9th Circuit Overturns Prop 8 In California

[Michchamp]

rather than arguing the minutiae in the bible, I take a simpler view:

I wouldn't go see a doctor who's knowledge of the body was predicated on medieval theories of medicine: evil spirits, "bad humors," bloodletting, etc., with no knowledge of bacterial life, viruses, the immune system, human anatomy...

Why should I base my worldview on the teachings laid down by ignorant, superstitious people, who had no knowledge of the process of evolution, inherited genes, natural selection, organic compounds, chemistry, biology, anatomy, science... etc. etc.?

To do so would be absolutely foolish.

We now have a fairly thorough understanding of the world around us. We have scientifically sound theories for the origin of life, based on observed phenomenon and data, as well as an understanding of the history of evolution through the fossil record.

We also know that sexual preference is not a choice, that it occurs in other species, and it is a natural phenomena. To discriminate against a person based on this is no different than discriminating against them based on skin color, or some other feature which they have no control over.

The 9th circuit made the right decision here.

 

[byco42]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

We'll never know. It's not a refusal. It was a request to "if possible, let this cup pass from me." Your cavalier approach to His mission is mildly offensive to me, by the way.

Thanks.

I always try to keep my offensiveness on the mild side.

Good to know I'm having success at it.

Karma for that one. Well played.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well, Mich Champ, if you just wanna take a stop gap approach to things, fine.

 

[tinselwolverine]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

Thanks.

I always try to keep my offensiveness on the mild side.

Good to know I'm having success at it.

Karma for that one. Well played.

And back to you!!!

 

[Michchamp]

TinselWolverine[/color]]Well, Mich Champ, if you just wanna take a stop gap approach to things, fine.

really? I consider it more of a big picture re-conceptualization. this was not intended to be a temporary philosophical plug while I found another ethos to follow.

 

[tinselwolverine]

TinselWolverine[/color]]Well, Mich Champ, if you just wanna take a stop gap approach to things, fine.

really? I consider it more of a big picture re-conceptualization. this was not intended to be a temporary philosophical plug while I found another ethos to follow.

I was kind of goofing on you.

All mildly offensive humor, or any other humor for that matter aside, Mich Champ, what's ironic to me is that smayshmouth actually has more of a civil libertarian perspective on this issue than you, or any of the other liberals (I'll just use this loose description for practical purposes) on this board.

Rather than the government being able to extend the "right" for people of the same gender to marry, smayshmouth believes that the government has no right or prerogative to define marriage for anybody, and no right to recognize people as being married to each other or not to.

Or in simpler terms, the government has no business being in the marriage licensing business.

And he's right.

 

[Michchamp]

I agree with him on one hand: In a perfect world, no government is necessary, and no government would have the authority over any person.

On the other hand: this is not a perfect world.

We have a government; we are governed.

In theory, and mostly in practice, we are governed according to the U.S. Constitution.

One provision of the constitution (the 14th Amend) states that no laws may be passed that affect or afford unequal protection (i.e. application) on persons in the jurisdiction.

while marriage is not expressly defined in the constitution, it is defined in several statutes (e.g. the tax code)

forbidding some to enjoy the legal definition of marriage, but not others, is therefore a violation of the equal protection amendment, and is per se unconstitutional.

No Jesus needed.

 

[tinselwolverine]

forbidding some to enjoy the legal definition of marriage, but not others, is therefore a violation of the equal protection amendment, and is per se unconstitutional.

That's why the simplest rectification is not to have any definition of marriage as defined by the government.

Also, no government definition of marriage doesn't mean having no government at all.

 

[redandguilty]

rather than arguing the minutiae in the bible, I take a simpler view:

I wouldn't go see a doctor who's knowledge of the body was predicated on medieval theories of medicine: evil spirits, "bad humors," bloodletting, etc., with no knowledge of bacterial life, viruses, the immune system, human anatomy...

Why should I base my worldview on the teachings laid down by ignorant, superstitious people, who had no knowledge of the process of evolution, inherited genes, natural selection, organic compounds, chemistry, biology, anatomy, science... etc. etc.?

To do so would be absolutely foolish.

We now have a fairly thorough understanding of the world around us. We have scientifically sound theories for the origin of life, based on observed phenomenon and data, as well as an understanding of the history of evolution through the fossil record.

We also know that sexual preference is not a choice, that it occurs in other species, and it is a natural phenomena. To discriminate against a person based on this is no different than discriminating against them based on skin color, or some other feature which they have no control over.

