Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
GDR, jar, kjsimons, ringo, ssope, Taq (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 286 of 309 (162799)
11-23-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by AdminJazzlover
11-23-2004 10:12 PM


Re: Soon Closing
Probably right since we are badly off topic it seems. I don't think you should close it though untill it has reached the 300 mark.

It seems we could spin off a logic thread though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AdminJazzlover, posted 11-23-2004 10:12 PM AdminJazzlover has not yet responded

Lammy
Member
Posts: 3611
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 287 of 309 (162817)
11-24-2004 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by AdminJazzlover
11-23-2004 10:12 PM


Re: Soon Closing
I don't agree.


Hate world.

Revenge soon!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AdminJazzlover, posted 11-23-2004 10:12 PM AdminJazzlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by AdminJazzlover, posted 11-24-2004 9:46 PM Lammy has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 288 of 309 (162842)
11-24-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Itachi Uchiha
11-23-2004 10:07 PM


Prove it

Math is just a symbolic form of linguistic, or "human", logic. It is usually applied to different topics than plain logic, but a mathematician has to stick with what a philosopher will conclude.

If you were in support of my position against rrhain, then you must understand that even as a mathematician... he was wrong.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-23-2004 10:07 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 289 of 309 (162845)
11-24-2004 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by berberry
11-23-2004 10:15 PM


Re: Soon Closing
That's all true, but it's quite clear that one side has all reason and logic on its side while the other has only beliefs, superstition and bias.

Yes it is quite obvious that Dread D and everyone else supporting homsexuality in this thread have based their position on beliefs, superstitions, and bias.

It is also true that those opposing homosexuality have based their positions on beliefs, superstitions, and bias.

Only two people have shown consistent reason and logic in discussing the issue, that would be me and tusko.

AdminJaz is correct in saying that the first two groups (and that would include himself) are doing nothing but reiterating their original positions, with no intention of critically examining theirs or their opponents.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by berberry, posted 11-23-2004 10:15 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by berberry, posted 11-24-2004 2:00 PM Silent H has responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 309 (162960)
11-24-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Silent H
11-24-2004 5:26 AM


Re: Soon Closing
holmes writes:

quote:
Yes it is quite obvious that Dread D and everyone else supporting homsexuality in this thread have based their position on beliefs, superstitions, and bias.

Two issues: one, why do you characterize our arguments as "supporting homosexuality"? What I see is support for equal treatment under the law for everyone, regardless of sexuality. Two, the phrase "everyone else" would include me. My major contributions to this thread can be found here and here . How are these posts based on belief, superstition or bias?

The worst offenders on this score are those who base their beliefs, superstitions and biases on a book written by xenophobic, uncivilized, pre-historic tribal nomads. Any morality based on such nonsense isn't morality at all, it is merely (yep, you guessed it) belief, superstition and/or bias.


Dog is my copilot.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 5:26 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 3:12 PM berberry has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 291 of 309 (162982)
11-24-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by berberry
11-24-2004 2:00 PM


one, why do you characterize our arguments as "supporting homosexuality"?

The topic of the thread was what is the harm in homosexuality. More specifically what is the harm seen in it from the Xian perspective. That creates two camps, those explaining why it is seen as harmful from the Xian perspective, and those explaining why that is not correct.

Or theoretically that is what it should have been.

It was easier for me to just say "supporting homosexuality", I guess I should have said "supporting homosexuality against its Xian detractors".

What I see is support for equal treatment under the law for everyone, regardless of sexuality.

That is not the topic of this thread at all.

My major contributions to this thread can be found here and here . How are these posts based on belief, superstition or bias?

The second was wholly separate from the topic and so I wasn't referring to it in my criticism. I believe I even replied to it saying that I agreed with your position but it was not the topic of the thread.

The first post was also not quite on topic (since it had nothing to do with why God would call homosexuality harmful) though it was addressing what some Xian gave as a reason... lame as it was. Of course it did include a bit of bsb (belief/superstition/bias).

In order to refute the charge that promiscuity is something which is highly correlated to homosexuality, you appeared to lay the cause on gays being unable to be married. That is about as bizarre an argument as they come.

Think about it, you choose who you live with and sleep with. If it takes a marriage license for you to say, gosh I no longer want to sleep with multiple partners, then there is something strange going on.

If you travel to where gays can be married you will also find rampant promiscuity. No not all gays are promsicuous, but a large number are.

And I say good for them!

You also appeared to be assenting to the bsb laden image of promiscuity as something dirty, harmful, something gays should be ashamed of. Maybe even that HIV infection among gays is a result of promiscuity?

No introspection.

The worst offenders on this score are those who base their beliefs, superstitions and biases on a book written by xenophobic, uncivilized, pre-historic tribal nomads. Any morality based on such nonsense isn't morality at all, it is merely (yep, you guessed it) belief, superstition and/or bias.

