US Supreme Court to Hear Case on Same-Sex Marriage

[Orlong]

Originally Posted by Theory at Dictionary.com
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

commonly regarded as correct doesnt mean scientifically PROVEN to be true. It just means a bunch of smart scientists cant prove it but really think its true so they agree to say it is.

Definition of Proof from dictionary.com

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Also for something to be true it must be able to be demonstrated as fact repeatedly with the same results

[semaphore]

A theory is an idea or hypothesis. I recognize nothing as true other than scientific PROOF

No it isn't, you are absolutely wrong. And very ironically so.

[Deleted]

commonly regarded as correct doesnt mean scientifically PROVEN to be true. It just means a bunch of smart scientists cant prove it but really think its true so they agree to say it is.

[nihilist]Can you really prove anything?[/nihilist]

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Also for something to be true it must be able to be demonstrated as fact repeatedly with the same results

or to produce belief in its truth.

produce belief in its truth.

belief in its truth.

belief

[Thage]

commonly regarded as correct doesnt mean scientifically PROVEN to be true. It just means a bunch of smart scientists cant prove it but really think its true so they agree to say it is.

Definition of Proof from dictionary.com

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Also for something to be true it must be able to be demonstrated as fact repeatedly with the same results

For something to be qualified as theory it must be documented, be able to be replicated, and demonstrate the same results with each replication. The reason it is considered theory is the same reason every other current 'law' in science is considered theory: science is ever-evolving and what we accept as true today can be found as faulty tomorrow. For all we know, by next week someone will have quantum physics completely figured out and faster-than-light travel will be a reality rather than just a glimmer in sci-fi writers' eyes.

If you're going to get involved in a discussion on science and scientific definitions you need to learn what those words mean. 'Theory' being used as a synonym for 'Hypothesis' is something people who aren't aware of what 'Theory' really means, and that use is almost entirely vernacular and has no standing in the scientific community.

edit: For a good example of laughable science that was later disproven, but at its time was accepted as theory, look into the effect of humours in psychology or the 'studies' that showed being black (again, a matter of minor genetic differences resulting in notable differences in the end result, just like that study from South Korea) meant innately-inferior physical and mental faculties; if you tried to posit this theory to a gathering of minds today you'd be laughed out of the room.

edit edit: Also, there are current studies and hypotheses involving objective reality versus subjective reality, another reason that theory is the closest you will ever get to "This is undeniably fact" in science. Science is far less cut-and-dry than high school biology/chemistry would have people believe.

[semaphore]

commonly regarded as correct doesnt mean scientifically PROVEN to be true. It just means a bunch of smart scientists cant prove it but really think its true so they agree to say it is.

There is no such thing as "scientifically proven". Science by its nature never proves things. Stop showing off how ignorant you are about science.

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Also for something to be true it must be able to be demonstrated as fact repeatedly with the same results

Which science has done to show you are wrong, even though science doesn't claim to have proof.

[Orlong]

No it isn't, you are absolutely wrong. And very ironically so.

At one time there was a theory that the Earth was flat but that was proven to be wrong too

[Rukentuts]

There is no such thing as "scientifically proven".

You really need to look up the scientific method.

[semaphore]

At one time there was a theory that the Earth was flat but that was proven to be wrong too

Such a typical mistake. No. There was no scientific theory that the Earth was flat. And we've known it is round for thousands of years.

[Thage]

At one time there was a theory that the Earth was flat but that was proven to be wrong too

There was a belief that a scientist later challenged with his own hypothesis, one that, through sailors cirucmnavigating the world, was established and disproved the previous belief. Geography isn't genetics, though, and what holds true for geography (that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and no testing will ever disprove it), genetics is an entirely different animal due to its relative youth as a field of study.

[Sackman]

Dunno where this went to Science lol but anyway is this same sex marriage like in a Church or like legal partners?

Because I think the argument against legal partners obviously has no weight but I think a Religious institution should be free to decide whether it wants to allow marriage between the same gender in their religious buildings.

I mean, if you don't like it, don't be part of their religion - use a different church or recognise that clearly their religion is wrong.

I think forcing the religion to change is bad, I think it's nice to know where I can find the ignorant people in the world and I like that they label themselves so that I can avoid them.

[Deleted]

Because I think the argument against legal partners obviously has no weight but I think a Religious institution should be free to decide whether it wants to allow marriage between the same gender in their religious buildings.

Don't churches marry heathens with no problem whatsoever?

[semaphore]

Dunno where this went to Science lol but anyway is this same sex marriage like in a Church or like legal partners?

Marriages are legal procedures, churches are only there for ceremonies.

[Thage]

Legal partners, Sackman. Most gay marriage activists are fully willing to allow religions to retain their autonomy to decide if they want to support same-sex marriages; which is as it should be. Separation of Church and State is, as Thomas Jefferson observed in a letter to a friend, key to preserving freedom of religion for all religions and for all people in the US. That goes the other way, though--no religious doctrine should be made law over that of other religions, which is the cornerstone of the argument against equal marriage rights in the US.

