Another Step Toward Justice for Tyler Clementi

Roommate Charged with Hate Crime in NJ Webcam Case

Last September, Tyler Clementi committed suicide because his roommate Dharun Ravi decided it would be fun to spy via webcam on him and his lover having sex and broadcast it to the universe. Today, the New Jersey Grand Jury indicted Ravi on 15 counts of invasion of privacy, evidence tampering, and witness intimidation.

Apart from being arrested and indicted, does he realize the gravity of the situation? Clementi was humiliated and jumped off the George Washington Bridge. I wonder how bad he really feels. One of the charges was evidence tampering. He tried to cover up what he did by “deleting” a Tweet and replacing it with another. Cyber forensics should tell you that you can’t get away with that nowadays. It’s not like burning evidence. The minute it goes through a network, they can find it. He also tried to erase text messages and sway a witness. I guess it wasn’t about being sorry but trying to “delete” what he did. Thing is, he can’t. Tyler Clementi is still dead. He may not have pushed him off that bridge, but he sure as hell gave him a reason to jump.

I don’t get it. Is there no remorse? I haven’t heard an apology. I haven’t heard, “I wish I could take it all back so that Tyler would still be alive.” Maybe his attorney advised him not to. The other person, Molly Wei, was arrested for letting him broadcast it from her computer in her dorm room. A friend spoke for her a couple weeks after Tyler’s suicide. “She’s really upset about this, she definitely feels bad, and wishes it didn’t go the way it did.”

Wishes it didn’t go the way it did? Yeah, I wish he didn’t kill himself, and that she had a hand in it. What in her made her think this was OK? Why didn’t she say, “Get the f out of my room. Bye bye now?” Why would she let someone use her computer to humiliate someone?

I disagree with New Jersey Governor Christie on almost everything, but I couldn’t agree more when he commented shortly after the tragedy, “I don’t know how those two folks are going to sleep at night.” Yeah, how do they sleep at night knowing that someone is dead because of what they did? Or is it all about saving their asses at this point?

This whole thing just saddened and angered me. I can only hope we can get justice for Tyler. I hope he is convicted on everything and gets the maximum sentence. I hope Wei is indicted and convicted on something as well. It won’t bring him back, but it will teach people you can’t do crap like this and get away with it. And there are things you just don’t do. That should be obvious, but it seems common sense and decency are traits that Ravi and Wei lack.

38 responses to “Another Step Toward Justice for Tyler Clementi

  • Terrance H.


    I can’t buy that. I’m sorry, but I can’t. What that kid did is horrible. Despicable, in fact. But I’m inclined to believe it was just a matter of time. If the roommate hadn’t done something, someone else would have. He was a time-bomb, Spinny. There was obviously something wrong with him and it was just a matter of time and circumstance.

    The roommate should go to jail for the witness tampering, et cetera, but I don’t believe he should feel entirely responsible for Tyler’s tragic death. And I’m sure you don’t either. I’m sure you’d like to serve some of the blame to society at large.

    • Spinny Liberal

      Sorry Terrance, I can’t buy yours either. If someone is depressed, do you kick them when they’re down? Hopefully not. We don’t know his mindset in general before the broadcast. Maybe life was good for him – he had a lover. If he wasn’t completely out of the closet, Ravi outed him in the most humiliating way possible.

      Like I said, he didn’t push him, but he gave him a reason to jump. He’s not wholly responsible, but he is partially, in my opinion.

      And yes, society as a whole does bear some of it too. If there was acceptance, a gay person wouldn’t consider committing suicide – for that reason, anyway.

      • Terrance H.


        You just made my point. Thank you!

        He was depressed. Depression is a mental illness.

        So, there was something wrong with him. People don’t just kill themselves because someone embarrasses them, unless they weren’t all there to begin with.

        And why should society accept homosexuality? That’s another question the pro-gay groups haven’t answered. It seems they think society should accept them by default, because some scientists have claimed homosexuality to exist in the animal kingdom, and therefore must be normal. Animals eat their young, too. Is that normal for human beings? How about eating dung? Is that normal?

        Personally, and you know this, I don’t care one way or the other about homosexuality. My best friend is gay, which I’ve told you before. It doesn’t matter to me. I say leave them alone to live their lives. But what bothers me is the arrogance. Why should society accept it?

      • Spinny Liberal

        I also said:

        We don’t know his mindset in general before the broadcast.

        IMO, I think the fact that it exists in nature is a good reason. As humans, we hunt for sport. Is that normal? The behavior still exists.

      • Terrance H.

        His mindset was obviously abnormal.

        IMO, I think the fact that it exists in nature is a good reason. As humans, we hunt for sport. Is that normal? The behavior still exists.

        I wasn’t comparing cannibalism and dung-eating to homosexuality. I was simply saying that claiming homosexuality exists in nature, so therefore must be normal, is not a good response – and for obvious reasons.

        But you make a very good point. One I actually hadn’t considered before. You’re right. The only one of God’s creations that kills for fun is human beings. We murder people, we start wars, et cetera…All of that is something we reject as abnormal. But we don’t reject hunting for sport as abnormal. Good point.

        Something to think about. I’m actually going to run that by John, the fellow who comments on my blog. He’s not exactly “pro-gay,” so I’ll see what his response to that is. Interesting.

      • Spinny Liberal

        Not necessarily – we don’t know if his mindset was abnormal. He could have been fine, and then, the rug got pull out from under him with that broadcast. Shock, humiliation, then an impulsive & permanent decision.

      • Terrance H.

        I don’t understand how you can believe that a completely sane individual would kill himself out of embarrassment. That’s just not realistic.

      • dcmartin

        “he didn’t push him, but he gave him a reason to jump. He’s not wholly responsible, but he is partially”

        Exactly. Actions have consequences, whether a person has a mental condition or not. If a getaway driver who sat in the car the whole time can be charged with murder right along with the person who actually shot the store owner, Ravi certainly bears a burden of some responsibility. We don’t know if Clementi might have killed himself later had Ravi not broadcast that footage…..we do know that Clementi killed himself after he did indeed broadcast it, and while there might not have been an intention to cause suicide there was a definite intention to cause harm. No one puts something like that on the web without the intention to cause humilliation and ostracization.

      • Spinny Liberal

        Completely sane people can do crazy things on impulse. Take crimes of passion. Perfectly sane guy catches his wife in bed with another man. He proceeds to shoot them both and then himself. It was that one thing that set him off.

      • Terrance H.

        My point is that one must have a predisposition to go off.

      • Spinny Liberal

        I don’t know. Some really crazy things can happen, and you really don’t know how you’re going to react until the time comes.

  • lbwoodgate

    Shouldn’t the whole “social networking” industry be held accountable to a degree for airing what seemed clearly an invasion of privacy? Why aren’t there security checks on posting this stuff?

    • Terrance H.


      When you upload a video to Twitter or Facebook or even YouTube, it’s usually immediate. The damage was done probably long before anyone reported it to the networking site. But if they failed to take it down when it was reported, then they would be culpable.

    • Terrance H.

      Why aren’t there security checks? Probably because of the sheer volume of people trying to upload videos and photos. It wouldn’t be realistic to check that many in a reasonable amount of time. And the social networking experience would be significantly diminished if you had to wait for a video to be checked.

      Obviously, the roommate exploited something that is meant to make social networking more enjoyable. That’s tragic, but no reason, in my opinion, to change things. We shouldn’t all pay for the crimes of one.

    • Spinny Liberal

      Personally, I think it’s the way of the world right now, technologically. Everything is pretty much instant and open. True privacy is very difficult to be had nowadays.

  • Snoring Dog Studio

    You can’t indict social media for these tragedies. It’s the people – always the people and how they choose to use the tools provided. I don’t remember telephone party lines, but can you just imagine the rumor mongering and spreading that occurred during those days? People have destroyed and will continue to destroy people’s lives through whatever medium is available. The larger issue here is our society’s unwillingness and inability to accept LGBT people – the background of religious fervor directed against fellow human beings gives others fuel to do what they want without conscience. I don’t think a day goes by anymore that I don’t think, “How can people behave this way?” That’s the other tragedy in all of this.

  • Snoring Dog Studio

    Well, Terrance, humans are capable of grotesque acts and at the same time can do amazingly marvelous things. Atheists can become Christians. People can throw off their support of slavery. People can intermarry without impunity. People can start out as liberals and become Right Libertarians. So, my hope is that people, even you, can come to accept homosexuality not as a sin among us but as a difference — like hair or skin color. Society SHOULD do lots of things to ensure the health and welfare of the community, to co-exist peaceably, to create an environment in which everyone is welcome and has a right to live without needing acceptance – because it is their birthright – just as it is yours.

    And, I also hope that some day you’ll recognize that some of your comparisons are offputting (dung eaters = homosexuals).

    • Terrance H.

      Whoa, whoa, whoa. You have misunderstood my statement entirely.

      I do not reject homosexuality as something abnormal. Quite the contrary. I have stated many, many times that I don’t care about homosexuality one way or the other, which is to say I don’t care about ‘gay marriage,’ though I’ve written posts for and against.

      It doesn’t matter to me. Because you can’t make homosexuality illegal, nor should you. So the only question left to answer is whether ‘gay marriage’ should be accepted. That’s what I mean.

      Homosexuality, in general, is pretty much accepted. There are a few misguided folks running around, but that’s to be expected. There are still racists and women haters, for crying out loud. You’re never going to get every single person to accept change.

      Part of the problem, I think, is that the pro-gay groups have not adequately explained why their lifestyle, inherent attraction, whatever, is as normal as a heterosexual relationship. Until they do that, I don’t see ‘gay marriage’ becoming legal anytime soon, which means people will always say society doesn’t accept them.

      But I wonder if ‘gay marriage’ has to be legal in order for homosexuals to feel accepted. What do you think?

      I just don’t think claiming “it exists in nature” is a suitable response to the question. That’s all.

      • Snoring Dog Studio

        Sorry, for misreading, Terrance. I blame my dogs. I don’t believe pro-gay groups have to defend their belief that a gay relationship is equivalently normal to a heterosexual one. How would that be possible given the religious opposition to it? How does one argue with an individual who uses scripture to support his or her opinions? No, legalizing gay marriage won’t make it more acceptable — at least immediately. It took quite a while for men (and a lot of women) to accept a woman’s right to vote — some possibly never did. If geneticists were to definitively discover that gayness has a genetic basis, would homophobes then accept gay people? Sadly, I doubt it, because religion prohibits the viewpoint. Good comments, Terrance and thought-provoking.

      • Terrance H.


        I’m not entirely positive the religious objection is justified. And even if it were, that hardly matters in a secular country. Some of our Founders may have been influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs, but the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams, makes it clear that this is not a Christian nation. End of story.

        Some view me as a Christian, social conservative. I get e-mails every now and again from people thanking me. Not many, but a few here and there. But mainly for my firm, unwavering stance on abortion. If those same people found out my Bible-based view on homosexuality, well now, I don’t think they’d be so quick to thank me…

        It was prohibited – in the Old Testament, right along with touching pigskin and wearing a tunic twined with two different fibers. I don’t think Jesus would be so quick to condemn them.

  • Snoring Dog Studio

    You just keep on impressing me, Terrance.

  • lyttleton

    This is not exactly on the topic of the post, but on the tangential argument
    There is no good argument against Gay Marriage. I submit: Arguments Against Gay Marriage.
    And I’ve never heard (and personally never said) that the only reason we should accept homosexuality is because it happens in animals. We should accept homosexuality because it happens in humans. It’s not a choice, it’s not a whim, it’s a fact of a person’s nature. If homosexuality was a choice, we’d see a lot of gay people secretly having straight sex (having a beard doesn’t count as ‘secret straight sex’; it’s just a cover). Instead, we see the opposite, vehemently anti-gay people professing to be straight but really struggling (and losing) with their gay impulses.
    The fact that animals show homosexual behavior only goes to confirm what we know: Homosexuality, while not the norm of nature, is a fact of it.
    And the whole “Animal’s eat their young” argument is specious. Not every animal activity has to be equated. There are a lot of animal activities (like sex) that humans do partake in. We are capable of compartmentalizing such activities. Eating your young is bad because it is killing. Two men wanting to get married is nowhere near that.

    • Spinny Liberal

      Homosexuality, while not the norm of nature, is a fact of it.

      Very nicely put!

    • Terrance H.

      If the only argument you have is that homosexuality occurs in nature, so therefore must be normal, and you do not attempt to expand on that, like you have, then it’s a poor argument, and it’s not going to pass muster. That was my point.

      There are some who say homosexuality is bad for society. I don’t necessary believe that, but some do. You can’t dismiss the comparisons by saying “it’s entirely different” without addressing the underlying issue.

      Some would disagree that there is no good argument against gay marriage. The definition of marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. And while people like to say that interracial marriage was prohibited in the same way, it should be noted that interracial marriage does not change that definition one bit. It’s not an equal protection violation, in my view, because that clause applies to people, not definitions. Nobody is prohibiting gay people from marrying; we’re prohibiting them from marrying someone of the same-sex. I’m not gay and I can’t marry someone of the same sex either. So, where’s the equal protection violation?

