Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Gay Marriage Immoral?
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 76 of 134 (335599)
07-26-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by AlienInvader
07-26-2006 10:40 PM


Re: bigotry
because division by sex really isn't bigotry, as much as saying... guys should get tampons.
Guys can get tampons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by AlienInvader, posted 07-26-2006 10:40 PM AlienInvader has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 77 of 134 (335600)
07-26-2006 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by AlienInvader
07-26-2006 10:40 PM


Re: bigotry
AlienInvader writes:
... it's still a crappy analogy because division by sex really isn't bigotry....
You're still missing the point.
I'm not talking about division by sex. That was an aside and off-topic. Forget about that.
-------------
This is the point I was trying to make:
It is bigotry to exclude black people from "white" bathrooms on the grounds that black people are "dirty" or "disgusting".
Got that?
Similarly, it is bigotry to exclude gay people from any rights or privileges that straight people enjoy on the grounds that gay people are "dirty" or "disgusting". Marriage is a right and/or priviledge enjoyed by straight people. Denying that right/privilege to gay people on the grounds that they are "dirty" or "disgusting" is bigotry.
Is that clear? I can try to make it even clearer if you still don't get it.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by AlienInvader, posted 07-26-2006 10:40 PM AlienInvader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AlienInvader, posted 07-27-2006 10:31 AM ringo has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 78 of 134 (335639)
07-27-2006 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by capeo
07-26-2006 9:54 AM


Re: bigotry
in a realistic sense societies must agree on a moral basis for lawmaking.
Actually they don't. Even your list of common laws are able to derived without an appeal to moral position.
The concept is of human rights being those rights claimed by an individual for themself. One then tries to find logical (and sometimes emotional) solutions to situations where such rights collide between individuals.
Thus the right to kill someone who offends you conflicts with another's right to life. There is no moral position in this. The ability to maintain a functional society, or a cohesive one would realistically err on the side of a right to living rather than the right to kill.
Its a debate on how to work out these issues and not which morals need to be instituted. I personally believe most people have lost that distinction, which has led to many of the problems we face as a nation.
As already mentioned societal morals must revolve around that which is best for society as a whole not a faction of it, even if that faction is the majority, and these moral imperatives ideally have to be minimal.
How does one decide what morals result in the best for society, when the vast majority disagree? To be honest, while wholly supportive of gays and even the most extreme (read offensive) of gay lifestyles, I cannot think of how I could argue it is in society's best interest to let gays do what they want.
Gays are a rather minimal population and any effects would be generally nil toward society if we denied them every and all freedoms.
Its only from a position of defending individual rights, being that I grant rights to others as I take for myself... and so argue from the level of the individual... that defense of gays makes sense. Disallowing their freedoms would not only deny them rights we take for ourselves, but set a precedent for the stripping of rights of others.
We also have things that revolve around a societies agreement of when adulthood begins. Basically eighteen in the US. Any society needs to set a limit on this for its own protection, and the protection of its youth as well.
I'm not sure why a society NEEDS to set such limits at all, most specifically to protect youths. The general reason for such concepts were to protect others in a practical way from the indiscretions of youths and NOT the other way around.
Allowing a 4 year old to drive a car, sign contracts without any parental guidance, and vote on a representative in congress does not seem to make much sense for anyone on the other side of that 4 year old. They are physically incapable of controlling a multi ton vehicle, are unlikely to stick with a contractual obligation they make to you on their own, and generally will not have the wisdom to pick out a qualified candidate.
It is only a very recently that people have decided to view these restrictions on children as some sort of protective device for them.
About the only moral position, though still focusing on the practical issue of conflicting rights, is when a child is thought to be capable of emancipation from parental rights. The rest is an culturally arbitrary judgement of mental competence. Morals may always influence such a judgement, but they don't have to.
In a rational society the basis of making anything illegal must be that there is vast evidence that letting the act happen is so extremely detrimental to society that it warrants restricting freedom
Someone could kill me with no extreme impact on society. Indeed one could kill any individual and even large minority populations without affecting society as a whole. Heck, sometimes it could be a practical improvement for the remaining majority population.
The focus should be on the detriment to the individual and their ability to assert their rights, if we are going to claim something should be illegal. Otherwise individuals get lost in the focus on society.
In essence you are making a slide into an argument for the rights of a society. I realize you are covering the potentially lethal problems of this by appealing to enlightened secular moral thinking... unfortunately morals are for individuals and there is no one form of enlightened secular moral thinking.
In fact you are sort of holding a contradictory position by suggesting that people can hold enlightened moral positions for their gov't and also a strict highly unenlightened moral position in their home. That would likely make no sense to them, and even I am left scratching my head. If they are to believe gov't is capable of setting some moral standards then the idea that they should be restricted to those that most effect society becomes a bit circular on your part. They believe the morals they hold DO effect society in the same way you believe crimes you dislike effect society.
The elegant solution, which ironically was what came out of the enlightenment, is that gov't and morality should be treated separately. That is the only way for a society with truly diverse moral positions to remain cohesive as a diverse society, with an emphasis on maintaining an individual's rights.
While I may have been longwinded, and against your position I hope you see what I am driving at, and understand that I actually liked your post. It was a nice argument for a position I happen to disagree with.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by capeo, posted 07-26-2006 9:54 AM capeo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by capeo, posted 07-27-2006 10:07 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 79 of 134 (335646)
07-27-2006 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AlienInvader
07-26-2006 10:48 AM