[FathomFear]

I don't understand why these threads always turn into debates on whether homosexuality is "natural" or not. Frankly, that's 1) a totally separate discussion, and 2) IMO, completely irrelevant to the legality of same-sex marriages. Because even if sexuality were something we could toggle like a light switch, I would still say that there's nothing wrong with same-sex marriages.

And honestly I wouldn't stop there, either. Adults should be able to engage in a variety of relationships (some of which might not always be sexual) and have them be recognized under the law. And I say this as a gay man myself.

I'd highly recommend this lecture to anyone who's interested in the topic:

[Sackman]

Legal partners, Sackman. Most gay marriage activists are fully willing to allow religions to retain their autonomy to decide if they want to support same-sex marriages; which is as it should be. Separation of Church and State is, as Thomas Jefferson observed in a letter to a friend, key to preserving freedom of religion for all religions and for all people in the US. That goes the other way, though--no religious doctrine should be made law over that of other religions, which is the cornerstone of the argument against equal marriage rights in the US.

So wait... some states STILL don't allow this? Surely should be a basic human right? To be allowed to be a civil partner with whomever the hell you want provided it is not incestuous and is consenting.

[Gothicshark]

my thoughts on the matter as well, and i am that polar opposite of you.

just think of all the extra women straight men will have, and how many more happy marriages* there will be without someone who is gay but afraid of society / in the closet, who gets married to a woman and has a terrible life full of misery?

Honestly only a Bi-sexual can make that choice naturally. As a Bi/Pan-sexual I have some pretty wild dreams sometimes. I was married in a Hetero-Sexual relationship. It failed because I had difficulties dealing with my self at 23 years old. Also it's hard to just pick one, I like guys and Girls. I find manly women sexy, and feminine guys super hot. But I also know in my core I am wired this way, I know some people are wired very different.

[Thage]

So wait... some states STILL don't allow this? Surely should be a basic human right? To be allowed to be a civil partner with whomever the hell you want provided it is not incestuous and is consenting.

That's why the Supreme Court is taking a look at the laughably-named Defense of Marriage Act. General consensus seems to be that it's going to be struck down as unconstitutional due to unfairly discriminating against same-sex couples as well as going against separation of Church and State due to essentially making Catholic doctrine law at the expense of religions that aren't Christian denominations.

[Gothicshark]

Unfortunately, striking down DOMA doesn't make same-sex marriage suddenly into legal effect. It just makes it unable to be illegal.

Yes, there's a difference.

Actually depends on how the word the ruling, also they have 2 issues that they took on in regards to this. One is DORMA, the other is federal recognition status. Basically they now have the ability to choose for the whole US at once. 9 people will determine the fate of same sex marriage in America. 5 are conservatives, 4 are liberals, one of the conservatives has voted liberal in the past. So in reality it all boils down to one man.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 08:32 AM ----------

The cavemen were stoning other cavemen waaaaay before the Hebrews existed.... :P

Sorry all this stoning talk, has me thinking of this movie.

[RüneRS]

There is no such thing as "scientifically proven". Science by its nature never proves things. Stop showing off how ignorant you are about science.



Which science has done to show you are wrong, even though science doesn't claim to have proof.

Can we stop talking about 'sience' like its some sort of god :/
Don't thy deny the absolute of almighty Sience for thy shall be cast into complete oblivion after thou brain stopped functioning!
Sience is no more then a way for humans to explain the universe. Scientists do it via proof and reasoning religion does it by belief.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 05:35 PM ----------

Honestly only a Bi-sexual can make that choice naturally. As a Bi/Pan-sexual I have some pretty wild dreams sometimes. I was married in a Hetero-Sexual relationship. It failed because I had difficulties dealing with my self at 23 years old. Also it's hard to just pick one, I like guys and Girls. I find manly women sexy, and feminine guys super hot. But I also know in my core I am wired this way, I know some people are wired very different.

Are you cabled?
Joke aside , weird people are often more interesting then normal people. Btw normal people don't exist, we al have weird things going on in our brain.

[Gothicshark]

So just because it happens to animals, it is natural? Animals have defects too, and they should not be supported or encouraged as normal. And to those who keep pointing out infertile people or people who choose not to have kids, I clearly said "capable of" (meaning, they could) and "barring defects" (covering infertility and whatnot.) I love my dog too, but I doubt we could get married if for some reason I tried. Some people might love their siblings, but they are not allowed to get married either. Standards....

Well you have a limited grasp on the complex social structures of human relationships. I know plenty of gay couples who have children. The purpose of marriage in our society is not about children though. The purpose of marriage is a legal binding of two humans which grants the rights of inheritance, preparation of how ones partner can be in-turned after death, hospital visitation, the ability to legally sign for your spouse, tax laws - lower taxes, ability to prepare joint taxes, and about 1900 other laws and protections. This is not an argument about reproduction. As that the LGBT community figured out long ago how to do that.