With this statement you underline my charge that this thread has been nothing but Xian bashing in its lowest form.

If you ask people to explain why their religion says something is harmful, isn't it a bit odd to then hit them over the head for talking about their religion and the fact they believe in it? Or that they are basing that something is harmful on their religious convictions?

Personally I do believe religious people have no morality in the common sense of the term, just one law and that is to obey. But that does not mean it is nonsense to them, and perhaps not even in objective reality. I think a bit of tolerance ought to be given to people of different belief systems. That goes double if it is supposed to be a thoughtful discussion regarding those beliefs.

I'm sorry if I seem harsh, you were not the major culprit I was talking about, but your criticism of jazz was out of line. Some of the worst examples of logic and reason in this thread have been put forward by those defending homosexuality against the Xians invited to explain their position. His admin statement people are down to repeating the tired stereotypical arguments was right.

As an aside did you read my statements regarding sexuality and HIV, especially as it relates to "blame"? It appears to me you need to rethink your position, as it suffers from some of the victorian hangups created explicitly by the people who follow that book by "xenophobic, uncivilized, pre-historic tribal nomads".

I still don't get people throwing away Xianity and then falling back on the traditions and bsb's they created... like wanting to get married for instance, or criticizing promiscuous sex.

This message has been edited by holmes, 11-24-2004 03:13 PM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by berberry, posted 11-24-2004 2:00 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by happy_atheist, posted 11-24-2004 3:32 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 294 by berberry, posted 11-24-2004 8:01 PM Silent H has responded

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 292 of 309 (162986)
11-24-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Silent H
11-24-2004 3:12 PM


Holmes writes:

I still don't get people throwing away Xianity and then falling back on the traditions and bsb's they created... like wanting to get married for instance, or criticizing promiscuous sex.

The only reason I would ever want to get married is for the legal rights and legal securites it grants. If I was to die, i'd like to know that my partner has legal claim to my assets etc. If I could get this by simply filling out an application form I would much prefer it, although my partner would be just a little mad that i'd taken away her opportunity to be the centre of attention for the day!.

That brings along the other reason why non-christians may want to get married. Humans are a sentimental lot and we seem to like ceremony (I hate it, but then i'm not representative of the whole).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 3:12 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 6:53 PM happy_atheist has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 293 of 309 (163024)
11-24-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by happy_atheist
11-24-2004 3:32 PM


The only reason I would ever want to get married is for the legal rights and legal securites it grants.

I guess I should have put quotes on married. I was trying to suggest the segment of gay activists that are not concerned with the rights but actually having the name "marriage" (rather than accepting civil union) and, still more bizarre to me, have it accepted among the religious.

That brings along the other reason why non-christians may want to get married. Humans are a sentimental lot and we seem to like ceremony

Actually this supports exactly what I am talking about. People throw away religious texts and then hang on to the bsb's started by them. Having a marriage ceremony is not ingrained in the human condition, and the way it is conducted (fantasized about/expected) in western culture is pretty much thanks to Judeo-Xian influences.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by happy_atheist, posted 11-24-2004 3:32 PM happy_atheist has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 309 (163031)
11-24-2004 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Silent H
11-24-2004 3:12 PM


holmes writes:

quote:
That is not the topic of this thread at all.

Yes it is. What are we supposed to do, open another thread? We've been told in no uncertain terms NOT to do that!

quote:
In order to refute the charge that promiscuity is something which is highly correlated to homosexuality, you appeared to lay the cause on gays being unable to be married. That is about as bizarre an argument as they come.

How so? Do you think that straights would be less promiscuous than gays if they didn't have the force of law to maintain their relationships?

quote:
With this statement you underline my charge that this thread has been nothing but Xian bashing in its lowest form.

What's wrong with that? People make a choice to be christian; they don't make a choice to be straight or gay. If they choose to close their minds and believe things simply because of something written in a book from thousands of years ago, they should be prepared to suffer a little bashing.

quote:
If you ask people to explain why their religion says something is harmful, isn't it a bit odd to then hit them over the head for talking about their religion and the fact they believe in it?

All I'm hearing is THAT god forbids homosexuality; I still haven't heard the first logical reason why. Wanna give it a try?


Dog is my copilot.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 3:12 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2004 5:39 AM berberry has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 295 of 309 (163035)
11-24-2004 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Silent H
11-23-2004 6:27 AM


Re: rrhain drops...
holmes responds to me:

quote:
This is about a name on a legal contract because the name currently used has a historic traditional definition.

