[DeepSpace9er]

Does god exist? My oppinion: Give me Gods phone number, address, email, and I'll get back to you after we've had a chat.

Cause and effect. You were caused by a cause, your parents, and they were from a cause, their parents etc. The first cause that brought into being and initiated all other causes must be an uncaused cause. The uncaused cause would have to have existed forever, thus possesing qualities of a Deity. If you think that the big bang caused everything into existence then you are applying those qualities to matter. Either way you look at it, some being greater than yourself caused you into being.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er


Cause and effect. You were caused by a cause, your parents, and they were from a cause, their parents etc. The first cause that brought into being and initiated all other causes must be an uncaused cause. The uncaused cause would have to have existed forever, thus possesing qualities of a Deity. If you think that the big bang caused everything into existence then you are applying those qualities to matter. Either way you look at it, some being greater than yourself caused you into being.

Well, that's a spurious reason.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er


Cause and effect.  

I'll let you _try_

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er

You were caused by a cause, your parents,

Yes, his parents has coitus and fertiliziation then inplantation occured - thus far you're correct in that his parents were the cause

althought it's still a more that slight misuse of the word "cause"

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
and they were from a cause, their parents etc.  

still correct - albeit being redunant

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
The first cause that brought into being and initiated all other causes must be an uncaused cause.

Not so fast - "causes" are not chain reactions - your being born doesn't cause you to have children (And I hope you never do)

Cause in effect refers to that which can be undeniably linked

Strong force and atoms staying togeather
Gravitation and earth staying in orbit
Fusion creating heavier atoms

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
The uncaused cause would have to have existed forever,

non sequitur
now you have entered pure BS and contradiction

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
thus possesing qualities of a Deity.

non sequitur
even if you had been making sense to this point then this would be assuming the proposition a priori

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
 If you think that the big bang caused everything into existence then you are applying those qualities to matter.

Non sequitur
Which qualities are that? That gravity, electromagnetism, etc are there?

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
 Either way you look at it, some being greater than yourself caused you into being.

Once again - a priori

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Kazan
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html


Fortunately it will NOT get a 66% supermajority in the house and then the senate

Then there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it'll get a 75% (38) state supermajority


Mr [un]President should be impeached and removed from office for even suggesting such a propsertous violation of human rights. I am ashamed to call myself an american today, If this passes either the house or senate I will seriously start contemplating moving out of the united states.

I believe that a separate civil union for gay couples with equal legal status to marriage should be established. Marriage has ALWAYS been about a man and a woman and will ALWAYS be that way. Don't like it? Tough ****.

Now will you stop howling and *****ing every time someone does something you don't approve of?

[StratComm]

Yeah but there's that inequality thing again... a "seperate but equal" institution for homosexuals sounds a lot like some other dubious laws that have been overturned by the Supreme Court.  More correctly, marriage should imply a civil union, but not be required for one.  That way you take all gender parameters out of the question.

[Su-tehp]

Kudos, Kazan, well done. Take DeepSace9er's own twisted logic and tie him up with it.

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I believe that a separate civil union for gay couples with equal legal status to marriage should be established. Marriage has ALWAYS been about a man and a woman and will ALWAYS be that way. Don't like it? Tough ****.

Now will you stop howling and *****ing every time someone does something you don't approve of?

It's called debate, WW. If the African-Americans didn't "howl and *****" back during the 1950s and 1960s during the civil rights movement, they would never have gotten the right to vote. And yes, a bunch of conservatives back then tried to argue that it went against religious tenets to give black people the right to vote. (They said "tough ****" too.) After all, no black Americans ever the right to vote before then. By your logic, just because black Americans had always been excluded from the vote, it should have always remained that way.

This gay marriage debate is just another civil rights issue. As such, it's inevitable that gay marriage will happen someday soon. Look at how far the issue has come in just the last ten years. Ten years ago, most people disapproved of the idea of civil unions; now most people approve of it if it doesn't mean having to approve gay marriage. With that many people changing their minds in only ten years, it's very likely that more people will become more tolerant of the idea of gay marriage. Gay marriage is inevitable.

Don't like it? Tough ****.

[pyro-manic]

Bloody hell...

Right, here goes: I know precisely bugger-all about the American legal system, so I won't even go into it (there are people here far better qualified than me to talk about it).

People should be free to act as they wish, as long as their actions do not cause other people to suffer.

I cannot see a reason why anyone can hate gay people so much as some here seem to (Liberator, Deepspace9er, I'm talking to you). They are not causing you harm. They are not lowering the quality of your life. What possible reason could you have for this animosity?

Gay people do not CHOOSE to be gay. You don't get men going, "I know - I'm going to start having sex with men instead of women! That'll be fun!" or vice versa. It's not something they can change their minds about.

