10 Reasons to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal...

[arnisador]

Well, quite a few human homosexuals are biological parents.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

A few points:

6) I'm still wondering if those opposing equal legal rights to homosexual citizens have ever bothered to do the hypothetical scenario I outlined in my last post. What if roles were switched, and it was heterosexuality being discriminated against?? Would it still be about retaining the "moral fiber" of the nation, then??

Laterz.

If that were the case, there would be no human race to speak of, so the argument is nonscensical. In order to make an argument, one has to stay in the realm of reality. And sometimes we have to avoid worrying about how some people may FEEL in order to come to a realistic alternative.

On the other hand, that is kinda the point. Only a man and woman can make a child. Marriage is not just there to say tax breaks, property rights, etc. It's main function has always been about reproduction and the rearing and protection of children. Men and men can't have children together.

 

[mrhnau]

If that were the case, there would be no human race to speak of, so the argument is nonscensical. In order to make an argument, one has to stay in the realm of reality. And sometimes we have to avoid worrying about how some people may FEEL in order to come to a realistic alternative.

On the other hand, that is kinda the point. Only a man and woman can make a child. Marriage is not just there to say tax breaks, property rights, etc. It's main function has always been about reproduction and the rearing and protection of children. Men and men can't have children together.

I don't hope this, but I think the time will come when that will no longer be the case. Cloning will eventually happen. Anyone know if surrogate mothers are taking homosexual couples gametes and a selected donor?

Overall though, I agree. I wonder if its historical purpose will be eroded by technology. I'm all for technology, just hope it never comes to this point.

MrH

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Well, quite a few human homosexuals are biological parents.

And they were either never married to a female, or left/divorce/etc. their female wife. So the breakdown of the marriage goes only to further prove the instability of the family structure that marriage was supposed to protect.

 

[heretic888]

What about the sin of thread-jacking?

Maybe this "Hell" subject deserves another thread so this one can return to the gay marriage issue!

Yup.

Other discussion continued here.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

If that were the case, there would be no human race to speak of, so the argument is nonscensical. In order to make an argument, one has to stay in the realm of reality.

Sure, but my argument is hardly 'nonsensical'.

In the aforementioned hypothetical world, any number of tools could be implemented to ensure the continuation of the human species --- human cloning, artificial insemination, mandatory programs requiring heterosexual men to have intercourse with a set number of female 'donors', etc. As such, your critique of my scenario being 'nonsensical' is nothing short of fallacious reasoning.

In fact, there is at least one real-life human culture in which heterosexual intercourse is socially permitted only a few days out of the year (homosexual intercourse, by contrast, being permitted throughout the year). In one Central American society I once read about, virtually all men in the culture are expected to turn 'gay' after reaching middle-age. Human cultures are hardly uniform in their treatment of sexual aberration.

As such, the moral question still remains: what would happen if the tables were turned and you were the one being actively and legally discriminated against on the basis of your sexual orientation??

And sometimes we have to avoid worrying about how some people may FEEL in order to come to a realistic alternative.

This has little to do with sympathy, as opposed to actively engaging in post-conventional moral reasoning.

It has to do with a moral willingness to put yourself in the Other's eyes, to see the world as he or she might see it. It has to do with using formal inductive reasoning to imagine hypothetical scenarios in order to approximate principles and values that attempt to provide justice and fairness to everyone --- not just persons of a particular faith, race, gender, nationality, or sexual preference. It has to do with actually embracing and living up to the Golden Rule (a commonly held belief in virtually every world religion I can think of), without exception.

Its really very, very, very simple: if your roles were reversed, how would you wish to be treated?? How would you request that others would "do unto you"??

On the other hand, that is kinda the point. Only a man and woman can make a child. Marriage is not just there to say tax breaks, property rights, etc. It's main function has always been about reproduction and the rearing and protection of children. Men and men can't have children together.

Um, uh... ok.

Are you somehow suggesting only married couples procreate?? That's, um, news to me...

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

On the other hand, that is kinda the point. Only a man and woman can make a child. Marriage is not just there to say tax breaks, property rights, etc. It's main function has always been about reproduction and the rearing and protection of children.

Humnas had children for tens of thousands of years without marriage, and continue to do so to this day.

Men and men can't have children together.

