|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/10/2006 : 12:04:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
If I remember right, the churchs were Episcopalian(sp?), or some derivitive thereof. I don't pay much attention to any of them and can't really sort them out.
But this brings up another point: if a church is officialy recognized as such, be it that of Wicca or anything else, should they be allowed by law to host weddings? Dig it: I, an atheist, am an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church and am fully qualified to perform weddings, and have. Twice. They still seem to be to be shackled up pretty good.
So, if I should chose to preside over a gay wedding, and if asked, I just might if only to see how many people I could piss off, would it be legal? If so, and remembering that I am an atheist, would it be moral on my part?
Nice lookin' batch o' 'shrooms, huh? I hope to raise some next year.
Nice lookin' batch o' 'shrooms, huh?
(bill) Indeed. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 12:20:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
If two men raising children was the natural and intended way to build a society and civilization then the deity, or natural selection would have made it so, period!
Since that is happening today, then your alleged deity or natural selection must have made it so, by your own logic.quote:
If the deity, or NS intended for same sex couples to raise children this would have been figured into the whole grand scheme of things, which it was not.
Again, since same-sex couples are raising children, it must already be "figured into the whole grand scheme of things."quote:
So by placing children in a same sex home you are defying natural law...
"Natural law" would suggest that it's reasonable for children to eat their parents, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 12:31:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
If two men raising children was the natural and intended way to build a society and civilization then the deity, or natural selection would have made it so, period!
Since that is happening today, then your alleged deity or natural selection must have made it so, by your own logic.quote:
If the deity, or NS intended for same sex couples to raise children this would have been figured into the whole grand scheme of things, which it was not.
Again, since same-sex couples are raising children, it must already be "figured into the whole grand scheme of things."quote:
So by placing children in a same sex home you are defying natural law...
"Natural law" would suggest that it's reasonable for children to eat their parents, too.
Since that is happening today, then your alleged deity or natural selection must have made it so, by your own logic.
(bill)No it is happening unnatural. Two gay men rasing a child that was produced with a man's spearm and the womens egg was not the intent of the deity, or NS, whoever you subscripe to as the head designer.
Again, since same-sex couples are raising children, it must already be "figured into the whole grand scheme of things."
(bill)No it is happening unnatural. Two gay men rasing a child that was produced with a man's spearm and the womens egg was not the intent of the deity, or NS, whoever you subscripe to as the head designer.
]"Natural law" would suggest that it's reasonable for children to eat their parents, too.
(bill) I will restate it. Man/man raising kids contradicts the natural intent of the head designer, whomever you subscibe the head designer is.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 13:05:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
In sexual reproduction, form follows function.
(bill) Right. And what is required for procreation?
And your point is?
quote:
Procreation is not the only function of sex. The proof is in the psychology.
(bill) It certainly was the main, and most important one. Society and civilization will die with out the procreation effect of heterosexual couples, period. Again, the deity, or natural selection, is the one who designed the natural order of society and mechanics for the advancing of the pop. of said civilizations which is a man and a women. So your problem with this is not with me, but rather the original designer, whomever that may be.
Actually, no, Bill. It is not the only main function of sex. An additional and equally important one is the strengthening of pairbonding for the increased survival of the family unit. Whether or not that pairbonding produces children is immaterial.
quote:
Yet you have no problem with sterile people having sex by excusing it as "well it worked before".
(bill) How do sterile people having sex have anything to do with the natural structure of society and civilization put in place by the deity, or natural selection? I have no problem with sterile hetero couples adopting children. A man and a women raising children was the intent of the original designer for the structure of society and civilization, whomever that designer may be. If two men raising children was the natural and intended way to build a society and civilization then the deity, or natural selection would have made it so, period!
