Page 42 of 46 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 458
Thanks Tree70Thanks

Thread: A brif History of (Christian) God

  1. #411
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,113
    Thanks
    147

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Irrelevant. It is still evidence that family is not a function of biology; it is a social construct.
    Reproduction is a biological function: Man + woman -> children. Childhood is extraordinary long. During all this time children need father and mother (Parents) on reasons of biology (they are helpless and have to learn how to be able to survive). Together parents and children are "family". So what do you call "evidence" that "family" is not a biological function but a social construct? Who constructs what how?

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 12th October 2017 at 08:49 AM.

  2. #412
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,169
    Thanks
    17056

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Reproduction is a biological function: Man + woman -> children. Childhood is extraordinary long. During all this time children need father and mother (Parents) on reasons of biology (they are helpless and have to learn how to be able to survive). Together parents and children are "family". So what do you call "evidence" that "family" is not a biological function but a social construct? Who constructs what how?
    Well, sociologists seem pretty certain that family is a social construct (the emphasis is mine.
    The family forms the basic unit of social organization and it is difficult to imagine how human society could function without it. The family has been seen as a universal social institution an inevitable part of human society.

    Interestingly enough, no definition of family requires biological reproduction:
    According to Burgess and Lock the family is a group of persons united by ties of marriage, blood or adoption constituting a single household interacting with each other in their respective social role of husband and wife, mother and father, brother and sister creating a common culture. G.P Murdock defines the family as a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship and one or more children own or adopted of the sexually co-habiting adults.

    So, the scientific experts appear to disagree with both you, and aboutenough, and insist that "family" is absolutely a social construct.

  3. #413
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,113
    Thanks
    147

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Well, sociologists ...
    Good joke. If you like to see in sociology not wishy-washy but an empirical science, then you have to accept as a sociologist first the results of the empirical sciences physics, chemistry, biology and psychology. And you would have to accept the paradigm of science "It exists only one truth". A law in chemistry for example is not able to be in contradiction with laws in physics. On the same reason it's not possible that biology and sociology are in a contradiction. For example it is totally nonsense that anyone in the world has any influence in the own gender. Sex and gender are biology and not sociology. Sure exists in history of mankind other possibilities for families - for example a man with a harem. But also in this structure exists a biological mother and father and a child. A harem is a kind of multiple family with a genetically pauperization. On sociological reason we normally do not accept such lifeforms - and I guess under normal conditions (for example when "freedom of science" exists) the most biologists agree with sociologists in this case, because of the lots of negative effects for populations.

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 13th October 2017 at 09:24 AM.

  4. #414
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,169
    Thanks
    17056

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Good joke.
    Sociology is a science. Your inability to recognise that is your problem, not mine.
    Last edited by Czernobog; 13th October 2017 at 09:31 AM.

  5. #415
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    50,841
    Thanks
    2772

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    So, they weren't asking them to write a message, like you just dishonestly claimed. The case is exactly what I said it is; that the wedding cake, itself, implicitly sends some message, which is entirely different than Baker v. Hands On Originals, in which a message was asked to be explicitly created. Which circles us right back to where I started; I don't think the court is going to rule the way you want it to. In order for the court to rule the way you want them to, it would require that the couple be asking the bakers to bake a cake that is, in some way, inherently different than a cake that would be requested by a straight couple. That difference would have to, somehow, distinguish the cake as specifically, a "gay" cake, as opposed to a "straight" cake. Unless they can demonstrate that they were required to do something for a cake for a "gay" wedding that they would not do for a "straight" wedding, I don't see how the court is going to rule that a wedding cake sends any message other than "a wedding is happening here".
    The customer is asking the baker to use his skills to design a themed cake representing Gay marriage . If they just wanted a plain cake with no message go to Costco and just order a tiered cake with no design. No message. Thatís what this case is about. Should a baker that designs cakes have to make a design they donít agree with.

  6. #416
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    50,841
    Thanks
    2772

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I'm arguing for adoption to replace reproduction for what?
    So you can argue for fake families. Never works

  7. #417
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,169
    Thanks
    17056

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    So you can argue for fake families. Never works
    Fake families?!?! You just can't help yourself, can you? You are incapable of not being a condescending, insulting dick. As a person who is adopted, my family is not fake, thank you very little! Perhaps you might wanna take a minute, and think about all of the people you just insulted, and try that again?
    Last edited by Czernobog; 13th October 2017 at 09:32 AM.

  8. #418
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,169
    Thanks
    17056

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The customer is asking the baker to use his skills to design a themed cake representing Gay marriage .
    That's a lie. A unique wedding cake is still just a wedding cake. unless they specifically asked for things to be put on the cake that would single the wedding out to be a "gay" wedding, then you are lying. By all means, indicate - with a cited source to support the claim - that they asked the baker to include anything on the cake that was endemic to homosexuality, and would not be included as decoration on a "straight" wedding cake.

  9. #419
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,113
    Thanks
    147

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Sociology is a science. Your inability to recognise that is your problem, not mine.
    I did not say that sociology is not a science. But my experience is the people who argue in the name of science against religion know often not a lot about religion and also not a lot about science. You specially have the problem - compare your answer here with this what I have really said - that you seem not to be able to understand what someone else says to you. How are you able to live in the hope not to become on your own a victim of fake information in this automatized way to think?

    In former times in history existed by the way often a very big amount of adoptions, because it existed always surviving children of lots of natural and manmade catastrophes. But in our days now starts a new catastrophe: the artificial production of children from poor mothers for amused rich metropolitans.
    Last edited by zaangalewa; 13th October 2017 at 09:56 AM.

  10. #420
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,169
    Thanks
    17056

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    I did not say that sociology is not a science. But my experience is the people who argue in the name of science against religion know often not a lot about religion and also not a lot about science. You specially have the problem - compare your answer here with this what I have really said - that you seem not to be able to understand what someone else says to you. How are you able to live in the hope not to become on your own a victim of fake information in this automatized way to think?

    In former times in history existed by the way often a very big amount of adoptions, because it existed always surviving children of lots of natural and manmade catastrophes. But in our days now starts a new catastrophe: the artificial production of children from poor mothers for amused rich metropolitans.
    First, I have no problem understanding religion, however, the argument was not a religious one, but a scientific one. aboutenough was claiming that family is a biological entity. I provided the evidence to demonstrate that it is a social construct.

    Second, again, uncontrolled population of poor communities was not the issue at question; it was the biology of sexuality.

Page 42 of 46 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 26th July 2016, 07:04 PM
  2. Replies: 112
    Last Post: 17th February 2014, 05:43 PM
  3. major discovery of Christian history
    By Divine Wind in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 1st April 2011, 02:20 AM
  4. Re-writing History With The Christian Right and the GOP
    By Spooky in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27th January 2011, 05:32 AM
  5. Christian Politicians Should Start Acting Christian
    By Gypsy in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th September 2010, 04:55 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed