Slashdot Mirror
President Bush Flip-flopping on Gay Rights Issue?
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that has upset some in the GOP, George Bush has suddenly declared his support for civil unions for gay ane lesbian couples. Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?"
Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?
Unfortunately it won't hurt him. The Democrats seem to be a bit slow on jumping on all the "flip-flopping" (I hope I never hear that word again after tis election) that the President does and the Republican are too good at redirecting the public's attention when Bush does something stupid.
They can't be married but they're allowed to join a union? I didn't think Dubya supported unions at all! What next? Will he allow gay communists??
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
gay ane lesbian
Hmm.
Joseph?
go technology news!
w00t
Waffling too, I never want to hear that term again either (except in relation to something that I can eat).
Partial quote:
This is kinda like that "Bush banned stem-cell research" myth, when in fact he just stopped anti-abortionists from being forced to fund abortions (via taxpayer money).
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Wow - That's the sign of a really desperate man. Only minutes ago pollster Zogby, on the Daily Show, stated flatly that he saw Kerry winning the election. I think GWB is seeing the writing on the wall.
Three Squirrels
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment in Atlantis with bigfoot.
Separate but equal? "If you ask Vice President Cheney's daughter, ... who is a lesbian ..., I'm sure she'd tell you she's just being herself." Sorry, couldn't resist quoting Kerry. "Want some wood? Heh, heh" There's a Bush one.
But, this is utter shit. I'm not gay, I only know a couple of gay people, and this whole state I live in seems to be populated by a majority of redneck homophobics. You don't have to be part of a cultural group to stand up for their rights.
If I recall correctly, about 78% of people in this state approved a bill "defining" marriage and forbidding civil unions. A judge overturned it as "too broad" but I'm sure it will be right back. I proudly voted against it. Haven't any of you ever heard of "and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me"?
Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. He is the only one who will bring about real change and bring civil liberties back to us. He supports rights for all minorities (I'm a white, straight Male) and majorities. So don't think I'm pandering or whatever to any specific group.
Read why you should vote for him. There are reasons for about every socioeconomic/cultural group.
What's a Libertarian you ask? No, you didn't ask? Read this anyway.
Chris
He says he doesn't support gay marriage, just unions. Personally, I think there are some parts of marriage law designed for the children presumed to come from that union.
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
So this seems reasonable to me, and doesn't strike me as flip flopping.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Well, this is a move in the right direction. A final solution (bad wording, I know) would be to declare homo- and hetero-sex unions civil unions and leave marriage up to the church. Of course, to avoid the problems in come Scandinavian countries, there would still have to be incentives to get a union. www.lp.org
Do a Google search for Bush flip flops and you'll see there is a whole pile of issues Bush has flip-flopped on.
The really frightening thing is some doctors think he is showing signs of pre-senile dementia.
If I was in the US I would seriously consider voting for that Badnarik guy. It seems as if he is by far the smartest voice out there.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
I haven't found one quote that says Bush supports civil unions between gay couples. He simply states that it should be up to the states to decide. Talk about spinning... sheesh
October 28, 2004-John Kerry today said his administration would order full, equal,
and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing
heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 103 million compulsory
same-sex marriages that will take place in the US by May 15.
"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual
marriage to co-exist," John Kerry said. "This is just the first step toward creating an all-gay
United States."
Kerry added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual
unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions
altogether."
Kerry said his action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.
"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth,
we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to
allow gay marriages," Kerry said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed
anyway."
The campaign issued the surprise statement in response to a flip flop by
President Bush.
"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is
never equal," Kerry said,. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling
conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all
residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that
this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to
our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."
Kerry then announced his marriage to Heinz heir teacher Teresa Heinz Kerry
would be annulled and that he would marry based on a
pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census
office earlier that day.
Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass
ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and
Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal
heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for
non-support.
Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the
statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants,
which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho,
homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or
Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read,
"On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."
According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.
"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of
romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a
woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene
are going to fry in hell."
The much-anticipated order sets the stage for United States' upcoming
congressional session, where the congress will consider an
amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same
gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally
dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas
Finneran, would be delayed.
"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said.
"Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was
never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're
setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in
due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."
Wouldn't the same type of provisions be pertinent?
Fraudulent slip?
From what I read of the proposed "amendment", it DID support civil-unions. I am not stating a case for or against, but I do disagree that this is a flip-flop.
Marriage should be one of many legal status options for couples. With high rates of divorces and remarriage, it is clear that the traditional practice of marriage has eroded in our post-industrial society. Furthermore, when marriages end, there are many legal issues such as custody, property, etc that need to be resolved. I would submit that part of the problem is the lack of choice: people either remain single, live together as "boyfriend-girlfriend", or get married (the only legally recognized status for a couple). People sometimes get married even if they are not totally serious about the relationship. It might make sense to offer some lower legal status options for those couples living together but not ready to enter a full-fledge marriage (I am thinking of the system in Sweden and other Nordic countries), leaving marriage for the diehard couples. Personally, I think marriage and other legal statuses should be open to all despite sexual preference, but I am definitely an exception in the US.
n/t
"States' rights" used to be something of a codeword for "slavery," way back when; as in "it's a state's right to determine whether or not it will allow slavery." Granted, it was used to allude to other things, as well, but slavery was the main issue with which it was meant to be connotated.
No, I'm not intending to draw a direct line of connection, but I am pointing out the coincidence.
There's more I could say on this, but I'm tired, my mind is fuzzy, and my belly is full of pizza.
~UP
Eat the Path.
Bush has always believed that civil unions were A-OK, as long as you don't call it a marriage.
Most Southern Evangelicals, whom Bush was trying to win over with this whole anti-gay-marriage Amendment idea, feel exactly the same way.
You see, a "flip-flop" is when your position changes. Bush's position has always been:
Gay Marriage: A threat to mom and apple pie. Boo! Boo! You queers are trying to ruin our religious institutions and drag us all to Hell!!!
Civil Unions: States can recognize anything they want along these lines. Live and let live. La-di-da.
Is it a game of semantics? Yes.
Is it a change of position? No.
"Flip-flopping" is acceptable if "the facts" change.
I so wish that politicians were capable of (or is it that they are not allowed?) admiting a wrong decision based on wrong information or even a wrong decision outright. God forbid they be mortal...
The government should deal only in civil unions, and stop recognizing "marriage" altogether. It's too politically charged, too religiously entangled, and, frankly, too personal for the government to be messing with. Let people define their own marriages as they see fit, and if they want the legal benefits of a civil union, they can apply for one -- but they're separate things. Signing civil union documents would be a standard part of most marriage ceremonies, but neither would necessitate the other.
Yeah, it's just a linguistic trick, but it's really only the language that's hanging up the fundies in the first place.
(OT: If the doc your sig links to is supposed to justify the Iraq war, it's a lousy justification. I'm sure it would take you about 20 minutes to find some loon in northern Idaho who blows off the UN, cheats the government, and would really like to build a biological weapon, and he has about as much ability to follow through on that as Saddam did.)
It definitely hurts him. He needs a BIG turnout from the religious right.
Marriage is the best way to stop sex. So those that truly believe that gay sex is wrong should support gay marriage.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
Instead of having Marriages left and right and divorces all over the place just get a civil union and avoid all the moral and ethical baggage religion tacks on to it... unless you are religious and believe in Marriage as an act of worship, which is how Christians and several other religions teach.
If your church doesn't allow for marriage between gay individuals that is a matter for the church to decide and those gay individuals to deal with. The Hebrew Temple won't marry you if you are not jewish, the Catholic Church won't marry you unless at least one of you is baptized and confirmed Catholic...
If you want to be together and enjoy partner status in regards to taxes or other benefits go get a civil union and avoid the issue all together... marriage is simply one accepted form of civil union.. not the only one. Well, it looks like it will be this way in the future.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The Catholic church of the time was focussed around various forms of Mithraism and Zoroastrian-like groups, although it later absorbed the cult of Vesta (ever heard of Vestal Virgins?) and half a dozen others before conquering much of the Christian movement by a kind of internal takeover. The canon existed pretty much as the Protestants use it long before the Catholic Church officially endorsed it - and IRL their endorsement varied from accepted practice and was varied a couple of times.
The New Testament states flat-out that homosexuals (very carefully differentiates between butch and limp-wristed blokes too, and also lesbians, then groups them all together with thieves and liars and such) will not be found in heaven, so if you're a Christian and your "love" leads someone to miss their chance, were you really loving them, or were you just being weak at a different level? The Old Testament is even blunter, prescribing stoning to death for homosexuals.
Of course, if you hate homosexuals, you're also going to miss out. If you can put together a coherent world-view which incorporates both facts, then you're pretty much on the right track.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The FBI start an investigation into Haliburton and shortly afterwards Dubya changes his stance on gay rights ... where's my tinfoil hat ?
