 
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 |
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
 Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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."
_________________
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 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
"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 |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7907
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
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 |
|
twoshots
Honorary Vertebrate
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 2185
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
"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 |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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".
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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!??
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7907
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
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 |
|
ford_prefects_kid
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 396
Location: CA: Los Angeles and Berkeley
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 sh** 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Love and sex are two different things.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
ford_prefects_kid
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 396
Location: CA: Los Angeles and Berkeley
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8976
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There isn't just one kind of love. There are many different kinds of this emotion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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?
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| 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
|
|
|
