TimeChaser

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]That being said, I fully support equal rights for all human beings. Blacks, women, gays, etc. I would always answer this kind of survey question with "Love is love," but Retribution brings up a great point that married couples have benefits unavailable to the unmarried [B](are these benefits not available for people involved in civil unions?[/B]), which is unfair to people who are legally unable to become married. [B] This is not the 1800s, this is not 1920 or 1960. We should be above rights exclusions.[/B] [/FONT][/QUOTE] Just to clarify the civil unions bit. The rights, or at least some of them, are provided, but what people desire is that full recognition of "We are married." The people who fight for gay marriage rights are saying that there shouldn't have to be one form of marriage for everyone else, and then a special exception below marriage for them. I also agree with your second point. Society does not exist inside a static bubble, it is always advancing and changing with the times. We don't live in the Revolutionary period, or the Middle Ages, or Biblical times anymore. The founders of the country set the framework that guarantees out freedom, a framework that is also allowed to expand with the times. [quote name='Calypso'].................and, excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the U.S. founded under "Christianity"?[/quote] Indi has already tackled this in her response, but I'd like to add something else that I mentioned much earlier in the thread that is proof that the country was not founded on any one single religion. This an an extract from the American treaty with Tripoli, drafted under George Washington in 1796 and signed by John Adams in 1797: [I]As the government of the United States of America is not, in any way, founded on the Christian religion...[/I]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]The ability to procreate is a moot point -- what of infertile couples? Should they be denied the ability to marry, simply based on this [arbitrary/irrational] criterion?[/font][/QUOTE] Or their ability/right to have sex at all, given that they can't fulfill it's primary (and only legitimate) goal, according to Crimson Spider. Those are some good points, Retribution. Well made.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] [B]The biggest reason to bring a relationship into a sexual relationship that isn't ordered toward procreation is because it fulfills the emotional pride. If the relationship is ordered toward procreation, then the pleasure that sex brings also orders towards procreation...[/B] [B].. it is unfortunately a growing trend in society to disregard the reproductive aspect[/B], and go just for pleasure and all of it's arbitrary definitions towards pride. Though so many have chosen to idolize the homosexual, [B]you must not forget that polygamy, pedophilia, rape, and prostitution are also within my crosshairs. It just happens that those haven't become socially acceptable, while homosexuality has...[/B] [B]If you have some other aspect of sex that is somehow justified by an intimate relationship, please do explain.[/B] [B] I also ask another question: Why no marriage instead of marriage? If you are in a relationship that is ordered toward procreation and isn't some pride-fulfilling lust fest, then why not get married?[/B] [B]Personally I think that it is a bad thing that we have unshackled ourselves from this notion, since it can be logically linked to a variety of problems.[/B] [B]I am a little dissappointed in you, Timechaser. I expected someone who "lives in the age of reason" to not attach metaphysical, abstract, undefined, gushy-spiritual feelings towards the nature of reproductive acts...[/B][/QUOTE] 1) It strengthens the emotional connection between two people in love. And you can't expect people to accept the idea that they should go back to sex-as-means-of-procreation-only. What about everyone's rights to live their life the way they chose? Not everyone wants to get married, and not everyone wants to have kids. You can't expect women to give up their rights to their own bodies and just go back to being baby factories simply because that's what our biology is designed for. We are so far beyond mere biology now. 2) I find this argument old, tiring, and lame. Homosexuality is not in any way related to polygamy, pedophilia, rape, etc. When a gay couple wants to get married, they are just that, [I]a couple[/I], a unit of two. Two people who love and have a commitment toward each other the same as any heterosexual couple. 3) I have already explained how sex is connected to our emotions for another person. While we may have come from a simple biological urge to mate and breed, humanity has developed emotionally in ways that transcend that. 4) See what I said in #1, and also: gay couples cannot get married, obviously. And they are fighting for the right to so, also obviously. 5) I have no problem admitting that society does have problems related to sex, but it's hardly a problem shared by the entire population. And going back to a procreation-only system is not the right answer, nor is it even plausible to believe that would solve everything. 6) I am also a romantic, and for the reasons I have stated, I don't take a cold, clinical approach to love and sex.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You can look at genetic similarities between similar looking specie, and say that they had a common ancestor that shared this gene because genes are inherited. Or, you could say that they have a common designer that used the same blueprint to create the similar looking structure because a designer will construct similar objects with similar elements.[/QUOTE] In the century and a half since Darwin first came out with the discovery of evolution, it could have been overturned many times by each new discovery science made. But each discovery reinforced it and added to it, giving us the understand about genetic mechanisms Darwin had no knowledge about. We share something like 98% or more of our genetic code with chimps. We share high amounts of genetic code with other species. Life is more interconnected than we ever thought before. The evidence points over and over again to evolution. There has been more solid, verifiable evidence for evolution than Intelligent Design, which has not come up with any hard evidence that science has not refuted. All it does is make claims than cannot be backed up by data.