Yeah, but my wife and I don't ever plan on having kids. So should any spousal benefits we receive be negated?
Not to mention all the folks out there who are infertile. Do we start discriminating against them, too?
It's the governments business about marriage if things like divorce and child custody become civil issues.
For example, I tell everyone me and my lady are married. Then, after I trash her credit, I 'divorce' her. She would be mightily pissed. Oh, and I take her kid.
The government regulates all contracts for the public good.
Civil unions sidestep the whole marriage deal. If Bush _really_ wanted to pass an amendment, he should've passed one that guaranteed civil unions all, including gays.
But, it wouldn't have given the right-wing nut-jobs a hard-on.
My father is a blogger.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?ar chive=43&num=5339&printer=1
sheesh
i think it all comes down to what words mean to a person. personally i dont like the idea of 'gay marriage' because to me 'marriage' means a man and a woman. i would like to see a seperate term that means a man and man or a woman and woman. like gay, lesbian, heterosexual. it tells us something, it is more precise. while 'civil union' works, it seems very clinical.
i see no reason why two people of the same sex, who are committed to each other, shouldnt have the same legal rights as two committed people of opposite sex.
perhaps the president came to the same conclusion?
always mosh clockwise
As a licensed (Baptist) minister, I agree. There is a huge difference between marriage as I believe God ordained it and the mockery of marriage we call civil marriage, even if you leave aside the gay marriage issue. In God's marriage, divorce is allowed only in the most dire circumstances, remarriage is never allowed, and the husband and wife "become one flesh." In civil marriage, the opposite obtains. It's time to stop equivocating on what marriage is and get the state out of the marriage business.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
If a state decides that a civil union requireds 1man+1woman, but a "marriage" can be anything, what has really changed?
If a state decides that 1any + 1any is an acceptable union, what's the point in limiting this to just sets of two?
Methinks Bush is just flip-flopping in the week before the election knowing that he'll never have to answer the hard questions such a reversed philosophy raises.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
The Job of a politician is to make the best decision possible based upon all available information. That REQUIRES them to change their mind in the face of new evidence.
The dogmatastic is death to a country
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
If a state decides that 1any + 1any is an acceptable union, what's the point in limiting this to just sets of two?
There are lots of reasons to allow gay marriage but not polygamy. You just haven't thought it through yet.
Issue #1: Partner A is incapcitated. Who will make decisions about his or her medical care? If there is only one other person in the marriage, then Partner B. If there is a Partner C then there must be a vote and there is potential deadlock. Perhaps we should allow marriages only between even numbers of people?
Another issue: Partner A dies intestate. If there is only a partner B, then there is no question how to divide the estate.
I'd also argue that there is good reason to restrict polygmous marriage, if it were allowed, to gays. There are roughly equal numbers of men and women. If men can take multiple women, then there will be a surfeit of unmatched heterosexual males who will not be able to participate in the institution of marriage. If we want to promote the social benefits of marriage, then heterosxual polygamy (as well as sex selection) undermines this. Homosexual polygamy, however, does not.
By the way, there will be significant sh*t hitting the fan in China in the coming decades because of child sex selection.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
now, i'm gonna half to write in Dennis Leary, stupid shit head, making me waste my vote.
For the love of god vote leary
http://tuxserver.ath.cx/~fenfir/learypres.htm
int main(){ char ln[0]; ln[15]=(ln[14]=(ln[13]=(ln[12]=(ln[11]=(ln[10]=((l n[0]=((ln[1]=((ln[2]=((l
I don't think anyone really believes him when he says this. He's just trying to appear less evil to uninformed undecided voters. His base knows he's with them in sending gays to hell and his opponents know he's just saying whatever it will take to get him re-installed in office.
Incidentally, being against LGBT rights now is like being against Civil Rights in the 50's. I'm looking forward to the time when we can all look back on this as another shameful hurdle we overcame.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
You're assuming that Bush has read and understood the FMA. Are you sure you want to make that assumption? :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Another example: say Bush said abortion should be kept legal. That would seriously PO a large segment of the GOP. But where would they go? Bush can say whatever the hell he likes, and the GOP members are still stuck voting for him, because there isn't any alternative for fundamentalist busy bodies (not that all the GOP are).
