Spooge, I think those things would have been voted for anyway, they were the popular ideas at the time afaik.
Diazo: I completely agree. I don't expect them not to be influenced by where are their facts for same sex marriages? Simple, the fact is same-sex marriages don't cause any damage to society. Abortion is exactly the same.
<!--QuoteBegin-Diazo+Apr 21 2005, 05:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diazo @ Apr 21 2005, 05:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> An official can be openely religious, even be guided by religion in his actions, as long as he backs his actions up with real world logic and facts.
If an official doesn't back up the law he's trying to create with real world figures and logic, and uses the reason of "God wills it", he should be out of office yesterday as far as I'm concerned. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly.
Damnit! No! No no! Politics + Religion = bad. Ugh this is annoying! I dislike labels and even more dislike how people try to pit one group against another. I'm sick and tired of hearing about liberal vs. conservative this, and liberal vs. conservative that. Yes, it is scary having one party dominate. It's multiparty opposition that keeps things balanced. We don't listen to each other, we stereotype, and we focus on hate for those who are different and believe differently than we do. That is wrong. We are supposed to be one nation united, not one nation divided. Sure it's healthy to debate, but we have gotten into an excess to the point where almost everything you see in the media has to have a liberal or conservative in it. Fear factor. Paranoia. Aaaah Armageddon! Gimme a break people… More respect for others is what is needed. So there are some homosexuals who love each other. Hey, I'm 100% hetero but that doesn't mean that I despise or hate or try to place legal limitations and bans against a minority just because of my religion. I'm not a woman but as a gentleman who has enormous respect and admiration for women I'll pay attention to issues that concern them and try to voice my opinion. But what I won't do is try to pass federal laws telling women how to live. So in Oklahoma women can't be seen in a bathing suit around golf courses even if it's their house, if the people in that area all like that law, then fine, that's their choice. But I will protest strongly against making it a nation wide law. You know what there are always a few extremists in every group; and there is a lot of grey area. I have no problem with religion or other people believing their religion is the right one but it is scary and it is wrong for a nation that is founded on freedoms to be having the larger group forcing everyone else to follow their morals and worship god their way. No thank you ladies and gentlemen. I want to choose my own path. I respect your freedoms, please don't violate mine. I relish diversity and freedom; it is the single thing that has made the USA what it is. It's a shame we ignore that to focus instead on our petty political differences.
<s>Pepe</s> <span style='color:orange'>Sky</span>, you need to choose a thread title and use language that is not a flamebait, and please, <i><b>please</b></i>, listen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I say democracy sucks because too many people vote for stupid reasons. Democracy relies on too much on people knowing what they are doing with their vote which is obviously daft. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Partially true, people are also voting the way they are because they don't have many options. I think with today's technology there are many reasons why we can poll often. There's no reason why we can't poll for the bills we want to pass. It's ridiculous how each bill becomes a smorgasbord for politicians to throw random junk in there, often times sinking a good bill or allowing foolish errors and loopholes (sometimes intentional) to emerge. Our whole political system needs a good cleanup.
I'm a true champion of freedom, as a friend of mine pointed out. It is one of those things I will fight to defend.
<!--QuoteBegin-Diazo+Apr 21 2005, 05:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diazo @ Apr 21 2005, 05:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In an ideal world, people elected would be able to keep religion away when they sit in public office. However, religion is a part of people's character and asking them to be completely "non-religious" while in public office is like asking a person to leave half of themselves at home while they go into work.
Elected officials will be influenced by their religion, they are only human after all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Aye, but there is a point where you have tipped the balance too far and slammed the weight tray through the desk.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For me personally, the line is drawn when said elected official starts using "God wills it", or similar logic, when he's trying to get a new law passed. This is because it's not "God wills it", it's a case of "YOUR (elected official's) God wills it".
An official can be openely religious, even be guided by religion in his actions, as long as he backs his actions up with real world logic and facts.
If an official doesn't back up the law he's trying to create with real world figures and logic, and uses the reason of "God wills it", he should be out of office yesterday as far as I'm concerned. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-the x5+Apr 21 2005, 07:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the x5 @ Apr 21 2005, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Pepe, you need to choose a thread title and use language that is not a flamebait, and please, <i><b>please</b></i>, listen. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Psst, my thread dude. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 21 2005, 07:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 21 2005, 07:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-the x5+Apr 21 2005, 07:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the x5 @ Apr 21 2005, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Pepe, you need to choose a thread title and use language that is not a flamebait, and please, <i><b>please</b></i>, listen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Psst, my thread dude. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, that's odd I could have sworn he was the thread author. Well then my sincere apologies Pepe, and shame on you Sky. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Oops... Well what do you know, I'm human to. Darn.
~edit~
I see my error, I was replying to him and switched windows. At least I didn't mix up my content like I usually do. Like making a dicussion thread in the I&S by accident. (and thanx to Marik for fixing the problem before I got flammed too badly, shame on Zunni for flaming me. Heh.)
Ideally, I'd like for our president not to be guided at all by religion. Of course, I realize that's completely unrealistic, in our current demographic/political climate.
I wouldn't get annoyed at a religious president who backs up his policy with logic and reason. However, politicians who give talks in churches, associate with religious leaders, work closely with their chosen religious sects, and reference God in relation to their politics, really **** me off. It appears that they take their social policies from scripture and then try to mold the facts to match their opinions.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 21 2005, 10:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 21 2005, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ideally, I'd like for our president not to be guided at all by religion. Of course, I realize that's completely unrealistic, in our current demographic/political climate.
I wouldn't get annoyed at a religious president who backs up his policy with logic and reason. However, politicians who give talks in churches, associate with religious leaders, work closely with their chosen religious sects, and reference God in relation to their politics, really **** me off. It appears that they take their social policies from scripture and then try to mold the facts to match their opinions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> man, I thats strange - I really get angry at those politicians who don't profess any god, and then try to force their version of morality on everyone - and if they don't get their way, the either fillibuster or take it to court for a lone judge to decide.
