<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Groundhog Day</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html</link>
	<description>NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:05:42 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Greenbelt</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2973</link>
		<dc:creator>The Greenbelt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:36:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2973</guid>
		<description>Five Times as Important as TWOT and Iraq

Over at Ebonmuse&#039;s Daylight Atheism is a post reflecting on the current right-wing hysteria over gay marriage...It&#039;s a long post - too long to summarize with justice. But it&#039;s a well-written, well-argued, and (I think) important post.

Please go a...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Five Times as Important as TWOT and Iraq</p>
<p>Over at Ebonmuse's Daylight Atheism is a post reflecting on the current right-wing hysteria over gay marriage...It's a long post - too long to summarize with justice. But it's a well-written, well-argued, and (I think) important post.</p>
<p>Please go a...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SpeirM</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2972</link>
		<dc:creator>SpeirM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:35:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2972</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s true, Philip.  However, that wording is used in only one other context in the Bible (Gen. 2:24).  This is the verse and terminology employed by Christians to defend marriage, especially monogamous marriage.

And while we&#039;re at it, just what does it take to inaugurate a marriage?

Gen 24:67  Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah&#039;s tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was comforted after his mother&#039;s death. 

Read it in context.  No license.  No ceremony.  No governmental conferring of rights.  (Okay, the omission of the wedding cake is sad.)  Why, if Isaac and Rebecca are our example to follow, every cohabiting couple is &quot;married.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That's true, Philip.  However, that wording is used in only one other context in the Bible (Gen. 2:24).  This is the verse and terminology employed by Christians to defend marriage, especially monogamous marriage.</p>
<p>And while we're at it, just what does it take to inaugurate a marriage?</p>
<p>Gen 24:67  Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was comforted after his mother's death. </p>
<p>Read it in context.  No license.  No ceremony.  No governmental conferring of rights.  (Okay, the omission of the wedding cake is sad.)  Why, if Isaac and Rebecca are our example to follow, every cohabiting couple is "married."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2935</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2935</guid>
		<description>The point of 1 Corinthians 6:16 is tha sexual intercourse creates a bond between human  beings: see C.S Lewis &lt;i&gt; The Screwtape Letters &lt;/i&gt; for more on this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point of 1 Corinthians 6:16 is tha sexual intercourse creates a bond between human  beings: see C.S Lewis <i> The Screwtape Letters </i> for more on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2934</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2934</guid>
		<description>The line about being one flesh is saying that sexual intercourse creates a bond between human beings: C.S. Lewis reflects on this in &lt;i&gt; The Screwtape Letters &lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The line about being one flesh is saying that sexual intercourse creates a bond between human beings: C.S. Lewis reflects on this in <i> The Screwtape Letters </i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SpeirM</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2927</link>
		<dc:creator>SpeirM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2927</guid>
		<description>I have to agree with Quath.  In fact, he (?) used most of my arguments.  In Deuteronomy 17, the future king is told, &quot;Neither shall he multiply wives to himself....&quot;  In the previous verse he was already warned, &quot;But he shall not multiply horses to himself....&quot;  (It&#039;s a command, not a prediction.)  I don&#039;t think God was trying to tell the king he couldn&#039;t have more than one horse.  It was just that in those days a king secured himself with his military and offspring.  Horses were the premier battle engines of the day.  The more of them he had, the more powerful his armies.  Then, offspring secured his dynasty.  Obviously, the more wives (plus concubines and whatnot--no real distinction between those and wives sometimes) he had, the more children he could sire.  Remember this?  Interestingly, Solomon is supposed to have written it.

Psa 127:3  Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 
Psa 127:4  As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 
Psa 127:5  Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. 

All God was (supposedly) trying to say was, &quot;Rely on me, not what you can do yourself.&quot;

Nowhere in the Bible is polygamy even condemned.  Solomon was admonished because of his wives, but not because he had so many.  It was just that they led him astray religiously.

Even in the New Testament the strongest language we hear is in a couple of places in I Timothy and one in Titus where church rulers were to be &quot;the husband of one wife.&quot;  No one else is ever mentioned as being forbidden polygamy.

