Where is the conservative outrage over this expense?

[Cash Vallin]

It isn't non-sense. In most states, heterosexual cousins cannot marry... mothers and sons cannot marry... minors cannot marry. Married heterosexuals cannot marry other people.

All of these restrictions are a product of what people commonly accept as legitimate restrictions. Thousands of orthodox Mormons disagree with Missouri's polygamy law. Do you question the majorities collective right to define the parameters of that privilege concerning them? I'm sure if we looked hard enough we'd find a father-daughter couple who wanted the legitimacy of marriage. Does the majority not have the right to say no to that?

Way to compare incest to gay marriage. That's not a stretch at all

 

[sjt18]

given your moral absolutes steeped in your bible, I know vagrancy is morally wrong for you. Otherwise, you're picking and choosing, which makes you hypocritical only.

Again, you are presuming to speak for me and as an authority on theology. You don't speak for me and I doubt you are a theologian. If you want to state your case with chapter and verse, go ahead.

Given that you know vagrancy is dead wrong, I want you making this same weak argument for me against it. Down with free cash.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Given that you are wrong on so many levels... I won't play your game until you actually ante up.

 

[sjt18]

Way to compare incest to gay marriage. That's not a stretch at all

WOW... just WOW.

Let me spell this out for you. I said that the reason we have those restrictions is popular consent against them... that is the same reason restrictions are applied to homosexuals regarding marriage. The comparison to that point is completely valid.

If you want to debate what jurisdiction the state has between the sexual relationships between two consenting adults... I'm not sure that would help your case.

 

[sjt18]

Got to go fellas. I will try to check back in but my time will seldom be as free as it has been the past couple of days. I've been nursing a back injury.

If I have genuinely offended any of you then I apologize. I can assure you that I am not offended by any who disagrees with me and hold no grudges. I count it a blessing to have my ideas challenged forcing me to think and reason. The only way to have a consistent worldview that you can claim as true... is to have it strongly challenged to see if you have answers.

The freedom to try to convince others of your view is possibly the most important one we have. You have not persuaded me... but I certainly appreciate your efforts.

God bless you all.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Again, you are presuming to speak for me and as an authority on theology. You don't speak for me and I doubt you are a theologian. If you want to state your case with chapter and verse, go ahead.



Given that you are wrong on so many levels... I won't play your game until you actually ante up.

Really weak.

Shall I go to prison for having other gods before yours?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

I have said that 60 years of clinical attempts to prove it biological have failed to the degree that researchers have been pushed in the other direction.

do you realize how hard it would be to find the "gay gene?" there has been evidence of homosexuality being more prevalant in certain families, but obviously that gene if it exists gets bred out.

 

[IPorange]

do you realize how hard it would be to find the "gay gene?" there has been evidence of homosexuality being more prevalant in certain families, but obviously that gene if it exists gets bred out.

He doesn't believe in natural selection, anyway.

 

[BigPapaVol]

He doesn't believe in natural selection, anyway.

he clearly doesn't like the fact that he is forming his legal view from scripture but the scripture is littered with its own rules that wouldn't remotely be legal in this country.

 

[IPorange]

he clearly doesn't like the fact that he is forming his legal view from scripture but the scripture is littered with its own rules that wouldn't remotely be legal in this country.

Quit persecuting him!

 

[sjt18]

He doesn't believe in natural selection, anyway.

Yes I do... and fwiw, natural selection was not a concept that came out of evolutionary science or Darwin. It was incorporated into the evolutionary model.

I absolutely believe in natural selection... and that it all but precludes the evolutionary model of upward evolution. NS eliminates genetic capabilities through mutation and deletion astronomically faster than even the most hopeful evolutionary model can supply them.

There was a model proposed not long ago by evolutionary researchers. Basically they proposed that in the past there was some event that loaded the genomes. Successive generations then speciated off of those original animals via natural selection. Of course to keep their grants and get published they had to propose that evolutionary processes preceded that period.

The basic difference I have with that model is that I believe that God created directly "kinds" of animals that then began to diverge into species via the known AND OBSERVED genetic mechanisms of mutation and deletion.

 

[sjt18]

he clearly doesn't like the fact that he is forming his legal view from scripture but the scripture is littered with its own rules that wouldn't remotely be legal in this country.

How exactly am I doing that when I have clearly said that states had the right to legitimize homosexual marriage by popular consent?