At some level, I am sure the same is true of Kerry. Well, maybe they could jump over to Badnarik, if Kerry suddenly said he'd legislate against gay marriage. But there isn't another candidate who has even hinted at making gay marriage illegal at a federal level (as far as I can tell). Bush will not lose a single vote with this flip-flop.
Do not touch -Willie
I am somewhat curious as to why this is a topic for Slashdot.
I personally don't give a damn what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms, since it is none of my business, but it is slightly suggestive given the byline "News for nerds".
:-D
The counter-argument to all the flame about sterile people comes from changing one's perspective:
The government makes laws that must fit the overwhelming majority - there will always be anecdotal cases that don't fit. In this case, the government may have a legitimate interest in encouraging unions that can produce children. Since most heterosexual unions can produce children, but no homoxexual unions can, it can be argued that the law makes sense.
The counter argument to the gender discrimination argument runs this way:
There is no gender discrimination - all men are equally allowed to marry women. All women are equally allowed to mary men. Everyone is equally allowed to mary a person of the opposite sex. Just because a few individuals are not interested in members of the opposite sex does not make the system inequitable.
For what its worth, kudos to the folks who pointed out that Marriage has now always been a church thing.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Voting for people who in no way even pretend to represent your interests is for people who aren't very good at making rational decisions.
(A lot of people aren't very good at making rational decisions, which is why we have the system we have now. But I digress.)
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Whoa cowboy. Your lie is just as huge as the one you're complaining about. That's not what happened. Bush banned federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines. It's not like without that ban, the government was going to go out, soliciting women to have abortions so that they could get the stem cells. The only difference would have been that rather than letting the aborted foetuses go to waste, they could have been used to help save someone's life. His ban had *nothing* to do with the funding of abortions.
I thought the christian/catholic/babtist/protestant/whatever/et
LOVE
Love felt by any person is just that, love.
A fine quote from some bible:Now it seems to me that if Jesus or whatever diety you happen to worship has LOVE as their bottom line then they should say so and stand by that.
But it isn't that way. If a man has love, true unconditional love for a woman, it is just fine in the eyes of their lord.
Now if this same unconditional love is directed towards someone of the same sex, your god has a big old problem. Or so you say.
What has changed? The feeling of love is still the EXACT same feeling. It is just that those with authority and who call themselves "righteous" don't like it. But aren't all humans equal in your god's eyes?
Another good one:Now I don't see anything in there that says anything about love being gender specific.
So, I think the problem here is not about LOVE.
Love is constant and love is not judgemental. It is only those who get to determine if 2 humans can legally be together that are not consistant and purely judgemental base on their hippocratic beliefs.
One last quote:No mention of "1 man and 1 woman" there only "Two".
If your god believes in love, I seriously doubt an almighty being has set conditions and qualifications on who can love who.
And neither should we.
If two people love each other, unconditionally, it shouldn't matter what sex they are and it shouldn't affect their rights to visit them in the hospital and it shouldn't affect their right to raise children or anything else.
Two people who have commited their lives to be with the other should all have the same benefits as every other couple that has done the same.
If your god won't accept it (according to you) there are plenty of other gods out there that will.
But there are those out there who say that same gender love is "Immoral" and I think that by saying that you are saying love is immoral. Which it is not and that makes you a bloody hippocrite that has blasphemed. (according to your own standards)
Personally, I believe in nothing and I am therefore not _limited_ in any set of beliefs.
And this is how the government should be as well. It should allow all religeons and represent NONE. Because god and government, by law, do not mix in this country, last time I checked anyway.
So, it should be one way or the other. 2 people CAN form a union and get benefits or they CAN'T.
Why are we discriminating?
I hate my sig.
I'd say there is more of a difference between individuals of the same sex (good dad
That depends upon what that role-model is doing. If mom is holding down a job to pay for food, shelter and clothing, then she is modelling the "provider" role. And she can probably do that just as well as the average male.
Yep. Once you step away from the idealized "family", you realize that it is a continuum (and that the ideal family never has existed and never will).
Two stable gay guys can raise a child better than a "normal" man/woman couple where one or both is/are alcoholic, abusive, etc.
No. That is only accurate when all other conditions are equal.
But they never are.
Children in the worst of the heterosexual families would do far better if placed in the best of the homosexual families.
So, it comes down to evaluating each situation based upon all of the factors in that situation. Never a "...heterosexual unions combine the best of both worlds and despite their flaws, they are the ideal for that task".
There are recorded instances of mothers killing their children and also allowing their children to be raped in exchange for drugs.
