# "Traditional Marriage" ??



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2012)

Interesting



> *Fans of J. Michael Straczynski*
> The  interesting thing about watching the debate about same-sex marriage,  especially the declaration by many that marriage has always been a  Christian family tradition, is that so many of these folks seem not to  have an actual grasp of church history.
> 
> Leaving aside for a moment the fact that same-sex marriages were routinely  conducted by the Catholic Church for nearly three hundred years, from  the 10th to the 12th centuries under what was variously termed the  Office of Same-Sex Union or the Order for Uniting Two Men, whats  more compelling is what the Church felt about marriage between a man and  woman for the first nine hundred years of its existence.
> ...


----------



## billc (May 12, 2012)

It sure seems as if the "people," like them some marriage between a man and a woman since it started in the ninth century...



> t was only during the late 9th century that the Catholic Church, under pressure from followers,



And if same sex marriage is a religous tradition that goes back to the 10th or 12th century, why are you voting your religous beliefs by supporting gay marriage?


----------



## WC_lun (May 12, 2012)

Interesting indeed.


----------



## billc (May 12, 2012)

So, the wisdom of the common folk, to favor marriage, between a man and a woman, is fine when it goes against the church, but not when it goes against a secularist theory.  I see.


----------



## WC_lun (May 12, 2012)

Billi, what are you even talking about?  The post just highlights that "traditional marriage" isn't as traditional as some think it is.

As far as the marriage being between just a man and a woman, can you explain why?  What difference does it make if two women or two men get married?  What harm does it do?  Unless someone somewhere can show something other than prejudice or cherry picking from the bible as a reason, there is no reason our government should be restricting mariagebetweeen two consenting adults.


----------



## billc (May 12, 2012)

For those who are anti-religious in this debate here are some articles that take on "what difference does it make.." argument from a purely scientific (?), demographic (?) argument that is now just starting to show itself...

Stanley Kurtz looks at the increase in out of wedlock births in the Netherlands after gay marriage was inacted...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217803/smoking-gun/stanley-kurtz



> The numbers for 2005 are in, and the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has done it again, shooting up a striking 2.5 percentage points. That makes nine consecutive years of average two-percentage-point increases in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate, a rise unmatched by any country in Western Europe during the same period. Ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997, followed by formal same-sex marriage in 2000, their out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at a striking clip. That fact has created a serious problem for advocates of same-sex marriage. (For a visual on this, see the chart in &#8220;Going Dutch?&#8221; and imagine two further years of two-percentage point increases in 2004 and 2005.



And what does Kurtz think happens when gay marriage is passed...



> I&#8217;ve argued that the long Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage (which began around 1990) helped set the stage for the big continuous spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates that began in 1997. Gay-marriage advocates rejected the idea that marriage is intrinsically connected to parenthood, and the Dutch public bought that argument. Once marriage stops being about binding mothers and fathers together for the sake of the children they create, the need to get married gradually disappears. That&#8217;s why I&#8217;ve argued that the successful campaign for same-sex marriage led to the spike in Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrates. A preliminary spike between 1994 and 1995 was likely influenced by this long public debate, even before formal passage of registered partnerships in 1997.





> Marriage has deteriorated far more markedly in Norway&#8217;s socially liberal, gay-marriage-accepting north than in its more conservative, religious south. Eskridge and Spedale effectively ignore this comparison, falsely characterizing my regional case as merely anecdotal. (For more on the regional issue in Norway, and on the birth-order issue, see &#8220;Unhealthy Half-Truths.&#8221



From Mr. Kurtz's article, "Unhealthy-Half-Truths."

http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200405250927.asp



> The idea that Scandinavian marriage is dying is not my invention. Have a look at this 2000 piece from the _Los Angeles Times_. Scandinavians, the _Times_ reports, "have all but given up on marriage as a framework for family living, preferring cohabitation even after their children are born." According to the _Times_, "the 1990's witnessed a resolute rejection of marriage, even among couples having children." Whether they praise or blame the Scandinavian family system, scholars agree.
> Badgett's odd claim that Scandinavian marriage is doing just fine is built on a statistical trick. According to Badgett, roughly four out of five couples with children in Denmark and Norway are married. That's true, but it's also incomplete and deeply misleading. What Badgett doesn't tell you is that her "couples with children" figure includes only couples who are living together. Children who live with single parents or step families are omitted from Badgett's report.
> In Norway, those children of broken families are put in a huge category called "other type of family." That category includes single adults as well as single parents and step-families. Separating out the subcategories, Norwegian demographer Christer Hyggen reports that by January 2002, only 62 percent of Norwegian children were living with married parents &#8212; far lower than Badgett's 80 percent.
> Badgett's figures conveniently sidestep the central point. Cohabiting parents are 2-3 times more likely to break up than married parents. That's why parental cohabitation is a problem. Since cohabiting couples break up at a high rate, many of their children end up with single parents or in step families. By leaving those children out, Badgett disregards the true cost of the Scandinavian system.
> And the problem is getting worse. In Norway, cohabiting families are the fastest-growing family type, while married couples with children are the fastest shrinking family type. The proportion of Norwegian children living with married parents dropped 16 percent from 1989 to 2002 (from 78 percent to 62 percent).





> The important point is that registered partnerships and gay marriage have brought sharply higher rates of parental cohabitation to the Netherlands in just the last few years.


And this article details the problems that come from increased out of wedlock births as they may see in the U.K/Britain/place where they eat chips and drink tea,...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/births_outside_marriage_a_real.html



> In an article entitled 'Births outside marriage: the real story', Professor John Ermisch from the Institute for Social and Economic Research, assesses the evidence and concludes that "the rise in births outside marriage is a real cause for concern".
> Using 17 years of detailed longitudinal data from the BHPS, Professor Ermisch has been able to follow the stories of hundreds of real babies and calculate how much time they have spent living with just one parent.
> This matters because there is powerful evidence that children growing-up without two parents have worse outcomes as young adults. Professor Ermisch refers to the "long-term negative consequences" of a child spending significant parts of their childhood in families with only one parent.
> 
> ...



And the important part...



> The experiences of the babies in the British Household Panel survey indicates that being brought up by a lone mum or dad, particularly before they start school, translates into lower grades, worse job prospects and poorer health.