"Separate but equal." It doesn't work.

quote:
Last I checked marriage has nothing to do about pair bonding... looks again at laws

Laws reflect society. While there is a long history of marriage being a monetary contract, that isn't why most people get married in this country.

quote:
quote:
What, pray tell, is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants? You're saying that gay people don't love each other the way straight people do.

Well, given the level of incredulity I am seeing, I'm beginning to wonder if many have the intellectual capacity to fully consent.


Non sequitur. Shall we try again? Do gay people love each other the way straight people do? What is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants.

quote:
We both know I don't think there is a difference in how anyone loves each other, or that this is what I am discussing.

But that's the argument you're supporting. By calling it something else, you necessarily define it as distinct and different. Separate can never be equal.

quote:
quote:
Nice try, but I was not the one saying that finding a religious rite was justification. That was you. You were the one saying that there was no religious recognition of same-sex couples until recently and that that was justification to say that recognizing same-sex couples today is some sort of change to the "traditional" idea.

You just can't get your facts straight. I was not asking for justification.


(*sigh*)

Do I need to construct a quote file for you, too? And how very nice of you not to link to the post to which you were responding which makes it difficult to trace the thread back in order to find your original words.

Message 199

Fifth, if you wish to use this as a reason that rights should be given, then why are you not fully behind polygamy, incestuous, and pedophilic marriages.

Message 119

It hurts because pretty much worldwide, in just about every religious tradition, there is no such thing as gay marriage.

So that's twice you invoked religious history in order to justify a denial of same-sex marriage. I wasn't the one who brought it up, holmes. That was you.

quote:
quote:
Um, please explain to me how your arguing for "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights" as something that is "possible" is not arguing for "separate but equal."

It's simply using a different name and definitional requirements for participants on a legal contract?


Which is the very definition of "separate but equal."

quote:
quote:
Since we know that there is no way to ever have "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights," how is that ever "possible"?

You don't know this because it is not true.


Right. Then you can give me an example where it happened. Show me where a legal contract was called two different things and were always treated identically.

quote:
I suppose I could have been more clear using business licenses rather than motor vehicle ones. States have different contracts with different names (and forms) depending on the structural organization.

But that's because they're different contracts! A limited liability corporation is not the same as an incorporated entity and neither are the same as a partnership nor a sole proprietorship. They have different rules and responsibilities. That's why they have different names. They're not the same thing. If they were the same thing, they'd have the same name. This is basic law, holmes.

quote:
For much of these the differences are entirely semantic. Business law pertains to all of them.

Right...so when you sue a sole proprietorship, can you go after the assets of the proprietor or are you limited only to the assets of the business?

Only in the most naive sense does "business law pertain to all of them." They are all business structures, they are all regulated by law, therefore "business law" as an entire field applies to all of them. However, business law treats them differently because they are different entities.

quote:
quote:
The only way to do that is to treat them identically...which requires calling them the same thing. Whether that term is "marriage" or "civil union" is immaterial. However, the term needs to be identical or there will be legal discrepancies between the two.

All that is needed is a law, which could even be a part of the law creating the new legal contract, that they are both covered by laws and legal precedents regulating or giving rights to either.


But that isn't the way the law works. By definition, if you call it something different, then you are explicitly declaring that they are different. Why else would you have a separate term for something that is identical?

quote:
quote:
No, I don't recall saying that at all. Are you sure it was me? I have never said anything about polygamy and breaking the law.

Yes, yes you did.


Prove it. I want to see the message where I said it. We had no such discussion. Oh, we talked about polygamy, yes, and we discussed how some polygamists engage in a hub-and-spoke type of relationship in comparison to a maximally interconnected relationship. You may recall that I pointed out that this is a question that shows how polygamy is fundamentally distinct from same-sex marriage when comparing it to mixed-sex marriage: Polygamy changes the administrative design of marriage while same-sex marriage does not. The fact that you have to ask the question of "What do you mean by 'polygamy'" shows that it is logically distinct from same-sex marriage. But we never, ever discussed anything about marriage contracts actually being issued.

quote:
quote:
Wait a minute...you just said that opposite sex was not mentioned in the law books. Now you're saying that it was. Which is it?

Yes, pay attention to what I am saying will you? There were no laws originally against same sex unions.


Incorrect.

As I pointed out to you, and you so glibly ignored, the reason why the various legal challenges to the marriage laws were carried out in the states that they were was specifically because those states did not explicitly state that marriage was between a man and a woman. For example, Maryland had marriage legally defined as between a man and a woman since 1973. New Hampshire's the same way: The law was on the books long before Baehr v. Miike and DOMA.

Previous legal challenges to anti-marriage laws were carried out in states that explicitly stated that marriage was between a man and a woman and were always rejected. Then, in Hawaii, a case was brought specifically because the Hawaii marriage laws do not mention the sex of the participants and specifically because the Hawaii constitution has an equal rights clause on the basis of sex.

quote:
quote:
And let's be honest here, race was mentioned in the law books as a pre-req. That's the entire point behind Loving v. Virginia.