I mean - they grab their social policies from... either darwin or thin air - and then try to mold america to match their opinions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Diazo+Apr 21 2005, 05:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diazo @ Apr 21 2005, 05:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If an official doesn't back up the law he's trying to create <b>with real world figures and logic</b>, and uses the reason of "God wills it", he should be out of office yesterday as far as I'm concerned.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm going to quote myself here rather then retype this.
Certainly the pendulum swings both ways, I used religion as the reason in my previous post for where the spurious law in question comes from, but the same logic applies to any law, even one pulled from Darwin or thin air.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> man, I thats strange - I really get angry at those politicians who don't profess any god, and then try to force their version of morality on everyone - and if they don't get their way, the either fillibuster or take it to court for a lone judge to decide.
I mean - they grab their social policies from... either darwin or thin air - and then try to mold america to match their opinions.
The pendilum swings both ways. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You do realise we don't need a god to be moral? After all the idea of a god kills altruism (unless you can condemn yourself to 'hell' by doing the right thing). You seem to have this idea that atheism isn't a lack of faith, that it's some kind of devilish 'anti-faith' and that we will automatically oppose you and everything that's good.
Also, just because a politician doesn't preach from his soapbox or carry a bible around with him it doesn't necessarily make him godless. Maybe they prefer to keep their faith as a private thing and their politics public?
Oh and out of curiousity, which laws or social policies are pulled from darwin?
East you won't get a response on that, as there are no laws that are pulled from darwin. Since he didn't hand down a "moral code" to follow as some peoples "gods" did.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 21 2005, 07:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 21 2005, 07:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All I'm saying is if you believe homosexuality is a sin then don't do it but allow others the right to do as they wish. I have yet to see any homosexual openly and aggressively promoting their sexual preference as better, I've not seen recruitment drives or anything so it really doesn't affect those who don't like it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, I'm very pleasently surprised that there's been so little flaming in this thread. Bravo, all involved.
That said, CMEast, you have brought up the issue of homosexuality several times, saying that it "shouldn't affect others" and things like that. I just want to make sure you are aware that homosexuality is currently legal in the US...and no one has proposed a law to say otherwise.
Now, we <i>used</i> to have laws in many states banning sodomy and the like. They had been around for centuries before judges very recently decided they were unconstitutional. But they are not connected in the slightest with any of todays politicians.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 23 2005, 02:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 23 2005, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That said, CMEast, you have brought up the issue of homosexuality several times, saying that it "shouldn't affect others" and things like that. I just want to make sure you are aware that homosexuality is currently legal in the US...and no one has proposed a law to say otherwise.
Now, we <i>used</i> to have laws in many states banning sodomy and the like. They had been around for centuries before judges very recently decided they were unconstitutional. But they are not connected in the slightest with any of todays politicians. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I've been saying it <i>doesn't</i> affect others, not 'shouldn't' which is very different. However I raise homosexuality because it is just a preference for the same sex, they still want to meet that 'special someone' and share their lives with them and I consider that an important part of homosexuality, of being human actually. To have that illegal is to deny them something which is an intrinsic need for the vast majority, in fact it is often something we use to judge how successful and happy someones life is.
It is relevant to the thread because banning same-sex marriages only makes sense from purely religious reasons and so creating that law is a very good example of religion and politics mixing.
Cyndane: No, I didn't think I would either <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> In fact it's quite amazing the amount of times I have brought up a point and it has been ignored. I know if they were bad points they would be jumped on as easy arguments to win so I wonder why...
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 23 2005, 05:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 23 2005, 05:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However I raise homosexuality because it is just a preference for the same sex, they still want to meet that 'special someone' and share their lives with them and I consider that an important part of homosexuality, of being human actually. To have that illegal is to deny them something which is an intrinsic need for the vast majority, in fact it is often something we use to judge how successful and happy someones life is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Right...except, its still not illegal. Nowhere in the US is there a law that prevents homosexual people from finding that "special someone" and spending the rest of their lives with that person. We just don't think they should get to apply the word "marriage" to that relationship.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is relevant to the thread because banning same-sex marriages only makes sense from purely religious reasons and so creating that law is a very good example of religion and politics mixing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Banning same-sex marriages makes sense because marriages themselves weren't invented by the government--they were invented by religion. Its only recently that tax laws and the like have become so complex that its even really necessary for the government to <i>know</i> if you are married or not. Marriage is a religious institution by its very nature, so it is perfectly logical that religious institutions should have some say over the administration of marriage.
So if anything, this law is a good example of places where you can't <i>avoid</i> religion and politics mixing.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 22 2005, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 22 2005, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> man, I thats strange - I really get angry at those politicians who don't profess any god, and then try to force their version of morality on everyone - and if they don't get their way, the either fillibuster or take it to court for a lone judge to decide.
I mean - they grab their social policies from... either darwin or thin air - and then try to mold america to match their opinions.
The pendilum swings both ways. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> [snip] Oh and out of curiousity, which laws or social policies are pulled from darwin? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->East you won't get a response on that, as there are no laws that are pulled from darwin. Since he didn't hand down a "moral code" to follow as some peoples "gods" did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cyndane: No, I didn't think I would either In fact it's quite amazing the amount of times I have brought up a point and it has been ignored. I know if they were bad points they would be jumped on as easy arguments to win so I wonder why...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Darwin may not have handed down a moral code, but he handed down something just as important...a worldview where humans are inherently no different from and no better than animals. And yes, I know there are some worldviews that start with Darwins ideas and still manage to hold human life in high regard, but prior to Darwin there were <i>no</i> reputable belief systems that <i>didn't</i> do that. It is because of Darwin that we now have substantial groups of people who consider human life unimportant.
And that allows us to answer your original question by pointing to things like Roe V Wade. Or any law that puts the interests of animals over that of humans.
In my opinion Darwins theorys never did any such thing. Detractors of Evolution always used to say it did but the entire point is we evolved past every other animal and have come to dominate the earth precisely because we are better. It just means we are better even if we weren't 'the chosen' of some god. Oh and it is a scientific theory, not a 'belief'.
Religion has had a far greater part in devaluing human life with its ability to seperate humanity in to groups, with an afterlife which makes your 'real' life of only secondary importance and the way it allows people to do atrocious things to the people they meet in life for the sake of a being that they have never met (and imo never will). No one has ever started a war for evolution and it has always been religion that attacks science instead of the other way round.
