defeats/[/URL][/QUOTE]

I take Gwynne Dyer's opinions fairly seriously. I hope he's right.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/russian-president-putin-links-gays-pedophiles-122800122--spt.html[/url]

"And for evidence I will make statements proving I don't understand how the legal system works in the US and then I will homoerotically take off my shirt."

(I admit my Russian is very rusty so I may have messed up some of the words, but I think I got the gist of it.)

But seriously, his arguments conflate homosexuality with pedophilia-- a not uncommon thing as other threads on this very forum prove, and also assume that if you outlaw the gay sex then gays will suddenly start having the childrens.

As an American it makes me proud sometimes that other countries leaders are just as stupid as ours. Schadenfreude!

[QUOTE=chappy;364886][url]Schadenfreude![/QUOTE]Gesundheit!

Oh good grief, he's just played the "some of my best friends are gay" card now.
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25799499[/URL]

PS Chappy, thanks for the link and hope your cold is better soon.:smile:

The strange case of Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde.
[YOUTUBE]Jx3m5nFpRcQ[/YOUTUBE]

:huh: Huh? :ermm:

That is quite strange. Can it be said with some certainty that it is Putin, and not a "stunt double"?

[QUOTE=chalsall;363065]At the same time, let us discuss the practice of "home schooling".

In my experience, it is only the extremely religious who school from home (or those who live very far from schools).

Those who are a little more liberal will allow their children to experience the world. Within which many excellent "role models" are available for observation. Men and women, of various orientations, are doing amazing things.

IMO, the greatest thing we can teach our children is to think for themselves....[/QUOTE]

"Only the extremely religious"? That's a ridiculous statement, unless your experience is extremely limited, perhaps. I know many, many people who home-school who are not extremely religious; in many cases, it is simply the quality of the schools, both educationally and socially. In many other cases, it may be medical- a public school is not always able to accommodate different needs truly effectively, whether those needs arise from a student who learns significantly slower than his or her peers, or significantly faster, or just differently. I (we) happen to live in a state that devotes less money to schools per student than 48 other states in the US, and the US itself isn't exactly leading the world in educational prowess as it is. So, classes are overcrowded, supplies and equipment are limited, teachers are poorly paid (thus not always attracting talented people to the profession). Schools here are sometimes not great. In many cases, not even good. It wasn't hard to predict that our kids would get a better education with a 1:1 or 1:2 teacher-student ratio than in an underfunded, understaffed 1:30 setting.

You sound like you think home-schooling means that the student is locked all day in the kitchen with a parent and a bible - wrong. Most home-schoolers I've run in to are like us: they are part of a local group that works together, organizing field trips, sharing curriculum and equipment, etc., etc. There are home-school conventions, seminars, and conferences where you can examine and buy curriculum for different classes, and of course there are on-line classes of all types and levels. And yes, many of the local groups even organize proms and graduation ceremonies. From what I've seen so far (about 16 years experience), most home-schoolers come out of it better educated and better socialized than most public schoolers, and several college admissions offices have told us the same thing; many US colleges not only accept home-schoolers, but some even look more favourably on them. Purely anecdotal, but my oldest son, home-schooled through 12th grade, got Congressional nominations to both West Point and the Air Force Academy. That doesn't happen if you're poorly educated and poorly socialized. (No, I don't have any links or connections that greased the way for him.)

I'm not clear why you would think that sitting in a classroom with 30 other kids exposes them to more of the "excellent role models" than home schooling. Indeed, my kids went on many, many more "field trips" outside of school as part of their education than someone in a public school would, thereby interacting with more different adult role models (such as museum staff, or naturalists, or zoo keepers, or scientists, or dairy farmers, etc.). Field trips (exposure to adult role models other than the teacher) for public schools are limited, and on the decline, because of cost and liability issues. And there is no evolutionary reason I know of for schooling the young in groups (classes) of 20 to 30- There's nothing natural about that. It is primarily economic.