So yes, there may actually be a bad outcome, non-religously based for those who are anti-religious, that may occur with the passage of gay marriage.  Now, with an actual non-religious argument, can those calling the religious people out there bigots please refrain.  They may have a sense of something that they can't explain, but just sense from real world experience with out of wedlock children who fair worse in society than those children who are in two parent homes.  And yes, gay couples are two parents, but it seems there may be evidence that not equating marriage strictly to child bearing may have a bearing on out of wedlock birth rates.  Read both articles and see for yourselves...

Yeah, you may think this is hogwash, but this is an argument that should be looked at, as the consequences to the individual children are devestating and the consequences to the society even worse.  Worried about extremist ideologies, where do you think they will find their future adherents, the less successful, socially isolated, children born out of wedlock.  Like street gangs, where do you think their recruiting prospects come from, out of multi-generational out of wedlock children.  This is where you get 13 year olds who can kill without remorse, just ask any big city cop.

So there...


----------



## WC_lun (May 12, 2012)

Billi, out of wedlock births are aready up and there has been no proven connection between them and gays being able to wed.  Here's a couple of facts for you, just in case you forgot, gays are already together jus without thier civil rights and gays do not have out of wedlock babies...biology you know.

Also, that article is trash.  Pure opinion based upon prejudice, not fact.  There is no link.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 12, 2012)

Bob interesting read but has zero to do with US marriage laws.  To say gay marriage was around in the 10th century makes no diff. In the US.  There was no US in the 10th century.  So you talk of traditions the traditions in the US since day one of this country was a man and woman.  I dont care about traditions in other countries from 1000 years ago.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 12, 2012)

I think it would be easier to show a link to a general decline in traditional family structures to the increase of the welfare state. The economic benefit of the family is undermined because the Nanny State replaces Fathers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Bob interesting read but has zero to do with US marriage laws.  To say gay marriage was around in the 10th century makes no diff. In the US.  There was no US in the 10th century.  So you talk of traditions the traditions in the US since day one of this country was a man and woman.  I dont care about traditions in other countries from 1000 years ago.




I just said "interesting".  I wasn't applying it to "US Tradition".

But lets compare this 'tradition' with some others in the US.

Lets start with "Christmas", which wasn't celebrated in the US until the mid 1800's. Most of the dominant Christian faiths in fact, viewed Christmas as wrong.  But that changed over time.

How about that great "Thanksgiving" we all enjoy huh.  Oh wait, that moved around a lot since it was declared in 1863 and wasn't on a set date until 1941. So much for 'tradition'.

Ah! But Easter. Easter's a set 'tradition' right? Well, no.  It too moved around a lot in the 'early days' (before US), and even today continues to move around the calendar. The traditional trappings of this holiday continue to evolve and there is discussion of fixing the date, though that's being debated hotly. 

What's another "US Tradition"? Ah!  Men wearing hats. Top hats.  Well, that tradition faded away, as did sport coats, bow ties, and cuff links.

So, traditions change.

It used to be 'tradition' that you didn't date or marry outside your religion. But mixed faith relationships & marriages are an everyday thing.
It used to be 'tradition' that you didn't date or marry outside your race. But mixed race relationships and marriages are, again, an everyday thing.
It used to be 'tradition' that a dowry was involved in marriage, but that's faded away.
Did you have a 'honeymoon'? Well, that 'tradition' came from when you would kidnap your new wife and hide away with her, raping her repeatedly for 1 lunar cycle. Then she was 'yours'.  I dunno about you, but I liked mine better...we were on a cruise ship and she was a willing participant.

So, again, traditions change.

Some places recognize "common law" others don't.
Age of consent varies from US State to State, and so therefore does the 'legal age to marry'. That too has changed over time, inching upwards so that all states are at least in the teens today. (Min US age ranges from 14-19 depending on state)

So there Ballen is your US Tradition.  It changes as we as a nation change.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 12, 2012)

Traditions do change your right so your entire article was pointless thanks for posting it


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 12, 2012)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (May 12, 2012)

Now that's what I'm talking about! Can I get some concubines and get the State to cut some checks for it! Lol!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Traditions do change your right so your entire article was pointless thanks for posting it



Pointless to you yes.

To others, I don't think so.

But if it is that pointless to you, then please refrain from trolling the discussion further.


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 13, 2012)

I actuly didn't think it was pointless at all. It further establishes the point. Traditions of marriage are not what many people think them to be, nor are traditions truly permanent. Therefore, an appeal to tradition fails on two fronts.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2012)

If we want to discuss 'tradition', lets do it during Kwanzaa. Or Festivus. Both long traditions going back generations and.... oh wait.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 13, 2012)

Just to play Devil's Advocate, is there any benefit to traditional marriage?


----------



## billc (May 13, 2012)

Ohhhh...just wait for the "Airing of Grievances," this year!!!!  Next to the feats of strength that is going to be my favorite part...


----------



## billc (May 13, 2012)

I have just pointed out an argument that the anti-religious requested seeing.  There it is, there may be something to it, there may not be, but it is still there.  Before we change the entire country for 3.8% of the population, in a way that if, if those articles actually point to something, real damage can be done to children raised in out of wedlock, single parent homes, and to society as a whole as it tries to deal with children damaged by multi-generational children raising children syndrome...

Now, since we can't build a road, or any advanced structure without an environmental impact study, this warrents a societal impact study don't you think?  Just to be consistant in a lefty kind of way?


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 13, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I have just pointed out an argument that the anti-religious requested seeing.





> guess, being an atheist, I may as well step in here.  It my views will represent MY views, though. Non-religious and anti-religious people cannot be effectively grouped together in a way that represents "the viewpoint of the atheists". So keep that in mind.
> 
> There it is, there may be something to it, there may not be, but it is still there.  Before we change the entire country for 3.8% of the population, in a way that if, if those articles actually point to something, real damage can be done to children raised in out of wedlock, single parent homes, and to society as a whole as it tries to deal with children damaged by multi-generational children raising children syndrome...



None of which have a demonstrated causal link to same sex marriage. I know you like to site the Netherlands as your example, but even there you have yet to prove an actual causal link, even remotely. Two things occuring at the same time do not imply that one caused the other. Nor have the birth rates in the Netherlands been compared to the birth rates of the nine other countries that allow same sex marriage.

And there is a really hefty burden of proof on the person making the claim that homosexual marriage, which is inherently non-procreative, would somehow affect any statistic involving childbirth. 



> Now, since we can't build a road, or any advanced structure without an environmental impact study, this warrents a societal impact study don't you think?  Just to be consistant in a lefty kind of way?



