Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » The Attack on the Family Continues as Same-Sex Marriage is Legalized in New York

The Attack on the Family Continues as Same-Sex Marriage is Legalized in New York

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Last night same-sex marriage became law in the state of New York when Gov. Cuomo signed the bill. New York became the second state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislative process (New Hampshire was the first). Four other states have legalized same-sex marriage through the court system. They are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont.

As we see the continuation of the attack on the institution of marriage we need to step back and consider the bigger picture.  This is just one battle in the larger attempt to destroy the family unit.  If you have never considered this, take some time to think it through.  The family unit is the basis for modern society.  It has been since God instituted marriage and the family way back in the Garden of Eden.  The family unit is, and always has been, the foundational structure on which all society has been built.  If it is destroyed society will crumble.  Are we not seeing this now in the United States and around the world?

Many will ask how legalizing same-sex marriage can damage the family unit.  Let me take a moment to explain.  The family unit was designed to have several functions such as procreation, religious instruction, societal training, etc.  Each member of a family unit has some specific roles that must be fulfilled in order for society to function at an optimal level. 

One of the primary functions of a family unit is that of procreation.  Biology requires a male and a female for procreation.  A same-sex couple can not produce children on their own.  This threatens the very existence of a society or nation.  As the number of same-sex couples increases the number of couples available for procreation decreases and if it decreases enough then the total population will begin to decline as the birth rates do not meet or exceed the death rates.  Same-sex couples by themselves are probably not enough to cause this overall population decline but it is an increasing factor in the equation.

A second function of the family unit is the preparation of children to be solid and productive contributors to society.  This education is best accomplished at home by a loving father and mother.  It is accomplished when children see their parents functioning and interacting with others in their communities and learn to imitate the things they have seen.  Both parents have a vital role in this.  The child does not get the best instruction when the family unit is broken such as in the case of a single-parent family or when both parents are the same sex.  The government-controlled schools have tried to usurp this societal training function from the families and the results have been disastrous (but that is a discussion for a different article). 

A third function of the family unit is religious training.  Children are a gift from God and parents have a fiduciary responsibility to raise them in accordance with his precepts.  Again, this is best accomplished in a traditional two-parent family in which both the father and the mother complement each other in the instruction of the children.  Proper religious training can be done successfully in a single-parent family but it is not the best option.  It can’t be done in a family in which both parents are the same sex because that situation violates the biblical teachings on homosexuality.

Children need both a strong father and mother in order to reach their full potential.  This is the way God designed the family unit to work.  Anything else is at best less than optimal and at worst detrimental to society.  We should always strive for the optimal solution.  As such we can see the damage that same-sex marriage is doing to the family unit and it must be opposed.  To do less is to advocate the destruction of society as we know it.  

So, what do you think about this issue?  Do you agree with my assessment or not?  Please leave a comment and share you thoughts.

Powered by

About Tom Shelton

  • Dr Robin Guthrie

    ” Same-sex couples by themselves are probably not enough to cause this overall population decline but it is an increasing factor in the equation.”

    Get real. The world is VASTLY over populated.

    Nothing to do with gays

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Over populated? Are you serious? We have no such problem.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    This writer is confusing many things that are not the same.

    Not only is there no attack on the family taking place, but the author seems to be confusingly equating the legalization of same sex marriages as an attack on the family and marriage itself.

    Presumably the affliction of monotheism is a major contributing factor in the lack of clarity and reasoning…

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    There is no confusion. The family unit and marriage are under attack. There is a concerted effort to redefine what these things are and in the process fundamentally change society. If successful, it will be devastating.

  • Arch Conservative

    I consider my self pretty socially conservative and traditional but I don’t know if I buy the argument that same sex marriage is an attack on traditional families.

    I think many people that oppose gay marriage may do so because they have never actually met any gay people and their preconceived notions as to what all gay people must be like are derived from popular culture which would have us believe that every gay man is some light in the loafers, melodramatic, foppish effeminate lisping character or that every gay women is some flannel wearing, crew cut having, butch brute. That’s no more accurate than the notion many northerners have that would depict every southerner as some dimwitted, toothless banjo playing bafoon.

    I used to oppose gay marriage but then I got to thinking. There is so much hatred and misery, and people doing bad things to one another in the world. Given that, if two consenting adults, who happen to be the same sex, wish to be together and call it marriage, to live together in a committed monogamous relationship……to go to bed each night with each other only to wake up together the next morning to go out to go out in the world together and experience the same things that straight couples experience and derive happiness from……… Who am I or you to deny that? How can allowing that be wrong?

    Oh and if the argument is that the church says it’s wrong. Save it. I’m conservative, not religious.

    As for the argument that gay marriage hurts the family because gay couples cannot reproduce and gay marriage reduces the number of straight couples having kids…….that makes absolutely no sense. First of all heterosexual couples are not going to stop getting married and having kids if gay marriage is legalized nationwide. That’s just not going to happen. Second, gay people are not going to stop being gay and suddenly enter into heterosexual marriages and have kids if we ban gay marriage. Thirdly, gay couples can in fact have children. Many gay men may choose to have children via a surrogate mother and many gay women may choose to have their own children through artificial insemination.

    I do believe the best environment for a child to be raised in is one in which there is both a male and female parent so that the child may have both influences in his or her life. However that is not to ignore the fact that even when there are parents of both genders those parents can sometimes be horrible parents who do grave emotional, mental and psychic damage to their very own children. I also believe that it is possible for gay couples to raise well-adjusted children who will grow up to be productive members of society.
    Tom as I have said I am fairly conservative and traditional with regard to most things in life but I do take umbrage with your assertion that one of the purposes of the family unit is for religious training. I practice no religion and will not indoctrinate into them any specific religion while I am raising them. Is it your belief that I am a bad parent then. That my children cannot be of good moral fiber? That they are somehow inferior to other children their age for the mere fact that they don’t have some form of organized religion in their lives? Oh and you did not specify a specific religion. Do you believe there is a specific religion that the American family unit in 2011 ought to adhere to?
    You asked for comments and feedback on your article. It’s my opinion that your arguments are narrow- minded, ignorant and illogical. There are much, much more pressing issues tearing at the moral fabric of our society, and degrading the quality of our discourse and our lives in 2011 such as the far left statism that has invaded the body politic like a cancerous tumor, the power hungry, narcissistic, maniacal, necon globalist new world order freaks that want to control the entire world, and the zealots who gleefully relish in the infanticide being committed which they’ve taken to calling “choice.” No sir, gay marriage, when viewed properly, is the last of the of worries among those of us concerned with our culture and society sinking into that great abyss of degenerate moral relativism.

  • Dmitriy

    Many heterosexual people choose to adopt children and GASP never have biological children, same goes for those who would rather not have any children whatsoever. Yet there is no “population decline”. Homosexuality isn’t something that people take up unless, you guessed it: attracted to the same sex. Many gay people furthermore have children of their own or adopt hose very same kids that heterosexual people supposedly exist to produce, but would rather not care for.
    And sir let me remind you: america has 300+ million people living in it , the world has close to 7 billion: chances are the population of the world will keep growing and won’t be in decline even if you “ban gay marriage”.

  • Dmitriy

    For all you’re talk of “protecting children” you see to be ignoring the fact that there will always be gay children. who like other children deserve to be treated with respect, and dignity rather than be the victims of misinformed individuals who are convinced that if we don’t treat gay people like shit, we’ll live in a society where “homosexuality will be promoted” and people will magically take up a sexual identity(that is obviously at odds with the fact that they’re not gay).

  • Alabama Patriot

    Liberals & progressives, so overwhelmingly concerned about the “democratic” means to run a country & decide key issues, show us that they’ll continue to pander to minority special interest groups with lots of money. Nothing more. Unions, illegals, gays, any topic to change the subject.

  • zingzing

    “Many will ask how legalizing same-sex marriage can damage the family unit. Let me take a moment to explain.”

    it’s hard to remain calm when one sees flat out bigotry, but i’m going to do my best. your religion (as evidenced by your third “function of the family” or whatever,) has lead you down a path towards hate and fear. do you think that’s what your god wants? you see threats where there aren’t any and you shield your eyes against reality. a truly functioning society lives in harmony (kind of like a gay couple taking up the unwanted children of heterosexual couples and giving them a family that they never would have had otherwise). if a society functions improperly because one group would deny another group their happiness, who is the bad guy there?

    frankly, your assessment is disgusting, since you asked.

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    The argument put forth is narrow-minded just as fascism, nationalism, ageism, and classism are, where stereotypes overcome logical thinking.That this article condones sexism is obvious. Judgments based upon gender rather than upon individualism and an assumption that, heterosexually, one sex is superior to another are also made clear.

    The bigotry expressed in the article attempts to dodge the civil rights issue involved. The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of separate but equal treatment in Brown v. Board and found such laws unconstitutional. Clearly, there is a failure here to recognize that the New York decision affirms the guarantee of equal protection for all, a far more important concern than the author’s bigoted ideology.

    New York’s marriage law is not only historic, it means that six states plus the District of Columbia provide the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. It is a victory for civil rights and Equal Justice Under Law, which is literally carved in stone at the Supreme Court.

    Tommy

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Zingzing,

    You said “it’s hard to remain calm when one sees flat out bigotry”

    My comments in no way are examples of bigotry. I have spoken out against the actions of some people not the attributes of the people. Bigotry, like racism, is a prejudice against something people have not control over such as the color of their skin or the country of their birth. Unfortunately, many people use these terms too broadly.

    My religion has not lead me “down a path towards hate and fear”. The opposite is true. I am a christian and we are taught that it is an act of love to tell sinners of their need for a savior. Homosexuality is a sin (God calls it an abomination) and homosexuals are sinners just the same as all people are. As a Christian, I am duty bound to resist the spread of the sin and the acceptance of the spread of sin as much as possible. The acceptance of same sex marriage and the resulting attack on the family should be resisted by all believers.

    While I agree that no group should be discriminated against in a society that does not mean that the society should not be able to determine what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Happiness is not the measure we should use when we determine if a society is functioning properly. There are many measures that could be used but the only one that matters is the Creator’s measure. Why did he create the society. We are told that the Creator created in order to glorify himself. Acceptance of homosexuality and the destruction of the family do not bring glory to God and therefore should be opposed. No doubt you will find that assessment “disgusting” also but I am okay with that.

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    “It is a victory for civil rights and Equal Justice Under Law, which is literally carved in stone at the Supreme Court.”

    It is not a civil rights issue. No one has been denied the right to marry based on something they can’t control (such as the color of their skin). The homosexual agenda has tried for years to equate their fight with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. They are not the same and never will be. The homosexual agenda is about normalizing the behavior of a very small but vocal minority.

    I reject the claims that this is a civil rights issue. It never has been and it never will be. I also reject the claim that this is about equality. It is not, it is about granting preferred rights to a very small minority. We should all oppose this.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    It isn’t “an act of love to tell sinners of their need for a savior”; it’s the act of an interfering, controlling busybody who doesn’t know how to mind their own business and let people live the way they want to.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Tom –

    I hope that someday you can grow out of your prejudice and bigotry and look beyond what you were probably taught as a child. I was once as you are now…but now I know better.

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    “I reject the claims that this is a civil rights issue.” That is what all bigots and racists say, just before they recite scripture and put on their hood.

    Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

    Tommy

  • Jim

    One of the flaws in your argument is the illogical suggestion that more married gay couples will result in fewer married straight couples. That makes no sense. Making gay marriage legal doesn’t make more people gay, so, obviously, it doesn’t take away from the pool of straight people who will get married and have children.

  • zingzing

    “Bigotry, like racism, is a prejudice against something people have not control over such as the color of their skin or the country of their birth.”

    ah, the old “it’s a choice” thing. suck my dick then. go on. prove your point. but wait! before you start sucking, you also have to like it and desire it. a lot. enough for you to give up on women in all ways sexual. that’s the choice.

    you are a bigot. you’re just too deep inside that bigotry to realize it. you think you’ve rationalized your way out of it, but by doing so, you’ve exposed your ignorance. and you’re happy to live under the delusion you’ve decided to adopt.

    so now you’re just an ignorant, deluded bigot. that’s much better, isn’t it?

    the moment you start sucking, however, all is forgiven.

  • Baronius

    It would be discrimination to oppose gay marriage. It’s not discrimination to oppose same-sex marriage.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Can you explain the difference there, Baronius?

  • Help me out

    can someone explain to me how gay couples that already exist and will take up the right to marry will create a population decrease???
    i’m just not understanding all the conservative slippery slope hate propaganda here

  • Arch Conservative

    This is a stupid article chock full of inane, illogical arguments.

    We may be on the same side of many arguments Tom but don’t think the fact that your going to great lengths to be coy about your religious fundamentalism will prevent me from telling you to take your bible and shove it [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor].

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Who said I was being coy about my faith? I don’t hide the fact that I am a Christian and that my faith is the foundation of all that I believe. I don’t try to separate my faith from the rest of my life. I don’t believe that is possible.

    For the record, I am a reformed southern baptist. Many would consider me a fundamentalist. I believe that a person of faith must live out that faith in all aspects of their life and I don’t apologize for it. We all have something that is the foundation for how we live. Anything other than the bible will lead us to destruction.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “Do you agree with my assessment or not?”

    No I don’t, and I feel sorry for any children who have to endure your brainwashing.

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Brainwashing? Since when is it brainwashing for a parent to pass along their values to their kids? Is it also brainwashing for liberals to teach their kids to be liberals?

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Who is bringing political ideology into it? It’s your warped, narrow-minded religious values I am commenting on.

    Thankfully as the species evolves and becomes more enlightened, your line of thinking is diminishing among reasonable people.

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    You did not answer my question.

    Is it brainwashing for a parent to pass along their values to their kids?

  • Clavos

    Is it brainwashing for a parent to pass along their values to their kids?

    It is if you insist that yours are the only true values, as most believers do.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    True, and you didn’t take zing up on his offer. People are free to respond and ignore what they like in the comments, but since you persist, if the values are based on an imaginary man in the sky, my answer is yes.

  • zingzing

    since tom won’t respond to my request for him to suck my dick, i’ll put it in less vulgar terms so that he might.

    tom supposes he’s not just a simple bigot by claiming heterosexuality is a choice. i know tom would not make that choice. he probably finds it repulsive. but does he even think it would be possible for him to make that choice? why would he choose it if he could? there must be some rational reason why millions of people around the globe choose to be homosexuals. (although i guess it goes without saying that trying to explain heterosexuality would involve many irrational ideas.)

    anyway, it would be educational to see if tom can explain the process behind making the decision to be homosexual, as i’m sure everyone, gay or straight, would like to finally understand. really, i’d hope he’d at least contemplate it.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I haven’t read through all of the comments as I kinda want to hit the sack. But this article and Tom’s thinking are based on so many bogus assumptions, it is ludicrous to even engage in the discussion. I will anyhow, just for the hell of it.

    It seems to have escaped Mr. Shelton’s notice, that not everyone believes in his god. Take that away and you have damn little upon which to base the rest of the article.

    As some of the comments I did read note, there is absolutely no proof, not even a reliable indication, that homosexuality or same sex marriage have any deleterious effects on any society. It’s an assumption based on absolutely nothing but puritancial ignorance and bias, and unfounded claims made by sweating evangelists from their multi-million dollar pulpits.

    While I bow to no god, virtually all of the gays I know or have known were or are deeply religious, but Tom would have you believe that they are unfit not only for society, but for inclusion in the church. “Cause it says so in Leviticus by god!”

    Well, it also says in Leviticus that the mixing of cotton and wool is a mortal sin. So, any of you supposedly godly folks who wear or own anything that is a cotton/wool blend – you’re shit out of luck. See you in sartorial hell!
    If you believe in the inerrantcy(is that a word?) of the bible, ya can’t pick and choose.If scripture says you’re a mortal sinner by mingling say, cotton balls and your wooly undies, then so be it. By extension – just knowingly allowing cotton/wool blends to exist could wind you up in the land of old Beelzebub, Bub!

    B

  • D North

    “Brainwashing? Since when is it brainwashing for a parent to pass along their values to their kids?”

    Said the KKK member.

    Said Hitlers minions.

    Firstly you values must be worth something if you are going to pass them on.

    It’s like a piss poor gene pool being passed on.

    Your religious values mean Dick.

    Religion is division and hate.

  • Cannonshop

    Let’s look at this question: Which is better, gay people entering stable monogamous relationships with other gay people, thus preventing wildfire STD epidemics such as AIDS, not to mention preventing the breakage of homes due to ‘cosmetic marraiges’ that result in children (don’t pretend it doesn’t happen-it’s rather common, even today), not to mention paying the penalties on their taxes and the rest, or, making/keeping it illegal in some misguided “Protection fo the Families” bullshit, so that you end up with closet-cases marrying, reproducing, and divorcing (thus weakening the ‘nuclear family’ even further).

    Hmmm.

    Marriage discourages promiscuity, encourages stable social and civil behaviour, dis-encourages wild behaviours, and the like. Further, it prevents some deluded gal from getting hitched to a guy who’s only turned on after watching Wrestling (because he’s ogling the oiled up half-naked dudes to nerve himself up enough to actually half-assed perform), who goes out tom-catting at public restrooms and other places for anonymous sex with other guys, bringing wifey home a selection of new and exciting disseases from his furtive efforts.

    Those who claim to be Christians, remember something-we were made with free will, that means humans are allowed to sin in their lives, and only your god is allowed to judge those sins.

    Not you, not your preacher or your brother-in-law or your best buddy at the “Y”. God, is allowed to judge.

    The social benefits, including to the Family structure, of allowing gay people to marry, far outweigh any risk when compared to the present situation with its over-fifty-percent divorce rates, broken homes, STD pandemics, etc. etc. ad-nauseum.

    As for hazards to the spirit-well, your relationship with your Deity is a PERSONAL and PRIVATE relationship. You can not (as in it doesn’t work, forget morality or ethics here) impose FAITH by an act of secular LAW.

    Not all the power in the universe can make someone love you against their will, nature, or choice. God knows this, why in hell don’t his followers?

    Do you know what happens to a kid who’s straight, raised by gays? He or she grows up Straight, just like what happens to gay kids from heterosexual families. Call it genetics if you want, or choice, the fact is, straight-will-be-straight, gay-will-be-gay. No amount of conditioning will make a gay man want to (and enjoy) sex with a woman, nor the opposite. It’s something you either like, or you don’t, and it’s between the individual, and god, as to the condition of the soul, and it’s salvation, by trying to impose the State as a Savior, you only cheapen God and render imaginary powers to the State.

  • Arch Conservative

    “Religion is division and hate.”

    That statement D north, is just as ignorant, if not more so than anything offered in the main article.

    If you wanted to be correct you would have said “Religion, in the wrong hands, is division and hate.”

    “Brainwashing? Since when is it brainwashing for a parent to pass along their values to their kids?”

    Said the union steward.

    Said the community organizer from Chicago.

    Said the welfare state proponent.

  • D North

    Indeed Arch COnservative.

    As you point out, there are good values to pass on.

    But where is the line drawn at those that are good values and those that are bad.

    Who decides.

    Your religious values?

    My differing religious values?

    As you can see therein lies the problem.

  • Baronius

    My arguments against gay marriage are a little different than Tom’s. I think that any law that dilutes the husband-wife-children norm diminishes the acceptance of that norm, with detrimental effect.

    Ideally, we would think of marriage in a similar way to Tom (not exactly, because I don’t like some of the things he said, but it could be that he was emphasizing some things to make a point). We’d know that not every family has a husband and wife, but that two-parent families are the norm, the goal, even if some of us don’t achieve it. We’d admit that the father/daughter relationship is different than the mother/daughter, and ditto for sons, and we’d hope that as many children as possible would get to experience decent relationships with both parents.

    We’d allow our legal system to offer unique protection for a husband and wife, and especially for the children they raise. We’d know that one of the spouses, usually the wife, is taking a loss of potential future income in exchange for raising a family, and we’d protect her interests. We’d protect the interests of the children by making parental abandonment and divorce exceedingly difficult. (Of course, we’d have other institutions for protecting children that don’t pertain to this topic, such as Family Protective Services and foster care.) We wouldn’t extend legal protections to gay couples, because there’s nothing inherently unequal about two people of the same sex. We’d recognize the difficulty of raising children, so we wouldn’t allow singles to adopt.

