The Bible; The Unabridged-Version

[PLC1]

What makes you think that among the people chosen to carry God's word a punishment is too draconian for an evil act that threatens the whole plan of a people who are set aside from their neighbors?

An adulterer was deserving of death not only because it was adultery but because it threatened the entire structure of the Jewish way and sometimes because there was a deeper lesson being taught. It seems to me that among dessert dwellers stoning would be the quickest and most humane. I would not expect them to carry a gallows in the camels back, but stones could be found anywhere.

Do you actually support the practice of stoning adulterers? Do they threaten the structure of society today? That sounds more like the Taliban than modern Christianity.

And by the way most of what you listed was purpetrated by non-christians.

What was listed above was as follows:

The limits of language didn't stop the Inquisition from burning and tearing people and animals to pieces. It didn't stop the Crusades, it didn't stop a million women from being burned at the stake, it didn't save Joan of Arc from being burned at the stake, it didn't stop the enslavement of black people, it didn't stop women from being treated as 2nd class citizens for centuries...

The inquisition, the Crusades, burning at the stake, enslavement of blacks, and treating women as second class citizens, those actions weren't taken by Christians?

By who, then?

 

[r0beph]

Sure.

Without any green house effect whatsoever, the Earth would be roughly ~33ºC cooler.

The actual scientific papers on this require a subscription, so this is the EPAs web site which cites that information. Keep that number in mind for later.

Of the total green house effect, 95% of it is water.

Very widely known in the scientific community, but not often mentioned elsewhere.

The remaining 5% of the greenhouse effect is actually divided up by many trace gasses throughout our atmosphere. This includes Ozone, Methane, nitrous oxide, other trace gases, and of course Carbon Dioxide. For the sake of simplification, we will assume the entire 5% is due to CO2 exclusively.

Of the total CO2 created annually, humans only account for a tiny fraction of the created CO2. Unfortunately, like most Earth sciences, there is varying number depending on what methodology you use.

3.2% or


3.4%

and I've seen 4%, which I assume is the same numbers rounded up. Again, to make things simple, let's round up to 4% and roll with that.

So humans are responsible for 4% of CO2 which is responsible for only 5% of the green house effect. 4% of 5% is 0.2% We are responsible for 0.2% of the greenhouse effect.

Now, what does that translate into temperature wise? Remember we said that naturally the green house effect rises the temperature by 33ºC. 0.2% of 33ºC is 0.066ºC

Therefore, 0.066ºC is the total effect of the cumulative CO2 of the entire human race to this point.

In order for human CO2 to cause an increase in temperature of just 1ºC, we would have to collectively increase our total CO2 emissions by 16 fold, which would be difficult even if we made it a goal. Yet even then it wouldn't be enough.

The reason for that is, the greenhouse effect does not increase linearly with CO2 concentrations. It is "logarithmic", or in simple speak, follows the rule of diminishing returns. This is because simply having more CO2 in the atmosphere, does not mean that there is more long-wave light energy to absorb.

Another way in which eco-screamers twist numbers is by looking at CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and claiming we are responsible for all increases. This however relies heavily on the assumption that the natural carbon cycle is in constant balance, and that any change must be due to human activities.

This tends to ignore the fact that CO2 levels in history have both been much lower, and much higher, without any human effects.

Yet even in these calculations the results are similar. If we assume that all increases in CO2 our directly due to human activity, we account for only 25% of CO2, which again is only 5% of the greenhouse effect. 25% * 5% = 1.25%

1.25% of the 33ºC equals roughly 0.4ºC. Which again means that using broad assumptions, you still get a temperature increase far too small for human skin to even notice, let alone apocalyptic dire predictions of future destruction.

Far more likely, changes in Earth temperature are due to change in the suns energy output.

I enjoy your 'I'm not looking at the facts but I'm right' puff piece here, but really can you not take the time to CITE your facts? I get so bent when people such as yourself put pictures up that really have no context nor citation. I mean hell, I can create a graph in matlab and say that it proves the existence of a flying monster made of pasta and that it is the true maintainer of the terran tidal system and that the moon is truly made of cheese. Of course it is nonsense, but I'd be supplying as much fact as you are.

You may enjoy this pretty picture here which completely invalidates your citation lacking "Of the total CO2 created annually, humans only account for a tiny fraction of the created CO2. Unfortunately, like most Earth sciences, there is varying number depending on what methodology you use." and as well "This tends to ignore the fact that CO2 levels in history have both been much lower, and much higher, without any human effects." Since obviously contemporary levels much exceed the past historical values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg


Of course this won't stop you, oh no. You have fox noise, conservative eco-destroying bloggers who know much more than the research university trained scientists all while working as a carpenter in Ohio.


