But the issue here is what different people consider good reasons.

Do you think partial birth abortion is wrong, Radnarok? If so, would you vote to restrict it in any way? If you would, then aren't you forcing your opinion on others who do NOT think it's wrong?

I think any type of abortion is wrong. Killing potential life is unethical in my opinion. One method of aborting a fetus is taking a pair of scissors and stabbing the fetus in the head. I consider that murder.

You've asked twice now, but I didn't want to answer on this thread because it tends to take over the thread and I've been reprimanded before for doing that :eek: - do you want to open the discussion on the gay/les/bi thread and I'll explain over there?

Could you please answer my last post? I'd like to hear what you have to say :)
EDIT - oh, we cross-posted. I see you answered - thanks!

So would you vote to put restrictions on any type of abortion, or partial birth abortion at least?


So do I :(

oh thats right I forgot you have some magical ability to see things the rest of us humans cant see. Invisible data. "Perfect knowledge". That you cant share with us.

ok now heres the part where you once again get to ignore my point and shout triumphantly about a "double standard" when there is none at all. So go ahead... we are all waiting...

Yes, I don't think people should be given the choice to kill potential life. Stabbing a fetus in the head is very sick. :(

And you accuse ME of not reading YOUR posts? Sheesh! It seems to me that you don't read MINE, because right after the part you quoted I wrote this: "(My knowledge of the universe is imperfect, too, obviously - but we each need to go on what we think is right, based upon our own personal observations and experience, IMO.)"

"magical ability" - what?! When did I claim that? Never.
"perfect knowledge" - what?! When did I claim that? Never.
And as far as "see things the rest of us humans cant see" - well, I imagine I see some things you don't, and you see some things I don't. I don't think we all know the exact same things, do you? So I think each of us needs to go off what we, ourselves, see. Don't you?

"shout triumphantly"? I think you've been drinking too much coffee ... ;)

Thanks for the quote, but that wasn't what I was trying to find the answer to, so if you would please be patient with me, I'll rephrase the question and ask you again - do you, personally, regardless of the constitution, think that partial birth abortion is wrong?

my point was that you seem to see things that arent anywhere in the data. thats that "invisible data" i was talking about and your "magical ability" to see it when others cant.

just coke today.

“Wrong” is a meaningless word in this context really. I realize you want to make this just a moral argument but that doesn’t mean much to me. More appropriately it deprives them of their life and liberty which is unJUST. Just like discriminating against gays is unjust.

First of all, plenty of "others" can indeed see the data that you call "invisible data" (but which I would call "seen-but-purposefully-ignored-by-you data"). :) I'm not unique, by any means.

All of us make decisions, every day, based on imperfect information, right info, wrong info, best guesses, approximations, etc. We both make all sorts of decisions without what you would refer to as "scientific" data when we think it is appropriate or if there is none available.

I think we should encourage each other to put a lot of thought into our decisions and base our decisions on the information that we evaluate as valid and relevant. I certainly encourage you to do that; can you do that for me? Or do you think I should just put my mind on a shelf and mindlessly adopt your opinion even if I see no evidence for it? I think that would be pretty sad advice.

You've mentioned "harm". I just want to know if you, personally, think it is wrong to harm. If you don't want to answer that, then - you just mentioned "unjust". Do you, personally, think it is wrong to be unjust?

Not picking on you particularly, Lief, just quoting this line because it has "harm" and "homosexuality" in the same sentence in order to post this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/4605827.stm

So, if Bibles transmit MRSA, where does that leave religion?

religion should not be encouraged because it can cause harm :p

yes many others cling to the invisible data theory too. Its how humans are unfortunately. Pack animals both physically and psychologically.

so yer saying its better to make decisions that effect others based on imperfect information, guesses and approximations rather then scientific data?

do what you want with your mind. But when your mind tells you to ban all Asians from being able to drive then you’ve veered directly into the discrimination zone and you cant do that.

its is unjust to be unjust. Of course…

Well, that isn't saying anything! I already know it's unjust to be unjust - that's obvious! It's also kind to be kind, and hurtful to be hurtful, and funny to be funny.

But is it wrong to be unjust, IYO?

What I want to know is if you, personally, think it is wrong to be unjust.

