Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Rusty Nails, 2/2/05…

From Bush' speech tonight,
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
Heh. ########## Do you know what this is a picture of? It’s a 6 ½ week old fetus… well, it’s a 6 ½ week, plus 16 months, old fetus. The fetus, strangely enough, has a mother who has named her (yes, the fetus’ gender can be identified) Elora. Per the NY Times, Church Groups Turn to Sonogram to Turn Women From Abortions, Elora’s mother Andrea called on the Bowie Crofton Pregnancy Center and Medical Clinic to seek out an abortion 16 months ago. She was told that the clinic did not perform abortions but that she could come in for an ultrasound. She did. Andrea says, “When I had the sonogram and heard the heartbeat - and for me a heartbeat symbolizes life - after that there was no way I could do it.” Interestingly enough, representatives from Planned Parenthood have something to say about clinics such as the Bowie Crofton Pregnancy Center and Medical Clinic. From the article,
"Generally, their treatment of women who come in is coercive," said Susanne Martinez, vice president of public policy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "From the time they walk in to these centers, they are inundated with information that is propaganda and that has one goal in mind. And that is to have women continue with their pregnancies." (emphasis added)
Imagine that - the audacity of wanting women to continue with their pregnancies. Pro-Choice philosophy at its finest. HT: Laura Ingraham ########## Bill Wallo has additional thoughts on the aspect of sensual worship in his post More Love. He also plugs my photo-blog Imago Articulus here. ########## More on the topic of neo-Darwinism hijacking design arguments: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. - Richard Dawkins; Ward & Brownlee discussing, in Rare Earth, the complexity difference between building a toyboat and an ocean liner (as compared to life); using nails, bolts, and screws to mimic how species are classified through a cladogram ( Cladistics is a way of sorting organisms based on characteristics that were derived from a common ancestor.); etc., etc., etc. ########## Recently, we and others have identified two human endogenous retroviruses that entered the primate lineage 25–40 million years ago and that encode highly fusogenic retroviral envelope proteins (syncytin-1 and -2), possibly involved in the formation of the placenta syncytiotrophoblast layer generated by trophoblast cell fusion at the materno–fetal interface. (emphasis added) Huh? Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are considered by neo-Darwinists to be strong evidence for common descent. Their “junk” status, as well as a commonality between related species (e.g., chimps and humans), renders the argument that chimps and humans once shared a common ancestor. However, there are some creationists arguing that the so-called junk-DNA sequences are not so junky after all. Scholars at Reasons to Believe posit that junk-DNA sequences really do have function, and continued research is proving them right. The study referenced above notes that there were two human ERVs that entered into the primate lineage at the same time and currently perform the same function. The abstract concludes with,
Together, these data strongly argue for a critical role of syncytin-A and -B in murine syncytiotrophoblast formation, thus unraveling a rather unique situation where two pairs of endogenous retroviruses, independently acquired by the primate and rodent lineages, would have been positively selected for a convergent physiological role. (emphasis added)
The neo-Darwinist is currently left with explaining away how two ERVs evolved independently, within the placental arena, to produce the same function (not junk) that we see today. This is known as convergent evolution and the neo-Darwinist typically responds to it not by trying to explain it, but by simply stating, “Wow! What a coincidence!” Listen to a report at RTB (about 30 minutes into the show)

7 comments:

Rusty said...

Hi Paul,

What do dictatorships have to do with a marriage amendment?

Interesting link (and posts) but someone is really scraping the bottom of the barrel to equate Bush' general statement regarding SS founder's knowledge of our current, real, SS crisis with a cherry-picked stat of an estimate they made re: the % of population that would be over 65 in 1990. What about the estimated population of the U.S. in 1990? the inflation rate? the cost of medical care? the life expectancy? retirement costs? income tax rates? average incomes? C'mon. Provide that data and then maybe we can address whether or not Bush "lied."

Besides... what does any of that have to do with my post?

Rusty said...

To claim that the statement Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer - and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. is a lie, because an estimate of the percentage of Americans over 65 in 1990 was correct, borders on the ridiculous. Does anyone in their right mind really believe that the founders of Social Security would have rightly foreseen what America would be like in 2005? Does anyone really believe that the founders would have even attempted to do so? Is it really so difficult to simply say, "yes, our situation today is very different from that of 1935"? Can't you see that that was the point of the statement? That Social Security needs to be reformed?