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]NO WAY!!! :animeangr The only thing that's close to cross-dressing is guys wearing pink shirts..........then that's hot. Well only on one guy I've seen. :catgirl:But as far as them cross-dressing, thumbs down.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] You've never seen Eddie Izzard, have you? :animesmil Sorry, I digress. Carry on.

[quote name='outlawstar69']Now what I would like to see, would be an attempt to carry out an experiment, based on the Creationism argument. Design a complex, but basic in function machine, that is able to reproduce itself using it's surrounding materials. The blueprints and the code, can vary from one generation to the next; an element of randomness thrown in there for the basic mutation factor - and I propose that we ship it off to a planet similar to our own, with varying resources to pursue. If all goes well, they should be able to adapt and eventually vary wildly from one variation to the next. True, it might take a long time to see results... but I don't see anyone solving the argument here on Earth anytime soon. Besides, every thousand years or so, we can have fun by seeing what they do, when we send select messages about their origin to select members, to tell everyone else.[/QUOTE] That would be an interesting experiment. But even that falls short of proving a creationist argument. They are talking about a being so powerful as to not only design and construct life, but also everything in the universe: stars, planets, galaxies, all other stellar phenomenon, energies, and to be able to fine tune all these things to function together within a set parameter of laws. We can't forget about all of that out there. Our little Earth isn't the whole of the argument. In this case, I don't think we'll ever be able to run a sufficient experiment. That is, unless we are still around billions of years from now and have ourselves evolved into omniscient beings of infinite power. And if you believe "the Designer" made everything the way it is static and unchangeable, then we don't even have the possibility of evolving that far. Making life is one thing. Making an entire universe is another prospect altogether.

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Yes, but they weren't gay in the first place, though. And in the 40's and 50's they had the same thing without television. I forget the name of them, but they went against wearing long dresses and went to wearing stuff that show a little too much skin. We were born with the need to love the opposite sex, not the same sex. I think the love between a gay couple is something completely different than love between a man and a woman. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] This comes back to the idea of whether being gay is a choice, or is it the way some people are born. I believe some people are born that way. If you look in nature, there are examples of homosexual behavior in animals, the most famous example of which being two male penguins in a zoo forming a pair-bond. The people running the zoo took an extra egg from one female penguin (since penguins can only care for one offspring at a time, the chick would have died eventually), and gave it to the male pair. These two males took care of the egg and raised the chick together. Humans are animals too, just ones with a higher degree of intelligence and more complex social structures. Therefore, if two animals can exhibit homosexual behavior - and being animals, it obviously wasn't something they chose - then why not two people of the same gender?