Well, I certainly think you cling to invisible data, too, so I guess we're at a standstill here :)

However, I seem to be more openminded than you are here - I realize that people are exposed to different circumstances and experiences, and have different abilites, and that they might see and/or experience something that I haven't seen yet, and so their decisions are very valid for them. I don't brand anything that I haven't seen or experienced as "invisible data", like you seem to - I just say that I haven't seen it myself, altho they might have seen it. How can I (and you) judge what other people have seen and experienced? We're not in their bodies.

That's what I don't understand about you - you claim to be agnostic, yet you sure seem to be very opinionated. If you're not sure what is right, how come you're sure what is right? ;)

You also seem to be very close-minded, for someone who claims to be agnostic, about what other people believe is probably true, based on their experiences. :confused:

No, I didn't say that. I said that sometimes there is no "scientific data" available, or there is very little available, and we have to do our best with what we have, which is often imperfect data, guesses and approximations.

Also, it's abundantly clear that you don't ONLY base your decisions that affect others on scientific data. After all, you say that even if scientific data would show that homosexual acts are harmful to a certain level, that you would still NOT be against gay marriage. You are bringing in OTHER factors BESIDES scientific data here.

Also, I noted that we can make decisions based on data that is actually wrong, altho we don't know it yet! As you have said many times, scientists make errors!

What I do think is right is for people to think for themselves and to make up their own minds, based on the best available information.

"can't" do that?
or "shouldn't" do that?
Which one?
(it's obvious that many people can - and do - discriminate!)
Is it wrong to discriminate? (please don't tell me it's discrimination to discriminate - that's a waste of time and says nothing)

Is it WRONG to discriminate?

Uh, does it depend on if they are homosexual or heterosexual Bibles? ;)

But not as much harm as a rabidly socialist interpretation of Marxian theory into say, Russia and satellite states, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Cuba......and I missing any major Communist impositions of totalitarianism?

And what is the MSRA status the little Red book, BTW :evil: ? :p

well then thats all you need to know. Because thats the important part of all this. You can moralize to your hearts content. Its a side issue as far as Im concerned. And since the election a rather tired one Id say...

:D You always were good for a laugh rian. Im always amused when the creationist who is for promoting discrimination against gays tells ME im close minded and intolerant. :D :D

um actually you just did but nevermind…

simple. By measuring it. and determining if to the best of our scientific knowledge it is legitimate or not. And if it effects no one else then more power to them. But if it overtly hurts others and discriminates against others then you cant use invisible data to make policy. You need to prove it first.

actually I simply continually ask for EVIDENCE and DATA to support peoples statements. Despite that all I get from you is “it doesn’t matter if I have data. Youre close minded. My beliefs that discrimination is ok is sufficient enough.”

but you CANT impose restrictions on others based on “doing your best” because its an illegitimate measure. You like to generalize this so as it doesn’t appear that you are restricting people without any rational basis which is exactly what you are doing. You cant restrict the freedoms of others based on “very little available data”. You have to be able to SHOW that there IS real abundant measurable data to do something so incredibly drastic. Simply discriminating because your religion holds that value isn’t good enough.

…allow me:

and this supports your argument how? Even if next week suddenly reams of data starts flooding out about just how harmful being involved in a loving monogamous relationship is when yer gay does that mean you should be able to discriminate now because “scientists make errors!” ?

are you asking me for my permission to discriminate against gays? If so you don’t have it. if you just want to once again hijack the discussion into a moral tail chasing contest then do it without me.

when is it not wrong to discriminate?

Rian, I have not see you post WHY you are against gay marriages and why you would want to restrict the rights of gay americans.

Is there any scientific data that you have saying that gay marriage is harmful or whatever? You have said that it wouldn't matter if you had it, because none of us would listen to it and we are close-minded (basically this was to IR).

If such scientific data does exist, it would force us to listen to you. But it does not.


You would restrict the rights of others based on your opinion of right and wrong? Your religious and moral beliefs?

Where does that line of thinking end? Why stop with gays?

Anglican clergy in Arctic condemn same-sex marriage

By GREG YOUNGER-LEWIS
Canandian Press

IQALUIT (6/4/2005)--Anglican church leaders in the Arctic have put themselves at odds with their national counterparts by condemning homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman," said Ven. Haydn Schofield, archdeacon of the Western Arctic.

"For there to be a relationship, even common-law, is unbiblical.

"Any union outside of marriage is unbiblical."

Archdeacon Schofield said he initiated the vote this week by 70 lay members, priests and bishops with the Anglican Diocese of the Arctic.

They voted unanimously to condemn homosexual relationships and to demand all employees do the same, and adopted a charter of beliefs called the Montreal Declaration. The document, written in Montreal in 1994 by conservative Anglican church members, states "adultery, fornication and homosexual unions are intimacies contrary to God's design."

The decision is a break with the wider Anglican Church of Canada, which is under fire from top leaders in England to condemn same-sex marriage. The Canadian church has postponed its decision until 2007.

Jim Boyles, general secretary for the national body, was not available for comment.

The Arctic diocese made clear at the meeting that only people with beliefs similar to the Montreal Declaration can work at its churches.

Delegates passed a separate motion outlining conditions of employment, and the church says it will not employ anyone who is having sex outside marriage or is in a homosexual relationship.

The church will also refuse to employ anyone who "promotes and supports" that sexual behaviour. The rule applies to clergy as well as other positions such as receptionists.

Ben Arreak, the church's bishop for Nunavik, Que., said their stand will keep out non-conservative views and practices, and instead, Inuit traditional values about relationships between men and women will form the base of their beliefs.

"That's tradition," Bishop Arreak said. "In order to survive, the man and woman have to help each other, for family and for hunting. . . . If you want to have a healthy body, you can only have a relationship man to woman, woman to man."

Not all northern Anglicans supported the decision.

Iqaluit resident Maureen Doherty, the daughter of an Anglican minister, said she was withdrawing all financial support for her local church in protest.

"I do believe in the blessing and inclusion of gays and lesbians within the Anglican church," Ms. Doherty said.

"I think it's very important that the doors remain open.

"If I think of 'What would Jesus do?' I think Jesus Christ would probably come out and break bread at the Pride picnic," she said, referring to a coming event supporting the local gay community.

Pamela Dickey Young, head of the religious studies department at Queen's University, said fears that the church will be forced to perform same-sex marriage are unfounded.

Prof. Young said the clergy has the right to refuse to do such ceremonies under both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Bill C-38, the proposed federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

She added that churches should look to the example of divorce in Canada, where the Roman Catholic Church has not been forced to re-marry divorced persons.

"I think the freedom of religion arguments are red herrings," she said.

END
**********************************

So, is this discrimination or declaration of standpoint? I think the latter, not the former. And, is religious freedom is to exist, on what grounds can this be opposed? Doesn't the Charter gurantee religious freedom? Or, is it only allowed when it conforms to the political climate?

PS See the post on intimacy vs marriage for background considerations.

I've answered several times now that I would discuss these details over on the gay/les/bi thread if you guys wanted to move it there. I didn't want gay/les details to hijack this thread, because we've been told to not do that before. :eek: If you want to open it up over there, I'll answer your question :)

No, you misunderstand. I was talking ONLY to IRex here, and pointing out that it's kinda ironic for him to keep asking for scientific data on whether homosexuality is harmful when he also says that even if there WAS data that showed it was harmful, he still wouldn't be automatically against it. This shows that there are other factors in the equation for him, besides harm.

EVERY attempt to bring scientific data up supporting my side in these discussions has ALWAYS been met with a response that the data is flawed somehow ("well, the data is only like that because hets are against homos! If homosexuality was accepted, then the data wouldn't be like that!" and things along those lines). Even if the data came from homosexual sites, it's been automatically objected to. Inky has actually shared studies from homosexual sites, from secular studies, etc., and EVERY TIME your side has objected to it and said it's flawed. Why should I bother presenting data anymore? Also, I think the main issue is a philosophical one, anyway, and that's the part I'm discussing on this thread.

That's exactly what YOU do; why shouldn't I?

I don't force what you call my "religious" beliefs on anyone. I make decisions based on my worldview, like you and IRex and everyone else.

Why stop your criticism with theists? Please recall prominant NON-theists who tortured and murdered millions - Stalin leaps to mind ...