Soon this will probably be no longer true. Will that change things?

Since we allow infertile people to marry, this argument seems weak to me. Would you deny a 75 year old woman the right to marry because she cannot have children? If not, then why two men?

 

[Makalakumu]

As to the question of "homosexuality" in other animals...

The Bonobo, for one, has well documented same sex sexual behavior.

Sex: Bonobos live a relatively peaceful life compared to chimpanzees. This is due largely to the fact that female bonobos are eight times more available to males for mating and there are equal numbers of females to mature males so there is less fighting for mating rights. Sex is an important way to ensure group stability and ease tensions. Bonobos substitute sex for aggression, and sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Reduced male aggression, strong bonds between males and females, and frequent sex (including male-to-male and female-to-female) characterize bonobo society. However, the rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of chimpanzees (a single infant is born every five to six years) beginning at age 12.

Where humans use martial arts, bonobos use sex...including gay sex...to deal with aggression. Maybe they are on to something...

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Sure, but my argument is hardly 'nonsensical'.

In the aforementioned hypothetical world, any number of tools could be implemented to ensure the continuation of the human species --- human cloning, artificial insemination, mandatory programs requiring heterosexual men to have intercourse with a set number of female 'donors', etc. As such, your critique of my scenario being 'nonsensical' is nothing short of fallacious reasoning.

In fact, there is at least one real-life human culture in which heterosexual intercourse is socially permitted only a few days out of the year (homosexual intercourse, by contrast, being permitted throughout the year). In one Central American society I once read about, virtually all men in the culture are expected to turn 'gay' after reaching middle-age. Human cultures are hardly uniform in their treatment of sexual aberration.

You are essentially agreeing with what I said.

1. Homosexuallity being inborn. Just because there is a cultural acceptance, or even proclivity towards, a thing does not mean that a person is inclined to be naturally attracted to a person of the same sex. In other words, it does not necessarily mean there is a gay gene. There are cultural reasons for a lot of things, including infanticide. Does that mean we should condone that. I don't say this to compare infanticide to homosexuallity, but about social norms.

2. Modern technology has made many things possible. But we're not talking about that. I can kill a thousand people with one bomb...doesn't make it right.

It has to do with a moral willingness to put yourself in the Other's eyes, to see the world as he or she might see it. It has to do with using formal inductive reasoning to imagine hypothetical scenarios in order to approximate principles and values that attempt to provide justice and fairness to everyone --- not just persons of a particular faith, race, gender, nationality, or sexual preference. It has to do with actually embracing and living up to the Golden Rule (a commonly held belief in virtually every world religion I can think of), without exception.

Its really very, very, very simple: if your roles were reversed, how would you wish to be treated?? How would you request that others would "do unto you"??

I can relate to this argument, but the hypothetical was still nonsensical. Or perhaps a better word would be irrelevant. It's like talking about frogs with glass butts.....

And remember, men are still legally allowed to have homosexual sex. As long as I could still get some, pardon the crassness, I wouldn't really care. I can still have a meaningful relationship with a person without government sanction. The issue we're speaking of is legalizing gay marriage. Which leads me to...

Humnas had children for tens of thousands of years without marriage, and continue to do so to this day.

This is true, but for the efficient function in of "civilized" or modern society, that society instituted marriage for the stability of the family.

Since we allow infertile people to marry, this argument seems weak to me. Would you deny a 75 year old woman the right to marry because she cannot have children? If not, then why two men?

Because we are talking about social norms and the purpose of marriage. It is normal for a male and female to unite for procreation, this is simply a continuation of the trend, so to speak. Although admittedly, this is my weakest argument. But I have much better...

Sex: Bonobos live a relatively peaceful life compared to chimpanzees. This is due largely to the fact that female bonobos are eight times more available to males for mating and there are equal numbers of females to mature males so there is less fighting for mating rights. Sex is an important way to ensure group stability and ease tensions. Bonobos substitute sex for aggression, and sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Reduced male aggression, strong bonds between males and females, and frequent sex (including male-to-male and female-to-female) characterize bonobo society. However, the rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of chimpanzees (a single infant is born every five to six years) beginning at age 12.

Again, are we talking about genetics, or social norms. As one person stated, heterosexual men have homosexual sex in prison to release tension. The bonobos are no different.