I am a victim of brevity, both my writing and your attention span. You will note that I did reference the existence of such laws in the following...

Same race was not set law, and while discrimination like this was "common", it was not wholesale.

Not just brevity but plain not saying what you mean. In direct contradiction to your stated claim, same race WAS set law. It wasn't just "discrimination" in the sense that a mixed-race couple would walk in to city hall and the clerk would refuse to give them a license because they didn't want to. It was because it was illegal to get married to someone not of your race. That was entire point behind Loving v. Virginia: They were married in DC and were threatened with arrest when they returned to Virginia. The choice was to go to jail or leave the state.

quote:
quote:
Incorrect. At the time of Loving v. Virginia, 16 states, nearly one-third of the nation, had miscegenation laws on the books.

I do not in any way see a discrepancy between my statement and yours regarding the facts. 1/3 of the nation does not mean same race marriage was the set law of the land


Yes, it does. At the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided, 70% of the country thought that it should be illegal for mixed-race couples to marry. Even when Kentucky finally took its miscegenation law off the books in 2000, 40% of the population voted to keep it.

quote:
quote:
The important thing is that the term used for a mixed-sex couple must necessarily be the same term used for a same-sex couple.

Why?


Because "separate but equal" is unconstitutional and legally impossible.

quote:
I was getting at the idea that drivers licenses, no matter the different category, give you the same right to drive.

But they don't. Try making your argument when the cop pulls you over in your car and you show him your driver's license that is only rated M2. It's a driver's license, but it does not give you the right to drive a car. It only gives you the right to drive a moped. That's why they call it "M2" rather than "C."

quote:
The licenses restrict you to a type of vehicle, though you achieve the same results with any.

No, you can't. You can't drive a car in the carpool lane with only one occupant. You can't drive a truck outside of the designated truck lanes. You can't take a moped onto the freeway.

quote:
If it makes things easier, switch to business licenses.

No, those are different, too. That's why they're called different things. An LLC is not an Inc.

quote:
If you cannot address a hypothetical, because of the answer you might have to give, then you have an issue.

(*chuckle*)

And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. We can speculate all we want about what the world might be like if the moon were really made of green cheese and the earth were the center of the universe, but that doesn't really help us when trying to determine what happens in reality.

Oh, but I forget...us "reality-based" folk are out of favor these days. Wishing makes it so.

quote:
In the end your idea that civil unions cannot be legally tied to rights and responsibilities of marriage is only a theoretical possibility.

Incorrect. It's a constitutionally mandated statement and a direct outcome of the method of jurisprudence we have. The law is dependent upon words. If you are using a different word, then you are directly stating that there is a difference between them. If there is no difference, then you would use the same word.

"Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate."

quote:
quote:
That isn't the way the law works. By using different terms, you are legally saying that there is a distinction and thus there necessarily exists something that applies only to one and not the other.

Yes, the definitional requirement for the nature of the participants.


But there is no definitional distinction between the two, so why are you using a different term?

quote:
quote:
Otherwise, you would use the same term for both. There's a reason why it's "do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those terms do not mean the same thing.

Yes, they'd have definitional requirements for the nature of the participants.


But there is no definitional distinction between the nature of the participants, so why are you using a different term?

quote:
quote:
In other words, instead of fighting this battle and resolving it once, we have to fight it every single time a law is written in every single municipality, county, state, and national forum.

If any particular law creating a civil union would create this situation, then that law should be fought as not good enough.


But that means it is dependent upon the good will of those in the majority to make sure that it gets repealed rather than upon the strict requirement of equality laid out in the constitution.

In other words, it necessarily creates separate and unequal states.

quote:
However there is absolutely no logical obstacle to creating a civil union law which avoids the problem you just outlined.

If they're the same thing, why are you calling them different things? There is no definitional distinction between the two. By calling them different things, you are necessarily declaring that there is a difference.

quote:
As an offshoot of this there is the logical suggestion that even in adults toward adults, there is an increased preying by homosexuals on others.

Incorrect. It's the other way around.

quote:
It did not show this and instead showed a strong correlation between homosexuality and mental/physical harm.

However, you have the arrow backwards.

quote:
quote:
And since pedophiles don't really see children as male or female, they don't view themselves as gay even when they are molesting children of the same sex.

This is a generalization that cannot be made.


Then why do the psychologists and psychiatrists who examine and treat pedophiles make it? Why do the pedophiles, themselves, make this claim?

quote:
Pedophiles certainly can see children as male and female and have preferences.