Learn what "continuum" means.
There are recorded instances of fathers risking their lives to save children from burning buildings.
I have done the research. That is why I know that there are more differences between women at the extremes then there are between men and women at the middle.
It shows that your belief that basing "good" on sexual orientation is flawed.
Yes, that is correct.
The forest is the trees.
The "normal parenting" that you're now retreating to is far different from the ideal parenting that you were originally talking about.
I'm not ignoring it. In fact, I've mentioned it. Again, in the middle, there is less of a difference between men and women then there is between men and men at the extremes of the male continuum.
So you cannot say that sexual orientation defines a "good" parent relationship or a "good" role model.
Actually, it is rather easy. Is there a history of violence or substance abuse etc.
Once you start defining your criteria for a "good" role model without including sexual orientation, you'll find that many homosexual couples are "better" parents than the hetrosexual couples who birth the children.
Nope. Just evaluating the relevent factors.
Okay, whatever. Have fun with your life. But the facts do not support your bias.
...is the smallest unit of government. The family is where people learn their values, including co-operation and respct for others. Stable families mean a better society and, generally speaking better government.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
What Bush has said is that the power should belong to each state to make the decision. I agree with this, although I think that the states should choose to give equal rights to all people regardless of sexual orientation.
Marriage is a social as well as legal term based only on biological differences between men and wemen. There are some people who consider themselves opposite sex in spite of their physical distinctions. But their eligibility of marriage should not be affected by their feelings or claims to be opposite sex. Like married person is not allowed to have one more spouse or more in Western society, same sex cannot marry same sex. However, in terms of civil unions, things are somehow different. We have to admit there are gay couples who have their households on their own as married people have been doing. It would be socially acceptable for us to admit the benefit married people usually hold to the households gay couples have....I think that's the point he wanted to pointed out, and it is very much acceptable with a view to social justice, fairness, equally bestowed human rights.
Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
The OT quotes the devil, which doesn't invalidate it. The Bible (including the OT) also quotes people telling lies, which also doesn't invalidate it. Finally, the Bible quotes rules which are still helpful despite being targeted principally at ancient Hebrews (e.g. the Jews survived so well during the Black Plague simply because of blindly following laws generally considered stupid, irrelevant and/or outdated that their neighbours burned them at the stake for being in league with the devil (tells you a lot about the theology of the time, too)). The passage of time hasn't made the principles behind the rules any less effective.
I'm not suggesting that we should start stoning homosexuals or other adulterers (although I have seen good arguments made for it, said arguments neglect a lot of unfortunate attributes of human nature). However it is clear from the nature of the punishment prescribed that homosexuality is unarguably regarded as badly wrong, not a mere misdemeanour.
You're also still stuck with the fact that the NT (which extensively fulfills and records the fulfillment of OT prophecy) still explicitly states, categorically, that neither effeminate nor dominant male homosexuals, nor female homosexuals, will see heaven. As a Christian, you have a duty to change that (lots of implications there, not including a requirement to tackle individual cases head-on or rancorously) in exactly the same way you would address stealing or polyandry or any of the many things listed alongside homosexuality as showstoppers.
Your 4th point is addressing a strawman. The liberal view of the Bible is that it was thrown together by men to address their need for religion. This is entirely inconsistent with what the Bible actually says, does and is. This is also different from reading the Bible intelligently, which is essentially you're proposing above. By upholding reasonable reading, you are not upholding the liberal view proposed by your parent poster.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This week we have annelida sharing vertebrate opsin and even further admissions from conservative geologists that the Grand Canyon may have formed relatively suddenly (at the same time as they're trying to remove a book from the GC bookstore which says exactly the same thing). That's one more pointer among thousands that are aimed towards a matrix of characteristics, not a tree or forest of them; and one more admission among hundreds hinting that gigayears aren't needed to explain geology as we know it. In fact, you cannot successfully explain thick untainted rock strata in near-gigayear terms because our planet is quite obviously not that tranquil.
In the absence of any materialist explanation which comes even close to fitting the data, it becomes appropriate to begin considering non-materialist explanations - but you seem to be missing this important and obvious step.
No wonder you posted as an AC.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Going beyond reasoning to rationalisation is pretty much guaranteed to end the usefulness of something which is essentially bigger than any of us. This rationalisation presumes that we are in some way in control of the situation, that it is entirely understandable and explicable through the lens of our finite experience. If, however, the facts as stated are rational, then they are not going to be rationalisable.