All of this takes us away from the main point though, what is marriage all about, and by extension, what is the governments role.

Personally, I think other than issues relating to child care by the parents (ie, child neglect, abuse, etc.) the government should stay out of it. There should be no tax breaks (I'm a flat tax kinda guy), no child tax credit. If business choose to give homosexual partners benefits, then so be it (and the government should stay out of those issues, ie. health care). That's why we have a free-market society.

But in my argument, that's what marriage is all about, the proper rearing and protection of children.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

If you want to consider that man is simply an animal, then there is no other species on earth that has homosexual orientation. That is not to say that there aren't male that have sex with other male in interspecies relationships. However, there is no other animal group that has EXCLUSIVELLY homosexual sex. So I question the fact that it is an inborn train among humans.

Alas, not true. There are Gay sheep that are exclusively homosexual, of which news brought delight to Gay Scots sheperds everywhere (you know why they wear kilts, don't you? A sheep can hear a zipper a mile away):

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1061683.htm


Isn't a male sheep a ram? I'll leave that one alone.


Apparently there are some Gay penguins, Wendell and Cass:

http://www.rockhawk.com/Gay Animals.htm

Well, Gay men always do look good in tuxes, particularly when they're maitre'd's at posh upscale restaurants.

Here's an interesting study which mentions lesbian Macaques, which provides an interesting...if inapplicable...potential homonym.

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm

More Gay penguins! Bertrand and Charles. These guys look like little Gay birdie butlers, I bet:

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html

Goodness, homosexuality found in 130 species of birds? I may never be able to eat fried chicken again!

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm


And what's this? A whole book on homosexuality in animals?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312192398/102-0485451-4726550?v=glance


When it comes to biological diversity, folks...count on Mother Nature to give you all sorts of surprises.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

When it comes to biological diversity, folks...count on Mother Nature to give you all sorts of surprises.

:asian:

 

[kenposis]

Marriage is the first step to creating a stable family structure. Men and women have different behaviors, different characteristics, etc, that are present simply because of their genders. I object to gay marriage on religious grounds--the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I do not condone it. While I realize that very few debates of this nature can be won by stating what I just did, I'm not aiming to win anything, just to give my opinion before my next class and to say that any further discussion questions can be PMed to me. (Teachers don't wait.....)

~Jessica

 

[arnisador]

I was looking references like those, hardheadjarhad, but couldn't find what I was thinking of through Yahoo!. Thanks!

 

[heretic888]

You are essentially agreeing with what I said.

I'm not, actually.

For one thing, I'm not resorting to an Appeal To Tradition to support my position. I'm trying to back up my position with post-conventional moral reasoning of universalist principles of justice and compassion.

In other words, the Golden Rule.

1. Homosexuallity being inborn.

Not to be pedantic, but that depends entirely on how you define 'homosexuality' (attraction to the same sex? actual intercourse with the same sex? homoerotic dreams?) and 'inborn' (genetic predisposition? neurological hard-wiring? hormonal chemistry? developmental pattern?).

Without clarifying your definitions, I cannot appropriately state whether 'homosexuality' is 'inborn' or not.

Just because there is a cultural acceptance, or even proclivity towards, a thing does not mean that a person is inclined to be naturally attracted to a person of the same sex.

Now you're just not making any sense.

Please explain to me the difference between 'proclivity towards' homosexual orientation and 'inclined to be attracted to a person of the same sex'. I believe you are collapsing ideas here.

In other words, it does not necessarily mean there is a gay gene.

Not to be rude, but your knowledge of biology and of human development in general is obviously lacking.

At no point did anyone ever claim (as far as I can tell) that there was a single 'gay gene'. I should further point out that a structure does not necessarily have to be genetically 'programmed' to be biologically innate or predisposed. There can be concrete neurological differences, differences in hormonal makeup, and developmental abberations that can all account for the existence of homosexual orientation --- none of which necessarily fall back on a genetic explanation.

There are cultural reasons for a lot of things, including infanticide. Does that mean we should condone that.

Exactly what purpose does such a Red Herring argument serve?

I don't say this to compare infanticide to homosexuallity, but about social norms.

In other words, you're relying on an Appeal To Tradition (i.e., we should do it this way because that's how we've always done it).

2. Modern technology has made many things possible. But we're not talking about that. I can kill a thousand people with one bomb...doesn't make it right.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

Please re-read my posts. At no point did I ever use 'modern technology' to support a moral issue. I was specifically addressing the fallacious critique that my scenario was 'nonsensical' (i.e., impossible), which you have yet to support.

I can relate to this argument, but the hypothetical was still nonsensical. Or perhaps a better word would be irrelevant. It's like talking about frogs with glass butts.....

You're just-so arguments aren't going to cut it here. You have yet to demonstrate how my scenario was 'nonsensical', outside of a reliance on a fallacious Appeal To Tradition.

More importantly, you have yet to explain to those of us advocating gay rights why it is morally acceptable to deny equal legal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. You have yet to engage in the hypothetical moral paradigm I have clearly outlined for at least two pages now.

Until you start honestly and clearly engaging in post-conventional moral reasoning to support your position, expect to be called on it.

And remember, men are still legally allowed to have homosexual sex. As long as I could still get some, pardon the crassness, I wouldn't really care. I can still have a meaningful relationship with a person without government sanction.

Just so we're keeping things clear, then --- you'd be perfectly okay if the government legally forbade you from marrying a woman?? If they told you, in no uncertain terms, that you don't have the legal right to do so??

If so, great. However, I don't think the same thing can be said for the majority of the population.

This is true, but for the efficient function in of "civilized" or modern society, that society instituted marriage for the stability of the family.

Logical Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy

From the link: "a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing".

Because we are talking about social norms and the purpose of marriage. It is normal for a male and female to unite for procreation, this is simply a continuation of the trend, so to speak.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Tradition

Again, are we talking about genetics, or social norms.

You say that as if they are mutually exclusive --- and as if they are the only two factors that influence behavior. They are not.

All of this takes us away from the main point though, what is marriage all about, and by extension, what is the governments role.

Logical Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy

But in my argument, that's what marriage is all about, the proper rearing and protection of children.

This has been a popular condemnation of gay rights by the Religious Right, but it is completely and utterly unsupported by any scientific evidence.

In fact, several studies that I am aware of demonstrate that children raised by gay couples are no less well-adjusted than those raised by straight couples. Furthermore, children raised by gay couples are actually more well-adjusted than those raised by single straight parents.

So, in other words, your fallacious Appeal To Authority completely falls apart.

Nice try, though. Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Marriage is the first step to creating a stable family structure. Men and women have different behaviors, different characteristics, etc, that are present simply because of their genders. I object to gay marriage on religious grounds--the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I do not condone it.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Authority

 

[RandomPhantom700]

While I realize that very few debates of this nature can be won by stating what I just did, I'm not aiming to win anything, just to give my opinion before my next class and to say that any further discussion questions can be PMed to me. (Teachers don't wait.....)

~Jessica

Entirely off-topic, I apologize, but I just love when people drop their opinion then try to duck out of any responses. All I care about is my opinion being heard, blah blah blah.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Nonsensical does not mean impossible, it means foolish. Even still the theory that you postulated is impossible, therefore it's meaningless to entertain it. I prefer to keep my discussions in the realm of realism.

Until you start honestly and clearly engaging in post-conventional moral reasoning to support your position, expect to be called on it.

You continuously refer to post-conventional moral reasoning with universalist principles. I prefer the term moral relativism for this type of reasoning. I do not have to frame my arguments in this vein because I am not a moral relativist. Now, if you will simply disagree with my points because I do not choose to argue in this vein, then I guess no further discussion is necessary. You will not control my viewpoint in order to make me formulate my argument.

And what's ironic is that because you believe in moral relativism, you can't really say with any certainty that my argument is incorrect.

Sure, but my argument is hardly 'nonsensical'.

In the aforementioned hypothetical world, any number of tools could be implemented to ensure the continuation of the human species --- human cloning, artificial insemination, mandatory programs requiring heterosexual men to have intercourse with a set number of female 'donors', etc. As such, your critique of my scenario being 'nonsensical' is nothing short of fallacious reasoning.

My use of the term "gay gene" was meant to mean a genetic basis of homosexuality, whatever it's form. And the term has been used in this thread before. There are only two (or three depending on your perspective) and they are genetics or environmental (spiritualism being the other one). If noone is born a homosexual, then it is a caused by the environment, which would mean homosexuality is a mutation or a choice.