      I’ve said before that I don’t care about the issue. I don’t care – not one bit. But you cannot dismiss the criticism as easily as you think, or because you think you’re opinion is gumption. It’s not.

      • lyttleton

        Actually, if you had bothered to read the link I posted, you’ll see I’m not just saying there aren’t any good arguments against gay marriage, I actually took the time to address all of them and show their weaknesses.

        I don’t actually understand what this paragraph means. Dismiss what comparisons? Is this in reference to something I said or are you talking about these hypothetical people from your initial post?

        And if people say it’s bad for society, they need to show evidence for it. It’s not the responsibility of people to disprove other people’s claims, it’s the responsibility of the claimers to provide proof. It’s like the classic God argument. You can say I need to disprove God exists, but I no more need to disprove that then I need to disprove a teapot orbiting the earth. If you make a claim, you must give the support for it.

        I don’t believe anyone has given any support that homosexuality harms society. Actually, it’s not about belief. I know no one has. There can be no causation proof for that hypothesis, and I don’t even think correlation proof exists.

        The equal protection violation is in prohibiting someone from marrying the person they love.
        Your argument is equivalent to this scenario:
        People will no longer be able to practice Islam in America. It’s not a violation of equal protection violation because everyone is prohibited. It doesn’t matter that a Christian has no intention of practicing Islam. No harm no foul.

        You see the fallacy in your argument?

        I have never dismissed the argument purely on my opinion. I have made reasoned, logical arguments to counter the anti-Gay Marriage stance and have yet to hear a good one in response.

        You say you don’t care about this issue, so I’m interested in whether you’ll continue to debate it flimsily, or will just let it drop.

        Personally, I’d be most interested if you attempted to be the rigorous Devil’s Advocate and tried to make a strong argument against gay marriage. Just as a lark.

      • lyttleton

        Sorry, screwed up the html, the part that was supposed to be in quotes was this:

        “There are some who say homosexuality is bad for society. I don’t necessary believe that, but some do. You can’t dismiss the comparisons by saying “it’s entirely different” without addressing the underlying issue.”

      • Terrance H.

        Actually, if you had bothered to read the link I posted, you’ll see I’m not just saying there aren’t any good arguments against gay marriage, I actually took the time to address all of them and show their weaknesses.

        Actually, I read the link your posted. Your arguments themselves have many weaknesses.

        And if people say it’s bad for society, they need to show evidence for it.

        No, actually you’re wrong. Marriage has been, since the beginning of the institution, a covenant between one man and one woman. You and the pro-gay groups need to explain why the status quo must change.

        The purpose of the institution itself – in the United States, that is – has been to encourage moral behavior and the creation of a family. Prior to the 17th Century, there was no such thing as a marriage license. It was a mutual agreement between the families, handled by the Church. When marriage licenses were distributed by the government, it was to discourage bigamy, promiscuity, and to make the children legitimate.

        It had nothing to do with “love,” though obviously the existence of it is preferable.

        As the country began to see more immigration, licenses were used to regulate mixed marriages. Quite clearly, that is unconstitutional because a mixed marriage between one man and one woman does not change the definition – at all. So, you can’t compare the prohibition on interracial marriage to the prohibition we see today. It’s not a good argument. In fact, it’s quite ridiculous.

        I don’t believe anyone has given any support that homosexuality harms society. Actually, it’s not about belief. I know no one has. There can be no causation proof for that hypothesis, and I don’t even think correlation proof exists.

        What does causation and correlation have to do with anything? You don’t even know what argument I’m going mount, yet you deny its veracity. Absurd.


        The prevalence of mental illness is higher in the gay community. People tend to attribute that to societal pressure, but that doesn’t pass muster either. If you look to Europe, you’ll see that even in societies that very much accept homosexuality as completely normal, the results are the same. What could that mean? That perhaps homosexuality isn’t normal?

        We already know HIV runs far higher in the gay community. That can’t be good for society. We know that two homosexuals cannot propagate the human race, which cannot be good for society, particularly Anglos, as many European nations – where homosexuality is very much accepted – cannot replace their declining population. Not enough people having children. That’s not good. Homosexual relationships don’t last nearly as long, which means promiscuity is higher in the gay community. And I could go on and on and on.

        The equal protection violation is in prohibiting someone from marrying the person they love.

        Cool. I want to marry my duck. Would that be cool? I love her. She loves me. All is well.

        Do you see the slippery-slope? If you change the definition of marriage for homosexuals, then what about the nut jobs who want to marry animals, inanimate objects, or more than one person at a time?

        Now you can claim that homosexuality is totally different than any of those, and I would agree with you. But if you undermine the very purpose of marriage in the first place, then you have effectively removed the only parameters that matter. Then you open it up to any number of fruits.

        People will no longer be able to practice Islam in America. It’s not a violation of equal protection violation because everyone is prohibited. It doesn’t matter that a Christian has no intention of practicing Islam. No harm no foul.

        Sure. If you completely ignore the existence of the First Amendment. :rolls eyes:

        You see the fallacy in your argument?

        Um, no.

        I don’t care about the issue – at all. I’m still undecided. Right now, though, I’m inclined to believe that the anti-gay marriage group has a stronger argument.

      • lyttleton

        You claim to have read my post and found the counter-arguments weak, but then didn’t explain why or attempt to refute them. You just ignored them and echoed the old arguments back to me. You believe I need to show why anti-Gay Marriage arguments are weak (I did), but you don’t need to do so for my counterarguments.
        And then you go around and simply parrot all the dumbest of the examples that I refuted. I really don’t believe you read my post.

        The “I can marry an animal” example is the dumbest. The first time I posted here, you came harping on me (incorrectly) that I was using a logical fallacy, and yet you freely admit to using a Slippery Slope fallacy as if that’s a legitimate argument. You’re inconsistent and clearly just saying whatever you want in hopes of supporting an argument you either don’t understand or realize is weak.
        I’m not going to fully respond to that argument here because I already did so quite thoroughly in my post, but what it boils down to is this: Humans are consenting adults. Animals and inanimate objects can’t consent, so it isn’t the same at all. It’s not just about one person being in love, it’s about two people being in love. Two consenting adults.

        The purpose of the institution itself – in the United States, that is – has been to encourage moral behavior and the creation of a family.

        Another argument I refuted in my post. This is bullocks. That is not the government’s purpose of marriage, and it never has been. Certainly, this is what some people think marriage should be (maybe even some Senators), but who is to say that’s the government’s reason for regulating marriage. Where do you get your facts? Where are you basing this idea of marriage? I already explained (again in my post), if the point of marriage was the creation of family, then we would prevent golddiggers and impotent and elderly people from marrying, but we don’t.

