UndecidedFrog

I beg to differ. Cobalt1959 asked me if I equated the rights of homosexuals to marry with the rights of those who want to commit pedophilia. He implied that pedophilia was a right. I did not. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Candice, I am sorry that you are disappointed. However, I am not the person who implied that pedophilia was in any sense a right. That was done by someone else. I am just highlighting this to others who may have missed it. I think it a vile tactic that equates pedophilia with consensual adult heterosexual and homosexual marriage. They are not even closely the same. Yes, it is sinking to new lows to introduce this red herring into debate. I am not twisting any words. I have shown the evidence. People can make up their own minds about it. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Am I? When you claim that "no one said that pedophilia is a right.", and I provided the question that Cobalt1959 asked me directly implying that pedophilia as a right of the few, you choose to interpret that question as not implying that pedophilia as a right. I read the question for what it says, just as I read what you claim for what it says. To me, they are directly contradictory. I see Cobalt1959's question to me to directly imply that pedophilia as a right. I see your claim that nobody said that pedophilia is a right to be false, given the evidence above. You may see things differently. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Candice, I beg to differ. Cobalt1959 said: He is directly implying that pedophilia is a right of the few in his question to me. Or do you disagree with this interpretation of his question? I would like to know how you see this objectively. Regards, UndecidedFrog No, I don't think he thinks it is a right. I think he is using hyperbole to make a point. For that matter, I don't think gay marriage is a 'right' either. We are clearly talking about options people have that minority groups want to deny the legislation of. Candice, You do not see Cobalt1959 implying that pedophilia is a right of the few when he asked me that question. Whether he was attempting hyperbole or not, I see the direct implication where you do not. I find it infinitely interesting how we can understand different things from the same sentence. OK, thank you for answering my question. Regards, UndecidedFrog

But you had no problems implying that I did when you asked me: A wise man once said, "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you." Are you honestly attempting to claim that only judeo-christian value systems view consenting adults as a necessary requirement for marriage? You amuse me thoroughly. Regards, UndecidedFrog

viole, That is my hope. That in a few generations, the current prohibition of homosexual marriages will be repealed. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Candice, I beg to differ. Cobalt1959 said: He is directly implying that pedophilia is a right of the few in his question to me. Or do you disagree with this interpretation of his question? I would like to know how you see this objectively. Regards, UndecidedFrog

No, I do not consider having sex with underaged children as a right. Perhaps you do, but I do not. That is why I am not talking about sex with underaged children. I am talking about consenting adults. Regards, UndecidedFrog

OES, Sorry to disagree, but in the US, couples who are not married (and recognized by the state as such) are not entitled to certain rights which include (but are not limited to): 1) Health care insurance coverage from the employer that normally covers the spouse 2) Inheritence rights that favor the spouse 3) Adoption rights 4) Joint income tax filing status availability for those married couples who find themselves in favorable tax brackets. Homosexual couples who are prohibited from marrying do not have access to the above rights that are available to heterosexual couples. Regards, UndecidedFrog

And why not? I explained why I used hyperbole to make my point. It's a moral issue, and you yourself take a moral stand against under aged marriage which impinges on the 'freedoms' of others. I take a moral stand against homosexual marriage which impinges on the 'freedoms' of others. When I do it, you claim 'idealism is ruined by hypocrisy', but when you do it, it's all sweet? That's so... err what's the word... hypocritical? And how does homosexual marriage impinge on your freedoms?

Underaged marriage is not an appropriate analogy for homosexual marriage. Interracial marriage is a more appropriate analogy. In the US, at one time in our history, interracial marriage was prohibited by law. This law denied people of different races to marry. Today, there are laws that deny people of the same sex to marry. I hope, that some day in the near future, such laws that prohibit homosexuals from marrying will be repealed as the laws that prohibited people of different races from marrying were repealed. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Of course you have the right to express your convictions freely and that is what democracy is for. Like Voltaire said, I don't agree with you, but I would give my life fighting for your right to express your views. But you might consider whether you are not creating unnecessary suffering for people who, in other civilized countries, have more rights. Ciao - viole IMO, the rights of many will be harmed by denying the same rights to the few. There is nothing that destroys ideals more than hypocrisy. Regards, UndecidedFrog

LOL. Isn't that one of the FSM's claims? I am a fan of the Pastafarian religion. Regards, UndecidedFrog.

