Sun 2 Nov, 2008
Twisted Logic on Atheism and Proposition 8
5:55 am Comments (44) Filed under: Life and ChoicesTags: Gay Rights Activism, Untitled
If I thought this was an isolated sentiment I wouldn’t pay it much attention. Unfortunately it’s not.
“We can sympathize with gay people because they are a minority and we are a minority,” said anti-Prop. 8 rally organizer Doug Kalagian, 17, a senior who founded the school’s Freethinking Atheist and Agnostic Kinship student club.
“Prop. 8 is not only a religious issue. It’s an issue of discrimination and prejudice. Who’s to say atheists and agnostics won’t be next?”
This is appallingly upside-down. What Kalagian is saying is this: the religious people have mounted an attack on gay marriage, and “who’s to say atheists and agnostics won’t be next?”
The real sequence of history is that gay-rights activists mounted an attack on marriage. And who’s to say Christianity won’t be next? Is that an overstatement? Not necessarily. Look at Canada. Look at San Francisco.
I could be wrong on that, time will tell. But the verdict is already in on Kalagian’s version: it’s already wrong.
Awww, traditional religious bigotry is “under attack”! Cry me a river…
I wonder if racists & misogynists felt the same way during the civil rights movement? “Our ideals are under attack! Waaah!”
Thanks for that *thoughtful* response, Jordan.
Now, did you notice I presented certain statements as factual propositions in my post, and that you made no response to them? Do the facts make a difference to you? Or is it enough for you to point and laugh?
I’m trying to think of contexts where that technique is commonly employed. I suggest you try the same. Thoughtful discourse is not, shall I say, one of the first that comes to mind.
Your “factual proposition” was that the traditional (bigoted) vision of marriage is “under attack.” My response, albeit sarcastic, was that this is a good thing, and that apt parallels can be drawn from the civil rights movement.
Outmoded, bigoted social institutions ought to be attacked. It’s called progress.
Jordan,
“Change” and “progress” are not the same thing. “New” is not always better than “traditional.” And it’s possible to be so open minded that one’s brains fall right out. Point being that a social movement is not always a good thing just because it contradicts the norm.
I can’t help but wonder if you’re ready to declare social discouragement of polygamy, incest, or bestiality as “outmoded, bigoted social institutions”. Some people see those as totally separate issues, but I think it’s valid.
If you’re not willing to say that the stigma against those should be dropped, aren’t you being bigoted? If not, what special exemption does your list of “okay” and “not okay” get? If I’m a bigot for saying that certain relationships don’t count as a real “marriage”, how can you possibly form any distinctions at all and not be bigoted by your own definition as well? Do you really think that the only reason people oppose gay marriage is out of sheer ‘hatred’? If so, what makes a person opposing those other things less hateful?
I don’t understand the bigotry charge associated with Prop 8. No legal rights are being denied to anyone. Under the law, domestic partnerships will still have the same rights as married partnerships whether it passes OR fails. All that Prop 8 does is legally define the term ‘marriage’. It’s not a violation of rights or bigotry to legally define a term is it?
Someone who is against Prop 8 help me out here.
I agree; however, gay marriage is a symbolic rejection of 2,000+ years of homophobia, and I consider that to be the good sort of change.
I’m actually ok with polygamy (as long as it’s totally consensual), and I suppose even incest, although gross, is morally acceptable as long as contraception is used and as long as any resulting “accidents” (until the invention of 100% effective contraception) are terminated. I would have a problem with bestiality, however, as it would obviously be non-consensual.
There’s no good reason to oppose gay marriage, and there are several good reasons (tolerance, equality, love, etc.) to support it. That’s what makes opposition to it bigoted. One can oppose, say, bestiality without being a bigot because there are legitimate reasons (e.g., the well-being of the animal) to oppose it.
Ok, now imagine if a similar argument were used during the civil rights movement: “I don’t understand the bigotry charge associated with segregation. Blacks will still get their own water fountains, bathrooms, schools, etc. We just want to keep them separate.”
Suddenly the bigotry leaps out at us, doesn’t it?
One can be against gay marriage, but not for reasons for which society has already concluded aren’t sufficient to deny inter-racial marriage.
So, when you argue against gay marriage, make sure that those same arguments weren’t defeated in the push for inter-racial marriage.
Jordan,
I think this is an important: are you confirming that, in your opinion, that there have been absolutely, positively, categorically no reasons that any society has rejected homosexuality as compatible with “marriage”, other than ‘homophobia’? That’s it? Nothing but irrational hatred, and that’s all?
You should be able to see how your level of relativism is just not applicable to the real world. You say incest is okay – as long as there are no children. Wait, now. So, an incestuous couple’s actions are all well and good until they get pregnant? Would getting pregnant ripple back through time, and make that particular sexual encounter immoral, or what? If you consider the creation of a child who is genetically inferior (in your opinion) to be the only sin, aren’t you espousing a far more hateful form of bigotry?
Apparently, you’re well aware of one of the best reasons that society has always condemned incest (harm to the offspring). Sweeping that away, as long as the consequences don’t manage to happen, is just “side-step-ism”. That is, you’re trying to claim that having the technology to mitigate the consequences of an action magically makes the action moral.
(Tom, bear with me, but I’m making a point with the following)
I’d have to call you out for bigotry in terms of bestiality, though. Who are you to say that the animal isn’t giving consent? Isn’t it an outmoded, bigoted social institution that says that animals can’t have a loving sexual relationship with a human? Yet, you go so far as to say that it’s “obviously” non-consensual, which implies a very closed-minded, species-ist, and irrational attitude towards those with transgenus sexuality. How can you disagree with that assessment without doing exactly what you accuse others of doing?
What do you think about pedophilia? Isn’t it an outmoded, bigoted social institution that says that children can’t give their consent to sexuality? That’s so old-fashioned. Letting 40-year old men and 4-year-old children have intercourse is a symbolic rejection of several millennia of pederast-o-phobia, and wouldn’t that be a good thing? How can you disagree with that assessment without doing exactly what you accuse others of doing?
You’re being incredibly glib, and very shallow, to attempt to say that “there’s no good reason to oppose gay marriage”. Really? Not one, not some, not any? Ever? At all? Those of us who oppose treating homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones are doing it 100.00% for hate? I think you’re a little undereducated on the research studies into homosexual culture, health issues, and so forth. Those are just the reasons most pertinent to homosexuals themselves, let alone the impact of embracing such a view on the culture as a whole. History has a lot to say in support of the notion that obliterating the boundaries of heterosexual marriage is a step towards dismantling an entire culture.
You’re being just as glib by acting as though “tolerance, equality, and love”, in and of themselves, are reasons to allow anything. Like I said about open minded-ness, it’s not a virtue in and of itself. A perpetually open mind is as useless as a perpetually open mouth – it’s supposed to close on something wholesome. Your attitude leaves you no reason to ever call anything “wrong” enough that society should actively discourage it. Should we embrace rape in the name of tolerance? What about theft, or adultery, or slavery? Don’t we need to love the thief? If you’re thinking that those involve hurting others, while sexuality is somehow different, then you really don’t know anything about how cultures operate.
What about alcoholism? Should I embrace and celebrate that as a valid lifestyle, since the person didn’t choose to be that way, and it only involves consenting persons? What hurts me hurts my neighbor, too. There is no such thing as a victimless sin.
Just because someone has an urge to do something does not make it morally acceptable. Just because they have an urge does not make it beneficial. Just because the number of people participating in, or lobbying for acceptance of, a particular immorality grows does not mean that there’s “no reason” to oppose it.
Jordan,
Also, your rebuttal about segregation is a major category error. “Marriages” are not locations, like restrooms and water fountains. People are not given public access to one’s “marriage”. It’s exclusive to those two people, is created for them alone, and is not materially different in any meaningful sense from any other identical set of legal rights. Legally speaking, the issue at hand does not create anything “different”. If the homosexual couple has exactly the same rights as the heterosexual one, then there is absolutely no discrimination occurring from a legal standpoint.
The question, then, is purely one of terminology. If A=B, then there is no discrimination in calling one example “A”, and another example “B”.
Paul,
Inter-racial marriages are not legally, morally, or philosophially in the same category as homosexual marriages. Saying otherwise is to suggest that there is no more difference between a male and a female than between a black man and a white man.
Factual case in point: inter-racial relationships aren’t more prone to transmission of diseases than same-race relationhips. That is not true for homosexual relationships as opposed to heterosexual ones.
Factual case in point: black men (women) are just as capable of fathering (bearing) children as white men (women). You cannot say that a woman is just as capable of insemination as a man, or a man is just as capable of gestation as a woman.
The essence of the argument for inter-racial marriage is that the difference between a man marrying a white woman or a black woman is purely cosmetic. That cannot be said for the difference between a man marrying a woman vs. marrying another man. You’re trying to say that every argument for opposing homosexual marriage is defeated by an argument supporting inter-racial marriage, and that is simply not true.
MM, I’m reluctant to address all your other points until you see the illogic in your last one.,
I’m not saying that at all. I’m merely saying that any argument against SSM must survive a similar argument against inter-racial marriage when appropriate. For those arguments against SSM that *can* be analogized with arguments against inter-racial marriage, they must survive that analogy.
To take an easy example, to argue against SSM on the basis that it would disrupt society, one can refute that argument by saying that similar claims were made against inter-racial marriage, but because society survived somehow, so society will survive SSM.
Nothing in my original post implied otherwise.
