iNow

Doesn't this directly reinforce the points I've been making that there are no relevant secular reasons motivating the opposition? Well, I don't see the logical fallacy of a slippery slope to be a relevant or valid reason. I can expand on this if needed. Okay, I appreciate the clarification, however, I still see it as an invalid comparison. In your example, our rights are only allowed to be "violated" if it is to protect against some measurable harm, or if there are issues of consent (such as with pedophilia or bestiality, whereby consent cannot be mutual nor agreed upon). Same sex marriage does not cause any measurable harm to others, hence there is no relevant secular reason to oppose it. Further, let me ask... Are some people being allowed to carry those firearms, but you are not? Is the allowance to carry those weapons being differentially applied to groups, where one group CAN carry the weapons, but another cannot, and for no relevant secular reason (like men with blond hair CAN carry them, but men with red hair CANNOT)? If not, and the prohibition applies equally to all citizens, then I still see the comparison as a false one (since some people CAN get married while others CANNOT, without a relevant secular reason for the differential conferment of state recognition and the benefits and privileges which come with that recognition). Also... just a note that I'd really like to avoid getting into a debate about gun rights, as those are even harder to keep on track than debates about same sex marriage.

Jill - In your post above, you've mistakenly attributed quotes to Jackson when they were, in fact, shared by A Tripolation. Cheers. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged But, as I described above, it's a false comparison anyway. Same sex marriage does not cause measurable harm to others, nor are there issues with consent.

The ability to remember something and the ability to recall it are two different phenomenon. Usually, when memories "erupt" like that later in life, it is due to the fact that they were not processed or accepted emotionally. Emotions are a powerful driver of our thoughts, and our emotions sometimes are beyond our control, especially when we ignore them or don't deal with them in the moment.

A fair point, but since we are in a discussion forum, we can debate what is and what is not relevant. As you can see above, I have already made challenges to relevance, and the individuals presenting the points have conceded that the challenge was valid. You have still failed to address the root question of the thread, and have provided no relevant reasons to oppose it (as described above, having misconceptions about homosexuality, its appropriateness, or its origin are not relevant). A few things here. First, WTF does my being an atheist have anything to do with people being unable to present relevant secular reasons for opposing gay marriage? That's a rather blatant red herring, and has zero to do with the discussion. Second, you are equating my intolerance for hatred and bigotry as itself being some sort of bigotry. That is a conflation of the terms, and is disingenuous at best. Bigotry is more about people being different from yourself, and about casting them with all sorts of negative connotations and false attributes without good reason. Usually, bigotry applies to people who are hateful, xenophobic, and jingoistic... as those emotions they feel are not grounded in any solid reasoning nor rationality. The point is the subject of the intolerance, and what is motivating it. By example, being intolerant of lies is a good thing, and has a recognizable and practical purpose underlying it. Being intolerant of violence or rape is a good thing, as that too has a recognizable and practical purpose underlying it. It is these recognizable and practical purposes informing the intolerance which prevent it from being called bigotry. Bigotry is when one is intolerant for no practical reason... usually just something like "they" are "different." Bigotry is most often felt toward foreigners and immigrants, like people are so often intolerant of the Mexicans here in the US for example. It was (and sometimes still is) found in the feelings whites had toward blacks. Today, it is often found among heterosexuals and the feelings they hold toward homosexuals. It's about the fact that these folks are being intolerant for no real practical purpose. They are being intolerant because "they" are "different." It's bigotry because it tends to be informed by jingoism and xenophobia, or some religiously motivated worldview, and has no real rational purpose underlying it. But... intolerance which has a practical and justifiable purpose is NOT bigotry... not by any means. Just because I'm intolerant of lies, hate speech, and ignorance does not make me a bigot, since that intolerance has a justifiable and practical purpose informing it. In sum, I've presented relevant secular reasons for my intolerance, ergo the term bigot does not apply to me in this context. Third, you are now trying to make this some sort of personal issue with me, instead choosing to focus on me and my character instead of the issue at hand. Fourth, my successful debates on this subject at other forums has no relevance here in this one, so that is yet another red herring, bordering on non-sequitur. Indeed, but you have still ignored the central question and issue of this thread. People ARE opposed to gay marriage, and I'm asking what relevant secular reasons support their opposition. Untli that question gets answered, the fact remains that the people who DO stand in opposition are being either bigoted, homophobic, or ignorant. Again, please stop making your response some sort of personal attack against me, and focus on the central question. Your post only diverts the subject, and by focusing on me as a person instead of the issue at hand you harm your debating position. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And this gets to the root of this discussion. Why? Second, why are your thoughts on this subject more relevant or valid than those who see marriage as the union of two people in love, regardless of which genitalia they have? This is a false comparison. There is measurable harm which can be caused with a gun, and having a gun pointed at us is usually done without our consent. Two same sex partners who wish to be married does not cause measurable harm to others, nor are their issues of consent (since the two partners are adults who consent to be in the relationship with one another).