Some do. The vast majority do not. The fixation is upon children, not gender. Children are chosen precisely because they are androgynous.

quote:
There are plenty of men who assault other men and say they are not gay, that does not make it so.

"Assault"? When did we go from a loving, mutually supportive relationship to assault? You're trying to turn the arrow backwards.

quote:
Just as some homosexuals want to pretend that pedophiles cannot be gay at all and go into hyper fits of denouncing anyone that brings up the subject when in fact it is being done for logical reasons.

No, I'm not going to have sex with you, holmes.

Now that we have the ad hominem commentary out of the way, can we get back to the issue at hand?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2004 6:27 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Ben!, posted 11-25-2004 5:08 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
AdminJazzlover
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 309 (163049)
11-24-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Lammy
11-24-2004 12:59 AM


Re: Soon Closing
Lam writes:

I don't agree.

Don't worry pal you dont have to. Thats the beauty of this forum


Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Lammy, posted 11-24-2004 12:59 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Lammy, posted 11-26-2004 12:39 AM AdminJazzlover has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 297 of 309 (163140)
11-25-2004 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by berberry
11-24-2004 8:01 PM


Yes it is. What are we supposed to do, open another thread? We've been told in no uncertain terms NOT to do that!

Let's be honest berberry. Take a look at the OP. This thread has nothing to do with gay rights, or the legal aspects surrounding such issues.

Yes we are supposed to open another thread. That's what we were told to do when pedophilia was mentioned in context with how one determines what a sexual "wrong" is.

And in any case, let's say we were allowed free reign, my reference was only to those writing about the subject in the OP. I wasn't trying to criticize you for going off topic, just stating that that post of yours was not something I was referring to. Remember I agreed with the statement in your post.

How so? Do you think that straights would be less promiscuous than gays if they didn't have the force of law to maintain their relationships?

Yes I do, but for cultural reasons surrounding views of women and sex and not because of something inate to heterosexuals.

The concept of monogamy as natural and good, and monogamy as a constraint in marriage, is something stemming from Judeo-Xian value system.

Indeed if you feel monogamy is natural to humans (as many seem to here) then you have totally bought into a bsb of the Xian faith.

I think the reason homosexuals are more promiscuous is that in general most have figured out that pleasure is not bad, sexual pleasure is not bad, and sexual pleasure with more than one partner is not bad. And they don't have the additional constraints regarding women... that they don't really like sex and a long courting process must be involved.

In other cultures where marriage does not mean sexual monogamy (present and history) there is plenty of promiscuity in heteros. It'll be a while before Western, particularly US culture figures out they don't need the baggage of a religion they profess not to believe in.

If they choose to close their minds and believe things simply because of something written in a book from thousands of years ago, they should be prepared to suffer a little bashing.

Have you read the OP? He is asking Xians to explain something. If a thread is started asking Xians to come and explain something about their Xian belief, it is absurd to come in and knock them for stating those explanations.

Essentially that is starting a thread to bring Xians in just to bash them.

All I'm hearing is THAT god forbids homosexuality; I still haven't heard the first logical reason why. Wanna give it a try?

I take it you haven't read any of my posts on the subject?

Instead of just bashing them, for holding a position I don't happen to agree with. I helped discuss their underlying position and the logically credible position it has provided one believes in a God, that it is their God, that the Bible is a book which relates his laws, and in that Bible it does say that homosexuality is wrong.

Given those conditions, God forbidding homosexuality is all a Xian needs to say that it is wrong. And one does not need to prove harm in order to say it is wrong. The harm comes merely from doing wrong.

God may know something we don't, or it may affect God in some way that he simply does not like it (like a bad taste) and if you want to play for him you must abstain (just like all the other proscriptions). He may also realize it will cause some short term harm but be a utilitarian and see that more benefits will come from social cohesion and obedience with the laws, such that benefits outweigh the negatives.

That is all a Xian logically has to appeal to.

To people outside the faith it will look backward. But saying it looks backward does not address the question of the OP, it defies it.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by berberry, posted 11-24-2004 8:01 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 298 of 309 (163157)
11-25-2004 8:26 AM


rrhaining it in
"Separate but equal." It doesn't work.

Repeat your mantra as much as you like.

Laws reflect society. While there is a long history of marriage being a monetary contract, that isn't why most people get married in this country.

Heheheh... this is very true, but does nothing except support my position. You as a gay person are free to get married anytime you choose, as long as you find and/or invent a religious body to accept gay marriage. The problem only enters the picture once we get to the legal contract to bind rights and responsibilities to the union. The long historical legal definition of marriage (stemming from the traditional religious/legal concept of marriage) is mixed sex.

Thus people who are hung up on semantics and "saving tradition", as much as we may both roll our eyes at such things, have a valid point.

Do gay people love each other the way straight people do? What is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants.