Yet you object to allowing same sex couples from adopting children or having marriages because you find as important the ability to produce children. The studies do not bear out your assertation that the heterosexual couple is intended to raise a child. In fact, humans act more like pack animals where the society as a whole is responsible for raising the child. And the secondary claim by you of knowing the mind of God in this matter smacks of hubris. Hope you like it hot, Bill. God nailed to stick doesn't like that.
quote:
The relationship of sterile people doesn't produce offspring either.
(bill) So what? A man and a women raising children was the design intent of the basic structure of society and civilization. A sterile man and women raising children is still man and women raising children which meets design intent. It was not my idea to set it up this way, but rather the original designer, whomever that may be.
Sez you. No facts. No studies. Nothing. Just your extremist opinion which you insist we all bow and scrape to. Oh, and let's not forget the revealed TRUTH(TM) that you are speaking.
quote:
Funny, according to scientific studies, the "kids raised by homosexuals are damaged" argument is bullshit.
(bill) Oh I just demonstrated, using the poles from the 2000, 2004 elections as an example, that studies and poles can be wrong and manipulated to reflect what is desired. Beside I did not point to a study or a pole and said same sex should not raise kids did I? Say no. I said that it was the intent of the original designer, whomever that may be. So you can sight all the studies and poles you want, but the naked truth remains that the basic foundation for society and civilization, weather you subscribe to a deity or natural selection as the design agent, was that man and women would come together and from this relationship children to pop. the society would be produced, period. If the deity, or NS intended for same sex couples to raise children this would have been figured into the whole grand scheme of things, which it was not. So by placing children in a same sex home you are defying natural law, despite any pole or study you care to embrace.
These aren't polls, Bill. They are medical studies. And instead of finding something to prop up your claim, you insist that you know the mind of God.
quote:
Lookee, another reference to a source. Sensing a pattern here, Bill?
(bill) Yeah so what? You asked me to provide a source for the 40 states that I listed and I did. I provided the 04 election as reference to counter gallop. Now go get yourself a human anatomy book and look it over. You will soon see that it is very obvious that the man and women were designed to fit together in this way and the main result will be a continuation of the species. This was not my design, but rather the intent of the deity, or NS, whatever designer you subscribe to. So your problem with this structure of society is with them and not me, VAL.
Two out of how many, Bill? Your opinion on the intent of natural selection is wrong as the parents raise the children with the help of the society. (historically) Your assertation about the intent of God is wrong unless you can prove that you know the mind of God, that is. (Hubris in action) And on top of that, my deity does not claim such an absurd thing as same sex couples should not adopt. (Wiccans are funny like that)
I have no problem with society, Bill. I just recognise it as an evolving thing and the winds of change are moving same sex couples more into acceptance than you would like. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 13:06:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
No it is happening unnatural. Two gay men rasing a child that was produced with a man's spearm and the womens egg was not the intent of the deity, or NS, whoever you subscripe to as the head designer.
...
No it is happening unnatural. Two gay men rasing a child that was produced with a man's spearm and the womens egg was not the intent of the deity, or NS, whoever you subscripe to as the head designer.
...
I will restate it. Man/man raising kids contradicts the natural intent of the head designer, whomever you subscibe the head designer is.
Well, there's your whole problem, Bill. You think you know the will of the "head designer." If you take that to be the Christian God, then you're going to Hell. If you take it to be natural selection, then you misunderstand natural selection, which is only concerned with whatever works, and if two guys raising kids gives those kids a better chance at having kids of their own (compared to, say, the kids being passed around foster homes or being raised by single dads), then natural selection will be all for it. And the proof of natural selection's "approval" is those children having children of their own, through whatever method they might pick.
So, you can either burn for all eternity, Bill, or stop misrepresenting yourself as an expert on natural selection, when you clearly are not. It's your choice. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 13:10:11 [Permalink]
|
| That and we skeptics require proof of a "head designer" as natural selection is not a designer and no we dont worship Darwin. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 14:12:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
In sexual reproduction, form follows function.
(bill) Right. And what is required for procreation?
