FreeHovind - -Why wikipedia cannot be trusted-

Home Petition Watch Download Info Forum

Home Content Submit

Home > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: -Why wikipedia cannot be trusted-

-Why wikipedia cannot be trusted-

44 Comments - 4650 Views

more wikipedia bias

Submitted By 9tails on 09/05/29

FreeHovind, 9tails, Creation and Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

Wikipedia says;

"The status of creation and evolution taught in public schools can be the subject of substantial debate in legal, political and religious circles. The situation ranges from countries not allowing teachers to discuss the evidence for evolution or the modern evolutionary synthesis which is the scientific theory that explains evolution, to allowing evolutionary biology to be taught like any other scientific discipline.

While some religions do not have theological objections to the modern evolutionary synthesis as an explanation for the present form of life on Earth, there has been much conflict over this matter within the Abrahamic religions, some adherents of which are vigorously opposed to the consensus view of the scientific community. Conflict with evolutionary explanations is greatest in literal interpretations of religious documents, and resistance to teaching evolution is thus related to the popularity of these more literalist views.

In Western countries, the inclusion of evolution in science courses has been mostly uncontroversial, with the exception of parts of the united states. There, the supreme court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional. Intelligent design has been presented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but it has also been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court."

-This bit is bias and wrong for a number of reasons. One reason is that it assumes that either all scientists believe in evolution, or that all "scientific" scientists believe in evolution. We know today that many scientists are abandoning the evolution faith in droves and that many scientists have studied science for years and have not had a reason to believe in evolution.

Another very assy presumption is that it requires that evolution is a "scientific discipline", again undermining the creationist position that evolution is anything but science. Further attempts to marginalize creation and make evolution universal and scientific are murmured as a mantra.

Another presumption made is further marganilizing creation saying that it is "greatest in literal interpretations of religious documents, and resistance to teaching evolution is thus related to the popularity of these more literalist views." cleary ignoring every one of the many aspects of creation science insisting that it "a pseudoscience, and not related to science".

While Wikipedia usually offers some neutral, unbiased information on many different subjects, These are some very basic reasons why wikipedia is bias and dishonest in the creation science / evolution field and attests to humanist inclinations and toxic liberal tendencies.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 44 Replies

DrWorm

9 hours - 765v

Posted 2009/05/29 - 23:15 GMT

"This bit is bias and wrong for a number of reasons. One reason is that it assumes that either all scientists believe in evolution, or that all "scientific" scientists believe in evolution. We know today that many scientists are abandoning the evolution faith in droves and that many scientists have studied science for years and have not had a reason to believe in evolution."

The fact is 99% of working scientists agree with the evolutionary model. To say that scientists are "abandoning it in droves" is to lie. FAIL.

"Another very assy presumption is that it requires that evolution is a "scientific discipline", again undermining the creationist position that evolution is anything but science. Further attempts to marginalize creation and make evolution universal and scientific are murmured as a mantra."

Evolution is a scientific discipline as it is a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life on earth that exist without resorting to a supernatural explanation. It has been the dominant model for over 150 years and discoveries since Darwin's time have only added more support to the theory. FAIL

Another presumption made is further marganilizing creation saying that it is "greatest in literal interpretations of religious documents, and resistance to teaching evolution is thus related to the popularity of these more literalist views." cleary ignoring every one of the many aspects of creation science insisting that it "a pseudoscience, and not related to science".

The only places that were there is any opposition to the teaching of evolution are places with a great number of fundelmentalists. Again, creationism can only be described as a pseudo-science because relies on the "supernatural" and it also looks to find evidence to support an already decided on conclusion that can never be updated or modified, no matter what the evidence shows. Fail

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/05/31 - 3:15 GMT

Wrong.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/05/31 - 9:10 GMT

"Wrong."

tranalasion.

fingers in ears, eyes closed.

: " LALALAALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEEEAAR YOU! LALALA"

bcause that's the level of stupidity you're expressign by just saying

"wrong", "not so" , "still not".

and NOT BACKING It up.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/05/29 - 23:17 GMT

"This bit is bias and wrong for a number of reasons. One reason is that it assumes that either all scientists believe in evolution, or that all "scientific" scientists believe in evolution."
- No, Science over pseudoscience. Real science always wins. Pseudoscience is a part of the not knowing and illiterate people. Only reason why it exist in a large scale in the states and not in ANY european country.