Jordan,
Prop 8 does nothing to prevent same sex couples from *living* the exact same life, and I mean EXACT, as married couples. No segregation and no special laws for same sex couples. So again, where is the violation of equal rights?
Suppose you had the chance to vote to legally recognize the term ‘gay relationship’ as “a relationship consisting ONLY of two or more people of the same sex” Would it be bigoted or a violation of equal rights to vote yes? I don’t think so. If you think so then please explain because, honestly, I don’t see it.
In the case of segregation, yes. In the case of Prop 8, no, because same sex couples can live the same life as married couples. Nothing is being denied, except the right to be legally recognized as a ‘married couple’. My wife and I can’t be recognized as a ‘gay couple’. Have our rights been violated?
Paul,
You said this:
I figured that could be taken in one of two ways: 1) don’t do it or 2) it can’t be done.
I figured that any practical application of #1 was a little too obvious, so I demonstrated that #2 was false. Also, the very fact that race and gender are so very different makes #1 sort of inconsequential, since arguments like this…
…are both irrelevant, and still wrong. That doesn’t refute anything, since the differences are significant enough that they need to be considered as separate and unique situations. “Bob survived being shot by a slingshot somehow, he’ll somehow survive being shot by a 12-gauge shotgun.” That’s illogical, because there are only superficial similarities between the slingshot and the 12-gauge.
Don’t you think it’s highly illogical to assume that because society survived one challenge to the status quo that it can survive any challenge to it? What if the argument about society collapsing was wrong for inter-racial, but is right for SSM? Or, where’s the logic in assuming that “survival” is the only criteria worth considering? Western society would have “survived” if the (unrelated and extreme, but easiest to understand example) Third Reich had won, but is that reason to suggest that such a victory would have been okay?
Yes, I think homophobia lies at the root of it, although sometimes beneath layers of rationalization.
It’s immoral to bring a “genetically inferior” child into the world if the result will likely be terrible suffering. My morality boils down to this (generally speaking): Joy good, suffering bad. It’s good to do things that bring joy into the world, and it’s bad to do things that cause unnecessary suffering.
Why not? Isn’t an action immoral precisely because it can have negative consequences?
How exactly would an animal give consent? I should qualify that: How would it give informed consent? If animals could give consent, then I suppose I’d have to reconsider my stance on bestiality. But, fortunately for me, they can’t;-)
Children can’t give informed consent. Moreover, paedophilia causes suffering, due to a child’s sexual immaturity.
At any rate, are you honestly trying to draw moral equivalence between consensual homosexual intercourse & paedophilia/bestiality? Can you really not see how one of these things is not like the others?
You’re getting hung up on irrelevant details of the analogy. The broader point was that you, and other Prop. 8 supporters, want to give gays a separate pseudo-marriage so as not to sully your narrow-minded idea of traditional marriage. This is exactly the same kind of segregationist mentality that the civil rights movement fought against. You want to keep your “water fountains” clean. It’s as simple as that.
If A=B, then why do you oppose referring to “B” as “A”?
Jordan,
That’s a conveniently shallow view of the issue. With that attitude, you can ignore all of the social, scientific, and historical information that sheds a negative light on the broad acceptance of homosexual lifestyles. You’ve created a impenetrable and self-serving bubble around yourself – any fact or idea that might contradict you is just shrugged off as “homophobia”.
That explains why you say silly things like “there is no reason” other than hatred to expect society to draw a line between legitimate tolerance and unlimited acceptance of everything and anything that someone wants to do.
Okay, so in your view, giving birth to an “inferior” child brings suffering, and is therefore “immoral”. Question: if endorsement of certain actions at the normative level of ‘marriage’ brings suffering, are you opposed to that as well? Or are you going to excuse certain preferred lifestyles with pleas for tolerance and love?
Are you even letting your own ideas relate to each other? If the reduction of suffering is good, and the increase of suffering is bad, how do you respond to the factual data demonstrating the harmful effects of homosexuality, both on homosexuals and society at large? Then again, you’ve already engaged the cop-out of dismissing contradictory views as merely “homophobic”, and nothing more; I shouldn’t expect there to be an answer to that, I suppose.
Likewise, you’re trying to argue (here) from a consequentialist perspective…but there are empirically valid reasons to see SSM as an idea with negative consequences. You seem to acknowledge this is a worthwhile reason for rejection with respect to bestiality (sort of) and pedophilia, but with homosexuality you resort to “tolerance”, “love”, and “equality”. Why? Why? And again, why do you think it’s okay to make that irrational sidestep only for one type of abnormality, and not every form? You’re just trying to make relativism fit your mold, and instead it’s eating out the walls.
Actions are not moral or immoral based on their consequences, nor because they can have negative consequences (I note the attempt at unlocking an escape hatch by adding that qualifier, btw). A doctor who makes an informed, good-faith attempt to cure a patient that actually kills them has not done something immoral. A doctor attempting to deliberately murder a patient who accidentally cures him has not performed a moral act. Intent is prior to content in morality as much as it is in education.
Not to be crude about animals, but I want to show how your thought process is weak here. Does consent have to be verbal or written or lingual at all? An animal that willingly engages in an activity is “consenting”, is it not? Again, how do you respond to the notion that your attitude towards bestiality is just a figment of an outmoded, phobic social construct that enlightened generations will denounce?
Same for children, again apologizing for the crudeness. You keep sneering off attitudes about homosexuality as “outmoded” and based purely in homophobia. How do you argue with one who says you’re outmoded or prejudicial with respect to childrens’ sexuality? Are you going to argue that “gentle” pedophilia isn’t so bad, the way Richard Dawkins does? Sooner or later, the very acid you use to melt the foundations down to your preferences will destroy them completely.
My question to you is, how can you possibly call one type of sexual interaction “okay”, and another “not okay”, by the very mindset you’re using to excuse homosexuality? You haven’t shown that so far. You’re espousing absolute relativism – and that’s a universal solvent. You can only ‘permit’ with that kind of view, you can never ‘denounce’ anything without abandoning relativism. But, that makes your views purely prescriptive. What about alcoholism – are you all for the legally enforced acceptance of that as a normal, acceptable lifestyle? Your own arguments in favor of SSM seem to require that you do just that.
That A and B are equivalent simply means that giving one person A and one person B is non-discriminatory, not that they are the same thing. Monetarily, four quarters buys just as much as one dollar – but that only makes a dollar bill the same as a stack of coins in terms of purchasing power. “Civil unions” are not marriages. Marriages are not homosexual by definition. That’s what shows the true colors of the SSM lobby. It has nothing to do with rights – it has everything to do with forcing people to embrace and celebrate their lifestyle.
[QUOTE]That’s a conveniently shallow view of the issue. With that attitude, you can ignore all of the social, scientific, and historical information that sheds a negative light on the broad acceptance of homosexual lifestyles. You’ve created a impenetrable and self-serving bubble around yourself – any fact or idea that might contradict you is just shrugged off as “homophobia”.[/QUOTE]
How on Earth is this relevant? The children of smokers and poor people in the US have a higher mortality rate- should we ban them from having children? Heck, giving birth is more dangerous than abortion AND leads to more negative problems- should we mandate abortion?
[QUOTE]Okay, so in your view, giving birth to an “inferior” child brings suffering, and is therefore “immoral”. Question: if endorsement of certain actions at the normative level of ‘marriage’ brings suffering, are you opposed to that as well? Or are you going to excuse certain preferred lifestyles with pleas for tolerance and love?[/QUOTE]
One is a single instance and the other is a generality. You cannot give an absolute statement for a generality.
[QUOTE]Are you even letting your own ideas relate to each other? If the reduction of suffering is good, and the increase of suffering is bad, how do you respond to the factual data demonstrating the harmful effects of homosexuality, both on homosexuals and society at large? Then again, you’ve already engaged the cop-out of dismissing contradictory views as merely “homophobic”, and nothing more; I shouldn’t expect there to be an answer to that, I suppose.[/QUOTE]
Any evidence? Because you are starting to sound like a red comrade. Or maybe a brown shirt. We don’t like your kind in the USA.
If only there were places in the world were homosexuality was accepted- than we could see what the effects might be. It is called Amsterdam in case you are curious.
[QUOTE]Likewise, you’re trying to argue (here) from a consequentialist perspective…but there are empirically valid reasons to see SSM as an idea with negative consequences. You seem to acknowledge this is a worthwhile reason for rejection with respect to bestiality (sort of) and pedophilia, but with homosexuality you resort to “tolerance”, “love”, and “equality”. Why? Why? And again, why do you think it’s okay to make that irrational sidestep only for one type of abnormality, and not every form? You’re just trying to make relativism fit your mold, and instead it’s eating out the walls.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you read his comment, he says that bestality is wrong because there is no informed consent, and petophilia is wrong because there is no informed consent. Homosexuality has, by contrast, informed consent.
[QUOTE]Actions are not moral or immoral based on their consequences, nor because they can have negative consequences (I note the attempt at unlocking an escape hatch by adding that qualifier, btw). A doctor who makes an informed, good-faith attempt to cure a patient that actually kills them has not done something immoral. A doctor attempting to deliberately murder a patient who accidentally cures him has not performed a moral act. Intent is prior to content in morality as much as it is in education.[/QUOTE]
You are strawmanning- BOTH are important. Intent AND consequences are important. After all, the 9/11 suicide bombers thought they were doing the right thing, as did Hitler, Stalin and so many others.