And your point is?
quote:
Procreation is not the only function of sex. The proof is in the psychology.
(bill) It certainly was the main, and most important one. Society and civilization will die with out the procreation effect of heterosexual couples, period. Again, the deity, or natural selection, is the one who designed the natural order of society and mechanics for the advancing of the pop. of said civilizations which is a man and a women. So your problem with this is not with me, but rather the original designer, whomever that may be.
Actually, no, Bill. It is not the only main function of sex. An additional and equally important one is the strengthening of pairbonding for the increased survival of the family unit. Whether or not that pairbonding produces children is immaterial.
quote:
Yet you have no problem with sterile people having sex by excusing it as "well it worked before".
(bill) How do sterile people having sex have anything to do with the natural structure of society and civilization put in place by the deity, or natural selection? I have no problem with sterile hetero couples adopting children. A man and a women raising children was the intent of the original designer for the structure of society and civilization, whomever that designer may be. If two men raising children was the natural and intended way to build a society and civilization then the deity, or natural selection would have made it so, period!
Yet you object to allowing same sex couples from adopting children or having marriages because you find as important the ability to produce children. The studies do not bear out your assertation that the heterosexual couple is intended to raise a child. In fact, humans act more like pack animals where the society as a whole is responsible for raising the child. And the secondary claim by you of knowing the mind of God in this matter smacks of hubris. Hope you like it hot, Bill. God nailed to stick doesn't like that.
quote:
The relationship of sterile people doesn't produce offspring either.
(bill) So what? A man and a women raising children was the design intent of the basic structure of society and civilization. A sterile man and women raising children is still man and women raising children which meets design intent. It was not my idea to set it up this way, but rather the original designer, whomever that may be.
Sez you. No facts. No studies. Nothing. Just your extremist opinion which you insist we all bow and scrape to. Oh, and let's not forget the revealed TRUTH(TM) that you are speaking.
quote:
Funny, according to scientific studies, the "kids raised by homosexuals are damaged" argument is bullshit.
(bill) Oh I just demonstrated, using the poles from the 2000, 2004 elections as an example, that studies and poles can be wrong and manipulated to reflect what is desired. Beside I did not point to a study or a pole and said same sex should not raise kids did I? Say no. I said that it was the intent of the original designer, whomever that may be. So you can sight all the studies and poles you want, but the naked truth remains that the basic foundation for society and civilization, weather you subscribe to a deity or natural selection as the design agent, was that man and women would come together and from this relationship children to pop. the society would be produced, period. If the deity, or NS intended for same sex couples to raise children this would have been figured into the whole grand scheme of things, which it was not. So by placing children in a same sex home you are defying natural law, despite any pole or study you care to embrace.
These aren't polls, Bill. They are medical studies. And instead of finding something to prop up your claim, you insist that you know the mind of God.
quote:
Lookee, another reference to a source. Sensing a pattern here, Bill?
(bill) Yeah so what? You asked me to provide a source for the 40 states that I listed and I did. I provided the 04 election as reference to counter gallop. Now go get yourself a human anatomy book and look it over. You will soon see that it is very obvious that the man and women were designed to fit together in this way and the main result will be a continuation of the species. This was not my design, but rather the intent of the deity, or NS, whatever designer you subscribe to. So your problem with this structure of society is with them and not me, VAL.
Two out of how many, Bill? Your opinion on the intent of natural selection is wrong as the parents raise the children with the help of the society. (historically) Your assertation about the intent of God is wrong unless you can prove that you know the mind of God, that is. (Hubris in action) And on top of that, my deity does not claim such an absurd thing as same sex couples should not adopt. (Wiccans are funny like that)
I have no problem with society, Bill. I just recognise it as an evolving thing and the winds of change are moving same sex couples more into acceptance than you would like.
Actually, no, Bill. It is not the only main function of sex. An additional and equally important one is the strengthening of pairbonding for the increased survival of the family unit. Whether or not that pairbonding produces children is immaterial.
