During Thursday night's GOP debate, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) again made the dubious case that because so many children are born out of wedlock, we need to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Excerpt:
We don't need more children born out of wedlock; we need more children born into wedlock between a mom and a dad bonded together for life.... When you take the sacredness out of marriage, you will drive the marriage rates down. And currently in this country, currently we're at 36 percent of our children born out of wedlock....
I guess that's why Brownback and his fellow socio-religious conservatives are sponsoring constitutional amendments to make divorce more difficult...oops, never mind.
It seems the more that conservatives embrace, at best, serial public monogamy, the more they need to blame gays for the fact that marriage just isn't what it used to be. The possibility that integrating gays into the institution might actually help restore widespread expectations around marriage and commitment as adult responsibilities just doesn't occur to them.
41 Comments for “Marriage Scape-goating”
posted by Bobby on
The argument can be made that it’s not governments business to ensure that people live in happy marriages, don’t get divorced and don’t have children out of wedlock.
However, I wouldn’t take those debates seriously, during the primaries politicians promise everything. It’s later on they moderate themselves.
I will admit that aside from the marriage BS, it’s a lot more interesting to hear republicans debate and offer concrete solutions instead of the democrats with their pipe dreams of national health insurance, helping the poor, and preventing terrorism by kissing the world’s collective ass. So other than the marriage bullshit not worth discussing, it was an excellent debate.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby, marriage is currently sanctioned by the government. Gays simply want in. Talk about getting the government out of the marriage business is, how do you put it, a pipe dream.
It is amusing to read that the Democratic debates have not dealt with reality but the Republican debates have. Is the GOP’s superior grasp of reality exemplified by Gov. Huckabee’s suggestion that we have to stay in Iraq indefinitely to preserve our honor? That sounds like LBJ’s logic from the Vietnam war. Is the GOP’s superior grasp of reality demonstrated by the fact that, in an earlier debate, most of the candidates said they don’t believe in evolution? Is the GOP’s superior grasp of reality demonstrated by their obstinate defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which has drummed more than 11,000 American warriors out of the service to placate bigots? Is the GOP’s superior grasp of reality demonstrated by Sen. Brownback’s lies about same-sex marriage in Europe?
I resent being told that marriage is “bullshit.” Our fight for equal civil marriage rights is very important to a lot of people, and you ought to have more respect.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….well, if you want to play that way, Richard, let’s base opinions of the Democrat Party’s grip on reality on Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.
Of course, the vast majority of gays won’t care, because all they’re concerned with is gay marriage; nothing else matters.
And besides, as HRC and gay DNC leaders show, gays don’t even care about THAT; it’s all about smearing Republicans and kissing the ass of the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, since evolution disproves God, according to scientists like Richard Dawkins, what does it say about the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party candidates who claim to have religious beliefs, but who also claim to believe in evolution?
posted by Brian Miller on
Talk about getting the government out of the marriage business is, how do you put it, a pipe dream.
Actually, it isn’t. The more we ease government’s grip over our lives, the more superfluous such insulting statist concepts as “licenses to marry” (which means, roughly, “government permission to marry”) become.
Lots of people are already walking away from the government definitions of marriage, and even idiotic religious conservatives cannot keep the tenets of their own “holy unions” as defined by government.
And surely, I cannot be the only person chuckling with disbelief over ND-30s newfound love for Michael Petrelis!
posted by JohnJ on
It might very well occur to them that gays pose no threat to marriage. So what? They’re not as stupid as they pretend to be in their efforts to appeal to Joe and Sally Six-Pack. But they couldn’t care less. Who cares about the “sanctity” of marriage when Washington, sprouting with money trees, beckons like the Garden of Eden? And if you do get there you’re an alpha-male making it all the easier to dump your sagging middle-aged wife for a better fuck.
posted by Mark on
Bobby:
As a libertarian, I’d love to get the government out of the marriage business as well, but until that happens, marriage is the only way for gay couples to secure important rights. Bottom line. It’s not bullshit at all.
posted by Hank on
Furthermore, since conservative psychology disproves that people have no choice about their sexual preferences, according to scientists like Joseph Nicolosi, what does it say about the hypocrisy of people who claim to be conservative, but who also claim to be gay?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“Conservative psychology”?