So, your argument is that a relevant secular reason to oppose gay marriage is tradition? If so, I'd challenge that in terms of relevance. EDIT - To clarify, "traditions" was an argument used to support slavery and discrimination against blacks in our country, but that reason was neither relevant nor secular, and was not a valid reason to oppose equal rights. Traditions change, and for good reason. They should not be used to argue for the continuation of discrimination... at least, not in our laws. This quote came from California Justice Richard Kramer, who is a Catholic Republican sitting on the California state supreme court. He said this in his ruling on Prop 22 (a ballot initiative in 2000 intended to prevent the state from recognizing same sex marriages): The State's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional. I happen to agree.

I think minimum post count of 50, but if you PM an Admin like Cap'n Refsmmat they can give you access. EDIT... never mind... He posted below.

I understand, but that does not address the question if we take state recognition of marriage as a given.

I appreciate your thoughtful post, StringJunky, and no offense is intended, but this is just an empty platitude, and is hardly some absolute truth. Also, as you mentioned, intolerance may be a component of an autocracy, but your statement implies that only autocracies allow intolerance. There are all manner of things about which we are intolerant, and some things ABSOLUTELY should not be tolerated. For example, we do not tolerate old med having sex with 8 year old girls. We do not tolerate the murder of others. We do not tolerate stealing, or rape, and thankfully in today's society we also do not tolerate racism and discrimination. Further, in a scientific community such as this, we don't tolerate blatant falsehoods, claims in the absence of evidence or support, and logical fallacies. However, with that said, I may be just pedantic here, as your comment would most certainly apply with just a few words added for precision. FYI - Those words are not Voltaire's. It's a mistaken attribution, as the quote "defend to the death your right to say it" was first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression. So, while they represent Voltaires views overall, the quote was not his. Cheers. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Ch. 7 - The Friends of Voltaire : Helvetius : The Contradiction, p. 199; because of quote marks around the original publication of these words, they are often attributed to Voltaire, though Hall was not actually quoting him but summarizing his attitude with the expression. The statement was widely popularized when misattributed to Voltaire as a "Quotable Quote" in Reader's Digest (June 1934), but in response to the misattribution, Hall had been quoted in Saturday Review (11 May 1935), p. 13, as stating: I did not mean to imply that Voltaire used these words verbatim and should be surprised if they are found in any of his works. They are rather a paraphrase of Voltaire's words in the Essay on Tolerance — "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." The paragraph in which the statement first appears reads: "On the Mind" [De l'Esprit by Helvétius] became not the success of the season, but one of the most famous books of the century. The men who had hated it and had not particularly loved Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. 'What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now. It has been suggested by others that the ultimate origin may lie in a letter to M. le Riche (February 6, 1770), which is said to include a statement translatable as: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

You're right. I was hoping for quotes and specific examples. Sorry about that. We can keep this abstract and academic if you'd prefer, but please don't be upset with me when I fail the quiz as a result of not understanding your lesson.

Because they are unable to cite one single, solitary reason (which is both relevant and secular) as to why they stand in opposition to marriage between two same sex partners when they do not equally stand in opposition to marriage between two opposite sex partners. What I see happening here is this, Pangloss... People KNOW that the word "bigot" and "homophobe" are bad, and cause them to be reflected in a negative light in society (and, also in their own minds... we don't generally like to think of ourselves as bad people), so don't wish to be described with those words. For that reason, they say "I may oppose same sex marriage, but I am not a bigot and I am not a homophobe." Yet, when asked to support their reasoning for this opposition, the answer more or less boils down to "I'm just against it, that's why." This is not based on logic. It is not based on any relevant or secular reasons, it's just a sense that "THEY" are somehow not good enough to share the term or institution of marriage. Despite their desire not to be referred to as bigots or homophobes, the objective truth is that this is PRECISELY what they are, and they will remain to be so until they can cite a single relevant secular reason in support of their opposition. I hope this has clarified my stance. I'd really prefer not to have this thread derailed on some tangential discussion about who is a bigot or homophobe and who is not. The intention of this thread is to find ANY relevant secular reasons for the opposition. If none exist, then I believe we have no choice other than to be authentic with ourselves and realize that all that informs the opposition is bigotry, homophobia, or plain ignorance.

I'm still unclear about what you mean by "bullying behavior," and where or when this has happened.

It is a fact, barring evidence to the contrary... Evidence to the contrary would be relevant secular reasons for the opposition... The words "relevant" and "secular" being the key factors.

I realized that freefall was not the same as zero-g, so didn't bother mentioning that. However, I didn't realize that the equivalence principle worked both ways. I knew that, for example, riding upward in an elevator at a certain rate was equivalent to gravity due to the acceleration, but was unaware that the same idea applied also to the indistinguishability of microgravity from no gravity... So, thanks for that. A new feather in my cap you've given.

Only if there is no mass. But, there is mass, so... no. We can come up with technology that helps us get around gravity's influence (like planes and helicopters, etc.), but gravity will be present anywhere there is mass. Another point is that, even you get really really really far away from an object with mass, gravity will be very weak, but still present.

deleted

Another issue is that, right off the bat, the story assumes intention among the constituent parts where there is, in fact, none.