(bill) Put 50 gay guys on a deserted Island and they can have all the pairbonding they want and may have one great "family unit". But come back after one generation and you have 100% chance of going back to deserted Island.
Yes, you can put 25 gay women and 25 gay men on a desert Island but the only way they will see generation two is if they break down have sex the natural and intended way. Yes heterosex is their only hope. It is just the way the structure of society was designed so don't blame me.
Yet you object to allowing same sex couples from adopting children or having marriages because you find as important the ability to produce children.
(bill) I object because it |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 14:57:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Actually, no, Bill. It is not the only main function of sex. An additional and equally important one is the strengthening of pairbonding for the increased survival of the family unit. Whether or not that pairbonding produces children is immaterial.
(bill) Put 50 gay guys on a deserted Island and they can have all the pairbonding they want and may have one great "family unit". But come back after one generation and you have 100% chance of going back to deserted Island.
Yes, you can put 25 gay women and 25 gay men on a desert Island but the only way they will see generation two is if they break down have sex the natural and intended way. Yes heterosex is their only hope. It is just the way the structure of society was designed so don't blame me.
That's right, Bill. Deny the pairbonding issue and instead bring up the same tired "procreation" argument. Procreation is only part of the equasion. That you strictly adhere to it in the case of homosexuals but abandon it freely in the case of sterile people shows much about your argument. The structure of society has no bearing on the mechanics of sexual reproduction. Nice try.
quote:
Yet you object to allowing same sex couples from adopting children or having marriages because you find as important the ability to produce children.
(bill) I object because it was not the natural intent of the deity, or NS, for man/man to raise children. If it was then they would have been given the mechanics to have children with each other. This can only take place between a man and women, just the way the deity, or NS, designed for society and civilization to work. If you got a problem with this then don't blame me.
You know the "natural intent" of the deity. That means knowing the mind of God, Bill. No matter how you want to deny yourself out of this theological corner you've backed yourself into, you can't. I won't give a shit. God nailed to stick says in the Bible that he takes a dim view of false prophets.
quote:
The studies do not bear out your assertion that the heterosexual couple is intended to raise a child.
(bill) No, I am sure that your studies will point to whatever you want them to, but reality bears out my assertion, and reality trumps a study any day of the week, Val.
As medical studies actually show what reality is, I find this assertion downright hilarious. Reality denies your assertion.
quote:
In fact, humans act more like pack animals where the society as a whole is responsible for raising the child. And the secondary claim by you of knowing the mind of God in this matter smacks of hubris. Hope you like it hot, Bill. God nailed to stick doesn't like that.
(bill) If it was not the design intent of NS, or the deity, for civilization to be built up by man and women raising children and proliferating the species in this way through heterosex then it would not be reality. Umm Val, it's reality...
Except it doesn't, Bill. Civilization is build upon rules of behavior when relating to interactions between people on things they have a choice in. Rules of hospitality, manners, etc. Sexual identity is not a choice, Bill. Breeding has no effect on society. Reality disagrees with you.
quote:
Sez you. No facts. No studies. Nothing. Just your extremist opinion which you insist we all bow and scrape to. Oh, and let's not forget the revealed TRUTH(TM) that you are speaking.
(bill) Studies do not trump reality Val. The male anatomy is designed for the female anatomy this is clear. The male and female sexual relationship is how children are produced and species continues on. If man/man raising families was the intent of the deity, or NS, then it would have been so and the man/man sexual relationship could produce offspring. It cannot Val.
Studies confirm reality, Bill. Your opinion that the male anatomy being designed for the female anatomy only indicate the function of sexual reproduction. That pleasure and pairbonding occur in different configurations within heterosexual couples invalidates your claim of intent. You then make an absurd claim about how equipment somehow indicates intent.
quote:
These aren't polls, Bill. They are medical studies. And instead of finding something to prop up your claim, you insist that you know the mind of God.