Oh and what groups think human life is unimportant?
On marriage as a religious thing, do you mean christian? Only I believe that humans have always wanted to share life with a partner and it is religion that subverted and then ritualised what would otherwise have been a pretty natural agreement between two people who love each other, something we are just getting back to nowadays. All religion did was add further pain to break ups and add new ways to be prejudiced against others "his parents weren't married when he was born" or "she had sex before marriage!".
In fact many people 'marry' nowadays in completely un-religious ways, at a registry office or similar. Why can't we have same-sex marriages be the same? Or why not make 'marriage' itself purely religious with no official status with the government. Then we could have an official 'union' of some sort which everyone could do whatever their religion or preference. Wouldn't that make far more sense? Then you aren't asking a god to ratify a same-sex marriage or anything else they might have a problem with.
So basically we can avoid religion and law mixing, marriage is simply an example of how the previous system is still based on religion far too much.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Only I believe that humans have always wanted to share life with a partner and it is religion that subverted and then ritualised what would otherwise have been a pretty natural agreement between two people who love each other, something we are just getting back to nowadays.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, so do I, minus the "subverted" part. I just happen to think that the "ritualized" part is a good thing, rather than bad. But seeing as how we both agree that the "ritualized" part is the domain of the religious, lets let them keep it, like I said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[In fact many people 'marry' nowadays in completely un-religious ways, at a registry office or similar. Why can't we have same-sex marriages be the same?] Or why not make 'marriage' itself purely religious with no official status with the government. Then we could have an official 'union' of some sort which everyone could do whatever their religion or preference. Wouldn't that make far more sense? Then you aren't asking a god to ratify a same-sex marriage or anything else they might have a problem with.
So basically we can avoid religion and law mixing, marriage is simply an example of how the previous system is still based on religion far too much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually wouldn't mind a solution like that at all. That would pretty much solve all my problems with homosexual marriage. The only problem is it's just not likely to happen. For one thing, whenever someone offers homosexuals a solution such as "civil unions", then tend to get very mad--because having the WORD "marriage" is just as important to most homosexuals as denying them that word is to the devout Christians. There are other reasons why its not likely to happen--but if someone managed to pull it off anyway, I'd have no objection.
Edit: to clarify, "a solution like that" refers to everything after the brackets
Just throwing certain things you should be aware of. 1. Homosexual marriage does not affect you. 2. If it doesn't affect you directly, you should not be against anything. 3. Throughout most of human history(removing religion), there was always an agreement between to mates if they wished to stay together. 4. Attempting to push laws into effect that inforce "your beliefs" is the easy way to get kicked out of office, unless there is someone completely idiotic running against you. (Aka, why bush was re-elected) 5. If the government would remove all tax breaks that married couples get, then there would be no more conflict.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Darwin may not have handed down a moral code, but he handed down something just as important...a worldview where humans are inherently no different from and no better than animals. And yes, I know there are some worldviews that start with Darwins ideas and still manage to hold human life in high regard, but prior to Darwin there were no reputable belief systems that didn't do that. It is because of Darwin that we now have substantial groups of people who consider human life unimportant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Incorrect, ever since religion has been in existance for the past say... eight thousand years or so (give or take a few hundred) it has repeatedly made select groups of people worth less then others. Absolutely disgusting. I.e. various wars throughout the years.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 24 2005, 01:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 24 2005, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just throwing certain things you should be aware of. 1. Homosexual marriage does not affect you. 2. If it doesn't affect you directly, you should not be against anything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Shaky logic there. To use an example: it doesn't particularly affect you or me if the US decides to go bomb some random foreign country. Yet every time a president proposes that, you can be sure thousands of people will speak up in protest that we shouldn't let the government do that.
Now that I have established that I am allowed to have an opinion on the matter, I have no trouble admitting that my opinion is determined primarily based on religious beliefs. But as already pointed out, marriage is a religious institution...so religious beliefs ought to count for something.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 24 2005, 01:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 24 2005, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Darwin may not have handed down a moral code, but he handed down something just as important...a worldview where humans are inherently no different from and no better than animals. And yes, I know there are some worldviews that start with Darwins ideas and still manage to hold human life in high regard, but prior to Darwin there were no reputable belief systems that didn't do that. It is because of Darwin that we now have substantial groups of people who consider human life unimportant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Incorrect, ever since religion has been in existance for the past say... eight thousand years or so (give or take a few hundred) it has repeatedly made select groups of people worth less then others. Absolutely disgusting. I.e. various wars throughout the years. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> While admittedly it is a common (though by no means universal) mistake for religions to value some people as being more important than other people, they still draw a very distinct line between "people" and "not people", which is lost under Darwinism.
But thats not the point. I don't mean to argue (at least not today, in this thread) whether some religious beliefs are better or worse than others or better or worse than the moral codes held by atheists. I merely mean to point out that the Darwinian worldview can serve as the basis for a moral code, which will inevitably not be shared by everyone--hence, Pepe Mufassa's point about politicians creating social policies based on Darwin.
Marriage is religious but a quick question, are all religions anti-homosexual? I can understand how the word marriage can be seen as religious but then its rarely seen as religious nowadays. Plenty of people get married without it having anything to do with god, some even do it in a church just because it is 'traditional' but they have no belief. They are <i>just</i> rituals now to a large proportion of the population.
Does anyone know where the term 'marriage' came from anyway? Was it originaly religious? It doesn't seem to <i>obviously</i> derived from something religious (doesn't sound like it anyway although it may well be).
What if you take the 'you' in "does not affect you" to mean everyone. So if it doesn't affect anyone else accept those who want to do it then why stop them?
Darwinism still seperates humans from animals precisely because we are different species. We may have relatives but in the end it doesn't stop humans from being 'people' and monkeys being animals. Darwinism cannot be the basis of a moral code, all it can do is help others to understand our past and it has no affect on our behaviour in the present.