Had I been married to my wife in the '40s tell me that I couldn't marry my wife (due to me being white and her being black) I probably would have told you to take your environmental impact study and shove it.

BTW, not being a lefty, I feel no need to be consistent in a lefty way.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CanuckMA (May 13, 2012)

billcihak said:


> For those who are anti-religious in this debate here are some articles that take on "what difference does it make.." argument from a purely scientific (?), demographic (?) argument that is now just starting to show itself...
> 
> Stanley Kurtz looks at the increase in out of wedlock births in the Netherlands after gay marriage was inacted...
> 
> ...



Because in contrast, the US does not have out of wedlock children, single parent home, kids having kids, etc... 

Yet another BC link that is pure horses**t.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 13, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Pointless to you yes.
> 
> To others, I don't think so.
> 
> But if it is that pointless to you, then please refrain from trolling the discussion further.


Oh im sorry didnt know anyone that had a different opinion then the great and powerful Bob was a troll.  By all means carry on with your conversation sorry i interupted


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Oh im sorry didnt know anyone that had a different opinion then the great and powerful Bob was a troll.  By all means carry on with your conversation sorry i interupted



The following is your total contribution to this topic:



ballen0351 said:


> Bob interesting read but has zero to do with  US marriage laws.  To say gay marriage was around in the 10th century  makes no diff. In the US.  There was no US in the 10th century.  So you  talk of traditions the traditions in the US since day one of this  country was a man and woman.  I dont care about traditions in other  countries from 1000 years ago.


 



ballen0351 said:


> Traditions do change your right so your entire article was pointless thanks for posting it





Now, I said "Interesting".
I didn't say "See, US People, your wrong." or in any way connect this to the US.
JMS was commenting on the -history- of marriage and it's relationship to the Christian Church.

You're saying the OP and article were pointless.
Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation here?
If not, then you are trolling.
I've never said you had to agree with me, and if anyone thinks that, then I will go on record in stating they are 1-wrong and 2-wrong.
In their minds they can now be right.

Good Day.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 13, 2012)

I think you might be mixing up having an opinion and contributing to a discussion with not saying anything other than dismissing the topic as not worth talking about at all.  Now if it was about ... no, I'll let that lie .

In the other, rather sad (because of the undercurrent of nastiness that is there), thread about 'gay' marriage, I haven't said as much out loud but I understand your position, especially as you are a policeman and so will naturally tend to see the law as something to be abided by and enforced.  I know others haven't gotten that and think you are avoiding the issue but I'm not one of them and I respect your contribution.

Here tho', you just tromped in like a pair of lead boots in a field of glass flowers ROFL.  I'm not surprised you got short shrift, I'd've told you to go away too .  Being snidey won't help heal things any quicker ... you sure you're a trained professional in a customer facing role?  Then again you carry a gun in the real world and can get away with it :lol:

EDIT:  I see Cap'n Bob was quicker on the keys than me   In case it's confusing, I was talking to Ballen and to be doubly sure, if we were talking in the real world you'd be able to tell I was being light-hearted, trying to use dry humour to make the point less sharp


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 13, 2012)

Ballen ... you probably wouldn't be viewed as trolling if your posts didn't come off as openly hostile.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2012)

Regarding the OP by JMS, I have 1 question: Is this true?
When I posted it, I didn't have time to dig, as my power was out most of yesterday and I'm playing catch up now.

If it is, then it's interesting in how the view changed over time, and continues to change.


----------



## elder999 (May 13, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Regarding the OP by JMS, I have 1 question: Is this true?
> .



Yes.

There's even Biblical support for it:



> Corinthians 1:7
> Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: *It is good for a man not to touch a woman. **[SUP]2 [/SUP]Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.*
> [SUP]3 [/SUP]Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
> [SUP]4 [/SUP]The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
> ...


----------



## granfire (May 13, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Yes.
> 
> There's even Biblical support for it:



Ok, my non english roots are tripping me up here:
To avoid fornication everybody gets married? So, in essence, once hitched the carnal urges are going away? (makes sense,a s most people who are married and have kids can attest to)


(ok, that guy was trippin...)


----------



## elder999 (May 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> (ok, that guy was trippin...)




Pretty much. Paul the usurper, creator of "Christianity," possible leper (who couldn't get laid and so was obsessed with sex), but sometimes said the most wonderful things-in addition to the ****ing crazy s**t he laid down...:lfao:

Human beings are such odd and wonderful creatures.....


----------



## granfire (May 13, 2012)

I heard rumors he was epileptic...explaining his sudden conversion and seeing things prior...
Of course some people believe he was a Roman undercover agent to subvert the Jewish satellite communities....


----------



## hongkongfooey (May 13, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Just to play Devil's Advocate, is there any benefit to traditional marriage?



Tax break?


----------



## WC_lun (May 14, 2012)

There are tons of benefits to being married.  Everything from insurance to tax code.  In many states those benefits are often extended to significant others who have been together for a while, calling it common law marriage.  No such luck if the couple is gay.


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2012)

I would point out though that Christians refer to the 'Bible' for laws, commands whatever to 'prove' or enforce things, Jewish Law moves with the times and the consensus of the Jewish people so the laws that were then aren't the laws now.


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> There are tons of benefits to being married.  Everything from insurance to tax code.  In many states those benefits are often extended to significant others who have been together for a while, calling it common law marriage.  No such luck if the couple is gay.



But it's usually a $$ thing. 
Only a very few do not benefit financially from signing on the dotted line.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I would point out though that Christians refer to the 'Bible' for laws, commands whatever to 'prove' or enforce things, Jewish Law moves with the times and the consensus of the Jewish people so the laws that were then aren't the laws now.



So, what you're saying is that if there were a law on the books from say, 1895, that required a car owner to come to a full stop at an intersection, sound a horn, look all ways, fire a gun twice, sound the horn again, and then proceed, with the sub requirement to disassemble the car and hide it in the bushes under the tarp required by the law, IF a horse should approach, that the Jews would in 2012 drop it as unlikely to be needed while the Christians would still be carrying a tarp and making a lot of noise?




(And yes, there is such a law -still- on US books and -still- legally in effect.)


