Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?

Page 6 of 7 [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?
Yes. 19%  19%  [ 8 ]
No. 65%  65%  [ 28 ]
Maybe so. 16%  16%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 43

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 May 2008, 5:29 pm

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But the male parts are constructed for the female parts and vice versa. Homosexuality is not hereditary because they can have no offspring aside from the use of straight sex (which gives them no survival advantage over straight people anyway.) It is a construct of the mind rather than something your genome forces you to do and it is contrary to the use of the construction of the bodies. Homosexuality, even though it is practiced now and in the past (which means nothing), is unnatural by the implied purpose of the construction of the two sexes.

Homosexuality exists in nature, some animals perform homosexual acts, Bonobo (a species of chimanzee) is an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

So, homosexuality is indeed part of nature and the "unnatural" term does not really apply, and let's suppose there was no homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, such statement would be a naturalistic fallacy.


Now that is an example of "is therefore ought."



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

21 May 2008, 5:33 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But the male parts are constructed for the female parts and vice versa.

~(is=>ought)


That's not it.

Implied function by design is not "is ergo ought".

We do this all the time: figuring out how to set a watch. Programing a VCR. Peeling a banana or orange. Some things are able to be figured out based on how they are designed.

There is no such thing as a function, there is only a use.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 May 2008, 5:40 pm

twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But the male parts are constructed for the female parts and vice versa.

~(is=>ought)


That's not it.

Implied function by design is not "is ergo ought".

We do this all the time: figuring out how to set a watch. Programing a VCR. Peeling a banana or orange. Some things are able to be figured out based on how they are designed.

There is no such thing as a function, there is only a use.


Wrong. Our eyes function as 10 megapixel 55 Hz cameras. Ears function as microphones which can pick up a 3db change and range from 150Hz to 20,000Hz frequency of sound.

Yes there may be nuances that you don't like in the word "function" but body parts, cells, etc, do have designed functions whether one likes the idea or not.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

21 May 2008, 5:42 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But the male parts are constructed for the female parts and vice versa. Homosexuality is not hereditary because they can have no offspring aside from the use of straight sex (which gives them no survival advantage over straight people anyway.) It is a construct of the mind rather than something your genome forces you to do and it is contrary to the use of the construction of the bodies. Homosexuality, even though it is practiced now and in the past (which means nothing), is unnatural by the implied purpose of the construction of the two sexes.

Homosexuality exists in nature, some animals perform homosexual acts, Bonobo (a species of chimanzee) is an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

So, homosexuality is indeed part of nature and the "unnatural" term does not really apply, and let's suppose there was no homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, such statement would be a naturalistic fallacy.


Now that is an example of "is therefore ought."

Just like your previous post.
And would you still explain why it is unnatural after seeing biological evidence and observation from animal behaviour?

And even if what you said is truth, then I repeat, it would be a naturalistic fallacy, in such case.

I noticed you have used some fallacies yourself, as well, and your accusations to posters using a fallacy such as ad hominem attacks as well others, are in fact fallacies themselves: ad hominem argument and argumentum ad logicam.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

21 May 2008, 5:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But the male parts are constructed for the female parts and vice versa.

~(is=>ought)


That's not it.

Implied function by design is not "is ergo ought".

We do this all the time: figuring out how to set a watch. Programing a VCR. Peeling a banana or orange. Some things are able to be figured out based on how they are designed.

There is no such thing as a function, there is only a use.


Wrong. Our eyes function as 10 megapixel 55 Hz cameras. Ears function as microphones which can pick up a 3db change and range from 150Hz to 20,000Hz frequency of sound.

Yes there may be nuances that you don't like in the word "function" but body parts, cells, etc, do have designed functions whether one likes the idea or not.

No, they're used as that. This is where we go our separate ways as I'm a Darwinist. Body parts are used in certain ways, and there is nothing precluding an emergent use for them. To say that they have some kind of set in stone "function" is platonic nonsense.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 May 2008, 5:45 pm

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But the male parts are constructed for the female parts and vice versa. Homosexuality is not hereditary because they can have no offspring aside from the use of straight sex (which gives them no survival advantage over straight people anyway.) It is a construct of the mind rather than something your genome forces you to do and it is contrary to the use of the construction of the bodies. Homosexuality, even though it is practiced now and in the past (which means nothing), is unnatural by the implied purpose of the construction of the two sexes.

Homosexuality exists in nature, some animals perform homosexual acts, Bonobo (a species of chimanzee) is an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

So, homosexuality is indeed part of nature and the "unnatural" term does not really apply, and let's suppose there was no homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, such statement would be a naturalistic fallacy.


Now that is an example of "is therefore ought."

Just like your previous post.
And would you still explain why it is unnatural after seeing biological evidence and observation from animal behaviour.

And even if what you said is truth, then I repeat, it would be a naturalistic fallacy.

I noticed you have used some fallacies yourself, as well, and your accusations to posters using a fallacy such as ad hominem attacks as well others, are in fact fallacies themselves: ad hominem arguments and argumentum ad logicam.


"A practice exists in nature. Therefore, it should exist in nature." That's "Is therefore ought".



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 May 2008, 5:49 pm

twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But the male parts are constructed for the female parts and vice versa.

~(is=>ought)


That's not it.

Implied function by design is not "is ergo ought".

We do this all the time: figuring out how to set a watch. Programing a VCR. Peeling a banana or orange. Some things are able to be figured out based on how they are designed.

There is no such thing as a function, there is only a use.


Wrong. Our eyes function as 10 megapixel 55 Hz cameras. Ears function as microphones which can pick up a 3db change and range from 150Hz to 20,000Hz frequency of sound.

Yes there may be nuances that you don't like in the word "function" but body parts, cells, etc, do have designed functions whether one likes the idea or not.