"We know today that many scientists are abandoning the evolution faith in droves and that many scientists have studied science for years and have not had a reason to believe in evolution."
- Lie for 2 reasons. 1, they can't abandon evolution as a faith without abandoning the scientific method. 2, we do NOT know that they leave in droves since there is no study of it at all. No evidence for that claim at all and it's just made up bullshit to further propaganda.

"Another very assy presumption is that it requires that evolution is a "scientific discipline", again undermining the creationist position that evolution is anything but science. Further attempts to marginalize creation and make evolution universal and scientific are murmured as a mantra."
- Yes and god is a flying spaghettimonster. No seriously, claiming that evolution is anything but scientific is just an answer from ignorance. And the lack of knowledge is crucial in this part since no creationist seem to even know what the scientific method is and without it there wouldn't be any ToE.

"cleary ignoring every one of the many aspects of creation science insisting that it "a pseudoscience, and not related to science"."
- Why wouldn't we regard something as it is? Why see a human when there is a monkey? Why see a green leaf that is in fact brown? creation can never be regarded as science because it is derived from faith and faith alone. You try to find faults in everything that would support ToE and regard it as evidence for "god dunnit!". When in fact you haven't described anything! No answers, no explainations, just it's to complex for nature or for us to understand so... GOD DUNNIT!
Yeah it's ridicules. You have to accept that creation and ID can never be science how much you try to twist it in to sounding like it. God can never be proven and since god is not defined we can never test if he had anything to do with anything natural!

"While Wikipedia usually offers some neutral, unbiased information on many different subjects, These are some very basic reasons why wikipedia is bias and dishonest in the creation science / evolution field and attests to humanist inclinations and toxic liberal tendencies."
- Wikipedia is strictly factual. No reliable source = no info. It's not bias it's just stating fact. Got this from the "about wikipedia" page on wikipedia:
"Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute. Wikipedia's intent is to have articles that cover existing knowledge, not create new knowledge (original research). This means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles."

Note: EXISTING KNOWLEDGE!

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/05/31 - 3:16 GMT

Nope.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/06/09 - 0:52 GMT

Ummm, it would seem that you left out the response part of your reply.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/05/30 - 8:25 GMT

"We know today that many scientists are abandoning the evolution faith in droves and that many scientists have studied science for years and have not had a reason to believe in evolution."

you know what.

get into your car. drive to you nearest university (not a diploma mill) and ask the biology professors.

"are scientists dropping the theory of evolution in droves?"

"Another very assy presumption is that it requires that evolution is a "scientific discipline""

it IS......how can you even deny this...ask the professors......

""greatest in literal interpretations of religious documents, and resistance to teaching evolution is thus related to the popularity of these more literalist views.""

that IS what creationism comes from.

from genesis, OR ANY OTHER "god made.." story.

"cleary ignoring every one of the many aspects of creation science"

like the aspect that it's just christian apologetics? and that they butcher the scientific method to get "scientific evidence".

"These are some very basic reasons why wikipedia is bias and dishonest in the creation science / evolution field and attests to humanist inclinations and toxic liberal tendencies."

lol...way to blame it on the "left"..

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/05/30 - 11:10 GMT

actually the liberals are in the middle. Only way for liberals to be "lefty" would be through social liberalism and my quote from wikipedia shows that political agendas does not have any effect on the content of wiki.

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/05/31 - 3:16 GMT

Not so.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/05/31 - 12:52 GMT

deabate it and accept that you're wrong or GFTO!
There is way too much denial here.

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/05/31 - 14:11 GMT

You hippy scum, you wouldn't know truth if it slapped you in the face.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/05/31 - 14:55 GMT

"You hippy scum"

LOL!? where did you get hippy from?

"you wouldn't know truth if it slapped you in the face."

and yet we've been slapping it in your face for the last 4 months....or at least I have.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/05/31 - 15:39 GMT

ah there's the personal attacks!