    It’s a tough thing for me, as someone who respects libertarianism, to say that the government should be involved in personal decisions. But I’m more conservative than I’ll ever be libertarian, and that means recognizing that some old things exist for a reason. We presume that a male and female who apply for a marriage license have the possibility of raising children, and we grant special favor to their situation. At a minimum, we all recognize that a couple of the opposite sex are more likely to have a child by accident than a gay couple, and are more likely to need special legal protection. That’s reasonable.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    As ever, Baronius, you make the same old error of thinking your views are somehow normal and resaonable, rather than just yet another lame attempt to foist such views on others.

    The only thing we need to think about marriage is that it is a way for some people, most commonly but not always two, to express a certain commitment towards each other. In order to really mean something it has to be legally binding, in other words a contractual relationship.

    There is no need to offer any “unique protection” to a husband and wife, which is simply one example of how some people opt to organise their lives, just one choice out of many possibilities.

    Similarly, there is no need to “protect” the interests of one of the spouses, particularly as there is no way of knowing what their alternate future would have been.

    As in this scenario there would be no special protection for a two person heterosexual contract, there would indeed be no other legal protection for any other grouping, regardless of their number or configuration – not because of your frankly odd notion of inequality.

    Your other idea, of not allowing singles to adopt, is as bizarre as it is controlling. It is none of your or the state’s business.

    Everything exists for a reason but often times those reasons are bogus or bullshit. Clearly a world in which people who think like you do would be full of both and completely unreasonable. I don’t think that would be an attractive or fair world and hope it never comes to pass.

    The clear trend of the last 50 years, maybe longer, on a worldwide basis, is towards a more tolerant and understanding world in which all people have more freedom to live the way they want rather than the way the state, church or other vested interests would like them to.

    Any responsible person should be supporting the trend towards freedom and tolerance, not seeking to control and limit the rights of others.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    There is a concerted effort to redefine what these things are and in the process fundamentally change society.

    Yes, there is. And happily so. Controlling what other people can do and using the state to enforce one’s own wants on them is a horrible thing to do.

    Thankfully, your version of reality on has been under attack for a long time. Hopefully, it will soon be extinct.

    And your ideology is bigoted. My guess as to why you are unable to see this is that it is related to the utter insignificance you attach to those whom you intend to victimize.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    I never thought I would type these words:

    God bless Arch and Cannonshop for their comments on this thread.

    It seems obvious to me that allowing committed couples to marry strengthens the institutions of marriage and family. Claiming that same-sex marriage ‘dilutes’ or is a step toward ‘destroying’ heterosexual marriage and families isn’t based on logic, but on discomfort and prejudice. Period.

    Gay couples who marry often treat this as a celebratory occasion to share joy with friends and family [just like straights do]. They are demonstrating how high a value they place on marriage — not showing contempt for it!

    [And there are certainly also some gays who question this as an empty aping of the false values of the oppressive hetero majority; but these folks rarely or never argue that it shouldn’t be an option for those who want it.]

  • Deb

    Within your church you can define family however you like, and if you want to define homosexuals as sinners, you have that freedom. But you societal arguments are specious. Many straight couples can’t reproduce without aid or chose to not reproduce, while many same sex couples marry specifically so that their children have legal protection and two parents with a legal responsibility to them. Check the academic research if you want to talk about outcomes–children of lesbian parents actually fare better than other kids. Really, the only point you make is based on your belief that homosexuals are sinners, your religious beliefs, while important to you, can not be used in this country to deny rights to others.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t see how a law which allows for the creation of more loving families which can raise children in a healthy environment can possibly be an attack on the family. One would think that more families and more fidelity would be a step forward in the eyes of irrational moralists.

    As for the author being a “reformed” southern Baptist, I would suggest that he’s not reformed enough until he gets away from the bigotry which comes from that background.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    “Any responsible person should be supporting the trend towards freedom and tolerance, not seeking to control and limit the rights of others.”

    Does that include the freedom to kill one’s own child and then smugly smile while calling it a “choice?”

    If so, color me unreasonable.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    If you are referring to abortion, then yes, although I’ve yet to meet anyone who made that choice and merely smiled smugly.

    Nonetheless, the ability to control one’s own body is a right that every woman should have, so if you oppose that right, Archie, then you are indeed unreasonable.

  • Dan

    Lots of uglyness directed at the author here. It’s easy to see which way the hatred flows.

    I like the idea of a few states recognizing gay marriage. But I also like the idea of other states not recognizing it, and then people who think it matters can sort themselves out without imposing their belief systems on each other. I think that’s probably how our Federalist system was designed to function.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Tom and Baronius –

    What neither of you are realizing is that there’s more than just testosterone-fueled men and estrogen-fueled women on earth. There are documented cases of women who carry the male chromosome, of children who LONG before puberty are convinced that they were supposed to be of the other sex. And homosexuality have been seen in many other mammalian species.

    And if God had wanted there to be only men and women, then why are there documented cases of natural hermaphrodites? Where would THEY fit in to your man-and-woman-only world? Remember, I am a strong Christian…but I cannot deny scientific fact.

    Okay? It’s time to wake up and recognize the prejudices and bigotry most of us were fed by our families, by our cultures, by our histories, and by our religions…because the science of the matter is something else entirely.

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Glen,

    You said “And if God had wanted there to be only men and women, then why are there documented cases of natural hermaphrodites? Where would THEY fit in to your man-and-woman-only world? Remember, I am a strong Christian…but I cannot deny scientific fact.”

    God created only man and woman. The case of hermaphrodites and kids who are “convinced” they are supposed to be of the other sex are a result of sin corrupting the world. God created perfectly and then sin has corrupted the world into what we see now. That is what it is time to see.

    Also, when science contradicts the bible we have to realize that it is science that is wrong. Should we believe the infinite and perfect God who created everything that is or what finite fallen man thinks he has been able to explain about that creation? Since you consider yourself to be a “strong Christian” is the basis of your faith God or science? If it is science then I plead with you to examine yourself and come back to a truly biblical worldview.

  • zingzing

    that was some insane shit right there.

  • Baronius

    I think Tom’s confusing hermaphrodites and transvestites.

    This debate is about legal, civil marriage – otherwise, we wouldn’t be talking about the state’s role in it. Chris doesn’t seem to get that.

  • Leroy

    “…when science contradicts the bible we have to realize that it is science that is wrong.”

    No. You are wrong.

    First of all, the bible has little reliability. The version that I, and probably you, are familiar with is the King James version, which is so error prone as to be laughable. It was translated from a Greek version that was bowdlerized a thousand years ago by the catholic church censors. Then it was translated by a bunch of English infidels more interested in flaunting the poetry of their beautiful language than conveying truth. And then, the final insult, all this is interpreted by a bunch of American hillbillies trying to bleed enough cash out of their semi-literate audience to buy a new transponder.

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Actually I prefer the ESV or the NASB. I don’t use the KJV. Having said that, all three are reliable translations. Your assertion about the greek text used for the KJV is wrong because it did not exist 1000 years ago. It was created about 500 years ago from other greek and hebrew manuscripts. And I don’t really care what the catholic church censors did. The text we have today is a result of examining and translating the thousands of manuscripts and manuscript fragments we have available to us today. It has nothing to do with what the romanists did.

    As for the “American hillbilly” supposed insult….well I am from a small town in East Tennessee where being a hillbilly is considered a complement not an insult. I suggest you address the substance of my comments and forget the personal insults.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Tom, there is no substance to your comments, so there is nothing else to address other than your superstitious beliefs and controlling attitude.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Baronius, yet again you are mistaken. This debate is about Tom’s argument that same sex marriage is an attack on the family, which is clearly irrational.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Tom –

    The case of hermaphrodites and kids who are “convinced” they are supposed to be of the other sex are a result of sin corrupting the world. God created perfectly and then sin has corrupted the world into what we see

    Show some intestinal fortitude and LOOK IT UP, guy. There ARE people born with both a penis AND a vagina:

    True hermaphroditism in humans differs from pseudohermaphroditism in which the person have both X and Y chromosomes (not to be confused with the normal XY chromosome of males), having both testicular and ovarian tissue, and having both but ambigously looking external genitalia. One possible pathophysiologic explanation of this rare phenomenon is a parthenogentic division of a haploid ovum into two haploid ova. And upon fertilization of the two ova by two sperm cells (one carrying an X and the other carrying a Y chromosome), the two fertilized ova are then fused together resulting in a person having both genitalial, gonadal, and genetic sex.

    Are you now going to still maintain that there is no such thing when there obviously ARE?

    Tom, look – you cannot deny science. I am a Christian – I do not deny the Bible, but neither can I deny science. BOTH must agree…and I believe they do if one is able to discern between historical fact and metaphorical legend.

    Why? Let’s look at creation as an example. To say that the world is only 6000 or so years old even in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence otherwise would be to call God a deceiver since He would have had to place all that scientific evidence showing that earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

    God’s NOT a deceiver – which means there MUST be another explanation…and I believe I’ve found that explanation. Adam and Eve were NOT the very first humans…but they WERE the very first people of God. That’s why the sons of Adam were able to find wives in the land of Ur. If there weren’t already people in Ur, then there couldn’t have been any wives for his sons to find!

    The Bible and science MUST agree – either that, or God’s a deceiver. God is NOT a deceiver, so it behooves us to find out how both can agree, how both are right.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    The New York bill, like the New Hampshire bill, contains extensive exemptions for people and institutions who don’t want to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies for religious reasons. They can’t be sued for refusing, and a church can’t be sued, or hit by government sanction, for not allowing its building to be used.

    This really ought to be enough for Tom and Baronius. The world is full of behavior that they don’t approve of, but that is perfectly legal.

    [The Bible’s death-by-stoning penalty for adultery is not reflected in the legal code. And some Bible-literalist Christians also use pretzel logic to allow themselves shrimp cocktail and ham and cheese sandwiches, but that’s another discussion.]

  • Clavos

    It’s time to wake up and recognize the prejudices and bigotry most of us were fed by our families, by our cultures, by our histories, and by our religions…

    If there were a god…

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Glenn,

    You said: “Show some intestinal fortitude and LOOK IT UP, guy. There ARE people born with both a penis AND a vagina:”

    I did not deny that people are born with this condition. I know that it happens. My point was that it happens because of the corruption of genetic information as a result of sin. Sin has corrupted God’s creation and as such things like this happen.

    Also, I agree that the Bible and science must agree. Our difference is that when they don’t you say science is right and I say the Bible is right. As to the age of the earth, there are just as many, if not more, scientists who hold to a young earth as those who believe in an old earth. Everyone has the same data but the interpretation of that data is influenced by our presuppositions.