        I need you to show your work. You say mental illness is more prevalent in homosexuals (across the world). I’d like a link to a study that shows that. But, I’m going to go ahead and respond to this, even without your evidence. “Mental illness” means a lot of things, it can be everything from schizophrenia to Seasonal Affect Disorder. Mild depression is technically mental illness. It doesn’t make someone unfit to be a parent, and the government has no right to say that people with depression can or cannot get married (and they don’t do so with heterosexuals). Is homosexuality and mental illness linked? Maybe. So is genius and mental illness. Should we go around sterilizing people with high IQs?

        Yes, there is a higher amount of AIDS in the gay community. In America. We’re not seeing this same rise of AIDS in more progressive Western nations. AIDS isn’t a ‘gay’ disease. Once homosexuality is accepted by society, there will be less need for anonymous sex, less need for secret rendezvouses that lead to unsafe sex. AIDS affects straight and gay alike. It’s a tragedy, not an excuse for taking away people’s rights.
        (It’s also on the rise in the black community; should we stop them from marrying?)

        And then you use the old canard, “Homosexuals are more promiscuous.” What this has to do with the right to marry, I have no idea, but talk about missing the point. Are married homosexuals more promiscuous? You say Homosexuals shouldn’t have the right to marry and then attack them for being promiscuous. If you, as a man, knew that you would never be able to marry the woman you loved, that the government wouldn’t recognize your partnership and that you would never have an official/legal connection to that person, you’d probably be likely to fuck around to.

        Answer the question, “Why get married” for yourself, you’ll know the answer why homosexuals want (and should be able) to get married.

        (I’ve answered your ridiculous arguments without pointing out the obvious flaw in all of them: The high rates of AIDS and promiscuity are seen in the gay MALE community, but not the lesbian community. Does that mean lesbians should have the right to marry, but not gay men? Or does it say that maybe these problems have more to do with the overall male problem of promiscuity, and not specifically gay men.)

        No, actually you’re wrong. Marriage has been, since the beginning of the institution, a covenant between one man and one woman. You and the pro-gay groups need to explain why the status quo must change.

        No, it hasn’t. This is another lie I clearly refuted in my post (and then my Ordained Christian friend also refuted in the comments): Marriage has changed forms throughout history. In the Bible (and most cultures up until recently), men had multiple wives all the time. And I’m not talking about the pagans; God’s chosen people were polygamous. In fact, polygamy wasn’t officially outlawed in the US until 1890. Your argument is completely ahistorical, a product of the conservative propaganda machine, not facts.

        Why should we change the status quo? Because it’s discrimination. When something is wrong, like withholding rights from someone, it is our duty to amend our laws to fix it. We have done it countless times throughout our history, we must do it again. Maintaining the ‘status quo’ is never a good argument. The fact that it is one way doesn’t mean that it should be that way.

        You keep saying this issue means nothing to you, which explains why you aren’t taking the time to come up with good arguments, merely parroting the arguments and questionable ‘facts’ of the homophobic movement.

        The fact that you can’t see how my Islam example is the exact same as your gay marriage argument just shows that you have no interest in thinking about this subject critically. I’ve been in argument with you before and I know you refuse to acknowledge the points, merely arguing ad nauseum.

        You claim there are many weaknesses in the arguments I made in my post. Have the wherewithal to point them out. Or would that require actually having to engage with an argument, not just pullquoting around it?

      • Terrance H.

        If you follow the link I gave you, all of your arguments, with explanation and “work,” is provided.

  • Heavy Armor

    You won’t hear an apology because it hasn’t been offered as punishment by a Court of Law. Ravi and Wei give measured responses because they are still under the auspices of the second part of Miranda (that whole “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law” bit) and an apology would be construed as an admission of guilt on whatever charges the prosecutor lays on them. And, right now, both are afraid of the consequences of having been caught.

  • Terrance H.


    I had no intention of replying to you except to issue a reminder of the link I previously provided. Your arguments are so incredibly weak, your bias so unbelievably obvious, you are not worth the time or effort. But after thinking about it, I cannot sit idly by while you spew such misinformation in a spurious effort to be heralded by your fellow liberals as some champion of freedom.

    First, I did read your link. I regurgitated every argument it “refuted” because it in fact refuted nothing. Your repeated attempts to lend rationality to a wholly irrational set of arguments aside, it was ridiculous.

    Perhaps you should consider that before calling someone’s integrity into question.

    Slippery-Slope is, most of the time, an informal fallacy. But it fits in this case. If you destroy the very definition of marriage, you cannot reasonably prevent other groups from marrying whomever or whatever they wish.

    Humans are consenting adults. Animals and inanimate objects can’t consent, so it isn’t the same at all. It’s not just about one person being in love, it’s about two people being in love. Two consenting adults.

    You have already changed the definition. The specific definition of marriage is not merely “two consenting adults,” but one man and one woman. You are trying to argue your case from a default position, and I reject it.

    Also, if you want to talk about the history of marriage and claim that it was so muddled as to render my argument completely invalid, then your argument is completely invalid as well. Consent is not, historically, needed, because in the good old days, fathers pawned their daughters off to the highest bidder. It didn’t matter what she wanted. You don’t need consent – historically speaking.

    Another argument I refuted in my post. This is bullocks. That is not the government’s purpose of marriage, and it never has been.

    Clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    The marriage license as we know it originated in 16th Century England. The government realized it would be a nice way to bring in money – and they were right. But there were other reasons for this as well.

    I will quote Cornell University.

    In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife’s obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple’s children. Today, the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

    Cornell University Law School

    This carried over into the New World, as well. All you have to do is read the original state statues concerning marriage and it’s quite clear that government felt it had an obligation to encourage the “unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children.”

    That is just a historical fact.

    All this talk of gold-diggers and sterile couples is absurd. First of all, the government could not, in any possible way, attempt to decide who is and is not a gold-digger, nor would the Constitution permit an invasion of privacy so extreme as testing couples to ensure they are not sterile.

    You jeered me for what you perceive to be ridiculous arguments, yet you rationalize the endorsement of a perversion with ridiculous arguments. Shame.

    I need you to show your work. You say mental illness is more prevalent in homosexuals (across the world). I’d like a link to a study that shows that.

    Bailey, J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56, 876-880.

    Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen,S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.

    Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.

    Valleroy, L. A.; Secura, G.; Mackellor, D.; Behel,S. (2001): High HIV and risk behavior prevalence among 23- to 29- year-old men who have sex with men in 6 U.S. Cities. Poster 211 at 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic

    Gonsiorek, J.C. (1991): The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In: Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. (Eds: Gonsiorek,J.; Weinrich, J.D.) Sage, 115-136.