Last I looked, psychology had nothing to do with one’s particular political ideology.
Furthermore, as I pointed out above, the belief that sexual orientation can be changed and thus can be discriminated against legally by measures such as the FMA is supported by Democrats and by HRC, who are both liberal groups.
But again, that doesn’t answer my question: since evolution disproves God, according to scientists like Richard Dawkins, what does it say about the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party candidates who claim to have religious beliefs, but who also claim to believe in evolution?
posted by Eva Young on
Evolution does not disprove God. Dawkins is making a philosophical statement, but not a statement based on evidence there.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30…please read some Dawkins before you spout off more BS. I can’t speak on THE GOD DELUSION, since I haven’t read it, but CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE and THE BLIND WATCHMAKER are very dense and intriguing texts that really can’t be boiled down to “evolution disproves God.” Your clouding of the issue is a poor tactic and does nothing to foster honest discussion. It is possible, by the way, to believe in evolution and a higher power. Any Catholic can vouch for that. If you didn’t hate God so much you might be able to understand that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30…please read some Dawkins before you spout off more BS. I can’t speak on THE GOD DELUSION, since I haven’t read it,
I’ll just leave that contradiction up there as an example of the bigotry that ColoradoPatriot practices; he has no idea whether I’ve read Dawkins or not, and he himself hasn’t read all of Dawkins’s work, but he insists that I’m lying.
Chapter 4, by the way.
Your clouding of the issue is a poor tactic and does nothing to foster honest discussion.
And yet above, I notice, you said nothing when this was stated:
Is the GOP’s superior grasp of reality demonstrated by the fact that, in an earlier debate, most of the candidates said they don’t believe in evolution?
That particular phrase was why I pulled Dawkins into the discussion in the first place. If partisan politicos like Richard want to play that game, I will match and beat it.
And the ultimate irony from your post, CP?
It is possible, by the way, to believe in evolution and a higher power. Any Catholic can vouch for that. If you didn’t hate God so much you might be able to understand that.
Mhm.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Typical ND30 response. It is interesting that you say I accused you of lying (I didn’t). Although I have laid that claim at your feet hundreds of times, I didn’t in this case. Please detail your comment on my “contradiction.” I find it odd that you would quote me but leave off the point of my declaration about Dawkins’ oeuvre. You seem to think that he has only written one book, why is that? You wouldn’t be untruthful about this strategy would you? Why do you hate God?
posted by Hank on
The point, ND, lamely expressed though it was, is that just because Dawkins – a SCIENTIST! – maintains that belief in God and evolution are mutually exclusive – so what? If I look at the same set of facts that he does and come to a different conclusion, I’m a hypocrite? Are you really that dimwitted?
I doubt that you are.
Although the gist of your comments here do seem to follow that pattern: “I believe that Democrat ‘so and so’ did something evil. Here’s a link to prove it” (often to your own website, of course) “Either you must condemn him as vociferously as I do, or you’re a “gay leftist” or a “hypocrite!”.
Thanks – but I think I will form my own moral judgments without your guidance.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It is interesting that you say I accused you of lying (I didn’t).
Mhm.
ND30…please read some Dawkins before you spout off more BS.
Next:
I find it odd that you would quote me but leave off the point of my declaration about Dawkins’ oeuvre.
That is because your “but” afterwards is merely an attempt to rationalize your claims. You have not read all of Dawkins’s works, yet you act as though you have; furthermore, you accuse me of having read none of them, though you have no idea whether I have or not, and insist that I am lying about Dawkins’s work, even though you have no idea what is in a major portion of it, having never read it.
That leads up to an interesting point.
Why do you hate God?
Would you know the difference, given your attempts to spin Dawkins, who specifically states this in the documentary, The Root of All Evil?