The 9th circuit made the right decision here.

This is a great answer...BUT...I've been reading a little of Hawking's God Created the Integers. Some of those ignorant superstitious people were brilliant (and I think they had the time to think things through more deeply than most of us get a chance to). And some of the truth they uncovered has largely been forgotten. I can't believe the complexity of geometry; it's amazing. Yes, you need to filter the teaching of the past, but to ignore them is absolutely foolish too. Not a comment on the issue at hand specifically, but the subject of ancient texts and religion in general.

 

[redandguilty]

rather than arguing the minutiae in the bible, I take a simpler view:

I wouldn't go see a doctor who's knowledge of the body was predicated on medieval theories of medicine: evil spirits, "bad humors," bloodletting, etc., with no knowledge of bacterial life, viruses, the immune system, human anatomy...

Why should I base my worldview on the teachings laid down by ignorant, superstitious people, who had no knowledge of the process of evolution, inherited genes, natural selection, organic compounds, chemistry, biology, anatomy, science... etc. etc.?

To do so would be absolutely foolish.

We now have a fairly thorough understanding of the world around us. We have scientifically sound theories for the origin of life, based on observed phenomenon and data, as well as an understanding of the history of evolution through the fossil record.

We also know that sexual preference is not a choice, that it occurs in other species, and it is a natural phenomena. To discriminate against a person based on this is no different than discriminating against them based on skin color, or some other feature which they have no control over.

The 9th circuit made the right decision here.

Regarding the actual topic at hand, do we actually have scientific evidence that preference is not a choice? I'm not even really sure what that would mean, but I'm assuming it would mean that there's some genetic basis for it. Do we have evidence of that? I'm honestly not up to speed on the science.

 

[tinselwolverine]

BUT...I've been reading a little of Hawking's God Created the Integers.

A LITTLE?

This is nothing to dabble in, Man, you gotta read that puppy front to back, or not mess with it all.

 

[redandguilty]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

BUT...I've been reading a little of Hawking's God Created the Integers.

A LITTLE?

This is nothing to dabble in, Man, you gotta read that puppy front to back, or not mess with it all.

No way. I expect that book to take at least a decade...unless you count just reading the Hawking parts. You could tear through that pretty quickly. I also have On the Shoulders of Giants. Such great books.

 

[KAWDUP]

As far as politics goes, though, doesn't this issue, like so many others come down to money?

Morally, everyone has the right to make their own decision about marriage. No question there.

If you want know which side most political groups come down on, though, just ask yourself who stands to gain the most if gay marriage is somehow not allowed, or sanctioned in every state? Health insurance companies, divorce lawyers, probate attorney's, and the groups of people who determine tax laws, and all of their enormous lobbying arms are really the one's who are going to decide what really happens on this issue.

We can applaud the 9th circuit, or damn them to hell for our own religious bias, but in the end it is the side with the most money, or the most money at stake who will win.

Who is right and wrong? Message board fodder that will be forgotten tomorrow.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I've heard of On the Shoulders of Giants, but isn't that originally a quote from scientist guy?

 

[cheeno]

TinselWolverine[/color]]I've heard of On the Shoulders of Giants, but isn't that originally a quote from scientist guy?

Ever hear of Isaac Newton?

 

[tinselwolverine]

TinselWolverine[/color]]I've heard of On the Shoulders of Giants, but isn't that originally a quote from scientist guy?

Ever hear of Isaac Newton?

I've hear of Fig Newton. Are they related? Or is Isaac just Fig's nickname?

 

[byco42]

I don't give a fig about Isaac Newton. Anyone could have had an apple clunk of his head.

 

[redandguilty]

TinselWolverine[/color]]I've heard of On the Shoulders of Giants, but isn't that originally a quote from scientist guy?

Both are quotes. "On the shoulders of giants" was Bernard of Chartres (later Newton) and is used as the title for the book on physics and "God created the integers; all else is the work of man" is Leopold Kronecker and is the title for the book on math.

 

[cheeno]

So you are reading (have read) Stephen Hawking yet have no knowledge about Isaac Newton. You've got to be trolling me.

At least Smayschmouth can be forgiven, he was busy being taught to hide from atom bombs under his school desk.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don't give a fig about Isaac Newton. Anyone could have had an apple clunk of his head.

I thought that was William Tell's kid.