(bill) Wrong. I claimed to now the "intent" of the creator if there is one. If NS is the designer then I know it's intent as well. Your trying to disagree with reality here Val and it never works. That fact remains that man and women proliferate society just as the design intended.
Caught yourself in the knowing the intent of the creator (and therefore the mind of God) did you, Bill? It's only disagreeing with reality when scientific studies disagree with the position.
quote:
Two out of how many, Bill? Your opinion on the intent of natural selection is wrong as the parents raise the children with the help of the society. (historically) Your assertion about the intent of God is wrong unless you can prove that you know the mind of God, that is. (Hubris in action) And on top of that, my deity does not claim such an absurd thing as same sex couples should not adopt. (Wiccans are funny like that)
(bill) If you want to deny the fact that man and women raising children is the natural intent with some tangent about a kid going to a babysitter then come back to earth. I understand that you do not like the fact that this was the intent for the structure of society, but your problem is not with me as I was not the one who set the basis or foundation of society.
Huh? Are you claiming that adoptive parents are little more than babysitters? No, Bill, reality and you parted ways some time ago. If it was detrimental to the child that same sex couples raised it, medical studies should show it. They do not. Therefore, your assertion is bullshit.
quote:
I have no problem with society, Bill. I just recognise it as an evolving thing and the winds of change are moving same sex couples more into acceptance than you would like.
(bill |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 18:48:06 [Permalink]
|
Here is a quote that made me fall off my chair.
quote:
Bill Scott:
reality trumps a study any day of the week...
Okay, I have not been posting to this thread because, ummmm, well, I haven't. But I am so glad this thread exists if for no other reason than then it spawned the above quote. Every once in a while, here at SFN, I get to read something so absolutely outlandish and so mind bogglingly wrong that it makes me happy.
Thanks Bill…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
nescafe
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 21:13:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Society and civilization will die with out the procreation effect of heterosexual couples, period. Again, the deity, or natural selection, is the one who designed the natural order of society and mechanics for the advancing of the pop. of said civilizations which is a man and a women. So your problem with this is not with me, but rather the original designer, whomever that may be.
ok, I try to address these sentences one at a time:
- Society and civilization will die with out the procreation effect of heterosexual couples, period.
I will accept this for the purposes of this argument. However, this does not mean that society (in the US, at least) is Doomed (tm), given that only 2 - 6% of the total United States population is homosexual (depending on who is doing the counting and how they define homosexual), and that homosexuality is mainly a matter of genetics, not environment. See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=271269 for the demographics, and http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html for the genes vs. environment vs. choice studies. Given that heterosexual pairbonding and mating is likely to continue to happen and to have its usual results, allowing homosexual couples the same marrige/civil union rights as heterosexual couples is not likely to bring about the End Of Society.
- Again, the deity, or natural selection, is the one who designed the natural order of society and mechanics for the advancing of the pop. of said civilizations which is a man and a women.
This sentence does not make much sense. If you are saying that reproduction is needed to help ensure the survival of our species, I am not disputing that (yet. 20 - 30 years later and I might).
- So your problem with this is not with me, but rather the original designer, whomever that may be.
You shouldn't anthropomorphize evolution -- it hates that. :)
Can we get back to morals, Bill? Or even morels -- those are some mighty tasty shrooms. Discussing the nonproblem of homosexual marriage gets rather dull. |
Insert witty saying here. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 21:40:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nice lookin' batch o' 'shrooms, huh? I hope to raise some next year.
Can you actually raise Morrels?
I thought it was impossible to farm them. The fruiting body (the part people call a mushroom) is just a small fraction of the whole organism, which lives in a symbiotic relationship with thr roots of certain trees.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 21:41:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Actually, no, Bill. It is not the only main function of sex. An additional and equally important one is the strengthening of pairbonding for the increased survival of the family unit. Whether or not that pairbonding produces children is immaterial.
