“Same-sex Marriage” and Miscegenation Laws

Posted in For God with tags , , , on January 8, 2015 by cavalier973

One of the arguments (which isn’t really an argument) that proponents of “same-sex marriage” put forth is an emotional appeal that follows along the lines of: “So, you don’t support marriage equality for homosexuals; I bet you would have opposed the repeal of the miscegenation laws, that prevented mixed-race couples from marrying”. The assertion is usually some variation of that statement.

It is an invalid comparison, however, because the situation is different. With the miscegenation laws, a white man could marry a white woman, but a black man could not marry a white woman. In the same way, a black man could marry a black woman, but a white man could not marry a black woman. The white man was granted a privelege by the government that the government then denied to the black man, and vice versa.

With regard to same-sex marriage, heterosexuals do not have a right to marry someone of the same sex that is then denied to homosexuals. However, homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex. The situation we have at present is “marriage equality”.

What the proponents of same-sex marriage wish for is an expantion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. If they succeed*, then the situation will still be “marriage equality”, since there would be no reason to deny heterosexual partners the “right” to have a government-licensed marriage (to add legal advantages to a business partnership, for example).

The problem is that “marriage” has a certain definition: it is a heterosexual union for the purposes of companionship and procreation. That’s clear from Scripture. But even for someone who rejects Truth, the definition of marriage still holds. Marriage is how society manages the bearing and rearing of children. It works pretty well, overall.

In addition, relinquishing to the government the authority to redefine words is unwise. The government always seeks to increase its power over those living within its borders, and the ability to control the language is a key component to its agenda. When people can no longer communicate effectively, then they are more easily divided and suppressed.

*which they apparently will, through the courts; the “debate” over same-sex marriage ended with the defenders of definitional marriage–as a heterosexual union–winning at the ballot box. Their democratic victory has since been overturned in various places by the intervention of Federal judges 

Jay Seegert on the Ham-Nye Debate

Posted in For God with tags , , , , on December 30, 2014 by cavalier973

http://www.cecwisc.org/InTheNews/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate

Wise Advice from Dr. Murphy

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , , , , on December 29, 2014 by cavalier973

Dr. Robert Murphy has a blog called “Free Advice”. The content usually concerns economic issues, but he recently posted about God’s Salvation.

An excerpt:

If you believe in God, but have a vague sense that as long as you’re not a really awful person and usually try to do the right thing you’ll make the cut…I empathize with that perspective because it’s a natural, earthly way to look at it. But it’s not what the New Testament says. I would encourage people who think Jesus was a wise teacher to read the above passages in context to understand this radical and initially counterintuitive perspective.

Of course, certain folks have to be snotty in the comments, based on their delusional belief in self-creating infinite universes and self-organizing information.

2014 in review

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags on December 29, 2014 by cavalier973

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 800 times in 2014. If it were a cable car, it would take about 13 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Dino DNA

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , on December 24, 2014 by cavalier973

‘Bio-film! It’s bio-film!’ Desperate for an answer to this damning evidence some evolutionists claimed that the blood vessels that Dr Schweitzer had found were simply bio-film (a product of more recent bacterial action).12 This was sometimes shouted out during CMI presentations by skeptics, and anticreationist blog sites and chat rooms would give this as the ‘go-to’ answer when creationists raised the topic.

But, even if the blood vessels had been bio-film, this could hardly have explained the presence of proteins and DNA.13 In any case, though, ‘bio-film’ only rarely gets trotted out in more recent years, as Schweitzer herself has been able to present a powerful case for the blood vessels not being bio-films.14

On Ferguson

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , on November 25, 2014 by cavalier973

I wonder how many of the protesters were from Ferguson proper, and how many of them were from somewhere out of the area. I was looking at the reddit feed on the protests, and there were several posts about someplace on “Grand”. I called up a map to see what part of Ferguson Grand Ave or Grand Blvd was, and it turns out that Grand Blvd is to the east and south of Ferguson.

Anyway, the looters took out their anger on people and institutions that had nothing to do with Michael Brown’s shooting or the failure of the Grand Jury to indict Officer Wilson (who will be removed from duty, I hear). This makes me more suspicious that the looters and rioters were not from the area; burning down restaurants and grocery stores nearby causes the most difficulties to the people who rely on said businesses. It looked like there was one burger restaurant that was left alone.

This is an issue that is portrayed as being a race problem; Black versus White. But it’s really more of an Inner Party versus Prole problem. Them versus Us. I saw a report that said out of over 160,000 Grand Juries assembled in 2010, only 11 of them decided not to indict. The Grand Jury system is supposed to be a check on the government; it’s supposed to keep government agents from prosecuting people for crimes they did not commit, or even to refuse to indict people for violating unjust laws (see Jury Nullification). Most Grand Juries, however, do whatever the prosecutor says. Why wouldn’t they? They only get to hear the prosecutor’s side. Let me repeat that: Grand Juries only hear the prosecutor’s side of the story. There is no defense lawyer or advocate for the person facing indictment. Grand Juries are supposed to pose questions, to investigate the alleged crime to see if the person facing indictment is the one who committed the crime. Instead, the Grand Jury, most of the time (like, 160,000 times out of 160,011 cases) move to indict.

But not in this case. Why not? Well, perhaps the evidence that Officer Brown was acting in self-defense was just too strong for the Grand Jury to indict him. That’s what’s being reported. But prosecutors have ways of presenting evidence that can be quite convincing. The prosecutor didn’t do so in this case, and I argue it’s not because the officer is a white man. Rather, it’s because the white man is a police officer. He’s on the same team as the prosecutor. He makes the arrests and helps gather evidence for the prosecutor. It shouldn’t be surprising that the D.A.’s office and the police force, that work together in enforcing the law, will look out for each other in times of trouble.

Having said all that, I should point out that I don’t think that Officer Wilson should have been indicted. When the story first came out, based on what I read of the story, I thought that Officer Wilson had unnecessarily shot Michael Brown while Brown was trying to surrender. That was what witness testimony said, and it fit the growing narrative that the nation’s police force is becoming more militarized and aggressive. Then, the witnesses started changing their stories, evidence appeared that Michael Brown actually attacked Officer Wilson through the window of his car; it didn’t look good for people wanting Officer Wilson to be punished for killing Brown. Right or wrong, the Grand Jury confirmed this outcome.

And people are taking it out on those who had no involvement in the case.

But the ones who will suffer the most will be the ones who live in Ferguson (until they eventually decide to move). Who in their right mind would rebuild a Little Caesar’s in a neighborhood that burned it down? Collect the insurance money (if there is any) and move to a town that’s more sensible about dealing with disappointment. Yeah, the looters and rioters wanted blood, and they got it: but it was their own.

Darwinoids and CSI

Posted in For God with tags , , , , on November 24, 2014 by cavalier973

We often distinguish between the science of present processes and the science of figuring out what happened in the past (see ‘It’s not science and Argument: Creationism is religion, not science). It’s a helpful distinction to make because it shows that we need to test evolution and millions of years differently than we would test, say, gravity or the speed of light. It also shows how there is generally a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past events than there is in the science of present processes.

But many critics of biblical creation have found what they think is a good counter to this distinction. They claim that the science used to show that evolution is fact “works just like CSI” (Crime Scene Investigation).2 This argument seems stronger than the simplistic ‘religion vs science’ idea. The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to reconstruct the past does have a lot in common with CSI—they are both examples of what could be called ‘forensic’ or ‘historical’ science (see CSI … and CMI). In each case, there is an attempt to use good science to reconstruct the past.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 95 other followers