<p>You're right- yelling "fire" in a theatre "puts others at risk," so it should not be allowed. How does gay marriage "put others at risk"?</p>
<p>As for the pencil argument, as neverborn said, "A person should not be able to enter into a contract for marriage (or anything else) with a cow, because cows do not have the presence of mind to contract." A marriage must be consensual.</p>
<p>Christine123, my problem with intelligent design, and what I believe to be the legal issue at hand, is not the idea in itself but the forum of discussion. The theory of Evolution is an explanation of scientific fact. Now, certainly this theory leaves a role for an "intelligent being." Many serious scientists have reconciled their beliefs in an all powerful being with scientific theory- in fact the first man to use the term "intelligent design" was a scientist, a friend of Darwin and a proponent of evolution who believed that evolution was indeed guided by an intelligent being. The problem is that intelligent design in itself is not science. It is faith based, not fact based- it does not use the "Scientific method" and can therefore not be classified as "science". The proper forum is not a science classroom, but a theology or philosophy classroom, or, preferably, a family discussion or sunday school class.
In response to Drummerdude- The application of a law to all does not make it right. If the government were to make marriage illegal for all Americans, you could hardly claim that this was fair? For, while it would apply to all, it would only truly harm those whose beliefs would be jeopardized- namely those who believe sex out of wedlock is immoral- just as, while a ban on gay marriage applies to all, it only harms some. Your logic could be used to say that any law is fair. If the government banned organized religion, the law would be universally applicable, but would it be fair? I don't believe that any reasonable person would answer in the affirmative.
Lastly, have any of you considered the implications of a so called "gay gene"? If such a gene is truly isolated, what then? I mean, is it something that would be considered a genetic disorder? Is it something which (should technology allow) parents would change in their children? Would it be morally right to change this? And, from a religious standpoint, if God is responsible for this gene, does that make homosexuality moral? OR is the fact that god has enabled us to discover the technology to change an invitation to do so? I, personally, am simply confused over the entire issue and would be fascinated to hear your opinions.</p>
<p>Intelligent design is not at all related to creationism. That is just a mask for leftwingers to hide behind. Creationism was pushed by a small number of whacko religious figures (ministers, priests, whatever). Intelligent design is largely absent from churches, because the churches long ago made peace with evolutionary theory in one way or another. Where does intelligent design come from then? SCIENTISTS. And good scientists at that, no matter how battered and demeaned they are by their colleagues for advocating the theory. Intelligent design is more accepted in some areas then others, for example the protests to evolution are fairly controversial, but the Intelligent design arguments in Cosmology and Astrophysics, I find particularly convincing. You know how Discover and Scientific American, almost every month, have a story of some new theory to work around the Big Bang theory or disprove it , and then the next month there is a new theory, because the previous theory proved to be false? This is because under Big Bang theory, the universe began. And if the universe began, something caused it, and that something, so theorize Intelligent Designers, was God. There was nothing, then BOOM a bunch of matter and the formation of the universe. Smells like the work of God, doesn't it? Stephen Hawking once said "so long as the universe had a beginning, we can assume there was a God". That is why secular science has been working tirelessly to explain away the beginning of the universe. And they can't do it. The only theories that make a shred of sense are the ones with no more proof then, well, no more proof then there is proof that God exists. Therefore, just as believing in God is religion, requiring belief with basically no proof, so the same goes for the multiple universes theory and other such gimmicks.</p>
<p>Gambadent, many, many scientific areas do not use Scientific Method. That is not an excuse to call Intelligent Design a non-scientific theory.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design is very, very scientific. It's main attributes are questioning the scientific validity of certain parts of Darwinism and evolution, and the implications of scientific findings and facts in cosmology and astronomy. These are topics for a science class, not philosophy or theology.</p>
<p>Abortion:
Lemonjello, murder of an innocent, as I define abortion, doesnt help the fact that rape or incest occurred.
Still, Im sure there are poor, homeless children who wouldnt appreciate people telling them, Your mother should have had an abortion.