    As to Adam and Eve, if they were not the first people then the Bible is wrong. They could not have been the “first people of God”. Obviously you reject the Genesis account of creation but I say that if you do you don’t have any basis for believing anything else in the Bible. “In the beginning God….” is the most important phrase ever uttered. It means that God is the starting point for all our questions. If we start anywhere else, with science for example, then we are assured of getting the answer.

    Now, to bring this back to my original article, we must consider what has God said about marriage and homosexuality. God instituted marriage between one man and one woman for a reason. He instituted the family unit for a reason. We need to look for his answers to the questions we have and when our answers differ from his we need to adjust our thinking to be in conformity to his.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “there are just as many, if not more, scientists who hold to a young earth as those who believe in an old earth.”

    feel free to cite your source.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Yes, please do provide some evidence to support your latest laughable notion…

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Here are a few sites to find this information. I have also copied the list of scientists from the Answers In Genesis website.

    ICR
    Creation Research
    Answers in Genesis
    Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

    Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
    Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
    Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
    Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
    Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
    Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
    Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
    Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
    Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
    Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
    Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
    Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
    Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
    Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
    Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
    Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
    Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
    Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
    Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
    Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
    Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
    Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
    Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
    Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
    Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
    Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
    Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
    Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
    Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
    Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
    Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
    Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
    Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
    Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
    Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
    Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
    Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
    Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
    Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
    Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
    Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
    Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
    Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
    Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
    Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
    Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
    Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
    Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
    Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
    Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
    Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
    Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
    Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
    Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
    Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
    Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
    Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
    Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
    Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
    Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
    Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
    Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
    Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
    Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
    Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
    Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
    Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
    Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
    Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
    Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
    Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
    Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
    Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
    Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
    Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
    Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
    Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
    Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
    Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
    Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
    Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
    George T. Javor, Biochemistry
    Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
    Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
    Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
    Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
    Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
    Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
    Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
    Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
    Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
    Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
    Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
    Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
    Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
    Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
    Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
    Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
    Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
    Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
    Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
    Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
    Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
    Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
    Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
    Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
    Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
    Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
    Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
    Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
    Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
    Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
    Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
    Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
    Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
    Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
    Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
    Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
    Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
    Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
    Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918?”2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
    Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
    Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
    Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
    Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
    Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
    Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
    Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
    Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
    Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
    Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
    Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
    Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
    Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
    Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
    Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
    Prof. Richard Porter
    Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
    Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
    Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
    Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
    Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
    Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
    Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
    Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
    Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
    Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
    Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
    Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
    Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
    Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
    Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
    Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
    Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
    Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
    Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915?”1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
    Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
    Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
    Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
    Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
    Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
    Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
    Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
    Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
    Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
    Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
    Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
    Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
    Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
    Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
    Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
    Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
    Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892?”1979) Surgeon
    Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
    Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
    Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
    Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
    Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
    Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
    Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
    Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
    Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
    Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
    Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
    Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
    Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
    Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
    Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
    Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
    Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

  • Clavos

    Hard to believe that so many people with graduate degrees could be that wrong.

    Until you consider how many people with graduate degrees also believe in anthropomorphic climate change…

    Scientists are, in the final analysis, just another bunch of ordinary people.

    And some of them believe in myths.

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    I am sure many many more could be found with a little effort. That list was from the Answers in Genesis web site only.

  • zingzing

    so, tom, using your math skills, how does this add up to “just as many, if not more” etc, etc? you’d need hundreds of thousands of signatures, at least. maybe millions. there are certainly more than a few hundred scientists in the world, just as the world is certainly more than 6,000 years old. and i’m doubting the credentials of any “palaeontologist,” “physicist” or “geologist” who would believe it isn’t.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Nice list but this small number is not “just as many, if not more”. And really if your “scientists” consist of dentists and vets, you are scraping the barrel.

    I can see why “Jerome” embraces you. He too wallows in inaccurate information to make his points.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    and when did philosophy become a science?

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    I made it clear that I found that list in a very short time. If you want more go and do the research yourself. You guys asked for some evidence and I provided it and you immediately seek to dismiss it. Choosing to remain blind is your choice.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Tom –


    I did not deny that people are born with [true hermaphroditism]. I know that it happens. My point was that it happens because of the corruption of genetic information as a result of sin. Sin has corrupted God’s creation and as such things like this happen.

    Wrong answer. The fact that even ONE baby was born with both male and female genitalia throws the God-permits-man-and-woman-only premise out the window. All it took was ONE such birth to prove that God allows more than just strictly man or woman. If God wouldn’t permit it, then it wouldn’t happen. EVER.

    But it DOES happen and it HAS BEEN happening for many, many years…which means that God DOES permit something other than just strictly man or woman.

    There is no way you can sensibly argue otherwise.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    You provided a great deal of information that doesn’t prove your point and without bothering to see if it was accurate. Who’s the blind one?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Tom, we didn’t ask for “some evidence”, we asked for evidence – which you have failed to provide.

    It follows, therefore, that your assertion about the number of scientists that believe in the biblical explanation of the age of our planet is unproven and will remain so everywhere outside the realm of your imagination.

  • zingzing

    “Choosing to remain blind is your choice.”

    you’re entitled to your own opinions, and you’re entitled to your own beliefs, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. what you suggest is laughable.

    you were asked to source your assertion that there are “just as many, if not more” scientists who believe the earth was created by god 6,000 years ago than those who do not believe such nonsense. you produced a woefully inadequate list, one that would not even cover the typical research university on such terms, and then say “If you want more go and do the research yourself”?

    no sir. you go do that. you obviously haven’t. you have no basis for making that statement. if you did you’d be able to source it, or at least come up with something far better than that. because that’s pathetic.

    “You guys asked for some evidence and I provided it and you immediately seek to dismiss it.”

    because it’s not evidence! yes, there are some idiots in the world. you have proven that. but you have not proven or even begun to factually suggest that what you think is anywhere near true.

    if you really believe that what you said is factually correct, you are the one that is blind or you should prove otherwise. this isn’t the spirit world. it’s the real world. in the real world, what you said is a mind-blowing inaccuracy, and probably a straight-up lie (if you can string a sentence together, i don’t know how you could be so dumb as to believe that junk), and you are correctly laughed out of the room.

    and your defense! my god… it’s just ridiculous that you think that would even begin to pass. if you could find another 100 such lists, it still wouldn’t be enough. you do realize this, don’t you?

    you are obviously wrong. it’s on you to prove otherwise.

  • Dan

    “Yes, please do provide some evidence to support your latest laughable notion…”—Christopher Rose

    It appears that Tom Shelton has provided “some evidence”. Anyone who says otherwise appears to be dishonest. That is no surprise though.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Not to support his statement he didn’t, Dan. Tom’s claim wasn’t that there were some, which no one disputed, but “just as many, if not more.” Anyone who says otherwise appears to be dishonest. That is no surprise though.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    If there is a God, he would probably prefer that we use the minds he gave us, rather than selectively turning them off when the subject of Himself comes up.

    I have no doubt that there are also many scientists who are religious yet roll their eyes at the stupefyingly limited literalism of adding up the years in the ‘begats’ and coming up with the earth’s age. God Himself may be giggling at that silly bit of business. Or he may be irritated at the triviality and the idiocy of it.

  • Cannonshop

    #58 yeah, and there are Scientists who believe in the Myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming, the urban myths of the various conspiracies (Such as Bilderbergers and Masonic conspiracies), and the Nazis had a whole RAFT of scientists who embraced their Eugenics myths.

    Science (REAL science) is about Skepticism and asking questions, then seeking to eliminate false answers. Philosophy and Theology are about ‘God’, and ‘truth’, and especially ‘revealed truth’, as opposed to the truth you get by digging it out yourself, the hard way.

    Having a Doctorate doesn’t make you a scientist, not even in a very technical or theoretical field. Being a Scientist means DOING SCIENCE.

    a practice that, at its root, does not allow room for acceptance of revealed truth based on faith.

    And that’s regardless of whether that ‘revealed truth’ comes from tricking numbers and cooking the books for political reasons, or tricking numbers and cooking the books for religious, social, or societal reasons.

    Those that manipulate the evidence to support their preconcieved conclusions are not scientists, because they are not doing science.

    Mind that consensus CAN be wrong-the consensus that the universe was geo-centric, the consensus of Crystal Spheres, the consensus of “Elevator” movement rather than continental drift is responsible for the configuration of continental structures, have all fallen away.

    But none of those things were proven by ‘revelation’, they were disproven by EXAMINATION, Experimentation, and Observation.

    The hypothesis presented by a literal interpretation of Genesis (or the Bible as a whole) has already been broken many, many, many times, this makes it ineligible for consideration as a mere “Theory”, much less an actual “FACT”.

    Notably, the failure of the bible to provide accurate geophysical, astronomical, or oceanographic evidence is not in itself a denial of God-it merely demonstrates that reliance on the writings of a bunch of sheep-herds and warriors from the southeast corner of the Mediterranean Basin, who’ve been conquered by every other civilization since the rise of UR in the Fertile Crescent, might not be the most reliable source of scientific data on the creation, structure, or behaviour of the Planet Earth.

    Not to mention the Universe as a whole.

    All of that is aside the central question of the topic at hand-should Gay people be allowed to marry other Gay people, thus taking them out of the marriage pool for Straight People, encouraging them to settle for less destructive attendant lifestyle choices (i.e. lowering the likelihood of their use of public restrooms and other places for the purpose of anonymous sex before returning to their make-believe straight relationships), encourage them to pay higher taxes (marriage penalties, esp. if the Champions of Gay Rights on the Left get their way and repeal the Bush era tax reductions), and have to act more responsibly as a whole, or do we try to chase the Mollys back into the closet, thus ensuring MORE disruptive behaviour, along with helping further deteriorate more traditional relationships and contributing to further expansion of the Broken Homes industry in America, in the name of a God who needs no one to ‘interpret’ HIS word as justification for acting on ‘icky feelings’ about others, specifically about others’ sins.

    The greatest of all sins is PRIDE, pride as in Arrogance, as in feeling that YOU have the right to JUDGE others’ Sinful behaviours, even to the point of being justified in shaping the law to support YOUR arrogant ideal of what YOU believe YOUR GOD wants.

    A belief that, frankly, I would have to say has less support than the Flat Earth Hypothesis. ONLY, if you are a Christian (and a true one, one that has Christ in your heart), ONLY god has the right to render judgement of sin, and of sinners.

    As a Christian, and a Mortal, you do NOT have the right to judge others-only GOD has that right, you have a duty, if you TRULY believe you are a Christian, to forgive others for their sins, and to avoid sin in YOUR life, and to REPENT that sin which you ahve not avoided.