There is no truth 9tails. You believe it because you think that those with creadability are lying and the bible is 100% correct. This is not the case. Without proof, calling a lot of people liars for what they do as a profession is a serious offence. I call Hovind a liar because he quotemines and he KNOWS all the faults with what he preaches (or a lot of them). We can prove what he says is wrong in so many ways (and i have been giving you sources for that one). The claim in this post (and a lot others) are simply not true and we showed you why, still you persist to say it's not so.

But then again claiming bullshit without ANY evidence for it seems to be your trademark (and bigdog's as well).
"You hippy scum, you wouldn't know truth if it slapped you in the face."
- Pure bullshit. I could call you a genius and it would hold as much truth as that statement.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/06/02 - 16:53 GMT

The premise that wikipedia is biased, based on the excerpts you quoted, is flawed from the get-go. You haven't specified exactaly WHO you're accusing of bias - the organization that runs the wikipedia website? Anyone who has contributed to the article you linked & quoted? Or just the individual contributor who wrote the pieces that you objected to?

At MOST, all you've shown is the bias of a single contributor to a single article (and, as others here have pointed out, even that's highly-questionable). Put in perspective, that's one contributor - out of thousands - to one article - out of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands. That's about as far as you get from demonstrating the presence of any sort of systematic/institutional bias throughout the site.

The funny part is that sites like CreationWiki and ConservaPedia are much gultier of bias than WikiPedia (and, therefore, much less trusthworthy). Those sites wear their biases on their sleeves and they have no problems with using that bias to justify censoring any content or contributors they disagree with.

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/06/02 - 18:36 GMT

Yes, you are right, Then I will restate position.

The article is misleading and bias, no matter the source.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/06/03 - 0:09 GMT

so you claim EVERYONE else but you are wrong? Is that it bigdog?

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/06/02 - 20:32 GMT

Don't forget that you break the rules of creationwiki if you're not a christian and contributes. They don't have any rules for sources either.

The fact that only christians got to contribute makes it extremely bias and it excludes a lot of people from it. Regular wikipedia has high standards on sources and don't exclude people from contributing according to sexuality and religion.

http://creationwiki.org/Immoral
= there is no such thing! :O

From creationwiki:
"Choice: the view that homosexuality is a choice. Many recovering homosexuals describe their homosexuality as being caused by a combination of socialization and choice, and that their return to a healthy, heterosexual lifestyle was also the result of choice, self-discipline, and faith. "
= NO SOURCE AT ALL!

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/06/08 - 15:05 GMT

Regular wikipedia has high standards on sources and don't exclude people from contributing according to sexuality and religion.

It's always funny the way that so many fundamentalist Christians constantly make accusations of bias against anyone they disagree with - while simultaneously being completely unable to recognize their own biases.

For that matter, the fundie definition of bias apparently just means anything that isn't sufficiently biased in their favour.

JamesRaynor

22 minutes - 21v

Posted 2009/06/03 - 20:39 GMT

I forgot who said it but.

"Truth has a well known liberal bias."

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/06/04 - 8:02 GMT

I forgot who said it but.

"Truth has a well known liberal bias.""

that just fails.

like evolution can be any less true if it where only supported by conservatives.

JamesRaynor

22 minutes - 21v

Posted 2009/06/04 - 18:07 GMT

It's a joke on how conservatives say 'Wikipedia has a liberal bias'.

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/06/04 - 19:21 GMT

Some key wiki articles have a strong liberal bias, yes.

The bias exists, whether you want to see it or not. I am, obviously, not saying that no extent of conservative bias exist within it either, but the majority of the articles are moderated into a liberal sentiment, with strong liberal overtones. I'll give a good example:

"Matriarchy (or gynecocracy) refers to a gynecocentric form of society, in which the leading role is taken by the women and especially by the mothers of a community."

Ok, this is a neutral approach to explain matriarchy. Woman leadership.

"Patriarchy can be traditionally defined as the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where the father or man has the primary authority and responsibility and decision making powers over the rest of the family members."

Ok, thats politically charged enough as it is right? It has the old, anti male patronage, feminazi contempt feel to it, but wait, theres more.

"However, the meaning of the term is much wider. Patriarchy refers to not just the benefits and costs that fathers and men have in families and at home, but also in society at large: at the workplace, at home, and in human relationships at large. The concept of patriarchy is often used by extension (in anthropology and feminism) to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility and authority over the welfare of the community as a whole, acting as representatives via public office"

So in matriarchy, the woman (mother) is the leading figure. But in patriarchy, the man (father) is trying to control and manipulate everyone to his selfish, contemptible, authoritarian position? lol, sounds that way to me.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 2:11 GMT

Ofc there is differences in meanings. If a word hasn't been used widely for any given time it would have a different meaning. I think it's because of the manly dominated world we used(and in some parts do) to live in. The word has been used a lot in different areas and therefore have a lot more meanings. If then wikipedia is supposed to show all the info they have to include it. I can't really find any other reasonable reason why. Patriarchy has a negative charge because of the way it tries to fuel itself to contine to be a patriarchy. Look at the extreme conservative muslim countries, the laws inhibit women to have any power so the men can have more.

tell me how is it bias?

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 10:44 GMT

It's an example of bias because it gives a connotation to whichever meaning it prefers or doesn't prefer.

Male leadership has been the structure of families and societies for millenia because men make good leaders. Most women I know personally, actually respect and honor their husbands and male counterparts enough to be submissive to his natural leadership and masculine calculations. Men and women are equal in worth and quality, but they have seperate skills, abilities and very defined differences that make them who they are.

Men and women are different, mentally as much as physically, if not more so. Men are naturally better hunters, providers and protectors. Women are naturally better care takers, compassionate and nurturing. Again, most people I know like it designed this way and get the most out of their families because of this structure and design.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 10:58 GMT

"It's an example of bias because it gives a connotation to whichever meaning it prefers or doesn't prefer.'

no. wiki describes it's use in society. nothing more. the connotation is made by you when you read certain words in the description and you jump to a conclusion. thus you fail to udnerstand what is actually written here.

"the decription of what a term applies to and how it's definition has been broadened by a specific use in society."

but why do you go on to defend the traditional family model? that was never an issue here, or on wiki.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 10:52 GMT

Ok, thats politically charged enough as it is right? It has the old, anti male patronage, feminazi contempt feel to it, but wait, theres more."

politically charged?

all i can find is "traditionally".

on the rest it is a neurtal description of what the term is.

"where the father or man has the primary authority and responsibility and decision making powers over the rest of the family"

and when you replace the word. father, with mother, then you get the definition of Matriachy.

"But in patriarchy, the man (father) is trying to control and manipulate everyone to his selfish, contemptible, authoritarian position? lol, sounds that way to me."

you're ignoring that Matriachy can also applies to society as a whole. and you take the fact that it is used by feminists to decribe certain Pro-male attitudes in society, as being "politically charged".

no sir, you see things that aren't there and you miss the rest.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/06/09 - 0:50 GMT

Arguing that Wikipedia is biased, using an example that you copy-pasted from Conservapedia? That's sort of like a shoplifter being condemned by a bank robber.

But in patriarchy, the man (father) is trying to control and manipulate everyone to his selfish, contemptible, authoritarian position? lol, sounds that way to me.

I believe the appropriate response is "lol wut?"

The quote you posted doesn't even imply any of those things, let alone state them directly.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/06/15 - 2:27 GMT

Stephen Colbert said that in routine at the White House Correspondents Dinnner a few years back.

IIRC, the exact quote was "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 13:18 GMT

Oh, of course.

Here are some other terms that are not bias, rather are descriptive of how they are employed in society.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Feminism

Feminism originally was an expression used by suffragettes - who were predominantly pro-life [1][2][3] - to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the United States and the United Kingdom. By the 1970s, however, liberals had changed the meaning to represent people who favored abortion and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.

Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:

believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women[4]
oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it
view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
shirk traditional gender activities, like baking[5]
support affirmative action for women
detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewives,[6] and especially dislike those who defend such roles
prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do[7][8]
seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberals

A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.

A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices.

Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
Support for gun control
Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[1]
Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care
Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
The denial of inherent gender differences
Insisting that men and women have the same access to jobs in the military
Legalized same-sex marriage
Implementation of affirmative action
Political correctness
Support of labor unions
Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex.[2]
A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended

A satirical conception of the liberal brain.

Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
Abolition of the death penalty
Environmentalism [3]
Disarmament treaties
Globalism
Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy [4]
Opposition to full private property rights[5]
Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.
Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 14:10 GMT

"however, liberals had changed the meaning to represent people who favored abortion and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole."

unbiased ey?

say did you look at the sources?

because thats what is important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

you probably didn't even read all the information there did you?

because there is a HELL of a lot more on feminism then that half page on conservepedia.

"shirk traditional gender activities, like baking[5]"

LAWL

if you look at the source fr the, it's even MORE funny.

"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do[7][8]"

again check the source.

that's where the lol comes from.

but srly, THIS IS wrong on so many levels.

i think WWDD might explain this better

"refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying"

...

"Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:"

you'd think they might have actually compiled somehting MORE then these handfull of attributes, but no.

"A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards often for self-centered reasons"

LOL

i think they might actually need dictionary, or a history book.

if you cannot see how biased this is...i feels sorry for you.

"There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing."

and this should be in an objective description because?

"Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events"

which in public schools is unconstitutional.

"Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[1]"

there are no words to describe the credibility of this statement, other then.

Poe

"Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex.[2]"

....the choide of promiscuity and " " makes this a baised statement.

In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World."

everytime i see somehtign like this i can't help but laugh.

ToE has nothign to do with the existence of god.

"Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

lets ignore the fact that these people HAVE a Phd and are thus rewarded with the academic title.

no 9tails.

THIS isn't objective information.

it's propoganda repackeded. and they're not even hiding it.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 14:11 GMT

i'm not even goign to adress the credibility of conservepedia.

or creationwiki.

there's just no end to that slope of fail.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 21:11 GMT

how can you even try to describe what a liberal is without telling the true meaning of the word liberal? You seem to project a long list of (in your eyes) negative traits that isn't part of liberalism.

I am a liberal myself. I don't like socialism that much besides the welfare. Liberalism is a philosophy that puts the individuals freedom before everything else (1). Freedom of speech and work and clothing and education and religion. Why do you want to counter other peoples freedom 9tails?

(1)"'Liberalism' is defined as a social ethic that advocates liberty, and equality in general." – C. A. J. (Tony) Coady Distributive Justice, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.440. B: "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." – Lord Acton

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 23:24 GMT

"Why do you want to counter other peoples freedom 9tails?"

I don't. Actually I, like you, believe the individuals freedom and independence are paramount to everything else.

I think the trouble comes when the application of methodologies and interpretation of policy systematics.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 23:34 GMT

but gays getting married has nothing to do with you, only their freedom and quest for happiness. Do you honestly think that people should stop doing things that they think is good for their lives when it has nothing to do with you?

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/06/05 - 23:53 GMT

I've never protested homosexual marriage.

I will say that I believe that sexuality has boundaries. There are people and things you should not have sexual relations with.

As far as marriage, marriage is an ordinated union. It is the symbiosis for the growth of a family, conjoining of two families and sanction for procreation. It is an organizational product like government or ministry.

That is not to say that I give a hoot who gets married and who doesn't, but when the chance to employ such values is given, perhaps on the ballet, I, as all people, give their opinion on the definition of marriage. If the influence is so great to not change the definition of marriage, the end result cannot be helped.

Again, I don't care who is in love, who is having sex or who is wearing rings. But in the world of policy, marriage has a function.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/06/06 - 0:05 GMT

" As far as marriage, marriage is an ordinated union. It is the symbiosis for the growth of a family, conjoining of two families and sanction for procreation."

i'll give you that. that is indeed what marriage boils down to, although historically it's more relevent to cal it "securing a woman to breed with"

or "tying 2 families together for mutual benefit"

but this changes what about the situation?

you can adopt children or get a surogate mother. a same sex couple can be just as effective at being a family unit as a "traditional" family.