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Evolution??? I don't think so. Me don't believe in "evolution." It's kinda dumb when you think about it.:animeswea Anyways, I don't think we have evolved, I think the need for sexual pleasure was built into us[I] for[/I] procreation. The world is changing because the thoughts of people have changed because of television. And the Devil is influencing entertainment, that's bringing the relegious view into the picture. You're right that love doesn't need marriage to be valid, but are you saying that someone should not get married although it makes sense because they love each other so much? I mean, if they love each other, why [I]not[/I] get married?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] The fight for womens' rights and birth control started long before TV, and remember back in the 40s and 50s, TV wasn't filled with racy programs like it is today. People have the right now to enjoy sex in their intimate relationships without wanting to procreate. Like I said before, we've unshackled ourselves from the notion that it is only a biological means to an end. And your last statement brings us right back to the subject of this thread: a same-sex couple CAN'T get married, even though they are in love. This is applying a double standard: "If you love each other, get married, but you can't if you're gay, even though you're in love."

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Yes, it is. But most of the time, when people have sex, it's just for the pleasure, not for love. When someone gets married it's most of the time(hopefully) because they love each other. I'm not talking about a Vegas marriage, a marriage that they spent time on, a marriage in which they spent months engaged. So, it kinda matches up, when a married couple has sex they do it because they love each other and so they can procreate! Isn't it awesome the way some things work??:catgirl:[/COLOR][/QUOTE] But it's about more than just the pleasure when it's in an intimate relationship. It is combined with that emotional aspect of your love for the other person and their love for you, which raises it up beyond the level of lust or just satisfying an urge. And that love doesn't have to absolutely [I]need[/I] marriage to be valid. We're more complex than other animals in our emotions and intellects, we have evolved in ways that set us apart from them. We have gone beyond the simple in-built need to procreate.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']That is the bitter sting of reality. Would it be better if science could operate without either conclusion? The answer is yes, yes it would. It is indeed, better for the operation of science to be completely blind to the amount of givens, showing no favor for either. That is the best kind of science: Unbiased.[/QUOTE] Science doesn't claim to know everything, but what they do know is based on physical evidence, constant experimentation, and logical inference based on the data. The thing is, when the data that comes in piles up and points more and more to the validity of something, that evidence should not be ignored. Science can't be blind to givens in these cases.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']If everyone was ordered more towards monogamy and procreation instead of entertainment, the spread of STD's would plummet, the prostitution and human trade industries (all their glorious selves) would cease functioning, the pornographic industry would dwindle, and thus women would get more respect. The cheating issues and bitter divorces founded off of late night flings would dwindle, abortions would drop in number... those are the obvious effects I can come off of the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty of other positive effects that would occur.[/QUOTE] Sex in a monogamous relationship is also used to express love, not just for procreation. And the rest of your argument doesn't really hold up, because it's also a matter of people's own personalities and foibles. We're not all like that just because sex is pleasurable. Some of us want to hold off from sex until we are with a person we truly love. I have no desire to go out and run wild merely because I believe sex is not only for procreation. I believe it's a noble expression of deep love that isn't something to be trivial about as so many people are, sadly.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] I am not ignoring that it is used as a means to express love. In fact, I have even elaborated that a loving relationship fulfills the existential support and status condition towards sexual appeal. The thing is, so can flowers, or a dinner, or tickets to the next Yankees game. To bring things into a sexual relationship remains a choice of the persons involved, and this cannot be done without establishing various aspects of sex appeal. In particular, homosexuality ignores the purpose for sex as procreation, and just does it for entertainment or pleasure. I established the given that sex was pleasurable, and stated that people's obsession over the pleasure of sex was a big problem in the first post of this thread. What I am arguing for is that sex should be ordered to and largely reserved for procreation (even in it's pleasure).[/QUOTE] I prefer to think of it in nobler terms than that. I find that view just too clinical. And anyone can ignore the procreative aspect of sex and just do it because it is an expression of their love for someone. And it's hardly analogous to giving someone a flower or taking them out to a nice dinner, it's on a different level than those things. And you will never get everyone to agree to go back to the old view that sex should only be for procreation.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']So there was no experiment to prove this idea. It is just some cultured "Well, this fits into my theory" feel good idea that requires the initial given of evolution being true to ever stand as evidence, unable to verify it's conclusions with any scientific experiment. It is not scientific at all.[/QUOTE] I was re-watching a show about evolution, and they illustrated this point. A simple organism has a patch of light-sensitive cells. Over time, this patch of cells can form into a depression, or pit eye, that allows the organism to not only sense light, but gives it directionality, that is they can determine where the light is coming from and orient themselves toward it. The scientist in the program did this using a board with holes cut in it, starting with a flat piece of plastic and moving steadily up to a spherical shape. Eventually, that pit eye closes over to become an eyeball. The fluid in the eye can change and harden over time to become a lens, so you not only have light directionality, but the ability to focus and sharpen images.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Irrelevant. What matters is what the cultures are now, not what they were.[/QUOTE] Ever hear the phrase, "If we forget history, we're doomed to repeat it"? Having a historical understanding of cultures is very important. It may only help us a little sometimes, but it is important not to dismiss history entirely.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Human Rights do, but the [I]granting and admission[/I] of said rights depends on those in power. In the case of Islam, there are no concessions made because the religion [I]is[/I] the government, and there is no separation. When one is justified by one's beliefs, and one holds the power, one is not likely to listen to reason if said reason will not benefit the one.[/FONT][/QUOTE] Yeah, and that is a major problem. But that doesn't also give license to us to take the most extreme solution to solve the conflict. We have to work for change in whatever way we can, instead of just saying, "Well, they'll never change, so to protect ourselves, let's go after them and kill them all (or if not all, then most)."

