Alaska Gay marriage ban overturned

[Triumphant_Loser]

You realise those animals are atheists, right?
Can't expect any better from them.
:sarcastic

I always knew those godless communist dolphins were up to something!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sure it has.

Not really.
Homosexuality has been condemned in most cultures around the world since civilization began. The family model is self-explanatory. Homosexuals can't reproduce. Ergo, no family save for two men or two women in a relationship.

My female cousin is married to a woman. My cousin gave birth to a child about a year ago.

 

[Riverwolf]

Absolutely - it is. :yes:



*

I will give your perception credit, however. I know little for sure about the Founding Fathers (most of it remembered from my High School history lessons, so most of that knowledge is dubious at best), and I have not, indeed, studied the Constitution. (I have "read" parts of it, but... in the sense of allowing the words to enter my brain, process for a minute, then leave entirely once the book is put down.)

Not entirely accurate, actually not accurate at all. The courts do not make laws; that argument is a red herring and a false argument. The courts' job is to review and interpret the laws that elected representatives make vis-a-vis a higher law, and precedent. When the courts find that the enacted laws violate another law, namely a state constitution or the US Constitution, it is indeed the job of the courts to overturn those laws. Legislators do make bad laws, and laws that violate higher laws.

I do know enough about what the Founding Fathers were trying to do, however, to know that they were smart enough not to give all final say to the popular vote.

I think the system they ultimately came up with needs SERIOUS overhaul to be more in line with this rapidly-changing world, and some practices completely outlawed, but the fact that the model of authority is supposed to be cyclical seems downplayed to the point where I only just now realized that it is cyclical rather than hierarchical.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

My female cousin is married to a woman. My cousin gave birth to a child about a year ago.

They're running out of excuses other than "but it's ickyyyy."

 

[Riverwolf]

As many an embarrassed parent with their children found out when viewing the monkeys at the zoo.

I was actually present for a similar situation at a local Zoo/Amusement Park that has Dolphins behind glass. A Dolphin was nuzzling another Dolphin's tail, and I overheard a parent telling her child that they were courting (or something to that degree). However, when the Dolphins came close enough for us to see their undersides, far as both myself and the mother (apparently) could tell, both of them were female(though quick research shows me that both sexes have "slits", with only a few other distinguishing details that I don't remember being present). She actually stuttered briefly and just took her children elsewhere after that. ^_^

They're running out of excuses other than "but it's ickyyyy."

I'm somewhat repulsed by the sight of two men kissing, or showing affection.

I'm not going to let that color my political views on the matter. They can kiss away, and in the meantime get married and raise children if they so desire. Heck, if we share the same interests, they can be my friends, too; potentially uncles to my own future children.

Besides, public displays of affection, regardless of orientation, is generally rude, anyway. ^_^

 

[Ingledsva]

I will give your perception credit, however. I know little for sure about the Founding Fathers (most of it remembered from my High School history lessons, so most of that knowledge is dubious at best), and I have not, indeed, studied the Constitution. (I have "read" parts of it, but... in the sense of allowing the words to enter my brain, process for a minute, then leave entirely once the book is put down.)



I do know enough about what the Founding Fathers were trying to do, however, to know that they were smart enough not to give all final say to the popular vote.

I think the system they ultimately came up with needs SERIOUS overhaul to be more in line with this rapidly-changing world, and some practices completely outlawed, but the fact that the model of authority is supposed to be cyclical seems downplayed to the point where I only just now realized that it is cyclical rather than hierarchical.

I think you misinterpreted my answer. I was saying you were correct on that point.


Original drafts of the Constitution (which we have) did not even have the word "Creator" in them. They were pressured to add it in the final draft.




*

 

[Riverwolf]

I think you misinterpreted my answer. I was saying you were correct on that point.


Original drafts of the Constitution (which we have) did not even have the word "Creator" in them. They were pressured to add it in the final draft.




*

Huh. Well okay, then. :angel2:

 

[SkepticThinker]

They're running out of excuses other than "but it's ickyyyy."

Pretty much, it seems. But you can't just come out and say that! You have to wrap it up in bad arguments first.

 

[Sand Dancer]

That shows you how far they have fallen... just to be in line with modern day thinking! No moral backbone.

So you don't think that when science disproves something in the Bible, it shouldn't be discarded?

 

[Robert.Evans]

So you don't think that when science disproves something in the Bible, it shouldn't be discarded?

Science has not disproved anything in the Bible. Science corroborates it. It is a failure to understand scripture by non-believers and believers alike which can make it sound as though it is at odds. The big bang, evolution and the multiverse have all been spoken of well before carnal man came up with his ideas.

