Debating Thread

Before we introduce a topic for discussion, how about laying down some guidelines:

1. I will not name-call or ridicule others. I understand that others may disagree with me, and this does not make them evil, racist, stupid, etc.

2. If someone else is name-calling or ridiculing others, I will not exacerbate the situation by correcting the name-caller or engaging with him/her (i.e. 'don't feed the troll').

3. I understand what logical fallacies are (and if I do not I will read the following article), and will do my best to avoid them in my arguments: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Thank you for setting some ground rules in this thread. I hope this works out well because I think it will be interesting to hear members' ideas on some more advanced topics.

I think so too.

Kudos, @ArmyAngel1986! I especially need to keep #2 in mind. Sometimes I inadvertently feed trolls, but, often enough, I've played around with trolls and driven them from conversations. Granted, we don't want them around, but that isn't the way to handle them in this sort of setting.

Well, let's go ahead and start:

The question which prompted this thread was: What does everyone think of gay marriage and the amendment?

I assume 'the amendment' refers to the amendment North Carolina recently passed, which banned both same-sex marriage and civil unions. If I'm wrong, please correct me; sometimes I don't get the whole story due to living overseas.

IMO: According to Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution the United States are obligated to recognize each others' "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings". This covers many things, such as criminal convictions (if you're convicted of a crime in one state, you can't flee to another to escape punishment), but it also applies to marriage. If I elope in Vegas, my home state of Louisiana must accept my marriage license. Likewise, if I decide to marry a woman in Vermont, Louisiana is also Constitutionally required to accept my marriage license. However, this particular point was tap-danced around in the early-mid-90s, by politicians who didn't want to press a politically unpopular view.

As to whether or not states ought to be passing these anti-same sex union laws, I also say no. I'm a libertarian: I think the fewer government interferences in an individual's life, the better; and since no crime occurs when two adults choose to pair off, there is no reason for state governments to prevent them from doing so. Furthermore, it is in the state's interest to encourage marriage, as stable, long-lasting marriages are better for society than serial monogamy/promiscuity.

I have heard many people argue that those who want same-sex unions can already do something similar, through power of attorney. For those who don't know, giving someone your 'power of attorney' is giving them the legal ability to make decisions on your behalf (this is a non-law professional's definition). My parents have medical power of attorney for me, so if I am ever so ill/injured that I cannot consult a doctor on my own behalf, they may do it for me. The problem with power of attorney is it only applies to certain spheres. In the case of same-sex couples adopting, power of attorney does little to help them when the state they live in does not acknowledge their union (I am thinking of cases like this; not to mention issues of inheritance, insurance, loans, etc. all of which are made simpler by marriage.

So...that's what I think. And you?

Ok, well I am a complete and total supporter of gay/lesbian marriage. Some people are gay. Get over it. People in my church don't support gay marriage because of reasons found in the bible. Well my response to that is: Isn't it written in the 10 commandments that we should love our neighbor? It did NOT say that we should only love people of the opposite gender. Also, Jesus never said anything against homosexuals and that is a fact. When people claim that it is God's will, my response is always that the white supremacists that shouted death threats at and insulted and tried to kill little 6-year old Ruby Bridges when she tried to go to school thought that that is what God wanted as well. One day, we are going to look back on this and say " What were we thinking?"

All right, ya'll, I'm jumping. Just a fair warning: I is Catholic.

Flan, I would not equate the issue of people with same-sex attraction to the fight against racial inequality. They are two different issues, one where some gays and lesbians (who live in very good conditions in the United States, as opposed to gays in Islamic countries) want marriage, and the other where all blacks deserved to be treated like fellow human beings. Also, I would not equate the Catholic Church's stance against gay marriage to the KKK opposing Ruby Bridges going to school. The KKK persecuted Catholics and immigrants, as well as blacks, and the Catholic Church stood against racial bigotry in the 60s. In fact, quite a few outspoken Catholic white supremacists were excommunicated.

I agree with you, Flan, though. I think that the Church needs to show great love for people of same-sex attraction. "Love thy neighbor" is an extremely important commandment, and one I heartily agree with. The Church does not hate gays, though; allow me to quote from my handy dandy Cathechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis mine):

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligble. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

The Church doesn't hate gays! Yes, they say homosexuality is a sin, but guess what? I am guilty of sloth, arrogance, envy, gluttony, lying, and a crapload of other sins that make me very mad at myself. And if I went and slept with a guy out of wedlock, I would be sinning. That doesn't stop me from having a relationship with God, and that doesn't stop gays from having a relationship with God, either. We're all sinners, and the Church recognizes that. And these sins don't stop us from being generally good people.

Oh, and by the way, that passage in the Bible that says marriage is between a man and a woman? Here tis! And it was in the New Testament:

"But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife…” (Mark 10:6). I think that's one of the reasons that marriage is a Holy Sacrament in the Church.

In Conclusion
In my opinion, states can vote on whether they want gay marriage or not. I oppose it, personally, but I believe everyone should have a chance to voice their opinion. Here in Cali, we did actually vote on gay marriage. Proposition 8 was passed by a fairly big margin (Prop 8 defined marriage as being between a man and a woman), but it got overturned at court, by a biased judge. Ah, well, so much for vox populi.

But isn't it the same thing in essence? Discrimination. It also bugs me how the catholic church always is saying and reminding us how persecuted we are. For the reasons found in the Bible: I think a lot of them are easily mis-interpreted. The Bible can be vague and in my opinion, sometimes wrong.

But the Church has been persecuted against. Here's a complitation of all the martyred saints: http://www.catholic.org/saints/martyr.php And the Church is being persecuted against today. The HHS Mandate, for example, and all these attacks against Papa Benedict.

And about the Bible sometimes being wrong... I believe that it is often easily misinterpreted, but I believe that it is hardly ever wrong. The Bible (and the Church) has done more good in this world than bad - I hardly think that a book that has inspired so much good could be wrong. Surely Jesus wouldn't have associated Himself with a book that was wrong?

Sometimes I wonder about us modern people, we who want to be gods and replace the ideas of old with our own personal ideas. We who want God to comply with what we understand the world to be, and we grow upset with Him when we don't get what we want. I wonder if it is us who is wrong, not what we perceive to be "old fashioned," "stodgy" or "unenlightened."