This has nothing to do with a legal contract. You are simply trying to make it look like a person who questions your position must hold there is a difference based on those criteria. This is not true.

If it matters to you I think gays can love just as much as straights and there is no difference in their relationship.

By calling it something else, you necessarily define it as distinct and different. Separate can never be equal.

Yawn. Have you ever started a business? Do you cry when there are different types with different names and different forms (or boxes to check) for each, when the rights given are the same?

I realize it makes no logical sense to have them. It is semantics. But it's out there already. You can have different names and tied effects by law. It all depends on creating the right law.

Do I need to construct a quote file for you, too? And how very nice of you not to link to the post to which you were responding which makes it difficult to trace the thread back in order to find your original words.

Actually I rarely link back to specific posts. Even then I often just do the page and not the specific post. It's laziness, not a malevolent machination.

But lets begin the quote mining operation...

Message 199

Fifth, if you wish to use this as a reason that rights should be given, then why are you not fully behind polygamy, incestuous, and pedophilic marriages.

Message 119

It hurts because pretty much worldwide, in just about every religious tradition, there is no such thing as gay marriage.

So that's twice you invoked religious history in order to justify a denial of same-sex marriage. I wasn't the one who brought it up, holmes. That was you.

You are just not that bright. Neither of those "justify" denial of same-sex marriage, at least not from my position.

What I was doing was pointing out that in fact the historical definition/context of marriage is mixed sex union. Those that wish to hang their justification of protecting a traditional definition in law and culture on that fact, have a hook. We may all disagree that such a thing is silly in these days, or pointless for other reasons, but it is true that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and not just any two people.

Indeed the first quote you put up there says if YOU wish to use X as a reason for justifying why laws should change to accommodate other definitions of marriage. I did not say it was mine.

Right. Then you can give me an example where it happened. Show me where a legal contract was called two different things and were always treated identically.

I believe I have already done this for you in specific in another thread. But maybe it was that I offered this and then you disappeared. In any case, go start a business and discover the magic world of different names and different forms for different business "types". They get the same treatment, but the definitions (usually based on structures) result in different titles and sometimes forms. Yawn. How many times do I have to tell you this before you remember?

Now for you. Tell me why a law providing that other than difference in name and requirement for nature of partners all legal references to marriage and civil unions will be treated as synonymous is impossible?

A limited liability corporation is not the same as an incorporated entity and neither are the same as a partnership nor a sole proprietorship. They have different rules and responsibilities. That's why they have different names. They're not the same thing. If they were the same thing, they'd have the same name. This is basic law, holmes.

Snicker snicker... right. Uh-huh. There are differences between LLCs, Incs, and nonIncs. However you can have a range of businesses within them. Again, differing based on name and sometimes forms used. There are different laws to address the differences in structure, but how they do business under the license given to them are the same. Remember I explained this in an earlier thread regarding polygamy.

But given that we are dealing with something complex (esp as they differ state to state), the thread is closing soon, we're not on topic, and its just regarding an example... I'd rather switch than fight.

Let us assume for sake of argument that there are absolutely no cases where a contract with different titles and prereqs are given equal rights. Even given that, explain what legal obstacle there is such that it is impossible for a civil union to be created such that all references to marriage or CU in past and future law will pertain to all? That is why can they not be made synonymous by law, with the exception of name and prereq?

But that isn't the way the law works. By definition, if you call it something different, then you are explicitly declaring that they are different. Why else would you have a separate term for something that is identical?

Your incredulity does not make something impossible. Give a reason it could not hold up under law.

Prove it. I want to see the message where I said it. We had no such discussion.

I don't know if I can prove it as I don't think the thread is around anymore. Is there a place for archived threads? In any case we certainly did, and you derided the polygamists for flouting state law to issue themselves licenses. Maybe you can't remember because you had some psychological block once the SF crowd did the exact same thing and I stuck it to you. You disappeared quick enough.

As I pointed out to you, and you so glibly ignored, the reason why the various legal challenges to the marriage laws were carried out in the states that they were was specifically because those states did not explicitly state that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Yawn. I have already said that any state that did not have a mixed sex definition as part of their marriage laws, gays had every right to get married. We both know this was not the main case with regard to marriage law, and it certainly does not suggest that traditional definitions of marriage were in any way same sex. Oversight in writing laws based on common understandings is not a sign of anything.

Not just brevity but plain not saying what you mean.

Whatta paranoiac. No, it was brevity. I repeat that it was not set law and not wholesale, when such laws were not national, or even a majority of the states. Yeah it was "set" and "wholesale" for the states that had them, but I was discussing the nation as a whole. It was not set and it was not wholesale across the nation. The concept of marriage as between a man and a women was.