For many people, part of growing up is killing off the virus of faith with a good strong dose of rational thinking. But if an individual doesn’t succeed in shaking it off, his mind is stuck in a permanent state of infancy, and there is a real danger that he will infect the next generation.
And that leads us naturally to Hank:
The point, ND, lamely expressed though it was, is that just because Dawkins – a SCIENTIST! – maintains that belief in God and evolution are mutually exclusive – so what? If I look at the same set of facts that he does and come to a different conclusion, I’m a hypocrite? Are you really that dimwitted?
Yes, you are.
Because you and your fellow Democrats, as stated above, mock Republicans and their “grip on reality” for daring to disagree with the conclusions of scientists like Dawkins.
Is the GOP’s superior grasp of reality demonstrated by the fact that, in an earlier debate, most of the candidates said they don’t believe in evolution?
Again, the reason I brought Dawkins up is because he is an excellent example of your hypocrisy. You blast Republicans for being anti-scientific and superstitious because they disagree with scientists, but then you yourself insist that it is perfectly all right for you to disagree with scientists.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
…and another comment-section is derailed by ND30’s bizarre egotistical rantings. It is possible to believe in evolution and a higher power. There is NOTHING hypocritical about holding such a position. The only reason I doubt you have read Dawkins is because you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about in relation to his science and philosophy. You are an embarrassment.
posted by John on
Dawkins brand of fundamentalism can no more prove his points than the american christian brands of fundmentalism can prover theirs. Dawkins does however point out that indeed science and evolution can decidely disporove the literalist christian viewpoint about evolution quite easily. That however is completely different than disproving ‘god’. Most of us have no trouble at all understanding science and its limits all the while being firm believers in God as well.
On another point – anyone can gt married that wants to and the government can’t say boo about it. Now if you want the governmennts recognition of the contractual obligations and benefits that are present under civil law as it pertains to marriage then yes, you are going to have to get a paper from the government. No one is asking the government to allow them to marry. They can do that anytime they want as marriage is not a piece of paper but a state of heart and mind between two people. We are asking the government to stop refusing to recognize that state under civil law.
posted by Bobby on
Dawkins is full of crap. It’s important to remember that the nazis were also big believers on evolution, survival of the fittest, and all that garbage which is why they justified killing “life unworthy of living” such as the mentally retarded, kids born deformed, etc. Dawkins blames religion for everything while forgetting all the killings done in the name of secular states like Cuba, the USSR, China, Vietnam and North Korea. Maybe I can’t prove God exists, but that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.
There are also arguments against homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint. According to those nazi evolutionist, we’re birth defects. If religion was banned and our society followed the laws of evolution, we’d have to murder anyone who doesn’t fit into the eugenics desires of the scientific community. In fact, in highly secular countries like England and Holland, people are starting to think that when old people live too long, they become a burden. There are old people there that are asking for euthanasia as a way to avoid hurting their families.
“Is the GOP’s superior grasp of reality exemplified by Gov. Huckabee’s suggestion that we have to stay in Iraq indefinitely to preserve our honor?”
—It’s a logical statement, the wounds of the Vietnam war have yet to heal, part of that is because we didn’t finish the job there. We left and millions of people died. Besides, Iraq is not about us, it’s about the military. They have to deal with it, it’s their honor, not ours, and we’re not even paying higher taxes to finance the operations there and nor we should.
posted by Craig2 on
Excuse me, is there any reliable and documented mainstream historical evidence that the Nazis *did believe* in Darwinian evolutionary theory? While noticing that D.James Kennedy had snuffed it recently, I noticed that he seemed to be the source of that bizarre little allegation.
Whatever the Nazis did believe in was probably junk science, comparable to contemporary Christian Right ‘intelligent design’ creationism, antigay
‘reparative therapy’ and the anti-abortion perversions of obstetrics, gynecology, embryology and psychology, none of which are sanctioned by any mainstream peer reviewed journal, professional association or evidence-based research in the above fields.
One could easily conclude that given the prevalence of LGBT animals (qy Bruce Bagemihl, 1999), homosexuality is an adaptive response to over-population.
And what does the above have to do with same-sex marriage? Hmm. Here’s one possibility. In some bird and animal communities, LGBT couples might foster orphaned eggs or young.
posted by Hank on
Bobby I don’t always agree with you – but I like your style… “Dawkins is full of crap.”
Couple comments about Viet Nam. Yeah a lot of people died after we left – but ultimately, like what seems to be happening now in Iraq – they didn’t care enough to step up and establish their own country. And, frankly, after we left, and the turmoil subsided, Viet Nam became sort of a success story. We have normal relations with them now. And their steps toward success are not because we fought a war – it’s simply because they woke up and looked around and realized that capitalist economic systems work. If the Iraqis wake up and decide to fight for a system that works, they can be successful too. If they choose to fight a civil war, they won’t be successful, no matter how much treasure we pour into their country.
And finally, no there hasn’t been an increase in taxes – but we’re borrowing the money. In spite of the best efforts of the Dobson’s and ND30’s of the world, some of us have kids who will have a lower standard of living someday because of the enormous debt we’re incurring. That’s wrong.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thank you, Craig, for illustrating the point quite nicely.
Whatever the Nazis did believe in was probably junk science, comparable to contemporary Christian Right ‘intelligent design’ creationism, antigay
‘reparative therapy’ and the anti-abortion perversions of obstetrics, gynecology, embryology and psychology, none of which are sanctioned by any mainstream peer reviewed journal, professional association or evidence-based research in the above fields.
Dawkins has all three; sanction in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, professional associations, and evidence-based research.
Therefore, anyone who disagrees with him must be wrong. He has specifically stated, as I quoted above, that faith is a “virus” and that anyone who is a believer is in an infantile state and lacks clarity of thought or “rational thinking”; he points out that religion is wholly unscientific and therefore anyone who follows it has no grip on reality.
posted by Xeno on
Dawkins has all three; sanction in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, professional associations, and evidence-based research.
Yes he does, for scientific research only, not for his philosophical and religious views. It’s a big difference that I’m not surprised you couldn’t distinguish.
The same applies to James Watson who helped discovered DNA and won a Nobel prize for it. Mainstream scientists accepted his work on molecular biology, but not his personal views on eugenics and his statement on if a gay gene should be found, then women should be able to abort their fetuses.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes he does, for scientific research only, not for his philosophical and religious views. It’s a big difference that I’m not surprised you couldn’t distinguish.
Again, the reason I brought Dawkins up is because he is an excellent example of your hypocrisy. You blast Republicans for being anti-scientific and superstitious because they disagree with scientists, but then you yourself insist that it is perfectly all right for you to disagree with scientists.
And I loved this last one:
Mainstream scientists accepted his work on molecular biology, but not his personal views on eugenics and his statement on if a gay gene should be found, then women should be able to abort their fetuses.
But gay Democrats and leftists say there should be no limits whatsoever on abortion, and that women should be able to have an abortion for whatever reason they want; anyone who says otherwise or demands restrictions is a “misogynist” who invades “privacy” and takes away a woman’s right to “control her own body”.
The hypocrisy keeps getting deeper.
posted by Brian Miller on
But gay Democrats and leftists say there should be no limits whatsoever on abortion, and that women should be able to have an abortion for whatever reason they want
Abortion is not a “gay” issue. Gay people have differing views on the matter. While I am not surprised that your personal view is that a woman’s uterus is property of the government (and not herself), either way it’s irrelevant to any discussion of gay issues.
Drop the faux outrage already. It was stale back in 2002, now it’s positively rotten.
posted by Xeno on
Again, the reason I brought Dawkins up is because he is an excellent example of your hypocrisy. You blast Republicans for being anti-scientific and superstitious because they disagree with scientists, but then you yourself insist that it is perfectly all right for you to disagree with scientists.
My hypocrisy? I don’t blast them for disagreeing with a scientist’s views, I blast them for their total disregard of scientific evidence coming from peer-reviewed research. They never seem to back up their statements on gays and lesbians and other issues with credible science. They still use Paul Cameron’s junk science, slightly masqueraded so folks can’t see it comes from a fraudulent source. Face it ND30, all those so-called “family” and exgay organizations have produced nothing but meaningless rhetoric. And the reason they won’t do any real research is for fear that the conclusion of their research turns out to be the opposite of their pathetic beliefs.
Again, like I’ve stated before, there’s a difference between scientific research and personal opinion. Dawkins and Watson have produced valuable research in the field of molecular biology, but the credibility of the research itself are irrelevant to their antitheist views.
Drop the faux outrage already. It was stale back in 2002, now it’s positively rotten.
ND30, listen to Brian Miller on this one. The faux outrage and the Gay Leftie meme is already old.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
While I am not surprised that your personal view is that a woman’s uterus is property of the government (and not herself), either way it’s irrelevant to any discussion of gay issues.
Actually, my view is this, Mr. Miller; since a woman has two chances prior to her getting pregnant to vastly minimize or even eliminate her risk of doing so, there is no need to give her a third that involves killing another human being.
You see, only one woman in history has ever gotten pregnant without having sex — and several billion, in fact, have managed to have sex without getting pregnant, via this little thing we call “contraception”.
By the time you get around to needing an abortion, then, you’ve already made two conscious choices, both of which could have prevented the pregnancy in the first place. And second, since there is full legal precedent for considering unborn animals that are completely dependent on their parents the same as adults from a legal standpoint (the Endangered Species Act), it seems odd that we would not do so for those of our OWN species.
Obviously, in cases where the woman isn’t given a choice, i.e. rape or incest, this reasoning would not apply, and she should be given the option to abort. However, according to statistics, that accounts for less than 5% of the abortions performed annually in the United States.
Either way, you’re right; it’s not a gay issue. It’s merely an example of how leftist gays have co-opted sexual orientation as an excuse for their wholly-unpopular stances on abortion, and thus besmirched the rest of us.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t blast them for disagreeing with a scientist’s views, I blast them for their total disregard of scientific evidence coming from peer-reviewed research.
Which is exactly what Dawkins uses to make his points — scientific evidence coming from peer-reviewed research.
And there you’ve demonstrated it, Xeno; you criticize them for something you do yourself.
posted by Mark on
“Actually, my view is this, Mr. Miller; since a woman has two chances prior to her getting pregnant to vastly minimize or even eliminate her risk of doing so, there is no need to give her a third that involves killing another human being.”
I fail to see why it follows that since a women can usually prevent a pregnancy, therefore abortion should be illegal. I don’t get the logic here.
If abortion is the killing a human being, no doubt you support either the death penalty or life imprisonment for women who have abortions since they are, at a minimum, accomplices in murder. Am I correct that this is your view? I expect consistancy in my conservatives.
And why the rape exception? Aren’t these fetuses human as well? It’s not their fault mommy was raped, is it?
“what does it say about the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party candidates who claim to have religious beliefs, but who also claim to believe in evolution?”
Huh, the “ultra-liberal” Catholic Church and “radical leftist” Pope Benedict say it’s okay to believe in evolution.
posted by Xeno on
Which is exactly what Dawkins uses to make his points — scientific evidence coming from peer-reviewed research.
On evolution and molecular biology only, not his atheist views as I keep repeating myself to a solid block of granite. There’s no way can he use scientific research to disprove God. As for the God delusion book, that still doesn’t disprove God, rather it shows that certain religious experiences can be explained from a materialist point of view.
And there you’ve demonstrated it, Xeno; you criticize them for something you do yourself.
how is that so?
posted by Craig2 on
And here we have one of the little conundrums that tend to come up for lesbian and gay social conservatives who are anti-abortion.