I have great respect for faith. It can be an immensely powerful force for good in the world, as it can influence people like no political movement can. However, when people use their religion as an excuse to inflict misery on others (be it through discrimination, restriction or terrorism) then it is something to be abhored, a frankly disgusting perversion of one of humanity's oldest creations. I treat all abuses of religious influence equally, so to me gay-bashing by Christian fundies, restriction of women by some Islamic countries, or people like bin Laden who use religion as a front for a political movement are all the same. Some may be less "severe" than others (to some people), but they are all part of the same problem.

If we are to stop all the pointless divisions in the modern world (which usually lead to shocking levels of bloodshed, if history can be taken as precedent), then people have to realise that we are all very different externally, but that we are fundamentally the same. I know that it is an animal instinct to weed out those weaker than or "different" to us, but I would have hoped that our intelligence would supercede our instincts and let us become something more than what we are given through our genes. If we can't do that (and do it soon), then quite honestly, we're fucxed.

Liberator, DS9er: I have great respect for you and your religion, and I accept fully that you have your own beliefs and opinions. However, I cannot respect your determination to force those beliefs on other people, particularly when those beliefs may cause suffering and misery for many of them.

My personal opinion of you, for example, is that you are religious extremists (which I do not like the idea of), but that's your choice. You can live your lives by the laws of the Bible, or you can renounce your faith and go off to be hippies or something. Doesn't matter to me one little bit, cos it won't hurt anyone. But don't go and condemn people because they're a bit different to you. They're still PEOPLE.

OK, that probably didn't come across very well, 'cos to be honest I'm not that eloquent, but hopefully I've made my point.

[Bobboau]

the problem is thay are athoratarian, meaning they beleve that it is the governments job to enforce a strict moral code on people (thus 'bettering' them), that's why they can't simpy be ignored.

[Kazan]

I have long since lost my patience with their kind and hence my hostility and will to remove them from the face of the planet


Liberator: you have yet to try an make an intelligent remark in reply to my rebuttal of your ill-informed opinion on the validity of logical arguements

DeepSpace9er: Want to try your had at logic again, maybe this time with a little less illogic

[Zeronet]

but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.

Thats what they want right? Equal Rights? So whats the big deal? Ooooh, its not called Marriage, big deal.

[Liberator]

I wan't going to, but what the hell, this thread's in the tank anyway.

You guys must be immensely bored.  I mean you know everything and all.

[Kazan]

Wow Liberator - Argumentum Ad Hominem

Congratulations you just lowered yourself to the level of the first grade

I SAID TRY AND MAKE A REBUTTAL - Not try and insult us

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Zeronet


Thats what they want right? Equal Rights? So whats the big deal? Ooooh, its not called Marriage, big deal.

"Seperate but equal" standing is not allowed on the grounds of not really being equal, Zeronet. Go back and read some history.

Let's set up a parallel:

Lets assume, for a moment that you have a girlfriend, whom you've been living with for years. The two of you have a child. Your neighbor is married but does not live with his wife. He has a kid too.

What if, under the law, you could not be the 'father' of your child. You could be the 'paternal genetic donor', but not the 'father'. Your neighbor, who has never seen his own daughter, is on paper as the 'father' of his daughter. There's a difference there.

The reality of the situation, currently, is actually worse. We don't even have 'seperate but equal'. Under the current system, not only are you not the 'father', but you couldn't even be the guardian of the child when your girlfriend died. You couldn't claim the child as a dependent (because, you're not the 'father').

[Kazan]

thank you mikhael


(when are they going to learn, then Mik and I actually agree that they should just run for the hills)

[Bobboau]

can't this just break down to anarchy and the nastiest fighter wins, that's were it' headed anyway.

[Kazan]

the "nastiest fighter" should be rephrased "the most effective fighter"

[Bobboau]

yeah, I guess, if you could fight in some non-nasty way that was more effective than a nasty one you would still win

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
can't this just break down to anarchy and the nastiest fighter wins, that's were it' headed anyway.

Cause anarchy is the weakest form of government. It always breaks down into order of some sort.

[JC Denton]

"Anarchy" in my mind is, rather, the lack of a government, or at least, the presence of one with no capacity to enforce its rule...

Bleh, Kaz, 'nother definition, please?

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Kazan
thank you mikhael

(when are they going to learn, that when Mik and I actually agree that they should just run for the hills)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! The two of them are actually agreeing on something! RUN FOR THE HILLS!

Hey, wait a minute, I actually agree with them both, too...

What's surprising me even more is that most everybody here on this thread (with the noted exception of Libby and DeepSpace9er) agrees that gays should be accorded equal rights in some form and/or think Bush's proposed constitutional amendment is a REALLY bad idea.

Damn, an entire forum of people (with the exception of 2 people who are so obviously incapable of justifying their prejudice) actually agreeing on something? There's hope for us yet.