(bill) Put 50 gay guys on a deserted Island and they can have all the pairbonding they want and may have one great "family unit". But come back after one generation and you have 100% chance of going back to deserted Island.
Yes, you can put 25 gay women and 25 gay men on a desert Island but the only way they will see generation two is if they break down have sex the natural and intended way. Yes heterosex is their only hope. It is just the way the structure of society was designed so don't blame me.
That's right, Bill. Deny the pairbonding issue and instead bring up the same tired "procreation" argument. Procreation is only part of the equasion. That you strictly adhere to it in the case of homosexuals but abandon it freely in the case of sterile people shows much about your argument. The structure of society has no bearing on the mechanics of sexual reproduction. Nice try.
quote:
Yet you object to allowing same sex couples from adopting children or having marriages because you find as important the ability to produce children.
(bill) I object because it was not the natural intent of the deity, or NS, for man/man to raise children. If it was then they would have been given the mechanics to have children with each other. This can only take place between a man and women, just the way the deity, or NS, designed for society and civilization to work. If you got a problem with this then don't blame me.
You know the "natural intent" of the deity. That means knowing the mind of God, Bill. No matter how you want to deny yourself out of this theological corner you've backed yourself into, you can't. I won't give a shit. God nailed to stick says in the Bible that he takes a dim view of false prophets.
quote:
The studies do not bear out your assertion that the heterosexual couple is intended to raise a child.
(bill) No, I am sure that your studies will point to whatever you want them to, but reality bears out my assertion, and reality trumps a study any day of the week, Val.
As medical studies actually show what reality is, I find this assertion downright hilarious. Reality denies your assertion.
quote:
In fact, humans act more like pack animals where the society as a whole is responsible for raising the child. And the secondary claim by you of knowing the mind of God in this matter smacks of hubris. Hope you like it hot, Bill. God nailed to stick doesn't like that.
(bill) If it was not the design intent of NS, or the deity, for civilization to be built up by man and women raising children and proliferating the species in this way through heterosex then it would not be reality. Umm Val, it's reality...
Except it doesn't, Bill. Civilization is build upon rules of behavior when relating to interactions between people on things they have a choice in. Rules of hospitality, manners, etc. Sexual identity is not a choice, Bill. Breeding has no effect on society. Reality disagrees with you.
quote:
Sez you. No facts. No studies. Nothing. Just your extremist opinion which you insist we all bow and scrape to. Oh, and let's not forget the revealed TRUTH(TM) that you are speaking.
(bill) Studies do not trump reality Val. The male anatomy is designed for the female anatomy this is clear. The male and female sexual relationship is how children are produced and species continues on. If man/man raising families was the intent of the deity, or NS, then it would have been so and the man/man sexual relationship could produce offspring. It cannot Val.
Studies confirm reality, Bill. Your opinion that the male anatomy being designed for the female anatomy only indicate the function of sexual reproduction. That pleasure and pairbonding occur in different configurations within heterosexual couples invalidates your claim of intent. You then make an absurd claim about how equipment somehow indicates intent.
quote:
These aren't polls, Bill. They are medical studies. And instead of finding something to prop up your claim, you insist that you know the mind of God.
(bill) Wrong. I claimed to now the "intent" of the creator if there is one. If NS is the designer then I know it's intent as well. Your trying to disagree with reality here Val and it never works. That fact remains that man and women proliferate society just as the design intended.
Caught yourself in the knowing the intent of the creator (and therefore the mind of God) did you, Bill? It's only disagreeing with reality when scientific studies disagree with the position.
quote:
Two out of how many, Bill? Your opinion on the intent of natural selection is wrong as the parents raise the children with the help of the society. (historically) Your assertion about the intent of God is wrong unless you can prove that you know the mind of God, that is. (Hubris in action) And on top of that, my deity does not claim such an absurd thing as same sex couples should not adopt. (Wiccans are funny like that)
(bill) If you want to deny the fact that man and women raising children is the natural intent with some tangent about a kid going to a babysitter then come back to earth. I understand that you do not like the fact that this was the intent for the structure of society, but your problem is not with me as I was not the one who set the basis or foundation of society.