Or to put it another way, if you are keeping your head while those about you are losing theirs, then you haven't fully grasped the situation. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Take, for example, fossils. These are dated according to the rocks they're in, and the rocks are dated by index fossils they contain. This neat circular piece of reasoning existed before radiometric dating, so when that came along it got kind of calibrated with one eye on the existing situation. Where did the original geologic column come from? A few maniacs with an agenda waved a thumb at it and pulled the figures out of their asses. The first few rounds of guesses were insanely low by today's standards, almost lining up with the 75Ma proposed by people who sound (for the sake of reducing search-engine hits and the ensuing bunfights) like "sighyentollujusts".
Now if it happens that these dates are more or less right, well and good. However, AMS dating says they're not - which should be blindingly obvious anyway, when people are C14-dating stuff that should have hit equilibrium millions of years ago. Many conventionally acquired datings disagree with each other, depsite the discarding of many "wild" readings. Many fossils and rock layers are found in the "wrong" order without possibility of intrusion, reworking or inversion en bloc. Then there's polystrate fossils, the whole OOPART clan, the problem of fresh "fossils", the missing bones and assorted non-equilibria. And more.
Don't even ask about the fragile pillar of assumptions holding up the ice-core dating department, either.
So the dating systems appear to be a bit of a snafu when you have a close look at them. People going wrong with confidence left and right. Why hasn't this been examined and fixed? Because too many people are scared to rock the boat lest they let a "Divine Foot" in the door; they'd rather press on, knowing in the back of their minds that the intellectual palace they're building stands on false foundations, than risk finding out that their whole philosophy is wrong. They can't imagine a reasonable alternative explanation besides creationism ("it's turtles, all the way down!"), so they regularly rearrange the deckchairs on the scientific Titanic and declare the iceberg problem solved.
This is not to assert that creationism actually is the only alternative to orthodox dating dogma, simply that nobody mainstream has yet come up with a reasonable-sounding alternative, and very few are prepared to risk derision by even trying to. The like of Dawkins and his imaginitive and entertaining but ultimately pointless just-so stories are very popular because the alternative is real career risk and hard work.
OK, so where does that get us? Three dating cards crumple, marked "radio-dating", "index fossils" and "reference strata". They're right at the bottom of the heap.
It's a huge heap, and being braced up by many very determined people, so it may take a while to collapse as it should, but it's doomed to fall flat in the end unless some viable replacement cards are found. The heap is not called "science" but "materialism", which makes finding an acceptable replacement more difficult. The ricepaper of imagination will not do, for these cards carry a heavy load and need to be pressed from the stiff card of unbiased observation.
Will new cards be found, or will the heap collapse? Stay tuned, but whatever you do don't blunder around asserting that it's all proven and the battle is over.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Also, I'd appreciate a little less anonymity, if you could see your way clear to that?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death. (Lev 20:9)
... the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
My, we're certainly going to be killing a lot of people. How many people have cursed their father or mother in a fit of teenage pique? Surely the mountains of hundreds of millions of corpses will have a "sweet savor to the Lord".
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife,
I guess that disposes of another 20% or more of the population. I'm glad the lord likes the smell of burning corpses, because there's going to be a lot of it if people ever start following the bible literally.
Is it any wonder the bible is a perenial favourite of mass-murderers? Pol Pot has nothing on this guy.
You got it wrong. An Earth inside a white hole would - you should pardon the term in context - naturally possess the required properties.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...what said innocent Egyptians were already doing to the Israelites. The Assyrians and others too.
Said God wiped out at least a million foot-soldiers only a few weeks later, too. The foot-soldiers were en route to wiping out 4-6 million Israelites including women and children.
It was not a nice time and place to live in. That's what happens when we are essentially left in charge of a planet.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Even if sex imbalance were to be a problem, that's only a problem if polygyny were legalised. Do you really believe that 55% of the population would stand by and let men have multiple partners (who's restricting it to multiple wives?) and not demand that women have an equal right to marry multiple partners?
There are a lot of things that "polygamist" mormons have screwed up:
a) polygamy just means multiple marriage, not multiple wives.
b) just because radical mormons practicing authoritarian and abusive marriage get all the press, doesn't mean that all polygamy is abusive. (I know you didn't say that, but it's one of the things that "mormons" have screwed up in the common understanding of polygamy.) That'd be like saying that because some husbands abuse their wives, marriage is abusive.
-- "Perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?" -Amy Weiss, RIAA