Yes, it does. At the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided, 70% of the country thought that it should be illegal for mixed-race couples to marry. Even when Kentucky finally took its miscegenation law off the books in 2000, 40% of the population voted to keep it.

Uhhhh, well I can't speak for opinion polling back then, but I can point out that if 60+% of the nation does not have such laws, it is not the set law of the land. And I should point out that not wanting something to happen is separate from not believing it is part of the definition of something. I would guess that all of them agreed that it was a man and a woman and so it was possible to be married, even if the result is something they did not want happening.

Because "separate but equal" is unconstitutional and legally impossible.

Snooze. Mantras =/= reality. You have shown no reason that a law could not be created making marriage and CU's synonymous to law outside name and prereq.

Try making your argument when the cop pulls you over in your car and you show him your driver's license that is only rated M2. It's a driver's license, but it does not give you the right to drive a car. It only gives you the right to drive a moped. That's why they call it "M2" rather than "C."

Right, a license will let you drive one thing, or another. This could be things rated for the highway or not. Thus a license may be for separate types of vehicles, but as long as all vehicles are rated for the highway, then you have no problem on the highway.

You are stretching an analogy way out of proportion. Analogies do not have to be one to one, they only have to be correct for what they are covering.

You and I both know there are different licenses for vehicles which are given the same rights, only different requirements.

And even if there were not, we can assume this for sake of argument, there is nothing prohibiting this from occuring.

No, you can't. You can't drive a car in the carpool lane with only one occupant. You can't drive a truck outside of the designated truck lanes. You can't take a moped onto the freeway.

The fact that you think this is appropriate is laughable. All of these are not restrictions on licenses, but on vehicles. The restrictions on vehicles are based on transportation issues. You are just nitpicking on details superfluous to the analogy.

Oh, but I forget...us "reality-based" folk are out of favor these days. Wishing makes it so.

Oh my feet are on the ground. Reality means I can deal with a hypothetical as a hypothetical and not refuse to answer in order to continue a pretense.

It's a constitutionally mandated statement and a direct outcome of the method of jurisprudence we have. The law is dependent upon words. If you are using a different word, then you are directly stating that there is a difference between them. If there is no difference, then you would use the same word.

Words: Marriages and Civil Unions will be treated as synonymous under law, with the exception of name and prerequisite of gender.

We can make it tighter if we want to.

But there is no definitional distinction between the two, so why are you using a different term?

I thought we were reality based. Oh that's right we can deny portions of reality when presented and therefore create the illusion of another reality. Like how you dismissed answering all my questions regarding the implications of the Boswell issue.

But that means it is dependent upon the good will of those in the majority to make sure that it gets repealed rather than upon the strict requirement of equality laid out in the constitution.

No, not repealed. It would require the will of the majority to get the right law enacted in the first place. I meant fight against a bad law enacted, before one would have to fight for a repeal.

And I find this sort of silly since it will equally depend on the good will of the majority to get gay marriage enacted as well.

Get with the program.

quote: As an offshoot of this there is the logical suggestion that even in adults toward adults, there is an increased preying by homosexuals on others.

Incorrect. It's the other way around.

Oh ha ha hahahahahahahhahahaha. I cannot believe you just said that. Are you seriously suggesting that the homosexual men getting preyed upon sexually by other men are in fact being sexually molested (even as adults) by straight men?

quote:
It did not show this and instead showed a strong correlation between homosexuality and mental/physical harm.

However, you have the arrow backwards.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Oh man you are so lame. So you are claiming that homosexuals are produced from mental/physical harm?

Perhaps what you meant to say is that an arrow comes from somewhere else to connect the two? Like say it is society's beating down on gays for being gay that leads toward greater depression etc etc?

Yeah, that could be (and I would be one to agree), though that does not immediately address the apparent increased predatory sexual activity of gays (even on adults). And if this does hold true for gays just being gay, it certainly rings true for the effects of societal pressures on youths regarding sex in general.

Then why do the psychologists and psychiatrists who examine and treat pedophiles make it? Why do the pedophiles, themselves, make this claim?

To answer the first question, not all do say this and even if they did it would be much the same as when they were all on line about the nature of homosexuals. There are cultural expectations which prevent many from accurately approaching the issue.

Your second question was answered, but as usual you slice and dice every post. Here it goes...

Some do. The vast majority do not. The fixation is upon children, not gender. Children are chosen precisely because they are androgynous.

Children are androgynous in the torso and to some extent the face. With the exception of the extreme few children who grow into another gender, their genitalia leave them pretty well defined sexually. There is no mistaking a penis for a vagina or vice versa.

Pedophiles are of any sexual orientation, but do not discriminate based on age. Thus gay-male and straight-female pedophiles seek boys, straight-male and gay-female pedophiles seek girls, and bisexual male and female pedophiles seek either.