There is one thing for sure, Flan: the Church stands for good, even if you don't agree with them. Maybe one day you'll see that their stance against same-sex marriage isn't because they are discriminating against gays, but because they want to preserve the sacrament of marriage (a sacred covenant with God). You might not agree with that, but to my knowledge, the Church is not hateful. Not like this:



It's easy to attack the Church. They won't hurt you. Can you be brave enough to stand against Sharia law?

Food for thought, guys. Peace.

I too am a Catholic and was raised strictly in that faith. However, I have a problem with the word marriage regarding homosexuals. I have no problems with gay or lesbian couples, have several that are friends, however, I think my problem is with the terminology.

For me, marriage means the union between a man and a woman - thus husband and wife.

I have no problem with a civil union - but if gay/lesbians "marry" - are there 2 wives, 2 husbands, what - (my friends just say partner) - it completely baffles me and I don't want to ask my friends and possibly get caught in a situation that could make others uncomfortable.

Is there really a big difference between "marriage" and a "civil union" legally? If the states allowed "civil unions" wouldn't that give the same benefits for gay/lesbian couples as marriage?

I'm not trying to be difficult, i just don't understand. From discussions that I've heard, it seems that laws for civil unions would be easier to pass than laws for marriage. Wouldn't baby steps be a good start rather than running the race without warming up? I mean, get the civil union approved and then work on the "marriage" thing.

Hope no ones feelings are offended.

From a completely pragmatic point-of-view, I'm annoyed with the State getting involved with the Church when, from what I can tell, they're supposed to be the ones who want to keep the two separate. While they can define what they want to legally recognize, marriage is a sacred union. My husband and I did all the paperwork to be legally recognized, but that means less to us than being recognized by our community. If, tomorrow, the State decided, for whatever reason, that they didn't want to recognize our marriage, we're still married. I realize that this causes problems in other areas, the most prominent example being medical. In many states, if you want your partner to make a decision for you, should you be unable, you need a power of attorney, and so forth.

I know my philosophical waxing doesn't solve any issues, but that's my position in a nutshell: The State can define what they want to recognize, but they can't tell the Church who they can or cannot marry.

Maybe I should have waited until after my cold passed before joining this conversation. The drugs make me a little loopy. ^^;

Oh, no, Rozax, you're fine, and I completely agree. The Church can do what she likes, and if a state decides to institute gay marriage, that's okey-dokey with me. Just don't force the Church to do something that goes against their conscience.

Wow. I don't believe this, but I think we are handling touchy issues with politeness! A big round of applause to yous guys! *claps*

Eris: Is the Catechism online? I'm very interested in reading it.

I would like to add that I would never advocate for requiring religious institutes to recognize or perform unions that go against their teachings. My views are only on how government ought to behave.

"From discussions that I've heard, it seems that laws for civil unions would be easier to pass than laws for marriage. Wouldn't baby steps be a good start rather than running the race without warming up? I mean, get the civil union approved and then work on the "marriage" thing."

You would think. When this issue first started to really heat up (when I was in highschool, 2001-2005), Louisiana reacted by passing a law similar to the one North Carolina just passed. I remember reading a political commentary on it, which basically said the gay community had over-estimated the level of acceptance on the issue in the States; and that had they started with civil unions instead of going straight for marriage they would have had more success and would not face the uphill battle they're now in. I guess now we'll never know.

I don't think the Catechism is online. My mom and I were lucky enough to find it at our local library's used-book sale. It's pretty cheap at Amazon.com, though - 9 bucks. It's a good book to read and helped to clarify several issues that I was puzzled about.

And available for Kindle, sweet!

#10 & #13 From discussions that I've heard, it seems that laws for civil unions would be easier to pass than laws for marriage. Wouldn't baby steps be a good start rather than running the race without warming up? I mean, get the civil union approved and then work on the "marriage" thing.

I'd like to bring up a bit of history regarding this quote. Back in the days of emancipation and women's suffrage, the government seemed to use "baby steps" as an excuse to slow progress. Instead of banning slavery and giving women the right to vote all in one go, they felt that it was necessary to choose one over the other. In this case, slavery was made illegal (a good thing, but let's not pretend it doesn't still exist), but why on Earth would that require suffrage to be put on the back burner? Anyone could argue, "Well, people need time to absorb these changes."

The direct quote that I'm thinking of comes from the documentary Not For Ourselves Alone: ‘‘One idea for a generation, to come up in the order of their importance. First, Negro suffrage, then temperance, then the eight-hour movement, then woman suffrage.’’ - Wendell Phillips

Let's ignore the fact that this puts the importance of women as full citizens behind temperance. Under this philosophy, they'd have to wait another 60 years, making that a total of 90 years from the beginning of their campaign. There's no reason anyone needs to wheedle their way into being treated and legally recognized as a full human being, but that's what women were expected to accept.

Well, what "baby steps" do you suggest? And why? If homosexual marriage was the norm, then how would you feel about people telling you to just wait, that it is not your right, to take *baby steps*? It's all about putting yourself in someone else's place. A tricky thing to do, no doubt, but important. Another issue:
Why does the Church even care? That's what I would like to know. Why can't they just mind their own business? And even people who are not gay, why does it matter? Because of some moral principals that you have rooted deeply into your soul?
As Lewis Carol writes:
“If everybody minded their own business,” said The Duchess in a hoarse growl, “the world would go round much faster than it does.”
I love that quote.

see what I did there? I know I could post that here because y'all would know what I am talking about...
Alice in Wonderland

Why does the Church even care? That's what I would like to know. Why can't they just mind their own business? And even people who are not gay, why does it matter? Because of some moral principals that you have rooted deeply into your soul?

I think you answered your own question - those moral principles deeply rooted in ones soul are very important. The Church also believes in the preservation of marriage. It's not just gay marriage that they stand against - they stand against divorce, pre-marital sex, and other such issues that have been causing the modern family to fall. And as for why they can't mind their own business - the Church is made up of individuals, individuals with opinions, thoughts, and ideas, and they have a right to speak them. People in the Church have a right to their opinions, just like how you are expressing yours, Flan.

I might ask gay activists the same thing - why don't they mind their own business, and stop asking the Church to bow to their conditions? The Church stands against gay marriage, but they're not forcing anyone to their point of view, or punishing people of same-sex attraction for being the way they are. Some people in the Church are very frustrated about the issue, and so they express their frustrations in a very blunt manner that is not in line with the teachings of Catholicism, but they won't hurt gays. That would go against what is written in the Cathechism, what Jesus taught, and what the majority of Christians follow today.

I didn't say that it would be just for people to take baby steps in advancing certain rights movements; just that it may have been a more successful tactic. I think people are adaptable, and will live with almost anything as long as they are given some time to adjust to it.

Going for civil unions in a few relevant states (Vermont doesn't seem to be on anyone's political radar) would be a good way to get the ball rolling. This is basically how the gun rights infringements of the '60s-'80s were eventually repealed: a handful of states operated as test cases to prove nothing terrible would happen if constitutional rights were respected. It took maybe fifteen years to undue decades of damage. Note: This is a very simplified history of the gun rights movement!

I think this is what the same-sex marriage movement needs, a few prominent test cases to get things moving.

I suppose, but then how would you decide what states to test on?
Eris-- I see why they would have that right to speak their minds, but I think that the church should be completely focused on other issues such as child abuse or pre-matial sex, like you mentioned, or feeding the poor for example, not stemming events that include ones such as these:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/nyregion/09bias.html?pagewanted=all
Now, I'm not saying that the church encourages beating and hurting people, but they should be focused on stopping these crimes, not discriminating against the people who they are against.

Those crimes were not caused by the Church, and the Church is not discriminating against gays. They are simply asking for their values not to be impeded upon. I agree, however, about stopping violence against gays. So now I challenge you to be brave enough to stop being angry with the Church for their stance against their non-violent stace against gay marriage, and stand up against this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2012/apr/18/iran-cleric-condemns-homos...

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/05/four-iranian-men-sentenced-to-to-death-by-han...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16659300

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112960/90-students-Iraq-stoned-death-ha...

http://bikyamasr.com/52127/kenyan-gay-men-become-sex-slaves-in-arab-gulf/

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/11/11/malaysian-states-with-islamic-law...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-executes-three-men-for-...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14667232

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/27/gay.rights.arab.spring/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-g...

If you want me to find more articles, I can. I just linked to a few that I found from this year and last. :)

That is what I am doing! But honestly, isn't it in the Constitution that homosexual marriage is ok? So then I know people don't like combining the church and politics, but honestly, how can you discuss this topic without incorporating the two?

The Constitution says nothing about marriage. And it is true that for the issue of gay marriage is irrevokably linked with religious beliefs. Therefore, the Federal Government should not make any laws about it, whether those laws be supporting it or banning it. By doing so, they would be coming into conflict with the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

My philosophy is thus: states may vote about gay marriage, and make their own decisions. However, the American Catholic Church should not have to perform gay marriages, if gay marriage is approved in a state. Also, it is none of my business what gays want to do in their own private lifes - that's their business.

I don't think that the Catholic Church could ever be forced to perform a marriage rite for anyone gay or straight. Basically, I think, what is in question is whether a union between two members of the same sex
1.) should be called a marriage
2.) should have the same rights and privileges as a heterosexual union.

IMHO if we all civil unions which grant the same rights as a married couple, the gay couple should be paying the same taxes as a married heterosexual couple. Right now they don't. They could be living in an "unrecognized union" and get the benefits of filing taxes as singles. So, if they want one benefit they would have to take the downside as well.

I know many people that are gay and in an " unrecognized union" and the idea that they are just doing it to not have to pay taxes is offensive. Why would anyone choose to be homosexual, or even pretend to be? Answer me that. Why would any person choose to be treated the way that gay people are treated? why would they choose to be ridiculed and be outcasts of society? That is what doesn't click for me when people say that they believe that gay is a choice.
And yes, a union between two people of the same gender should be recognized as a marriage!

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think being gay is a choice, in some cases (sometimes a person chooses it just to be special or belong to a group, but I know of many who don't). A person who has same-sex attraction is going through a trial, a very difficult one, which can help them to grow as a person and come closer to God, or will bring them farther away from Him. The Church acknowledges this, and although they discourage butt sex (pardon me for the crudeness, but it is what it is), they suppport the person with same-sex attraction as they go along a difficult path.

Who do you know who chooses to be gay to "Fit into a group or be special"? That sounds ridiculous to me. Sorry is that sounds snotty but I feel very strongly about this.

26>> just doing it to not have to pay taxes is offensive

Excuse me, but I did not say that they were doing this not to pay taxes. I only meant that there may be repercussions to what they are asking for and that they need to be prepared to take on those downsides. Changing the laws so that a union between two same sex individuals is recognized in the same manner as marriage partners, will also result in tax disadvantages for those individuals.

I agree that homosexuals who wish to have a formal union should be allow that right, however, I do not believe that it should be called a " marriage". I also do not believe that being homosexual is a choice. I believe that is very much a result of environment and life experiences.

#28 - I was referring to celebrities such as Lady Gaga or Britney Spears who play bisexual or lesbian to gain popularity.

To reaffirm what Cheli said in #29: marriage isn't just a pretty vow that couples take when they love each other very much. Marriage is a committment, a sacred covenant with God, and there are consequences for everything in this life.

I have a small question, Flan - what, in your opinion, is the definition of marriage?

(Incidentally, I hope you don't think I'm being antagonistic because I keep disputing with you. I really do want to hear what you think, and I will always be respectful of your opinions. ^_^)

26: When I was in high school, I knew two girls who were a couple, who later told me they weren't actually dating or lesbians/bisexual. They just spent so much time together that people assumed they were, so they made it official so everyone would know they weren't anti-LGTB.

My question: Why should it matter whether a union between two people is called a marriage or a union? If one is identical to the other, with the exception of bride and groom titles, how does what we label it affect anything?

