Maybe you could use your clout with Silverman and get him to get rid of this most annoying “feature?”

I’ve already mentioned it to him. We’ll see.

My apologies. I forgot that your license to dismiss any concept that you arbitrarily don’t believe in also gives you carte blanch to invalidate anyone else’s attempted use of the same tactic.

‘Arbitrarily don’t believe in’? What’s that, free will? What is it that I ‘arbitrarily’ don’t ‘believe’ in? The supernatural?

…more gainsaying.

More truth.

My apologies again. I guess I just imagined that your attempted qualification of “The only difference is the physiology” for your assertion of, “no, they’re NOT ‘2 entirely different concepts’” was nothing more than simple, unsubstantiated contradiction.

Vivid imagination you got there. The only difference IS the physiology.

Then could you please clarify what you did mean?

Already explained it.

Huh? Your words strongly suggest you’re equating marriage definition with a “superstitious belief.”

Not what I said, nor meant.

Yeah, the same way the state forces others to live by its “belief” that driver’s licenses are only issued for the safety of those who drive. But yeah, that’s just a belief that’s irrespective of common sense and a proven track record…

Apples = oranges. Driver’s license is a privilege, marriage is a civil right.

Oh, so any debased behaviors must be given credence just because they happened frequently in history? If that’s the case, then why don’t we condone slavery as a legitimate business practice today?—after all, it happens to be the “historical majority.” Talk about a red herring.

That wasn’t a smelly fish, that was an extended example of how the definition has been in flux – for centuries. Your slavery example is a non sequitor – vast gulf of difference between forced labor against one’s will as opposed to allowing individual adults to marry other adults of their choosing.

Really? Then please demonstrate when in human history that one man, one woman hasn’t been shown to be the safest and most practical definition?

So lessee – ’safe & practical’ should override personal freedoms? Anyways, are we talking global or local?

Really? Could it be that those cases worked because the participants understood and valued he commitment they made to each other?

Probably. How this boosts your point is opaque.

What does that have to do with the definition of marriage?

Ummm…how women are viewed by society? As equal partners? Are you kidding?

I didn’t realize you’d replied to what’s post and I inadvertently responded to you in the previous “sub”-thread here: http://tinyurl.com/n4ufc5

Maybe you could use your clout with Silverman and get him to get rid of this most annoying “feature?”

red herring, getting off-point.

My apologies. I forgot that your license to dismiss any concept that you arbitrarily don’t believe in also gives you carte blanch to invalidate anyone else’s attempted use of the same tactic.

There goes the bible! It’s out.

…more gainsaysing.

I don’t know how you got that

My apologies again. I guess I just imagined that your attempted qualification of “The only difference is the physiology” for your assertion of, “no, they’re NOT ‘2 entirely different concepts’” was nothing more than simple, unsubstantiated contratiction.

but that’s not what I meant.

Then could you please clarify what you did mean?

No, still not what I meant.

Huh? Your words strongly suggest you’re equating marriage definition with a “superstitious belief.”

You’re forcing other people to live by your belief system

Yeah, the same way the state forces others to live by its “belief” that driver’s licenses are only issued for the safety of those who drive. But yeah, that’s just a belief that’s irrespective of common sense and a proven track record…

the ‘marriage definition’ has changed multiple times over the centuries, just check w/any anthrologist on that – polygamy is the historical majority.

Oh, so any debased behaviors must be given credence just because they happened frequently in history? If that’s the case, then why don’t we condone slavery as a legitimate business practice today?—after all, it happens to be the “historical majority.” Talk about a red herring.

Oh here we go w/false dilemmas again. This fluctuates w/the times. Maybe not in your imagination, but certainly in reality.

Really? Then please demonstrate when in human history that one man, one woman hasn’t been shown to be the safest and most practical definition?

Sometimes in arranged marriages, love grows or becomes, but not always.

Really? Could it be that those cases worked because the participants understood and valued he commitment they made to each other?

& in America, arranged marriages are looked down on w/repugnance – because the Suffragette movement brought women’s rights to the forefront.

What does that have to do with the definition of marriage?