If asked, the more literate elements of the Christian Right will argue that homosexuality is somehow ‘wrong’ because it is ‘against”natural law.’ ‘Natural law’ means that one must rely on the twelfth century Catholic theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas, who wrote before the days of modern evidence-based psychological, genetic and other scientific research. However, precisely due to the latter, we now know that lesbianism and male homosexuality are not some inferior reflection of heterosexuality, but the product of either specific processes in psychological development hardwired early in infantile life, or as a consequence of specific complex genetic interrelationships, or perhaps a mixture of both. This evidence-based scientific proof trumps subjective pre-scientific religious beliefs, which of course, not all religious groups share.
When asked, conservative Christians will make analogous arguments when it comes to the abortion debate. Why are they anti-choice? Because the embryo or foetus looks like an adult human being, past the eighth week or so of gestation anyway.
However, it cannot exist outside a woman’s body until it develops alveolar respiration at roughly its twentieth week of development, or feel pain until its twenty-eighth week of development- and most abortions are performed long before that, at about the ninth to twelfth weeks since a woman’s last menstrual period.
As far as I am concerned, then, such embryological fact persuades me that the women who make such choices should be our paramount concern here. Christian Right anti-abortionists can distort science all they want, just as they do with anything to do with homosexuality, but it is a distortion, and as with homosexuality, faith-state separation and religious freedom demand that we not allow the dogma of particular religious organisations to be written into public policy.
And incidentally, I’d differentiate Dawkins evidence-based research from his more subjective claims about the role of religion in human societies, although when religion runs amok,
democratic institutions, human rights and civil liberties indeed
suffer.
C2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If abortion is the killing a human being, no doubt you support either the death penalty or life imprisonment for women who have abortions since they are, at a minimum, accomplices in murder.
Not all murderers receive the death penalty or life imprisonment, so it wouldn’t be consistent to demand that all those who abort children do. Indeed, not even all those who commit apparent neonaticide can be charged as such.
Personally, I think a far better means of dealing with women who have abortions, especially multiple abortions, would be involuntary sterilization. That would allow them to have as much unprotected sex as they want while eliminating the consequence of them producing the children they obviously don’t.
And why the rape exception? Aren’t these fetuses human as well? It’s not their fault mommy was raped, is it?
You’re right, it isn’t. And morally, I have just as much problem with these abortions. But legally, it all boils down to a question of whether the sex and the unprotected nature of the sex was consensual. Rape is by definition nonconsensual sex, so the women must have the legal right to the decision to abort, since she had no chance to do otherwise. Furthermore, the rapist should be charged with the death of the child if the mother must choose this route.
Huh, the “ultra-liberal” Catholic Church and “radical leftist” Pope Benedict say it’s okay to believe in evolution.
Thus, since you treasure “consistency”, do you agree with the rest of their beliefs as well — or are you just opportunistically citing them?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As I said, Craig, US law states, specifically the Endangered Species Act, that killing an incubating egg or an animal fetus in utero carries the same penalty as killing the adult animal — despite the argument that such creatures are not really alive, since they are not viable away from their parents.
In short, unborn animals enjoy more legal respect and protection than do humans.
Furthermore, humans have even less excuse, given that humans can control both their need for sexual intercourse, the timing of when they have sexual intercourse, and the use of means of preventing fertilization.
Hence, the abortion debate is not about a woman’s “choice”; in the vast majority of cases, she’s already made three choices (having sex, at a time of high fertility, without protection) that led to her being pregnant. The question is simply whether or not she should be allowed to kill the baby because she didn’t want to choose differently in order to prevent herself from conceiving it.
As for your embryological breakdown, even the simplest sperm or egg cell can be identified as genetically distinct and human. The fusion of the two creates a new organism with its own unique genetic pattern. Saying that something has to reach an arbitrary level of development before you recognize it as human does not make scientific sense; do you claim, for example, that a neonate born with undeveloped lungs who needs a respirator to breathe is not human?