And the I Corinthians 6 verse Quath pointed out is always hard to get around:

1Co 6:16  What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 

If somebody has slept with a prostitute, does that make them married?  I doubt many Christians would say so.  Yet here we see the kind of language supposedly reserved for marriage.

This is all very curious in light of the fact that the Bible is said to have issued from God&#039;s Holy Spirit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to agree with Quath.  In fact, he (?) used most of my arguments.  In Deuteronomy 17, the future king is told, "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself...."  In the previous verse he was already warned, "But he shall not multiply horses to himself...."  (It's a command, not a prediction.)  I don't think God was trying to tell the king he couldn't have more than one horse.  It was just that in those days a king secured himself with his military and offspring.  Horses were the premier battle engines of the day.  The more of them he had, the more powerful his armies.  Then, offspring secured his dynasty.  Obviously, the more wives (plus concubines and whatnot--no real distinction between those and wives sometimes) he had, the more children he could sire.  Remember this?  Interestingly, Solomon is supposed to have written it.</p>
<p>Psa 127:3  Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.<br />
Psa 127:4  As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.<br />
Psa 127:5  Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. </p>
<p>All God was (supposedly) trying to say was, "Rely on me, not what you can do yourself."</p>
<p>Nowhere in the Bible is polygamy even condemned.  Solomon was admonished because of his wives, but not because he had so many.  It was just that they led him astray religiously.</p>
<p>Even in the New Testament the strongest language we hear is in a couple of places in I Timothy and one in Titus where church rulers were to be "the husband of one wife."  No one else is ever mentioned as being forbidden polygamy.</p>
<p>And the I Corinthians 6 verse Quath pointed out is always hard to get around:</p>
<p>1Co 6:16  What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. </p>
<p>If somebody has slept with a prostitute, does that make them married?  I doubt many Christians would say so.  Yet here we see the kind of language supposedly reserved for marriage.</p>
<p>This is all very curious in light of the fact that the Bible is said to have issued from God's Holy Spirit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quath</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2914</link>
		<dc:creator>Quath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:36:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2914</guid>
		<description>I find it funny to hear religious people talk of the sanctimony of marriage and then say the Bible supports one man and one woman.  However, that is not true.  The Bible defines marriage as the union of one man and one or more women.  I had a few Christians debate me on this and they misunderstand the Bible.

The usually first talk of Adam and Eve and say they became one flesh.  But the Bible also says a person becomes one flesh with a prostitute.  So this is not about marriage.  Then they usually talk about how God said that kings should not multiply wives.  his has two problems.  The first is it is about kings, not regular people.  The second is that &quot;do not multiply&quot; means not to have too many such as horses.  It does not mean &quot;just one.&quot;

So the next time a Christian wants it the Biblical way.  Agree and congratulate them for supporting polygamy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it funny to hear religious people talk of the sanctimony of marriage and then say the Bible supports one man and one woman.  However, that is not true.  The Bible defines marriage as the union of one man and one or more women.  I had a few Christians debate me on this and they misunderstand the Bible.</p>
<p>The usually first talk of Adam and Eve and say they became one flesh.  But the Bible also says a person becomes one flesh with a prostitute.  So this is not about marriage.  Then they usually talk about how God said that kings should not multiply wives.  his has two problems.  The first is it is about kings, not regular people.  The second is that "do not multiply" means not to have too many such as horses.  It does not mean "just one."</p>
<p>So the next time a Christian wants it the Biblical way.  Agree and congratulate them for supporting polygamy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gathercole</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2887</link>
		<dc:creator>Gathercole</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:20:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2887</guid>
		<description>I think there&#039;s a very clear way that banning gay marriage actually HURTS heterosexual marriage.  Right-wing politicians want to ban gay marriage, but they still say that gays can have loving monogamous relationships (without being married).  What else can this be implying, but that one can easily have a loving, monogamous relationship without being married?  I think one thing young people are taking way from this fiasco is that politicians appear to think that marriage is not REALLY necessary.  If marriage were REALLY as important as conservatives say it is, they would consider it an absolute necessity for gays to live as civilized human beings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think there's a very clear way that banning gay marriage actually HURTS heterosexual marriage.  Right-wing politicians want to ban gay marriage, but they still say that gays can have loving monogamous relationships (without being married).  What else can this be implying, but that one can easily have a loving, monogamous relationship without being married?  I think one thing young people are taking way from this fiasco is that politicians appear to think that marriage is not REALLY necessary.  If marriage were REALLY as important as conservatives say it is, they would consider it an absolute necessity for gays to live as civilized human beings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Archi Medez</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2845</link>
		<dc:creator>Archi Medez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:07:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2845</guid>
		<description>Azkyroth,