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, what you're saying is that if there were a law on the books from say, 1895, that required a car owner to come to a full stop at an intersection, sound a horn, look all ways, fire a gun twice, sound the horn again, and then proceed, with the sub requirement to disassemble the car and hide it in the bushes under the tarp required by the law, IF a horse should approach, that the Jews would in 2012 drop it as unlikely to be needed while the Christians would still be carrying a tarp and making a lot of noise?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly! The Law is a living thing, it has to reflect the times and the countries that someone is in. I suppose what we do however is to find the ways and means in the laws to come to a satisfactory conclusion for everyone, there is always room for compromise. The laws may say put a witch to death but there is always a way around that so that no one is killed and yet the law is upheld, it's using common sense I suppose rather than taking the words at face value. I'm sure Canuck can explain this much better than I! I don't think Christians see the value in the thought and arguments Jews put into everything! it seems very black and white to Christians, it either is or it isn't.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04551.html


----------



## CanuckMA (May 14, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, what you're saying is that if there were a law on the books from say, 1895, that required a car owner to come to a full stop at an intersection, sound a horn, look all ways, fire a gun twice, sound the horn again, and then proceed, with the sub requirement to disassemble the car and hide it in the bushes under the tarp required by the law, IF a horse should approach, that the Jews would in 2012 drop it as unlikely to be needed while the Christians would still be carrying a tarp and making a lot of noise?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Close. the 613 commandments in Torah are from G-d, therefore we cannot just eliminate them. There are a number, however that can't be observed, everything related to the Temple for example. They are not struck down, but suspended. Others, like what is prohibited on the Sabbath, is constantly reviewed and re-interpreted as new technologies arise.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 14, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Exactly! The Law is a living thing, it has to reflect the times and the countries that someone is in. I suppose what we do however is to find the ways and means in the laws to come to a satisfactory conclusion for everyone, there is always room for compromise. The laws may say put a witch to death but there is always a way around that so that no one is killed and yet the law is upheld, it's using common sense I suppose rather than taking the words at face value. I'm sure Canuck can explain this much better than I! I don't think Christians see the value in the thought and arguments Jews put into everything! it seems very black and white to Christians, it either is or it isn't.
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04551.html



We often put 'fences' around laws, so to make sure they are not violated by mistake. As well, you need to remember that Torah is like Cliff's notes. Our tradition teaches that Moses received 2 things at Sinai. What is commonly called the Written Torah, the 5 books of Moses, as well as an Oral Torah, essentially the explanation of what is in the Written Torah. Oral Torah was passed on through the line of igh Priest untal it was written down around 220 CE. It is the Mishnah part of Talmud. The Rabbis' discussion of Torah and Mishnah is the Gemara, together mishnah and Gemara form the Talmud. While Torah contains many crimes for which capital punishment is required, Talmud sets forth the requirements for such punishment. For example, for a murderer to be put to death, there needs to be 2 eyewitnesses to the crime AND the perpetrator needs to have been warned in advance that was he was about to do is a crime punishable by death.


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Close. the 613 commandments in Torah are from G-d, therefore we cannot just eliminate them. There are a number, however that can't be observed, everything related to the Temple for example. They are not struck down, but suspended. Others, like what is prohibited on the Sabbath, is constantly reviewed and re-interpreted as new technologies arise.




Cheers! I find it hard to explain the thought that goes into applying the laws that doesn't seem to happen when others take the Bible so literally that they tie themselves up so they can't live properly themselves, yet they seem to happily ignore laws and commandments they don't like! To me it's odd1


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> We often put 'fences' around laws, so to make sure they are not violated by mistake. As well, you need to remember that Torah is like Cliff's notes. Our tradition teaches that Moses received 2 things at Sinai. What is commonly called the Written Torah, the 5 books of Moses, as well as an Oral Torah, essentially the explanation of what is in the Written Torah. Oral Torah was passed on through the line of igh Priest untal it was written down around 220 CE. It is the Mishnah part of Talmud. The Rabbis' discussion of Torah and Mishnah is the Gemara, together mishnah and Gemara form the Talmud. While Torah contains many crimes for which capital punishment is required, Talmud sets forth the requirements for such punishment.* For example, for a murderer to be put to death, there needs to be 2 eyewitnesses to the crime AND the perpetrator needs to have been warned in advance that was he was about to do is a crime punishable by death*.



That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind! thank you, I knew you'd put it in better words than I!


----------



## Master Dan (May 14, 2012)

Freedom of religion is part and parcel to our culture and constitution of the US however that should mean that any church that does not practice same sex marriage should not be forced to perform the marriage and register that union under thier church documents. Civil unions should have equal rights legally as per any business relationship. If they seek a religous confirmation of that then they need to join or have sanction by a church that approves such unions I am sure given the history of Priest Craft or rent a conection to God it should not be hard to find?


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> Freedom of religion is part and parcel to our culture and constitution of the US however that should mean that any church that does not practice same sex marriage should not be forced to perform the marriage and register that union under thier church documents. Civil unions should have equal rights legally as per any business relationship. If they seek a religous confirmation of that then they need to join or have sanction by a church that approves such unions I am sure given the history of Priest Craft or rent a conection to God it should not be hard to find?



And churches have the right to not marry hetero people either if they don't want to (something the Catholic church is known to make use of, I am sure others have done like wise, like LDS...)

That is not up for discussion.

marriage is a worldly thing, meaning the rights and privileges are of the secular nature, like tax breaks etc, and the other myriad of things that have been mentioned before many times over, all the things a married couple automatically gets with one single signature. 

In your line of thinking catholic and other religions should not get mix in marriage (religious grounds) and that needs to be anchored in state law.

We all would laugh and point out how silly that is (well not for some aspects of the religiously involved, marrying outside the faith is a big thing) but that is not something you put into state law, because some people don't care and want to marry that other person anyhow.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 14, 2012)

Exempting religious institutions and clergy is easy to do. has been done here. I'm not sure how it works in a church, but at a Jewish wedding, there are 3 distinct steps.

1) the couple signs the civil marriage certificate.
2) the couple signs the ketuba, Jewish marriage contract
3) public ceremony

After step 1, the couple is legally married.


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2012)

In France the only thing that is valid is the civil marriage ceremony in the town hall, the religious part/ceremony is up to couples.


----------



## elder999 (May 14, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> In France the only thing that is valid is the civil marriage ceremony in the town hall, the religious part/ceremony is up to couples.




It's not too different here-the only thing that is valid in terms of taxes, property rights, etc., is the civil recognition-there need not be a "civil ceremony," per se, though. A couple obtains a marriage license from the state, and that license can be ratified at the conclusion of any ceremony-ministers of all sorts are issued state seals to do so-once the license has been properly witnessed and sealed, and the couple brings it back to the clerk's office where it was issued, they're legally married. Since we have "freedom of religion," here, *anyone* can pay the fees and register as an officiant for marriages. My son has officiated at five weddings, and I've done about twice that many. I've also turned away three couples.