[QUOTE]Not to be crude about animals, but I want to show how your thought process is weak here. Does consent have to be verbal or written or lingual at all? An animal that willingly engages in an activity is “consenting”, is it not? Again, how do you respond to the notion that your attitude towards bestiality is just a figment of an outmoded, phobic social construct that enlightened generations will denounce?[/QUOTE]
People can’t even properally predict signals from other human beings- are you telling me we are smart enough to do that with animals? Not to mention most animals are reliant on people for continued food- it is as much consent as a slave.
[QUOTE]Same for children, again apologizing for the crudeness. You keep sneering off attitudes about homosexuality as “outmoded” and based purely in homophobia. How do you argue with one who says you’re outmoded or prejudicial with respect to childrens’ sexuality? Are you going to argue that “gentle” pedophilia isn’t so bad, the way Richard Dawkins does? Sooner or later, the very acid you use to melt the foundations down to your preferences will destroy them completely.[/QUOTE]
Lets make more assertions without giving any evidence! Are you going to give a statement by Dawkins or do you just like slander?
As for children’s sexuality… the words “abuse of power” come to mind. They are both weaker and entirely dependant on adults. How can such an unequal relationship NOT be abusive?
[QUOTE]My question to you is, how can you possibly call one type of sexual interaction “okay”, and another “not okay”, by the very mindset you’re using to excuse homosexuality? You haven’t shown that so far. You’re espousing absolute relativism – and that’s a universal solvent. You can only ‘permit’ with that kind of view, you can never ‘denounce’ anything without abandoning relativism. But, that makes your views purely prescriptive. What about alcoholism – are you all for the legally enforced acceptance of that as a normal, acceptable lifestyle? Your own arguments in favor of SSM seem to require that you do just that.[/QUOTE]
No, I am not infavor of relativism. In fact my views are rather… extreme. Suffice to say I have absolute standards. And I CAN denounce things. I am denouncing your actions now, am I not?
Alcoholism is BAD. But, amazingly enough the government doesn’t ban alcoholics from getting married. Or criminals. Or even traitors and terrorists. And unlike gays, those groups can breed.
[QUOTE]That A and B are equivalent simply means that giving one person A and one person B is non-discriminatory, not that they are the same thing. Monetarily, four quarters buys just as much as one dollar – but that only makes a dollar bill the same as a stack of coins in terms of purchasing power. “Civil unions” are not marriages. Marriages are not homosexual by definition. That’s what shows the true colors of the SSM lobby. It has nothing to do with rights – it has everything to do with forcing people to embrace and celebrate their lifestyle.[/QUOTE]
Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.
Appeal to persecution is a logical fallacy.
Jordan and Samuel,
Q: Did you know that in California my partner (aka my wife) and I can’t enter into a domestic partnership because we are heterosexual – but a homosexual couple CAN. This is Prop 8 in reverse. Is this a violation of equal rights?
A: No, because the law allows me to get the same thing through a marriage. In other words, as far as legal rights go both domestic partnership and marriage are interchangeable. If you don’t believe me, read the Family Law Code yourself. You both really need to rethink this.
And that’s a conveniently shallow rebuttal. What do “homosexual culture” and “homosexual lifestyle”, as expressed in our particular social environment (one where homophobic hate groups, such as Christianity, are pervasive), have to do with homosexuality? It is instructive to look at Paul’s Inter-Racial Marriage Test. Before IRM was socially acceptable, one could have argued that it brought “harm” to society; and it did, in a sense, but only because society needed to change. Progress was required, and people like you stood in the way.
One of the many reasons to support gay marriage is to change society in such a way that the “homosexual lifestyle” is no longer “harmful.”
I didn’t say that, so I won’t bother responding to it.
You are twisting my words. I said that if giving birth to a “genetically inferior” child (note the use of quotes, as it was your term) would cause it to suffer, then the pregnancy should be terminated.
Please stop being dishonest.
I also said the promotion of joy is good (something totally foreign to Christians, I realize). Sometimes it is difficult to strike a proper balance. But I think it’s pretty obvious, to those of us whose morality hasn’t been twisted and distorted by religion, that changing society’s attitude towards homosexuality (as sex in general) would promote joy and reduce suffering.
I am not a pure consequentialist. I realize that intent has to be taken into consideration. But do we really want to get into a deep philosophical discussion about ethics? I know you understand the point I was trying to make, so it is discouraging to see you twisting it now to suit your own ends. At any rate, let me clarify: It is wrong to knowingly & directly cause a nonconsenting other to suffer.
It has to be informed consent, obviously. It is wrong to have sex with animals for the same reason it can be considered rape to have sex with a severely drunk woman you picked up at a bar. It worries me that these basic ethical facts aren’t immediately apparent to you and your ilk.
They are wrong. It is a simple anatomical and psychological fact that children are disastrously harmed by sex with adults, and they are not equipped to give informed consent to this harm.
Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m a relativist?
MM, you’re right on my disrupting society analogy, I’ll have to reformulate my thought.
No time now, but in the meantime, I’d like to mention a study (sorry, don’t have a link, Google it if you wish) in which erections (or lack thereof) were measured in a group of men, some of whom were against homosexuality, some weren’t. They showed everyone heterosexual and homosexual erotic movies. Only the men who were against homosexuality were aroused by the homosexual movies.
Science marches on.
Samuel, the blockquote code here is not quite what you used. There are formatting hints you might want to take a look at here.
Samuel,
Jordan’s choice to glibly dismiss every reason for not accepting SSM as “homophobia” is quite relevant; it means that he’s not really willing to consider facts that don’t support his view. It’s also relevant to note whether or not certain behaviors are beneficial or detrimental. He’s making consequentialist arguments, so it’s perfectly valid to note that homosexuality is not a positive influence on homosexuals, or their surrounding societies. I’ll respond to his take on that problem later.
I’m not going to get very deep with you on this, because you’ve set historical precedents saying it’s not worthwhile. Briefly, then:
If you’re not familiar with the well-documented health/mental effects that abortion has on women, and/or you’re somehow arguing that death is better than life, then I have to suggest you do some research. Or ask why you choose to live when non-life is less problematic. ??
And, there’s our obligatory Nazi reference. Thanks for making my point about poisoning the well that much clearer.
I know that you absolutely never check for data on anything, but here are some resources showing how homosexual behaviors are not good for anyone, least of all the homosexual:
Peter Freiberg, “Study: Alcohol Use More Prevalent for Lesbians,” The Washington Blade, January 12, 2001
Karen Paige Erickson, Karen F. Trocki, “Sex, Alcohol and Sexually Transmitted Diseases: A National Survey,” Family Planning Perspectives 26 (December 1994)
Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997)
Anne Paulk, Restoring Sexual Identity (Eugene OR: Harvest House, 2003)
Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, “Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996″ Current Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. (February 2002)
M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973)
L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
“Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships,” GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, http://www.glcensus.org.
Michael W. Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997)
A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
David H. Demo, et al., editors, Handbook of Family Diversity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)
Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003)
http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/berman.html
Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994)
P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991)
Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997)
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=2920801063
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf
You noted Europe as a place where homosexuality is “accepted” – please note that the Maria Xiridou reference includes information indicating that social acceptance of homosexuality does not make it any healthier. And the social situations in European countries are hardly enviable, in large part because of the dissolution of stable marriages.
No one said consequences were not important – I said intent was ‘prior’, not ‘entire’. The core of consequentialism is that results are what determines morality, and Jordan is arguing from that perspective.
Before you make accusations of slander, perhaps you should take five seconds to see if Dawkins has ever said anything like that. Here’s a hint: he has (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins).
You may want to take a moment to consider that I neither support nor accept things like bestiality or pedophilia, but I bring them up because Jordan’s core approach to justifying homosexuality takes away his ability to criticize those. At least, he hasn’t shown any way that he can do so consistently. He certainly can’t without doing what he criticizes others for doing.
Appeal to “change for its own sake” (ie bucking tradition) is not only fallacious, but dangerous.
Appeal to emotion is a fallacy (we need to be “tolerant”, “loving”, and such, no matter what).
Appeal to persecution is coming from somewhere in left field. What?
Jordan,
So, it’s shallow for me to call you out on your sweeping dismissal of SSM opposition as purely “homophobic”? Did you consider that response, or is “I know you are, but what am I” just a reflex? Wouldn’t it be correct for someone to say that the statement, “all support for SSM is based in hedonism or perversion, with some rationalizations,” is shallow and closed-minded?
Homosexual culture has everything to do with it. I have tremendous sympathy for those involved in homosexuality; it’s a tough row to hoe. Living that lifestyle comes along with a truckload of emotional, medical, and physical baggage. As I noted to Samuel, social, mental, and health issues are just as much a problem in places friendly to homosexuality as they are in places hostile to it. The problem is not caused by stigma – it’s intrinsic to the behavior itself. Apparently, changing culture to “accept” something doesn’t necessarily mean that the ill effects go away. Consider alcoholism again – living in a nation that’s more tolerant of drunkenness doesn’t make the health concerns of alcoholics, or its effect on their families and friends, magically disappear.
You keep mentioning “progress”, but you don’t want to deal with the idea that homosexuality has documented detriments, both to homosexuals and society at large. That’s not “progress” you want, it’s just “change”. Then again, you do have a response…
…which admits that there are problems, but you’re willing to make a special exemption for them. These problems need to be fixed by changing society, while the problems of other sexual behaviors do not.