Re: bigotry
fundamentally different machinery.
That does not make sense at all. First of all some women can use urinals, and some guys never do, and certainly no guys need to. Why could you not have a single bathroom with just regular toilets? Or what would be the reason you couldn't have a single bathroom with both toilets and urinals usable by both sexes (since you already do have this for men)?
Plus we're disgusting, i doubt woman would want to inhabit the same... conditions that we leave our restrooms in.
Ringo was dead right. Most people familiar with having to clean bathrooms generally note that women are much more disgusting than men. The uhhhh... conditions... I have personally seen in women's rooms are simply without compare.
Yeah guys may have some pee splashed about more, and certainly more grafitti, but that is not the end all of messes that people can make and leave.
The difference in race is that, though racists can claim that they are "superior" there is no real physical difference between the races.
There are physical differences between the races, that's what allows us to identify people of different races. And if you start arguing that some people can pass as different races, the same goes for different sexes.
Believe it or not we all function the same way. Our urinary tracts have a singular opening that pass liquid waste in generally a stream, and our assholes are all the same no matter which sex. It can all be collected the same way.
And I might ask what physical difference has to do with "superiority", that leaves the impression that women could be logically considered inferior because they do have more physical differences.
In any case a person not wanting to share a toilet with a person of a different race may be completely separate from feelings of superiority/inferiority even if they have those feelings as well. People really can feel uncomfortable engaging in that activity (and many others) around people they "feel" are different than themselves.
The segregation of toilet activities boils down to the same thing, someone does not feel comfortable doing that with someone who is identifiably different around. It is totally irrational no matter the chosen criteria.
I agree that races may feel more upset when it is imposed upon them. But if it was part of their culture then they'd generally accept it as we do sexual segregation. In fact many did at the time. Perhaps our current child deification/protection culture will soon result in segregation of bathrooms based on age.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AlienInvader, posted 07-26-2006 10:48 AM AlienInvader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by kongstad, posted 07-27-2006 8:13 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 87 by AlienInvader, posted 07-27-2006 11:02 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 80 of 134 (335658)
07-27-2006 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Nuggin
07-26-2006 1:45 PM