A union is a government-approved union sanctioned by them. Marriage is a Sacrament under God. In the Catholic Church there are seven sacraments, all of which were started by or come from Jesus: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Annointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Because I'm lazy and I thought it was a pretty good summary, here's some details about matrimony, courtesy of Wikipedia:

"This sacrament, seen as a sign of the love uniting Christ and the Church, establishes between the spouses a permanent and exclusive bond, sealed by God. Accordingly, a marriage between baptized people, validly entered into and consummated, cannot be dissolved. The sacrament confers on them the grace they need for attaining holiness in their married life and for responsible acceptance and upbringing of their children."

It cannot be dissolved, hence the Church's aversion to divorce. It's also symbolic of Jesus's unification with the Church. Sex is also considered a sacred bond that is key to the celebration of marriage and to the procreation of children, which is why premarital and anal sex are not Church approved.

Question: what happens when the definition of marriage is eroded, as it has been, and it just becomes a promise to stay committed between two adult people who love each other? Then... anything is possible! A man marrying his grown-up daughter? Sure, as long as she's consenting! A man marrying four women? Anything is possible! A man marrying his dog? Well, a dog is a man's best friend, ain't it? How about a woman marrying herself? Self love is great!

When nothing is sacred and there is no morality, anything goes.

I think that the definition of marrige is two, non related people promosing to care for one another and suppor them. I believe marrige is a stronger commitment than friendship. It is a bond that shouldn't be broken. And just because I believe in gay marrige, doesn't mean that I approve of pre maritial sex. Those are two very different things.

#32 Eris:
I think that you answered your own question. Two adult people who love doesn't

include any of the things that you mentipned except for the daughter one.

As touched upon, I knew several people in high school who treated bisexuality as a fad. I stated my grievance with my teammates, one evening, and one of them said, "Well, what if I am bisexual?" I remember giving her a tired/withering smile, and she laughed at me, but she was tired of it, too. And if she were bi (she wasn't), like me, she'd be irritated. I would hate it if my sexuality were treated like a fad. My choice to not change my name after getting married receives the same treatment.

I'm a little confused. Why were people wanting to pretend to be bi? That sounds ridiculous and offensive to people who really ARE bi. And also, what was that bit about a name change?
And also, back to Eris' comment; were you comparing gay marrige/ sex to bestiality? Or polygmy? Because those are all very different and very rude things to say. Sorry, don't mean to chastise, thats just what I think.

A union is a government-approved union sanctioned by them. Marriage is a Sacrament under God. In the Catholic Church there are seven sacraments, all of which were started by or come from Jesus: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Annointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

Twice, I believe, you have objected to the idea that the RCC be forced to perform/recognize same-sex marriages (even though no one here advocated that this should happen); and now you don't want unions called 'marriage' because it goes against the teaching of your faith? Non-interference goes both ways.

Marriage was around for a long time before Christianity, and was/is defined in many ways depending on the times and cultures. Once upon a time (ie, the Middle Ages), the RCC was happy to ignore its ban on consanguineous marriage (see: pretty much most of the royal marriages in Europe over the centuries, to start with). I borrowed from Wikipedia as well, because I don't have access to my undergrad history books.

Question: what happens when the definition of marriage is eroded, as it has been, and it just becomes a promise to stay committed between two adult people who love each other? Then... anything is possible! A man marrying his grown-up daughter? Sure, as long as she's consenting! A man marrying four women? Anything is possible! A man marrying his dog? Well, a dog is a man's best friend, ain't it? How about a woman marrying herself? Self love is great!

See the link I included in the first post in this thread, specifically the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Why on earth would same-sex marriages lead to incestuous marriages? And since animals cannot consent, that argument is a red herring. I'll give you the polygamous one, though. But now we return to (my) main question: How is it the government's business if people choose to organize their lives this way? I think polygamy is stupid and immoral, but part of being free is being free to make bad decisions. (Also, I've crawled through the seedy side of the blogosphere; the people who want to be in polygamous relationships, already are.)

"You see, I believe in freedom, Mr. Lipwig. Not many people do, although they will, of course, protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be completely without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based." Going Postal (Thought I'd slip in a little something book related :-). )

When nothing is sacred and there is no morality, anything goes.

As a pro-life, abstinence-practicing agnostic, I do not accept the idea that believing in the sacred leads to a more moral life; or that lack of faith leads to an immoral life. Certainly religions are very good at codifying morality, but that does not translate to 'followers of religion are good at accepting morality'. I arrived at my moral code (which bears a strong resemblance to Catholic teachings) through reasoning and logic. I am not about to cut loose and host orgies and drug parties.

In addition, merely being offended by something is not a reason to legally prevent it from happening; which is what the NC amendment was about. If that were the logic behind lawmaking in the States, we would risk developing laws like the ones Germany and Sweden have, where home schooling your children is a crime requiring the child(ren) be removed to foster care/state facilities. One of the chief arguments supporting home schooling in the States is that how families choose to organize and live (excepting abusive situations, of course) is simply none of the government's business.

Flan: In the case I mentioned, to prove they were ok with the lifestyle. They thought if they denied being a couple, people would accuse them of being homophobic.

I agree with you on those points ArmyAngel. Many people agree with the "If gay marriage is possible, then it's anything goes" idea. Honestly polygamy, bestiality, inner- family marriage, they all have many things that are EXTREMELY different from two men or two women marrying each other. And I am also realizing that I am the only one who doesn't post big long paragraphs and include lots of references. I like to keep my ideas short. It helps me to think.

36: In a nutshell, I was trying to make a point about treating these things like fads, and how offensive it is toward those for whom these matters are just part of life. I didn't change my name when I got married, and I've met people who see it as a fad, or something that I'll "outgrow" later in life. Unfortunately, some of these people are (otherwise) dear relatives, so there's no escaping their judgement.

Sorry I haven't been commenting. I'll debate and respond to the issues raised later, but right now I don't feel up to it. I've been sick with a cold for the past couple of days, culminating in a 101 F fever, a sore throat, and non-stop nose running. I also had a little fainting episode, thanks to my iron deficiency anemia. Ergh. I feel very tired of everything right now.

Eris>> hope you are better soon!

Eris: Hope you feel better! I know how you feel, not the sick part, but our final papers are starting to be assigned, so everything is crazy hectic here and I'm just too tired for words.

Thanks Cheli and ArmyAngel! I hope you are able to survive your finals, ArmyAngel - my high-school finals were very tiresome, so I can't even imagine what it's like in college!

44: College is another beast, entirely, so I wouldn't even worry about it. Not to say there's nothing to worry about...just saying that there's no point in worrying. Everyone's field is different, and you won't know how it is until you get there.

I think finals were much less stressful as an undergrad: just one week of tests and then we were free for vacation! I think it's like this in grad school, as well. At the least, I think papers are due on the last day of the semester.

Over here though, we get final papers assigned near the end of the semester and we have anywhere from 2 weeks to x-months after classes end to turn them in. This may be easier in comparison (I can write my papers with all my notes/resurces in front of me), but it's no fun having work to do after the semester is over.

I'm not planning on grad school, any time soon. I currently don't have anything I'd want to dedicate so much time toward.

Good for you, really. Anyone who's on the fence in the matter, should google 100 Reasons Not to go to Grad School. It's a blog that should help you make up your mind.

I'm not going to grad school - not even to a four year! I'm not academically brilliant enough to get a scholarship and I am fearful of loans, so I'm just going to a two-year college and that's it. No more college for me! I'll get a job and I'll be debt free.

Education is a good topic for debate. Two summers ago, I fell in love with the RSA Animate on Changing Education Paradigms. From the comments section, I learned about Montessori, and my passion for education reform has snowballed from there. Thoughts?

Sounds good to me.

How about once Eris is feeling better, she has the last statement on our previous topic. I think we've reached the point where everyone has had their say.

That sounds good to me.

Can we move this convo to the Great Hall and keep talking? I would like to hear people's ideas.

53: I prefer keeping this conversation here so that everyone is bound by the rules in the first post.

Sorry for not responding sooner! I've been busy with my family, getting in shape, and I've also developed an obsession with Doctor Who, so that has almost made me forget about politics! I don't really think about gay marriage a lot, primarily due to the fact that I'm not married, so that has led me to thinking deeply about the subject and coming up with arguments I haven't thought about before. I thank you all for debating with me, and I am glad that we remained civil throughout this whole conversation. :)

I've been thinking - try it out! Give gay marriage a go. See if gays even want marriage. It's like repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Great. Now gays get to serve openly in the military - equality for everyone! But the thing is - not a huge number of gays join the military (I'm not saying that there are not gay servicemembers, and I salute them as equally as the straight ones, but there is not a huge percentage of gays that are serving). If marriage between same-sex attracted people is allowed, I wonder if they'll a) want it, b) will stay married, or c) be willing to make the sacrifices that marriage entails. I'd be interested to see what happens.

So that brings me back to my original position: let the states vote on gay marriage and decide for themselves. For me, as long as religious organizations that are morally opposed to gay marriage don't have to perform them, I really don't care.

And don't worry, ArmyAngel - I don't think you'll go out and perform blood rituals and host orgies just because you're agnostic. ;) My dad's agnostic, too, and he's the greatest man I know. And I understand that some followers of religion aren't necessarily good at following morality. But that's what is brilliant! We as individuals have choice! Every individual can choose whether or not they want to follow a moral code or not. In that, we are all equal, because every single human has to face the terror of choices.

So... thanks everyone, and I can't wait to see what we all say about the far more interesting topic (at least to me) of education!

I'm in the middle of writing a paper now, so if someone else wants to start the education topic, feel free.

Oh, Eris, Doctor Who!!!!!!!???????
REALLY?? THAT HAS TO BE THE MOST RIDICULOUS SHOW IN THE WORLD ( next to telli-tubbies or, like some of the Disney Channel shows) my uncle watches it and... uuuggg.
What exactly are we discussing about education?

It is not a ridiculous show! Some of the old stuff is, yeah, but the new reboot of the show is actually quite good.

hmmmmmm... Its is not Sherlock Holmes, which, BTW I WATCHED YESTERDAY!!!

You mean "Sherlock" or the Robert Downey Jr. movies? I love both, but I think "Sherlock" is the best.

THe movie, I think... said uncle was watching it with my dad

Your uncle has magnificent taste! I don't mind the movie, but it is not as cool as the Sherlock TV series. And about Doctor Who - ask your uncle to show you the episode "Rose." You won't regret it, because it is REALLY good.

Next time I see him I will. Unfortunately, he is not really my "uncle", just a dear family friend. He is in England for a week ( which explains his liking Doctor Who).

Ah, I see! Yeah, Doctor Who is a national treasure of England, so that explains it. :) It is a really good show - I was even surprised at how much I've liked it! Here's a fan trailer for the new show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUbz7a67XO4

It gives a nice sneak peek at the show.

Several friends and I like Dr Who, and none of us live in England.

As for Education, I introduced it as the next topic for discussion in comment #50.  Before continuing, I'd recommend re-reading comments #41 - 50 and watching the video I linked to.  If you're interested, I created a short playlist of education-related videos.

I have many problems with the current education system, so this discussion could go on for a while, but my initial thought, given the material from comments #41 - 50, is the push for EVERYONE to go to college, and this assumption that everyone must, at the very least, aim for grad school.  So, thoughts?

My opinion is that everyone should go to college. It's important to gain more skills in the specific trade or field that they want their occupation to be. I really don't see why anyone wouldn't want to go to college unless they can't afford it or have little personal drive.

If if we think about making college mandatory, then we have to think about the fact that college costs money that a lot of people don't have.

I don't think that college should be mandatory. There are young people that want to be plumbers or construction workers or others that just are not academically inclined, so to force them to continue school, I think would be wrong. Then you also have the issue of some colleges that are "better" than others i.e. Harvard, Duke, Stanford, how would kids get equal chances at those schools if it were mandatory?

College doesn't even guarantee an open or inquisitive mind.  Even if the prospective student is inquisitive, I know so many people who were pushed into college by their parents, who footed the bill while they were attending, but now the grads saddled with 10 years worth of student debt.  "But that's good debt!"  I'd listen to that argument if they'd been going for something that interested them, rather than just pleasing their parents.  Had they been left alone for a few years, had they been allowed to hone their natural skills after high school, working a part-time job and contributing to the family on the side, then they might have found a use for college.  Unfortunately, their parents discouraged the interests they had, because that isn't a "real job".  As it stands, a couple of my friends are back home, living with their parents, because they can't find a decent job to support both them and their debt, even with the degree they're "better off having than not".