    It’s a PERSONAL, not Public, relationship. God didn’t give you a badge and make you a Deputy of his will, to enforce his rules on others as you see fit. READ your bible, read the words of your saviour, and understand this-when he said, “Those without sin may cast the first stone”, he MEANT IT-unless you are truly sinless, you do not have the RIGHT to judge the Sins of others, esp. when those sins do no harm to others-that’s the difference between “Sin” and “Law.”

    LAW is written among MEN, not by god, to maintain ORDER in the living world.

    SIN is determined by God, and subject oonly to HIS judgement, based on a divine plan that no mortal man can truly comprehend.

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Glenn,

    you said “Wrong answer. The fact that even ONE baby was born with both male and female genitalia throws the God-permits-man-and-woman-only premise out the window. All it took was ONE such birth to prove that God allows more than just strictly man or woman. If God wouldn’t permit it, then it wouldn’t happen. EVER”

    I said God created only man and woman when he created Adam and Eve. I never said that God did not allow these birth defects to happen now. If you read my comment more closely you will realize that I said after that sin corrupted the world and these defects occurred. So you are correct in asserted that God permits it but it was not his original plan for creation because he created everything perfect.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    I couldn’t help but notice that you lumped in AGW with conspiracy theories…and then you went on to describe scientific rigor in the search for provable fact as opposed to unprovable faith in religion.

    Talk about a contradiction! If you truly believe that scientists strive for fact, why can you not believe that AGW is very real when 98% of climatologists – those SCIENTISTS who are best qualified to speak on the matter – tell you that AGW is real?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Tom –

    And you still have the wrong answer. If someone is born with both genitalia, then any sex that person has with someone else is ALSO an act of homosexuality.

    HERE is what you said:

    God created only man and woman. The case of hermaphrodites and kids who are “convinced” they are supposed to be of the other sex are a result of sin corrupting the world. God created perfectly and then sin has corrupted the world into what we see now.

    The context of the sentence (see “convinced”) makes it clear that you were thinking ONLY about what you think is a mental choice, and you were in no wise considering true hermaphrodites. So please don’t try to tell me you weren’t saying what you obviously said.

    And when it comes to science, Tom, do we or do we not know the speed of light? It’s 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum, right? And using rather simple trigonometry we KNOW how distant are the stars in the sky…and thus we KNOW how long it took the light from those stars to get here – in the case of distant galaxies, it’s billions of years.

    NO rational scientist disputes this – it’s high-school math, for crying out loud!

    So tell me, Tom – if the universe is only 6,000 years old, why would God make it seem that the universe is billions of years old? Would God do that? Because if He did, then He would be deceiving people into thinking the universe is FAR older than what most “Christians” think it is.

    But God’s not a deceiver – which means that anyone who thinks that the story of creation in Genesis means the universe is only 6000 years old…doesn’t understand the Bible half as well as they believe they do.

    Your turn.

  • María

    What a waste of time arguing with the religious wingnuts!!! They won’t get any rational argument, anyway. Enough said!!!

  • zingzing

    “it was not his original plan for creation because he created everything perfect.”

    well that went sour quick. oh, omnipotent one, how is it that you make bad plans?

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Wow, my article has been moved to the primary position at the top of the Politics page.

  • zingzing

    schadenfreude

  • Cannonshop

    #74 that’s because the one thing NOT present in the AGW community, is necessary scientific rigour, as opposed to the ample conformance to Political Rigor-Like Creationism, AGW benefits from playing fast-and-loose with cherry-picked data, and tends to fall apart when the experiments are examined skeptically. it is kept alive, because it’s an easy excuse to tell people not to pollute-something that, while laudable, isn’t about doing science, but about influencing society-in the case of AGW, in a more “Environmentally Conscious” way. The only real difference being the number of degreed persons willing to buy off on AGW as opposed to ID or strict Biblical Creationism.

    A similar lack of rigor has occurred before-in the Soviet “Psychic” research of the fifties, sixties, and seventies. AGW presupposes too many things that it can’t prove-indeed, too many things we don’t have the ability TO test, to be hard science.

    But, it is a GREAT apocalyptic scare tactic if your audience is gullible.

  • zingzing

    “But, it is a GREAT apocalyptic scare tactic if your audience is gullible.”

    you do realize that denying agw is just as politically motivated, right? when a science-related issue breaks down on political lines, even if the scientific consensus is that it exists, and the argument against is a conspiracy theory, well, the political lines have been drawn, and that’s what makes you believe what you believe, not the science. you don’t understand the science.

    sigh… but i beg you and all of us not to turn this into some global warming argument. i realize what this looks like and i’m sorry, but i couldn’t resist.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    You’re trying to claim that scientists – the very same ones who strive to determine fact from fantasy using scientific rigor in their professional careers – are NOT using scientific rigor and scientific methods to prove or disprove AGW.

    Riiiiiight. AGW alone – out of nearly ALL scientific issues – is the ONLY ONE where scientific rigor hasn’t been applied…despite the fact that 98% of ALL climatologists the VAST majority of all scientists agree that AGW is obviously true!.

    Do you not see the error in your logic? You seem to claim to support scientific thought and believe in scientific methods…yet on this one issue out of all major scientific issues you think that scientific rigor hasn’t been applied!

    Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just MAYBE the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right? Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just maybe there’s a REASON why there are so few scientists who disagree with AGW…and those who do are more often than not funded at least in part by Big Oil? Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just maybe you should be applying your cynicism to the motives of Big Oil and the “scientists” they use to deny AGW?

    Or is it simply more important to you that if liberals say something is true or right, then you must oppose whatever it is that the liberals say…regardless of the fact that the VAST majority of the world’s scientists and 98% of all climatologists agree with the liberal position that AGW is very, very real?

    Cannonshop, do you not get that we WANT you to be right? When it comes to global warming, we WANT the AGW deniers to be right! Do you not understand that? We do not want the coming global catastrophe that is global warming! We do NOT want it to be true! WE WOULD MUCH PREFER FOR THE CONSERVATIVES TO BE RIGHT ON THIS MATTER!

    But that’s not what the evidence shows, Cannonshop. AGW deniers are betting the well-being of our world and our civilization that they’re right. That’s NOT a wise bet to make.

  • zingzing

    noooooooooo…

    ah well. if cannonshop wants to believe that all the scientists have been secretly bought and paid for by liberal interests, just like the schools have, just like the media has, etc, etc, well, he can waste his time doing that. i’m sure he’s counting his money from big oil right this second. (hey–if they have a conspiracy, isn’t it right and fair that we have one of our own?)

    all the deniers are shills for big oil! do not believe a word they say.

    meh. it’s just another moronic conspiracy, glenn. aren’t you used to it by now? that’s what conservatives do.

  • Clavos

    Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just MAYBE the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right?

    Actually, the “vast majority of the world’s scientists” haven’t weighed in on climate change, which makes sense; for most of ‘em it’s not their field.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Actually, the “vast majority of the world’s scientists” haven’t weighed in on climate change, which makes sense; for most of ‘em it’s not their field.

    Actually, it looks like they HAVE done so. The list of countries DOES represent the vast majority of humanity on earth…and so also represents the vast majority of scientists on earth.

    But of course I’m sure that you think the National Academy of Sciences doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

    What it boils down to, Clavos (and Cannonshop) is that you have decided to not agree that AGW is real no matter how many scientists tell you that it’s real. The liberals believe the scientists, and that’s all you need to tell yourself that AGW is not real.

  • Dan

    “Not to support his statement he didn’t, Dan. Tom’s claim wasn’t that there were some, which no one disputed, but “just as many, if not more.”—el bicho

    Yes, and then when badgered to produce “some evidence” he presented a lengthy list. It doesn’t prove his claim, which would seem difficult if not impossible, but then his list is longer than yours.

  • Dan

    I see Zimbabwe’s rigourous scientific program made Glenns list. I’m convinced now.

  • Leroy

    Conservatives seem to have a Theory of Contrariness that says to never agree with anything a liberal supports and then someday you´?l chance to be right and can cackle in joy at the poor mistaken liberal.

    But I think they picked a loser with GW: the supporting evidence is too strong and the denial theories too weak, and all that gets distorted as it passes through the hands of people who don´t struggle with the workaday realities of working science and are burdened with illusions of what science consists of.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    It also includes America, Russia, China, most of western Europe, Australia, Canada…

    …but since it includes Zimbabwe, I guess that’s all you need to ignore all the rest.

  • Clavos

    That’s it Leroy, you nailed it.

    /sarcasm

  • Clavos

    …and so also represents the vast majority of scientists on earth.

    Unwarranted assumption (you do that a lot).

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “It doesn’t prove his claim, which would seem difficult if not impossible”

    Then he shouldn’t have made the claim, which was the whole point.

    “his list is longer than yours.”

    Considering I made no claim, why would I need a list?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Looks like you’re still trying to convince yourself that it doesn’t matter how many scientists rub your nose in AGW, you’re not going to believe it’s real – and why? Because liberals believe it is real.

  • zingzing

    clavos seems like he should be too smart for this shit. i know he could say he’s looked and the science and he doesn’t believe it, but i think he knows the rest of us are too smart to fall for that, and i know he’s smart enough to know he’s no climatologist, and that he’s smart enough to know that chances are that 90+% of scientists aren’t taken by the money. even if he doesn’t believe humans are better than that, he knows humans are better than that.

    many humans have said “we’re all going to die.” and agw is one of those things. usually, when people say “we’re all going to die,” most people say, “you’re full of shit.” maybe that’s what conservatives believe at this point. but why do they believe that along political lines?

    because it’s not science. they believe we’re cool on something else. the science tells us we shouldn’t be doing what we’re doing. but conservatives want to burn and burn and burn and choke and smoke and fucking pollute the shit out of whatever they can as if it doesn’t matter.

    why? profit!

    if you have another reason, please reveal it.

  • http://mekancatherine.blogspot.com/ Catherine

    You should move to the Middle East – they throw homosexuals in jail and torture them. Is that your alternative? Or maybe they should just pray the gay away?

    New York took our country a huge step forward in giving all American actual equal rights. Saying you believe in equal rights and practicing equal rights is not always the same thing.

  • Cannonshop

    #85 So, Glenn, in essence, you’re saying that the vast majority of people outside the field of Climate Science (a relatively new subset of Geoscience) have bought off on AGW… That’s a little bit like asking Doctors to comment on Legal Procedure, or Lawyers to endorse medicine, isn’t it?

    You argue from bandwagon and authority, but I doubt you’ve actually READ the IPCC reports, or examined their publicly-available methodology.