I think it's sad that no distributors will be offering it in the US, that evolution is only accepted by 39% of our population, and it's not likely to make money since it doesn't have a bunch of crap blowing up. With that said, I'd like to see it, but I do have some concerns that the storyline may be a bit "beyond realistic" and could substitute in peoples minds what actually happened. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated. The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".

Right, but your logic here is not specific to gay marriage, so doesn't really get us anywhere. Your idea about concerns with state involvement would apply to ALL marriage, including heterosexual marriages, so IMO doesn't address the question in the least. If we take as given that heterosexual marriages are recognized by the state, what relevant secular reason is there for opposing the rights of gay couples be recognized as well?

If there were so many, then it shouldn't be too hard. Either you're copping out and failing to support your claim, or you've realized that it's rather difficult to supply a URL to an event which only occurred in your mind. How does one prove there are no relevant secular reasons for being against gay marriage? I can immediately grasp how one could DISPROVE such a statement (which you claim to have done previously, but for which you've offered no actual links in support). Right, but why? What is their relevant secular reason for the differential use/application of the word? Finally, why in your posts do you call it a "marriage" (simply adding the adjective "gay" in front of it) if it's NOT a marriage? Can you clarify that for me? We're waiting for your reply (or, an answer from someone else who shares your perspective).

This is not a discussion about the existence of god. I've tried very hard to prevent this thread from being closed, and I'm not about to let some evolution denier such as yourself change that. The answer is, No. Our belief in god is a predisposition given by evolution, as is the neocortical infrastructure which predisposes us to be persuaded by the grouping tendency which is known as religion, but it is the belief which is the subject of discussion here, not the existence of the deity.

Huh?

People who oppose gay marriage ARE bigots or homophobes, since they have no relevant secular reasons for their opposition. Sorry... Just couldn't let that one slide. It's equivalent to being opposed to a black man marrying a white woman, as there's no good reason for the opposition other than hatred and/or ignorance. NOTE: This post was taken from here. Thanks for splitting it, Pangloss.

Chinese really isn't that hard, it's just a lot of memorization. The syntax and sentence structure is very clean and logical. The easiest way to learn it is to immerse yourself in it, and just keep practicing. Like anything else, the more you practice the easier it will become. Also, note that writing it is much harder than speaking it, so be sure to practice writing as often as possible. That's the only way to pick it up and remember it. Memory is the key here. If you have a poor memory, learning the chinese characters ( 汉字 ) will be especially hard. Just like Rome wasn't built in a day, you can't learn all of the chinese characters in a day, either. The more you use it, the better you will be.

I agree, but I really wasn't talking about the community as a whole... I was referring specifically to the politics forum. Far too often when a claim gets challenged, the person making the challenge is the one who is castigated and told they are being rude and not respectful, somehow "putting their opinion in front of others." There are some things which are not opinions, but what has been frustrating me is how so much nonsense keeps getting protected under the umbrella of "people are welcome to their opinions, so stop putting yours above theirs." That's harmful to the community. If someone says that it's their opinion that 2+2=7, I'm going to correct that, too, so I don't think claims about politics, economics, or current events should should be treated any differently. If someone says something which is plainly false, the person who identifies it as such should be rewarded, not scolded and told to go sit in the corner. Not all things are opinions, but even if they are, one should be able to support them logically and/or with evidence in the face of challenge... even in the politics board. I guess it's personal with me. All the time people see me as some sort of monster, or jerk for challenging their premises, assumptions, or conclusions. It's exasperating because, in my mind, all I'm doing is trying to uphold some basic minimum standard of academic integrity. I'm basically applying the same mindset in politics as I do in any other topic arena. So yeah, it bothers me that this behavior is being dismissed as "ridicule" or "ostracization." I'm not trying to marginalize people, I'm trying to marginalize weak, unfounded arguments grounded in fallacious or nonexistent logic. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that would improve discussions, not hurt them...

The wiki article does a nice job of pulling out the basics on emotion and memory. While DS is correct that in some rare instances extreme traumatic events will be blocked out, GDG is somewhat more correct that... as a general rule... emotion heightens memory and improves retention. In sum, it's much more likely for emotion to lead to stronger memory than the loss of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory Emotion can have a powerful impact on memory. Numerous studies have shown that the most vivid autobiographical memories tend to be of emotional events, which are likely to be recalled more often and with more clarity and detail than neutral events. The activity of emotionally enhanced memory retention can be linked to human evolution; during early development, responsive behavior to environmental events would have progressed as a process of trial and error. Survival depended on behavioral patterns that were repeated or reinforced through life and death situations. Through evolution, this process of learning became genetically embedded in humans and all animal species in what is known as "fight or flight" instinct. Artificially inducing this instinct through traumatic physical or emotional stimuli essentially creates the same physiological condition that heightens memory retention by exciting neuro-chemical activity affecting areas of the brain responsible for encoding and recalling memory. This memory-enhancing effect of emotion has been demonstrated in a large number of laboratory studies, using stimuli ranging from words to pictures to narrated slide shows, as well as autobiographical memory studies. However, as described below, emotion does not always enhance memory. Btw Jill - There are some good references at the link if you wish to continue your search.