    You can start with those.

    To address the prevalence of other unhealthy aspects of homosexuality I would encourage you to peruse this link.

    As to your ridiculous claim that polygamy wasn’t officially outlawed until 1890, I find it quite extraordinary that you would have the audacity to accuse me of being ahistorical, because, in point of fact, polygamy was outlawed in 1862 with the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act signed by President Lincoln. The Supreme Court upheld that ban in 1873.

    Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act

    Reynolds vs. United States

    Perhaps if you were as interested in reading as you seem to be in living a wanderers life, you wouldn’t make such a fool out of yourself.

    Now I’m finished with you and this thread. I have replied to your arguments on my blog, on here, and I’m growing tired of doing so. You can believe whatever you want, but the facts are clearly on my side.


    • lyttleton

      I’m going to try to give some organization to my response. First I’ll discuss the articles you gave and the points pertaining to them:
      Since I don’t have access to online journals, I can only go on the summaries and available commentaries, specifically this one. It’s interesting to note that all of these studies from what I can find show correlation between homosexuality and mental illness (and let’s just call it what it is: Depression; they’re not psychopaths), but nowhere that I can see is anyone stating definitive causation.
      It seems to me that living in a society that calls you perverted and refuses you your rights would make me pretty depressed, too.
      There is the suggestion that the ending of relationships is a high factor in depression/suicidal attempts, which begs the question, if all of these homosexual men are so wantonly promiscuous and gleefully uninterested in monogamy, why does the dissolution of their relationships cause so much mental stress? Is it possible that the fact that their relationships can never be legally recognized in this country leads men to view their relationships as fleeting anyway, so they don’t try hard to maintain long, lasting relationships? Yet, in reality, they desire just such a relationship.
      (The discussion of promiscuity is focused entirely on the gay male population, not the lesbian community, so I must ask, should lesbians be allowed to marry. Considering how women tend to be far more monogamous by nature, wouldn’t two married women be the most stable of all possibilities?)
      The problem of promiscuity doesn’t seem to be a gay issue, it is really a male issue. Men are biologically programmed to want multiple partners. I don’t know a single male (married or single) who doesn’t check out the hottie walking by. If they don’t act on it, it’s because they do not want to risk losing something long-term. But if there’s nothing that binds a person long-term to another person, there’s nothing to risk.
      Obviously marriage is a powerful act. If it wasn’t, you and everyone else wouldn’t be arguing so adamantly for its protection. Do you not think that allowing homosexuals to marry might not have that desirable, monogamous effect on them?
      If in the homosexual culture, relationships have always been assumed to be temporary, then maybe the way to change that is to change the culture. Allowing marriage would be just that sort of change.
      In men, the desire to spread our seed is strong. When there is no societal reason (such as marriage) to remain monogamous, of course men are going to be more promiscuous. But to speak of it as if being gay makes you a sexual deviant is frankly disturbing. That two men together are more likely to have a non-monogamous relationship than a man and a woman together is unsurprising. But the risk of promiscuity is not an argument against gay marriage. It’s actually probably a better argument for it.
      In fact, the risk of marital failures isn’t an argument against gay marriage any more than it is against straight marriage. Men and women cheat. They divorce. They do horrible things to each other and to their offspring. That risk is inherent in all human relationships.
      But, if there are two people fighting for their right to marry, don’t you think that probably shows a desire to make a loving, lasting relationship. If a gay couple divorces, it’s not more a product of their sexual orientation than when a straight couple does.
      I don’t understand how gay marriage corrodes marriage in a general sense. Is your marriage in any way affected by your neighbor’s divorce? If your entire block got divorced, would you?
      If your marriage is sound, how does gay marriage at all erode it?
      Besides all of that, you haven’t offered any evidence of why this casual link should undermine the argument for gay marriage. You say that it would be unconstitutional for the government to check on the fertility of people before getting married, yet you expect the government to make a decision based on the mental health of people. How is that not the same sort of invasion of privacy?
      I want to show this quote taken from that summary I linked above:

      The papers do show that since only a minority of a nonclinical sample of homosexuals has any diagnosable mental problems (at least by present diagnostic criteria), then most homosexuals are not mentally ill.

      Statistics are a measure of a population in a certain time. They are not a predictor of actions and they are not effective evidence for or against gay marriage. If anything, they are an argument for accepting homosexuality and attempting to normalize in our society. It’s clearly not a lifestyle “choice”, so instead of hoping homosexuals go back in the closet, how about we find a way to give them a place in our society.
      The Marriage License: It’s interesting that you bold-faced part of the passage you quoted, yet ignored the rest of it:

      Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife’s obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple’s children. Today, the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

      Society changes, and with it, so do legal obligations. People claimed women going to work was going to corrode the foundation of marriage. Do you agree with that? You might not like the way society is moving, but you can’t make the argument that your dislike is solid legal precedent. The only thing I take from your talk of the history of marriage is that marriage has indeed changed considerably over the years. And every change has been preceded by people screaming, “You’re destroying marriage.” You say it’s different this time, but everyone thinks they’re view is different. Yes, marriage has been between a man and a woman. We seek to change that. You can’t claim that the change itself is what’s wrong with the change.
      The truth is, changing the definition of marriage doesn’t destroy it. The very fact that marriage has existed in some form or another since the beginning of human history should tell you something about its adaptability. Things that can’t adapt don’t survive. If you hold onto this archaic notion of marriage forever, it won’t be gay marriage that destroys the institution, it’ll be your rigid grip as society abandons it altogether.
      As to polygamy: I shouldn’t have said “officially” outlawed polygamy. It wasn’t until 1890 that the Latter Day Saints officially abandoned their practice of it, and that was to what I was referring. It was illegal, but it was still openly practiced in Utah. Regardless,1890 or 1860, the point is, polygamy was practiced in this country and legally allowed. We changed the definition of marriage once. It can be done again.
      I cannot help but take away from your posts a taint of homophobia. That is clear by your constant declaration that homosexuality is a perversion (it is no more a perversion than liking blondes over brunettes). Where do you get your support for declaring homosexuality a perversion? You talk of your integrity, but I merely see a man doing anything he can to justify his dislike of gays.
      (If I didn’t address everything, my apologies, there clearly multiple conversations going on at once.)

      • Terrance H.

        LOL. Instead of doing this on two blogs, my response will be over on my blog, Lyttleton.

        Thanks for the civil tone, too. Sorry about mine earlier. I was…perturbed. It’s a Right Libertarian thing. You’ll get used to it!

      • lyttleton

        I apologize to you Spinny for posting this on your blog. But, after accusing me of intellectual dishonesty and lobbing insults at me, Terrance has blocked me from posting on his page (as near as I can figure). The bravery he possesses.

        So, this is my response to what he wrote on his blog, I realize it will be out of context on here (but I also know he’ll see this). I also want to apologize for its length, thoroughness was the only way to address this topic correctly:

        Wow, after thanking me for my tone, you turn around and fly off into complete jerk mode. Well, kids gloves are off. Let’s see if you can read, because I read all of your links, and none of them were convincing. I’m about to flood you with some facts, and I’d be interested in seeing if you have the ability to read of if you’re so far up your own arse with this Rightest Libertarian bull that you can’t possibly see the truth.

        Keep in mind, I was a devote Christian and it was only by study and research that I came to my views. I’m not dogmatically attached to them, it took years of hard internal struggles to come to the point where I am now.

        I have seen Expelled, and what I saw were the same 4 or 5 IDers who are always cited. There isn’t some grand conspiracy against these people, they’re just bad scientists failing to support their theories.

        Where is the research that supports the ID ideology? How come you can’t link to a single study that has been conducted that shows the need for a supernatural power? Why, because no such thing exists. ID isn’t an argument from research or science, it’s a negative argument, an argument that seeks to find flaws in another established theory (Natural Selection) and then shove its dogma into it.

        You’re so out of your depth here, it’s scary.

        Let’s go.

        There is more crime today, per capita. Our education system is worse off; more people are on welfare, per capita. Women are allowed to kill their unborn children; there is an utter disregard for human life. Children are taught that homosexuality, transsexuality, and bisexuality are completely normal, right on par with heterosexually. Academic freedom no longer exists, which is plainly obvious by your ignorant dismissal of Intelligent Design; and, perhaps worst of all, faith is viewed as a vice; something had so that the ignorant and simple can stay busy and mystified.

        Most of these are begging the question. You think abortion is bad, so the fact that there is more abortions is obviously going to be bad to you. Of course, that ignores the ripple effects on society (specifically, woman) that occurred when abortion was not legal. Is abortion risky? Yes. Would it be better if there was less abortion? Of course. Which is why most liberals are interested in funding programs that teach safe sex and offering support for single mothers and children who are left in the system. People who want to criminalize abortion so often turn around and penalize women who have children by stripping support systems. The truth is, the anti-abortion movement is an anti-sex movement. It’s a moral movement couched in political terms (a bit like ID).

        Disregard for human life? Really, by who? By those liberals funding programs for medical research to heal sicknesses around the world? By those liberals who think that stripping seniors of their funds and healthcare is more egregious than “unfairly” taxing the rich? By those liberals who want to do away with the death penalty or don’t want us to go to war? You have no problem laying a blanket statement over a movement that represents more than a third of this country.

        You use the argument that children are taught homosexuality, etc is normal as proof that society is worse. We obviously don’t agree, and you haven’t shown any proof that it should be taught otherwise. That’s not an argument for a worse society, just an argument that you don’t like it.

        You keep harping on these leftists conspiracies that are undermining the world, which is mind blowing, because who do you think is running this conspiracy? The poorly paid scientists? Obama who is about as Centrist a president we’ve had in decades? Hell, we had a pretty far Right president for the last 8 years, yet somehow the Left is supposed to be this all powerful force of manipulation. You’re delusional, with a heavy dose of persecution complex.

        Your arguments for a worse society are specious at best, stupid in reality. How exactly do you tie higher crime rate to liberal philosophy? There are a myriad of reasons for why crime increases or decreases (There is speculation that lead paint is a possible cause for higher crime rate), yet you choose to see it as the fault of liberal philosophy. Your bias is showing. You could just as easily blame it on the number of automobiles or televisions in America. Or, maybe with a little more common sense, the proliferation of guns throughout this nation. Canada is a pretty liberal country and their crime rate is nowhere near ours.

        Correlation doesn’t mean causation. The crime rate as an example is absolutely ridiculous. You know crime rate went up during Reagan and Bush Sr’s presidencies, but decreased during Clinton’s? What does that mean?

        Why do you hate common sense?

        What has modern liberalism ever done for society?

        It’s allowed women the right to pursue their dreams. It’s fought for equal rights for minorities. It’s fought for social and economic equality throughout the world. The more you rant and rave, the more clear it is you’re just a bitter white guy mad that you are no longer the high man on the totem pole (actually, you still are, you just aren’t as high as you once were).

        I love how any mention of the fact that you’re white is automatically ‘reverse racism.’ No one is saying you’re a bad person for being white. But to act like historically it’s not been better to be a white, male heterosexual is to show an absolute ignorance of reality too deep to comprehend. You aren’t a victim, stop whining.

        Because children need their mother more than anyone else. As a former child and a father of two children, I say that without hesitation.
        You Leftists have taken something has beautiful as parenthood, motherhood, and turned into a dreary task, something to be shunned and done away with. Disgusting.

        What the hell are you talking about? I don’t know a single ‘leftist’ who ever talks down on being a parent (other than to say, “I don’t want to do it” or, maybe, “That person is a lousy parent”). Saying that a woman can be something other than a mother is not criticizing motherhood or parenting, it’s saying that humans have the right to pursue their own life choices. Humans being men and women. I had a mother at home pretty much all of my life and a father that worked full time. We went to church, we lived in good ol’ Middle America. And my family still fell apart. This notion that the traditional family is something sacred and unassailable is patently false. Non-traditional families can be just as loving and successful as any traditional family (if not more so).

        Besides, this is once again arguing your opinion, not fact. You prefer women at home so you see the world as worse because they aren’t.

        Liberalism has made society worse, in my view, not because less women are at home, but rather, the materialization of many leftist ideas. It’s a culmination.
Liberalism has sewn so much suffering into the fabric of this nation now. I don’t know that we’ll ever be able to change it.

        Once again, you’re not supporting this with any facts. I ask you why the world is worse, and you say “Because of liberalism.” I ask you what liberalism has done to make the world worse and you say, “It has spread liberalism.” It’s a circular argument. Let’s go back to your crime statistic argument. You say that its increase proves the world is worse. Yet, on the other end, there are more blacks and Asians and minorities of every nationality with successful careers and better positions in life. If not for the liberal civil rights movement, we wouldn’t be able to say that. And I don’t think you could make the argument that crime would be any less without the civil rights movement.

        Redundancy is not something I hold in high regard. I have explained this once before.