    I have.

    The Scientists actually WORKING in the field, including AGW backers, are less certain of their correctness than YOU are.

    This is something that OUGHT to give you pause for consideration, but probably won’t-because it’s about POLITICS, and a good spooky-story you can scare the kids into being good environmental citizens with.

    So far, AGW has been zero-for-zero in prediction accuracy, with a margin of error greater than the predicted margin of change over a ten year period-when you stack it, it gets WORSE.

    When the predictions start being accurate, I’ll start believing the predictions. Until then, cheap marketing ploys and polls are not science, they are political.

    Please also keep in mind something you folks seem to forget…

    The Climate is going to change whether you do something, anything, or nothing. It’s not a steady-state system, and the number of variables involved are considerable. You might also try examining the actual content of Breathable Atmosphere when you’re swallowing some of the more ridiculous assertions about carbon-outputs. 5% concentration is enough to do visible physical harm to human beings…immediately.

  • zingzing

    yes, cannonshop, the climate will “change whether you do something, anything, or nothing.”

    but will it also not change if you pump climate-changing gasses into the air?

    if i fart on your face, will you not smell it? or will you just say, “that was bound to happen, that zingzing would fart in my face?”

    you be the judge, while my ass hovers over you.

  • Clavos

    but will it also not change if you pump climate-changing gasses into the air?

    Nobody, including “climatologists,” knows for sure. They are going by what the computer models (which they designed and implemented themselves) tell them. In other words, these are predictions based on a type of predictor which is notoriously flawed, particularly where the climate and its workings are concerned. And, as Cannonshop says, if you actually read the IPCC reports (much of which was NOT written by scientists, but by government bureaucrats) you realize that even the scientists admit to uncertainty — people like Max Mayfield, former director of the National Hurricane Center, for example.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    ———–
    ***fifty layers of densely packed crushed charcoal****
    ————-

    Tom Shelton, I admire your desire to name yourself as a follower of Jesus Christ.

    In the course of U.S. history, evangelicals have been identified with movemements to stop abortion, same-sex marriage, slavery (the abolitionist movement in both England and the US was strongly evangelical), the denial of female suffrage (Susan B. Anthony was a Christian), violence as a means to attain civil rights (Dr. Martin Luther King promoted peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience, distinct from the Black Panthers’ methods), alcohol sales (Prohibition).

    Which is to say, sometimes we get it right, and sometimes we get it wrong.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “Nobody, including “climatologists,” knows for sure.”

    very few things in this life are “sure.” we also have an idea called “reasonable doubt.” on this issue, there’s little left to call “reasonable doubt,” other than political posturing.

  • http://www.sanctification.wordpress.com Tom Shelton

    Irene,

    Thank you. I believe that Christians should be engaged in all aspects of society for the purpose of proclaiming the name of Jesus to a lost and dying world and in order to reform society in a manner pleasing to our Creator.

  • Clavos
  • zingzing

    read it again, tom.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    I wonder how far Tom Shelton would go in striving towards establishing his beliefs?

  • Dan

    “Then he shouldn’t have made the claim, which was the whole point.”—El bicho

    Why? Because you disagree? If everyone only made claims that could be “proven” with anything near absolute certainty there would be nothing to argue about. He made a claim and when asked to provide “some evidence”, he did so.

    “Considering I made no claim, why would I need a list?”

    You don’t. I simply made the observation that Tom did provide a list. You only jeered. Boorishly.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Dan, when people ask for some evidence, it’s kind of implicit that the meaning is some credible evidence to support the idea put forth.

    Tom’s response in posting a list of a relatively short list names doesn’t meet the standard for evidence.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Not because I disagree, but because I never heard that claim before so I asked for proof to see if it I could get some verification. Do you just accept everything people tell you or only if you agree with it politically? Tom has already proven with absolute certainty that he can’t back up the statement.

    If he had written Steve Garvey was the home run king, I would ask for proof, but according to you some proof the statement was accurate would be a list of few games where Garvey hit a home run as well as mentions of games where he only hit a triple, but it would only prove he hit home runs, not that he was the home run king.

    Again, he was not asked to provide some evidence that there any scientists but that there were “just as many, if not more”. You keep ignoring that aspect or else don’t understand it. Not sure which and not sure I care any longer.

  • Dan

    If Tom had listed a few games where Steve Garvey hit home runs, we would know that he was at least in the running for the title of “home run king”. That would seem to qualify as “some evidence”.

    Tom did provide a pretty extensive list. If accurate, it qualifies as “some evidence”. I too am skeptical of Toms statement, but I’m impressed by the list.

    “Home run king” would seem easier to prove with certainty than what “just as many, if not more” scientists believe, but it isn’t unusual for blog critics and commentors to make claims with much less or even no substantiation.

    You can be hypercritical of a claim that you vehemently disagree with, and I’ll feel free to observe and conclude as I do.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    They are going by what the computer models (which they designed and implemented themselves) tell them.

    Since when is modeling not a valid tool of scientific methodology?

    And since when is it the only evidence for AGW?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    If sexuality is a conscious choice, I wonder if Tom can tell us when he decided to become heterosexual.

  • Jordan Richardson

    If Tom had listed a few games where Steve Garvey hit home runs, we would know that he was at least in the running for the title of “home run king”.

    I hit a home run when I was 10 years old. Am I in the running for the title of “home run king?”

  • Clavos

    Since when is modeling not a valid tool of scientific methodology?

    Often used, yes. Its validity varies widely with the skill of the architect. It’s a tool, not proof.

    There have been legitimate questions about some of the other evidence presented; the infamous hockey stick readily comes to mind.

    The really interesting aspect of the whole issue is the fervor with which believers are attempting to squelch all debate — usually by means of ad hominem attacks, rather than actual discussion.

    Kinda like what heliocentrism endured in the 16th and 17th centuries.

  • Clavos

    Al Gore’s hysterical hyperbole, coupled with his hypocrisy, certainly haven’t helped the cause.

    The Nobel committee really cheapened and devalued their prize with that one.

    Old Alfred must be really unhappy.

  • zingzing

    “The really interesting aspect of the whole issue is the fervor with which believers are attempting to squelch all debate — usually by means of ad hominem attacks, rather than actual discussion.”

    “Al Gore’s hysterical hyperbole, coupled with his hypocrisy, certainly haven’t helped the cause. The Nobel committee really cheapened and devalued their prize with that one. Old Alfred must be really unhappy.”

    yay, clavos…

  • Cannonshop

    #114 To be fair, Zing, in spite of the Nobel award, Gore’s a Believer, not a Scientist, and a politician, which makes Hyperbole a basic tool in his toolbox, along with hysteria, so really it could be said that Clavos in #113 and #112 isn’t employing hypocrisy, but rather simply acknowledging a fact relating to one of AGW’s most important public figures.

    That said acknowledgement irritates you, is probably demonstrative of the level of faith involved in the AGW stance-the Saints must not be Questioned?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Clavos, Doc D has been quite successfully arguing this issue with you for many months, without ‘hysteria’ or ad hominem attacks. Obviously he hasn’t convinced you, but you can’t write his arguments off as unthoughtful or bogus.

    And accusing staid, bland, boring Al Gore of hysterical hyperbole says more about your limited powers of accurate observation and description than about Gore.

    I mean, you can just say everyone who disagrees with you is full of it [you do it all the time]. But that has no effect whatsoever on whether you or they are right or wrong.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Cannon, you too are a believer, not a scientist [and, as your other posts amply prove, not an economist or a constitutional scholar]. All your posts are 99-plus % ideology rather than factual argument. And you could give lessons in hysterical hyperbole.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Its validity varies widely with the skill of the architect. It’s a tool, not proof.

    Indeed. But when the predictions of models start to be reflected in actual observed data (which they are), it behoves you to start paying attention rather than to continue to dismiss them out of hand.

    There have been legitimate questions about some of the other evidence presented

    Which is as it should be. The problem is that AGW “skeptics” tend to fixate on these questions to the exclusion of everything else. It’s equivalent to arguing that the average height of an NBA player is under 6′ because Nate Robinson is 5′ 9″.

    Overall, AGW theory remains robust. I wish it didn’t, but there you go.

    the infamous hockey stick readily comes to mind.

    That would be so if it were the only hockey stick. Its “infamy” ignores the multiple reproductions of the hockey stick data from a large number of other observations in the field.

    Cherry picking again.

    Kinda like what heliocentrism endured in the 16th and 17th centuries.

    In the 16th and 17th centuries, heliocentrism, a theory developed from meticulous observations, was pitted against geocentrism, a theory developed from religious dogma and with no evidence which would be considered sound by modern scientific standards.

    No surprise which one eventually prevailed.

    AGW, a theory developed from meticulous observations, is today pitted against the arguments of the skeptics, which are developed almost entirely from political dogma and with no evidence which can be considered sound by scientific standards.

  • zingzing

    “That said acknowledgement irritates you, is probably demonstrative of the level of faith involved in the AGW stance-the Saints must not be Questioned?”

    nah, it’s just that it was an ad hominem attack. and i never said anything like your last phrase. don’t be putting words in my mouth. when you do, it just lets me know that you don’t know what you’re arguing against.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “Am I in the running for the title of ‘home run king?'”

    If you say you it to be true, that’s all Dan and Tom need because they require no proof

  • Clavos

    And accusing staid, bland, boring Al Gore of hysterical hyperbole says more about your limited powers of accurate observation and description than about Gore.

    You didn’t address his hypocrisy, Handy.

    OK, so his hyperbole is more somnolent than hysterical, but hyperbole is the very essence of his entire premise, both in the film and in his subsequent “staid, bland, boring” (your words) pronouncements on the subject.

    And, of course, his lifestyle and “do as I say, not as I do” rhetoric haven’t helped.

    Actually, I’m rather glad he decided to join that bandwagon; it would appear he’s done more than anyone to kill its momentum.

    And kill it he has — to a much greater degree than any of the skeptics.

  • Dan

    “I hit a home run when I was 10 years old…”—Jordan Richardson

    In the words of Christopher Rose: “please do provide some evidence to support your latest laughable notion…”

  • Dan

    Thanks for that link Clavos. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more comprehensive analysis that so thoroughly exposes the folly of a “global green treaty movement to outlaw climate change”.

    I guess we should definitely hope the science of climate change is fraudulant.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Yes, Dan, it’s quite the argument.