" I, as all people, give their opinion on the definition of marriage."

which parctially mean you have to come down to saying "marriage is a union between man an woman, therefore no gays"

the practical definition or marriage, the formation of a family unit, does not in any way exclude same sex marriage. for the simple reason that they can form a healthy nurturing environment just as well as any other straight couple.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/06/06 - 0:08 GMT

"I will say that I believe that sexuality has boundaries. There are people and things you should not have sexual relations with."

i take it that you are against gay marriage then?

but that is irrelivent when you want to make a law agaisnt it. what matter then is WHY you are agaisnt it. and how that applies to the consequences of this law being passed or abolished.

and THAT is where most of the anti gay marriage arguments fail on credibility and substance.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/06/06 - 0:25 GMT

It was an example, i could have said abortion and it would be the same deal. All the things on the conservepedia list can be used. If it doesn't have anything to do with you (except if it's tax-funded, but then it's for the greater good), you don't have a voice in that question. Kinda lol me talking about freedom of speech, but those who are not affected by a law shouldn't stop it because they don't like it. You will only dictate other peoples lives and that is the thing i don't like.

You don't like gays? Fine, you have all the right to dislike it, BUT you have no right to fuck up their lives because of who they are or what they have made.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/06/09 - 1:09 GMT

shirk traditional gender activities, like baking[5]

Ha. Haha. Hahaha.

BUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

(gasping for breath)

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Yes, because (as we all know) bread is just another tool of the man-o-centric maleocracy.

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/06/09 - 5:14 GMT

Oh come now, don't be so dense. I am against homosexual marriage, because of the principles driving it. As I said, I couldn't care less what people do behind closed doors. But marriage is a social ordinance that is defined by it's civil properties. That's it. I wouldn't license a child to drive. I wouldn't reverend an athiest to preach and I wouldn't marry anything but a man and woman. It's an easy thing to get.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/06/09 - 9:24 GMT

"Oh come now, don't be so dense. I am against homosexual marriage,"

i ALREADY KNEW THAT.

", because of the principles driving it."

what? you mean loving another human being?

because homosexuality isn't a choice. you cannot choose te not be gay, or be it.

look at haggard.

you really think that if homosexuality was a choice, he would have chosen it? or that he would have chosen not to be it?

all you got is "the bible" and "marriage is defined as something heterosexual"

nothing more.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/06/09 - 12:55 GMT

"I wouldn't license a child to drive."
- Last time i checked you got your drivers license when you're 16 in the states and if yuou're 16 well... Then you're a child. right?

"But marriage is a social ordinance that is defined by it's civil properties."
- Yet you did not denfie what it was. Just said that it is defined by civil properties (what the hell that is).

Why do you take the bible literally with some things and not with others? It's like chooseing what laws you want to follow and what you don't.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/06/15 - 3:11 GMT

But marriage is a social ordinance that is defined by it's civil properties. That's it.

In its most basic form, marriage is nothing more than a symbolic social signalling device - meant to signify the presense of a relationship that would exist with or without that symbol.

But then, religions managed to muddle everything & pervert it into a mechanism for controlling people. If you're a religious authority, what better way to control people than to assert your authority over all biological compulsions/imperatives (procreation, sexuality, etc)? Tell people that it's their "Christian duty" to procreate (it's the quickest way to gain more followers, after all) - then tell them they're only allowed to procreate within unions that are approved & officiated over by said religious authorities.

Within that context, the religious authorities have an obvious motive to be opposed to ANY union or sexual activity that doesn't result in procreation.

So after hundreds of years of venerating the symbol of marriage over the reality, you have the current situation. There's a majority who perceive long-term romantic relationships as nothing more than preludes to marrage (rather than ends unto themselves), a majority of marriages ending in divorce, and people who end up disatisified with marriage without really understanding why.

Personally, I can't imagine why homosexuals would want to take part in the blatantly-obvious scam that is modern marriage. But I have yet to hear a single compelling reason why they should be excluded.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/06/15 - 12:01 GMT

I think it's a principle of rights. They want to have the same rights to everything (kids and marriage etc.) as everyone else. It's like they are automaticlly discriminated because of their sexuality.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 44 Replies

PlexPedia - The unified online compendium of knowledge

- My Settings

This website is powered by Plexpedia
Usage of this site constitutes agreement to the » Legal Stuff