Re: bigotry
I WANT people to use their criteria, but I want it to be logical criteria. I don't care if their opinion coincides with the Bible, but their logical arguement can not simply be - "Homosexuality is immoral because the Bible sez so. QED."
I got your point and I am trying to explain that you are making a mistake. As nwr has already pointed out no moral position can be derived wholly from logic.
Every moral position, begins or involves some wholly irrational element, even if connected by logical structures to a conclusion.
If one begins with the position that the bible posits moral absolutes then the sentence above is a valid logical claim. Find me one moral position in support of homosexuality which doesn't involve an irrational (nonevidentiary nonlogical) belief.
The Bible says that working on the Sabbath is immoral (MORE immoral than gay sex), yet the people proposing an anti-gay marriage ammendment are collecting signatures on a Saturday.
While I agree is a valid critique of many against homosexuality, it is different than arguing that their argument against homosexuality lacks logic. All this means is that they appear to be inconsistent in which rules they uphold.
A possible defense... which I have heard but do not want to go into beyond this post... is that later writings in the New Testament put aside some laws while reinforcing sexual prosriptions (most especially homosexuality) or that they are simply reacting to attempts to advance homosexuality and wouldn't be doing anything if the status quo had remained. Its not like they chose to suddenly focus on homosexuality compared to everything else at this point in time. There really is a movement of homosexuals in support of removing restrictions which are in place.
If someone on the forums wants to claim that they adhere to EVERY rule in the Bible, then I'll let them off the hook for having to pose a logical argument.
What is your moral system and do you adhere to all of its rules? One sometimes makes errors or are forced to choose between one wrong in order to prevent a greater wrong.
Inconsistency of practice is itself not an argument against the logic of a theoretical position.
This is clearly wrong. I don't like cheese. Cheese is not immoral.
Heheheh... check your logic before you wreck your logic. I said all moral claims are statements of personal preference, I did not say that all statements of personal preference are moral statements.
Generally discussions of preference based on immediate sensory aesthetic (taste, texture, etc) are different than those of reflective (mental) aesthetics. They have the same logical standing or "meaning"... it still says "I don't like it"... but their nature is categorically different.
If you tell me you are a utilitarian (most good for the most people)and that your morality derives from that, then I know that it is moral for you to kill a mass murderer because his one death prevents the death of twenty other people.
Utilitarianism allows for the persecution of gays. Most people are not gay and indeed most are offended by them. Furthermore, it can be argued that discipline in the form of sexual ascetism is beneficial for society, at the very least by forming a cultural unity.
But that is to suggest utilitarianism is somehow a rational system. What is the difference between saying that "what is good for the most people" and "what is good according to the Bible"? In fact how does one even define what counts as "good" for the most people?
Utilitarian morality is NOT a purely logical system, it has an irrational element, and indeed many utilitarians can also act contrary to principles. Eugenics is clearly an effort which could provide benefits for the most people, so would genetic engineering, yet would all utilitarians practice these things?
I could also predict how you would behave in other situations. Say, trying to decide who gets food and water when there isnt enough to go around.
Sometimes you could sometimes you couldn't. If you have enough water to keep many people alive but not enough to improve your societal situation, which is "right". One allows life to exist while the other sacrifices life for greater amounts of life in the future (or perhaps just greater security).
How does a utilitarian decide whether to have an abortion, or to allow people to smoke in restaurants?
if you moral standing is simply "I believe in what's said in the Bible" then you are unable to deal with new situations.
But that's not all they believe and I don't think that is what any of them say. If it is specifically in the Bible then they will rely on those specific items, but many daily decisions rely on general principles stated in the Bible, or prayer to God for personal guidance.
In the end "I believe in what is good for the most people" is even more vague a moral hitching post than relying on the Bible. What counts as "good", "most", and "people"?
The Bible says NOTHING about gay marriage. It just says that gay people shouldn't lay down near each other.
Uhhhh, it doesn't say "near" each other and it is clearly using euphemisms for sexual activity. You are right that it doesn't say anything about gay marriage but why would it have to when it proscribes gay sexual activity, repeatedly derides it as leading to destruction, and only discusses marriage in the context of a woman and man?
That's like saying the Bible must condone eating pork and shellfish and establishing restaurant chains based around those things, because it doesn't give recipes for food made from pork or shellfish. Given that they are forbidden, discussion of activities which involve them would be illogical... right?
Look, I sympathize with your disagreement with these people, but your argument against them in this case is flawed. They simply don't have the same moral system you do, and it is not logically possible to judge one moral system using another, nor by appeals to the inconsistency of practice of principles by individuals.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Nuggin, posted 07-26-2006 1:45 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 07-27-2006 8:00 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 86 by Nuggin, posted 07-27-2006 10:55 AM Silent H has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 134 (335664)
07-27-2006 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Silent H
07-27-2006 7:35 AM


Constitution
Look, I sympathize with your disagreement with these people, but your argument against them in this case is flawed.
Whilt that may be true - to make US law based solely on Biblical morality would surely be making a law in respect of an establishment of religion, neh? To avoid the potential constitutional issue, a non-religious reason should be advanced for the ban.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 07-27-2006 7:35 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 4:12 AM Modulous has replied

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 2869 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 82 of 134 (335669)
07-27-2006 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Silent H
07-27-2006 6:24 AM


Re: bigotry
The uhhhh... conditions... I have personally seen in women's rooms are simply without compare.
You should think that women would want to put their spend tampons, and pads in the dispenser, but I've cleaned many a toilet with the pads plastered to the wall, and when the blood has dried, it can take some scrubbing to get of the wall!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 07-27-2006 6:24 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 4:16 AM kongstad has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 134 (335670)
07-27-2006 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AlienInvader
07-26-2006 10:48 AM


Re: bigotry
i'd like to see a woman use a urinal.
It's just a matter of having the right ... tools ...
Tinkle safe - YOUNG; EDWARD J.
http://www.magic-cone.com/
-‘
now can we get back to the "gay marriage morality" issue?
  • homosexual couples don't do anything that heterosexual couples don't do
  • heterosexual couples aren't barred from marriage on the basis of their sexual practices
    ===
    therefore marriage is not about sexual practices
  • some homosexual couples have children
  • some heterosexual couples don't\can't have children
    ===
    therefore the issue is not about having children
  • some cultures {have\have had} cultural traditions recognizing gay relationships, some even using the cultural terminology "marriage"
  • some cultures DON'T have cultural traditions of "marriage"
    ===
    therefore it is not a universal cultural tradition division
  • a free culture recognizes that people have the right to do their beliefs, behavior, etcetera, as long as it does not impact those rights of others
  • an equal culture recognizes that rights apply equally to all people
    ===
    therefore it IS about freedom and equality
and imh(ysa)o, anyone that want's to restrict rights, freedom and equality for {others} and not impose the same restrictions on {self} is bigoted (and immoral).
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AlienInvader, posted 07-26-2006 10:48 AM AlienInvader has not replied

  
capeo
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 134 (335682)
07-27-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Silent H
07-27-2006 5:55 AM