Next let me address the "law of diminishing returns" quip. Out of context, you may be absolutely right. I'm not at school so I don't have access to my peer reviewed journal search, I'll get back to this later with more data. However, even without the actual numbers involved with temperature reflectivity and heat trapping by CO2, we all agree the increase is reality, so no need to go off on that tangent. The problem is, we don't need an excessively huge temperature increase to begin a downward spiral into greenhouse hell. There is much more to the ecological greenhouse effect than simply CO2; sure that is what everyone is screaming for, but its is just the precursor to a whole hell of a nasty situation. The ice begins to melt, methane is released in amounts exceeding anything seen in the past, http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4w867922g607w2j/ Methane is a much stronger heat trapper than CO2, yet CO2 increases can assist in releasing the methane calthrates from the ice. Once it begins, it won't be fun. Of course you have nothing to worry about right? Bill the blogger told you straight up that it was fake. I mean look at his power point presentation, it mentions how great america is, the wonders of free market, and that global climate change is nonsense.


I suggest you seriously stop arguing in the style of a 3rd grader who just learned some big words. Academic speech without the backing of the science is pretty pathetic and useless; a waste of resources that pushes nothing forward. Global Climate Change is not a "Liberal Agenda" it is an Terran agenda. If you give two craps about your children and their future, you'll look deeper into the facts and stop your selective treatment to the facts.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What else could they be claiming?

None of the manmade-global-whatever acolytes have been able to produce a single sutdy showing man has had anything to do with climate change, upward or downward. Yet they insist that we have to believe it's so, and then demand that we spend ourselves into the poorhouse to change what we can't change.

"Manmade Global Warming" is a completely faith-based religion, with NO evidence to back it up.

Golly, corn, there sure are a lot of illiterate scientists in the world then.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

yes, the police or sometimes even everyday citizens have a right and even a duty to use force to stop evil people from doing wrong. Once they have done wrong then they have already exercized their free will.

I don't condone any punishment for gays.

Don't skate around, Who, do you support equality for gay people or not?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

They are not denied equality but they cant engage in a marriage that is designed to restrict the rights breeders for the protection of the children. Gays don't breed so they don't need to hve their rights restricted by marriage laws. They actually have more rights than those who are bound by marriage.

So, children are the issue and thus if a gay couple have a child by artificial insemination or surrogate mother, then they should be able to marry? Yes or no?

Equally, if children are the issue, then you support denying marriage to anyone who cannot or will not have children? Yes or no?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yep andy said he would not support same sex marriage. Guess that was why i said "as far as i know."

But it wold still be true that most of the arguments that have been presented are secular.

There are no valid secular arguments and most of the arguments in the State and National debates are religious. As noted in our Oregon Legislature hearings, every single person who spoke against civil unions and anti-discrimination law were SELF-IDENTIFIED Christians. No one brought up any argument that was not based in religion.

 

[Dr.Who]

There are no valid secular arguments and most of the arguments in the State and National debates are religious. As noted in our Oregon Legislature hearings, every single person who spoke against civil unions and anti-discrimination law were SELF-IDENTIFIED Christians. No one brought up any argument that was not based in religion.

So now that you admit there are secular arguments (ones you think to be invalid) you can retract what you said when you said:

"All the arguments against gay marriage have been religiously based."

I thought we were talking about this thread. I don't know enough about the Oregon legislature to know what arguments were made.

I do know there is a difference between being a self-identified christian and making religious arguments. SEC's can make secular arguments too.

And I find it incredulous that no argument not based in religion was brought up. But if you have a link to the minutes let us know.

 

[Dr.Who]

So, children are the issue and thus if a gay couple have a child by artificial insemination or surrogate mother, then they should be able to marry? Yes or no?

The raising of children and the creation of children are two different things.

When gay people start creating children the state will have a reason to regulate what they do in the bedroom and in their interpersonal/sexual contracts. Until then the state should stay away from imposing unneeded regulation.

For now artificial insemination is an example of heterosexual reproduction because it still takes an egg from a woman and a sperm from a man.

The cases of two woman creating a child through cloning are rare enough not to be an issue yet.

They should be allowed to marry in any ceremony they want but they should not have their rights regulated by the state. No.

Equally, if children are the issue, then you support denying marriage to anyone who cannot or will not have children? Yes or no?

For the state to know who cannot or will not have children would require it to be incredibly intrusive. The lesser evil is for the state to impose regulation on couples who might create children even though they might not. no, except:

If an infertile couple were to volunteer the proof that they were infertile and request that they be exempted from any regulations associated with getting married then yes I would be fine with denying them marriage. Seems like a lot of work to not get married.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It's odd, you are usually not so transparently disingenuous. Raising children and creating children both should have the marriage option available. You are lying when you say that the "...state will have a reason to regulate what they do in the bedroom and in their interpersonal/sexual contracts." Adultery is completely legal, the State has no say in the sexual activities between consenting adults (except for prostition which is illegal for everybody except Nevada).