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Good choice. I'll be voting against the proposition that won't protect marriages -- all marriages. ;) Edit: Had to rephrase that. It made me sound like I was voting for the proposition to ban same-sex marriage, heh.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] I was confused at first, but I got what you meant. The wink helped. :animesmil

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]And so we have black bears, brown bears, polar bears, Asiatic bears, and pandas, but what I see here is that these are all [I]bears[/I]. I am not clear on the method in which the bear becomes the walrus (both are pinnipeds and closely related) or in which the walrus becomes the bear....or how either originated from a common ancestor. I am confused in [I]how [/I]the information is altered. Not the 'if'. In less words, I do not have a problem with genetic alteration [I]or[/I] mutation. What I have a problem with is [I]addition[/I]. If I am to assume that a genetic mutation can be the addition of a complete new piece of information that dictates fur be grown instead of skin or legs instead of flippers [I]and[/I] is beneficial, then I must also assume that Down Syndrome is possibly the next step in human evolution. (At present, it seems that that possibility is doubtful, since the presence of the extra material in the 21st chromosome is currently understood to be detrimental to normal function; but I'm not basing any refute on that doubt. I merely bring it up as the only current example of genetic addition-mutation with which I am familiar.)[/FONT][/QUOTE] With the case of the bears, that is one species, like you said. Each particular bear group (or genus, I suppose) is different from the others because it has adapted to cope with it's environment. Some are so separate though (ex: panda and polar) that they are probably not genetically viable to produce healthy offspring. I don't know. To answer your confusion, all I can do is repeat what I already said about a species splitting off into two groups and each one becoming isolated from the other. Each one changes and adapts to it's environment in separate ways over time until they are no longer the same as they were before. I believe you are under the mistaken impression that mutation is an addition, when it is actually just a change in the genetic code; DNA gets rearranged in the wrong way, causing a mutation. Something you may not know: scientists have discovered what they call "toolkit genes" in our genetic code ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology#The_developmental-genetic_toolkit"]LINK[/URL]). These toolkit genes tell the DNA how to arrange itself to the specific body plan of a species. The interesting thing is, this exact same toolkit is found in lots of seemingly unrelated lifeforms. Many embryos start out very similar, but the toolkit tells each embryo how to grow and develop, which determines whether it becomes a human, or an elephant, or a fly, etc. So, we all come from the same basic ingredients, it's just that each recipe is written differently as we develop from a cluster of cells into a fully formed being. They have shown toolkit genes in action when studying the development of fruit flies. Sometimes DNA will be sequenced wrong, leading to a mutation. Some mutations have no advantages at all, like limbs in place of antennae. But others, like an extra pair of wings, could provide an advantage over other flies, and that change will get passed along to succeeding generations. So therefore, mutation is only an alteration in the basic code, not an addition to it. EDIT: And to address how they're so sure Tiktaalik is what it is, it has features of both fish and amphibians. It has a fish tail and fins, but the flat head and top-set eyes of an amphibian. Plus the bones of it's front fins are starting to form into a foot. It was able to use it's front fins as primitive feet to pull itself out of the water. I included the link in the previous post because the article describes all of the transitional features the animal possessed. It is a much clearer example of a transition form between fish and amphibian than has ever previously been found.