Again, name some social policies based on Darwinism, our point was that as far as we know there aren't any, a point neither of you (nor anyone else) has addressed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 24 2005, 12:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 24 2005, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 22 2005, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 22 2005, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> man, I thats strange - I really get angry at those politicians who don't profess any god, and then try to force their version of morality on everyone - and if they don't get their way, the either fillibuster or take it to court for a lone judge to decide.
I mean - they grab their social policies from... either darwin or thin air - and then try to mold america to match their opinions.
The pendilum swings both ways. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> [snip] Oh and out of curiousity, which laws or social policies are pulled from darwin? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->East you won't get a response on that, as there are no laws that are pulled from darwin. Since he didn't hand down a "moral code" to follow as some peoples "gods" did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cyndane: No, I didn't think I would either In fact it's quite amazing the amount of times I have brought up a point and it has been ignored. I know if they were bad points they would be jumped on as easy arguments to win so I wonder why...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Darwin may not have handed down a moral code, but he handed down something just as important...a worldview where humans are inherently no different from and no better than animals. And yes, I know there are some worldviews that start with Darwins ideas and still manage to hold human life in high regard, but prior to Darwin there were <i>no</i> reputable belief systems that <i>didn't</i> do that. It is because of Darwin that we now have substantial groups of people who consider human life unimportant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Murder didn't exist before religion, then? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm just pointing out, it's hardly Darwin's theory that makes humans consider another human's life to be unimportant. We've been pros at that for far longer. I've never heard a criminal say before a judge, "Well we're almost exactly like chimps, and chimps can kill other chimps without being prosecuted." I doubt that'd hold up in court (though I will keep it in the back of my mind if I ever want to cause a stir in a court room).
And Cyndane, I believe it has already been said in another thread why the tax breaks married couples receive aren't nearly as great or as tempting as you might think. The tax breaks really only help couples where there is a great disparity between the two incomes.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 24 2005, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 24 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marriage is religious but a quick question, are all religions anti-homosexual? I can understand how the word marriage can be seen as religious but then its rarely seen as religious nowadays. Plenty of people get married without it having anything to do with god, some even do it in a church just because it is 'traditional' but they have no belief. They are <i>just</i> rituals now to a large proportion of the population.
Does anyone know where the term 'marriage' came from anyway? Was it originaly religious? It doesn't seem to <i>obviously</i> derived from something religious (doesn't sound like it anyway although it may well be).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, since the religious concept of "marriage" has been around for millenia (8000 years if you trust Cyndanes date), the origin of the word would be far enough back that you couldn't easily trace its direct religious influences. For the duration of recorded history, the word has essentially <i>always</i> been religious in most languages.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What if you take the 'you' in "does not affect you" to mean everyone. So if it doesn't affect anyone else accept those who want to do it then why stop them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would point out the government still regulates a number of aspects of our life that don't seem to affect anyone else. For example, as a 20-year old, I can't go out and buy a drink. You aren't going to convince the government that they can't regulate anything that doesn't hurt other people. As to why regulate this particular action which "does not affect me", I turn again to religious reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Darwinism still seperates humans from animals precisely because we are different species. We may have relatives but in the end it doesn't stop humans from being 'people' and monkeys being animals. Darwinism cannot be the basis of a moral code, all it can do is help others to understand our past and it has no affect on our behaviour in the present.
Again, name some social policies based on Darwinism, our point was that as far as we know there aren't any, a point neither of you (nor anyone else) has addressed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, let me rephrase myself slightly. Well, actually fairly substantially. Darwin is an indirect point of origin for a moral code, but not the direct cause for it. Having gone through this line-of-thought enough times in the past, I tend to abbreviate it.
It works like this--not all people who believe in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists believe in Darwin's evolution. Prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, quite simply, if you were an atheist you were not considered credible.
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be <i>different</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 24 2005, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 24 2005, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What if you take the 'you' in "does not affect you" to mean everyone. So if it doesn't affect anyone else accept those who want to do it then why stop them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would point out the government still regulates a number of aspects of our life that don't seem to affect anyone else. For example, as a 20-year old, I can't go out and buy a drink. You aren't going to convince the government that they can't regulate anything that doesn't hurt other people. As to why regulate this particular action which "does not affect me", I turn again to religious reasons.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Fairly bad example, considering the number of traffic accident involve drunk drivers (a scary percent of which are underage). I'd say that affects the people around you. At 21, you're supposed to be more aware of your body and the risks you take whenever you drink, and you're supposed to be better equipped to handle yourself drunk (ie, not cause trouble).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Darwinism still seperates humans from animals precisely because we are different species. We may have relatives but in the end it doesn't stop humans from being 'people' and monkeys being animals. Darwinism cannot be the basis of a moral code, all it can do is help others to understand our past and it has no affect on our behaviour in the present.
Again, name some social policies based on Darwinism, our point was that as far as we know there aren't any, a point neither of you (nor anyone else) has addressed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, let me rephrase myself slightly. Well, actually fairly substantially. Darwin is an indirect point of origin for a moral code, but not the direct cause for it. Having gone through this line-of-thought enough times in the past, I tend to abbreviate it.
It works like this--not all people who believe in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists believe in Darwin's evolution. Prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, quite simply, if you were an atheist you were not considered credible.
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be <i>different</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First and for the last time, evolution is NOT a belief system. It's not even a belief. Scientific.Theory.
Now, another problem with your point of view is that, before Darwin, there <i>were</i> other ideas about where we came from. They were just shut up really quickly, both becaue they weren't exactly (or even remotely) true, AND because the Church was a lot more powerful back then. Remember Galileo? Yeah, and he was <u>right</u>. Imagine how hard it would have been to openly come out with a new scientific theory if your evidence was even slightly shaky. Darwin had the benefit of a lot of proof, a way with words, a (relatively) receptive audience, and a weakened Church. Otherwise, he would have been shot down, only to be vindicated later on (like Galileo and Copernicus have been).
Add Aristole and Socrates to that list, he didn't believe in the greek gods, so it isn't just christianity that has looked down upon scientists. Confucius was another one that didn't completely believe in buddism, and was frowned upon at least untill recently.
Quite sad really.
Oh and Sky...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; bullet veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling; wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims' recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to break it to you, but 1,400 legal and economic benefits... thats quite a bit to be passing up.