Nearly every person I know who had an abortion as a teenager/young adult and now has a child of her own regrets the decision they made 10 or 15 years ago and thinks about the child she could have had every day.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design:
Religion is different to everyone. Im not saying teach intelligent design. Im simply saying that we shouldnt teach evolution as an absolute. People should be taught to question and not to be brainwashed.</p>
<p>Political Ideology:
I would say the difference between Libertarians and Pure Conservatives is individual responsibility. I would also say that Libertarians could consider themselves as a type of Conservative.</p>
<p>Drug Laws:
"Drugs should be legal because we saw what happened when alcohol wasn't - gang violence would drop to almost 0 overnight if drugs were legalized."
I'm sorry, but that statement is just a joke. A total joke.</p>
<p>Some backing, please? How is that a total joke?</p>
<p>Gay Marriage:
How can gay marriage be a cultural/sectional issue? Its purely legal. As I stated before, Im more worried about gay tolerance. If segregation were left to the states, do you know how long it would have taken to desegregate the Birmingham school system? So, should the rights of blacks been left to the interests of cultural/sectional legislation?
And how can you amount a human being to a pencil?</p>
<p>I'll buy Intelligent Design when you give me concrete, physical proof there is a god. It's a belief! It's theology! It's the master work of a genius politician. If people don't behave, we punish them physically. If people don't behave, and physical punishment doesn't work, we'll use mental punishment.</p>
<p>I don't believe in Intelligent Design (or anything, for that matter) and I don't believe it should be taught in the classroom. I think it should be mentioned that other possibilities are out there.</p>
<p>Once again, Intelligent Design COULD OR COULD NOT be related to religion. It's an open, umbrella theory.</p>
<p>What's the basis of intellignet design? It all comes down to a higher "being" aka a god. How is that going to go over in a country that promises freedom of religion? Not everyone believes in a god. Some people believe in spirits. Isn't that being hypocritical.</p>
<p>And on your contentions of fairness, gambadent: The theoretical laws you mention ARE fair. They are not right, they are not free, but they most definitely are fair. (from Dictionary.com) Fair - Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial.</p>
<p>Christine, you made the original statement, you back your statement up. Personally, gangs use and sell grugs in addition to gang activity, people do not join gangs because they are on drugs, it's usually the other way around. I fail to see how the crime rate factors into this.
And Libertarians and Conservatives both believe in personal responsibility.</p>
<p>Christine, you don't believe in anything? How sad!</p>
<p>SweetMisery, it must be noted that Intelligent Design does not imply the existence of God. It it impies the existence of, well, an Intelligent being or beings who designed things. This could be space aliens, God, other beings in the universe, or whatever, as long as it is intelligent. It is just the case that God is the option chosen by most, which is an act of faith totally unrelated to intelligent desing theory.</p>
<p>"How can gay marriage be a cultural/sectional issue? Its purely legal."</p>
<p>It IS purely legal. And from a legal standpoint, the right to define marriage is a state power. End of story. I am saying that leaving it as a state-by-state decision is good, because we have cultural and sectional differences that make it hated in some parts of the country, and widely accepted in others. Most Democrats take the same position, and advocate gay marriage within their states. Most Republicans take the same position, but advocate the banning of gay marriage within their states.</p>
<p>"Neverborn, if you believe in abortion, legalized drugs, etc., you are not a conservative, you are a Libertarian. The difference lies, as I have already explained, in the conservatives beliefs in moral values."</p>
<p>I am not a Libertarian, though I share some of their beliefs. I also hold moral values, but I do not restrict rights based on them. It is fine to hold moral beliefs, but not fine to restrict rights based on those beliefs - if you do that, you are farther to the left than I am, as taking away rights, bigger government, more statism is ALWAYS to the left. </p>
<p>drummerdude: ID is theological - end of story. Unless you also believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is scientific?</p>
<p>oh boy...
Firstly, drummerdude_07- Let's be civil. I have no objection to your points (although I disagree with them), but you might want to deliver them in a less contentious manner, namely not claiming someone is "off their rocker" for disagreeing with you. I'm not quite sure what a "rocker" is but I don't see its place in this discussion.