You are free to ignore that though... that is why people think that religion and science are at odds.

 

[RichardParker]

Science has not disproved anything in the Bible.

Nonono...
Science has CLEARLY disproven many, many things in the bible!
At least when you just look at what the bible actually says, and not what you interpret into it.
I mean, I'm fine with you interpreting away, until you can match everything to reality somehow, but I can do that with "The Lord of the Rings", I promise you!
I'm not saying that your interpretation is false, I'm not saying that the bible hasn't maybe be writen with the exact meaning that you read into it...

But when it comes just to what the text actually SAYS, then science is in disagreement at almost every turn!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Nonono...
Science has CLEARLY disproven many, many things in the bible!
At least when you just look at what the bible actually says, and not what you interpret into it.
I mean, I'm fine with you interpreting away, until you can match everything to reality somehow, but I can do that with "The Lord of the Rings", I promise you!
I'm not saying that your interpretation is false, I'm not saying that the bible hasn't maybe be writen with the exact meaning that you read into it...

But when it comes just to what the text actually SAYS, then science is in disagreement at almost every turn!

But if that is the case, then whoever is reading it is misinterpreting it in the first place. It is not a history book in the modern understanding, nor a lecture in physics. But the reality is there, it is not wrong. People do not understand it, as they are not supposed to understand it. So you take your own meaning out of it in order that you can prove it wrong. Do you not understand that somethings written in anything can be ambiguous?

Scripture is speaking of the higher-conscious first and foremost. Without that understanding, materialistic people will go in with the wrong mindset. That is why they are better staying out.

 

[Jainarayan]

Science has not disproved anything in the Bible. Science corroborates it. ... The big bang, evolution and the multiverse have all been spoken of well before carnal man came up with his ideas.

Science corroborates "Let there be light" as the first act of creation? Uh no... light did not exist at the moment of the Big Bang. Science corroborates a 4 day old corpse coming to life (Lazarus), by a spoken word? Science corroborates a human ascending into the earth's atmosphere and achieving escape velocity by his own will? I respect anyone's right to their beliefs, but extraordinary claims need extraordinary support.

 

[Draka]

Science has not disproved anything in the Bible. Science corroborates it. It is a failure to understand scripture by non-believers and believers alike which can make it sound as though it is at odds. The big bang, evolution and the multiverse have all been spoken of well before carnal man came up with his ideas.

You are free to ignore that though... that is why people think that religion and science are at odds.

In order to say that nothing about the bible has been scientifically "dis-proven" one must assert that it is entirely a work mythology, never intended to be more than analogy and metaphor, folklore, legend, and archetypes one can build philosophy and faith around. Therefore placing it equally on par with all other mythologies all over the world. For they all speak the same way, of the same base knowledge. Is that what you claim? If not, if you claim any real inherent applicable truth to the bible, apparent in the physical world, then it becomes something else entirely. A claim of "truth", of fact. And facts are in question. Fact can be proven or not. Evidence is to be weighed.

So which is it? Myth on par with all other myth? Or fact?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Science has not disproved anything in the Bible. Science corroborates it. It is a failure to understand scripture by non-believers and believers alike which can make it sound as though it is at odds. The big bang, evolution and the multiverse have all been spoken of well before carnal man came up with his ideas.

You are free to ignore that though... that is why people think that religion and science are at odds.

Oh dear...:areyoucra

 

[Robert.Evans]

Science corroborates "Let there be light" as the first act of creation? Uh no... light did not exist at the moment of the Big Bang. Science corroborates a 4 day old corpse coming to life (Lazarus), by a spoken word? Science corroborates a human ascending into the earth's atmosphere and achieving escape velocity by his own will? I respect anyone's right to their beliefs, but extraordinary claims need extraordinary support.

I suggest you read that post above more closely which answers most of what you said. Then look up physicists G Schroeder who explains the 6 days for example. You can't read the Bible like a normal book and think you either explain or explain away something.

And i just know none of you read that last line!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Oh dear...:areyoucra

Why what have you done? Read more carefully please.

 

[Robert.Evans]

for anyone interested this shows some of the 6 days:

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

 

[Jainarayan]

You can't read the Bible like a normal book and think you either explain or explain away something.

If you're suggesting the bible is metaphorical and allegorical, I agree. If you are suggesting it is literal and can be supported by science, that's where we part company.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Scripture is speaking of the higher-conscious first and foremost. Without that understanding, materialistic people will go in with the wrong mindset. That is why they are better staying out.

You're using "carnal" and "materialistic" as insults when you worship the Demiurge who created (or hijacked, more likely) this reality we live in. That's rich. How ironic.