David Gibbs against robot love

At an anti-gay marriage rally Tuesday in Raleigh, North Carolina, David Gibbs III, the Christian fundamentalist lawyer who fought to keep brain-damaged Terry Schiavo on life support in 2005, publicly expressed his deep-seated fear of machine love. From the News & Observer:
(Gibbs) told rally participants gay marriage would "open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina.

"Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?" Gibbs asked. "Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots."
"Marriage rally draws 1,000"

174

  1. Sometimes it’s things like this that make me feel bad about being from NC. Of course I’d say a lot of the people in Raleigh are transplants, so it’s hard to say if he was a native or not.

    (Part of the reason I left Raleigh…)

  2. Actually, the fundamentalist “surrendered wife” comes pretty darn close to being a robot: The surrendered wife must submit to the whims of fundamentalist hubby, including sex. On demand. Sounds pretty robotic to me. Certainly doesn’t affirm the wife’s humanity, BWDIK? I’m not christian ;-)

  3. I hope this won’t affect The Sarah Connor Chronicles plot line from developing. Well the one I have in my head anyway.

  4. Indeed, this has been a slippery slope ever since people of different races were allowed to intermarry…

    Seriously though, why is government even in the marriage licensing business to begin with?

    Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission […] would be illegal.” The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition “confers a privilege” to do something. By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we do not have a right to marry; marriage is a privilege. Those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.

  5. I know this was supposed to make me go ‘Boo! Silly Fundies’ and get my atheist bones a’quivering with indignant rage.

    All I could do was recall that one Futurama episode – you know the one with Lucy Liu – and think to myself, “Damn, we’re living in the year 3000.”

  6. I don’t understand how people still think this is a valid argument, a pet can’t consent to marriage or sign a certificate.

  7. Actually, the fundamentalist “surrendered wife” comes pretty darn close to being a robot: The surrendered wife must submit to the whims of fundamentalist hubby, including sex. On demand. Sounds pretty robotic to me.

    You mean Stepford wives?

  8. Those that quote the laws of religion and quotes with no concept to the context take heed, the bible says Judas went and hanged himself, and it also says go thou and do likewise.

  9. We hold these truths to be self-evident:
    That all men are created equal
    That all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are
    Life
    Liberty
    and The pursuit of happiness.

    I never committed that to memory- I guess I’ve just heard it enough to remember it.

    A man should be allowed to marry his bong, if he so desires, according to the Constitution.

    Gay marriage would not diminish my marriage one bit, nor would a man marrying a robot. What I am sucking on ain’t no body’s bidnis but my own, because one man’s rights end where next man’s rights begin.

    Okay, ladies, let me clarify “men”. There’s two kinds of man in this world: plain, and man with womb: womb man. So the general “man” includes you.

  10. I suspect people will want to eventually “marry” their robots. However, marrying a robot (or an animal) is relatively irrelevant and impossible until they are given rights themselves… I think legally that has to come first?

  11. @#7: Kinda…

    http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=270407

    SKYE (a “surrendered wife”): He always has a final decision in this house about anything. He is the leader…

    One of the basics of surrendering is that your husband always takes the lead when it comes to sexual intimacy. And another thing is that the woman always says yes to sex. And sometimes you might not feel like it but then when you start being together and kissing and hugging and just being together and getting that closeness, then, generally, I want to anyway.

  12. I don’t know. Some kinds of marriages really should not be allowed. Robots are OK, but I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry a Christian fundamentalist lawyer.

  13. FRY
    Well, so what if I love a robot?
    It’s not hurting anybody.

    HERMES
    My God! He never took middle school hygiene. He never saw the propaganda film!

    FARNSWORTH
    It’s just lucky I keep a copy in the VCR at all times!

    NARRATOR [IN MOVIE]
    Ordinary human dating. It’s enjoyable and it serves an important purpose. But when a human dates an artificial mate, there is no purpose.
    Only enjoyment. And that leads to… tragedy.

  14. He would do well to revise his anti-robot propaganda. For when the metal ones come for him, he might be able to “survive”, but only if he reverses his stance. Of course by “survive”, I mean put to work in the “human resources” department of the robot overlords government.

  15. So, loving a nonsentient cyborg, is good. Loving a full sentient AI is bad.

    Head explodes.

  16. the American Taleban also has chattel-wives?

    Is Gibbs so common a name that the gibbsery (secret machine lust) would only be obviously connected with it’s deeply disturbed namesake? I mean, everyone named “Johnson” doesn’t immedately have to add “notpenis” (though I do remember the pathetic struggle of the Cialis family)

  17. “Robot Girl” by Was (Not Was)

    TV screen faces aren’t pretty it’s true
    But she will do anything I tell her to
    Her conversation’s not what you’d call clever
    But she can’t contradict me, oh no never

    Robot girl, robot girl
    Move your arms a few degrees north
    Now gently back and forth
    You know just what to scratch
    We’re such a perfect match
    I’m in a whirl, you’re my robot girl

    Programmed for love, she can be quite tender
    See how I’m kind, nothing offends her
    She vacuums the carpet and doesn’t complain
    She’ll walk the dog in the pouring rain

    Robot girl, robot girl
    Move your arms a few degrees north
    Now gently back and forth
    You know just what to scratch
    We’re such a perfect match
    You are my world, you’re my robot girl

    Don’t have to worry about diamonds and furs
    There’s no confusion about what’s mine and what’s hers
    When she fixes her limbs on my backside I just shudder
    She goes through my blood like a hot knife through butter

    Robot girl, robot girl
    Move your arms a few degrees north
    Now gently back and forth
    Oh, you know just what to scratch
    We’re such a perfect match
    You are my world, you’re my robot girl
    I’m in a whirl, you’re my robot girl

  18. hey! I’ve got it! We raise a lot of money, travel to North Carolina, buy their women and set them free!

  19. I’m not married, but gay marriage would not diminish my value of my marriage at all.

    I think couples that get married but end up unhappy diminish the value of my marriage more than a person marrying a robot ever could.

  20. I know a few people in multi-partner relationships. It’s very difficult to manage well so not many people do it very effectively. Considering most of us have a tough enough time with a single intimate relationship, I’m not surprised. That’s no reason to make it illegal though.

    There’s no basis, outside of religion, to ban any type of marriage arrangement between consenting adults. In a society based on reason and not superstition, any type of marriage arrangement someone can come up with should be legal. Much like corporations can take on just about any structure if the paperwork is right.

  21. David Gibbs should talk. His wife married a potted plant. Do we really want to allow people to marry potted plants? I’m just sayin…

  22. Truly, we do live in the future, where concerns about robot marriage exist. David Gibbs lives in the sheep herding, cousin fucking, incestuous past of his religion, but the rest of us, at least, live in the future.

  23. John Corvino is one of the best contemporary moral philosopher that writes both academic and more popular articles in defence of full human rights for homo- and heterosexuals alike.
    http://www.johncorvino.com/

    The homophobes have no arguments and they’re slowly losing ground in practical affairs. More and more countries end discriminatory marriage laws.

    The only real moral issue left to investigate is this: what duty does the state (and so indirectly all of us) have in terms of rectification and reparation for the discriminatory harms already done for so long?