First of all, don’t say that and then claim not to be a pure consequentialist. Maybe you’re not, but statements like that seem to say you are. How would you respond to claims in the same vein about bestiality or pedophilia or rape or incest? “We need to support them, so that society changes and those things are no longer harmful”. “Consent” is not a valid litmus test for morality, in part because no action is ever without consequences for the society at large. Whether or not my neighbor chooses to become a crack addict does not change that fact that such actions harm me, and everyone connected to him, as well as himself.
The promotion of joy is central to Christianity (John 8:36; John 10:10; Romans 12:10) – but there is a difference between absolute permissiveness and reasonable freedom. You don’t necessarily make someone happy just by letting them do anything, or some particular thing, that they want to. In fact, sometimes you have to deny certain urges or desires to protect happiness and well-being. Anyone with children knows this is true.
Cocaine might make people happy for a while – but overall, it does the opposite, for them and their neighbors. Just because someone has an urge does not mean that that urge is moral, beneficial, or acceptable. Expressing it might make them happy, but that doesn’t make it legitimate.
If you think this is true…
…then why do you refuse to admit that there might be reasons beyond homophobia to oppose SSM? If the lifestyle is bad for those who practice it, and bad for those around them, isn’t it an act of knowing immorality to promote it? If you think the entire problem there is social stigma, why not work to remove it for the other aberrant sexual practices we talked about?
And I think the “directly” is a bit evasive – indirect consequences of actions can be worse than the direct ones. My neighbor wouldn’t be causing me direct suffering by selling drugs to willing buyers in the next town, but he’s still hurting me, and the families of those he sells to.
You’re speaking, arguing, and rebutting as a relativist. Consequentialism is a form of utilitarianism, which is a relativistic sense of morality. You’re arguing for ‘progress’ for its own sake, also relativistic. You’re also trying to suggest that the real problem with certain actions is society, not the act – again, a relativistic view.
Jordan,
Have you read any utilitarians? Have you read any responses to them? What you propose here is utilitarianism in an extremely simplistic form. In a word, there are significant problems with it, even in its sophisticated formulations. Very significant. (For good statements of utilitarianism, I suggest you start with Bentham and Mill, and from there look for responses others have written.)
No. Not unless you’re a utilitarian or consequentialist. See above for the former, see further above, in MM’s comment, for the latter.
Are you a vegetarian? If not, why not?
I don’t know about MM, but I don’t call them equivalent. Some forms of immorality are worse than others.
In the case of racial rights, the water fountains were not in scare quotes. They were real. There are real differences between racial rights and gay “rights.”
MM wrote,
I think, Jordan, it might be an interesting exercise for you to ask yourself, “what counts for me as evidence, or at least what kind of thing could count as evidence, that homosexual practice has negative social effects?” Further, “what kinds of evidence am I discounting—evidence that MM has put forward—and why do I think it so irrelevant?”
Samuel,
Every abortion leads to the death of a human. You don’t have much of a case here.
Whew—if that were applied to every relativist here, I can’t imagine how different the conversation would look!
Together they amount to utilitarianism. See above.
Dawkins’s statement about “gentle pedophilia” may be found here. I request you rescind your charge of slander.
Jordan, you wrote,
This is how discussions here degenerated badly a few weeks ago. Charges of slander and dishonesty, taking the worst possible interpretation, not giving the slightest grace. The “slander” (see above) was not slander, and it’s entirely possible that MM had reasons other than dishonesty to read what you wrote the way he read it. He might have misinterpreted, he might have been careless, or he might have been summarizing something that you intended in a more precise sense.
Stop accusing the person. Feel free to attack the argument, but accusations against persons are not welcome here.
That is so far in error that I sit here dumbfounded. I’m sorry we have done such a poor job of explaining what we’re about. I refer you to one of my favorite contemporary authors, John Piper, on the subject. Christianity is, among other things, about enjoying life more, not less; and I have 30+ years of experience to back that up.
Dawkins doesn’t think so. See above.
MM, thank you for your additional comments, added while I was composing my most recent…
I’m going to be intentionally redundant here. The following is lifted out of my most recent comment. I don’t want it to be missed:
You’re right. I was letting my anger get the better of me when I accused MM of dishonesty, and when I said joy is a foreign concept to Christians. That’s the thing about these hot button issues; emotions tend to run high (mine do, anyway), which makes constructive dialogue almost impossible. (Although, I have to say, I’m impressed by you & MM’s calm demeanor).
Anyways, I’m going back into lurk-mode.
1.
Brown v Board of Education
Thank you.
1.
Would you like to respond to the precedents or are you fine with the fact the only countries that have implemented your ideal are totalitarian police states?
Please stop doing this. You assume your opponents are idiots. Repeatedly. Than you play the victim card when they are offended.
Anyway, the consequences for abortion are less than those of pregnancy, as has been repeatedly shown.
1.
You know some people would rebut how they are different from the Third Reich and the CCCP- you seem not to care that you are carrying on in the tradition of totalitarianism. Are you going to bother to respond to this or just sweep it under the carpet?
That is the second time you have assumed your opponents are morons. As for the studies, I could only use the linked ones. The others I wasn’t willing to judge until I say the representative sample.
http://www.glcensus.org.
Which is an internet survey. Automatically invalid due to the confirmation effect.
http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/berman.html
Has too small a sample size (312), too short (5 years) and lacks any comparison to straight people.
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=2920801063
Is not a study.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf
They included bisexuals, their sample size was so small it only had whites and they count sadism and feces obsession as gay problems… even though they occur in the same rates as with heterosexual people. They also think anal sex is extremely dangerous… even though ANYONE who has been through sex ed knows that if you use lube this isn’t a problem.
First, I said Amsterdam. Poland is famously anti-gay, and much of the rest of Europe isn’t much better. And the Netherlands has recently gone down the tubes so I can’t use them anymore Also, what do you mean by dissolution of marriages?
1.
My short, blunt post. Feel free to ignore the above one.
Here is your argument.
1) Homosexuality is bad for the individual and society.
2) The government should discourage things that are bad for individuals and society.
2a) Homosexuality can be affected by incentives.
3) The government should discourage homosexuality by refusing to recognize gay marriage.
The problem is that 2a is false- many activities are inelatic. Human sexulaity is one of them.
1 is also false because homosexuality isn’t harmful compared to the alternative- heterosexuality. Straight people have STDs, infidelity, domestic violence, etc.
The only group that would be free is asexuals. I know- where will we get kids? Well, artifical wombs of course!
2 is also false. The government does not have unlimited power to ban things just because it feels like it (referance- amendment 9 of the US constituion).
Rebuttal?
Samuel,
The reason I don’t rebut absurd claims from irrational people is the same reason I don’t wrestle in the mud with pigs: it brings me down to their level and the pigs like it. I don’t feel the need to overtly explain why I’m not a totalitarian in response to your ranting any more I need to explain why I’m not a martian to the man in the tinfoil hat. You’re simply not applying reason, thought, or care to your approach to this issue, and it’s making you look foolish. No one is calling you anything: but your arguments are irrational and our prior interactions suggest that you’re not interested in considering anything you disagree with. I’m simply showing you where and how your arguments fall flat, and if that’s hurtful to your sensibilities, then perhaps you need to change your approach or stay silent.
That being said, you’re making a monumental mistake by conflating “let’s not endorse or celebrate” and “let’s ban”. No one here is talking about making homosexuality illegal. What we are talking about is society drawing a line between that which it promotes and celebrates, and that which it tolerates. I’m all for tolerance of homosexuality, but not facilitation or celebration of it.
That’s the real battle cry from the SSM lobby. In the case at hand, they already have absolutely every single right that is accorded to married heterosexuals. Marriages are not bathrooms or water fountains – an identical set of legal rights with different names cannot be crammed under the banner of “separate IS inequal”. A person cannot sue a restaurant because the sign says “Men’s bathroom”, and they want to use a “restroom”. SSM is about forcing society to say, “we agree with you”, plain and simple.
If you think only “totalitarian” societies have chosen not to consider homosexual unions as “marriages”, then perhaps your definition of “totalitarian” is as deficient as your grasp of history. You insult every person who has suffered and died, or fought to oppose, actual totalitarianism when you conflate these issues in that way. Calling me a “brown shirt”, or a “totalitarian” because of my stance on this issue is not only immature and counterproductive, but indicative of a very poor grasp of the issue itself.
The sources I gave you, looked at together, say exactly what I told you they say. Negative effects such as mental health problems, STDs, and rampant promiscuity are far more prevalent in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. Not every gay person is a raging pervert, of course, and no one said anything like that. But the facts are the facts: persons involved in homosexual behaviors are less happy, less healthy, and more of a drain on society than heterosexuals, regardless of whether or not the culture around them supports their lifestyle.
If you want to pick one single country, and ignore others who have “accepted” homosexuality, then who are you to criticize some of these studies for small sample sizes? Aren’t you just doing exactly what I suggested that Jordan might be? That is, ignoring all data that contradicts you, then speaking as though there was “no reason” for people to disagree with you?
No, the same does not apply to heterosexuality. People who don’t smoke get cancer, does that mean that there is absolutely no reason to say smoking is unhealthy? Of course not, because smokers get cancer much, much, much more frequently than non-smokers. There is no way to dispute the fact that smoking causes health problems, just as homosexuality causes mental and physical health problems. The line of argument you are trying to use is simply ridiculous. Your comment about alcoholism demonstrates this: you either don’t get it, or you’re ignoring it. Alcoholics are going to get cirrhosis and brain damage, and disrupt their families, whether society pats them on the back for it, or discourages it. Nations that are more permissive of drinking have more alcoholics, not less. Health and social problems are not caused by stigmas, they are caused by behavior.