As far as your denial of the existence of an outstanding flaw in our governments aid policy, I don't believe you actually read or understood my point at all. I understand that Christian charities provide alot of aid- I don't believe I ever contended that. I also believe that money is not enough- there must be action. I don't see how you came to the understanding that I was in any way arguing that. What I am arguing is that the government's offering of aid contentious on the imposition of impractical moral policy is ridiculous. The U.S. government limits education about birth control and spends 30 % of its resources promoting abstinence. Is that not grossly impractical allocation of aid which could be going to saving lifes? I believe the question is whether the promotion of "abstinence" out of marriage is a more worthy cause than the control of a disease which is ravaging impovrished countries.
As far as your claim that many areas of science do not use the scientific method, I must remind you that "science" is a method and not a subject, therefore your claim is illogical. Since you are so fond of dictionary definitions, I suggest you look up the word science. Speaking of alternate theories- how about flying spaghetti monsterism?</p>
<p>neverborn- jinx</p>
<p>drummerdude, you claimed that legalizing all drugs is "a joke."</p>
<p>Now, let's think here. What are the really bad drugs? Meth, crack, cocaine, heroin - right? So let's say they were legal tomorrow. Would you go buy a big crack rock and smoke it? Nope, neither would I. In fact, I'm betting the demand for crack, cocaine, heroin, and meth would be about the same as it is now. People who use it now would still use it - the only difference is they would go to Pat's Drugs instead of to the Dearborn Homes to get it. A business selling this undercuts the black market - gangs fight each other and shoot one another to get territory to sell drugs at. Is an addict going to go up to Dearborn Homes and risk death if he can just go to Pat's? </p>
<p>Prohibition didn't work with alcohol - it just had different suppliers. The same would be true for drugs. There wouldn't be crackheads everywhere, because there'd probably be the same amount of crackheads there are today.</p>
<p>gambadent: The U.S. government limits education about birth control and spends 30 % of its resources promoting abstinence.</p>
<p>Burden of proof is on you here.</p>
<p>You can look this up yourself if you wish. I found an article in the economist to verify that I wasn't quoting you absurd facts. However, it's a hardcopy and you have to pay to access the website so I am unable to post a link. If you're a subscriber though, you can access the website and simply go to the research tool on the lower left hand corner and search under the subject "AIDS"- there's an article (about 4 down) that's called something along the lines of "morality in fight against AIDS". I find this source particularly reputable but I'm sure there are less difficult sources at your disposal. I'm sorry I can't help.</p>
<p>...I give you my girlscouts honor that I wouldn't mislead you deliberatly. I have nothing but shinny happy feelings for you all.</p>
<p>LOL gambadent................to everyone about illegal drugs: You may be right that legalizing drugs would leave the same amount of drug addicts. However, I am concerned with reducing the amount of drug addicts, not leaving it the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now why would ANYONE believe the solution to that problem is more money? It takes more than money, it takes economic reform, it takes the establishment of uncorrupted governments, and those types of aid will accomplish far more than righting blank checks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with you completely. I know of a store that buys crafts from Africa and sells them in America for no profit, and I've been told that it really helps the regions of Africa it buys things from. I think we need to set up that type of non-agriculturally based trade with Africa. But, you know, easier said than done.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lastly, have any of you considered the implications of a so called "gay gene"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no "gay gene", just a "spillover" in sex chromosomes that affects hormone release and, consiquently, can make males feel like females and vice versa. It's a random mutation, like hazel eyes. Mutations have negative connotations, but they are not always negative.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll buy Intelligent Design when you give me concrete, physical proof there is a god. It's a belief! It's theology!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Anything requires a leap of faith of some kind -- even science. Some just require a bigger jump than others. After all, how do we know the world is really as we perceive it? It all comes back to the allegory of the cave.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...something along the lines of "morality in fight against AIDS". I find this source particularly reputable but I'm sure there are less difficult sources at your disposal. I'm sorry I can't help.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's legit. I read that article.</p>