Good question. I&#039;m not sure that anyone has done that study (I doubt it, because this requires either finding (or genetically-engineering) autistic monkeys---not sure that can be done...or else obtaining the brains of deceased autistic persons, taking samples, and making a guess at whether they have less mirror neurons (or smaller cell sizes, less dendritic branching, etc.) vs. brains of deceased controls---not sure that mirror neurons are distinct based on their structure alone). 

The role of mirror neurons in autism has at least been theorized upon; by now there may be even some neuroimaging studies examining this question. One could make an approximate estimate of cell counts based on the size of the critical regions of activation, providing that the methods used could accurately distinguish the mirror neurons from the regular neurons. The researchers could then examine the correlation between the degree of autism (or specific factors of it) and the estimated number of mirror neurons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Azkyroth,</p>
<p>Good question. I'm not sure that anyone has done that study (I doubt it, because this requires either finding (or genetically-engineering) autistic monkeys---not sure that can be done...or else obtaining the brains of deceased autistic persons, taking samples, and making a guess at whether they have less mirror neurons (or smaller cell sizes, less dendritic branching, etc.) vs. brains of deceased controls---not sure that mirror neurons are distinct based on their structure alone). </p>
<p>The role of mirror neurons in autism has at least been theorized upon; by now there may be even some neuroimaging studies examining this question. One could make an approximate estimate of cell counts based on the size of the critical regions of activation, providing that the methods used could accurately distinguish the mirror neurons from the regular neurons. The researchers could then examine the correlation between the degree of autism (or specific factors of it) and the estimated number of mirror neurons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Azkyroth</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2836</link>
		<dc:creator>Azkyroth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jun 2006 05:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2836</guid>
		<description>Interesting.  Do you know if there&#039;s any correlation between mirror neuron counts (and associated wiring) and autism?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting.  Do you know if there's any correlation between mirror neuron counts (and associated wiring) and autism?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kirk</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2831</link>
		<dc:creator>Kirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:32:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2831</guid>
		<description>So this Jack Burkman guy thinks gay marriage is five times more of a threat than the war on terror? Does that mean that if the infamous August 2001 memo Condo Rice was given said &quot;Osoma determined to give blowjobs in the US&quot; Bush and Co. would have acted upon it instead of sitting on their asses?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So this Jack Burkman guy thinks gay marriage is five times more of a threat than the war on terror? Does that mean that if the infamous August 2001 memo Condo Rice was given said "Osoma determined to give blowjobs in the US" Bush and Co. would have acted upon it instead of sitting on their asses?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2826</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2826</guid>
		<description>My poor phrasing: &quot;By definition&quot;, I meant &quot;with refererence to the essential qualities of&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My poor phrasing: "By definition", I meant "with refererence to the essential qualities of"</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BlackWizardMagus</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2825</link>
		<dc:creator>BlackWizardMagus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/groundhog-day.html#comment-2825</guid>
		<description>Meh, alot of stuff to read, but I&#039;ll just throw in my two cents; this has nothing to do with gay marriage. The republicans do care, but they brought this up to merely distract people. Since both parties are getting kicked in the teeth over immigration, the reps decided to simply bring up something else &quot;vitally important&quot;. Sure, alot of people get mad about it; but it&#039;s closer to an even split than the immigration issue, where something like 80% of americans don&#039;t agree with them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Meh, alot of stuff to read, but I'll just throw in my two cents; this has nothing to do with gay marriage. The republicans do care, but they brought this up to merely distract people. Since both parties are getting kicked in the teeth over immigration, the reps decided to simply bring up something else "vitally important". Sure, alot of people get mad about it; but it's closer to an even split than the immigration issue, where something like 80% of americans don't agree with them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