The need to dehumanize the baby in utero is simple; if it were recognized as something other than a tumor, parasite, or excess tissue, the entire abortion industry and its supporters would come crashing down.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, just because it will become a point of contention, let me clarify; I should have said that sperm and egg cells can be identified as genetically distinct and of human origin. I do not believe that an individual sperm or egg cell is its own organism; it’s the final fusion process in fertilization that produces that.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Personally, I think a far better means of dealing with women who have abortions, especially multiple abortions, would be involuntary sterilization.”
You might want to shut up before you say something silly.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Like I said, ColoradoPatriot, that would allow them to have as much unprotected sex as they want while eliminating the consequence of them producing the children they obviously don’t.
After all, the whole point of abortions is to make up for the biological inequity that exists between men and women who have irresponsible sex. This way, all such restraint is removed, and the woman can engage in as much sex as she wants whenever she wants without having to worry one whit about the consequences.
posted by Xeno on
I see that you prefer beating a straw man ND30. I’m not surprised. Still waiting for your reply.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
On evolution and molecular biology only, not his atheist views as I keep repeating myself to a solid block of granite.
No, no, Xeno; no picking and choosing when and where science applies. You and your fellow Democrats demand “peer-reviewed science” as ultimate proof, but then you reject it when it doesn’t fit your ideological views — exactly what you accuse and criticize Republicans for doing.
posted by raj on
Xeno | September 9, 2007, 9:51pm |
On evolution and molecular biology only, not his atheist views as I keep repeating myself to a solid block of granite.
Do you know what a brick wall is? That is what arguing with NDXXX is like. Except that, with NDXXX, the brick wall keeps moving.
Regarding Dawkins, I find him annoying The problem with providing evidence for the existence of a god (or the lack of the existence) is that nobody is interested in providing a definition (a/k/a “theory”) of what constitutes a god. So we have no base against which to determine the veracity of the theory. When was the last time you saw Q from the Q-continuum?
Regarding
North Dallas Thirty | September 10, 2007, 12:19am
And why the rape exception? Aren’t these fetuses human as well? It’s not their fault mommy was raped, is it?
You’re right, it isn’t. And morally, I have just as much problem with these abortions. But legally, it all boils down to a question of whether the sex and the unprotected nature of the sex was consensual. Rape is by definition nonconsensual sex,
The distinction is silly. The fetus doesn’t know how it was conceived. Either abortion is murder, and should be banned, or it is not.
What you might want to consider is sponsoring a Manhattan Project-style project to determine how to transfer the fetus to another host or a decanter. Without killing it, of course.
ColoradoPatriot | September 10, 2007, 10:03am |
You might want to shut up before you say something silly.
Of course not. NDXXX has diarrhea of the keyboard and constipation of the brain. On every website on which that handle has posted.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Craig2,
“Excuse me, is there any reliable and documented mainstream historical evidence that the Nazis *did believe* in Darwinian evolutionary theory?”
—There’s a ton, here’s a link.
http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp#r67
And a quote
The opposition to religion was a prominent feature of German science, and thus later German political theory, from its very beginning. As Stein summarized Haeckel in a lecture titled On evolution: Darwin?s Theory:
? ? [Haeckel] argued that Darwin was correct ? humankind had unquestionably evolved from the animal kingdom. Thus, and here the fatal step was taken in Haeckel?s first major exposition of Darwinism in Germany, humankind?s social and political existence is governed by the laws of evolution, natural selection, and biology, as clearly shown by Darwin. To argue otherwise was backward superstition. And, of course, it was organized religion which did this and thus stood in the way of scientific and social progress.?”
“Whatever the Nazis did believe in was probably junk science,”
—Well, I would say they took science and perverted it from their own goals. Darwin wasn’t a racist, but anyone can take his theories and use them against anyone.
In fact, medical schools and people in the fields of science have their share of homophobes. Think about it, to them a penis is not a sexual organ but part of the “reproductive system.”
For most scientists it’s hard to understand that animals might have sex for pleasure. To them, every sex act is about mating.