        No, you haven’t explained anything. You’ve provided some interesting (and even enlightening) statistics, but these have never been accepted as sufficient explanations for your stance. I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and because your data is just that, data without firm reasons, it really all comes down to the interpretation. That we don’t agree on this matter is clear and so I ‘m fine letting it drop, but don’t think that just because you got flustered and posted a bunch of links you somehow won your argument. You made an argument, it was unconvincing. I’ve explained why I’m unconvinced.

        How are we treating them like second-class citizens? Homosexuals can marry any one of the opposite sex they want.

        Are you kidding me with this junk? Do you really believe this? You are a man who only cares about what you desire and you believe everyone should desire this. If you go into a store wanting ice cream and all they have is sherbert (which you hate), are you going to be satisfied because everyone else is happy having sherbert? Do you really want homosexuals having straight marriages even though they clearly aren’t attracted to their spouse? You’re so concerned about happy marriages, yet you seem to have no problem endorsing loveless marriages for the sake of ‘normalcy.’ Among the dozens of stupid things you have written, this could be your Royal Flush. So, congratulations on that.

        Have you been reading my responses – at all? You’re no longer addressing my arguments, my citations. You’re not on to some bizarre denial campaign, pretending I haven’t answered your questions many times already.

        I’ve read your responses and your links. They provide evidence that we should be aware of the mental health risks associated with homosexuality and we should see what we can do as a society and a scientific community to counteract that. None of your links suggested that homosexuality and mental illness are unequivocally linked, and those that I was able to read made the point that even though mental illness was higher in homosexuals, it’s still a minority of the group.

        You seem to think that because this country has a few skeletons in its historical closet, everything we pull out of that closet is bad, to be shunned. How ridiculous.
        And it was a liberal Democrat who locked up the Japanese, who tried to pack the Supreme Court, behaving as though he were a dictator. Let us never forget that, friend.

        No, actually, my point (duh) was that America has no period in its history when it was some amazing utopia. We make strides forward, we take steps back. I would say that there was a point in American history when White Males had a far better life than they do now (though, really, it’s still pretty damn good for us), but regardless, the point is, you can’t ignore the ignoble parts of our history. For every “bad” thing about America that you could list now, I could list a good thing. For every good thing about America of the past, I could list a bad thing. The world balances itself out. The liberal hope is that we gradually tilt the scales towards good, knowing that there will still be bad in the world. The conservative ideal seems to just try to keep everything exactly as it was and attack anyone who tries to make changes.

        Legal abortions are not safe either. For evidence, simply peruse the link at the top of the page entitled “Abortion Facts.”
        And society was no friend of men who behaved that way either. You’ve allowed Hollywood to pickle your brain.

        Legal abortions are safer. All medical procedures have risk. But having a trained doctor in a sterilized room with proper equipment will always be safer than backroom, illegal operations. The risk of cancer associated with abortion isn’t suddenly higher because it’s legal. I’m not advocating abortion free-for-alls, I (and pro-choice advocates) argue for the right to have an abortion if a woman chooses. This is a tangential argument that I don’t care to get into. You obviously have a passion for the argument, but as I am not a woman, I have no personal stakes in it. That is why I side with women who want to keep the choice open. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.

        (And are you seriously going to say that society was as harsh on men as it was on women for sexual promiscuity? Please. The worst thing that would happen to a man is a shotgun wedding. If the man could not be found, the women would be ostracized and unmarriable, left to raise a child by herself in a society that gave her no options for financial security.)

        That’s what it always goes back to with you liberals. Reverse racism. And I thought your kind was all about inclusion…

        You’ll find, too, that being condescending will win you no points with me.

        How was anything I said reverse racism? Do you understand what racism is? And you’re attacking me for being condescending? Seriously, you’ve been condescending from the beginning. You do recall it was you who apologized to me for being rude earlier? I’ve been as cordial as I can up to this point and you’ve been an ass. Hypocrisy, just another one of the fine tools in your belt.

        What proof do you want? It’s common sense. Look at the statistics, pick up a history book, and think critically for once.

        I have, I’ve read lots of history books. I know how people in big cities used to disappear and no one would look for them because they were too poor or not white. I know how imprisonment for black men (and women) has increased over the last couple of decades, yet the number of crimes committed by the black population has actually decreased. What you call “thinking critically” actually just means “agree with my dogmatic view of the world.”

        I refuse to be that smallminded.

        My guess is, you’ll point to some studies referring to the higher frequency of depression in society…

Yes, yes. For someone so anti-science as this evangelical Christian, I sure use it a lot to discredit your hogwash.

        Selective quoting again. You didn’t quote the rest of my sentence where I pointed out that the higher depression rates can be attributed to a greater prevalence of diagnoses (due to more psychotherapy) in our society and a wider definition of depression. This is why your numbers aren’t as impressive as you seem to think they are. You compare one decade to another and if you see a difference you assume a cause that you have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support. That’s bad science, and it explains why you’re so bad at this biology thing.

        Which I’ve been looking forward to getting to.

        Homosexuality was in the DSM for a long time, until the APA’s academic integrity was perverted by ideology.

        There you go again, claiming bias just because they don’t agree with your view of it.

        Every study I offered you appeared in a peer-reviewed publication. In fact, the publication was cited along with the name of the study and its author, so you could have answered this question by yourself had you the dilgence to do a little research.

        That you chose not to answer the question implies you did not read the studies, which means you are not interested in the truth.

        What studies are you talking about? I wasn’t talking about your homosexual studies, I was talking about studies supporting ID. You provided a couple of links (to the same website), but they weren’t studies, they were just articles. Also, I’ve read the studies I could read, but I already explained that I don’t have access to online journals. But hey, another point for dickishness.

        From here on out, you don’t actually provide any evidence for your arguments, you just say “Nope” a bunch of times. So, while you have your fingers in your ear and scream “Nanananana” I’m going to dismantle the bs you’re peddling.

        That was the opinion of a few biased scientists, which some ignorant court decided to accept.

        So, when scientists argue against ID, they’re biased. But when scientists argue in favor of ID, they’re heroes standing up for true science? Yeah, you’re not biased at all. The funny thing is, Behe was brought on to testify at that trial and he admitted there was no peer-reviewed studies in support of his theory of Irreducible Complexity. Watch the documentary, know what happened in the trial before you just dismiss it as some biased conspiracy.

        Why is it “laughable,” lyttleton? Because it tells the story of scientists who were shunned by the scientific community for believing that, God forbid, Darwinism doesn’t have all the answers?

        You don’t like academic freedom? Why are you so anti-science?

        Why is it laughable? Let’s see.