No, they're used as that. This is where we go our separate ways as I'm a Darwinist. Body parts are used in certain ways, and there is nothing precluding an emergent use for them. To say that they have some kind of set in stone "function" is platonic nonsense.


No, the functions aren't set in stone. They can be readily lost, but not gained back or developed in the first place. Try building a computer by shaking electronic components over a breadboard.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 5:52 pm

ford_prefects_kid wrote:
but anyone with a brain knows darn well the communication between two adult minds in a loving relationship can't be compared to that of an adult and a horse, ect.

And- before you get a chance to ask the stupid question- no, you can't find a higher form of love with a cow or a tree or a rock.


Who are YOU to decide who is or falls in LOVE?!? Can you read the emotions of an animal to know it is not consenting or in LOVE!??


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

21 May 2008, 5:56 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
"A practice exists in nature. Therefore, it should exist in nature." That's "Is therefore ought".

I am not making the argument as "it should exist in nature" as I am not basing it or using that as an explanation or an "excuse" if you will, on why gay marriage should be allowed, but to debate the thought of it being unnatural or not, homosexual marriage and relationship is to be a human right, wether animals practice it or not, because it is irrelevant.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


ford_prefects_kid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 594
Location: Los Angeles, CA

21 May 2008, 6:14 pm

oscuria wrote:
ford_prefects_kid wrote:
but anyone with a brain knows darn well the communication between two adult minds in a loving relationship can't be compared to that of an adult and a horse, ect.

And- before you get a chance to ask the stupid question- no, you can't find a higher form of love with a cow or a tree or a rock.


Who are YOU to decide who is or falls in LOVE?!? Can you read the emotions of an animal to know it is not consenting or in LOVE!??


Anyone who's really been in a loving relationship knows how important communication and understanding are, and why you can't have one with a cow.

I love my dog and he loves me, but he doesn't know s**t about how I think or why I do things, or what childhood moments made me who I am today and why the rain makes me feel like a little girl again.

If you don't KNOW someone you can't truly LOVE them. Don't be obtuse.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 May 2008, 6:45 pm

Love and sex are two different things.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 7:07 pm

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

If you don't KNOW someone you can't truly LOVE them. Don't be obtuse.


I never knew Krisna, I never knew Moses, I never knew Jesus, I never knew Sankara, I never knew Muhammad, I never knew Rumi, I never knew the Gurus, yet I love every single one of them as they are a part of me.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


ford_prefects_kid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 594
Location: Los Angeles, CA

21 May 2008, 9:48 pm

oscuria wrote:
ford_prefects_kid wrote:

If you don't KNOW someone you can't truly LOVE them. Don't be obtuse.


I never knew Krisna, I never knew Moses, I never knew Jesus, I never knew Sankara, I never knew Muhammad, I never knew Rumi, I never knew the Gurus, yet I love every single one of them as they are a part of me.


Oh, well that makes sense. The love you have for Moses Jesus and Muhammad is precisely the same kind of love as the kind I was referring to when I spoke of two people in a committed romantic relationship.

And since we've established that there is only one definition of love, I have to ask- since we all know that Jesus loves everyone, are you ok with that? Do you ever feel jealous sometimes? And how do you feel about our country not granting you the legal right to enter into the institution of marriage with all the individuals you mentioned above simultaneously?



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 May 2008, 10:03 pm

There isn't just one kind of love. There are many different kinds of this emotion.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 10:04 pm

ford_prefects_kid wrote:
Oh, well that makes sense. The love you have for Moses Jesus and Muhammad is precisely the same kind of love as the kind I was referring to when I spoke of two people in a committed romantic relationship.

And since we've established that there is only one definition of love, I have to ask- since we all know that Jesus loves everyone, are you ok with that? Do you ever feel jealous sometimes? And how do you feel about our country not granting you the legal right to enter into the institution of marriage with all the individuals you mentioned above simultaneously?



First off, your attempts are not going to work. Your insults are not going to cause me to react.

I never implied there was one definition of Love (or rather the forms of love), but there is one widely accepted and acknowledge definition of marriage.


How do you know that Jesus loves everyone? and What does love have to do with marriage?


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


ford_prefects_kid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 594
Location: Los Angeles, CA

21 May 2008, 10:14 pm

oscuria wrote:
ford_prefects_kid wrote:
Oh, well that makes sense. The love you have for Moses Jesus and Muhammad is precisely the same kind of love as the kind I was referring to when I spoke of two people in a committed romantic relationship.

And since we've established that there is only one definition of love, I have to ask- since we all know that Jesus loves everyone, are you ok with that? Do you ever feel jealous sometimes? And how do you feel about our country not granting you the legal right to enter into the institution of marriage with all the individuals you mentioned above simultaneously?



First off, your attempts are not going to work. Your insults are not going to cause me to react.

I never implied there was one definition of Love (or rather the forms of love), but there is one widely accepted and acknowledge definition of marriage.


How do you know that Jesus loves everyone? and What does love have to do with marriage?



Oh please. Drop the higher ground act, you're the one that jumped on me with the all caps WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANIMALS?!? crap.

My point was that the definition of marriage has already changed, since it was once thought of as simply an institution and economic convenience, and women were not even considered equal partners. In our modern society, the current philosophy of what marriage is supposed to represent has much more to do with a higher form of mutual love, respect and commitment between two consenting adults.

These ideals could still be present between a couple of the same sex, but not between a man and his dog because a dog is not capable of that particular form of love.

The fact that I originally clarified to which kind of love I was referring, but you still responded by slating your love for various religious leaders and the kind of love that an animal can exhibit is irritating. It seems you are deliberately trying to misinterpret me, because I can't imagine that this is unclear.