Huh? Are you claiming that adoptive parents are little more than babysitters? No, Bill, reality and you parted ways some time ago. If it was detrimental to the child that same sex couples raised it, medical studies should show it. They do not. Therefore, your assertion is bullshit.
quote:
I have no |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 21:55:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Scott...
God intended beavers to have flat tails. I know this because beavers have flat tails.
You also know your god intended some people to have mates of their own gender. You know this because some people have mates of their own gender. You sure did come up with a simple way to solve your own problem there, Bill. 
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 22:07:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude...
Can you actually raise Morrels?
I thought it was impossible to farm them. The fruiting body (the part people call a mushroom) is just a small fraction of the whole organism, which lives in a symbiotic relationship with thr roots of certain trees.
There is some limited amount of success in the science of cultivating morels.
In Illinois the wild ones will be popping up from early to mid April until about mid May. I gather as many as I can, and dry the surplus. In fact I much prefer them dried and rehydrated. They store all year. When rehydrated they have a stronger richer flavor. I tend to use the dried ones a couple at a time, rehydrated in a little milk, and used as a flavoring additive in stroganoff and gravies and such.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 22:50:30 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Even if you subscribe to the evolutionists worldview, when you look at the naked fact that man and women were designed to fit together and the result is offspring you must succumb to the fact that this was the natural way that was design intended to advance civilization, weather you subscribe to a deity or natural selection as that designer and intended. Ths would make a gay couple raising chilren unnatural or agaisnt design intent, whatever worldview you subscibe to.
Why that is wrong biologically: Homosexuality/bisexuality is far too prevalent to be a malfunction. I have stated in several posts that there are reasons why a flexible sexual orientation can be an adaptive, evolutionary advantage, and one of those reasons was that the gene perpetuates itself when the gay person helps their siblings raise children. It is a bit like being a drone bee. Drones never produce their own offspring, but their genes are still carried on because they are closely related to the bees that do participate in direct reproduction, and the drones help those relatives survive.
Why that is wrong philosophically: Well for one, we don't base the law or even morality on what is “natural”. Nature isn't always nice. It is often ruthless. Human beings often try to transcend nature and develop values defined by our own experience of life, not values that will merely maximize the size of the human population. Especially now that there are over 6 billion of us and many starving to death! And for two, there are plenty of indications that nature intends mothers to raise their own children. Kids up for adoption have been given up by their parents. Their situation is already “unnatural”, at least how you are defining what is and isn't natural. Any adoptive parenting is an “unnatural” situation. What difference does it make if the adoptive parents are gay, straight, or bi, as long as they take good care of the kid?
Please, consider the plight of the Lofton-Croteau family, and tell me that there is any justice in laws that forbid gays from adopting children. Here are two men who adopted kids that no one else would take (babies with HIV), but because Florida outlaws gays adopting, these men had to be foster parents. That worked out perfectly fine (since nobody was going to adopt a kid with HIV) until one of their sons suddenly, at the age of ten, tested negative for HIV (which sometimes happens). Now a child might be taken away from the only family he has ever known. A family that has loved him and raised him as their own child.
Seriously, Bill, how can you possibly defend that Florida law?
Filthy wrote: On the one hand, it doesn't seem natural; on the other, gay couples of both genders have successfully raised children origionally belonging to one or the other prior to divorce. So, I'll abstain on that one.
Oh, come on, filthy! Are you telling me that we should ever be basing laws on what seems natural (and seriously, what the hell does that even mean? That 4-5% of the population is unnatural?), despite the fact that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that gays make worse parents than straights? I think you are allowing your being uncomfortable with gay men to interfere with your reasoning.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