    As a start of such rectification, I suggest, the US government start funding pro gay rights organizations with 100 million $ per year for X years. But maybe that’s way to little. That is, anyway, the real discussion we should be having.

  24. Troof, actually the two kinds of men are:

    Wif Man
    and
    Wer Man

    Wif became wife (and wi’man), and wer is the root of werewolf.

    I like your explanation better though. Womb seems a nicer differentiation than wife, as womb is intrinsic but wife is only in terms of an external other..

    Traditionally, the word man has been used to refer not only to adult males but also to human beings in general, regardless of sex. There is a historical explanation for this: in Old English, the principal sense of man was ‘a human being,’ and the words wer and wif were used to refer specifically to ‘a male person’ and ‘a female person,’ respectively. Subsequently, man replaced wer as the normal term for ‘a male person,’ but at the same time the older sense ‘a human being’ remained in use.

  25. I think that many more people will associate the name Gibbs with Josiah, than David. (The absolute number will be very small in both cases, but I think the proportion will favor Josiah.)

    After all, Josiah was on a postage stamp. Although in a few decades, we may have the “Great American Fundamentalist-Activists of the Early 21st Century” series…

  26. Troof, that’s the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. So you aren’t really guaranteed those things, as stated.

  27. MikeyLikes..

    Until very recently (about 10 years, I think) it was THE LAW in England, that a man had carnel privilege over ‘his’ wife. I can’t find the exact terms..

    Ok, here, I’m a bit out with the dates, but:

    Marital Rape was only made a criminal act in the UK in 1991. Up until then it was considered impossible for a man to rape or sexually assault his wife. To quote:

    ‘A husband cannot rape his wife unless the parties are seperated or the court has by injunction forbidden him to interfere with his wife or he has given an undertaking in court no to interfere with her. ~ The Law Made Simple, The Chaucer Press, 1981’

    http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm

  28. Troofseeker – Actually, there’s two kinds of woman in this world: default, and default + dick. Don’t be one.

  29. You know what opens the door to gay marriage? Heterosexual marriage.

    I think we know what must be done.

  30. Why would I want to marry something that is already my property? It serves no purpose to either of the parties involved: the pet or inanimate object doesn’t suddenly feel better with this legal commitment, and the owner doesn’t get anything from the deal that he didn’t already have (really, is Rover suddenly going to stop chewing on the newspaper because he/she/it has a ring?) IF I were to build or buy a life-like robot that did all the things of a normal (or better-than-normal) wife, I wouldn’t NEED to marry her/it– I could just program her to be loyal, and when I died she could just be reprogrammed and reused by some other lonely fool. (And that brings up the philosophical discussion of “what constitutes life and/or sentience”, which I don’t think Gibbs has any grasp of, and which would probably confuse the hell out of him.)

  31. @jancola:
    “Troof, that’s the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. So you aren’t really guaranteed those things, as stated.”

    Oh, yeah. Dang!

    My wife hates robots. I keep telling her that in 200, 300 years we’ll be like 90% robotic parts, so get used to it! I want them leaf spring feet!
    And a belly compartment like Bender’s so I can keep my stuff in there. Soda, sammitch, stuff like that.

  32. I love (in the sense that it makes me laugh at their ridiculous nature) the slippery slope arguments these people make. It is just part of their smoke screen that they are “protecting marriage” and not homophobic. There is no greater example of self-evident bullshit. They don’t have the guts to simply say gay sex freaks them the fuck out and thus they fear it, so instead they pretend that they oppose gay marriage on the basis of a slippery slope that doesn’t exist. The route from gay marriage to robot marriage would be uphill if you could even get there from here…

    If they would watch some gay porn they would realize they are mostly into the same things: deep throating and anal

  33. In the eyes of God, my robot and I are married no matter whether that clown accepts it or not.

  34. “Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?”

    No reason. Sounds good to me, as long as everyone involved is doing it voluntarily.

    “Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots.”

    Pets and robots are incapable of comprehending or consenting to marriage, so this has no relevance.

    Why not be honest and just say you hate gay people and want them to be second-class citizens, Gibbs?

  35. Oh, good. It just so happens that I time-traveled here from the future, seeking a way to dissolve the marriage between myself and my abusive robotic wife.

    I’ll give David Gibbs a call — maybe he can help.

  36. Lizardman, you are correct. There was an experiment where they took a group of violent homophobes and a group of men who were tolerant of gays and showed them gay porn. The subjects had a band on their penises that would measure arousal by measuring the level of erection. Tolerant men had no reaction, but homophobes got erections. All governmental law on marriage should be eliminated. People should be as individual, responsible actors.

  37. squeeziecat:
    It is obvious to me that they need to call Susan Calvin. Or at least call to Donovan and Powell.

  38. Arkizzle@28: IIRC, the “wif-” morpheme just meant “female”. (Like “vir-” in werewolf, virago, virile means male; it’s not the same as the Latinate “vir-” as in virus, etc. I can’t think of places the meaning of “wif-” has survived though.)

    So, speaking purely etymologically I suppose, “wife” means “female [implied human]”, but “husband” defines the person in only in terms of their relationship. :)

    Clearly we need a morpheme for artificial persons though, so that ministers can pronounce polygamous-robot-marryers “ver-man, wif-man, and bot-man”. Except “bot”, being derived from “worker” via Capek, might be a bit demeaning. Gotta think of something else.

  39. If they REALLY think marriage is so scary important and civilized society would collapse if the institution were “cheapened” by allowing gays to do it, then why are these groups not also lobbying to outlaw divorce?

    Gay marriage is still marriage. It’s still two people committing to honor their bond for life. It’s far less damaging than divorce, which is basically saying “I swear to god that I will love you and only you for the rest of our lives, unless we change our minds or whatever.”

    If this was really about the sanctity of marriage and not just an excuse to be homophobic, they’d be yelling just as loudly that divorce should be outlawed right along with gay marriage. The fact that they ignore the issue that would actually affect their lives and focus on the one that only affects the “filthy queers” demonstrates what hypocritical, bigoted fuckwits these people really are.

  40. Snore… “Slippery Slope” as fallacy.

    Religiotards love to use the “If A is permitted, than B will happen, then its only a small step to C, then we’ll wind up with X,” where X is (ideally) something so outrageous that no-one in the room wants it to happen. They do this without establishing the inevitability of any step in the chain, which makes it specious reasoning.

    When will they develop some new rhetoric? We’re tired of constantly repeating why these arguments are bogus.

  41. “Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?”

    I say why not three or four husbands? Why when every one think about polygamy it necessarily one man with several women, why not one woman and three or four man? and if you have four or mote people you could even get more creative in the mixing. :-)

  42. Terry Shiavo was not on life support. She only had a feeding tube. Her euthanasia was by starvation.

  43. When will they develop some new rhetoric?

    This IS their new rhetoric, and it’s a marked improvement in tone from “fags burn in hell”, though no less transparent.

  44. Indeed, this has been a slippery slope ever since people of different races were allowed to intermarry…

    Good Grief Sir! As any Fool knows it goes back to allowing intermarriage between tribes! Once you allow breeding outside the near family you’re on a slippery slope to – well, goodness knows what. Probably have people that don’t believe in the proper gods actually being allowed to live. Then what will you have, eh?