        It intentionally misquoted Darwin to imply that he was in favor of eugenics when the full passage shows that Darwin did not agree with this stance at all. In fact, the documentary makes the assertion that Darwin’s theories are what led to Hitler and the Holocaust, completely ignoring Hitler’s racism (fed by writers such as Martin Luther).

        Ben Stein, the driving force of the documentary said this: “Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people.” That sure sounds anti-science to me. Ben Stein and the backers of this project were on a dogmatic mission to make a pro-ID documentary and they did so with trickery and lies. They misrepresented what the documentary was about so that they could trick Dawkins and Myers (among others) to participate. They stole John Lennon’s song “Imagine” even though Yoko Ono refused the right to use it. Such underhanded tactics for such a ‘noble’ documentary.

        As for those scientists who were “banished” for their stances, let’s look at one: Richard Sternberg

        To quote from

        Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.

        Go to that site and read all about the lies throughout the “documentary”. There’s a reason the movie was panned by so many movie critics (besides for scientists), and it’s not because of some vast Leftist Conspiracy. It’s because it’s a poorly researched movie using questionable tactics and even more questionable ‘facts.’

        If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you should distance yourself from Ben Stein and Expelled.

        Logical fallacy. You are attacking the man rather than his arguments. You dislike Michael Behe because he is an outspoken critic of Darwinism, and is perhaps the best-known IDer, and no other reason.

        Behe is a poor scientist…

        And obviously you have the credentials to make such a statement.

        Actually, I’m attacking the man because he’s a joke, but I’m not ignoring his arguments for that reason. It’s the other way around. You bitch at me to read your links, but you clearly didn’t read mine. Behe has lost all credibility with the scientific community. There is a reason that the only people who quote him these days are the Discovery Institute and ignorant bloggers.

        Irreducible Complexity has been shown to be meaningless…

        No, it hasn’t Natural Selection is a flawed doctrine. I’ve given you the breadcrumbs. You chose not to follow them. You’re too comfortable in your little world to open it up any

        Breadcrumbs to what? You didn’t link to any research, you just give me a couple of links to the Discovery Institute. The one useful link on the whole page was the one listing their peer-reviewed articles. A handful of them. What’s interesting is that you (and the IDers) argue that their views are being ignored and buried under bias, and yet here they are freely admitting they’ve had their views published. That doesn’t add up.

        As far as irreducible complexity, it very much has been refuted. In fact, Darwin refuted it in his original book. You’re probably familiar with this famous quote by him:

        “If it could be demonstrated that an organism existed that could not have been produced by minor, gradual changes, my theory would absolutely break down.”

        Are you aware it goes on:

        Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.” (ch. 6).

        Here is something on Behe’s favorite example, the flagellum:
        The Flagellum Unspun

        I like how your response to my statement that Irreducible Complexity has been refuted was “Nu uh.” That shows a real commitment to thought.

        For a compendium of responses to Behe’s nonsense, go here.

        As far as Dark Matter goes: Physics isn’t my area of expertise, but by your description of it, I’m guessing it isn’t yours either.

        My explanation was perfect. There was nothing inaccurate about it. That I chose not to include a lot of scientific jargon is the result of knowing your audience and their, um, ability to follow along.

        I love it. You talk about how you’re a lover of science and then reduce an intelligent scientific explanation to “jargon.” Your credibility is leaking all over the ground.

        If Dark Matter is not true, then atheists are in for a wonderful awakening.

        This is what it all comes down to. An argument from ignorance. You assume if one theory is lost that there won’t be another one to show up and replace it. You are showing all your cards here. You’ve assumed the conclusion that God exists and now all you’re looking for is proof to support it (really, not even proof to support it; you’re just looking to refute other arguments so you can throw God in there). You accuse the scientific community of being biased and set on one interpretation, and yet here you are making the presumption that any failure to explain natural phenomenon will disprove Atheists. Wow.

        I have read every book Stephen Hawking has written. I recommend “A Brief History Of Time,” in which Hawking says that if our natural constants were changed even one part in a hundred million million, we would not exist, because evolution could not have occurred. Essentially, if anything at all were to have been different, we wouldn’t be here. So, why our things they way they are? Chance? Possible, but unlikely. The odds that evolution is true are essentially zero – mathematically speaking.

        No, they actually aren’t mathematically, and if you were reading Hawking to be enlightened instead of trying to found evidence for your faith in a magical mystery man in the sky, you’d know that Hawking would laugh at your interpretation. Is the existence of life improbable? Absolutely. But it’s not next to zero. And, in fact, as he shows in The Grand Design, there is reason to assume that the preponderance of universes makes the existence of our particular one not just possible, but probable.

        The revisionist history of the left. How nauseating. I wonder why you people never mention the tribal leaders in Africa who sold their own people into slavery? Why do you persist on blaming everything on the evil white man? And why don’t you recognize that the evils suffered by African Americans then actually benefit the African Americans of today? There is no better country for blacks than the United States. If their ancestors hadn’t been slaves, many of those who exist today would be dead. Most of Africa is not exactly civilized.

        Anything that dares to suggest that the White Patriarchy was anything but perfect is automatically revisionist. You Rightest always fall back on this same old tripe, this “Don’t blame the white man, Africans did it, too.” That’s not an argument. I’m not saying that white men are the only bad people in history. But to claim even acknowledging our dark past is “revisionist” is ridiculous. In fact, the only reason I brought up slaves was to point out that times have changed. I wasn’t vilifying the founding fathers, I was pointing out that they lived in a time very different from us (and thanks to liberals, one of those differences is the end of slavery). This is why saying the Founding Fathers would think this way or that way about a modern issue is mostly meaningless when that issue didn’t even exist back then. I don’t need to know what George Washington thinks of ID anymore than I need to know what he thinks of MTV.

        And you’re right, this country is pretty damn good for blacks (comparatively) than a lot of Africa. Of course, that’s because of social liberals, not conservatives. But wait, I thought you said we were worse? I’m confused.

        Now run along, lyttleton. You blew it when you decided to ignore everything I cited. I will not converse with intellectually dishonest people.

        You’re arrogant, dogmatic and clearly decided on this issue. That’s the intellectual dishonesty.

        Bring your cited peer-reviewed ID papers next time, or there is no point.

        In closing, I’m going to leave you with this, a quote from the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. This is in reference to the Stephen Meyer paper that Sternberg published and was supposedly canned for:

        The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories”, in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

        As you can see, their problem with it was that it didn’t live up to their standards of scientific integrity. This is the problem with ID in general, a lack of integrity, a willingness to misrepresent facts and science because they know the layman will fall for the game, not understanding the complexity of real science.

      • Spinny Liberal

        Oh no problem. It’s weird that he would block you, but definitely say what you need to say here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: