Sly_Wizard

Except for the fact that you specifically stated that Christianity was THE cause of anti-miscegenation laws, and then have proceeded to backtrack when called on it, instead choosing to invoke the "That's not really what I was saying!" line. Blame the person who brought the topic up, then. And, no, it wasn't me. Because one is a violation of the Constitution and the other one isn't. *points to Baker v. Nelson* What's the difference between barring people on the same gender to marry and barring two people from marrying based on consanguinity?

Just for the sake of argument, I'll let you have this. I'm still waiting for the whole "Sperm = Human life" thing. ...So what's this got to do with anything?

...Except for when you said Christianity was the cause. Or do I need to copy and paste for you? Oh, but no. You'll just say that's not what you really meant, instead meaning to say "justification", right? It's funny how you mention semantics, when you try to change the meaning of your words after the fact.

"You" weren't anything. Not until the joining of two haploid cells, at least. And, hell, I'll even be generous. Not until about three days after the joining of two haploid cells (As that's when the embryonic stem cells differentiate. Or is it become differentiated? Meh, I'm too lazy to remember atm. But you still get the point). Didn't we go after this already? The word "human" is added to prevent people, such as yourself, from engaging in ridiculous non-sequiturs. I seriously hope you're not trying to equate a wet dream to masturbation. (And there's no point in answering that question, since you already know the answer).

Oh, do explain. *shoves his marine biology degree under the table*

...Congratulations for not catching the point. Justification =/= Cause And you specifically said cause earlier. I lol'ed when I read this. Either you just admitted to being a hypocrite or you don't understand what was written out. I like how you reject the rationalization for the argument which you use. The justification you (Try) to use to distinguish the two is immaterial (More along the lines of irrelevant). The point, which you missed, was to illustrate the faulty reasoning behind your argument. Therefore, let's try this again. In life there's cause-and-effect (Good) and effect-then-cause (Bad). You're employing the latter. Anti-miscegenation laws were not the product of Christianity. In fact, they existed prior to any religious reasoning being given to them (Point #1 of which you failed to understand). Conversely, supporting anti-miscegenation laws did not make you a Christian (Point #2 of which you failed). To assert either of these as true would be to engage in a post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is, "Because people argued on the basis of the Bible for anti-miscegenation laws, anti-miscegenation laws were caused because of religion" which we know to be wrong, as evidenced by the fact that the first anti-miscegenation laws were passed BEFORE any religious justification for them. I liked how you got defensive when I use the exact same reasoning you used above ("After this, therefore because of this") to link white people to slavery, yet you employ the exact same argument. Both arguments are fallacious yet, for some odd reason, you only seem to be able to tell why one is wrong and not the other. *Shrugs* Which you tried to pass off as "Anti-miscegenation laws were created because of Christians" which, as has been demonstrated but will probably be ignored, fallacious. Except I'm not wrong. And you don't really understand what you're writing out (Or what you're reading. Either or).

None. You do realize you're not going to win this argument, right? You asked if wet dreams were a sin as an addendum to the whole "Sperm are humans lives", of which I answered your question with a "Sperms are humans lives", which would make the answer to your question "No" (:

I'm going to help you out here, because you're a bit confused on a couple of things. 1.) Because a group is something, doesn't mean they engage in actions because they are that something. Let me demonstrate this otherwise faulty reasoning with the following statement: "Being white was the cause of the African slave trade, as most slave traders were white." Does that make any sense to you? It shouldn't. Henceforth the reason why your above statement is equally as idiotic. It's predicated upon a false assumption. 2.) Learn what post hoc ergo propter hoc is. We generally call it a faulty cause-and-effect assumption. Anyway, let me give you a short history lesson. Anti-miscegenation laws started off as a way to keep indentured servants from marrying out of indentured servitude (The way indentured servitude was set up, it was impossible for someone to ever become un-indentured has the more they worked, the more debts they racked up towards the person of whom they were indentured, leading them to have to work more to get out of debt). As indentured servitude gave way to slavery, anti-miscegenation laws become a way to ensure slaves remained slaves. And, almost all slaves were black, they were most often the focus of anti-miscegenation laws. As slavery gave way, the feelings of racism towards blacks stayed. Rather simple, really.

I know, which is what I told you the first time. Except I don't. But whatever makes you sleep at night (:

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here. You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry." Sounds like a religious reason to me. I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What about the non-religious who supported them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misce ... lonial_Era "In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham"[10]. In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage. Although slavery was gradually abolished in the North after independence, this at first had little impact on the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws. An exception was Pennsylvania, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780, together with some of the other restrictions placed on free blacks, when it enacted a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the state. Later, in 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law after abolitionists protested against it. However, as the US expanded, all the new slave states as well as many new free states such such as Illinois[11] and California[12] enacted such laws." I'm going to bold the two most pertinent parts of my last post, which you conveniently ignored. So what do I win? Edit: The underlined about was missing originally.

Sperm = Human life? Oh, do tell. I have to hear this. Don't give me that crap that we were once "inhuman". Putting the words "human" and "life" together doesn't change the meaning. Yes, it does. Otherwise people, such as yourself, will try to equate things such as sperm or plants or chickens to a fetus.

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here. You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry." Sounds like a religious reason to me. I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What the non-religious who supported them?

Sperm = Human life? Oh, do tell. I have to hear this.

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here.