Oh yes.. and here a a site with a few of them listed as well. <a href='http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/' target='_blank'>Marriage Benefits</a>
I just keep finding more and more sources for stuffs.. .I need to quit editing.. 4th edit in five minutes. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The word "marriage" has, over the centuries, through the tests of time and usage come to be associated with a religious rite. In Christianity it is called a Sacrament, but in all of the major faith groups it is a rite, an act, of special religious significance. Historically, in the churches, "marriage" has been the uniting of a man and woman who covenant with each other to spend the rest of their lives together to the exclusion of any other similar relationship. Such bonding and deep committment to one another is supposed to be the expression of a love deeper than will be found in any other relationship. The religious bodies of the world view their participation in "marriage" unions as essential and the opportunity to offer a divine blessing upon the couples union. The number of civil ceremonies performed in comparison to religious "marriages" is miniscule. Most people, even in primitive societies, attached religious significance to the "coming together" of a man and a woman. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So yes, I was correct, ever since religions have been around, they have used the world or variation of "marriage"
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 24 2005, 07:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 24 2005, 07:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I hate to break it to you, but 1,400 legal and economic benefits... thats quite a bit to be passing up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, well, a lot of those benefits only consist of being able to file for things jointly, which benefits couples with disparate incomes (rather than all married couples) by letting them slip into a better tax bracket (insert any other kind of tax/benefit plan here). However, some benefits like this one: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> definitely would encourage marriage. Well, this is a bad example I suppose given the circumstances needed for it to come into effect, but I see there are specific economic rights for married couples. However I was under the impression that homosexuals wanted to officiall marry for rights like this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not that, of course, they would reject the economic benefits as well.
I believe GWB came into office wanting to do away with "marriage penalties", something to do with complications that arose when trying to file jointly under the old tax code, so marriages are more "beneficial" now than they were a few years ago.
IMO the tax code needs a complete overhaul. Accountants should not be necessary to do something as basic as pay our taxes to the government. But that's a separate topic entirely, and the discussion forum is busy enough as is right now. I'll save it for a lull in the arguing. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 24 2005, 04:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 24 2005, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It works like this--not all people who believe in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists believe in Darwin's evolution. Prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, quite simply, if you were an atheist you were not considered credible.
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be <i>different</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First and for the last time, evolution is NOT a belief system. It's not even a belief. Scientific.Theory.
Now, another problem with your point of view is that, before Darwin, there <i>were</i> other ideas about where we came from. They were just shut up really quickly, both becaue they weren't exactly (or even remotely) true, AND because the Church was a lot more powerful back then. Remember Galileo? Yeah, and he was <u>right</u>. Imagine how hard it would have been to openly come out with a new scientific theory if your evidence was even slightly shaky. Darwin had the benefit of a lot of proof, a way with words, a (relatively) receptive audience, and a weakened Church. Otherwise, he would have been shot down, only to be vindicated later on (like Galileo and Copernicus have been). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Didn't say evolution <i>was</i> a belief system. Read my post more closely. I said that evolution was the scientific theory that allowed the <i>atheist</i> belief system to move past the situation you describe where any alternate idea about our origins was immediately and forcefully silenced. It just so happens the two are very closely related, so they are confused often, but giving scientific arguments why "the Theory of Evolution" is science rather than belief misses the point that Atheism is belief rather than science.
Comments
Diazo: I completely agree. I don't expect them not to be influenced by where are their facts for same sex marriages? Simple, the fact is same-sex marriages don't cause any damage to society. Abortion is exactly the same.
If an official doesn't back up the law he's trying to create with real world figures and logic, and uses the reason of "God wills it", he should be out of office yesterday as far as I'm concerned. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
<s>Pepe</s> <span style='color:orange'>Sky</span>, you need to choose a thread title and use language that is not a flamebait, and please, <i><b>please</b></i>, listen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I say democracy sucks because too many people vote for stupid reasons. Democracy relies on too much on people knowing what they are doing with their vote which is obviously daft. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Partially true, people are also voting the way they are because they don't have many options. I think with today's technology there are many reasons why we can poll often. There's no reason why we can't poll for the bills we want to pass. It's ridiculous how each bill becomes a smorgasbord for politicians to throw random junk in there, often times sinking a good bill or allowing foolish errors and loopholes (sometimes intentional) to emerge. Our whole political system needs a good cleanup.
I'm a true champion of freedom, as a friend of mine pointed out. It is one of those things I will fight to defend.
Elected officials will be influenced by their religion, they are only human after all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aye, but there is a point where you have tipped the balance too far and slammed the weight tray through the desk.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For me personally, the line is drawn when said elected official starts using "God wills it", or similar logic, when he's trying to get a new law passed. This is because it's not "God wills it", it's a case of "YOUR (elected official's) God wills it".
An official can be openely religious, even be guided by religion in his actions, as long as he backs his actions up with real world logic and facts.
If an official doesn't back up the law he's trying to create with real world figures and logic, and uses the reason of "God wills it", he should be out of office yesterday as far as I'm concerned.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concur with those statements.
Psst, my thread dude. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Psst, my thread dude. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, that's odd I could have sworn he was the thread author. Well then my sincere apologies Pepe, and shame on you Sky. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Oops... Well what do you know, I'm human to. Darn.
~edit~
I see my error, I was replying to him and switched windows. At least I didn't mix up my content like I usually do. Like making a dicussion thread in the I&S by accident. (and thanx to Marik for fixing the problem before I got flammed too badly, shame on Zunni for flaming me. Heh.)
I wouldn't get annoyed at a religious president who backs up his policy with logic and reason. However, politicians who give talks in churches, associate with religious leaders, work closely with their chosen religious sects, and reference God in relation to their politics, really **** me off. It appears that they take their social policies from scripture and then try to mold the facts to match their opinions.
I wouldn't get annoyed at a religious president who backs up his policy with logic and reason. However, politicians who give talks in churches, associate with religious leaders, work closely with their chosen religious sects, and reference God in relation to their politics, really **** me off. It appears that they take their social policies from scripture and then try to mold the facts to match their opinions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
man, I thats strange - I really get angry at those politicians who don't profess any god, and then try to force their version of morality on everyone - and if they don't get their way, the either fillibuster or take it to court for a lone judge to decide.
I mean - they grab their social policies from... either darwin or thin air - and then try to mold america to match their opinions.
The pendilum swings both ways.
If an official doesn't back up the law he's trying to create <b>with real world figures and logic</b>, and uses the reason of "God wills it", he should be out of office yesterday as far as I'm concerned.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to quote myself here rather then retype this.
Certainly the pendulum swings both ways, I used religion as the reason in my previous post for where the spurious law in question comes from, but the same logic applies to any law, even one pulled from Darwin or thin air.
Diazo
Edit: evil spelling
I mean - they grab their social policies from... either darwin or thin air - and then try to mold america to match their opinions.
The pendilum swings both ways. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do realise we don't need a god to be moral? After all the idea of a god kills altruism (unless you can condemn yourself to 'hell' by doing the right thing). You seem to have this idea that atheism isn't a lack of faith, that it's some kind of devilish 'anti-faith' and that we will automatically oppose you and everything that's good.
Also, just because a politician doesn't preach from his soapbox or carry a bible around with him it doesn't necessarily make him godless. Maybe they prefer to keep their faith as a private thing and their politics public?
Oh and out of curiousity, which laws or social policies are pulled from darwin?
Yes indeed. Gets me all the time too.
(heh. almost misspelled time as tiem just then for example)
Spelling ftw, (no errors even more ftw).
First of all, I'm very pleasently surprised that there's been so little flaming in this thread. Bravo, all involved.
That said, CMEast, you have brought up the issue of homosexuality several times, saying that it "shouldn't affect others" and things like that. I just want to make sure you are aware that homosexuality is currently legal in the US...and no one has proposed a law to say otherwise.
Now, we <i>used</i> to have laws in many states banning sodomy and the like. They had been around for centuries before judges very recently decided they were unconstitutional. But they are not connected in the slightest with any of todays politicians.
Now, we <i>used</i> to have laws in many states banning sodomy and the like. They had been around for centuries before judges very recently decided they were unconstitutional. But they are not connected in the slightest with any of todays politicians. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I've been saying it <i>doesn't</i> affect others, not 'shouldn't' which is very different. However I raise homosexuality because it is just a preference for the same sex, they still want to meet that 'special someone' and share their lives with them and I consider that an important part of homosexuality, of being human actually. To have that illegal is to deny them something which is an intrinsic need for the vast majority, in fact it is often something we use to judge how successful and happy someones life is.
It is relevant to the thread because banning same-sex marriages only makes sense from purely religious reasons and so creating that law is a very good example of religion and politics mixing.
Cyndane: No, I didn't think I would either <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> In fact it's quite amazing the amount of times I have brought up a point and it has been ignored. I know if they were bad points they would be jumped on as easy arguments to win so I wonder why...
Right...except, its still not illegal. Nowhere in the US is there a law that prevents homosexual people from finding that "special someone" and spending the rest of their lives with that person. We just don't think they should get to apply the word "marriage" to that relationship.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is relevant to the thread because banning same-sex marriages only makes sense from purely religious reasons and so creating that law is a very good example of religion and politics mixing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Banning same-sex marriages makes sense because marriages themselves weren't invented by the government--they were invented by religion. Its only recently that tax laws and the like have become so complex that its even really necessary for the government to <i>know</i> if you are married or not. Marriage is a religious institution by its very nature, so it is perfectly logical that religious institutions should have some say over the administration of marriage.
So if anything, this law is a good example of places where you can't <i>avoid</i> religion and politics mixing.
I mean - they grab their social policies from... either darwin or thin air - and then try to mold america to match their opinions.
The pendilum swings both ways. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[snip]
Oh and out of curiousity, which laws or social policies are pulled from darwin? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->East you won't get a response on that, as there are no laws that are pulled from darwin. Since he didn't hand down a "moral code" to follow as some peoples "gods" did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cyndane: No, I didn't think I would either In fact it's quite amazing the amount of times I have brought up a point and it has been ignored. I know if they were bad points they would be jumped on as easy arguments to win so I wonder why...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Darwin may not have handed down a moral code, but he handed down something just as important...a worldview where humans are inherently no different from and no better than animals. And yes, I know there are some worldviews that start with Darwins ideas and still manage to hold human life in high regard, but prior to Darwin there were <i>no</i> reputable belief systems that <i>didn't</i> do that. It is because of Darwin that we now have substantial groups of people who consider human life unimportant.
And that allows us to answer your original question by pointing to things like Roe V Wade. Or any law that puts the interests of animals over that of humans.
Religion has had a far greater part in devaluing human life with its ability to seperate humanity in to groups, with an afterlife which makes your 'real' life of only secondary importance and the way it allows people to do atrocious things to the people they meet in life for the sake of a being that they have never met (and imo never will). No one has ever started a war for evolution and it has always been religion that attacks science instead of the other way round.
Oh and what groups think human life is unimportant?
On marriage as a religious thing, do you mean christian? Only I believe that humans have always wanted to share life with a partner and it is religion that subverted and then ritualised what would otherwise have been a pretty natural agreement between two people who love each other, something we are just getting back to nowadays. All religion did was add further pain to break ups and add new ways to be prejudiced against others "his parents weren't married when he was born" or "she had sex before marriage!".
In fact many people 'marry' nowadays in completely un-religious ways, at a registry office or similar. Why can't we have same-sex marriages be the same? Or why not make 'marriage' itself purely religious with no official status with the government. Then we could have an official 'union' of some sort which everyone could do whatever their religion or preference. Wouldn't that make far more sense? Then you aren't asking a god to ratify a same-sex marriage or anything else they might have a problem with.
So basically we can avoid religion and law mixing, marriage is simply an example of how the previous system is still based on religion far too much.
[bah at mistypes]
Well, so do I, minus the "subverted" part. I just happen to think that the "ritualized" part is a good thing, rather than bad. But seeing as how we both agree that the "ritualized" part is the domain of the religious, lets let them keep it, like I said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[In fact many people 'marry' nowadays in completely un-religious ways, at a registry office or similar. Why can't we have same-sex marriages be the same?] Or why not make 'marriage' itself purely religious with no official status with the government. Then we could have an official 'union' of some sort which everyone could do whatever their religion or preference. Wouldn't that make far more sense? Then you aren't asking a god to ratify a same-sex marriage or anything else they might have a problem with.