Let me ask you a question: is it ever acceptable for a society to place limits on what people may or may not do? Answer carefully. You’re calling me a totalitarian just for suggesting that some behaviors merit society’s disapproval. If you think (as I do) that a person ought not be allowed to beat a homosexual senseless and leave them in a ditch, then aren’t you a totalitarian? Who are you to decide what actions are or are not to be allowed? You’re just arrogating a right to yourself (judging right and wrong) that you’re not willing to grant to me – why?
Also, if you think your toenail is human, and human-ness isn’t special, then how do you argue with a person who believes in killing certain types of people? What does it matter, in your view, if it’s not really different that clipping a toenail? You think that killing animals that are going to die anyway is fine – people will die anyway. If research shows that homosexuals are “major resource drains”, are you okay with clipping those nails?
Part of my argument here is that even utilitarian, consequentialist, and pragmatist arguments still say that accepting SSM is “not a good thing”. There is a tangible reduction of “joy” and “happiness” when those lifestyles are promoted and/or encouraged. A permissive society should say, “do it if you want, but do it without our approval”.
I’m quite comfortable with higher mathematics, including statistics. As a former engineering grad student, I’ve taken more hours of higher math than some college students have taken courses in their own major. I’m familiar enough with calculus, differential equations, statistical analysis and so forth to know what works and what doesn’t. No study is perfect, but the better the studies are, the more they confirm the same thing – homosexuality is not good for anyone.
So, to answer your shorter post:
2a is not really what I’m saying. This is not an “offensive” issue, it’s a “defensive” one. The problem at hand is bringing in a non-marriage idea and calling it “marriage”. And whether or not fewer people will “be gay” is entirely beside the point. It makes no sense for a society to grant the benefits and protections and celebrations of a healthy behavior to an unhealthy behavior, at the expense of those benefits themselves.
# 1 is supported by every conceivable form of study, statistic, and research. After all – why would people like you be saying, “well, the REAL problem is society, so if we change society…” if statistics didn’t prove that there are drawbacks to homosexuality? What problems are you saying are caused by stigma, then? Either there are detrimental effects, or their aren’t, and apparently you think there are. As I said, the prevalence of those negative factors is present in significantly higher proportions in homosexuals than in heterosexuals.
In #2 there is a difference between “discouraging”, “not endorsing”, and “banning”. The US does not “ban” alcoholism, or smoking, or teen pregnancy. Doing that in any effective way would certainly border on, if not jump right into, the kind of totalitarianism you seem so worried about. But just because we can’t or shouldn’t force someone not to to “bad thing” A, B, or C does not mean we are obligated to facilitate and celebrate their participation in A, B, or C.
The US discourages all of those (alcoholism, and such), though we do not ban them, and we certainly don’t make laws that force people to treat them as acceptable. This is a difference that you need to consider more carefully. Real love is telling a person what they may not want to hear for their benefit – not enabling their every urge in the name of a warped form of tolerance. If you totally ignore the hardships that homosexuals face as a result of their behavior, then you have no right to talk about doing what’s best for anyone at all.
A worthwhile point about smoking:
I mean that it is not banned outright. But, it’s reasonable for society to say, “your right to smoke doesn’t give you the right to harm others with your smoking”. So, we place sensible limits on where people can smoke. Is that restrictive? Yes – and far more restrictive than allowing all the legal protections of marriage, while using a different name. Smoking restrictions are reasonable and necessary – we don’t let tolerance and permissiveness cause more harm than good.
MM wrote:
My understanding is that a homosexual can be forced to testify in a court of law against his or her partner, unlike a married person.
Paul,
If that is true I’ve never head about it. It would also go against the CA laws I linked to earlier.
SteveK, it looks like you’re right, DPs are fully equal as a matter of law. The social aspect is different, but regards the law, your source looks authoritative.
I don’t know even why I bother sometimes because it’s the same arguments over and over again. It’s amazing to me how even though there is readily accessible, credible information to be found on the web, I still see people referencing groups like NARTH that have been competently refuted and debunked by major mainstream organizations for years. There are lots of groups out there that claim HIV doesn’t cause AIDS but even though there are many scientists on their side, do most people take them seriously? Oh no. It’s perfectly fine to call them wacko’s that are promoting dangerous falsehoods but because a group like NARTH coincides so conveniently with the religious people’s desire to believe homosexuality is ‘wrong’ and ‘unnatural’, they all of a sudden have credibility. Ridiculous.
The TRUTH is that while some of the claims have a degree of truth to them in regards to some (male) homosexuals and their lifestyle of promiscuous sex, this is simply a matter of biology. It wasn’t even particularly true before HIV came onto the scene and only the fact that certain types of sexual behaviour involving males make it easier to catch, does this have any credence at all.
But so what? It’s not being homosexuality that is responsible for such a problem, it’s BEHAVIOUR. First of all HIV wouldn’t have even have spread off the continent of Africa if heterosexuals weren’t massively involved or do I need to bring up very common statistics showing it as a predominantly heterosexual vector in Africa? And lets be honest here….men are naturally sexually promiscuous. It’s been confirmed by biology, history and many other verifiable sources. The only reason heterosexual men are in PRACTICE less promiscuous is the influence of women. Obviously gay men are not involved with their input, so naturally promiscuity is going to be higher. But promiscuity in and of ITSELF is not a proven negative. There are many people who have perfectly safe sex, sleep with many people and pass no diseases. Bring no children in the world and consequently don’t abuse them, aren’t wife beaters and live fairly placid lives overall. What does this matter? Oh right…it’s morally wrong automatically because after they DIE they’ll find out what was so wrong about it.
So as just one example mentioned in previous posts.. suddenly morality is determined by consequences of disease transmission? Geez, I guess we better start picketing those senior homes. How immoral that they catch influenza easier then other humans and dare to be infectious to others. Have they no shame?
I’m being a little flippant, but I’m trying to make a point that I hope will sink in..
There are some bottom lines here. First of all, it’s not the onus of a homosexual to prove they are ok to exist and be themselves. It’s the onus of the person being the bigot to actually prove that’s it’s morally bad. Everything is morally NEUTRAL until you apply arguments of logic and evaluation to them. Pointing to the Bible is just a big old Appeal to Authority fallacy. In other words, it isn’t worth anything as an argument because it isn’t making one. It’s making a proclomation of truth with no factual basis behind it. Believe what you want, but pushing those beliefs on others in society to conform to them? Ridiculous.
It doesn’t matter what marriage is now, was then or even what it started out to be. It’s nothing more then a human construct of recognizing relationships. The key issue here is that religion does NOT own marriage. It is first and foremost a secular institution. Even the churches have to legitamize a marriage through the secular channels. Their ‘divine’ authority doesn’t hold up alone.
So any argument professing the ’sacredness’ of marriage has already lost because that’s a religious concept with no bearing in the secular world. You can’t prove ’sacred’. Hell, you can’t even prove your version of God exists! Your rights end where mine begin. People forget this give and take far too often when they are dealing with religious beliefs. Even Jesus didn’t answer a very pertinent question. “What is truth”?
Don’t presume to know truth. If you can’t prove it, it’s just belief.
K. Partington,
Nothing that you said in response to the evidence at hand is a logical rebuttal of it. You’re giving reasons WHY those behaviors result in some of those problems, but you’re not able to say that they don’t occur. Your arguments basically say, “yes, that’s true because…”, not “no, that’s not true”. Well, then we agree that those problems are real problems.
In short, factual evidence says that homosexuals bear a heavy burden of social, mental, and health problems. Whether men are naturally promiscuous or not doesn’t change the harmful effects of that promiscuity.
I have mentioned the concept of consequentialism only because that was the line of argumentation someone else tried to use. In fact, consequentialist arguments fail to support homosexuality. If you think that the only real judge of right or wrong is “results” in some way, then reality doesn’t give you any rational way to put homosexuality in the “right” column.
I don’t support consequentialism, but I think you misunderstand it anyway. An elderly person doesn’t contract the flu because they’re willingly doing something dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral. Consequentialism considers actions immoral when they result in “bad things”, it does not consider “bad things” immoral. There is a difference.
That “many” people can engage in a risky lifestyle and escape the natural results does not make the actions safe, wise, or worthy of social acceptance. Many teens huff aerosols without dying of suffocation or hemorrhaging, by “being careful”. Does that mean we should stop hassling them about huffing, and just “let them be who they want to be”? Why not? If some people can do it and not be hurt, why make a big deal out of it?
I think you’re being more than flippant. I think you’re being a little careless in your argumentation. As you said, it seems like the same things get brought up over and over and over, and your lines are more of the same. For example: you’re jumping on the ‘bigot’ bandwagon. That’s a cheap and easy way to make excuses for ignoring arguments, but it’s not a substitute for really considering the questions at hand.
It would seem, according to your argument, that the onus is on you to prove that things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, or pedophilia are “bad”, using a criteria that would allow for homosexuality without being inconsistent. If some things are just human constructs, then who cares? Be careful – so far, every argument that opens the door wide enough to permit homosexuality winds up letting these other things in as well.
You’re talking about logic and evaluation – it’s already been shown. There are tangible benefits to promoting heterosexual unions, and tangible drawbacks to promoting homosexual unions. Those are arguments can stand independently from the Bible. Evaluated morally, pragmatically, or consequentially, homosexual relationships are not good for society in general, or homosexuals in particular.
Are you not pushing a belief on society? What else is the SSM lobby, if not that? This is part of my general complaint about SSM apologists – they complain about cramming beliefs down some people’s throats while their lawyers work to cram a belief down everyone’s throat. If the legal rights of a civil union are identical to a marriage, who’s pushing their beliefs on who by demanding that they be forcibly referred to using the same word?
Marriage is not a secular institution. Secular governments recognize and support it because of the benefits it provides society. Churches do not have to “legitimize” anything through the state. Two people can be married in the eyes of God without the approval of the government. There is a difference between “marriage” and “legal marriage”. If you think that the church is waiting for the state to give its approval because the state is the primary authority in matrimony, then you need to think again. Marriage predates every government on earth.
The SSM movement has never been about the freedom to walk into a church and say vows, or to live and love another person. The fact that obtaining identical legal rights is ‘not enough’ is proof of that. It’s about forcing society to give a thumbs-up to a certain lifestyle.
You’re brushing off the authority of God pretty glibly – aren’t you just taking on the moral authority that you claim God does not have? What authority are you appealing to, yours? If not, then who, and what makes that any more rational than appealing to God?
Final thought: Jesus was never given the chance to answer the question, “what is truth?” to the man who asked it. Pilate walked away from Him without waiting for an answer, then sentenced Him to death. I think you need to read the Bible more carefully. In fact, the statement Jesus made that prompted Pilate to say that was, “everyone on the side of truth listens to me”. And Pilate didn’t. To those who wanted to hear an answer, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
A comment like yours suggests that you haven’t checked out what scripture has to say with enough care to have an informed opinion on it.
The more you look at real data, real evidence, and real life, the more you see that what God says about morality really is the best way to live.
Can you prove the things you have stated – particularly the moral statements? If not, and it’s ‘just belief’, then what does that mean to you?
“Nothing that you said in response to the evidence at hand is a logical rebuttal of it. You’re giving reasons WHY those behaviors result in some of those problems, but you’re not able to say that they don’t occur. ”
Bull. Do you even know what logic means? Reason is the ESSENCE of logic. The very fact I addressed anything even generally with reasons means I was giving logical rebuttals. No I did not laboriously go through this extremely long thread and refute many specific things although I very easily could. I just couldn’t be bothered. Now I think I will be arsed.
Fair and accurate information is easily found, but it’s very clear someone who goes out of their way to read statements from NARTH and Catholic-biased sources of studies instead of mainstream credible organizations is not looking for truth. Let’s see you cite even ONE study that is actually from a mainstream organization with no Christian based “values” mentioned on their ABOUT US page. Lets see if you have anything unbiased to start with shall we?
“Well, then we agree that those problems are real problems.”
Uh no. Many things you consider “problems”, I don’t. Victimless crimes don’t bother me. There are no problems 100% exclusive to homosexuality. You are suggesting that the ratio of prevelance has some bearing on morality. Bullshit. That’s nothing more then religious propaganda conveniently aimed at a demographic you dislike. I don’t see fundamental Christians picketing against straight sex in Africa even though that’s the main group spreading AIDS there. What about the ones raping young children thinking they can cure themselves that way? These are real ‘problems’ as well. Is this a definitive reflection on the morality of straight sex? No? Oh, why not? Explain the hypocritical difference to me please…apparently I’m a little slow…*chuckle*
“In short, factual evidence says that homosexuals bear a heavy burden of social, mental, and health problems. Whether men are naturally promiscuous or not doesn’t change the harmful effects of that promiscuity.”
In short, factual evidence says that homosexuals bear a heavy burden of social, mental and health problems DUE TO THE SOCIETAL BIGOTRY THEY ARE FORCED TO ENDURE. You forgot to finish the line there. Oh but you’re apparently talking about sex again. Sure, it’s all the fault of sex. Homo sex is evil…it’s nastier then straight sex and spreads more disease…just like trichomonas…oops…oh…that’s only caught from a female..my bad.
You know, I changed my mind. If you’re going to pull things out of your ass, I’m challenging you on it. I’m not going back and cherry picking old posts. This is our conversation. Cite a specific, unbiased study regarding the harmful effects of promiscuity to start and then a study that concludes homosexuality is responsible for and completely inseparable from promiscuity. That’s a good start if we’re going to argue your ‘facts’
“If you think that the only real judge of right or wrong is “results” in some way, then reality doesn’t give you any rational way to put homosexuality in the “right” column.”
You love using words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ even though you seem to lack a full understanding of what the words means. It’s perfectly RATIONAL to put homosexuality in the right column because number 1) it’s demonstrated to be present in many animals besides man, so is not an aberration or a behavior specific to mankind. 2) Homosexuals were vilified for many centuries as undesirable and only the nature of science vindicated this view as being intrinsically bigoted with no basis in fact.
From a REAL organization with credibility:
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.
For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
and from the American Medical Association. Observe again the REASONS why some of your statistics that you think reflect morality exist in the first place:
3.2 Mental health problems are statistically over-represented in this population throughout life due to exposure to discriminatory behaviour.7,8 One of the main groups affected by homophobia is same-sex attracted young people, particularly those living in rural areas where there is greater social isolation from GLBTI peers and role models. A consequence of this discrimination for GLBTI young people is that they have increased rates of homelessness, risk-taking behaviour, depression, suicide and episodes of self-harm compared to their heterosexual cohorts.9
3.3 The experience of violence is higher for the GLBTI community than the general population10 and a recent survey of the GLBTI community in Victoria indicated that “over 70% of respondents had been subject to an experience of public abuse in the past 5 years”.11 This experience may range from verbal abuse to physical attack. The experience or threat of violence has the potential to have a significant impact on an individual’s physical and mental health.
3.4 Patterns of drug and alcohol use within the GLBTI community are greater that that of the general population. The increased incidence of smoking and alcohol intake is also of concern in relation to cardiovascular risk factors. There is support for the theory linking individual patterns of drug and alcohol misuse with experiences of discrimination.12
To keep this from being a ridiculously long post I will start with this and continue through your responses on another one.
“I don’t support consequentialism, but I think you misunderstand it anyway. An elderly person doesn’t contract the flu because they’re willingly doing something dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral. Consequentialism considers actions immoral when they result in “bad things”, it does not consider “bad things” immoral. There is a difference.”
And unlike your assumption of belief, someone doesn’t contract STD’s because they are doing something dangerous, unhealthy and immoral. STD’s are completely INCIDENTAL to the act of sex. If two human beings have no STD’S, they can have sex a million times over and not contract a thing. Does this reflect the morality of the act itself? Of course not! Yet you insinuate this.
Whether or not you agree with consequentalism as a philosophy in it’s entirety, it’s perfectly reasonable to measure actions based on their outcome. Cause and effect are rational methods of evaluation after all.
“That “many” people can engage in a risky lifestyle and escape the natural results does not make the actions safe, wise, or worthy of social acceptance. Many teens huff aerosols without dying of suffocation or hemorrhaging, by “being careful”. Does that mean we should stop hassling them about huffing, and just “let them be who they want to be”? Why not? If some people can do it and not be hurt, why make a big deal out of it?”
A risky lifestyle has nothing to do with existing as a person with a homosexual orientation. A lifestyle is a pattern of behaviour. Being homosexual is nothing more then being born with an innate attraction to the same sex. It has nothing whatsoever to do with actions like sniffing glue. You again insinuate that homosexuality is indelibly linked with pernicious behaviour. This is not supported by any credible research out there and I again challenge you to provide any. Note the word ‘credible’. Fringe science groups and biased, unscientific studies don’t qualify.
“It would seem, according to your argument, that the onus is on you to prove that things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, or pedophilia are “bad”, using a criteria that would allow for homosexuality without being inconsistent. If some things are just human constructs, then who cares? Be careful – so far, every argument that opens the door wide enough to permit homosexuality winds up letting these other things in as well. ”
Bullshit. Pedophilia has very CLEARLY been shown to be bad. Studies show very definite harm that affects people’s mental and emotional health later on in life. Also it’s a biological fact that children are not fully developed in both body AND mind, and even teenagers have been shown to lack a fully developed brain in regards to decision making. All of this supports the very many arguments against pedophilia and the average person doesn’t dispute this. There are no studies demonstrating any problem whatsoever with homosexuality in the same vein. They form relationships that are essentially identical to straight relationships in all comparable pair bond measurements.
Bestiality is ridiculous because first of all it’s NOT natural to be born with an innate attraction to another species. Have you ever seen studies proving that certain individuals were born with an innate attraction to a tiger? Are they incapable of having typical sexual relations with their own species? This is where these stupid arguments fall apart. Homosexuality and it’s natural prevelance is statistically significant right across the board. It occurs in the same basic frequency in all cultures and regions worldwide and is clearly evident at a very young age as well.
You are committing another logical fallacy here called the Slippery Slope fallacy. The inclusion of homosexuality as a natural minority among the spectrum of human sexuality does not lead to every other deviant behaviour you can pull out of your ass. They can stand or fall based on their own merits of argument and it’s insulting in the extreme to make any link to other types of sexuality that are considered wrong.
“There are tangible benefits to promoting heterosexual unions, and tangible drawbacks to promoting homosexual unions. Those are arguments can stand independently from the Bible. Evaluated morally, pragmatically, or consequentially, homosexual relationships are not good for society in general, or homosexuals in particular. ”
This is completely false and unsupported by any credible research on homosexuals and their unions. It’s also a statement of conclusion, not an argument. If you think you can actually lay OUT those arguments, then be my guest. I’ll be happy to shred them.
“Are you not pushing a belief on society? What else is the SSM lobby, if not that? This is part of my general complaint about SSM apologists – they complain about cramming beliefs down some people’s throats while their lawyers work to cram a belief down everyone’s throat. If the legal rights of a civil union are identical to a marriage, who’s pushing their beliefs on who by demanding that they be forcibly referred to using the same word?”
No I’m not pushing a ‘belief’. Homosexuals exist. They are proven by reputable scientists to be intrinsically wired that way. They have been shown to be no different in overall criteria of health and capacity for happiness and longevity from heterosexuals if they live the same pattern of behaviour. You can point fingers all you want but a subset of a population does not reflect on the majority. I can point at heterosexual promiscuous people too, but that isn’t indicative of heterosexuality in and of ITSELF.
You act like homosexuals came forward with their own scientific agenda readily packaged to ram down people’s throats. Wrong! If it wasn’t for science at large, they’d still be in the closets and being vilified. They are simply standing up for themselves now and have enough objective proof that there is nothing wrong with them.
It’s religion that keeps sticking their nose into matters that don’t concern them. The people with their beliefs based on nothing more then ancient stories keep insisting THEY have the only truth that matters.
Do you see society at large trying to barge in the doors of a church and start dictating how mass will be conducted? Whether or not this stained glass window is allowed over that one? How many pews you can set up and whether or not people are allowed to kneel? No? Well that’s exactly what religious people are doing when they are going out to society and try to force a definition into a religious based belief no matter what it might actually entail.
Moving on, you say “Marriage is not a secular institution.” Wrong. The very fact that we have CIVIL marriage is proof of that. Religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with marriage when 2 atheists wed. Yet I don’t hear people saying these marriages are invalid. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.
Just because marriage has been adopted within religion and it’s practices, it does not make it an exclusive domain. You can’t say something like “Marriage predates every government on earth.” How the hell do you know? Have you been around and seen every government on earth? Do you have the slightest clue what the customs of humans back a million years ago were? Of course not. On the other hand you might be one of those who think we only go back a few thousand years, so the question might be moot…
I’m going to have to pick this up later. I actually shouldn’t have even been arguing this today. I woke up with a headache and I’m not focusing as well as usual. I’m usually more succint in my comments and somehow I’m rambling too wordy. Until later.
K. Partington,
I think you need to take a few deep breaths, and calm down. You’re obviously very emotional about this subject, but the way you’re presenting your arguments isn’t complimenting your grasp of the issues. As I said, your “rebuttals” were not rebuttals – they were agreements that there are statistically significant increases in certain problems in homosexuals. You just added the “and that’s because…” part. You gave no citations, no data, no references that show that these studies are invalid, nor any criticism other than that they are “biased”. Am I to take that purely on your authority?
It seems you are just going to reject any study that disagrees with you as “biased”. I have given data, I have given citations. You have simply dismissed them because you don’t like their conclusions. As I said to Jordan, it’s absolutely irrational to ignore data only because it isn’t what you want to hear. Every time you say, “Your data is biased, show me un-biased data”, what you really mean is, “your data doesn’t say what I want it to say, show me data that does.” I’m not going to do your homework for you.
You’re right that almost none of the mental, physical, or social health problems are 100.00% exclusive to the homosexual community. That’s not the point. They are significantly more prevalent in the homosexual community, because both the biological and behavior factors cause them to be so. I can make a very good case, based on what you’ve said here, that every argument you’re making is just propaganda conveniently aimed at protecting a demographic you like.
I would assume that Christians living the US don’t “picket against” sex in Africa because it would have no impact on a society thousands of miles away. However, Christians in the US do have say in what happens in their own country. No one is calling for the jailing or persecution of homosexuals – but I am definitely saying that just because certain people have certain urges does not mean that those urges must be treated as healthy, moral, or normal.
The problems in Africa certainly are real; and you’re not slow, you’re just emotionally invested to the point that you aren’t thinking straight. “Rape” is not a question of homosexuality or heterosexuality. After all, homosexuals can rape and be raped as well. Depending on how you want to argue it, I can say that rape is wrong because of the detrimental societal effects (as I would with homosexuality), or the inherent immorality of it (and again). Please think more clearly, and remember that I am not implying that homosexuality results in suffering, and is therefore wrong. I’m arguing that it’s wrong, and therefore results in suffering.
Unless you’re willing to analyze the studies I cited in detail, you have nothing but your opinion to counter the fact that societal acceptance of homosexuality does not bring the associated problems into the same statistical levels as heterosexuals. Gays in nations friendly to homosexuality are still living with major psychological and medical problems.
I won’t respond to your challenge to “cite” anything more than I already have – for the reasons I gave above. You’re simply defining “unbiased” as “agrees with K. Partington”. You certainly haven’t given me reasons to believe that every single citation I gave was based in hatred, rather than data. Some of what’s up there was collected, analyzed, and published by homosexuals, in fact.
Cannibalism, infanticide, filicide, and rape are all demonstrated in animals other than man, so they are not aberrations. Should we continue with your view of this argument, and say that science has shown opposition to these acts as being bigoted, with no basis in fact? I don’t think you want to start down the road that says, “lots of animals do it, so it’s not really bad.”
Part of the problem with using pronouncements from the APA and other groups is that psychological issues are entirely questions of definition. Announcing that “homosexuality isn’t a mental illness” is just saying that that organization no longer defines it as sufficiently abnormal to be considered one, in their opinion. It’s no different than other social taboos being altered by the public at large. They can choose to say that alcoholism, obesity, and depression are not “mental health problems” tomorrow if they wish, but that’s just a matter of how you define “mental illness”. The meaning of those terms will not have changed, and the suffering of those people will not have been reduced because some people chose to move them from category A to category B in a textbook.
I am not insinuating that catching an STD is immoral. I am very certainly saying that some sexual acts are immoral whether they result in bad consequences or not. You need to be more careful in your analysis of my statements. That being said, I think you’re being awfully shallow, and very glib, to say that STDs are “completely incidental to the act of sex.” What do the letters “S.T.D.” stand for, anyway? Your argument is as silly as saying, “gunshot wounds are totally incidental to the act of playing with loaded firearms”.
Unfortunately, statistics indicate that homosexuality is very much associated with very risky behaviors. It is not inescapably linked to promiscuity or such, but you cannot in any rational way argue that such behaviors are not monumentally more common in the homosexual community that they are in the heterosexual community.
Wait, now. You’re citing studies showing that pedophilia causes harm, and giving me some arguments about how it’s not a good fit for the bodies or minds of some people. That’s fine, and I agree. What stops me from saying that those studies are just “biased”, and challenging you to “show me an unbiased study that says that”! And yet, you go so far as to say that “there are no studies demonstrating any problem whatsoever with homosexuality in the same vein.” So, you’re not just rejecting studies that disagree with you, you’re convincing yourself that they don’t even exist.
With all due respect, that’s not just irrational, but it fits a behavioral pattern that you brought up before: prejudicial intolerance of any opinions different from your own…see here: (link: http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=bigot&ia=wn). That is probably not your intention, but it’s the way you’re coming across.
Slippery Slopes are not invalid when your opponent is whooshing down one. You still have not given a valid reason to defend homosexuality that does not also defend some or all of these other aberrant behaviors.
Again, you just dismiss contradictory evidence as “not reputable.” What’s to stop me from just saying that every one of your studies (if you have even looked at any) is just not “reputable”, a priori, as you do?
K. Partington,
Yes, actually. Many of the laws that the SSM lobby is trying to push through would force churches to participate in events and actions that they do not wish to. Besides that, this is totally the opposite of the actual situation at hand. Society’s disapproval of a lifestyle is not the same as telling them what to do or how to do it. A truly “tolerant” society says, “do what you like, but don’t expect me to agree with it, approve of it, or support it.” The SSM lobby wants to force all of those on others.
The fact that we have “civil” marriage is proof that there is a difference between “rites” and “rights”. When two atheists wed, they are wed civilly, not ceremonially. You’re just being slippery with the term “marriage”. I won’t deny that their civil marriage is valid – that’s up to the state. I will certainly deny that their spiritual marriage is valid – that’s up to God.
May I ask in kind, how do you “know” that marriage doesn’t predate every government? Can you name one government on earth right now that existed 1,000 years ago? Were people getting married before that? Then I guess marriage predates every current government.
Let me put it more directly: the earliest civilizations we know of had well-structured and uniform practices for matrimony. People groups that were not even loosely organized did as well. Heterosexual unions are the fundamental social construct in human beings. I could just use your own argument against you, anyway: many animals mate for life. If man evolved, then it’s almost certain that this trait evolved long before we invented politics, governments, or civilizations.
Perhaps you’ll be more succinct later, but I’d rather you be more careful. You’re trying to substitute raw emotion for reason, and you’re not making a lot of headway.
I’m still not in the best head space right now to argue this appropriately. I’ve had some personal stress issues and I need to be more focused so I’ll be sharper in my manner of exchange. I think you’ve missed the forest for the trees in any event because you’re responses are not very convincing. You keep obfuscating the issue by speaking in generalities without any serious substance. You continually make assertions that beg the question. However I will deal with this in a very careful and cogent way soon. For now, I just want to say one thing in relation to one of your “final thoughts”.
“Final thought: Jesus was never given the chance to answer the question, “what is truth?” to the man who asked it. Pilate walked away from Him without waiting for an answer, then sentenced Him to death. I think you need to read the Bible more carefully.