I thought you were going to drop the snark, BTW? What happened there?

My apologies for the “enlightened” remark.

NeoWolfe

Ahhh, so by that reasoning, the next time I reject out-of-hand any claims you make about the veracity of evolution, I’m sure you’ll sympathize and fully understand the open-minded approach that weighed the merits of all the evidence that I took to arrive at such a position…

Ahem – red herring, getting off-point.

Credible, historic ones; you know, ones that rely on what any historical assertion does: the written record corroborated by physical, archaeological evidence.

There goes the bible! It’s out.

Actually, you should’ve taken that as a, “Given that you presented your case by reason, and all I’ve done is offered an unsubstantiated contradiction, therefore I understand why you refuse to continue with that until I offer one that is…”

Yeah…I don’t know how you got that (wait, allegory as mind-pollution…hmmm), but that’s not what I meant.

Ahh, I see. Understanding and accepting that by far, the most historically proven, stable and mutually beneficial marriage definition is merely a “superstitious belief.” How enlightened of you.

No, still not what I meant. You’re forcing other people to live by your belief system. & the ‘marriage definition’ has changed multiple times over the centuries, just check w/any anthrologist on that – polygamy is the historical majority.

Oh yes, the most successful of traditional, contemporary marriages are modeled on the master/slave, overlord/servant, Victorian model which, by its very nature, prohibits the couple from enjoying virtually any kind of mutual, marital benefits—let alone—true love.

Oh here we go w/false dilemmas again. This fluctuates w/the times. Maybe not in your imagination, but certainly in reality.
Sometimes in arranged marriages, love grows or becomes, but not always. & in America, arranged marriages are looked down on w/repugnance – because the Suffragette movement brought women’s rights to the forefront.
I thought you were going to drop the snark, BTW? What happened there?

I can’t answer your yes-no question because I have no idea what “objective and/or universal moral truths” means,

That’s no surprise, really. That’s just a variant on Loki’s wager. So you admit you have no epistemological ground to stand on.

DaRatBastid:

What the fuck did I start?

You had nothing to do w/it. Me ‘n what fight about this all the time. Been about what, 2 years now, we hash this out over ‘n over again. Every 2-3 threads, he goes OT about Israel, we put up our dukes.

Look, everyone is making mountains out of molehills.

It’s just a blog, dude.

Throwing each others’ quotes at each other solves nothing.

It’s how we fisk.

(t)Reason’s dementia aside, I was doing this out of love. I wish not for another Israeli to die from hate.

I’m pretty sure none of us want people to die.

I was looking to debate policy points, but it seems that ain’t gonna happen.

Coming from the guy who compared Israel to Nazi Germany, that’s rich. Using incendiary rhetoric while trying to play peacekeeper is probably a bad idea.

I don’t believe jay-sus ever existed, so I can’t accept your source. Sorry.

Ahhh, so by that reasoning, the next time I reject out-of-hand any claims you make about the veracity of evolution, I’m sure you’ll sympathize and fully understand the open-minded approach that weighed the merits of all the evidence that I took to arrive at such a position…

Dunno – what sources will you accept?

Credible, historic ones; you know, ones that rely on what any historical assertion does: the written record corroborated by physical, archaeological evidence.

I’ll take that as a forfeit.

Actually, you should’ve taken that as a, “Given that you presented your case by reason, and all I’ve done is offered an unsubstantiated contradiction, therefore I understand why you refuse to continue with that until I offer one that is…”

those of us who don’t want to force people to live by some obscure superstitious belief

Ahh, I see. Understanding and accepting that by far, the most historically proven, stable and mutually beneficial marriage definition is merely a “superstitious belief.” How enlightened of you.

or have Victorian prudery @ the reins of our control issues.

Oh yes, the most successful of traditional, contemporary marriages are modeled on the master/slave, overlord/servant, Victorian model which, by its very nature, prohibits the couple from enjoying virtually any kind of mutual, marital benefits—let alone—true love.

Here’s another Real Christian: Arson.
http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/2009/jul/17/boulder-police-firefighters-fend-ax-wielding-man/