So basically we can avoid religion and law mixing, marriage is simply an example of how the previous system is still based on religion far too much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually wouldn't mind a solution like that at all. That would pretty much solve all my problems with homosexual marriage. The only problem is it's just not likely to happen. For one thing, whenever someone offers homosexuals a solution such as "civil unions", then tend to get very mad--because having the WORD "marriage" is just as important to most homosexuals as denying them that word is to the devout Christians. There are other reasons why its not likely to happen--but if someone managed to pull it off anyway, I'd have no objection.
Edit: to clarify, "a solution like that" refers to everything after the brackets
1. Homosexual marriage does not affect you.
2. If it doesn't affect you directly, you should not be against anything.
3. Throughout most of human history(removing religion), there was always an agreement between to mates if they wished to stay together.
4. Attempting to push laws into effect that inforce "your beliefs" is the easy way to get kicked out of office, unless there is someone completely idiotic running against you. (Aka, why bush was re-elected)
5. If the government would remove all tax breaks that married couples get, then there would be no more conflict.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Darwin may not have handed down a moral code, but he handed down something just as important...a worldview where humans are inherently no different from and no better than animals. And yes, I know there are some worldviews that start with Darwins ideas and still manage to hold human life in high regard, but prior to Darwin there were no reputable belief systems that didn't do that. It is because of Darwin that we now have substantial groups of people who consider human life unimportant.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect, ever since religion has been in existance for the past say... eight thousand years or so (give or take a few hundred) it has repeatedly made select groups of people worth less then others. Absolutely disgusting. I.e. various wars throughout the years.
1. Homosexual marriage does not affect you.
2. If it doesn't affect you directly, you should not be against anything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shaky logic there. To use an example: it doesn't particularly affect you or me if the US decides to go bomb some random foreign country. Yet every time a president proposes that, you can be sure thousands of people will speak up in protest that we shouldn't let the government do that.
Now that I have established that I am allowed to have an opinion on the matter, I have no trouble admitting that my opinion is determined primarily based on religious beliefs. But as already pointed out, marriage is a religious institution...so religious beliefs ought to count for something.
Darwin may not have handed down a moral code, but he handed down something just as important...a worldview where humans are inherently no different from and no better than animals. And yes, I know there are some worldviews that start with Darwins ideas and still manage to hold human life in high regard, but prior to Darwin there were no reputable belief systems that didn't do that. It is because of Darwin that we now have substantial groups of people who consider human life unimportant.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect, ever since religion has been in existance for the past say... eight thousand years or so (give or take a few hundred) it has repeatedly made select groups of people worth less then others. Absolutely disgusting. I.e. various wars throughout the years. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
While admittedly it is a common (though by no means universal) mistake for religions to value some people as being more important than other people, they still draw a very distinct line between "people" and "not people", which is lost under Darwinism.
But thats not the point. I don't mean to argue (at least not today, in this thread) whether some religious beliefs are better or worse than others or better or worse than the moral codes held by atheists. I merely mean to point out that the Darwinian worldview can serve as the basis for a moral code, which will inevitably not be shared by everyone--hence, Pepe Mufassa's point about politicians creating social policies based on Darwin.
Does anyone know where the term 'marriage' came from anyway? Was it originaly religious? It doesn't seem to <i>obviously</i> derived from something religious (doesn't sound like it anyway although it may well be).
What if you take the 'you' in "does not affect you" to mean everyone. So if it doesn't affect anyone else accept those who want to do it then why stop them?
Darwinism still seperates humans from animals precisely because we are different species. We may have relatives but in the end it doesn't stop humans from being 'people' and monkeys being animals. Darwinism cannot be the basis of a moral code, all it can do is help others to understand our past and it has no affect on our behaviour in the present.
Again, name some social policies based on Darwinism, our point was that as far as we know there aren't any, a point neither of you (nor anyone else) has addressed.
I mean - they grab their social policies from... either darwin or thin air - and then try to mold america to match their opinions.
The pendilum swings both ways. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[snip]
Oh and out of curiousity, which laws or social policies are pulled from darwin? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->East you won't get a response on that, as there are no laws that are pulled from darwin. Since he didn't hand down a "moral code" to follow as some peoples "gods" did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cyndane: No, I didn't think I would either In fact it's quite amazing the amount of times I have brought up a point and it has been ignored. I know if they were bad points they would be jumped on as easy arguments to win so I wonder why...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Darwin may not have handed down a moral code, but he handed down something just as important...a worldview where humans are inherently no different from and no better than animals. And yes, I know there are some worldviews that start with Darwins ideas and still manage to hold human life in high regard, but prior to Darwin there were <i>no</i> reputable belief systems that <i>didn't</i> do that. It is because of Darwin that we now have substantial groups of people who consider human life unimportant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Murder didn't exist before religion, then? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm just pointing out, it's hardly Darwin's theory that makes humans consider another human's life to be unimportant. We've been pros at that for far longer. I've never heard a criminal say before a judge, "Well we're almost exactly like chimps, and chimps can kill other chimps without being prosecuted." I doubt that'd hold up in court (though I will keep it in the back of my mind if I ever want to cause a stir in a court room).
And Cyndane, I believe it has already been said in another thread why the tax breaks married couples receive aren't nearly as great or as tempting as you might think. The tax breaks really only help couples where there is a great disparity between the two incomes.
Does anyone know where the term 'marriage' came from anyway? Was it originaly religious? It doesn't seem to <i>obviously</i> derived from something religious (doesn't sound like it anyway although it may well be).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, since the religious concept of "marriage" has been around for millenia (8000 years if you trust Cyndanes date), the origin of the word would be far enough back that you couldn't easily trace its direct religious influences. For the duration of recorded history, the word has essentially <i>always</i> been religious in most languages.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What if you take the 'you' in "does not affect you" to mean everyone. So if it doesn't affect anyone else accept those who want to do it then why stop them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would point out the government still regulates a number of aspects of our life that don't seem to affect anyone else. For example, as a 20-year old, I can't go out and buy a drink. You aren't going to convince the government that they can't regulate anything that doesn't hurt other people. As to why regulate this particular action which "does not affect me", I turn again to religious reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Darwinism still seperates humans from animals precisely because we are different species. We may have relatives but in the end it doesn't stop humans from being 'people' and monkeys being animals. Darwinism cannot be the basis of a moral code, all it can do is help others to understand our past and it has no affect on our behaviour in the present.