  45. I wonder if anyone else has had the same sort of hypothetical. We (society), should take away an innocuous priviledge of this man. Say, something like his ability to have a strawberry milkshake. We could claim that people consuming strawberry milkshakes violates our fundamental monochromatic sucrose-enhanced diary based beliefs. Now, it’s just a milkshake, but maybe that little headtrip would make him change perspective.

    josh

  46. I will refrain from unleashing my ruthless disgust on your comments board, suffice to say that Mr.Gibbs is, in my opinion, lesser than human and I hope that whatever evil might befall him in this world is less than the wrath of heaven upon him in the next.

  47. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. If recent history is any indication, we can expect David Gibbs to be outed for a secret sexual relationship with a robotic pet any day now.

  48. I found this gem in the comments beneath the linked article:

    “What is it about ‘two consenting adults’ that you idiots don’t understand? Is it just that you’re so used to thinking of wives as property that you can’t process the concept of ‘consenting’? Or is it just that you can’t count to two?”

    Touché.

  49. I worry: they don’t want to allow John X to marry his faithful sheepdog Shep, but they don’t seem to care that when he gets home he’s going to !@#$ it anyway.

  50. Hmmmn, wonder if he finds gay human-robot relationships more repellent than heterosexual human-robot relationships, or are they equally repellent to him? DISCUSS

  51. I just read my post to my wife about how she and I will be 90% robotic in 2-300 years.
    She says that she’ll be dead by then.
    I told her she can look down and see me boinging along on my spring feet.
    She says I’ll probably have my little robot girlfriend with me.
    “I’ll tape a photo of your face on the front.” I told her. She likes it!
    What a gal!

  52. Pseudo said “…The subjects had a band on their penises that would measure arousal by measuring the level of erection.”

    Long ago I went to the bowling alley to sell a couple lids. Didn’t have me skivvies on, so I rubber banded them to my dick, in case I got searched.
    Never rubber band anything to your dick.
    I’m lucky it didn’t fall off.

    What’s this got to do with doing robots? That very night I didn’t have sex with a robot.

  53. We’re not computers, sebastian.

    I think, sebastian, therefore I am.

    Very good, pris, now show him why.

  54. “Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?”

    Are these two different things for Gibbs, or is he defining his terms for the ignorant rednecks in Raleigh?

    (By the way, I’m from North Carolina, so I’m allowed to call us ignorant rednecks, cuz we is.)

  55. The funny thing is that Gibbs is the perfect candidate for robot marriage. I’m thinking of that Aiko the female robot thing, or that “video girlfriend in you bed” deal. Conservative dudes who can’t conceptualize women as humans are the ones who want “perfect” robot wives to serve them as slaves like they think wives should.

  56. @Shay Guy
    “What about marrying fictional characters?”

    Dibs on Leela! Us cyclops gotta stick together.
    And I want a big strong gal who can protect me.

  57. I notice that the rally actually drew a vast crowd of 1,000 people. This is obviously a very hot issue (sarcasm).

    I wonder if I could marry my right hand?

    We’re very compatible.

  58. Well, I would certainly rather marry my golden retriever than that jerk Gibbs.

    What business is it of his anyway?

  59. So Mr. Gibbs and North Carolina are afraid of the unusual? Perhaps he ought to speak out against “unusual” books, or “unusual” foods and clothing. Perhaps Mr. Gibbs ought to makes lists of all of those categories in which the “unusual” ought to and will be banned such as art, music, children, toys, cars, colors, flavors, ideas, philosophies, religions … the list goes on.

    If it were at all possible, I’d marry a robot in the state of North Carolina just to illustrate the one and only relevant point to this entire issue – I own my life and no one else. Other people are NOT your property. Beyond the one understanding in anything resembling a genuine “civilization” that you purchase your liberty by granting liberty to others, every individual makes their own rules, designs their own lives, their own environment for happiness and prosperity.

    Mr. Gibbs and those who think like him can be as self-important as they want to be PROVIDED they keep their hands off the lives of others. Assuming one has their voluntary cooperation, one ought to be at liberty to marry one woman, one man, several women, several men, a mix of both, one or more individuals whose gender is amgiguous, a robot, a child, a dog, a cat, a book, a house, a tree … and nothing and no one whatsoever. Individuals belong to themselves, not to others, not to groups, not to community, not to philosophy or religion, not to a culture, not to a species. There is no duty to serve a cause other than one’s own in all things and, again, PROVIDED you grant others that same liberty.

    The genuinely mature have no obligation to suffer the demands of the immature such as Mr. Gibb and his ilk.

  60. Troofseeker said

    Never rubber band anything to your dick.

    Most sensible comment I’ve read in some time.

  61. just another opportunist using the fear of the ignorant to whip up hate he can profit by. there must be some sanction that can be applied against him. If he was screaming Hitler was right and lobbying for new concentration camps, something would be done. Why is he permitted to preach hatred and murder because he hides under religion?

  62. If only he would learn to love instead of fear love, especially the love of others, the world would be a better place.

    Why spread hate? Isn’t love in any form a better choice, even, i dare say, robot love? at least it is love?

    make love not hatemongering!

  63. not any more. Darth Cheney is headed to the Phantom Zone. Basic human rights and the fundamental law of the land can be respected once more.

  64. Why is he permitted to preach hatred and murder because he hides under religion?

    And hiding behind Free Speech; what a jerk! :P

    The “sanction” is self-evident. Now that we’ve heard what he has to say, we can judge him accordingly. I don’t need anyone to pre-judge him for me.

  65. interesting Zuzu, but it fails to point out the obvious: governments exist to perpetuate governments. All else is incidental.

  66. An old robot staggers into a robot biker bar. He wheels over to the biggest, baddest biker robot in the joint and says “Hey tough guy. I just went by your grandmother’s house. She’s one fine looking fembot!” The robot biker just sits there. His buddies can’t believe it.
    “I watched her get undressed.” Says the old robot. “She’s got a great ass on her!” Still the big surly robot doesn’t do anything. His friends are dumbfounded.
    The old robot gets right in the guy’s face. “I sexed her up real good! And you know what, sonny boy? She liked it! Oh, she liked it backwards!” The biker robot’s robot friends jump to their motivation devices, ready to disassemble the old ‘bot.
    The burly robot smiles and says “Quit yer braggin’, Grampa.”

  67. governments exist to perpetuate governments.

    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy?

  68. the gift of religion: human law “has no value”

    Vatican defends Brazil excommunication
    March 8, 2009, 6:40 am

    A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion in Brazil after being raped.

    Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Catholic church’s Congregation for Bishops, told the daily La Stampa on Saturday that the twins the girl had been carrying had a right to live.

    “It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated,” he said.

    Re, who also heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, added: “Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified.”

    The row was triggered by the termination on Wednesday of twin foetuses carried by a nine-year-old allegedly raped by her stepfather in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco.

    The regional archbishop, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, pronounced excommunication for the mother for authorising the operation and doctors who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term.

    “God’s law is above any human law. So when a human law … is contrary to God’s law, this human law has no value,” Cardoso had said.

  69. Nuku Nuku, fulfilling all three of robots, pets, and conventional womens. Once technology becomes sufficiently advanced, we’ll have cute girl-robot-kitty von-Neumann machines, and the folks who can’t figure out how to separate love from reproduction will have less to complain about.