[quote name='Esther'][SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Just thought I'd pop in and say this: [B][I][U]Today, October 10th, 2008, same-sex marriage was legalized in the state of Connecticut. [/U][/I][/B] California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are now amongst the 3 states to give same-sex couples their rights.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE] I read about that this morning. Looks like we'll have more battles to come. Personally I agree with the decision. There is a "marriage protection" amendment on the ballot here in Florida, too. I plan on voting against it.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial] Given your heretofore sound arguments, I'm rather surprised you decided to bring up the fossil record. It is my understanding that most scientists who support Evolution no longer look to the fossil record for evidence because of the sheer number of discrepancies and inconsistencies within it. But I'd like to set that aside, because you kind of ignored my earlier comment regarding genetics. What I'd like you to explain for me is how macroevolution functions, and how it is testable. Microevolution is quite obviously undeniable; I mean, how else could species survive sweeping changes in their environment? What I am unclear on is how the jump occurs genetically that causes one species to become another. The concept to me implies a data gain, and I was under the impression that reproduction involved a data [I]loss[/I].[/FONT][/QUOTE] Where does your understanding come from though, if I might ask? I ask, simply because many people who find evolution and science threatening tend to misrepresent what scientists have actually said, either by intentional obfuscation or taking statements out of context. I don't question you, but I question what your source of information is. I use the fossil record, because at times it has produced amazing results that do show evolution in action. The most recent example that is clearest in my mind is of Tiktaalik ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktalik"]LINK[/URL]). It was discovered in 2004 and is an important link between fish and the development of amphibians. Sadly, I'm no genetic expert, so I can only go by what I have seen on science programs and read in books. It isn't merely genetic mutations that lead one species to change into another, it has a lot to do with the environment. A mutation occurs in a population, and if that mutation creates a new feature in the animal that gives it an advantage, then it will do better and pass that new mutation on to it's offspring. Here's where the environment comes in: remember that the Earth is never static. When continents drift, landmasses pull apart, two groups of the same species can become isolated from each other. Each group could then go on to develop their own adaptations to their new environments, and over time they have become so dissimilar that they are no longer biologically compatible. That is how (at least in one way) one species can change into two.

[URL="http://www.scifi.com/sanctuary/home.html"][U]Sanctuary[/U][/URL] is a new series that premiered on SciFi Channel on Oct. 3. The show revolves around a small cast of characters: Dr. Helen Magnus, an immortal woman who runs the Sanctuary, a refuge where she studies bizarre creatures, protecting the benign ones and securing the dangerous ones. Dr. Will Zimmerman, a young forensic psychiatrist recruited by Magnus. Despite a traumatic even in his past involving the death of his mother at the hands of a monster, he remains skeptical of the strange new world he finds himself working in. Ashley Magnus, Helen's daughter. She is very headstrong and reckless with a violent streak. Henry Foss, one of Helen's employees and self-describe geek. He runs the Sanctuary's defense systems and designs weapons. Bigfoot, Helen's manservant. She rescued him and nursed him back to health, and he developed a loyalty to her. John Druitt, Helen's former fiance and nemesis. Originally from the far future, he has the power to teleport himself over vast distances and times, but this is destroying his body and mind. He is also Jack the Ripper. Sanctuary was an originally a series of webisodes. Their popularity led SciFi to pick them up as a full series, with the original webisodes being rewritten and reshot for TV. The series is also noted for its heavy use of green-screen for most sets and backgrounds. If anyone else is watching the show, we can discuss it here. :animesmil