But that's really the issue isn't it? Not whether Bush lied about some obscure fact (that he didn't even refer to), but whether the Dems want Social Security messed with. Professor Bainbridge quotes Bob Kerry as saying, The late Pat Moynihan used to joke when I asked him why liberals were so reluctant to consider changing Social Security so that it guaranteed wealth as well as income: "It's because they worry that wealth will turn Democrats into Republicans."You said, Given that propensity, then, the fact that he supports a marriage amendment to suppress the acceptibility of homosexuality, at the same time he's talking about freedom (21 times) and liberty (8 times) is neither contradictory in his mind, nor in any sense binding.

Your premise is false. The purpose of a marriage amendment is to protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. To posit that it would somehow suppress the acceptance of homosexuality would be to ignore virtually every aspect of our culture at large. Homosexuality is already accepted by our culture... what the same-sex marriage proponents want is not acceptance, but respect. And they're not afraid to have it imposed by judicial activism.

So much for the idea of tolerance.

I asked what dictatorships had to do with marriage because you posted a comment on dicatatorships (when my post was on marriage).

Rusty said...

Paul,

I still think it's a big stretch to claim the line from Bush's SOTU speech regarding the founders of SS was a "lie."

I understand you're attempting to connect other so-called lies from Bush with this so-called one on SS. It's an easy tactic to use (I must admit that I used it quite a bit back when Slick Willie was in charge). But you must realize that it only appeals to a form of guilt by association.

There are some (Robert George, The Clash of Orthodoxies) who would argue that the role of government includes giving marriage "special treatment" precisely because of the role marriage plays in producing and maintaining families, which are the bulwark of strong societies. One comment on the "liberty" for all aspect, though... as I've stated, gay couples already enjoy virtually the same benefits as married couples do - they aren't after the benefits, they're after the "respect" (forced, though it may be).

Rusty said...

Paul,

Please list some of the 1,000 additional benefits that married couples have over gay couples.

Rusty said...

Paul,

Some items listed in the referenced PDF seem to be redundant. So simply stating that there are 1,000+ benefits by having marital status could be misleading. Also, I didn’t see any reference to the aspect of increased tax liability of marital status.

Aren’t many, if not all, of these issues dealt with in already enacted “domestic partner” arrangements? If benefits are the real issue, and I don’t think that benefits are truly the issue at hand, then why not simply push for legislation that enacts domestic partner benefits?

Rusty said...

I would wager that the only type of tax that would not “penalize one group at the expense of another” is a 0% tax.

You list the 1,000+ benefits by being married but then concede the SSM issue is really about respect? So, why bring up the benefits issue at all then? Is it because if the benefits issue was addressed through domestic partnership arrangements, then the SSM issue would be moot?

The issue isn’t limited to that of being a religious objection. Historically, mankind has viewed marriage as between male and female, regardless of the society’s religious persuasions. And I don’t believe that married heterosexuals are entitled to more respect than homosexuals any more than two heterosexuals living together do. It isn’t an issue about getting more respect but, rather, the respect due to the essence of what marriage is. What the SSM issue is about is an attempt to hijack the very essence of marriage and apply it to areas it does not belong. And the reason for this attack is that SSM proponents believe that in getting the blessing of the State, they then will be better able to mandate acceptance of their behavior. If this were not so, then you would see a greater effort for domestic partner arrangements, than that of SSM.

In attempting to redefine what marriage has always been known to be, SSM proponents have left the door open as to what marriage could be defined as. If it is based on benefits and / or loving relationships alone, there is no logical reason to prevent “marriages” between one man, two women, and one man; one man and three men; one man and one 16 year old boy; two women and one man; one woman alone; or virtually any other arrangement you wish to come up with.

Rusty said...

Paul,

Yes I raised the benefits issue after you alluded to some lack of liberty for SSM. It should be clear that there is no real lack of liberty or benefits... the issue is forced "respect" by hijacking the institution of marriage.

Marriage is defined as between male and female throughout history. Women have not been *defined* as second class citizens throughout history (read the writings of St. Paul). The issue isn't to do what's been done throughout history but to understand that a concept exists within a set of boundaries for a reason.

How does informed consent now enter the mix? I thought it was a loving relationship? Are you going to impose informed consent on what someone else considers a loving relationship? If you prevent a black and a white from marrying you're a racist... SSM, and you're a homophobe... well, between species and you must be guilty of speciesism! (where's Peter Singer?) If a 16 year old can consent, why not a 15 year old? Isn't that teacher Letourneau marrying the kid she slept with when he was something like 13? Consent? Sure sounds like it.

The problem with redefining marriage is that the word will end up losing any coherent meaning whatsoever.

BTW, why argue this at all if there is no right and wrong?