It is not surprising to me that most pedophiles would be bisexual in nature, and indeed maybe that is why they would enjoy some aspects of childlike androgyny. I would also tend to believe that some (maybe many) that have sex with the same gender child may do this, yet act "straight" with regard to adults, because of pressures to not accept their underlying sexual orientation. In this way the facial androgyny would help them say to themselves I am not gay, while quite obviously they are seeking the same gender.

Rapists, which are different from strict pedophiles in that it is all about power, are likely to choose any gender as it is not an overtly sexual issue.

I don't know about you but I can tell a girl from a boy when young, indeed it was how I first recognized my own sexual preference (or outstanding preference) when I myself was very young. This is also the claim of many homosexuals about their youth.

The wish of people to define pedophilia as another orientation and "children" as if a separate sex, is wishful thinking and a cultural artifact that will one day drop away like it did with homosexuality.

"Assault"? When did we go from a loving, mutually supportive relationship to assault? You're trying to turn the arrow backwards.

Men and women engage on sexual assaults on each other. They also do so toward the same sex. Assaults are not the same thing as a mutual loving relationship. However they often go hand in hand with a person's basic orientation.

For a guy that continually harangues anti-gay people with the notion that people who do so are often hiding that they are gay, it is odd for you to attack me when I say essentially the same thing.

Denial by someone of a sexual orientation, does not make it so.

No, I'm not going to have sex with you, holmes.

Uhhhhh, you ripped into DD not me. My insinuation attached to your treatment of someone else. Maybe this slip means you want to have sex with me.

Brrrrrrr... as much as I enjoy sex with guys every once in a while, I can tell you that you are not my type (if that is indeed your face). Not to say you are unattractive in general, indeed I'm sure you may seem quite handsome to others. But to me? Blech.

Now that we have the ad hominem commentary out of the way, can we get back to the issue at hand?

Pot calls kettle black. You are never in a position to criticize others for ad hominem commentary.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1877 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 299 of 309 (163236)
11-25-2004 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Rrhain
11-24-2004 8:11 PM


Re: rrhain drops...
Rrhain,

I hate to drop in on a debate when I wasn't involved, but I found something really curious.

In posts 1 and 8 of this thread, you argue for the view that marriage is historically for the purpose of bearing children, and that those values are still held widely today.

Yet in this thread, you argue FOR allowing homosexuals to participate in marriage. That seems strange to me.

you ask,

Rrhain writes:

What is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants.

... the fact is, in homosexual relationships, children can't be borne. And, as you yourself believe, that IS our society's core purpose and meaning of marriage.

I understand and completely agree with your arguments with '"Separate but equal" doesn't work.' But by proposing a solution where homosexuals are allowed to 'marry' in the classical sense of the word, you're changing the purpose of marriage itself from child-bearing to something like a union between two people who love each other.

So it seems we have conflicting ideas in our society; one towards equality of treatment, including a legal bond between those who love each other, and one of the purpose of marriage. I just don't see how you can argue FOR each of these things in two different threads; they oppose each other. I'd expect you to either oppose gays being married, or to not use your 'the purpose of marriage is bearing children' argument in the other thread.

I'm not trying to accuse; just to point out something that surprised me and made me confused. You're one of the most straightforward, clear, logical posters I've read here, so I'm really interested to understand your thought on this. 50% expects I'm thinking wrong, and 50% doesn't know what to expect.

Thanks!
Ben

P.S. Sorry if this adds complexity to the conversation; however it seemed to me that holmes was arguing something along the lines of 'it goes against the meaning / purpose of marriage.'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2004 8:11 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2004 7:00 PM Ben! has responded

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 309 (163244)
11-25-2004 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by crashfrog
11-17-2004 11:53 PM


Crashfrog writes,

What they're trying to do is get you to butt the hell out of things that aren't any of your business. When you stand in the way of gay marriage, for instance, that's not just you refusing to like homosexuality. That's you standing, unconstitutionally and counter to the principles of America, in the way of equal rights for gay people.

I just wanted to point out that gays DO have equal rights. They are subject to all the same laws that heterosexuals are, and have all the same rights that heterosexuals do.

Marriage rights:
You have the right marry anyone of the opposite sex. You do NOT have the right to marry anyone of the same sex. Doesn't matter if you are gay or straight, this applies exactly the same way to both groups.

Gay people have the right to marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex. Homosexual people do NOT have the right to marry someone of the same sex, just as heterosexual people do NOT have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

There is no right that heterosexuals have the homosexuals don't have. It is all equal. So please don't say that gays are fighting for equal rights - they are fighting for ADDITIONAL rights. They ALREADY have equal rights.


If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2004 11:53 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Morte, posted 11-25-2004 6:58 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019