Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.heretic888 said: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.
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?5-0 Kenpo said: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.
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.arnisador said:Well, quite a few human homosexuals are biological parents.
arnisador said:What about the sin of thread-jacking?
Maybe this "Hell" subject deserves another thread so this one can return to the gay marriage issue!
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:And sometimes we have to avoid worrying about how some people may FEEL in order to come to a realistic alternative.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
Humnas had children for tens of thousands of years without marriage, and continue to do so to this day.5-0 Kenpo said: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.
Soon this will probably be no longer true. Will that change things?Men and men can't have children together.
Where humans use martial arts, bonobos use sex...including gay sex...to deal with aggression. Maybe they are on to something...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.
You are essentially agreeing with what I said.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.
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.....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"??
This is true, but for the efficient function in of "civilized" or modern society, that society instituted marriage for the stability of the family.Humnas had children for tens of thousands of years without marriage, and continue to do so to this day.
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...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?
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.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.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
:asian:hardheadjarhead said:When it comes to biological diversity, folks...count on Mother Nature to give you all sorts of surprises.
5-0 Kenpo said:You are essentially agreeing with what I said.
5-0 Kenpo said:1. Homosexuallity being inborn.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:In other words, it does not necessarily mean there is a gay gene.
5-0 Kenpo said:There are cultural reasons for a lot of things, including infanticide. Does that mean we should condone that.
5-0 Kenpo said:I don't say this to compare infanticide to homosexuallity, but about social norms.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.....
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:This is true, but for the efficient function in of "civilized" or modern society, that society instituted marriage for the stability of the family.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:Again, are we talking about genetics, or social norms.
5-0 Kenpo said:All of this takes us away from the main point though, what is marriage all about, and by extension, what is the governments role.
5-0 Kenpo said:But in my argument, that's what marriage is all about, the proper rearing and protection of children.
kenposis said: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.
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.kenposis said: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
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.
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.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.
And as you said:
You used technology to support your hypothesis about how a primarily homosexual society could exist.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 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.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
That's all for now. Gotta go back to work.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:You continuously refer to post-conventional moral reasoning with universalist principles. I prefer the term moral relativism for this type of reasoning.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:You used technology to support your hypothesis about how a primarily homosexual society could exist.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
heretic888 said: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.
I did, in fact, get my definition of from Kohlber (albeit indirectly from Wikipedia). This is his very own example for this stage: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.
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?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.
I agree, the technology used is a separate issue, which is why I wonder why you ever brought it up in the first place.Which is a separate issue from the moral dillema I presented. A dilemma, I note, that you have yet to honestly face down.
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.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...
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:I am simply saying that the example given, could not occur.
5-0 Kenpo said:However, as I stated before, I can understand the basis of an argument based on the Golden Rule.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:I agree, the technology used is a separate issue, which is why I wonder why you ever brought it up in the first place.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:More false assumptions on your part. As I stated when I first involved myself in this thread, I am philisophically a libertarian.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.
5-0 Kenpo said:And I did give rational arguments, just none that you are willing to accept.
5-0 Kenpo said: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.