If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"L Smith" wrote in message hlink.net... This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics, where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the topic is impossible. Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at least one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex. 1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's proposed constitutional amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage. 2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the western world. It is far from a universal definition, though. Until fairly recently Mormon's believed firmly in polygamy, and polygamy is still a common practice in much of the world (the general rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you elected to have more than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an acceptable approach in parts of Tibet and other areas where life is considered so hard, more than one "wage earner" is required to support a family. 3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be unchangable. All traditions should be examined periodically to see if they still make sense. 4) If we accept your definition, then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage". Rich Lemert |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their position on freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it. I'd love for this to be so, but the evidence claims otherwise. Why is a conservative administration against the right of people to marry? I can see their rational in the case of abortion, even if I don't agree. But not even a single cell is harmed if a same-sex couple marries. Why would anyone care? Why, under a supposedly conservative administration, have we American citizens held in violation of the law merely by defining them as soldiers in a foreign army? Yes, deal with them. But deal with them in a fashion consistent with our values...or give up the claim to being "for freedom". Perhaps your definition of "conservative" is correct in theory. But like the old Soviet Union's ridiculous claim to "communism", the practical truth of our current administration is far from that theory. Tariffs on Steel? From a "conservative administration"? Not likely! - Andrew |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote: Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works", And you do? Time to pick up your Nobel Prize. so you would have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me comming to your church. Chicken. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works", And you do? Time to pick up your Nobel Prize. Albert Einstein explains it in his book, "The Meaning of Relativity", but no Nobel prize. so you would have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me comming to your church. Chicken. Cross post it to alt.politics.usa.republican and ping me. I neither read, or post directly to religious newsgroups. most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart enough to run when they see me posting. Ever since my discussion with Andrew Hall showed up as half the WSJ editorial page there are few takers. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
"L Smith" wrote in message link.net... I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error. 1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails to meet the terms of the scientific method. 2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false. 3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer to a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species". 4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of biologists. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote: most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart enough to run when they see me posting. Another lie. Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth, you should get little or no response. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
"L Smith" wrote:
So far, nothing in your response above even comes close to answering my questions. You can now see why Tarver is afraid to post in talk.origns. His witless evasions have been ripped apart there before, but he thinks he can get away with them here. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero. Marx would not approve. What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-) Matt That's the $64,000 question! |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote: most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart enough to run when they see me posting. Another lie. I have science on my side and no reason to lie. Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth, you should get little or no response. I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species", but "it demonstrates how one thing might replace another". Although demonstrating a concept has value, theaching religion as science is not the way to do it. |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "L Smith" wrote: So far, nothing in your response above even comes close to answering my questions. You can now see why Tarver is afraid to post in talk.origns. His witless evasions have been ripped apart there before, but he thinks he can get away with them here. And horses are an example of "natural selection". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot | Wings Of Fury | Aerobatics | 0 | February 26th 04 05:59 PM |