All children should have access to the protections of marriage under the law, by denying some children that protection you are stating that some children are "less than" others and don't deserve equality.

I agree with you on one point though, sterile couples (such as infertile and gay couples) should be allowed to marry and not have to go through a lot of folderol about whether they will use artificial means or adoption to have a family.

They should be allowed to marry in any ceremony they want but they should not have their rights regulated by the state. No.

And exactly why should they and their children be left without the protection of marriage? You enjoy those protections, don't you? Are you a hypocrite as well as a liar? Is this what you call LOVING OTHERS AS YOURSELF?

For the state to know who cannot or will not have children would require it to be incredibly intrusive.

Perfect! My point exactly, no one can know if a any couple will produce children (whether by adoption or artificial means) therefore marriage should be available to all consenting adults who wish to sign the contract and accept the rights and responsibilities.

 

[Dr.Who]

It's odd, you are usually not so transparently disingenuous. Raising children and creating children both should have the marriage option available. You are lying when you say that the "...state will have a reason to regulate what they do in the bedroom and in their interpersonal/sexual contracts." Adultery is completely legal, the State has no say in the sexual activities between consenting adults (except for prostition which is illegal for everybody except Nevada).

All children should have access to the protections of marriage under the law, by denying some children that protection you are stating that some children are "less than" others and don't deserve equality.

I agree with you on one point though, sterile couples (such as infertile and gay couples) should be allowed to marry and not have to go through a lot of folderol about whether they will use artificial means or adoption to have a family.


And exactly why should they and their children be left without the protection of marriage? You enjoy those protections, don't you? Are you a hypocrite as well as a liar? Is this what you call LOVING OTHERS AS YOURSELF?


Perfect! My point exactly, no one can know if a any couple will produce children (whether by adoption or artificial means) therefore marriage should be available to all consenting adults who wish to sign the contract and accept the rights and responsibilities.

Marriage is for breeders and adoption laws are for those who do not create children. Such as two aunts who adopt their neice when the parents die. They are not even a couple but they are raising a child and the child still needs protection. If the only way children were offered protection was through marriage then your proposal would leave out all sorts of kids who were not raised by couples.

The best proposal is that marriage laws are for those who create children and adoption laws cover the rest. Marriage laws should also not infer special priveleges upon those who got married. They should just regulate the marriage for the protection of the children and dependent spouses. The role of government is ONLY to protect rights and a few other things listed in the constitutions. The role of government is not to promote one cultural view as better than another. REgulating marriages that produce children falls within that role, granting priveleges to married couples does not.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Marriage is for breeders and adoption laws are for those who do not create children. Such as two aunts who adopt their neice when the parents die. They are not even a couple but they are raising a child and the child still needs protection. If the only way children were offered protection was through marriage then your proposal would leave out all sorts of kids who were not raised by couples.

Wow, you really are going out into the ozone to avoid answering the simple question. I never said that marriage was the only way to protect children, nor that I thought it should be that way.

All of your protests about "breeders" are untrue, anyone who contributes to the biological genesis of a child can be considered a "breeder", but irrespective of that, anyone raising children should be allowed to marry and enjoy the legal rights and privileges enjoyed by you.

The best proposal is that marriage laws are for those who create children and adoption laws cover the rest. Marriage laws should also not infer special priveleges upon those who got married. They should just regulate the marriage for the protection of the children and dependent spouses. The role of government is ONLY to protect rights and a few other things listed in the constitutions. The role of government is not to promote one cultural view as better than another. REgulating marriages that produce children falls within that role, granting priveleges to married couples does not.

Perhaps there should not be any special rights confered on married people, but the fact is that THERE ARE special rights in US law and until that changes there is no reason that all American citizens should not be able to enjoy those rights and privileges.

All your blather about breeders and adoption laws are just a smoke screen. It's true that the role of the governement is not to promote one cultural view over another, but that's what they've been doing since gay people have not been able to marry just like all the rest of the Americans.

 

[Dr.Who]

Wow, you really are going out into the ozone to avoid answering the simple question. I never said that marriage was the only way to protect children, nor that I thought it should be that way.

Answered: It was "no."

All of your protests about "breeders" are untrue, anyone who contributes to the biological genesis of a child can be considered a "breeder", but irrespective of that, anyone raising children should be allowed to marry and enjoy the legal rights and privileges enjoyed by you.

So you do want the two aunts to be able to marry each other? Maybe a father should marry his teenage daughter when she helps to raise the younger sibling?

Perhaps there should not be any special rights confered on married people, but the fact is that THERE ARE special rights in US law and until that changes there is no reason that all American citizens should not be able to enjoy those rights and privileges.

Yep, so the solution is not to make silly laws that logically only apply to breeders apply to non-breeders.

The solution is to streamline the marriage laws so silly special rights are not conferred on those who just happen to be married.

All your blather about breeders and adoption laws are just a smoke screen. It's true that the role of the governement is not to promote one cultural view over another, but that's what they've been doing since gay people have not been able to marry just like all the rest of the Americans.

So rather than correct the problem, by eliminating special treatment, you would extend it to one more group while still leaving all the rest of the citizens not getting the special treatment.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So you do want the two aunts to be able to marry each other? Maybe a father should marry his teenage daughter when she helps to raise the younger sibling?

Going the Nums route, are you? People who wish to marry should be able to do so, consenting adults, ok? Incest is another whole part of the law and is no reason to deny gay people the right to enjoy marriage equality. Are there a lot of aunts trying to marry? A lot of fathers trying to marry their teenage daughters? Except for Lot and his daughters, I don't know of any instance where father/daughter sex is smiled upon by God and culture.

Yep, so the solution is not to make silly laws that logically only apply to breeders apply to non-breeders.

Marriage is not just about breeding despite what you are trying to say, all kinds of people marry for companionship and love, the marriage ceremony and the marriage law do not mention children. When you try to make marriage so narrow that it only applies to breeders, then you are not only breaking centuries of tradition, but you are doing so in a disingenuous attempt to deny marry gay people.

The solution is to streamline the marriage laws so silly special rights are not conferred on those who just happen to be married.

This is not on the table, no one but you has mentioned completely changing the concept of marriage from a relationship between consenting adults as it has been practiced in most of the world for centuries (gay and straight people have traditionally been allowed to marry--even the Catholic church use to marry gays).

So rather than correct the problem, by eliminating special treatment, you would extend it to one more group while still leaving all the rest of the citizens not getting the special treatment.

I don't know that there is a problem, everyone should be allowed to have a secure relationship, it isn't like there isn't enough to go around, is there? Why are you arguing this anyway?

 

[Dr.Who]

Going the Nums route, are you? People who wish to marry should be able to do so, consenting adults, ok? Incest is another whole part of the law and is no reason to deny gay people the right to enjoy marriage equality. Are there a lot of aunts trying to marry? A lot of fathers trying to marry their teenage daughters? Except for Lot and his daughters, I don't know of any instance where father/daughter sex is smiled upon by God and culture.

Maybe they are not trying to marry because they know that there are no significant special rights that they would get that they cannot get now by signing a piece of paper. And if there were significant rights or special privileges then they would do whatever it took to get them. Just like people who want citizenship marry just to become citizens.

Marriage is not just about breeding despite what you are trying to say, all kinds of people marry for companionship and love, the marriage ceremony and the marriage law do not mention children. When you try to make marriage so narrow that it only applies to breeders, then you are not only breaking centuries of tradition, but you are doing so in a disingenuous attempt to deny marry gay people.

The only reason the state regulates marriages is about breeding. Cultural reasons matter to the individual but not to the state. If gay people want to marry for love or any other cultural reason they can just stand up in front of the person of their choice and say whatever words they want to say.

This is not on the table, no one but you has mentioned completely changing the concept of marriage from a relationship between consenting adults as it has been practiced in most of the world for centuries (gay and straight people have traditionally been allowed to marry--even the Catholic church use to marry gays).

Then put it on the table because it is the right reason to change marriage laws. Or is the other option on the table because the only reason you want to change marriage laws really that you want official recognition and approval - you could really care less about being able to make medical decisions for your partner because if you really cared about that you would download a medical power of attorney from the internet and just sign it.

I don't know that there is a problem, everyone should be allowed to have a secure relationship, it isn't like there isn't enough to go around, is there? Why are you arguing this anyway?

I hate to burst your bubble but a license from the state makes a relationship no more secure than one without such a license. What makes hetero marriages secure is commitment - and no one is denying you the right to make a commitment.

You have to remember that ALL rights are endowed by your creator before the state gets involved. If you want to get married just perform whatever ceremony you want to. As soon as the state gets involved you will have no more rights than before you will have less. that's all the state does - it does not give one more rights- it restricts the rights one already has. That is what all laws do. It says so right in the declaration of independence and the constitution.

 

[Dr.Who]

-even the Catholic church use to marry gays).

Uh, yea, I've seen your evidence for this before and it is really one of the flimsiest things you have ever posted. Even more flimsy than your statement that David and Jonathan were gay lovers.

How is it that when I repeat mainstream christian thinking you claim it isn't proven but you will believe the craziest and most bizzarre claptrap and proclaim it as if it were the God's honest truth? How convenient it is for you that everything you like is truth and everything that you don't like is wrong.