Again, name some social policies based on Darwinism, our point was that as far as we know there aren't any, a point neither of you (nor anyone else) has addressed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, let me rephrase myself slightly. Well, actually fairly substantially. Darwin is an indirect point of origin for a moral code, but not the direct cause for it. Having gone through this line-of-thought enough times in the past, I tend to abbreviate it.
It works like this--not all people who believe in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists believe in Darwin's evolution. Prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, quite simply, if you were an atheist you were not considered credible.
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be <i>different</i>.
I would point out the government still regulates a number of aspects of our life that don't seem to affect anyone else. For example, as a 20-year old, I can't go out and buy a drink. You aren't going to convince the government that they can't regulate anything that doesn't hurt other people. As to why regulate this particular action which "does not affect me", I turn again to religious reasons.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fairly bad example, considering the number of traffic accident involve drunk drivers (a scary percent of which are underage). I'd say that affects the people around you. At 21, you're supposed to be more aware of your body and the risks you take whenever you drink, and you're supposed to be better equipped to handle yourself drunk (ie, not cause trouble).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Darwinism still seperates humans from animals precisely because we are different species. We may have relatives but in the end it doesn't stop humans from being 'people' and monkeys being animals. Darwinism cannot be the basis of a moral code, all it can do is help others to understand our past and it has no affect on our behaviour in the present.
Again, name some social policies based on Darwinism, our point was that as far as we know there aren't any, a point neither of you (nor anyone else) has addressed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, let me rephrase myself slightly. Well, actually fairly substantially. Darwin is an indirect point of origin for a moral code, but not the direct cause for it. Having gone through this line-of-thought enough times in the past, I tend to abbreviate it.
It works like this--not all people who believe in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists believe in Darwin's evolution. Prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, quite simply, if you were an atheist you were not considered credible.
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be <i>different</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First and for the last time, evolution is NOT a belief system. It's not even a belief. Scientific.Theory.
Now, another problem with your point of view is that, before Darwin, there <i>were</i> other ideas about where we came from. They were just shut up really quickly, both becaue they weren't exactly (or even remotely) true, AND because the Church was a lot more powerful back then. Remember Galileo? Yeah, and he was <u>right</u>. Imagine how hard it would have been to openly come out with a new scientific theory if your evidence was even slightly shaky. Darwin had the benefit of a lot of proof, a way with words, a (relatively) receptive audience, and a weakened Church. Otherwise, he would have been shot down, only to be vindicated later on (like Galileo and Copernicus have been).
Quite sad really.
Oh and Sky...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
bullet veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to break it to you, but 1,400 legal and economic benefits... thats quite a bit to be passing up.
Oh yes.. and here a a site with a few of them listed as well.
<a href='http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/' target='_blank'>Marriage Benefits</a>
I just keep finding more and more sources for stuffs.. .I need to quit editing.. 4th edit in five minutes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The word "marriage" has, over the centuries, through the tests of time and usage come to be associated with a religious rite. In Christianity it is called a Sacrament, but in all of the major faith groups it is a rite, an act, of special religious significance. Historically, in the churches, "marriage" has been the uniting of a man and woman who covenant with each other to spend the rest of their lives together to the exclusion of any other similar relationship. Such bonding and deep committment to one another is supposed to be the expression of a love deeper than will be found in any other relationship. The religious bodies of the world view their participation in "marriage" unions as essential and the opportunity to offer a divine blessing upon the couples union. The number of civil ceremonies performed in comparison to religious "marriages" is miniscule. Most people, even in primitive societies, attached religious significance to the "coming together" of a man and a woman.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yes, I was correct, ever since religions have been around, they have used the world or variation of "marriage"
Yes, well, a lot of those benefits only consist of being able to file for things jointly, which benefits couples with disparate incomes (rather than all married couples) by letting them slip into a better tax bracket (insert any other kind of tax/benefit plan here).
However, some benefits like this one:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
definitely would encourage marriage. Well, this is a bad example I suppose given the circumstances needed for it to come into effect, but I see there are specific economic rights for married couples. However I was under the impression that homosexuals wanted to officiall marry for rights like this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that, of course, they would reject the economic benefits as well.
I believe GWB came into office wanting to do away with "marriage penalties", something to do with complications that arose when trying to file jointly under the old tax code, so marriages are more "beneficial" now than they were a few years ago.
IMO the tax code needs a complete overhaul. Accountants should not be necessary to do something as basic as pay our taxes to the government. But that's a separate topic entirely, and the discussion forum is busy enough as is right now. I'll save it for a lull in the arguing. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be <i>different</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First and for the last time, evolution is NOT a belief system. It's not even a belief. Scientific.Theory.
Now, another problem with your point of view is that, before Darwin, there <i>were</i> other ideas about where we came from. They were just shut up really quickly, both becaue they weren't exactly (or even remotely) true, AND because the Church was a lot more powerful back then. Remember Galileo? Yeah, and he was <u>right</u>. Imagine how hard it would have been to openly come out with a new scientific theory if your evidence was even slightly shaky. Darwin had the benefit of a lot of proof, a way with words, a (relatively) receptive audience, and a weakened Church. Otherwise, he would have been shot down, only to be vindicated later on (like Galileo and Copernicus have been). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't say evolution <i>was</i> a belief system. Read my post more closely. I said that evolution was the scientific theory that allowed the <i>atheist</i> belief system to move past the situation you describe where any alternate idea about our origins was immediately and forcefully silenced. It just so happens the two are very closely related, so they are confused often, but giving scientific arguments why "the Theory of Evolution" is science rather than belief misses the point that Atheism is belief rather than science.