And as you said:

Please re-read my posts. At no point did I ever use 'modern technology' to support a moral issue. I was specifically addressing the fallacious critique that my scenario was 'nonsensical' (i.e., impossible), which you have yet to support.

You used technology to support your hypothesis about how a primarily homosexual society could exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenposis
Marriage is the first step to creating a stable family structure. Men and women have different behaviors, different characteristics, etc, that are present simply because of their genders. I object to gay marriage on religious grounds--the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I do not condone it.



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Authority

You can only claim this a fallacious argument if you assume that the bible is not a proper authority. That can be disputed, it's just your viewpoint.


That's all for now. Gotta go back to work.

 

[heretic888]

Nonsensical does not mean impossible, it means foolish. Even still the theory that you postulated is impossible, therefore it's meaningless to entertain it. I prefer to keep my discussions in the realm of realism.

Ah, so another 'just-so' statement, eh?

This might be a shock, but constantly reiterating a claim that has no support does not 'magically' galvanize support for it. Arguments like, "err, uh, that's the way it is.... because I say so!!" just ain't gonna cut it.

You have yet to demonstrate how the scenario I postulated is either impossible or foolish. C'mon, now, we're all waiting.

You continuously refer to post-conventional moral reasoning with universalist principles. I prefer the term moral relativism for this type of reasoning.

In no way is post-conventional morality the same thing as 'moral relativism'. In fact, 'moral relativism' is something more commonly associated with pre-conventional narcissism.

You may use this term if you wish, but it evinces a fundamental ignorance of the concepts being used and, furthermore, demonstrates a lack of willingness on your part to honestly face the moral issues being discussed.

I smell a smokescreen. And, in case you're interested, I have argued against moral relativism several times in the past on these forums.

I do not have to frame my arguments in this vein because I am not a moral relativist. Now, if you will simply disagree with my points because I do not choose to argue in this vein, then I guess no further discussion is necessary. You will not control my viewpoint in order to make me formulate my argument.

You obviously don't know what post-conventional moral reasoning is, so I'll just lay it out for you.

Post-conventional moral thinking is when the individual has reached a level of moral reasoning in which they step back from the social conventions and cultural mores they are imbedded within to consider what would be fair and moral and just not just for his or herself, not just for his or her family or race or people or country, but what is moral for all people, regardless of sex, race, creed, nationality, or sexual orientation. In no way, shape, or form is this the same thing as 'moral relativism'.

This is a very well-established line of research in developmental psychology. Google the name 'Lawrence Kohlberg' if you want more information.

And what's ironic is that because you believe in moral relativism, you can't really say with any certainty that my argument is incorrect.

My use of the term "gay gene" was meant to mean a genetic basis of homosexuality, whatever it's form. And the term has been used in this thread before. There are only two (or three depending on your perspective) and they are genetics or environmental (spiritualism being the other one). If noone is born a homosexual, then it is a caused by the environment, which would mean homosexuality is a mutation or a choice.

No, the only choices are not 'genetics or environmental'. I don't mean to be a prick here, but your ignorance of human development is glaringly obvious.

A number of phenomena can account for homosexual orientation, not all of which entail a conscious 'choice'. Hormonal imbalance during gestation is one, neurological structural differences is another, and even developmental abberations can account for the phenomenon.

Your lopsided claim that all possible biological causes are 'genetic' in nature is unabashedly misinformed.

You used technology to support your hypothesis about how a primarily homosexual society could exist.

Which is a separate issue from the moral dillema I presented. A dilemma, I note, that you have yet to honestly face down.

You can only claim this a fallacious argument if you assume that the bible is not a proper authority. That can be disputed, it's just your viewpoint.

Okay, its obvious you don't know what an Appeal To Authority even is.

An Appeal To Authority is a logical fallacy whereby an individual simply resorts to an "authority x says so, therefore it is true!" to frame their arguments. Which, not to be rude, is exactly what you and others denying gay rights have done.

There is no such thing as a 'proper authority'. Utilizing any source on the basis of its supposed authority in place of an actual argument or defense is the fallacious reasoning here.

It'd basically be like saying that because this respected doctor with a PhD says massive doses of alcohol can cure lung cancer that it must be true!! It does not logically follow that this is the case. You must engage in sound reasoning, not logical fallacies.

I'm sure I'll hear a rational argument one of these days...

Laterz.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Ah, so another 'just-so' statement, eh?

This might be a shock, but constantly reiterating a claim that has no support does not 'magically' galvanize support for it. Arguments like, "err, uh, that's the way it is.... because I say so!!" just ain't gonna cut it.

You have yet to demonstrate how the scenario I postulated is either impossible or foolish. C'mon, now, we're all waiting.

Ok, in you're argument you asked the question: how would I feel if, in a primarily homosexual world, would I feel if denied the right to marry. I simply said that a primarily homosexual world could never have developed, evolutionary-wise, because there would be no reproduction. You used technology to say that it could.

I am simply saying that the example given, could not occur. However, as I stated before, I can understand the basis of an argument based on the Golden Rule. Use that, rather than making a nonsensical hypothetical. It was unnecessary to support your question of "how would you feel if..."

In no way is post-conventional morality the same thing as 'moral relativism'. In fact, 'moral relativism' is something more commonly associated with pre-conventional narcissism.

You may use this term if you wish, but it evinces a fundamental ignorance of the concepts being used and, furthermore, demonstrates a lack of willingness on your part to honestly face the moral issues being discussed.

I smell a smokescreen. And, in case you're interested, I have argued against moral relativism several times in the past on these forums.

You obviously don't know what post-conventional moral reasoning is, so I'll just lay it out for you.

Post-conventional moral thinking is when the individual has reached a level of moral reasoning in which they step back from the social conventions and cultural mores they are imbedded within to consider what would be fair and moral and just not just for his or herself, not just for his or her family or race or people or country, but what is moral for all people, regardless of sex, race, creed, nationality, or sexual orientation. In no way, shape, or form is this the same thing as 'moral relativism'.

This is a very well-established line of research in developmental psychology. Google the name 'Lawrence Kohlberg' if you want more information.

I did, in fact, get my definition of from Kohlber (albeit indirectly from Wikipedia). This is his very own example for this stage:

Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.

How does one resolve this dilema. There seems to be a subjective view of what is the greater right or wrong. Where do we get the information to decide. It's great to have an abstract philosophical discussion on an issue, but were does it get us in the real world.

No, the only choices are not 'genetics or environmental'. I don't mean to be a prick here, but your ignorance of human development is glaringly obvious.

A number of phenomena can account for homosexual orientation, not all of which entail a conscious 'choice'. Hormonal imbalance during gestation is one, neurological structural differences is another, and even developmental abberations can account for the phenomenon.

Your lopsided claim that all possible biological causes are 'genetic' in nature is unabashedly misinformed.

You counter yourself on this point. You concede the fact that I said behaviour has either a genetic or environmental cause, yet then you state that my "lopsided claim that all possible biological causes are 'genetic' in nature is unabashedly misinformed". Which is it?

How did those "hormonal imbalances during gestation" or "neurological structural differences" occur? If you answer with other than genetics or the environment, I would possibly be willing to concede the point.

Which is a separate issue from the moral dillema I presented. A dilemma, I note, that you have yet to honestly face down.

I agree, the technology used is a separate issue, which is why I wonder why you ever brought it up in the first place.

Anyway, this statement of your's is based on a huge false premise, since I did, in fact, answer your dilemma. You're assuming that I am not being honest.

Okay, its obvious you don't know what an Appeal To Authority even is.

An Appeal To Authority is a logical fallacy whereby an individual simply resorts to an "authority x says so, therefore it is true!" to frame their arguments. Which, not to be rude, is exactly what you and others denying gay rights have done.

There is no such thing as a 'proper authority'. Utilizing any source on the basis of its supposed authority in place of an actual argument or defense is the fallacious reasoning here.

It'd basically be like saying that because this respected doctor with a PhD says massive doses of alcohol can cure lung cancer that it must be true!! It does not logically follow that this is the case. You must engage in sound reasoning, not logical fallacies.

I'm sure I'll hear a rational argument one of these days...

More false assumptions on your part. As I stated when I first involved myself in this thread, I am philisophically a libertarian. Therefore, what one wants to do that does not hurt other is their own choice. I am in this for a lively political debate. I want people to know why they believe what they do, especially me.