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> In France the only thing that is valid is the civil marriage ceremony in the town hall, the religious part/ceremony is up to couples.



Same in Germany.

The big shindig in the church is just for show. The real thing happened the day before (usually) at the courthouse)


----------



## cdunn (May 14, 2012)

As I look at my oncoming (hetero) marriage, the Big Deal, as I see it, is basically this - Marriage, in the modern sense, is how a couple founds a family by choice. The couple declares it to family and society, and family and society accepts it, plus or minus some grumbling from individuals who may or may not be involved. That family remains a family unless that couple chooses to dissolve it, regardless of the existance or non of children. Telling gay couples they can't get married, is bascially telling them they're not a good enough couple to be a family. It does not force the breaking of religious sensibilities: There are many religous authorities who will witness the marriage anyway, and there are many secular authorities who are capable of doing so as well. So, you are harming an entire class of people for no benefit to society, and you are protecting the rights of none.   

That, I believe, is wrong.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2012)

Marriage, being a right, should be open to all.

Funny, the US Supreme Court already said that.



> _Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to  our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on  so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these  statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of  equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive  all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The  Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be  restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution,  the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides  with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State._


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Eventually, they will rule the same way for same-sex marriages.

What the religions, faiths, belief systems, etc do will remain their business.

But tax breaks, visitation, inheritance, adoption, children, homes, health benefits and more will go as they should.


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite


I have not read it yet, but it looks interesting....


----------



## Master Dan (May 14, 2012)

Bob regardless of some of the negative or codescending tone to some of the posts back at you this has been a good thread with interesting and informational posts by many. I think you are saying that marriage according to the state is a civil thing and has no bearing on any particular church? Any one or anything for that matter can be married depending on the laws of that state? and churches are free to marry who they please. In my church my wife and I have a civil marriage possibly this year after I recieve a Temple Recomend we can then go to the temple and have a Temple marriage.

I find one thing interesting on the time line of traditional marriage some saying 9th or 12 century? For those who believe in the bible it started in Genisis how old is that? And God created a woman for man not sister brother or buddy? However that is for people who believe in the bible and God and there has always been free agency for a person to choose. Now you could argue there is no mention of a traditional marriage cerimony in Genisis however there are those that say as far as that book is written or understood? We don't know there wasn't? Regardless we all have the freedom to believe what we want with out persecution.

Thanks for your work and thoughts


----------



## Omar B (May 14, 2012)

Wait, are some really arguing a case for marriage from a standpoint of theology?  Nothing like stories from a bunch of dusty old dead guys to lead your life by right.  

Easter Bunny, Santa, god or gods whatever other character you  can come up with had nothing to do with the free association of two individuals in love.


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Wait, are some really arguing a case for marriage from a standpoint of theology?  Nothing like stories from a bunch of dusty old dead guys to lead your life by right.
> 
> Easter Bunny, Santa, god or gods whatever other character you  can come up with had nothing to do with the free association of two individuals in love.




not even going with love...
Financial need an carnal urges...


----------



## CanuckMA (May 14, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> Bob regardless of some of the negative or codescending tone to some of the posts back at you this has been a good thread with interesting and informational posts by many. I think you are saying that marriage according to the state is a civil thing and has no bearing on any particular church? Any one or anything for that matter can be married depending on the laws of that state? and churches are free to marry who they please. In my church my wife and I have a civil marriage possibly this year after I recieve a Temple Recomend we can then go to the temple and have a Temple marriage.
> 
> I find one thing interesting on the time line of traditional marriage some saying 9th or 12 century? For those who believe in the bible it started in Genisis how old is that? And God created a woman for man not sister brother or buddy? However that is for people who believe in the bible and God and there has always been free agency for a person to choose. Now you could argue there is no mention of a traditional marriage cerimony in Genisis however there are those that say as far as that book is written or understood? We don't know there wasn't? Regardless we all have the freedom to believe what we want with out persecution.
> 
> Thanks for your work and thoughts





According to our calendar, Genesis starts 5772 years ago. Abraham is around 4,000 years ago. The giving of Torah at Sinai is roughly 3,000 ago. There is no mention of marriage until Noah. Totah focuses more on the Patriarch, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They were all polygamists. It's pretty hard to make a cogent argument for one man and one woman only using the Bible as source material.


----------



## Omar B (May 14, 2012)

I said "love" because usually when I speak freely I tend to get whole heaping piles of hate email from the christians, jews and jedi alike.  I always religion was a way to bring people together, but all these rules about can only serve to divide.


----------



## seasoned (May 14, 2012)

Then there is the part that says "go ye out and multiply".


----------



## seasoned (May 14, 2012)

New International Version (©1984)
As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."
New Living Translation (©2007)
Now be fruitful and multiply, and repopulate the earth."
English Standard Version (©2001)
And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it."
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Be fertile, and increase in number. Spread over the earth, and increase."
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And you, be you fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
American King James Version
And you, be you fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
American Standard Version
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But increase you and multiply, and go upon the earth, and fill it. 
Darby Bible Translation
And ye, be fruitful and multiply: swarm on the earth, and multiply on it.
English Revised Version
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
Webster's Bible Translation
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply, bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
World English Bible
Be fruitful and multiply. Bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply in it."Young's Literal Translation
And ye, be fruitful and multiply, teem in the earth, and multiply in it.'


Takes two to tango...............  :rofl:


----------



## Omar B (May 14, 2012)

Assuming we take the bible as a valid source right.  Not everyone is a christian or thinks what happened in there had any bearing on our modern world.


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 14, 2012)

seasoned said:


> New International Version (&#169;1984)
> As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."
> New Living Translation (&#169;2007)
> Now be fruitful and multiply, and repopulate the earth."
> ...



Trust me. It CAN be done with more than two.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

seasoned said:


> New International Version (©1984)
> As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."
> New Living Translation (©2007)
> Now be fruitful and multiply, and repopulate the earth."
> ...




true enough, but there are enough non-Christians doing the Tango, it is getting rather crowded on this planet....


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

Omar B said:


> I said "love" because usually when I speak freely I tend to get whole heaping piles of hate email from the christians, jews and jedi alike.  I always religion was a way to bring people together, but all these rules about can only serve to divide.



