Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?

Page 5 of 7 [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 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

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 May 2008, 3:18 pm

slowmutant wrote:
We are not obligated to make efforts.

Umm.... yeah, then you are in essence ignoring homosexuality, and then you aren't refuting my previous argument.
Quote:
How is the Slippery Slope argument a fallacy?

There are proper uses, however, it can be used fallaciously.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 May 2008, 3:20 pm

How can it be used fallaciously? And why is it a fallacy when used against gay marriage?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 May 2008, 3:23 pm

slowmutant wrote:
How can it be used fallaciously? And why is it a fallacy when used against gay marriage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_s ... as_fallacy

I forgot to post my link.

The reason it is a fallacy in the gay marriage argument is because it takes the form shown in the example.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

19 May 2008, 3:55 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
We sure aren't ignoring homosexuality. The very existence of this discussion is proof of that.

Well, are you creating institutions to deal with it? No. The fact that we are arguing over it does not mean that we have made any efforts.


There is an American family-oriented organization that
helps and encourages gays to become straight,
although the exact name slips my mind at present.
Does anyone know the name of it? It's got "ex-Gay" in the actual title, I believe.
There are such organizations. Are you claiming there are not?


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 May 2008, 4:03 pm

Ragtime wrote:
There is an American family-oriented organization that
helps and encourages gays to become straight,
although the exact name slips my mind at present.
Does anyone know the name of it? It's got "ex-Gay" in the actual title, I believe.
There are such organizations. Are you claiming there are not?

Well, most gays don't want to become straight, and they don't have to become straight, just like most people don't have to change religions. I am not claiming that those organizations do not exist, and in fact, such organizations are a valid response to the issue of homosexuals, but not one that relates to the US government or its policies or that should relate to the US government or its policies.



D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

19 May 2008, 4:23 pm

It Extends the definition of Marriage. To some extent that certainly *does* change it[OMFG! Change!! !! ! 8O ] but it does NOT replace the standard definition of marriage by any stretch of the imagination!



Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

21 May 2008, 4:11 pm

Fred2670 wrote:
In my opinion it doesnt change the definition of
the word, but merely cheapens the act. It seems
this is just another way that fags are trying to
imitate normal people. I guess I would feel sorry
for them if I valued their existance.

Dont get me wrong, I do my best to be tolerant
of others but I believe the only thing worse than
allowing fags to get married is be to allow them
to adopt children.

I also believe they should all be castrated and have
the word "HOMO" tattooed across their foreheads.


I think that your outright hatred of gay people indicates that you may be trying to cover up from your own latent gayness.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

21 May 2008, 4:16 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
There is an American family-oriented organization that
helps and encourages gays to become straight,
although the exact name slips my mind at present.
Does anyone know the name of it? It's got "ex-Gay" in the actual title, I believe.
There are such organizations. Are you claiming there are not?

Well, most gays don't want to become straight, and they don't have to become straight, just like most people don't have to change religions. I am not claiming that those organizations do not exist, and in fact, such organizations are a valid response to the issue of homosexuals, but not one that relates to the US government or its policies or that should relate to the US government or its policies.


Why don't you let individual gays decide what they want to do, before making a
politically-charged blanket statement implying that most gays are absolutely solid
in their personal choices to remain gay. I'm sure many waver, especially with the
natural societal pressure in the form of the vast majority of society being straight.
Straight people experiment with bi and gay thoughts and more, so I'm sure gays
experiment with straight behaviors too.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

21 May 2008, 4:26 pm

i agree with fogman. i think there is a lot to be said for that line of argument.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

21 May 2008, 4:31 pm

peebo wrote:
i agree with fogman. i think there is a lot to be said for that line of argument.


He's possibly right, but Fred's problem could also just be plain ol' garden-variety hatred.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 May 2008, 4:36 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
How can it be used fallaciously? And why is it a fallacy when used against gay marriage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_s ... as_fallacy

I forgot to post my link.

The reason it is a fallacy in the gay marriage argument is because it takes the form shown in the example.


Quote:
1 A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2 B will inevitably happen.
3 B is wrong; therefore
4 A is wrong.


Yes, that form is wrong.

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.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 May 2008, 5:08 pm

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

~(is=>ought)
Quote:
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.

This is not clear at all. If we assume that homosexuality is controlled by a gene that dictates only sexual preference then yes, we would expect that the mutant strategy of homosexuality would not stand a snowball's chance in hell of invading a population of heterosexual individuals. However, it is not at all clear that this is how homosexuality actually is coded for. Twin studies, for example, indicate that if the one is gay there is a much higher chance the other will be when compared to non-identical twins. Homosexuality could be a result of a combination of genetics and environment. There seem to be documented physiological correlates with homosexuality as well (see the wikipedia article on homosexuality). In other words, a simply "it's a person's choice" model is completely inadequate and flies in the face of the evidence. How homosexuality remains a more or less widespread strategy would need to be explained, rather than the seeming unlikeliness of it being used to disregard the evidence.

Quote:
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.

See above.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


ford_prefects_kid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 May 2008, 5:09 pm

Gosh, it seems every time I lurk here I find that parrot face gleefully comparing homosexual relationships to beastiality.

At least I can understand just plain not accepting it on a religious basis- might not agree with it, but I can understand it- 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 repeatedly bringing up the fact that you married outside of your race doesn't make you any less of a bigot.



Would the definition of marriage change from the late 19th century Webster definition quoted here? Well, yes. But the definition of marriage already has changed a great deal. Going way back to the Greeks, Plato and Sophocles have implied that while a Greek marriage was between a man and a woman, a "higher level" of love was found not in this economical and institutional arrangement, but rather in the common homosexual relationships between men.

Today, we in the western world ideally expect men and women to marry because there exists a "higher level" of love between them. We also think it's inappropriate for 40 year old men to marry 13 year old girls, and we don't think men can be married and still have a homosexual partner on the side.


I would think that, in our society and culture, the REASONS that we ideally slate as being appropriate for marriage (love, life-long commitment, ect.) would not change by including gay couples.

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.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 May 2008, 5:14 pm

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.


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


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 May 2008, 5:27 pm

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.



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."