FTR, your misinterpretation and misapplication of the biblical text are in no way binding on me or what I believe about anything... You have simply tried to establish a straw man by imposing beliefs on me rather than asking me what I believe.

If you want to know my opinion concerning a passage of scripture then just ask. Otherwise, stop trying to speak for me.

 

[IPorange]

Yes I do... and fwiw, natural selection was not a concept that came out of evolutionary science or Darwin. It was incorporated into the evolutionary model.

I absolutely believe in natural selection... and that it all but precludes the evolutionary model of upward evolution. NS eliminates genetic capabilities through mutation and deletion astronomically faster than even the most hopeful evolutionary model can supply them.

There was a model proposed not long ago by evolutionary researchers. Basically they proposed that in the past there was some event that loaded the genomes. Successive generations then speciated off of those original animals via natural selection. Of course to keep their grants and get published they had to propose that evolutionary processes preceded that period.

The basic difference I have with that model is that I believe that God created directly "kinds" of animals that then began to diverge into species via the known AND OBSERVED genetic mechanisms of mutation and deletion.

The word "evolution" does not appear in The Origin of Species. Yet, the phrase "natural selection" does. For the first time.


What you describe is not natural selection, by definition. It is artificial selection.

 

[sjt18]

do you realize how hard it would be to find the "gay gene?" there has been evidence of homosexuality being more prevalant in certain families, but obviously that gene if it exists gets bred out.

Of course it would. That's why I have pretty consistently said that I don't know for sure.

But the fact remains that a great deal of time, effort, and money have gone into trying to prove it. The net result is that most research has pushed science away from a biological cause.

Regardless, I do not believe man to be a animal or automaton. I believe man has a immaterial spirit that forms the true essence of who an individual is. Man by extension has a free will to deny or indulge impulses... even strong ones.

 

[BigPapaVol]

How exactly am I doing that when I have clearly said that states had the right to legitimize homosexual marriage by popular consent?

you have to say that because it's the lone justification for discriminating against homosexuals. It was the last argument standing in the slavery question too. It was wrong then as well.

FTR, your misinterpretation and misapplication of the biblical text are in no way binding on me or what I believe about anything... You have simply tried to establish a straw man by imposing beliefs on me rather than asking me what I believe.

Really, I'm misinterpreting some uber deep biblical text that you have a different take on. I don't care what you actually believe nor am I trying to bind you. I care that your bent on discriminating against homosexuals based upon a few verses in the bible, which I find reprehensible. When your bible as a rule of law failed, you reverted to popular opinion, which our SC has shot down more than once. I'm establishing no straw man. I'm simply applying your views of legal justification to other laws.

If you want to know my opinion concerning a passage of scripture then just ask. Otherwise, stop trying to speak for me.

I'm not speaking for you. I'm speaking to others about your absurd biblically justified support for picking and choosing which couples can marry and which ones share the appropriate emotional and family relationships for consideration.

I don't give a flying rip for your opinion on scripture. I happen to share some of the same views, but I'm not trying to press that view on everyone else. Hell, I didn't even have to bust out my bonafides and tell you that arguing both sides of the point because I've had more philosophy than I cared to take is hardly meritorious. You did, and it was entertaining.

 

[sjt18]

The word "evolution" does not appear in The Origin of Species. Yet, the phrase "natural selection" does. For the first time.

He coined the term but the concept did not originate with him. Edward Blyth and Patrick Matthew described the concept minus the TOE implications before Darwin. Darwin knew Blyth and may have plagarized him.

What you describe is not natural selection, by definition. It is artificial selection.

Natural selection is when environmental pressures favor some expressions over others. On rare occasion, it may favor a mutation for a particular environment. In every case I have ever seen cited, that subgroup does not become more genetic robust but in fact becomes weaker, more fragile on the whole.

Usually, it simply favors random genetic expressions. If the circumstances persist then mutations and deletions will "fix" the subgroup apart from the parent group. Information and genetic variability has not been gained but rather lost.

Right now it is occurring in the real world and observed. Whitetail deer in north Michigan are very large. Does go 150 plus. Whitetails in central America seldom weigh over 100 lbs. Given enough time, mutations, and deletions those groups will diverge from one another.

Horses, donkeys, and zebras are an example of the end result.

Most modern species are well down the road genetically from that original kind. When a species is no longer robust enough to adapt, it goes extinct.

 

[IPorange]

Using your example, how is a horse, donkey, and zebra weaker as a whole?

