 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage? |
| Yes. |
|
18% |
[ 8 ] |
| No. |
|
65% |
[ 28 ] |
| Maybe so. |
|
16% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 43 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6145
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8977
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How can it be used fallaciously? And why is it a fallacy when used against gay marriage? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6145
Location: United States
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7897
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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?
_________________
I shaved off my goatee so that my wife could read my facial expressions better. She feels much happier and closer to me now. (Just thought I'd share this advice for any other bearded members.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6145
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It Extends the definition of Marriage. To some extent that certainly *does* change it[OMFG! Change!!!!!  ] but it does NOT replace the standard definition of marriage by any stretch of the imagination! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fogman
Econo-class Iconoclast
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 2072
Location: SC, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
"Blessed are the Distinctly Alien, for they shall inherit the Earth." -- Genesis P. Orridge |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7897
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
I shaved off my goatee so that my wife could read my facial expressions better. She feels much happier and closer to me now. (Just thought I'd share this advice for any other bearded members.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: aberdeen
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i agree with fogman. i think there is a lot to be said for that line of argument.
_________________
"Those who long ago began the critique of political economy by defining it as "the final denial of humanity" were not deceived. One still recognizes this trait in it."
Guy Debord |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7897
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
I shaved off my goatee so that my wife could read my facial expressions better. She feels much happier and closer to me now. (Just thought I'd share this advice for any other bearded members.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
twoshots
Honorary Vertebrate
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 2185
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country."
-Milton Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
ford_prefects_kid
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 397
Location: CA: Los Angeles and Berkeley
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7908
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~Einstein. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
