CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


No problem.

A quick summary... even JM thinks Gays should be allowed to get married. I think BK is the only hold out.
So we hijacked the thread to talk about all forms of possible marriage.

I think this thread is a great example that more and more people are begining to accept the idea of gay marriage

I have been in favor of gay civil unions for a decade or more? At least I have always been in favor of it when we have discussed it on apolyton. I admit that marriage I was a bit more hesitant about, but decided to that it would be best also a few years ago.

JM

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I remember statistics. I agree, I just remember them, I don't have links/cites handy. But still, that is a lot better than nothing.

JM

Uhhh.... I've seen papers as well, and I don't have the links handy either. So my nothing is as good as your nothing...

Again... are you willing to admit that the study of the mind is an exact science? It isn't, and you know it.
There are no absolutes here, and I'm at least open minded to the multiple opinions, while you are totally only in agreement with things that match your perception.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
So you are saying that there is no evidence. That all our observations are garbage.

No I am not, I am saying that our observations are not good enough for us to claim to have the final theory and to make laws assuming it is. I am saying there are things that are much more conclusively prooven but are not made into policy. And I say that is highly illogical.

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Logic without evidence is just intellectual masturbation. Completely worthless.

I agree with you on that.

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Well, fine, but understand that I am going to ignore everything you say. Until such time as you provide evidence.

Agreed, that is why we should ignore all forms of religion.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by SpencerH
My opposition to this arbitrary ruling by 5 judges is that I believe it will harm, not help, gay rights. There's gonna be a backlash. Unlike de-segregation which was at least in principal supported by the non-segregationist states, there is no state in this country where gay marriage has not been soundly defeated in referendum by overwhelming majorities. What will it mean for gay rights if the people of California vote to amend their constitution?

Point taken Spencer - and it is a gamble. However, California will not be the first state - Massachusetts holds that position.

I concur, there will be a backlash - But I feel that Californians will make the right decision (if it comes to a constitutional amendment in November).

So, in the end I strongly feel that this will help the fight for equal rights within this great country of ours.

As Goes California, So Goes the Rest of the Nation

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus

I mean heck God hasn't (conclusively) been disproven or proven to exist and that is normaly a pretty damn big variable in the way you set up your society and world view

In fact, there hasn't been one bit of evidence for or against God's existence. Not even close to conclusively.

That being said, you still should go with the current evidence. That is how science is done, not by ignoring it.

JM
(I haven't even heard of or been able to come up with an experiment that would give evidence for or against God's existence.)

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I remember statistics. I agree, I just remember them, I don't have links/cites handy. But still, that is a lot better than nothing.

JM

I remember reading some strong statistical evidence that Caucasians are more intelligent thatn those of Afican descent.


Should we ban interacial marriage as a result?



Off course you are not going to accept this since you will point out the studies are flawed and should not be used as a basis for law, in much a similar way I pointed out your studies are flawed

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread.

Yes, I had the same problem earlier.

[Wezil]

I've yet to see a study one way or the other. If Jon can demand one I think he should be held to the same standard.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Basically, you have ignored my examples.

You have not offered a single example in our discussion. You have not offered a single example relevent to our discussion. You don't even know what we're talking about seemingly, and half the time can't even keep it straight whether you're talking to me, or to Ming.

So either you think I am making stuff up/misremembering the papers I have read.

I think you're completely and utterly confused about what it is I said.

I said that it's bull**** when you claimed an absolute reality of how all incestuous relationships will be unhealthy. You can't even understand that, even though all it takes is about 6th grade reading comprehension.

Or you and Ming are thinking that this is some sort of "No, you are wrong and I am right " match.

No Jon. I've specifically responded to everything you've said to me. You have failed to address anything I have said. The only thing you even quoted you then went on to talk about something completely different.

"Have you even read my posts?"
"Please refer to majority opinion among experts?"
"I am not a psychologist. Talk to some of them, please."

And now you are here pretending like it's me just saying, "No, I'm right and you're wrong". That's all you've done. The hilarious thing is you still don't understand what I've said. You are completely and utterly clueless.

But if you want to address what I've said...

You haven't addressed the cultural taboo issue that I raised.

You haven't addressed the health of relationships between siblings who were unaware of their relation.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
No I am not, I am saying that our observations are not good enough for us to claim to have the final theory and to make laws assuming it is. I am saying there are things that are much more conclusively prooven but are not made into policy. And I say that is highly illogical.

Our current laws should be based on our current observations. I am not saying we can't ever change them. If it comes out that everyone should marry their sister if they are genetically compatible, hey, the laws can change.

I agree with you on that.

Agreed, that is why we should ignore all forms of religion.

You should ignore what other's religion says about science, I agree. Religion is based on personal experience or assumptions, as such it is evidence for the one who beleives in it and not for others. If God hasn't called you to be a Christian (or something else) than it is correct for you to ignore religion.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Wezil
I've yet to see a study one way or the other. If Jon can demand one I think he should be held to the same standard.

I have the status quo position and have seen studies. No one else has even said they have seen studies.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

In fact, there hasn't been one bit of evidence for or against God's existence. Not even close to conclusively.

But most scientist are agnostics or atheists.

Originally posted by Jon Miller

That being said, you still should go with the current evidence. That is how science is done, not by ignoring it.

Current evidence does not favour God.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
(I haven't even heard of or been able to come up with an experiment that would give evidence for or against God's existence.)

I haven't heard of a way to come up with a proper experiment that conclusively proves or disporves most psychological and sociological theories.

[snoopy369]

The interesting question would be whether CA's constitutional amendment, if passed, would violate the US constitution (since it is not permitted to). This could be the boon that allows it to be challenged in FEDERAL court - in the California circuit, which will probably be the best place THAT could happen, I'd think...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I have the status quo position and have seen studies. No one else has even said they have seen studies.

So you're saying you don't think any of us have seen studies?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The interesting question would be whether CA's constitutional amendment, if passed, would violate the US constitution (since it is not permitted to). This could be the boon that allows it to be challenged in FEDERAL court - in the California circuit, which will probably be the best place THAT could happen, I'd think...

The bad part is it will become a national issue again and we get a bunch of people in office in large part because they don't support gay rights. (And to hell with everything else.)