Okay i want to join in! Whats the debate?

It's more of a discussion. We are discussing the mandatory v. non-mandatory options for going to college.

Blech, im out

ha ha ha you just made me laugh Fob.

Im a funny guy

agreed.

We can discuss Marvel vs. DC! :D

Do you think Nolan's Batman universe is finished because of The Avengers?  When I heard that this would be Nolan's last movie, I figured it was because DC wants to put The Justice League together, but Superman can't really exist in Nolan's Chicag-Gotham.  I mean Gotham.  I can't really see Superman flying around Nolan's Gotham city.

Nolan has said that he's done with the characters, although he is kinda, sorta, maybe considering a Catwoman spin-off. Not seriously, but the thought hasn't exited his mind. But I think any Nolan Catwoman movie would have to be before she met Batman, because the ending Nolan did for Dark Knight Rises ends his trilogy without any room for sequels.

And I also can't see Superman flying around Nolan's Gotham! Nolan built his Batman movies to be more realistic than previous Batman films, so having a flying alien with non-human strength waltzing around would not really go with Nolan's Batman.

I think that after Man of Steel comes out, they're going to reboot Batman. Ares and I were talking about it last night, and both of us are rooting for something that is like Nolan's Batman, but also has the more Gothic style of Tim Burton. A Gothic Batman would be so cool, and it wouldn't be trying to copy Nolan's Batman (which cannot be imitated, in my opinion)!

Wow. I have no idea what you are saying. I'm going to back out of this debate because my knowledge of comic books is very low.
And by very low I mean nonexistent.

Warner Bros. and DC Comics WILL reboot the Batman franchise. There is no way they can choke anymore sequels out of the Nolan franchise, but they HAVE to make another Batman movie (it's their biggest source of cash; The Dark Knight made over $1 billion worldwide, and The Dark Knight Rises is likely to do the same).

Most likely, they will try for a Justice League movie, and after the wild success of Marvel's The Avengers, it seems natural. However, in order for it to be a success, they first have to get a successful reboot of Batman, make sure that "Man of Steel" is a financial success, successfully reboot the Green Lantern franchise after the 2011 film "Green Lantern" bombed, a successful Wonder Woman movie, and probably a successful Flash movie as well. IF, and only IF, all that occurs, THEN they can make a Justice League film.

Sorry about the rant, but that's my two cents on a Batman reboot, as well as the upcoming (?) Justice League movie.

*pff!*  I could see many directions for Nolan's universe after seeing Batman Begins, and even after The Dark Knight, but I didn't expect much after reading Nolan's complaints about the franchise.

No need for apologies, Ares. :)

I can't fathom a successful Wonder Woman movie.  High heels and an outfit that defies physics.  Fix those two factors, which are a bigger deal than they should be, and I'll start listening.

Can someone tell me what the Justice League is? I know what the Avengers are and Batman but I haven't heard of the Justice League.

The Justice League is a team of the DC superheroes - Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Green Lantern (I think?) and a bunch of other members from the DC universe. It doesn't work as well as the Avengers, in my opinion.

Can I insert a serious topic for discussion?



opinions?

I'll start...

1. I believe that every woman should have the right to control her own body whether that be by birth control or abstinence. No government interference should be allowed.
2. I agree that if you don't agree with birth control, you are not forced to participate. However, if you don't agree with birth control, you should also not be forced to have your tax dollars used for it by someone else.
2. I do not agree that birth control is a basic right or privilege that should be paid for by my taxes. If a woman or couple wish to use birth control, they need to also accept the responsibility of payment for that service.
If they are unable to pay for the service, there is always abstinence. It is not my responsibility to make sure that John and Susie, or Dick and Jane don't have a baby they can't afford.

I'm not talking about religious freedom here, I'm talking about individual responsibility.

aw, i missed the homosexual marriage debate. that is so close to my heart.

i don't know too much information about the birth control debate, but i just think that if you don't agree with birth control, don't use it. that's my opinion, i would need more facts to get farther into the topic.

I have a problem with companies refusing to cover birth control as part of a woman's medical insurance.  For one thing, my parents had to put me on the pill while in my teens because my period wasn't regulating and it was causing all manner of grief.  I'm not going to preach to others, but for myself, I didn't use the pill for it's "intended purpose" until after I got married.  And even now, if a portion of my paycheck is going into medical insurance, it isn't right for the company to look over my shoulder and say, "You can have this, but you can't have that."  How's about we keep that bit of information between myself and my doctor, hmm?

I wonder how the US will treat RISUG after it reaches our shores.

As long as I'm ignoring papers, I thought I'd stick my head back in here and see what's going on.

On education:

Saying that people should do something is not the same as saying people should be required to do something. This seems to be a common mistake people make nowadays (I was once accused of wanting sniper programs on Ebay to be made illegal, all because I said they were unfair). For my part, I don't think people should go to college unless they have a clear idea of what they expect to get from the experience. If you're studying something that does not have a direct path to a job, do not take out loans for it. Also, be realistic about your career prospects. There are a ridiculous number of people planning to become professors even though there are more post-docs in the pool than universities can hire.

K-12 Education: Is in need of way more reform than anyone is willing to institute. Institutional schools need to operate year round. It is completely unfair to young people that they are forced to waste approximately two years of their lives in 'vacations', thus forcing them to live as children well into their teens (when they should be, and crave, taking on adult responsibilities). Eliminate the grade system. By that, I don't mean A, B, C, etc; I mean the nonsensical idea that being 9 years old means a child should be at the exact same level of achievement in every subject; and at the exact same level of achievement as every other 9 year old.

Birth control:

My official position on most issues can be boiled down to, "Do whatever you want, just pay for it yourself." This is no exception.

This just in ~_~

With Warner Bros. Pictures anxious to get its Justice League movie up and running, the studio is apparently going to ask one of its biggest names if he's interested in directing it.

http://blastr.com/2012/08/look-whos-in-the-running.php

Although I was born and raised and still am a Catholic, I agree with what President Obama is saying. Just because you don't want to use birth control, OK, FINE! Don't use it! But " religious freedom" does not give you the right to dictate what other people do and don't do.
Although I am pro- choice with the birth control issue, I am against abortion under all circumstances.

I'm exasperated by the use of abortion as birth control, the destruction of abortion clinics in pro-life demonstrations, and support for assisted reproductive technology while adoption is sitting firmly on the back-burner (guess which parenting option does not yield those much debated embryos).

Flan: And neither does government power give someone the right to force others to buy something they don't want to buy.

Rozax: "the destruction of abortion clinics in pro-life demonstrations". Which clinics and which demonstrations would those be?

#93: Thats what I am saying! If you are against birth control, don't use it! Let other people who are for it buy it! And What do you mean force someone to buy something that they don't want to buy?

Maybe I should have said "in demonstrations of pro-life".  That's closer to what I meant, and I'm definitely not saying that they're all violent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_legal_abortion#Types_of_advocacy

Adults, youth share hope at pro-life demonstrations in Nebraska
Pro-life demonstration; White House 2/16 11:00 AM
Pro-Life Demonstration
VIDEO: Demonstrators Protest Abortion in White Marsh

On a related note, I'm on the mailing list for Dan Lewis's Now I Know, and this morning's article deals with in-vitro fertilization and frozen embryos.

Here's a nice illustration of my hangups with modern education:

I don't get it.

The educated individual is flipping burgers at McDonald's.

Haha, that cartoon is so true! How many people do I know who are fresh out of college, and they aren't even guaranteed a job? Plus, they have to pay back thousands of dollars in school loans, and all while that debt is accumulating interest. Oh, and any income you make will also be taxed!

but part of the problem, IMO is that today's generation feels that they should be paid big bucks when they get out of college instead of working their way up.

I'm not party to that belief.  There are plenty of self-entitled brats moping about, no doubt about it.  But when we are $50k in debt (which will rise to $60k by the time I finally pay mine off) for an education that was supposed to advance us by virtue of having a nice, shiny degree, I feel it isn't unreasonable to expect a paycheck that can feed us, pay off our loans, and allow us to move out of our parents' house.

"Then get a roommate!" is often the quick response.  Two friends of mine have compared their paychecks, and their combined wages still aren't enough.

"Then get another job!"  They're working full-time jobs.  They can add another one of they can literally give up sleep.

I realize that times are different from when I went to college and came out to join the work force. My husband and I both realized that we had to make sacrifices if we wanted to pay off our debts and eventually get a house. Now days there are expenses that we didn't have then but I wonder if they are "necessary" or "just I have to have it because everyone else does" - I'm thinking about a fancy cellphone with all the apps and going to concerts and a nice car, happy hours after work, those kinds of things. I know that my basic cellphone costs are $50 month (I have just the basics with no internet and I very rarely text, etc) and I'm supposing that with texting and such the cellphone bill could be in the hundreds of dollars a month. But is that necessary or just I have to be able to fit in with everyone else. I'm not saying you, Rozax, just that's what it seems to be what I hear from the younger generation nowadays. I have all these expenses so I need a big salary instead of I need to cut my expenses so I can make it on what I get paid. Maybe I'm out of touch...

There's also the option of moving to an area where the cost of living is less.

No, there are definitely people spending too much on cellphone plans (which are already more expensive than they need to be), but there are always things that people pay for that they don't need.  I'll argue that a cellphone is a necessity in today's world, though.  Not the latest, flashy one, but something by which a potential employer can contact you.

I still do not believe that a sense of entitlement is unique to my generation.  We've seen it with previous generations, too.  Meals ready to eat (not to be completely compared to their MRE predecessor) and microwaves, owning one's own house rather than renting, technicolor TV, stereo, surround sound, HBO, Movies on Demand - there's always something.

94: I was referring to the healthcare mandate.

95: 35 incidents over 28 years (going by the Wiki link) hardly seems like enough to cause exasperation. There have been nearly that many murders/attempted murders of pro-life activists, not to mention the hundreds of physical assaults. Not that you'd know just by watching the news; apparently running down a sidewalk counselor with your car isn't interesting enough for the media. Can I trust that the shooting of the Family Research Council at least warranted attention?

The IVF article: Wow. It seems like when fertility doctors make the news, it's never for something normal like embezzlement.

I have to disagree with the entitlement thing. I see a lot of gimmee-gimmee in my generation (I'm almost 26), and the previous/next generations. I don't think it's a matter of older generations being better or anything like that; they just grew up in societies where there was less to have. And if others did have more than they did, there weren't television ads rubbing it in your face. There's also the added problem of generations growing up under expanding entitlement programs: "If XYZ people qualify for assistance, than I should, too!"

Sorry for my huge breaks in between responses; visiting with my parents is proving to be more entertaining than the internet (don't take it personally :-). They finally found a house to rent, so we're moving out of our hotel first thing tomorrow. Bad news: no internet until the 22nd.

#104 - No internet? That's awful. :( I'm glad you're getting time to spend with your parents, though! Parents are the best.

My parents came to visit last week, and my in-laws will be here tomorrow.  I feel loved. ^_^

#105:
I hate to argue... but my parents are most defiantly not the best!!

Aww, I'm sorry flan.

Its all good. My parents are very over protective and make me work a lot. My mom is ok, but my dad is pretty hard to handle a lot of the time. Kate knows what I'm talking about!

Growing up, my mom was a basket-case, and my dad was always gone on business.  I spent most of my high school years grounded for the dumbest reasons you can imagine (like not calling when the extra-curricular bus was late, even though I'd have missed the bus if I'd gone to make a phone call; like running over to a neighbor kid's house to drop off her homework before first running home to ask permission to drop it off; like repositioning a bathmat and forgetting to put it back), and I had a bedtime, not until I turned 18, not until I graduated, but until the day I left the house.  Having a couple thousand miles between me and my parents has improved our relationship, but I don't know what would happen if I had to deal with them on a daily basis, again.