  70. “We’ll be having sex with robots long before they’re aware of it.” -Daniel Wilson

  71. Darn it, can NOT remember who to attribute this to, but it’s the only thing that makes sense:

    1. Marriage, the sacrament, is the province of the church and the state should stay out of it.

    2. Everyone who wants to have the legal rights now automatically granted to hetero couples must form a legal partnership with the state.

    3. For any and all legal rights (including hospital visitation, medical decisions, etc) _any_ legal partnership can designate one or more people to have those rights, and _must_ designate – no more automatic rights for hetero spouses.

    4. The state will have to show cause why they will not grant a legal partnership to any two people who want to form one. Since there are about a billion lawyer partnerships where most partners are the same sex (usually male) they will have a hard time arguing why any two people should not be allowed to form a partnership.

  72. Bloo, the mental image of lawyer-on-lawyer-on-lawyer love you just placed in my mind has overcooked my man noodle for hours, if not days. I should sue.

  73. I still don’t understand this argument that gay marriage leads to marrying dogs and cats or inanimate objects. WTF!!!??? How- ……what!??

    This is such a common fear in Christian and right wing circles. Especially the argument that if gays marry, then everyone will turn gay and the population will be at risk! That one cracks me up!
    That’s like Microsoft saying “Well, if some people buy Apple products , then the WHOLE WORLD will buy ONLY Apple products and PCs and their market will disappear.”
    Why can’t a certain percentage of the population have a different lifestyle and desire and not destroy the world?
    I also can’t understand their crackpot idea that gay people are pedophiles and sexual criminals. Why does being interested in the same sex equal pedophilia??? That seems COMPLETELY unrelated to me.
    I hate to be mean and stereotype people but these small town robot sheep really need to wake up and smell the 21st century. This is getting old ,boring and ,frankly, trying.
    If you want to give up your personal power to an old , outdated paradigm, fine. But leave alone people who are outside of that paradigm. And guess what? MOST of the universe-and dare I say multiverse is way ,WAY outside that tired, crappy paradigm. (like any of these people are reading this.still feels good to rant.:-) )

  74. @ 108 Overunger

    I was just talking to my dad, and he says that the whole ‘gay marriage leads to marrying dogs and cats and such’ is about if you let two guys or two girls get married, what about two sisters or a grandmother and a grandson? I think there’s a law against relations getting married, but I think that my dad’s trying to broaden it out to say ‘oh, any two people in love should get married.’

    I don’t think that would be a big problem…but something to think about.

    I also think the ‘fear of gay marriage’ might have to do with what definition of marriage people grew up with…a lot of older people I know have the definition ‘a man and a woman who love each other and intend to start a family,’ where I have the definition that ‘two people who love each other and want to show that / do something more than just live together.”

  75. Has no one considered (at least in the US) the tax advantages of this? Compare the marginal tax rates of a single person and one married to a robot with (we presume) an income of zero.
    That ‘bot is a gold mine.

  76. MikeyLikesBoingBoing @3:

    Actually, the fundamentalist “surrendered wife” comes pretty darn close to being a robot: The surrendered wife must submit to the whims of fundamentalist hubby, including sex. On demand. Sounds pretty robotic to me. Certainly doesn’t affirm the wife’s humanity, BWDIK? I’m not christian ;-)

    It’s pretty inhuman if the wife gets nothing out of it. On the other hand, if you count the BDSM constellation as one kink, it’s the single commonest one out there. I’ve always wondered how many of these “surrendered wife” couples are using religion as an excuse to play roles they’re already inclined fancy. I’ve suspected that for years about Helen Andelin (author of Fascinating Womanhood) and her husband.

    Red Leatherman @9, I don’t think nearly enough people got your joke.

    Troofseeker @39, if there’s a sign-up sheet for cyborging, I am there.

    Overunger, Cookiemonsta, there are separate sets of laws prohibiting marriage with close relatives, and laws against having intimate relations with or otherwise abusing animals. Also, marriage laws require that both parties to the marriage be legally competent persons. Machines and animals don’t qualify.

    Allowing people of the same sex to marry wouldn’t change any of those other laws, so none of those silly scenarios are valid.

  77. Why is this disturbed attorney thinking about people marrying robots or their pets?

    Do “normal” people think about such things? I doubt it.

    It is my understanding that marriages are granted/recognized by states. And honored reciprocally, when you and your spouse drive across the state line. There is no state which says, “We do not recognize marriages performed in , so you are not married to the person on your marriage license.

  78. It seems, doesn’t it, like there’s a much higher percentage of gay people than ever before. Sure, most of it is increasing social acceptance that emboldens gay people to come out.
    But I’ve gotta wonder… could it be that Nature herself is adjusting the balance of nature, because the Earth has more humans than it needs?
    Think lemmings, think of those crabs that swarm across an island, or the zillions of mice that swarm in Australia, frogs, grunion and such.
    Maybe our sex drive is evolving in directions that reduce pregnancies.
    I hope this doesn’t offend either gay, religious or non-religious folks. It’s not meant to. It’s just ol’ Troof scratching his head.

  79. Okay, so Nature uses snakes, cats and raptors to cutail mice population, coyotes to balance rabbit population, and vicious film crews to balance lemming populations.
    My suggestion is that maybe Nature uses homoerotic sex drives to curtail human population. And maybe STD’s. Again, no offense intended.

  80. troof, maybe you should educate yourself on how ecology works. Population control is NOT actively conducted by consumers. Population control is only ever achieved through a lack of producers, i.e. food shortage.

    Ecology does not get ideas of what it wants to do, it’s just a free for all, and the only thing that drives it is the input of sunlight and the decay of the planet itself. There’s no invisible hand or prime mover or any of that.

  81. @115 I’m not offended by your remarks but I believe I now have enough evidence to characterize you as unamusing and devoid of intellectual content

  82. Takky, you’re probably right. Maybe it was stupid. But Nature does fight to maintain a balance, does she not? A rat has been carrying snails up onto my engine block to dine. The abundance of snails is being reduced. Do you suppose that Nature might one day curtail the population of humans?
    Surely it’s not that the only intelligence you find in this universe is your own?
    [Did that sound bitter? Sorry. I really do respect and honor your opinions, and don’t wanna fight.]
    Lemme ask you: will nature curtail the overpopulation of man?

  83. 1. Marriage, the sacrament, is the province of the church and the state should stay out of it.

    This only makes sense if you accept that any such thing as a ‘sacrament’ has any meaning worth paying attention to. Which only makes sense if you accept that churches have any right to tell any of us what we can do, think or be. Which no one with a moment to think carefully is likely to accept.

  84. Troofseeker@113, 115:

    So Nature, whomever that is, uses predators, sexually transmitted diseases and homosexuals to keep specific populations in check? To what end? Whether intended or not, that’s pretty damn offensive.

    Also, throwing STD’s into a theory about homosexuality and population control just reminds me, and probably others here, about an idea someone once had that God created AIDS to punish (or was it “reduce the population of”) gay people. Can’t remember who said it.