Re: bigotry
Thus the right to kill someone who offends you conflicts with another's right to life. There is no moral position in this. The ability to maintain a functional society, or a cohesive one would realistically err on the side of a right to living rather than the right to kill.
They're are many cohesive and functional societies whose laws arise from agreed upon moral underpinnings that in no way afford individual rights to large segments of its population. In fact, individual rights need not exist in a functioning society per se. The right to kill somebody, specifically a woman who has offended you, is completely accepted in some current muslim societies. This lack of individual rights stems directly from concieving laws based upon a morality born of a religion. I don't see how this, or its opposite: a society based on indiviual rights, doesn't arise from agreed upon group moral standards ("God given rights"?). Perhaps ethics is a better term? The whole area is murky.
Its a debate on how to work out these issues and not which morals need to be instituted. I personally believe most people have lost that distinction, which has led to many of the problems we face as a nation.
Realistically, there is no difference betweens morals and personal law. The impetus of those involved in the above mentioned debate on establishing group law would not be able to remove their morals from the discussion. The actual issue I was addressing is that societal morals (the basis that governing laws are established upon) must have a logical basis and taken to thier most logical end you, I believe, would arrive at the most rights for the individual by maintaning only the minimum of societal laws. A result I think we'd agree is ideal.
Its only from a position of defending individual rights, being that I grant rights to others as I take for myself... and so argue from the level of the individual... that defense of gays makes sense. Disallowing their freedoms would not only deny them rights we take for ourselves, but set a precedent for the stripping of rights of others.
I agree wholeheartedly, all I'm putting forth is that individual rights can only be maintained in a society whose governing is based on the minimum of logical moral imperitaves thus leaving the most room for individual morals which are very likely to be more stringent and contradictory to other factions of said society. Again, I think we view "morals" differently. I see them as the logical basis from which a person would make choices and act if not under the restriction of group (or sometimes called societal) morals. Under this definition institued law comprises group morals for a society. In most cases inserting the word law where I used group morals would probably yield a stance you'd find more agreeable. Being that the OP revolved around morality AND law I deemed the use of group morals versus individual morals appropriate (both of which are accepted philisophical ideas).
I'm not sure why a society NEEDS to set such limits at all, most specifically to protect youths. The general reason for such concepts were to protect others in a practical way from the indiscretions of youths and NOT the other way around.
A society NEEDS such concepts most definitely to protect itself but most certainly to protect its youth as well. By setting such a limit this stops unscrupulous adults from taking advantage of youth via unfair labor practices, unfair marriage practices that take advantage impressionable minds, unfair military practices and much more thus preserving its youth as best as it can for education, which should be the foundation of any society.
I said:
In a rational society the basis of making anything illegal must be that there is vast evidence that letting the act happen is so extremely detrimental to society that it warrants restricting freedom
Someone could kill me with no extreme impact on society. Indeed one could kill any individual and even large minority populations without affecting society as a whole. Heck, sometimes it could be a practical improvement for the remaining majority population.
I would have thought my point was obvious here , that yes, one killing would not have a detrimental effect on society, but if killing was legal in any and all instances it would be the abject lawlessness that would cripple the society in question.
In fact you are sort of holding a contradictory position by suggesting that people can hold enlightened moral positions for their gov't and also a strict highly unenlightened moral position in their home. That would likely make no sense to them, and even I am left scratching my head. If they are to believe gov't is capable of setting some moral standards then the idea that they should be restricted to those that most effect society becomes a bit circular on your part. They believe the morals they hold DO effect society in the same way you believe crimes you dislike effect society.
If people in government could not hold enlightened moral positions while the general populous couldn't then the US would have started as a theocracy and still be one today. I see nothing circular about my argument. In the end I'm a proponent of a minimal of moral standards based solely on logical precepts derived from the most information possible. Following this criteria you arrive at the most individual rights and you would certainly arrive at the conclusion that gay marriage is not immoral except in the most limited of moral standards ordained by religion.
The elegant solution, which ironically was what came out of the enlightenment, is that gov't and morality should be treated separately.
Certainly, individual morality, but philosophically (and realistically) law is group morality, it's an agreed up set of social rules that the vast majority of a social group will abide by even in deference to their individual morality.
Sorry for the long post, but your response was well written and deemed a good response. Thanks for taking the time. We both agree that individual rights are key, by the way, I just think we differ philosophically as to how a society realistically arrives there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 07-27-2006 5:55 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 6:33 AM capeo has not replied

  
AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4924 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 85 of 134 (335691)
07-27-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by ringo
07-26-2006 11:31 PM


Re: bigotry
oh,i share your viewpoint and i didn't even read your original argument, i was simply responding to a bad analogy
Edited by AlienInvader, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 07-26-2006 11:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 07-27-2006 12:41 PM AlienInvader has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 86 of 134 (335695)
07-27-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Silent H
07-27-2006 7:35 AM