I read the ENTIRE Bible years ago and while I will not profess to a perfect memory in regards to the scripture I’m still quite familiar with it in the main. You are stating something that is NOT a fact.
Here is an extensive list of many translation of John 18:38:
International Standard Version (©2008)
Pilate asked him, “What is ‘truth’?” After he said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no basis for a charge against him.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After Pilate said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I don’t find this man guilty of anything.
King James Bible
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
American King James Version
Pilate said to him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, I find in him no fault at all.
American Standard Version
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him.
Bible in Basic English
Pilate said to him, True? what is true? Having said this he went out again to the Jews and said to them, I see no wrong in him.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Pilate saith to him: What is truth? And when he said this, he went out again to the Jews, and saith to them: I find no cause in him.
Darby Bible Translation
Pilate says to him, What is truth? And having said this he went out again to the Jews, and says to them, I find no fault whatever in him.
English Revised Version
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Pilate saith to him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and saith to them, I find in him no fault.
Weymouth New Testament
“What is truth?” said Pilate. But no sooner had he spoken the words than he went out again to the Jews and told them, “I find no crime in him.
World English Bible
Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him.
Young’s Literal Translation
Pilate saith to him, ‘What is truth?’ and this having said, again he went forth unto the Jews, and saith to them, ‘I do find no fault in him;
Do you see anything in those phrases that actually state that he IMMEDIATELY went out without waiting for an answer?
Even other Christian based websites I will reference here show they have a very different interpretation that matches exactly what I said:
http://slatts.blogspot.com/2004/02/pilate-asks-jesus-what-is-truth.html
When Pilate asks, “Quid est veritas?” (What is truth?), Jesus does not answer him.
This is because the answer to Pilate’s question is contained within the question itself.
By rearranging the letters of the words in the question, one can find the answer to it:
“Est vir qui adest.”
(IT IS THE MAN WHO IS BEFORE YOU)
http://www.duregger.net/what-is-truth/
Pilate: So you are a King?
Jesus: You say that I am a King. For this purpose I have come into this world – to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.
Pilate: What is truth?
Jesus: [nothing... silence]
The story does not report any further dialogue between Pilate and Jesus, just that Pilate announced that he found no guilt in Jesus, at which point the Jews ask for Barabbas to be released and Jesus to be crucified. This silence made me curious, so I looked at the other Gospels account of this event… and they were silent as well. In fact the other accounts just recorded a small portion of this discussion… mostly that Pilate asked if Jesus was King, and Jesus either responding, “You have said so.” or being silent.
So considering the compelling evidence shown above, or more appropriately the LACK of evidence indicating Pilate leaving Jesus before he gave him a chance to answer, you are either being dishonest or misinformed as to your certainty regarding the timeline of events.
“A comment like yours suggests that you haven’t checked out what scripture has to say with enough care to have an informed opinion on it.
I think you should be careful about calling the kettle black. You certainly didn’t provide any information regarding your point of view. You just stated it as fact. A little bit more humility would be proper instead of arrogantly judging my ability to provide an informed opinion on scripture.
I’ll deal with the new stuff that came up. Thanks for the reinforce!
“It seems you are just going to reject any study that disagrees with you as “biased”. I have given data, I have given citations. You have simply dismissed them because you don’t like their conclusions. As I said to Jordan, it’s absolutely irrational to ignore data only because it isn’t what you want to hear. Every time you say, “Your data is biased, show me un-biased data”, what you really mean is, “your data doesn’t say what I want it to say, show me data that does.” I’m not going to do your homework for you.”
You gave links to 4 studies.
1 wasn’t a study.
1 had a sample size of only 312 for 5 years. Too small and short. In addition, it didn’t have comparable stats for straight people.
1 was a write in survey- useless.
1 included bisexuals and provided no data what so ever.
Yeah- studies need to actually be valid to be counted. None were.
“ut I am definitely saying that just because certain people have certain urges does not mean that those urges must be treated as healthy, moral, or normal.”
Unless the government has a compeling interest, it is none of its business. You can be attracted to furries or vore and the government doesn’t care. But when you are attracted to another dude, even though it is healthier… that is when people’s pants get in a bunch.
“I can say that rape is wrong because of the detrimental societal effects (as I would with homosexuality), or the inherent immorality of it (and again). ”
Okay, I will rant on totalitarianism here. You find rape wrong… because it hurts society or you hold rape wrong. Which means you are using arbitrary or totalitarian morality. Most people judge it wrong because it hurts someone.
You didn’t get my point, but it is simple. There are limits to what the government can and cannot do. People have rights and obligations as part of the social contract, things the government can ask for and must respect. Society does NOT exist indpendant of people and saying it is for “the good of society” is meaningless unless you have a darn good reason why individual goods should be over turned.
“Cannibalism, infanticide, filicide, and rape are all demonstrated in animals other than man, so they are not aberrations.”
Cannibalism is okay if you are running out of food. And it was a rebuttal to the “unnatural argument”- stop shifting goal posts.
“I am very certainly saying that some sexual acts are immoral whether they result in bad consequences or not.”
Yeah- people enjoying themselves is wrong because… tehya ren’t giving their all for the state?
“Your argument is as silly as saying, “gunshot wounds are totally incidental to the act of playing with loaded firearms”.”
Chocking is incidental to the act of eating. You see? You need to show your metahor is valid.
“What stops me from saying that those studies are just “biased”, and challenging you to “show me an unbiased study that says that”!”
Because we can look at the data and they use random sampling, large sample sizes and double blind testing?
“prejudicial intolerance of any opinions different from your own”
You are doing that too. Apparently everyone is bigoted! Please- let us use words in ways that doesn’t make them meaningless.
“Slippery Slopes are not invalid when your opponent is whooshing down one. You still have not given a valid reason to defend homosexuality that does not also defend some or all of these other aberrant behaviors.”
I don’t have to. Burden of proof is on you. We have shown that for the other behaviors you mentioned.
“Yes, actually. Many of the laws that the SSM lobby is trying to push through would force churches to participate in events and actions that they do not wish to.”Yes folks- we get NO examples.
“A truly “tolerant” society says, “do what you like, but don’t expect me to agree with it, approve of it, or support it.” The SSM lobby wants to force all of those on others.”
Yeah- legal equaliy is so oppresive.
“The fact that we have “civil” marriage is proof that there is a difference between “rites” and “rights”. When two atheists wed, they are wed civilly, not ceremonially. You’re just being slippery with the term “marriage”. I won’t deny that their civil marriage is valid – that’s up to the state. I will certainly deny that their spiritual marriage is valid – that’s up to God.”
…
Marriage lisences are granted BY THE STATE. We don’t care about your “spiritual marriage”- just the real, legal one.
“May I ask in kind, how do you “know” that marriage doesn’t predate every government? Can you name one government on earth right now that existed 1,000 years ago? Were people getting married before that? Then I guess marriage predates every current government.”
Well, it didn’t exist in its current form. They didn’t have divorce or requirements for monogamy. Or an insistance on romatic love.
It used to be just a business agreement.
“Heterosexual unions are the fundamental social construct in human beings. ”
No, that would be the tribe. You can exist without a family, but with no tribe, you are nothing. We just extended it for modern times- your country or your group is many people’s tribe now.
“Perhaps you’ll be more succinct later, but I’d rather you be more careful. You’re trying to substitute raw emotion for reason, and you’re not making a lot of headway.”
MM, please stop the “I am more emotionless than you are”. Despite what Star Trek may have shown, reason and emotion are NOT opposites.
“The problem at hand is bringing in a non-marriage idea and calling it “marriage”. ”
Except you are the one saying that. And your justification is… you are saying that. Circular reasoning.
“It makes no sense for a society to grant the benefits and protections and celebrations of a healthy behavior to an unhealthy behavior, at the expense of those benefits themselves.”
How on Earth will letting gays marry hurt straights.
“# 1 is supported by every conceivable form of study, statistic, and research. ”
So is the fact that blacks have lower IQs. Most people blame that on the fact most blacks live in poor countries.
“The US discourages all of those (alcoholism, and such), though we do not ban them, and we certainly don’t make laws that force people to treat them as acceptable.”
To the best of my knowledge, alcoholics don’t lose civil rights.
“Real love is telling a person what they may not want to hear for their benefit – not enabling their every urge in the name of a warped form of tolerance.”
Citizens aren’t your children- they are adults.
“If you totally ignore the hardships that homosexuals face as a result of their behavior, then you have no right to talk about doing what’s best for anyone at all.”
It is called freedom. It is what makes America great. That and our ability to integrate foreigners. And our sexy women. And our all encompasing culture. And our tech lead.
But freedom is the biggest one. And you seem to think it is valueless.
“I’ll deal with the new stuff that came up. Thanks for the reinforce!”
Bless you! I’m just not in the right frame of mind to argue effectively..but tomorrow is another day, and truth will win out. I’ll do my best to respectively and rationally contribute to this soon.
I’ll be fair and admit that I may have been a little too emotional and confrontational with my glib parts of the post. It was a bad time to post…
Medicine Man, we may disagree diametrically, but you give me the respect of responding with your viewpoint without being insulting or dismissive. I will do my best to debate in good taste and try to be very cogent in my replies. Just give me a day or two. Peace.
Emotions are running extraordinarily high on this issue, and I have no hope that this discussion will resolve it for us. Therefore I’m going to close comments, leaving the last word with an opponent of Prop 8.