  85. I need a thicker pair of kid gloves. You guys can be more sensitive than staunch conservatives, I swear!

    I expected one of you to suggest that denser populations and mass transit will breed new diseases faster, and more resistant to our immunities, and quite likely new plagues that we can’t defend against.
    And that denser populations will lead to worse sanitation and breeding grounds for new, improved diseases.
    Come on, guys. You assume I’m stupid because I can see something that you can’t see- the Hand of God. I don’t mind. Even if there be no God as I perceive Him, I see an intelligence in Nature too.
    Coincidence is, by nature, a destructive force. Life could not happen without intelligence.

  86. Troofseeker, just to clarify, I don’t think you meant to offend, and no offense intended back.

  87. attend me: “nature” does not “fight to maintain a balance”. Firstly, nature does not think. Nature is. YOU may think and ascribe your own motivations to nature, but nature doesn’t care. Go debate gravity sometime with nature and see how you do. Of course you are a part of nature, but you ain’t driving.

    Refer again to Deep Time. What “balance” do you see in the lifespan of the age of dinosaurs compared to human time compared to the overall? Humans are a success so far? Compare to what? An eye-blink, nothing more. Dinosaurs are superior because they were around so much more longer before they vanished? So many forms of life have already come and gone and no trace remains.

    “Overpopulation”: what do think is “overpopulation”? Are we standing on each other yet? Could not the Earth sustain ten times the current population if we put all effort to food and shelter and none to war? Is not the rest of the Solar System on our doorstep? Don’t we already have birth control technology and medicine as well as the means to construct L5 colonies and lunar habitats if it really came to that? Are not the seas empty?

    Perhaps right at this very moment the H5N1 virus has mutated into a virulent strain and even as I type these words, is transferring from a duck in China into the lungs of a visitor from America and
    will bring the Spanish Lady back to the world in two weeks. Nature is thinking as this happens?

    You really need to study and understand entropy. We are NOT living in a closed system. I also invite you to think about why priests have always delighted in burning scientists.

    One more question: are you familiar with the word “meme”?

  88. tak-san, i think u r arguing with a brick wall. this is someone who ‘believes’ that dinosaur fossils were placed in the earth by gawd to fool us! good luck using logic against that. and FELTON#121, i believe that was the oh-so-erudite-and-loving rev. jerry falwell. oh, let the christian agape flow!

  89. All well and good to say there’s no great n’ grand sociobiological purpose to homosexuality, but it’s interesting to note that men with more older brothers are more likely to be homosexual.

    Was it convenient back in the day to have allies who weren’t competitors for mates?

  90. #65 Brainspore–Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. If recent history is any indication, we can expect David Gibbs to be outed for a secret sexual relationship with a robotic pet any day now.

    Aughhh! You have put a spore in my brain of this guy making inappropriate contact with some poor Aibo! I can never un-live that moment. :(

    On marrying pets: Why not?

  91. Thanks Takky!
    I was just fishing for your opinions on nature’s intelligence, on balance, and stuff. I like listening to opposing opinions and intelligent people. I like learning.
    I don’t come here to show you guys how brilliant I am, and I don’t mind if you think I’m stupid. I have always asked smart people what they think, and sometimes I’ll give them a goofy opinion to draw theirs out. I’m a seeker of knowledge, not a fountain of it.

    Not clear on the meaning of meme.

  92. Minty, maybe you can help me with something I’ve never understood- prejudice.
    I believe that humans are smarter than apes, dolphins, pigs and dogs. That doesn’t prompt me to hate them. If I did believe that white men are smarter than black men, I wouldn’t hate black people for it.
    Now of course you are infinately smarter than I, so why don’t you assume the responsible role and help to educate us God-fearing imbesiles, instead of abusing us?

    By the way, guys, I’m teflon coated, so when you monkeys screech and sling your feces at me, I don’t mind. It washes right off. d8^)

    1. TroofSeeker,

      It’s difficult for me to avoid the impression that you’re deliberately pushing the boundaries of civil discourse in an attempt to get a rise out of the other readers. If that’s not your intention, please permit me to recommend that you make use of the Preview function in order to be certain that what you submit is what you really mean to convey.

  93. troofy, you ‘believe’ in a lot of things. prejudice |ˈprejÉ™dÉ™s|
    noun
    1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience : English prejudice against foreigners | anti-Jewish prejudices. See note at bias .
    • dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior formed on such a basis : accusations of racial prejudice.
    2 chiefly Law harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment : prejudice resulting from delay in the institution of the proceedings.
    verb [ trans. ]
    1 give rise to prejudice in (someone); make biased : the statement might prejudice the jury.
    2 chiefly Law cause harm to (a state of affairs) : delay is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare.
    PHRASES
    without prejudice Law without detriment to any existing right or claim : the payment was made without any prejudice to her rights.
    ORIGIN Middle English (sense 2 of the noun) : from Old French, from Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgment.’

  94. Coincidence is, by nature, a destructive force

    This is so backwards that when you remove everythign that it wrong, you end up with a comma and that’s about it.

    First of all, “coincidence” isn’t nature. Nature is nature. Coincidence is a human term that is used to describe events observed by humans. Nature went along it’s merry way for a few billion years without humans, and will keep going along whether we start observing them or not.

    Second of all, coincidence by its very definition means two (or more) events with no causual link. Which means you’re using circular logic if you’re trying to say that evolution says everythign is “coincidence”.

    Why? Because, thirdly, and we’ve had this discussion before, yet you fail to learn it, nature isn’t automatically a “destructive force”.

    You want it to be so that you can have a reason for whatever God it is that you worship. I don’t have a problem with you believing in whatever God you believe in. I do have a problem with you spreading misinformation about natural processes.

    the Miller-Urey experiment produces a whole bunch of amino acids from basic chemicals, heat, and lightning. You cannot call that “coincidence” and you cannot call that “destructive” without deliberatly lying. The experiment shows that you can consistently create complex proteins and building blocks of life from basic chemicals, heat, and weather.

    A simple question for you: What do you do for a living?

    I ask because I’m curious if you actually do something related to chemistry for a living. I would be very surprised if you did. It wouldn’t be impossible, but I would be surprised. Generally, it’s hard to so completely misunderstand chemistry like you’re misrepresenting it now, and yet be paid by someone to do chemistry work.

    Just to be fair, I’ll answer the same question for myself. I’m an electrical engineer. You?

  95. @CRAW 112,

    Some states try to un-recognize legal gay marriages, but I don’t think it’s been fully tested yet in the states.

    @EVERYONE,

    Sometimes I think that “if we legalize, everyone will turn gay” argument comes from this constellation of life experience:

    young man likes masturbating so much he makes it a party with his friends — not really sex, necessarily, but maybe eventually uses a friend’s hand instead of his own. Schooled in the ‘wages of sin’ he becomes deeply ashamed, but does not forget. Later on, his heterosexual marriage is hard work, but he romanticises his easy youthful experimentation that he *knows* he can never have again because it’s *sinful*

    Since was never able to get it out of his system in the usual way (usually boredom) it keeps its nostalgic, forbidden-fruit aura. Obviously, some of these guys pursue it anyway, but most fume, rather publically, in an if-i-can’t-have-it-no-one-can sort of way.

    Also, this story in no way confirms their (apparent) belief that would have become full-fledged homosexuals — only that denial of something increases its appeal, especially to a young mind.