Wow, sounds tough!

#110: sounds a lot like my sitch, exept reverse. My dad is the basket- case- clean- freak and my mom works full time. Plus, I STILL DON'T HAVE A CELL PHONE!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

I don't have my own cell phone either, flan! I have to share with my sister--plus the phone we have is over 2 years old!

I don't even get to share a phone!! GAAAA!!!!

I don't have a phone either. I don't mind, though. I have my own computer and internet, and I can stay up as long as I like (provided I don't get caught). I'm very blessed to have so many luxuries.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

I dont have a computer or an ipod or a phone!!!

I didn't get my own computer until I was sixteen, though, so be patient. Things will come when you really need them. :)

It's just a pain when you don't ask for something, your parents give it to you, and then threaten to take it away as punishment when they're annoyed with you about something.  ~_~

Haha exactly! Happy belated Thanksgiving everyone!

Is anyone shopping on Black Friday (today)? I can't say I am-- I'm not really a fan of the whole idea. It seems like it overshadows the concept of being thankful on Thanksgiving.

I hate Black Friday. It's insane! People fighting and doing stupid stuff over useless crap. Goodness, people even get themselves hurt or die over it! Stupid. All that Black Friday is about is getting more stuff. Kinda silly. Makes me think of what George Carlin said about stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac

I can tolerate Black Friday, but the audacity of starting it on Thursday rankles me to no end.  And they still insist on calling it Black Friday!

New debate:  Proper use of the word "geek".

In at least the past decade, attaining the label of "geek" has become an honor in my circles.  It's become such a widely accepted label, that we have specific types of geeks, from "comic book geeks" to "art geeks".  Now, the question is, do we accept people who claim to be "fashion geeks" or "makeup geeks"?  I'm gonna say no.  Sorry, but this is where I draw the line.  We've reclaimed that word to suit our needs ("socially inept" now primarily applies to nerds instead of geeks), and if fashionistas need a label, they can wrestle with those who are currently using the term "diva".

Thoughts?

And before anyone else says it...


The definition that I know most people to follow:
Geeks = people who are extremely into something or other
Nerds = socially inept geeks

Hmmmmm... this is a very good question. My whole family has discussed this at great lengths, and this is the definition that my father (a research scientist and huge nerd, albeit very socially able) has devised:

Geek: someone who has a huge obsession with something that is not necessarily math or science related.

Nerd: someone who is highly intelligent in the field of math or science.

I don't know if I agree with my dad on that definition, although I think I know what he's trying to say. I do know that there are factors that go into being either a geek or a nerd: 1) social awkwardness, 2) obsession and 3) intelligence. Now, in order to be a nerd, must your obsession and intelligence be limited to the field of the math or science? I don't know if I agree with that. I think being a nerd means to be highly intelligent in and passionate about a field of education, such as math, science, literature, and other scholarly pursuits.

I agree, , makeup "geeks" and fashion "geeks" should not be allowed to use the coveted title of geek. They can if they want to, sure, but that does not necessarily make you a geek. They can be gurus, not geeks.

The Wikipedia article said something interesting about nerds (hat tip, Flan): "However, those simply adopting the characteristics of nerds are not actually nerds by definition. One cannot be an authentic nerd by imitation alone; a nerd is an outsider and someone who is unable or unwilling to follow trends. Popular culture is borrowing the concept and image of nerds in order to stand out as individuals."

How about this:  Nerds are more likely to follow an obsession to the exclusion of others, whereas geeks tend to thrive when they find someone with whom they can share their obsessions.  And I agree; it isn't fair to restrict nerddom to math & science.

Thanks for sharing that wiki blurb.  I heartily agree.

I, wear the label of both "geek" and "nerd" proudly. I think that they are quite similar by definition, all though a nerd is more likely to be obsessed with something and slightly less socially awkward. As being one who is not socially awkward, but I am a math nerd, history geek, drama nerd and all around geek because I read ALL THE TIME! Plus, I really read anything! I also think that geeks and nerds tend to be people who don't have to try to break the status quo. Like I know several other "drama" geeks who try to fit the weird "drama nerd" category by wearing like fake glasses or princess crowns or wearing weird outfits. But really, they are just as insecure as the rest of humanity and wear makeup and say "like" to much and just want to be famous and popular. This REALLY gets on my nerves. i go to a private school, so we wear uniforms, but I can't WAIT to go to high school and finally try out being a free spirit. Sorry if my shpeel went off topic... er... a little.

I'll point out that true geeks naturally tend break the status quo because we prefer to weed out practices that are unnecessary or pointless.

ETA:  I had to reread that last sentence a few times because I kept reading "shpeel" (spiel) as "sheeple".

sorry about that... who knew that there was a way to spell the word spiel?
( Except for Rozax, obviously...)

I majored in German.
spielen = to play

Howdy all! Oooo, the ever-present geek/nerd/everyone else debate. I think if whatever you're into has been socially acceptable since the beginning of time (anything fashion related, for instance), you don't get to suddenly adopt the 'geek' title when it becomes popular to do so. My biggest gripe is really with people who claim to be XYZ-geeks, when what they really mean is, "I have a passing interest in this fad." Being a Twihard doesn't make you a supernatural lit geek; loving the Avengers movie doesn't make you a Whedonite (or a Marvel geek).

Sorry to those of you who had or are having problems with your parents. All I can offer is, it (usually) gets better. Also, trac-phones are cheap and easy to obtain. They don't do anything fancy, but you can chat and text with your friends, and not worry about needing your parents to pay the bill.

how much is a bill on a track phone?

bah humbug

131: Is that a new debate? ;)

Speaking of which, on a non-related topic, has anyone read the Phantom Tollbooth?? SOO GOOD!

I haven't read that book in ages.

Um . . . this . . . it irks me, to say the least.  I'm not sure what there is to debate, though.  I think we can all agree that this is a fairly unintelligent person.

Flan: I think each phone company has their own version of 'pay as you go', with their own prices, so it's something you'd have to check. It's been so long since I had one.

Rozax: Yeah, that was a particularly obnoxious article. Of all the things in that situation to talk about, that's what she went with?

I agree. Just kinda dumb all around.