Re: bigotry
Wow! Long post. Won't try to address it all.
If one begins with the position that the bible posits moral absolutes then the sentence above is a valid logical claim.
The problem is that the people using the Bible as a crutch (No crutch is a bad analogy, since people using crutches tend to have at least one other leg) are not adhereing to the same singular rule - what the Bible says, goes.
They aren't actively trying to reinstate slavery, stoning or animal sacrifice.
In fact, slavery is a good example --
The Bible (and those that support denying others their rights and hating the different) has no problem with slavery.
However, the argument - "Bible says it's okay" is not sufficient to make US Law.
People pointed out that denying an entire group of people their rights is immoral.
Clearly, this is a mirror of that situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 07-27-2006 7:35 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 5:00 AM Nuggin has replied

  
AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4924 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 87 of 134 (335696)
07-27-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Silent H
07-27-2006 6:24 AM


Re: bigotry
quote:
Why could you not have a single bathroom with just regular toilets?
bottleneck
quote:
Or what would be the reason you couldn't have a single bathroom with both toilets and urinals usable by both sexes (since you already do have this for men)?
i think the reason you don't have women's urinals isn't because it can't be used, but because it is more difficult to maintain privacy. the urinal would need a stall also.
quote:
There are physical differences between the races, that's what allows us to identify people of different races.
And as i said before, nobody enforces segregation of bathrooms based on sex. Women use the men's room all the time.
quote:
There are physical differences between the races, that's what allows us to identify people of different races.
i meant structural differences to the extent of something like, secondary sexual structures.
quote:
Believe it or not we all function the same way. Our urinary tracts have a singular opening that pass liquid waste in generally a stream, and our assholes are all the same no matter which sex. It can all be collected the same way.
quote:
In any case a person not wanting to share a toilet with a person of a different race may be completely separate from feelings of superiority/inferiority even if they have those feelings as well. People really can feel uncomfortable engaging in that activity (and many others) around people they "feel" are different than themselves.
they are free to hold that view, of course we all agree that that also shouldn't influence public policy. I maintain that sexual "segregation" is justified in a practical context with little regards to bigotry.
quote:
The segregation of toilet activities boils down to the same thing, someone does not feel comfortable doing that with someone who is identifiably different around. It is totally irrational no matter the chosen criteria.
no, it boils down to... we don't pee the same way, and practical constraints probably prohibit the "lots of toilets and lots of urinals" thing. size of rooms, privacy, safety.
quote:
Believe it or not we all function the same way. Our urinary tracts have a singular opening that pass liquid waste in generally a stream, and our assholes are all the same no matter which sex. It can all be collected the same way.
so, they've got dicks too? wow, really similar. Yeah they've got urethras and all that, but they can't really aim. We have actual developmental differences. Unless of course you're telling me, women can impregnate each other now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 07-27-2006 6:24 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 4:38 AM AlienInvader has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 88 of 134 (335733)
07-27-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by AlienInvader
07-27-2006 10:31 AM


Re: bigotry
AlienInvader writes:
i didn't even read your original argument
You'll save us all a lot of time if you read before posting.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AlienInvader, posted 07-27-2006 10:31 AM AlienInvader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by AlienInvader, posted 07-27-2006 2:29 PM ringo has replied

  
AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4924 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 89 of 134 (335766)
07-27-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ringo
07-27-2006 12:41 PM


Re: bigotry
no, i still would have argued the analogy. ^_^

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 07-27-2006 12:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 07-27-2006 2:40 PM AlienInvader has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 90 of 134 (335768)
07-27-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AlienInvader
07-27-2006 2:29 PM


Re: bigotry
AlienInvader writes:
i still would have argued the analogy
Well, don't.
Argue the topic.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AlienInvader, posted 07-27-2006 2:29 PM AlienInvader has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024