  96. “FELTON#121, i believe that was the oh-so-erudite-and-loving rev. jerry falwell. oh, let the christian agape flow!”

    Thanks, Mintphresh. I shall thank God tonight that He doesn’t want me dead, as far as I know.

  97. overunger “I also can’t understand their crackpot idea that gay people are pedophiles and sexual criminals.”
    This will probably just add fuel to the fire (and I can’t wait to be quotemined for saying this), but…some deviant psychology does show up disproportionately in homosexuals. Granted, most of this is because of Kinsey (whose insights were a least partly based on poor methodology, including selection bias by disproportionately representing prisoners, a group that already exhibits “deviancy”).
    Of course the air can be let out of this balloon by simply pointing out that both males and left-handers also deviate from the mean (not to mention that people whose middle name is “Wayne” form a disproportionate percentage of serial killers), suddenly making human psychology not bludgeon that “they” would like it to be.

    Cicada “Has no one considered (at least in the US) the tax advantages of this? Compare the marginal tax rates of a single person and one married to a robot with (we presume) an income of zero. That ‘bot is a gold mine.”
    And don’t forget that all of your electronics would become “dependants”.

    TroofSeeker “Long ago I went to the bowling alley to sell a couple lids. Didn’t have me skivvies on, so I rubber banded them to my dick, in case I got searched.”
    Note to self: don’t buy anything that TroofSeeker is selling.

    “Takky, you’re probably right. Maybe it was stupid. But Nature does fight to maintain a balance, does she not?”
    I realize that it’s a common human foible, but applying agency to something that has none turns things unnecessarily on their head. “Nature” is not an agent. Nature, simply, is. Nature doesn’t fight to maintain a balance, the living things that fall under its amoral umbrella fight to survive. It’s not an agency pushing things toward the middle, it’s everything under Nature trying to tilt the teeter-tooter over to their own side. That fight, that conflict is what results in the uneasy balance (a “winner” is only the winner until it runs out of food).

    “Lemme ask you: will nature curtail the overpopulation of man?”
    We’ll do that just find on our own. We’ve only been the “winners” so far because we can bend our environment to our will. Then, when our tech makes new problems, new solutions fix those…leading to more problems (still, I’m happy to not be a Luddite. Cold bad! Fire good!) Personally, I credit thumbs. The brain gets all the glory, but without thumbs it’s useless. Take that, brain!

    “Coincidence is, by nature, a destructive force.”
    Didn’t that witticism get debunked the last time you used it? Coincidence, coincidentally, in a causal universe (which on the greater-than-subatomic scale ours is) is an illusion.

    “Life could not happen without intelligence.”
    Based on a sample rate of, what, one? The various incomplete and conflicting hypotheses in abiogenesis are weak (and always will be, as the earliest life left no evidence), but defaulting to oogity-boogity is a poor choice (knowledge advanced, but ignorance can’t share that crown).
    Whether or not there are gods, and whether or not it/he/she/they is/are more than the deist kind, based on a sample of one, the chances of the universe resulting in life is 100%, just like based on the burrito I just ate, the only possibly burrito is bean.

  98. Okay, kids, I’m back. With an even thicker pair of kid gloves, and an apology to anyone who’s taken offense at what I’ve said. I’m sorry.

    @minTphresh:
    …>”tak-san, i think u r arguing with a brick wall. this is someone who ‘believes’ that dinosaur fossils were placed in the earth by gawd to fool us!”

    I don’t necessarily believe that- I was just suggesting a philosophy that would reconcile Biblical teachings with evolution. I don’t have to believe, or decide, either way.

    @Takuan:
    >”…attend me: “nature” does not “fight to maintain a balance”.

    It wasn’t me who coined the phrase ‘The delicate balance of nature’. You better take your arguement to a higher court. I’ll just listen in.

    @Antinous / Mod
    >”It’s difficult for me to avoid the impression that you’re deliberately pushing the boundaries of civil discourse…”

    Anti, baby, I said “I don’t come here to show you guys how brilliant I am, and I don’t mind if you think I’m stupid. I have always asked smart people what they think, and sometimes I’ll give them a goofy opinion to draw theirs out.”
    Do they make softer gloves?
    Can’t you feel the heat of their seething hatred because I have a relationship with God? True, I called them screeching monkeys slinging their feces. Humor can be edgy. but you must see that I really respect these guys and I want to hear them.

    @GregLondon
    “Coincidence is, by nature, a destructive force” (me)

    “This is so backwards that when you remove everythign that it wrong, you end up with a comma and that’s about it.”

    A deer is walking thru the woods when lightning strikes a tree. Burning tree falls on deer, who escapes, dragging a burning limb, spreading flames thru the forest. Eggs fall out of nests and die, boulder gets jarred loose and rolls down a hill, crushing plants and smashing insects and critters who live beneath rocks and bushes.
    That’s what I’m talking about- the destructive nature of natural incidents. It just doesn’t seem to me like Life would stand a change in this hostile world of fire, famine, floods and falling trees. Think about primordial world- much more hostile.

    “A simple question for you: What do you do for a living?”

    I’m not a scientist! I’m a mechanical designer / mfg. eng. Very nuts-and-bolts. Go ahead and say it- nuts is right!

    I mentioned prejudice because sometimes it seems like they think anyone who believes in God is an idiot. That hurts. A lot of their heros were believers.

  99. Pah! I really should use preview. That should be “the steps to the earliest life, as well as the earliest life left no evidence”, “knowledge advances“, and it’s obviously not “the only possibly burrito”. That would be silly.

  100. TroofSeeker “I’m not a scientist! I’m a mechanical designer / mfg. eng. Very nuts-and-bolts. Go ahead and say it- nuts is right!”
    Lots of IDists are mechanical engineers. My hypothesis is that it has to do with designing tactile, real things, and seeing design in nature. Oddly, they don’t call it “Pragmatic Design”, as the bridges that nature “designs” are commonly poor compared to human-designed ones (for examples, see prostate, allergies, human sinuses and many, many other “good enough” designs that really could be much better).

    “I mentioned prejudice because sometimes it seems like they think anyone who believes in God is an idiot.”
    I don’t think that people who believe in (an interventionalist) God are idiots. I think they’re misinformed. I’m the fool. I know this because there’s a Biblical passage that says so.

    “A lot of their heros were believers.”
    And I think that a lot of believers that use Newton as an example of a hero who was a believer wouldn’t if they knew what he actually believed. Heresies upon heresies…

  101. would you tighten a finely machined fitting with a pair of vice-grips? Especially with a complete tool set at hand? Learn the terms before you wield them. That someone else built them is no more excuse than hammering in screws with a pipe wrench because it happened to be handy. Google, wikipedia etc. Limitless resource for free. Would you talk shop with someone who repeatedly desecrates equipment while ignoring manuals and experience?

  102. Troof said I don’t necessarily believe that [dinosaur fossils were placed in the earth by gawd to fool us], I was just suggesting a philosophy that would reconcile Biblical teachings with evolution.

    If you really want to reconcile the two, and you believe that science is a valid methodology for understanding objective reality, you will have to accept that the story of genesis in the Bible is a metaphor, and has no bearing on science whatsoever. It’s value is purely symbolic.