 

[sjt18]

you have to say that because it's the lone justification for discriminating against homosexuals. It was the last argument standing in the slavery question too. It was wrong then as well.

Do your homework. It was wild-eyed fundamental Christians who powered the abolitionist movement... while the naturalists of the day were proposing that some races WERE superior because they were more evolved.

Less than 90% of southerners including southern Christians owned slaves. There attitudes ranged from fear of the powers that were to apathy to resentment towards the rich for their unfair advantages.

Your attempts to associate racial discrimination to discrimination based on chosen acts simply does not pass muster. They are NOT the same.

 

[sjt18]

Using your example, how is a horse, donkey, and zebra weaker as a whole?

In the wild, each would have advantages in a given environment. If the environment became extreme in a shared area, one would have the clear survival advantage.

The original genetic info required for the others to quickly adapt, compete, and survive is no longer accessible. Offspring with those random characteristics are no longer being produced or in such low numbers that extinction occurs.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Do your homework. It was wild-eyed fundamental Christians who powered the abolitionist movement... while the naturalists of the day were proposing that some races WERE superior because they were more evolved.

it doesn't matter who was driving the thought process. It matters that the justification for discrimination was wrong then, just as it is today. Popular opinion argument was driven by economics, and not some quirky naturalists acting foolish.

Less than 90% of southerners including southern Christians owned slaves. There attitudes ranged from fear of the powers that were to apathy to resentment towards the rich for their unfair advantages.

again, they state's rights fight was steeped in slavery. Cut it any way you wish, but the argument for maintaining the status quo was the wealthy driving voting processes and claiming popular opinion. There are about 5 million ways to paint the Civil War as anything but a fight over slavery, but they're all window dressing.

Your attempts to associate racial discrimination to discrimination based on chosen acts simply does not pass muster. They are NOT the same.

I'm only associating the weak ass justifications for discrimination and we're talking about slavery, not discrimination. The legal argument you use for discriminating against homosexuals and the argument for maintaining the slave trade are the same - the people want it. Trying to shift this to me won't help.

 

[IPorange]

In the wild, each would have advantages in a given environment. If the environment became extreme in a shared area, one would have the clear survival advantage.

The original genetic info required for the others to quickly adapt, compete, and survive is no longer accessible. Offspring with those random characteristics are no longer being produced or in such low numbers that extinction occurs.

So you're saying a zebra and donkey are no longer able to adapt, but a horse still can?

What are you basing this on?

 

[sjt18]

When you actually want to discuss a text BigPapa... then put your big papa pants on and we'll have a go.

Otherwise, I don't think I feel like answering your sophistry over and over.

 

[IPorange]

For the record, I can guarantee naturalists weren't calling any race more "evolved" at that time, since the word didn't even exist yet.

 

[BigPapaVol]

When you actually want to discuss a text BigPapa... then put your big papa pants on and we'll have a go.

Otherwise, I don't think I feel like answering your sophistry over and over.

Please. I'm not interested in text and you haven't answered anything. You've tried to marginalize my opinion by saying I'm not a theologian or that I don't know history. You know damn well the Bible takes a very harsh view toward vagrancy and slovenliness, yet we can't pass laws against them knowing full well the populace viewpoint would mirror that of the Bible.

We don't need text to make your arbitrary choice for discrimination a virtually unsupportable proposition. Once again, changing the point doesn't help make your two crutches of support more viable. Both are garbage.

Next, forget the argument about my discriminating against your discrimination, which is patently absurd, even for this board.

 

[tvolsfan]

Out of curiosity, with respect to the ongoing argument, are you religious, BPV? I know where IP stands, just wondering your opinion.

 

[sjt18]

So you're saying a zebra and donkey are no longer able to adapt, but a horse still can?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that none of them are as capable of adaptation as their common ancestor was.

What are you basing this on?

First and foremost, they are related to each other genetically and share many traits. The genetic coding differences are much better explained by deletions and mutations which CAN BE reproduced by experiment than novel additions to any of the genomes which have not been. Even if they somehow do occur, it is very obvious that they do not occur frequently enough to be observed... which means they likely do not occur often enough to help a species survive sudden environmental changes.

Second and already alluded to, we can reproduce this process. Man has done so through breeding for thousands of years. You rightly called it artificial but the mechanism can and does explain adaptation and the mechanics of natural selection if you allow it to.