Souls? Please. I don't have to invoke any philosophical argument. I can just point out that's it's a human life :) There is no state in which a majority supports teaching Creationism. Not one. Once again, good luck providing support for that claim. Because it wasn't like anti-miscegenation laws were set up in the 17th/18th century before there was an established Church in North America or even established independent of religious ideologies.

You automatically fail for mentioning Zeitgeist. Of course, the whole "If the Church had their way" thing isn't/wasn't exactly true, either.

Like what? The only thing you're going to even get close to is embryonic stem cell research, and would be done on moral grounds rather than religious grounds.

Yeah, I know. I'm a racist. And illiterate. Ah well... It beats being emo :

It is by implication in the first amendment, namely the establishment clause and free exercise clause which together give you 'seperation of church and state'. Saruman totally wins this argument. :thumbsup: I'm not sure how many times I have to tell people that the idea of separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. If Church and State weren't separate, you realise we'd still be in the middle ages? *Laughs at that ridiculous notion* Okay okay. I've got time. Amuse me.

It is by implication in the first amendment, namely the establishment clause and free exercise clause which together give you 'seperation of church and state'. Saruman totally wins this argument. :thumbsup: I'm not sure how many times I've had to tell people that the idea of separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The establish clause has nothing to do with a separation of church and state, only that you're allowed to practice as you will (Aside from human and I think animal sacrifices).

No, it's not.

Yeah... No. So Jesus did literally walk on water then, in your view? Yessum.

Yeah... No.

...And a declining birth rate. Whew. Okay. Let's see here... 1.) The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per household. Currently, the UK has a replacement fertility rate of 1.9 children per household. [hide=]http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=951 The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in the UK reached 1.90 children per woman in 2007. UK fertility has not been this high since 1980. The UK TFR has increased each year since 2001 when it dropped to a record low of 1.63. The current level of fertility is relatively high compared with that seen during the 1980s and 1990s. However, the TFR was considerably higher in the 1960s, peaking at 2.95 children per woman in 1964, the height of the 'baby boom'. The past five years have seen rising fertility in all four UK countries. Northern Ireland continued to have the highest TFR in 2007 (2.02 children per woman), while Scotlands fertility remained lower (1.73 children per woman). The TFRs in England (1.92) and Wales (1.90) were close to the UK average.[/hide] 2.) By 2020, it is estimated that 26% of the UK population will be over 60 years of age; by 2050 that figure will be rise to 38%. [hide=]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2248531.stm By 2020, it is estimated that 26% of the UK population will be over 60 years of age; by 2050 that figure will be rise to 38%.[/hide] 3.) Furthermore, by 2050 the European working-age population (1564) is expected to fall by 48 million people, or 16%. [hide=]http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2006/09/carone.htm The population of the 25-member European Union (EU) in coming decades is set to become slightly smallerbut much olderposing significant risks to potential economic growth and putting substantial upward pressure on public spending. The region's old-age dependency ratio (the number of people 65 and over relative to those between 15 and 64) is projected to double to 54 percent by 2050, meaning that the EU will move from having four persons of working age for every elderly citizen to only two. In addition, upward pressure on spending has fueled concerns that unsustainable public finances could jeopardize the smooth functioning of the single currency, the euro. Population aging in Europe is occurring because of the interaction of four demographic developments. First, fertility rates in all EU countries are, and are projected to remain, below the natural population replacement rate. Second, the recent decline in fertility rates followed the postwar baby boom, and the impending retirement of these cohorts will lead to a transitory increase (albeit lasting several decades) in the old-age dependency ratio. Third, life expectancy at birth, having increased by eight years since 1960, is projected to rise by a further six years for males and five years for females by 2050, with most gains resulting from longer life spans. Fourth, large net migration inflows are projected up to 2050: although cumulating to close to 40 million people, they will not offset low fertility and growing life expectancy. Indeed, according to official projections, between 2004 and 2050, the number of young persons in the EU (aged 014) will drop by 18 percent (see table). The working-age population (1564) will fall by 48 million, or 16 percent, whereas the elderly population aged 65+ will rise sharply, by 58 million (or 77 percent), and the fastest-growing segment of the population will be the very old (aged 80+).[/hide] And [hide=]http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2006/09/carone.htm One study by William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington, predicts that the median age in the United States in 2050 will be 35.4, only a very slight increase from what it is now. In Europe, by contrast, it is expected to rise to 52.3 from 37.7. The likely meaning of this "stunning difference," as the British weekly The Economist called the growing demographic disparity between Europe and the United States, is that American power economic and military will continue to grow relative to Europe's, which will also decline in comparison with other parts of the world like China, India and Latin America. With its population not only aging but shrinking as well, Europe seems to face two broad possibilities: either it will have to make up the population shortfall by substantial increases in immigration, which would almost surely create new political tensions in countries where anti-immigrant parties have gained strength in recent years, or it will have to accept being older and smaller and therefore, as some have been warning, less influential in world affairs.... ...Across Europe, only 39 percent of men age 55 to 65 still work, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.[/hide] *Wonders what employment rates have to do with anything* ...You didn't read what I wrote out, did you? I said, and I quote, "The continent's 'superpowers' (France, Germany and, to a lesser extent, Italy) have seen prolonged periods of economic stagnation followed by a continuous period of declining economic growth over the past 30'ish odd years." Congraluations for not knowing that Europe's three biggest economies are that of France, Germany and Italy :thumbsup: Double congratulations for leaving out the part where I said "prolonged periods of economic stagnation followed by a continuous period of declining economic growth over the past 30'ish years" :thumbsup:

I'm not reading that big blurb above. Yes, Jesus existed. /end