    Climate change science is fraudulent because it rekwires a lotta komplerkatid numbers to understand.

    Phenomenal…

  • Cannonshop

    #117 Handy, nobody is ever going to give me a Nobel Prize, nor have me speak at their University Graduation, nor even put me up in a Congressional (much less Senate) Seat.

    Therefore, I’m free to have fun with this stuff-my opinions really don’t matter to the people with the money and the power.

    The problem comes from people who HAVE the money and the power relying on hyperbole and hysteria, bandwagoneering, etc. to try and drive a panic response to a largely out of human control phenomena, can you dig that?

    I may be a member of the great unwashed, not an Economist, or a Degreed, Tenure-serving Scientific Professor, or influential power-broker, but that doesn’t mean I can’t handle both the complex math, and the basic tools of the science we’re discussing, along with statistical analysis, and it doesn’t mean that I’m not conversant with the basic chemistry and physics involved enough to be unable to examine the reported experiments and observations, the projections, and the models.

    If you can do calculus and statistics, it’s not that frikking tough to do, (which is why RL professors and scientists often hand it to grad students-it’s the scut-work).

    Anybody who can read, do calculus, and handle basic first-year statistics can do it.

    And when the numbers don’t add up, or when the experimental method’s incomplete, it’s pretty obvious. but there’s an easier way to do it…

    Look at the prediction, if you’ve passed the year, and it doesn’t look LIKE what the model said it should when the model was put in operation, then it’s the model that has the problem.

    The math ain’t that complicated, it’s just long hours of drudgery.

    The more amusing part, is that ratio of error-that +/- variable, when you look at the data, the +/- variables tend to be higher than the predicted rate of change.

    It’s like looking at politicians claiming victory or failure for their economic policies-the rate of error is high enough relative to the predicted change that backers can claim to be vindicated REGARDLESS of what happens in the real world.

    Which is why, fundamentally, I’m skeptical of the claims of Human Influence, and more skeptical of the proposed “Fixes” for the (very real) Climate Change.

    We’re in an interglacial period, that means we’re coming OUT of an Ice-Age. Historically, the world has been both a hell of a lot warmer, and colder, than it has been for the last…oh…three hundered years.

    We’ve only really got reliable, observed measurements for about three centuries if you assume late-age-of-reason technology is effective, and global measurement is only really about sixty years old, with reliable sattelite measurement being around forty years old.

    The Earth, (unless you’re a Creationist) is FOUR BILLION YEARS OLD (rough estimate, error of around half a percent near as we can tell).

    But even going by recorded history (over ten thousand years’ worth-or four thousand more than Creationists think it is based on biblical ‘begat’ counts) that’s still a microscopic percentage of time that we’ve even had “Farenheit” measurement, much less accurate measurement of temperature on local scales.

    There is a limit to what forty years of data can do for you, even with the strides in archaeology in examining ice-cores and the like.

    Can you dig it? Do you understand my position-and it’s MINE, not some schill from Schell Oil, or bloviating talking-head’s talking-points, I actually put the time into doing the math and reading the articles from the published, orthodox, pro-Global-Warming camp…

    And I did it before, not after, I made my own decision on where I stood.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    We’re in an interglacial period, that means we’re coming OUT of an Ice-Age.

    Yes, Cannon, but something forces the planet to go into and out of ice ages. It doesn’t just do it because it gets bored.

    We’re pretty sure that glacial patterns are driven by solar activity. As the Sun warms and cools, so do we.

    Problem is, the Sun is relatively quiet right now, and has been cooling since about 1970. Yet the planet continues to warm.

    Historically, the world has been both a hell of a lot warmer, and colder, than it has been for the last…oh…three hundered years.

    Historically, upwards of 99% of the species currently occupying the planet did not evolve under the conditions you speak of. Historically, there has also been a conspicuous absence of the hundreds of metropolises and megalopolises, located mainly on coasts, that exist now and are at terrible risk from rising sea levels and failures of the crops needed to feed their teeming billions.

    The planet is just a very large lump of rock, and will be just fine however much it continues to warm. Most of its residents, however, won’t.

    There is a limit to what forty years of data can do for you, even with the strides in archaeology in examining ice-cores and the like.

    Ice cores, tree rings etc give you a lot more than 40 years of data. Try thousands.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    And I’ve said it before, but:

    Almost every action being recommended to halt/reverse warming will also give us cleaner air and water and make us less reliant on fossil fuels.

    These are desirable goals in themselves, never mind the warming debate. I doubt Clavos, Dan and Cannon are in favor of dirty air and water. But you wouldn’t know that from the vehemence of their arguments.

  • Cannonshop

    That data’s of limited value, doc. it gives you info on an immediate locale, minus whatever burn-off or melt-off has occurred between layers. a lot of it is deeply hypothetical and based on ‘best guess’ reasoning.

    As for when how and where species evolved, A similar argument could be held over the ending of the last ice age, and how global warming would wipe out most of the species then available-there were some that went extinct, but a majority of them adapted to the changes. It’s called “evolution”, Doc, and Lifeforms are still doing it, including higher lifeforms.

    The Climate is NOT a static system, and if you’re worried about today’s versions of yesterdays favourites, maybe you need to invest in some technology that halts all change, maybe some science-fictional-stasis-ray thingamabob or something, because whether or not you, me, or all of mankind wants it, things will evolve, arise, and go extinct as the systems change, and the systems WILL change.

    The world is not in stasis, it never was, it never will be (well, maybe after the sun swallows it in five billion or so years according to the best guess of Astronomers-everything will be turned into fuel for a dying star…)

  • Cannonshop

    #127 yes, Handy, reducing industrial pollution is a desirable goal IN AND OF ITSELF. Using a false Armageddon to sell it is damn near the height of folly-because when people stop believing in your synthetic apocalypse, they have a distressing tendency to throw the good out with the bad.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Expressing skepticism about scientific claims is one thing.

    Questioning the motives of thousands of professional scientists in such a wide generalization is something else.

    And claiming as a layman that you know this so definitively is just damn silly.

  • zingzing

    the science is on the side of the believers. the blind faith is on the side of those who do not believe (like a child covering her eyes so the monsters will go away).

  • Clavos

    Ice cores, tree rings etc give you a lot more than 40 years of data. Try thousands.

    Of mostly interpolated and as Cannonshop put it, “best guess” conclusions.

    Handy mentions motives. I think many of the scientists may believe that climate change is taking place and that to some degree it’s anthropogenic, but I also believe they (again many, not all) are cherry-picking what to announce and play on, not only to convince the skeptics and waverers, but also (and this is key) to ensure that the flow of grant money, which is huge, continues unabated.

    Also on the question of motivation, I believe that the pols most opposed to drilling are opposed because they want to see $10 a gallon gas so as to make their favorite solutions, solar and wind, competitive. But I admit, I’m a cynic, especially when it comes to those assholes in the Senate and the two houses (of Representatives and White).

    I experienced $10/gallon gas in Italy with a rental car two weeks ago. Driving a Volvo sedan, two 3/4 tank fillups each cost me $120 USD on two separate occasions — more than twice as much as the entire price of my first car ($50).

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    but I also believe they (again many, not all) are cherry-picking what to announce and play on, not only to convince the skeptics and waverers, but also (and this is key) to ensure that the flow of grant money, which is huge, continues unabated.

    Blind faith, then, Clav. Not a good bet.

    This strikes me as a good Occam’s razor opportunity. Objectively, which is more likely: that the data (millions and millions of pages of it) does not conclusively support AGW, but that most of it is being hidden (where, exactly?) so as to present a false picture – a claim which you cannot back up; or that the readily available data confirms with a high degree of certainty that human CO2 emissions are causing the current warming?

    I experienced $10/gallon gas in Italy with a rental car two weeks ago.

    If Italy is anything like the UK, most of that $10 was tax, not the actual cost of the gasoline.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    That data’s of limited value, doc. it gives you info on an immediate locale, minus whatever burn-off or melt-off has occurred between layers. a lot of it is deeply hypothetical and based on ‘best guess’ reasoning.

    Strawman, Cannon. Your objection would be true only if we were talking about one or two sets of tree ring or ice core data. We’re not. We’re talking masses of it, from all over the world and from a variety of time periods.

    whether or not you, me, or all of mankind wants it, things will evolve, arise, and go extinct as the systems change, and the systems WILL change.

    Well, no shit, Cannon. But why does this have to be the time? Especially when in this instance we can do something about it?

    I’m not buying your fatalism, or you wouldn’t be bothering to dissent in the first place.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    I’m not sure how many solar or wind-powered cars there are in the pipeline [those methods are for producing electricity]. But if more of us end up driving hybrids and electric vehicles each year, and the air gets cleaner as a result, is that such a horrible thing? Air pollution is nasty.

    In any case, voters have made it clear that high gas prices cause them to become highly disagreeable, and even the pols you hate the most want to get re-elected. And our lack of drilling in the Arctic is hardly the main cause of high prices — which have come down 6% in June.

    Do you have any proof other than your own cynicism that a majority of real-world, professional scientists, doing their life’s work in their chosen field, would deliberately falsify and distort results to get grant money? Don’t you think several of them would get caught?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    By the way, I have lived the last 26 years [in Boston and NYC] without a car, just the occasional rental.

  • Clavos

    would deliberately falsify and distort results to get grant money?

    Another Glenn is born. I didn’t say that, handy, I said “cherry pick.” Nothing more.

    I enjoy driving too much to live without a car, and though I bitch about $10 gas, I’m prepared to pay $10 — or more.

    My car is a six-speed stick shift 230 HP rocket weighing less than 3500 lbs.; I’ll pay what I have to, but I’m not giving that machine up.

  • zingzing

    what is it about the right and conspiracy theory?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    If they were deliberately ‘cherry picking,’ it would be equivalent to distortion, and deeply unethical. It’s like withholding evidence in a trial. So what you’re suggesting, with little or no evidence, is pretty serious. You make rash accusations and then get soo touchy when someone questions them.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    In some cases, zing, I think it’s that they just can’t believe a liberal could ever win an argument [or an election] on the merits, so there has to be some nefarious explanation. Their paranoia about the news media and academia are related to this as well.

  • Dan

    “Climate change science is fraudulent because it rekwires a lotta komplerkatid numbers to understand.”—Dr. Dreadful

    Well, certainly assigning a pretentious intellectual rigour, and an unfounded claim for ones own superior analytical capacity is a well worn pattern associated with fraudulent behavior. But as Walter Russell Mead describes in the link Clavos provided:

    “The green movement’s core tactic is not to “hide the decline” or otherwise to cook the books of science. Its core tactic is to cloak a comically absurd, impossibly complex and obviously impractical political program in the authority of science. Let anyone attack the cretinous and rickety construct of policies, trade-offs, offsets and bribes by which the greens plan to govern the world economy in the twenty first century, and they attack you as an anti-science bigot.”

    Losing a significant portion of humanity through some imperceptively slow and obscurely understood climate change process at some distant future point beyond anyones lifetime seems preferable to becoming political and economic slaves in the present to political sociopaths making things up as they go along. For most people anyway.

    That was the “argument” Mead made.

  • zingzing

    “For most people anyway.”

    just not the scientists actually studying it.

  • zingzing

    Climate sceptic* Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies.

    “Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.”

    “As one of very few scientists to publish in peer-reviewed literature denying climate change, Soon is widely regarded as one of the leading sceptical voices.”

    *it’s not a typo… apparently that’s how they spell it over in england.

    so, i suppose if the oil companies can infiltrate the skeptics, the same could be said for the believers. but… which is easier to corrupt? 90+% of the world’s climatologists, or a few skeptics who’ve rarely seen the inside of a peer-reviewed journal?

  • Clavos

    few skeptics who’ve rarely seen the inside of a peer-reviewed journal?

    Actually, zing, the scientists who are skeptical are often very high ranking climatologists in the academic world. Two who come readily to mind both head their respective departments at the universities where they work: Prof. Richard Lindzen who holds the Alfred P. Sloan chair at MIT, and of whom writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that “of all the skeptics, MIT’s Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he’s do

    Roy Spencer, Ph.D. is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Spencer is the recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work.

    There is a long list of many more prominent and peer respected skeptics here

  • zingzing

    i know there are examples you could give, clavos, hence the word “rarely.” the aforementioned mr. soon is one of those as well. at one point, maybe even still, he has worked for a joint institution of harvard and the smithsonian. that’s some pretty nice credentials.

    but i see what you’re doing.

    it’s just too bad he got his funding from oil and coal. (that MUST totally taint him in your eyes. right?) what happens to your argument at that point? this is some egregious shit right here. how is it that you can respect his research at this point? do you? he’s just doing it for the grant money.

    it’s weird how funding works. but i don’t know why the world would spend 500 times as much money to scare people as they would to say “hey, look, there’s no problem…” this great conspiracy kind of falls apart on that end. where’s the money going, clavos? where is the money in recycling and alternative energy? (there’s no money in that right now.)

    where’s the money in keeping the status quo with oil and coal? a-ha! lots of money there. if scientists were smart AND easily corrupted, they’d hop right along side your bandwagon. big oil would desperately love to quash this whole global warming nonsense. and yet scientists don’t do that a vast, vast majority of the time. what does your logic tell you about that?

    you’ve been duped. but why? like most of your fellow right wingers, you eat this shit up. i’ve corresponded with you on this website for years now, and this is just about the only issue where you seem to have grown an incredibly thick head. in most other areas, you have an opinion, and there may be a good reason for that opinion, even if i disagree. but on this issue, you’re just… frustrating.

  • Cannonshop

    #145 because scared people hand over their power and liberty? (look at what 9/11 really did-the PATRIOT ACT.)

    It’s not about money, it’s about power, which kind of makes sense that a politician would be teh big award-winner of a Nobel Prize for this.

    What’s kind of amazing is how one comment I made derailed the discussion of this article so thoroughly…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Yes, Cannon, that happens.

    Put into perspective, though, the ecological wellbeing of the planet we live on is a bit more important a topic than the bigoted nonsense expressed in the article.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    That was the “argument” Mead made.

    You did well to put the word argument in quotes, Dan, because it isn’t one. It’s a red herring.

    The “skeptics” are having no joy attacking the science (which, as I’m sure many of them are fully aware, doesn’t support their “argument”): so they create a political bogeyman and attack that instead.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    the scientists who are skeptical are often very high ranking climatologists in the academic world. Two who come readily to mind…

    Yes, Lindzen and Spencer are well-known and among the small minority of dissenters. Anyone else? Because…

    There is a long list of many more prominent and peer respected skeptics here

    …I can’t help but notice that the vast majority of people on that list are either (a) not climate scientists or (b) not scientists at all.

    It’s as if you were trying to support a claim that humans and cats, not humans and chimpanzees, share a common ancestor by presenting a list of MDs, archaeologists, animal welfare activists and veterinarians, rather than evolutionary biologists, who agreed with the theory.

  • zingzing

    and clavos, nor any right winger, has addressed the fact that their skeptic scientists have been bought and paid for by political interests.

    and then cannonshop introduces another theory… it’s about power! and fear! it’s not about money. when is it not about money? come on. what country does al gore now rule because he won a nobel prize?

    it’s another goddamn conspiracy theory. and with all the scientists in cahoots. there they are, making other people powerful by [fill in the blank], which causes people to cower in fear and [fill in the blank] and liberty freedom freedom liberty.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    To be fair, zing, I don’t think it’s much of an issue if big oil funds Dr Spencer or Dr Lindzen or Dr Chillyearth or whoever. Corporations will invest in whatever they deem advances their interests. Since they know their product is finite, the oil industry is investing quite heavily in renewables as well.

    I remember doing a critical thinking project in college a few years back, in which I had to analyze whether the scientific information presented on the American Sugar Association’s website was reliable. Being the American Sugar Association, there were numerous papers and factsheets on there expounding on the health benefits of sugar – and few to none warning of the potential negative consequences of overindulging. This was not a surprise. The ASA’s job is to sell sugar, not scare people off it. It shouldn’t be surprising that they invest in science that demonstrates the positives of their product.

    So, if a bona fide card-carrying climatologist expresses doubts that man-made CO2 is having a deleterious effect on climate, thereby sending the message that to shove their highly toxic product in one hole, combust it and fart the byproducts out of another hole is OK, you betcha that oil companies are going to throw some serious moolah in his direction to encourage him to keep talking.

  • zingzing

    “To be fair, zing, I don’t think it’s much of an issue if big oil funds Dr Spencer or Dr Lindzen or Dr Chillyearth or whoever.”

    i know, doc. but that’s their (clavos, cannonshop, etc,) argument. i am quite free to use it against them. i would love to see how it affects their position, if at all. if not, we can safely assume that they have a political interest, not a scientific interest.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc #151 –

    Clavos likes to say how cynical he is, and I’d love to see him just once apply the same cynicism to his own side that you just related in your comment.

    But he won’t. Why? Because AGW is accepted by liberals as a scientific fact, and if something’s accepted by liberals, then in the eyes of most conservatives the scientific fact…is anything but a fact. That’s when they start grasping at straws or pulling out scripture or picking at low-hanging cherries.

  • zingzing

    i like how all of science, education and media has been taken over by the left wing conspiracy. the right feels like rebels, scrapping for the truth from their limited, yet brave brethren who put themselves on the line to speak truth to power, fashioning a ramshackle rebellion against the empire that controls all information. “put down that marxist mathematics text book, don’t read that newspaper and wear these lead boots because that scientific hokum about gravity won’t hold you down!”

  • Clavos

    we can safely assume that they have a political interest, not a scientific interest.

    I can’t speak for Cannonshop of course, but you’re absolutely right; my interest in climate change is 100% political because it’s obvious to me that it is a political issue.

  • zingzing

    (you’re being coy, clavos.)

    and the science behind agw isn’t important at all then? why not? you seem to believe in skeptical science enough. it certainly is a political issue, but its existence shouldn’t be.

    but, as to the still unanswered question, how does soon’s financing affect your judgment of his work? is it necessarily slanted because of who’s paying the bills?

    if so, and the conclusions of a study are totally influenced by money (as per you) and/or power (as per cannonshop), why don’t we see more balance in the scientific community’s findings? since scientists are so easily corruptible, one would think the opportunities for grant money would heavily favor skepticism at this point, and yet the scientific findings still lean very heavily towards agw. it’s odd…

    if it’s not necessarily slanted because of who’s footing the bill, what happens to your argument then? are the oil and coal industries more altruistic than whatever industries support agw? do they only seek the truth?

  • zingzing

    as for cannonshop’s “fear conspiracy,” as i’ll call it, the patriot act was a response to a horrific act of terrorism. once the shock wore off, most people could see it was an overreaction. agw, on the other hand, comes from overwhelming scientific evidence. it is not a ridiculous response to an event.

    you’d have us believe that the government wants to keep us masses huddling in our own fetid urine. but the government isn’t some evil entity, intent upon destroying freedom and instilling fear and dependence. it’s made up of normal people, the overwhelming majority of whom just want to live nice, happy, safe lives. you act as if you can feel the boot on your neck as we speak. i don’t feel that boot. and i’m pretty goddamn free, as far as i can tell.

    if there’s anyone intent on scaring people, it seems to be you. this mass conspiracy of the left wing and science is a figment of your imagination. the scientists believe they are right, and the left wing believes in science (not blind faith). this could be just the kick in the pants we need to move our technology, economy and politics (imagine the world without oil dependence) in new, positive directions, yet the right wing is happy to retard that progress. it’s shameful and stupid.

    and it also seems that if anyone is scared, it’s you. you scream “i’m being repressed, the gov’t wants to steal my freedom and cash, they won’t even allow me to speak out against it!” i’m sorry you’re so frightened.

  • zingzing

    speaking of the patriot act, cannonshop…

    i’d still like to hear about this mythical time when the republicans fought a hard, if ultimately ineffective, fight against the dems to stop their draconian patriot act and the creation of the dhs and tsa.

  • Clavos

    …but the government isn’t some evil entity, intent upon destroying freedom and instilling fear and dependence.

    Um, I’m not so sure of that…

  • zingzing

    read the rest of the fucking paragraph, clavos.

  • zingzing

    sigh. here, i’ll do it for you: “it’s [the gov’t] made up of normal people, the overwhelming majority of whom just want to live nice, happy, safe lives. you act as if you can feel the boot on your neck as we speak. i don’t feel that boot. and i’m pretty goddamn free, as far as i can tell.”

    so you’re a little fraidy cat as well, eh? good for you. hope it makes you happy.

    and i still see no answer to my question (156, 152, 150, 145). i know you know which one i’m talking about.