In case you have not noticed: Throughout history 'Love' has always been more threatening than hate....


----------



## WC_lun (May 14, 2012)

So if I believed everything in the bible, which I don't, and was a devout Christian, which I am not, I'm doing something wrong if my wife and I do not have kids...which we don't by choice?  The foundation for a right and proper marriage is if a couple procriates?  Perhaps 3000 years ago that was valid.  Today that line of thinking is horse manure, in my opinion.


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> So if I believed everything in the bible, which I don't, and was a devout Christian, which I am not, I'm doing something wrong if my wife and I do not have kids...which we don't by choice?  The foundation for a right and proper marriage is if a couple procriates?  Perhaps 3000 years ago that was valid.  Today that line of thinking is horse manure, in my opinion.



Well, maybe not in the eyes of the Bible, Adolf the Unneccassary certainly frowned upon childless marriages...

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...08335659.16274.108038612554992&type=1&theater

some more traditional biblical marriages...


----------



## WC_lun (May 14, 2012)

I see all the evidence to contradict those who want to keep gays from marrying and it makes my head hurt.  I just don't see what's so complicated about it.  Maybe I'm the daft one.


----------



## Omar B (May 14, 2012)

In another stunning case of self-censure I'm just n gonna say "sure."

So exactly what does the bible have to say about tax issues of people sharing a domicile?  Does it mention health insurance, hospital visits, benefits under social welfare programs, tax free transfer of property, right to continue living on land bought by spouse, funeral and berevment leave.


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I see all the evidence to contradict those who want to keep gays from marrying and it makes my head hurt.  I just don't see what's so complicated about it.  Maybe I'm the daft one.





Yes, yes you are.

Come sit next to me on the daft bench and let's put our daft cones on.


----------



## granfire (May 14, 2012)

Omar B said:


> In another stunning case of self-censure I'm just n gonna say "sure."
> 
> So exactly what does the bible have to say about tax issues of people sharing a domicile?  Does it mention health insurance, hospital visits, benefits under social welfare programs, tax free transfer of property, right to continue living on land bought by spouse, funeral and berevment leave.



:lfao:

that's why those folks don't want uniform health care either

duh, now I get it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> Bob regardless of some of the negative or codescending tone to some of the posts back at you this has been a good thread with interesting and informational posts by many. I think you are saying that marriage according to the state is a civil thing and has no bearing on any particular church? Any one or anything for that matter can be married depending on the laws of that state? and churches are free to marry who they please. In my church my wife and I have a civil marriage possibly this year after I recieve a Temple Recomend we can then go to the temple and have a Temple marriage.
> 
> I find one thing interesting on the time line of traditional marriage some saying 9th or 12 century? For those who believe in the bible it started in Genisis how old is that? And God created a woman for man not sister brother or buddy? However that is for people who believe in the bible and God and there has always been free agency for a person to choose. Now you could argue there is no mention of a traditional marriage cerimony in Genisis however there are those that say as far as that book is written or understood? We don't know there wasn't? Regardless we all have the freedom to believe what we want with out persecution.
> 
> Thanks for your work and thoughts



Dan, that's how I see it.  Marriage as a civil ceremony should be for all.  As a religious ceremony, how the faiths decide.  That's how the Canadian law was structured, and how NY's is.  I don't really care who the Catholics, Jews or Christians will marry. That's their business.  But let Jack and John or Eve and Linda go see a justice of the peace and have the same everything that my wife and I have. It's about fairness to me.

As to history, every religion has a creation myth. Many are similar, but all are just that, myth. Science says things are older than most faiths. Genesis works this way. God creates Adam. Then Eve. Then evicts them. They have 2 kids. 1 kid kills the other kid. Cain then goes off and marries ...who? Genesis neer addresses where the other people came from. So...you can argue that either Eve later had an unnamed daughter who married Cain (her brother), or Cain did Eve....which makes for some interesting DNA. Fast forward to the Flood, where only Noah's family survives..which brings incest back into the picture.  Some rather 'interesting' beliefs there.

But I dance with Shivah, and have Kissed The Goddess, so who am I to say any of it is 'wrong'?

Catholics say "No Meat on Friday", choosing to redefine fish as not-meat.
But I'm still free to enjoy my cow-steak, and Catholics are free to eat fish.
As it should be.


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 14, 2012)

granfire said:


> Well, maybe not in the eyes of the Bible, Adolf the Unneccassary certainly frowned upon childless marriages...
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f....16274.108038612554992&amp;type=1&amp;theater
> 
> some more traditional biblical marriages...



Ha!  Beat you to the punch! Already posted it!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Omar B (May 14, 2012)

Now if this God person would just have the decency to show up and a answer just a few questions on a couple issues then I would gladly overlook all the crap that contradicts the other crap.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Now if this God person would just have the decency to show up and a answer just a few questions on a couple issues then I would gladly overlook all the crap that contradicts the other crap.



Some of us have had encounters with the divine. They are personal, but yes, questions were asked, answers received, and years spent pondering their meaning. And, yes, I am saying exactly what I just said, knowing full well some will call BS on it, and not caring at all.

If one expects 'God' to show up on their door step and stop in for tea, they;ll be waiting a while though.


----------



## Omar B (May 15, 2012)

Yes, personal experiences are strong and one can claim they have touched the divine.  But something that happened to only you and the only proof of it happening is your story then I can say anything from your crazy to you might be having a stroke.

Now if this event happened and was possibly recorded or witnessed/experienced than more than you then I may care.

Frankly I feel the same transcendent joy and religious extacy people talk about playing guitar.  I've played long enough that I do get the same endorphin and dopamine reaction people at prayer, having sex, doing drugs have, except I know it's completely biological.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 15, 2012)

Naw, mine was personal, non verifiable, and no witnesses. 

But I guarantee that there were no aliens involved, and I didnt get a probe.


----------



## Omar B (May 15, 2012)

Exactly.  An event singularly personal to you.  Sorta flies in the face of the scientific method.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 15, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Exactly.  An event singularly personal to you.  Sorta flies in the face of the scientific method.



But that's 'Faith'.


----------



## shinbushi (May 15, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> So if I believed everything in the bible, which I don't, and was a devout Christian, which I am not, I'm doing something wrong if my wife and I do not have kids...which we don't by choice?  The foundation for a right and proper marriage is if a couple procriates?  Perhaps 3000 years ago that was valid.  Today that line of thinking is horse manure, in my opinion.