An issue that I have is that your calling an appeal to authority as being a falsehood. Is there anyway in your mind, that that authority could be correct. Semantically speaking, it is simply an argument that you are unwilling to accept.

And I did give rational arguments, just none that you are willing to accept. Although this really gets us nowhere, you engage in these debates with more of a closed mind than those who counter your arguments. Even if given a rational, logical answer, you still wouldn't allow you ego to drop enough to accept it.

 

[heretic888]

Ok, in you're argument you asked the question: how would I feel if, in a primarily homosexual world, would I feel if denied the right to marry. I simply said that a primarily homosexual world could never have developed, evolutionary-wise, because there would be no reproduction.

In other words, you dodged the question by substituting a Red Herring.

I am simply saying that the example given, could not occur.

You can claim this as much you like, but something like the given example has occured in some human cultures. Heterosexual intercourse is forbidden on all but a few days out of the year, whereas homosexual intercourse is a year-long practice.

However, as I stated before, I can understand the basis of an argument based on the Golden Rule.

Ummm.... placing yourself in the situation of the Other is kinda what the Golden Rule is all about.

I did, in fact, get my definition of from Kohlber (albeit indirectly from Wikipedia). This is his very own example for this stage:

Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.

How does one resolve this dilema. There seems to be a subjective view of what is the greater right or wrong. Where do we get the information to decide. It's great to have an abstract philosophical discussion on an issue, but were does it get us in the real world.

Not only have you not demonstrated that post-conventional moral reasoning leads to moral relativism, but you evince a fundamental misunderstanding of Kohlberg's developmental theories.

In no way was Kohlberg making the claim that morality is 'relative'. Instead, he is concerned with looking at how people's moral reasoning develops and grows over the course of their lifetimes. He was not making a judgment whatsoever concerning particular moral beliefs. Rather, he was researching the reasoning and thinking underlying their beliefs.

When somebody is claming there are universal, invariant, cross-cultural, hiearchical stages of moral thinking/reasoning, then by no stretch of the imagination are they appealing to 'relativity' or 'subjectivism'.

You counter yourself on this point. You concede the fact that I said behaviour has either a genetic or environmental cause, yet then you state that my "lopsided claim that all possible biological causes are 'genetic' in nature is unabashedly misinformed". Which is it?

How did those "hormonal imbalances during gestation" or "neurological structural differences" occur? If you answer with other than genetics or the environment, I would possibly be willing to concede the point.

Ah, my mistake. I was unaware you were including the individual's prenatal and perinatal environments in the category 'environment', as the individual most assuredly has no choice about what happens to him or her during those stages of biological development.

I agree, the technology used is a separate issue, which is why I wonder why you ever brought it up in the first place.

I brought it up in response to your fallacious Red Herring that such a scenario could never occur in the first place.

Anyway, this statement of your's is based on a huge false premise, since I did, in fact, answer your dilemma. You're assuming that I am not being honest.

Another 'just-so' statement. You have yet to address the hypothetical moral dilemma outside of lobbing fallacious Red Herrings.

More false assumptions on your part. As I stated when I first involved myself in this thread, I am philisophically a libertarian.

Uh-huh. Sure.

An issue that I have is that your calling an appeal to authority as being a falsehood. Is there anyway in your mind, that that authority could be correct. Semantically speaking, it is simply an argument that you are unwilling to accept.

Okay, let's get something straight now....

An Appeal To Authority has nothing to do with whether said authority is 'right' or 'wrong'. Constructing a Strawman Argument to defend this won't change that.

No, the thing about an Appeal To Authority is that you are replacing a logical argument or defense with, essentially, "authority x says this, so it must be true!" This is fallacious reasoning, whether the authority is 'right' or not.

In any event, the Bible is not regarded as some sort of final moral authority outside of those that accept the circular premise that it is the 'Word of God'. Ergo, it is a moot point.

And I did give rational arguments, just none that you are willing to accept.

Red Herrings, Strawmen, and Appeals To Authority are in no way 'rational arguments'.

Although this really gets us nowhere, you engage in these debates with more of a closed mind than those who counter your arguments. Even if given a rational, logical answer, you still wouldn't allow you ego to drop enough to accept it.

Logical Fallacy: Personal Attack

Uh-huh. Sure.

Laterz.