There are certainly some people who home-school solely for religious reasons, and there are also some who miss-use home-schooling; they decide to home-school because their child has behavioral problems. Different states, and different countries, have wildly different regulations about home-schooling, which just adds to the variety of the home-schooling discussion.

And public schools have the same variety- some good, some bad. Some good teachers, some bad. Some overly religious, some not. Blanket statements like yours about home-schooling, though, are simply uninformed and not useful.

Norm

[QUOTE=Spherical Cow;365025]And public schools have the same variety- some good, some bad. Some good teachers, some bad. Some overly religious, some not. Blanket statements like yours about home-schooling, though, are simply uninformed and not useful.

Norm[/QUOTE]

And yet it took you appropriately two weeks to respond to my statement....

[QUOTE=chalsall;365026]And yet it took you appropriately two weeks to respond to my statement....[/QUOTE]

...And what's wrong with that? Not everyone is a computer zombie.

[QUOTE=chalsall;365026]And yet it took you appropriately two weeks to respond to my statement....[/QUOTE]

I am honestly baffled by that response.

Sorry- As loyal as I am to the search and the forum, I don't always log in hourly or even daily to read every new item posted. Every few days, perhaps, and even then I won't always have time to read all the interesting discussions here. (Actually, I am always sure to look at anything posted by Xyzzy, but after that, its more like a random search process.)

Was there some kind of time limit or expiration date on these posts? Did I miss a discrete statement on your post like "Best if used by 15-Jan-2014", similar to what's stamped on my cup of yogurt? Actually, it looks like my yogurt is good for a longer period than your post was. I apologize for responding to an item of yours that is several weeks old- it won't happen again.

Norm

Sure is quiet.... *crickets*

[QUOTE=kracker;365175]Sure is quiet.... *crickets*[/QUOTE]

Listen for snucking and sneezing. I godda code. :sad:

[QUOTE=Spherical Cow;365051]I apologize for responding to an item of yours that is several weeks old- it won't happen again.[/QUOTE]

My apologies...

The point I was /trying/ to make is on-line discussion should be "real-time". Or, as near to same as can be done via an on-line forum.

Two weeks to respond to a statement is a little ridiculous for anyone who works in the real world.

Well, the mayor of Houston Annise Parker certainly lives in the real world even if she waited 23 years before marrying Kathy Hubbard a few days ago (in California, since Texas won't have it). That puts the two weeks into some perspective, I guess. (I do appreciate that the exchange between Chris and Norm above falls short of a marriage proposal.)

Does anyone think this mayoral wedding will help Texas and other deep south states to accept same sex marriage and legalise it?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;365180]Does anyone think this mayoral wedding will help Texas and other deep south states to accept same sex marriage and legalise it?[/QUOTE]

(This is an expression my British/Barbadian/Trini girlfriend taught me...) "Now you're just taking the piss!

[QUOTE=chalsall;365181](This is an expression my British/Barbadian/Trini girlfriend taught me...) "Now you're just taking the piss![/QUOTE]
Yes, I guess I was. But I'm also quite excited about the implications of the marriage involving the mayor of Houston. Perhaps my enthusiasm needs dampening or something, or I just need some enlightenment. Does anyone think that this might be significant for engineering change in Texas?
[URL]http://www.khou.com/news/local/Newlywed-Mayor-Parker-to-GOP-critics-Get-over-it-241399131.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;365180]Does anyone think this mayoral wedding will help Texas and other deep south states to accept same sex marriage and legalise it?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Brian-E;365183]Does anyone think that this might be significant for engineering change in Texas?
[URL]http://www.khou.com/news/local/Newlywed-Mayor-Parker-to-GOP-critics-Get-over-it-241399131.html[/URL][/QUOTE]It's an increment, but not of especially major significance in Texas politics AFAIK, and probably no notable significance outside Texas. She was "out" before her first mayoral campaign in 2009; I think that election (and two re-elections) would've had more impact than this wedding.

[url]http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/26/oklahoma-republican-would-rather-ban-all-marriages-including-straight-ones-than-legalize-marriage-equality/[/url]

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25675957[/url]