I sincerely doubt anyone saw how god "terraformed" the planet. Regards, UndecidedFrog

From my understanding, most christians believe that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. Only a portion of the fundamentalist christians are YECs and believe the earth to be only thousands of years old. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Hi Omegaman, Your examples are correct. However, you are not comparing the full range of choices. If you are married, you have a choice to either file: 1) Married filing jointly (as your examples demonstrate), or 2) Married filing separately (which is absent in your examples). Compare this to a couple not married legally, (homosexual or not) who can only file as singles. The apples to apples comparison is 2 people filing as singles vs. same 2 people filing as married filing either jointly or separately. In most cases, 2 people married filing separately will be paying higher tax than the same 2 people filing as singles. In most cases when these 2 people are earning like income, filing (married) jointly will incur more tax liability than if they filed as singles. Only when the 2 people who file (married) jointly have disparate income, will they incur less tax liability, and only when the total income falls within certain brackets, as some of your examples demonstrate. Regards, UndecidedFrog

OES, I think you have this reversed. They call it the marriage penalty for a reason. It is financially less rewarding for 2 people to file their income taxes as married (jointly or separately) than filing as 2 singles. Regards, UndecidedFrog Hmm, well I guess I'm glad I don't live in your country. I guess my argument only works where I'm from. Why do they penalize people for being married where you are? OES, The US government, in its infinite wisdom figure that 2 people (who are married) can live more cheaply than 2 people living apart. Hence, the resulting economic gain belongs to the government, since the state is the entity that allowed these 2 people to get married (by the laws vested in me by the state of New York, etc.), and they structure their income tax laws accordingly. Regards, UndecidedFrog

OES, I think you have this reversed. They call it the marriage penalty for a reason. It is financially less rewarding for 2 people to file their income taxes as married (jointly or separately) than filing as 2 singles. Regards, UndecidedFrog

It depends on what you determine as "a long period of time" and "flourishing society". If you define "flourishing society" to be a society devoid of things you find repugnant (including homosexual marriage), you can easily answer your own question. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Or maybe I am just blinded by the light viole, Don't forget that you and I are also corrupt, unrighteous, unjustified, citizens of the kingdom of darkness, and servants of satan. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Actually Dawkins uses the title to sell the book. He is not even a physicist, he studies animal behavior. Certainly not an authority on anything else. However he uses the perception of being a scientist and inference to support really his opinion. He stirs up the Christians and gets a lot of free publicity. Nakosis, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist. He doesn't need to use any perception of being a scientist, he is a scientist. However, when he talks about god/s existing or not, he is not talking about science. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Both scientists and nonscientists who do not believe in god and those that do are allowed to use whatever they want to support their beliefs or non-beliefs. However, what you will notice is that when people attempt to express their beliefs or non-beliefs in gods and attempt to disguise that as science and insert that into public school science curricula, or into peer-reviewed scientific journals, they will get an appropriate rude awakening. When Richard Dawkins expresses his atheism, it is not in any scientific journal or science textbook. When Francis Collins expresses his god-beliefs, it is not in any scientific journal or science textbook. When Kenneth Miller expresses his god-beliefs, it is not in any scientific journal or science textbook. When the above 3 scientists write in scientific journals or in science textbooks, you will notice an absence of the mention of gods, or the supernatural. You can attempt to use scientific findings anyway you see fit. However, if you attempt to insert them to support a position on the existence of god/s or the supernatural in scientific journals or science textbooks, your attempts should be appropriately shot down. This works for the goose and the gander. Regards, UndecidedFrog

When they say this "claim that the laws of physics make God unnecessary for the creation of the universe" it is clear that they have made a spiritual conclusion from a scientific investigation. That's their personal interpretation. If you think they are making a scientific claim, you have every right to ask them to see the data upon which their alleged scientific conclusions are based. However, I think you can avoid misunderstanding by simply asking them if this is their opinion or fact that they are representing. I know that Richard Dawkins is very clear about the difference. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Do you think it is science when people engage in debates about supernatural beings? IMO, no. Do you think it is science to write and publish books about the existence of gods? IMO, no. Do you think it is reasonable that scientists have opinions on the existence of god/s, realizing that these opinions are not science? IMO, yes. It is always important to know the difference when a scientist is talking science and when he is not. Is anyone confusing the God Delusion as a science textbook or scientific journal paper? Regards, UndecidedFrog

Absolutely Dear One Or They're Not His Joe, How very tautological of you. Regards, UndecidedFrog