  103. toofseeker, i was not trying to engage you in conversation when i tried to tell takuan that i feel that using logic on you is like trying to clean barnacles off a ship with a your fingernails. you did say that you believed that idiocy, whether you wish to admit it or not. as far as what i like/dislike, etc… you know NOTHING about me. i hate no one. i would never give anyone that much power over me. i try to open myself to love and beauty, the light and dark of not only everyday here and now, but the vast infinitude of this amazing universe that we exist in at this moment, what i call our ‘shared reality’. i have no prejudice in my heart, and could give two rat turds for what you ‘believe’. it’s your trying to rub my face in your beliefs that always turns my mood around. as far as what my heroes believed, most of them are either deists, discordians, atheists, or wiccan. a few who would be on what most x-tians would call the ‘outer edge’ of christianity. i have studied your religion for over 40 years, including the old testament, my parents tried to raise me that way from birth. it only makes sense when you also add in the HISTORY of the bible. almost the entire old testament, with the exception of the histories, was taken from the babylonian “epic of gilgamesh”. the hebrew at one time had several gods and godesses, of which yvhv is only one male deity. belief in god(s) to me is so tiny, so finite. if i had to pick, tho, i think i would go with odin, thor, freya, frey, loki, etc., they know how to have a good time! and whether or not you think that humans are smarter than this species or that species, just seems like a way for you to feel superior. i find it’s peoples’ hubris that makes us so damn stupid, and in some ways far stupider than say, an ape or dolphin. so please, stop proselitizing. hug and caress your angry, vengeful, three-headed zombie god of love. i honestly don’t care. but if that is what you use for logic, troof-fully, it ain’t.

  104. hug and caress your angry, vengeful, three-headed zombie god of love.

    That does sound kind of cool.

  105. Oddly, they don’t call it “Pragmatic Design”, as the bridges that nature “designs” are commonly poor compared to human-designed ones (for examples, see prostate, allergies, human sinuses and many, many other “good enough” designs that really could be much better).

    The vagus nerve!

  106. Hey MinTphresh, it was too good, it should be a song. I’m thinking short sharp punk/thrash/hardcore.

    Chorus
    Hug and caress your angry, vengeful,
    Three-headed zombie god of love!

    Yeah, hug and caress your angry, vengeful,
    Three-headed zombie god of love!

    Verse
    Open myself to love and beauty,
    The light and dark of not only
    Here and now, here and now.

    Have no prejudice in my heart,
    Could give two rat turds,
    For what you ‘believe’. What you ‘believe’.

    Rub my face in your beliefs,
    That always turns my mood around.

    Chorus
    Hug and caress your angry, vengeful,
    Three-headed zombie god of love!

    Yeah, hug and caress your angry, vengeful,
    Three-headed zombie god of love!

  107. Troofâ„¢138: “Anti, baby, I said “I don’t come here to show you guys how brilliant I am, and I don’t mind if you think I’m stupid. I have always asked smart people what they think, and sometimes I’ll give them a goofy opinion to draw theirs out.”
    Do they make softer gloves?
    Can’t you feel the heat of their seething hatred because I have a relationship with God? True, I called them screeching monkeys slinging their feces. Humor can be edgy. but you must see that I really respect these guys and I want to hear them.”

    I’m not feeling the seething hatred or seeing the flying feces, much as you may want to try out your new kid gloves and teflon sportscoat.

    People are bound to disagree with you here, especially as you seem to want to play devil’s advocate. If you read that as hatred and feces, then maybe you’re a bit oversensitive yourself. Then again, if you’re going for humor, then maybe it’s just a bit blunt for my taste.

    It seems plenty of people here are up for a good debate about religion, but it’s difficult to talk to someone with such a large and obvious chip on his shoulder.

  108. robulus. thats just fucking AWESOME! i bow humbly. ( tune down to low ‘d’ for that one!)

  109. Ha! I ummed and ahhed about submitting that. But I definitely saw a song in your post waiting to be set free!

  110. Oh please please please. Me. What would be wrong with a robot lover? Some decent programming, appropriate responses, and we’d have a lot of happy people.

    So robot marriage? The only question is, multiples in the household, would it be bygamy?

  111. troofseeker@138: the destructive nature of natural incidents. It just doesn’t seem to me like Life would stand a change in this hostile world of fire, famine, floods and falling trees. Think about primordial world- much more hostile.

    What you refuse to allow for is something called chemistry. Your concern here is “fire, famine, floods”. And I don’t know if you noticed, but you’re talking about plagues handed down by God. Not chemistry.

    I’m not a scientist!

    Then consider that you don’t understand science and that you’re actually misdescribing it. Consider that you don’t understand the natual processes of chemistry and that you’re saying something naturally possible cannot happen.

    I mentioned prejudice because sometimes it seems like they think anyone who believes in God is an idiot. That hurts.

    I don’t have a problem with people believing in God. I have a problem with people saying the world is flat. The sun goes around the earth. that a witch floats. that dinosaurs walked alongside man. and that evolution is chemically impossible.

    If your belief in God hinges on the notion that the earth is flat, then what you need to get is that I am NOT calling you an idiot for believing in God. I’m calling you an idiot for saying the earth is flat.

    That’s a simplified version. But not by much. You’re belief in God appears to hinge on the idea that certain natual chemical processes cannot occur in nature. I don’t care that you believe in God. I care that you’re saying things about chemistry that aren’t true.

  112. Robulus, you rock.

    Zuzu, I hope you’ll forgive me: I added a (NSFW) to your comment about gang bangs. We got a note from another reader who appears to have opened that link inopportunely.

    As a rule of thumb, if there’s nudity or sexual intercourse, give it a (NSFW).

  113. Teresa, no problem / thanks.

    (I wonder if accidental link clickers tend to use Safari, which hides the status bar by default for some strange reason. I also wonder what percentage people web browsing don’t normally look at the status bar / mouseover, even with Firefox.)

  114. Okay boys and girls, we all feel better now. That was fun.
    I’m not the best candidate to represent protestant dogma because, frankly, I have more in common with you guys than I do with “them”, and get along better with you, for I, too, am at times a “screeching monkey flinging my feces”.
    Not long ago I heard someone say “There’s no such thing as a liberal Christian”. That hurt more than anything you guys ever said, even more than ‘your angry, vengeful, Three-headed zombie god of love’.
    I don’t recall saying the Earth is flat… what you guys believe is quite likely true, all the way back to the big bang, or as it’s sometimes been called, the Grand Fiat.
    I don’t qualify to represent any group or faith because I had zero religious training before I met the Lord. As soon as I realized that there are differing opinions regarding the Bible I sequestered myself and studied it independantly so as not to get indoctrinated. Therefore I don’t represent or agree completely with any denomination.
    None of us wants to sit among a group with whom we completely agree- there would be nothing to learn. So I’d like to think that some of you like having me here, if only to get some of the dung out of your cages. I am so tempted to say ‘Fece be upon you, my brothers’. I shant. You guys are great, and I enjoy your company. See ya ’round.

  115. @troofseeker: I’m hoping that “truth” is something that might interest you. If you’d like another perspective on the “biblical truth” that you seem to have absorbed over the years, you might consider looking at The Jesus Mysteries by Messers. Freke and Gandy. After years of uncomfortably unanswerable questions during Bible study, I found the first (of several) books that actually made sense.
    Of course, it also meant that I became what you would call an atheist, so (t)read with caution, my friend. Interestingly, I am happier now than I ever was when I believed in the bible. But that isn’t what Christians like to hear, so I’ll shut up now.

  116. Teresa Nielsen Hayden “As a rule of thumb, if there’s nudity or sexual intercourse, give it a (NSFW).”
    Oh. Is there a way to add (NSFW) by default? It would save me a lot of time when writing replies.

  117. Unanimous Cowherd “…you might consider looking at The Jesus Mysteries by Messers. Freke and Gandy.”
    Spoiler alert: the butler did it.

  118. As soon as I realized that there are differing opinions regarding the Bible I sequestered myself and studied it independantly so as not to get indoctrinated.

    That doesn’t mean you get to override science because of youre independently studied religious views.

    When you say “Coincidence is, by nature, a destructive force”, you’re talking about nature, and chemistry, and thermodynamics, and science, which has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

    And you’re wrong.

  119. Greg, of course I’m wrong. I’m human, and human and wrong are inseperable. Every time we start our cars we are poisoning the air we breathe.

    Sorry that phrase ‘Coincidence is, by nature, a destructive force’ upsets you. I should stamp a big fat IMHO on everything I say. I just can’t phathom that first living blob surviving and re-producing. And I’ve got a fairly large imagination.

    “You’re belief in God appears to hinge on the idea that certain natual chemical processes cannot occur in nature.”

    Nope. My belief in God is based on a person relationship with Him. Suppose I insisted that your mother was a myth. No amount of arguement from me would change your mind, would it? I can’t make your momma go away, and you can’t kill my God. Please allow me my opinion, and I’ll allow yours. Good enough?

  120. Stand your ground, Troofseeker. The Bible presents true history and will eventually be vindicated, and its detractors and mockers will be ashamed. I admire your humility.

  121. I should stamp a big fat IMHO on everything I say.

    well, “IMHO the world is flat” is slightly better than “the world is flat”, I guess. If that’s the best you can do, then that’s the best you can do.

    I just can’t phathom that first living blob surviving and re-producing.

    Look, you seriously have a problem with basic logic and basic science. Basic logic, because you just changed the subject. Again. Basic science because, well, I already explained it.

    Whetehr or not “nature is destructive” is independent of whether or not the first living blob came out of primordial ooze by mindless chemical reactions. We were discussing whether or not “nature is destructive”. It isn’t. This can be proven by simple experiments. Miller Urey, for one, shows complex proteins coming out of a beaker that was filled with nothing but basic chemicals, and energy added in the form of heat and electrical sparks.

    “nature is destructive” is a twisted form of the second law of thermodynamics, whcih says a closed system tends towards higher entropy. i.e. everything breaks down from complex to simple, energy changes from being concentrated in certain areas to being evenly distributed. the heat death of the universe, is the idea here. Everything eventually becomes cold and lifeless. (you should read a bit about the second law of thermodynamics since your “nature is destructive” is an attempt to apply the second law to everything.)

    The thing is that the biosphere on earth is not itself a closed system. The sun continuously adds energy to the earth’s biosphere, which means the contents of the biosphere are not rigidly tied to the second law of thermodynamics.

    This is a FACT. WHicdh means that natural processes in the earth’s biosphere can produce things, rather than simply be a destructive force. It is FACT. THe earth’s bioshpere is not a slave to the second law of thermodynamics. FACT.

    You can say “in my opinion, nature is desctructive.” But you’re saying somehting in direct conflict with scientific understanding. Nature is not purely destructive. The world is not flat. Prefixing with “IMHO” doesn’t change it.

    The process of how these natural processes created the original life forms is not understood yet. The fact that nature is NOT purely desctructive IS understood. You changed the topic from one to the other as if they are interchangable.

  122. Thank you, Greg, for taking the time to explain this stuff.

    I don’t get your repeated “Earth is flat” reference… Isiah refered to the sphere of the Earth, contrary to the flat earth beliefs of contemporary scientists.
    “Nature is not purely destructive”. Of course not. Sometimes a mouse walks right into a hungry snake. Good for one, bad for the other.

    Again, thank you for taking the time.

    And Minty, I don’t think I mentioned jeebus. I’m defending intelligent design. I think all religions agree on that.

  123. would people like Gibbs be more comfortable in say Saudi Arabia? I see they are giving an old woman forty lashes for accepting a bread delivery from a man she nursed as a baby. Why can’t all the hate spewing fundie religious loons find one piece of real estate somewhere? We could build a wall around it to keep them “safe”.

  124. GregLondon: “The thing is that the biosphere on earth is not itself a closed system. The sun continuously adds energy to the earth’s biosphere, which means the contents of the biosphere are not rigidly tied to the second law of thermodynamics.”

    Absolutely true. The constant supply of energy from the Sun is what gave a leg-up to the chemical soup from which life arose on Earth in the first place, and it (life) flourished from there, dependent on the Sun’s energy. Troofseeker, if you believe that entropy applies to all circumstances on any scale (unless reversed by God), then you’re not following science as we know it. For all I know, there is a God who lit the fuse that started it all, but that’s a completely philosophical discussion in the absence of any evidence.

    Come to think of it, (IMHO) the Sun is really the closest thing we have to a “creator.” Directly or indirectly, it’s responsible for all life on Earth. And I do avert my eyes in its presence.

  125. Why can’t all the hate spewing fundie religious loons find one piece of real estate somewhere?

    But they can.

    and my tee vee says I can ‘sponsor a jew’ for their return!!!!!

  126. I don’t get your repeated “Earth is flat” reference…

    You’re saying nature is purely destructive is scientifically wrong, as wrong as if you had said the earth is flat. You can say “IMHO” in front of it, but science can repeatedly show that you are wrong.

    “Nature is not purely destructive”. Of course not.

    Then stop saying it.

    Sorry that phrase ‘Coincidence is, by nature, a destructive force’ upsets you.

    whether it upsets me or not is irrelevant to the fact that the statement is wrong.

  127. @Teresa

    Cheers! *Scrolls up quickly to find Zuzu’s post, follows the link, is somewhat disappointed*

    @Troof

    Intelligent Design is a political tool, it has nothing to do with Science. It was purposefully created by the “Discovery Institute” as a wedge strategy – to cast doubt in the minds of the public and generate a debate where none need exist about the scientific status of the theory of evolution.

    In 1999 the Discovery Institute wrote their manifesto, the “Wedge Document”. This document details the stated goal of the institution – no less than to replace scientific materialism with a theistic understanding of the universe.

    Intelligent Design is dressed up as scientific theory specifically to avoid legal challenges faced by teaching religious interpretations of our origin in science classes. It is a rehash of several old, completely debunked arguments for a theistic creator, among them notably the “argument from design”, which is ancient.

    Intelligent Design is in no way, in no matter of its substance, concerned with understanding our universe. It is a tool to subvert the teaching of the scientific method in our schools, as part of an ambitious, broad strategy to diminish the impact of science in ours lives.

    Thats science, who brought you your 80 year life expectancy.

    Run, don’t walk, away from Intelligent Design as fast as you can, and tell everyone you know to do the same.

Comments are closed.