 There is NO benefit for a man to marry unless he wants kids and kids always do better in a family environment.  For a man marriage = here take 1/2 my stuff.


----------



## granfire (May 15, 2012)

shinbushi said:


> There is NO benefit for a man to marry unless he wants kids and kids always do better in a family environment.  For a man marriage = here take 1/2 my stuff.



well, even the half off is a modern thing.
Until a rather short time ago he got everything, the woman (was chattel) and to keep his stuff.

And another thing: you will find that marriage is only important when the patriarch has to proof/know his offspring's lineage.
In female oriented cultures, there is a different kind of marriage, it usually means the woman picks whom she wants, but does not have to keep him, since does not really move in. (there is another business model, but that is eerily like the male dominated one....Someplace in India)

And of course the guy wants to be reasonably sure the get is his, so it becomes important that he is the first to plow the field....and adultery weights more for the woman than the man...


----------



## CanuckMA (May 15, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> So if I believed everything in the bible, which I don't, and was a devout Christian, which I am not, I'm doing something wrong if my wife and I do not have kids...which we don't by choice?  The foundation for a right and proper marriage is if a couple procriates?  Perhaps 3000 years ago that was valid.  Today that line of thinking is horse manure, in my opinion.



Even that is specious. Abraham's marriage to Sarah was childless until G-d intervened. Sarah was 90 at the time.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 15, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But I guarantee that there were no aliens involved, and I didnt get a probe.



You missed the best part. :ultracool


----------



## Omar B (May 15, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But that's 'Faith'.



Man, I know.  I just can't flip that switch, but I cannot have faith, I'm not wired that way.


----------



## WC_lun (May 15, 2012)

shinbushi said:


> There is NO benefit for a man to marry unless he wants kids and kids always do better in a family environment.  For a man marriage = here take 1/2 my stuff.



I feel really sorry for you if you truly believe this.  I have been divorced and know it to be a painful experience, but there is so much more to a successful marriage than kids.  Marriage does NOT = here take 1/2 my stuff unless you fail at your marriage.  Not all marriages fail, with or without kids.


----------



## Jenna (May 15, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Man, I know.  I just can't flip that switch, but I cannot have faith, I'm not wired that way.


It would mean disavowal of things you already know to be true perhaps?


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 15, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Man, I know.  I just can't flip that switch, but I cannot have faith, I'm not wired that way.



There was a time when I could. Over the years I found faith to be lacking.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Omar B (May 15, 2012)

Jenna said:


> It would mean disavowal of things you already know to be true perhaps?



Love the new pic


----------



## ballen0351 (May 15, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> There was a time when I could. Over the years I found faith to be lacking.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



So how do you deal with situations where there is no answer?  Ive seen and been involved in things that I and one time others with me cant find any scientific reason for.


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 15, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So how do you deal with situations where there is no answer?  Ive seen and been involved in things that I and one time others with me cant find any scientific reason for.



I don't manufacture one. And I have found that almost always, a naturalistic explanation can be found.

Then there are illusions as well. The mind is a powerful thing. Something doesn't even have time be THERE for us to see it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 15, 2012)

And honestly, I have yet to see something there was no answer for. You can't prove scientifically that there is no answer for something, because you can't prove a negative statement 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (May 15, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> And honestly, I have yet to see something there was no answer for. You can't prove scientifically that there is no answer for something, because you can't prove a negative statement
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Maybe but myself and 3 other officers with me can tell you a story none of us can explain


----------



## Omar B (May 15, 2012)

3 people who can't explain something hardly makes something devine.  Just perplexing.

This lady on my street had these two mentally handicapped kids and if they ever got out the front door they could never find their way back into the house.  Not because the door dissapeared, or moved, they from their standpoint could not crack the case of the missing front door.  Can't tell you how many times I had to walk 1 or both of these two out of my yard and back to their own yard repeatedly till I got the idea and left them directly at the door.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 15, 2012)

4 swat officers and 2 handicap kids...mmm yes i see the similarities 




Omar B said:


> 3 people who can't explain something hardly makes something devine.  Just perplexing.
> 
> This lady on my street had these two mentally handicapped kids and if they ever got out the front door they could never find their way back into the house.  Not because the door dissapeared, or moved, they from their standpoint could not crack the case of the missing front door.  Can't tell you how many times I had to walk 1 or both of these two out of my yard and back to their own yard repeatedly till I got the idea and left them directly at the door.


----------



## Omar B (May 15, 2012)

I am pointing out that we understand what we are able to.  I look on dirt and see dirt, my dad's a metallurgist, he can tell you what it's made of in what ratios and even it's value on the open market ... but then I'm not a scientist.

My mother and step-dad are economists.  I remember years ago when they were both talking to my aunt (who had become a mortgage banker) admonishing here about loan piolicies and how the bottom of the market was gonna fall out.  They were right years ago.

If I were to draw a hemiola on the blackboard in front of you and ask you what it is, could you identify it?  I bet you can't because you are not a musician who has a deep knowledge of music theory.  Again, we understand what we can within our own limitations.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 15, 2012)

True but we all know how to open a door and we all have pretty good hearing.  You may have never experienced something unexplainable
But i have and you can choose to discount it and compare it to two handicap kids that cant find a door it makea it no less true.



Omar B said:


> I am pointing out that we understand what we are able to.  I look on dirt and see dirt, my dad's a metallurgist, he can tell you what it's made of in what ratios and even it's value on the open market ... but then I'm not a scientist.
> 
> My mother and step-dad are economists.  I remember years ago when they were both talking to my aunt (who had become a mortgage banker) admonishing here about loan piolicies and how the bottom of the market was gonna fall out.  They were right years ago.
> 
> If I were to draw a hemiola on the blackboard in front of you and ask you what it is, could you identify it?  I bet you can't because you are not a musician who has a deep knowledge of music theory.  Again, we understand what we can within our own limitations.


----------



## Omar B (May 15, 2012)

No I don't doubt that you have experienced something ... which you have yet to hip any of us to (unless I don't wanna know).  But it doesnt change the fact that our knowledge shades our understanding and experience of the worlds around us.  Northern lights are magic to some, a perfectly normal phenomena to others, depending on knowledge.  I don't know why it takes 3 posts to explain it, maybe it was Josh's post before mine and the retard story that throws you off.