Look at this:
Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated eugenics, describing it as a way to eliminate “human waste” from society. (53)
Sanger was an open admirer of Adolph Hitler’s eugenic measures in Nazi Germany. In 1939 she wrote “The Negro Problem” where she encouraged abortion as one means to reduce the surplus population of blacks. She encouraged abortions and sterilization among minority racial groups and the poor because, as she wrote:
“Everywhere we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by Church and State to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased or feeble-minded; many become criminals. The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be bourne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born,” (54)
Now, don’t take me wrong, I am pro-choice just because I don’t want to pay higher taxes to take care of unwanted children irresponsible people produce.
And if I condemn Dawkins, it’s not just because he attacks Christians, Jews and Muslims. What about pagans like Wiccans? What about paranormal evidence of hauntings, poltergeists, demonic presences? Is there a scientific explanation for everything? No.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Bobby: “What about pagans like Wiccans?”
What about them?
“What about paranormal evidence of hauntings, poltergeists, demonic presences?”
There are no such things. Even though there is “evidence” left behind, there is no tooth fairy either.
“Is there a scientific explanation for everything? No.”
Name one thing that exists (that means no ghosts, angels, aliens or demons) that cannot be explained with science.
posted by Bobby on
What about them?
—Wiccans believe in the spiritual realm, and you’re gonna tell them that there’s no such thing just because you can’t see or feel it?
“What about paranormal evidence of hauntings, poltergeists, demonic presences?”
There are no such things. Even though there is “evidence” left behind, there is no tooth fairy either.
—This is exactly why I hate talking to secular people, they are so close minded, just because they’ve never experienced anything they think only what their eyes can see exists. For your information, accounts of demons exists in all cultures. The show “A Haunting” on Discovery is based on actual accounts. There’s all kinds of paranormal experiments that have proven that other realms exists. Mediums have communicated with the dead. But fine, believe in nothing, what do I care?
“Name one thing that exists (that means no ghosts, angels, aliens or demons) that cannot be explained with science.”
—Well, that takes the challenge out of science, doesn’t it? How easy it is to explain what exists. How fun it is to theorize that black holes are this, and then in 10 years contradict yourself. If science is so smart, why can’t they cure AIDS? Why does someone who smokes crack loses weight but the pharmaceutical companies can’t make a drug without the dangers of crack but with the same effect? Science can barely keep up with our current problems, so whatever they think about God, ghosts, demons and all that doesn’t matter to me.
They’re all a bunch of stupid homophobes anyway, to them you’re nothing but a piece of meat whose only purpose is to reproduce. You’re nothing but a defective breeding machine. And when you die, to them you’ll be nothing but wormfood.
You want to worship science, go ahead. Those bastards can’t even explain basic human emotions like love, hate, desire, but you go on, worship them. Bend before your altar of Darwin. Have fun.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Bob: “Wiccans believe in the spiritual realm, and you’re gonna tell them that there’s no such thing just because you can’t see or feel it?”
I’ll let you do the telling on spiritual matters (since you have a direct line to God), I just asked a question.
“The show “A Haunting” on Discovery is based on actual accounts.”
OK, since there is a TV show about ghosts they must be real. Don’t you think that in the thousands of years of human existence there would be better evidence? I don’t need to see things myself to believe in them…but ANY form of proof would help.
“Mediums have communicated with the dead. But fine, believe in nothing, what do I care?”
Do these mediums have any reason to lie about their “abilities?” Who said anything about my beliefs?
“If science is so smart, why can’t they cure AIDS?”
It might happen, feel free to disavow vaccines and medicine if that makes your God happy.
“Why does someone who smokes crack loses weight but the pharmaceutical companies can’t make a drug without the dangers of crack but with the same effect?”
I can see that I’m dealing with a real rocket scientist here. I’m sorry that your brain doesn’t work very good.
“Well, that takes the challenge out of science, doesn’t it? How easy it is to explain what exists.”
I’ll take that to mean you can’t answer my question.