[quote name='Crimson Spider']I remember that specific explanation. That was Richard Dawkin's explanation for the origin of the eye. BTW, experiment proving this?[/QUOTE] It wasn't just Dawkins' explanation. It is the view among all scientists that that is how eyes evolved. And the proof is in the fossil record. We can see the differences in eye structure as you go up through the fossils.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You are exactly right. I have come to the conclusion that we are all pathological in that manner. We all lust and try to fulfill our most vane opinions on the matter. If your definition of "in love" is the presence of this lustful appeal, then yes, I am arguing against lustful appeal. I ask a question: Why is it that someone would favor sex in a relationship where it has no operation? Why not have a better but non-sexual relationship with your fellow gender, and have a sexual relationship with the opposite gender? The answers were that sex was for vanity, and not operation. The relationship wasn't ordered toward procreation, but for entertainment. Other appeal =/= sex appeal. Sex appeal is sex appeal.[/QUOTE] You continue to dismiss the assertion that sex can be used as an intimate means to express deep love between two people because it is pleasurable, and not strictly for the purpose of breeding. If sex weren't pleasurable, then perhaps your argument might mean something. You seem to be coming from a rather puritan (if one can use the word without implying insult) notion that sex in ONLY for procreation.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Evidence of a designer is open to interpretation.[/QUOTE] The way I have heard Intelligent Design proposed, the mere fact that we have eyes, a complex organ, is evidence for a designer's existence (to name one example). All they do is say "The eye is too complex," and leave it at that. There is no study undertaken to find out how the eye might have come about. To illustrate my example, I remember clearly what was said about this in a TV program on evolution. The ancient forerunner to the eye was simply a light sensitive depression, a pit eye as it's called. It was shown how over time, a pit eye can change step by step into other forms of eyes, until it it reaches the eyeball we have today. This was something science, working within the framework of evolution, did. Nobody in the Intelligent Design field ever bothered to consider this.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Have I not been against that concept of the "romantic" idealism throughout this entire thread? The romantic idealism is based on the pathological and existential fulfilling side of sex, and this is what so many people confuse for love. In fact, that is the only relationship between love and sex. Otherwise they exist independently of each other. Now, if you want me to define what the sexual attraction is (something I have only hinted towards, and not strictly defined), it IS a pathological appeal, although it is one we are more than glad to accept as a necessity. There are two factors to this strictly sexual appeal, and both of them are vanity based. #1: The obsession over traits. This is what I hinted to in my first post, which I will quote That last sentence I included because it has caused some confusion for Darren, and in retrospect I should have defined things a little better. This expansion of vanity includes the position held by a particular individual, such as someone who is rich, someone who is strong, someone who is foreign, someone who is fast, someone who smokes, and the like. These are also an exercise in vanity. BTW, your example of being "in love" is already assuming a sexual relationship between the two. You can have a sexual relationship before the actual intercourse, though that time frame usually isn't very long.[/QUOTE] Um... I don't get this argument at all anymore. We're all human beings, and we all fall in love (or can have the capacity to). Analyzing sex psychologically doesn't really make sense the way I'm reading this, because then that means everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is influenced by vanity and the pathology of sex. You're saying we're all pathological in that way. And you don't have to assume a preexisting sexual relationship between two people who are in love. Attraction is based on more than sex appeal.

[B]In response to Crimson Spider:[/B] Too much to copy in a reply, so I'll just start fresh. Science deals with what we can see and measure in nature, from the infinitely large to the atomically small. No matter how hard you look outside (space) or inside (atoms and particles), you do not find any clear evidence for a designer. That is why the idea of a designer is "supernatural" in that it is beyond the natural and in the realm of what science cannot touch. Then you're getting into theology.