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 15, 2012)

I don't want to demean you, john, and I sincerely hope you are not taking my posts as such. So do please understand that when I post my replies, it is out of respectful dissent, not dismissive derision.

There are things that happen in our world that surpass our understanding all the time. It is in fact the very reason science came about in the first place.  Both science and faith are our attempts to understand those things and encapsulate our understanding of those things into a greater picture of the universe. 

Where science and faith break from each other, sharply are in these key areas:

1) Science is never satisfied with its own findings. The process of science is continually refining itself, willing to throw out even the most basic and fundamental assumptions in favor of prevalent observations.

2) Science is not ever satisfied with its current ability to observe the natural world. This is the reason for telescopes, microscopes, spectrometers, chromatographs, and other tools that are used in the pursuit of more accurate and comprehensive observation of the universe.

3) Science, most vehemently, does NOT provide answers. Science is and only ever will be a method of asking questions, testing assumptions, collecting observations, and deriving implications of those observations.

4) The basic method of science is an attempt to DISPROVE assumptions. Science doesn't prove anything with a sense of finality; all scientific conclusions are contingent upon their agreement with further observation. 

In all these respects, science is the opposite of faith. This is why the naturalistic, scientific approach is ever at odds with the supernaturalistic, faith-based approach. In other words, science will never be good enough for the pastor, and faith will never be good enough for the scientist.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (May 15, 2012)

Omar B said:


> No I don't doubt that you have experienced something ... which you have yet to hip any of us to (unless I don't wanna know).


Just kind of a long story is all.


> But it doesnt change the fact that our knowledge shades our understanding and experience of the worlds around us.  Northern lights are magic to some, a perfectly normal phenomena to others, depending on knowledge.  I don't know why it takes 3 posts to explain it, maybe it was Josh's post before mine and the retard story that throws you off.


Its not throwing me off I understand your point.  I just disagree.  There are things that happen that are not of this world.  If you have never had anything like that happen its hard to believe and I never did either until it happened to me


----------



## billc (May 15, 2012)

1)unless it's global warming
2)unless those instruments dispute global warming
3)except for the theory of man made global warming
4)unless it involves global warming in which case evidence will be destroyed, scientists with contrary theories will be smeared and have their careers put at risk, and won't get tenure or research grants...

Then we can talk about archeology fueds, and other scientific disputes that involve fossil fuels vs. "green" energy...


----------



## ballen0351 (May 15, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> I don't want to demean you, john, and I sincerely hope you are not taking my posts as such. So do please understand that when I post my replies, it is out of respectful dissent, not dismissive derision.
> 
> There are things that happen in our world that surpass our understanding all the time. It is in fact the very reason science came about in the first place.  Both science and faith are our attempts to understand those things and encapsulate our understanding of those things into a greater picture of the universe.
> 
> ...


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 15, 2012)

billcihak said:


> 1)unless it's global warming
> 2)unless those instruments dispute global warming
> 3)except for the theory of man made global warming
> 4)unless it involves global warming in which case evidence will be destroyed, scientists with contrary theories will be smeared and have their careers put at risk, and won't get tenure or research grants...
> ...



You're talking about politics getting in the way of science, not science itself. Compare it to political getting in the way of practicing one's faith or religion appropriately, and you might see the difference. And I have been a chaplain assistant for 12 years. I know for a FACT that it happens.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jenna (May 16, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> And honestly, I have yet to see something there was no answer for.


..*the reason you are here Josh*?  You have the scientific answer for this that is not caught in metaphysics or philosophy?


----------



## Jenna (May 16, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Man, I know.  I just can't flip that switch, but I cannot have faith, I'm not wired that way.



no Omar you have not replied to the question!!! and anyways it is only a pic of how God made me haha  I would like to ask please what it might take Omar for you to flip the switch? Nothing at all?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 16, 2012)

Jenna said:


> ..*the reason you are here Josh*?  You have the scientific answer for this that is not caught in metaphysics or philosophy?



I'm here because the Universe has a sense of humor, and more voices were needed to argue the things I argue, and 3 small cats needed someone to feed them.  Beyond that, it's a mystery.


----------



## Jenna (May 16, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm here because the Universe has a sense of humor, and more voices were needed to argue the things I argue, and 3 small cats needed someone to feed them.  Beyond that, it's a mystery.



Perhaps The Universe (which you are deeming an intelligence?) required your presence here Bob to argue just that very point.. that it was The Universe who put you here. So your job is done  Please keep on your guard for humorous lightning bolts and other nature things now then!!   Perhaps three small cats would fend ok for their own food if you were not here?  There is a reason you are here Bob perhaps it is not three small cats.  Perhaps it is, I do not know.  There are quite a few kitties on MT here we need more looking after to stop us all scratching each others eyes out I think!


----------



## Omar B (May 16, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Just kind of a long story is all.
> 
> Its not throwing me off I understand your point.  I just disagree.*  There are things that happen that are not of this world. * If you have never had anything like that happen its hard to believe and I never did either until it happened to me



Such as?  What happened to you that's not of this earth, how long is it gonna take for you to tell this story?  You and your 3 buddies didn't get probed did you?  Quite mentioning the unexplained incident that the 3 of you can't explain so obliquely, just tell it.

Things happen that are not of this world you said.  I accept that in the sense that the universe is a big place and things take place outside of earth.  I know you have some veild spiritual meaning to it, but everything that cannot explained by you or I is not automatically god, gods, ghosts, easter bunnies or Superman.


----------



## Omar B (May 16, 2012)

Jenna said:


> no Omar you have not replied to the question!!! and anyways it is only a pic of how God made me haha  I would like to ask please what it might take Omar for you to flip the switch? Nothing at all?



Quit hitting on me in the thread, don't you know that makes Jesus cry.  No really, that is one damn weepy Mexican.

What could make me flip the switch?  Reality suddenly warping and things acting out off their nature.  A rock being heavy and light at the same time, water turning into wine, etc.   Or liuke in Hitchhiker's Guide, let the old bugger present himself.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 16, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Such as?  What happened to you that's not of this earth, how long is it gonna take for you to tell this story?  You and your 3 buddies didn't get probed did you?  Quite mentioning the unexplained incident that the 3 of you can't explain so obliquely, just tell it.
> 
> Things happen that are not of this world you said.  I accept that in the sense that the universe is a big place and things take place outside of earth.  I know you have some veild spiritual meaning to it, but everything that cannot explained by you or I is not automatically god, gods, ghosts, easter bunnies or Superman.


ok


----------

