Man, this is classic stuff. Truly. This one’s a Hall of Famer if ever I read one.
Hey, all you fence-sitters? Read it all - every blessed word - then see which side of the argument you fall on (keeping in mind that any rationalizations against equal treatment under the law really do sound this ridiculous).
Esprix
—I have nothing against homosexuality other than I think it’s kind of icky—
[joke stolen from the Onion] Sure: but don’t let that stop you from having sex with all those guys. [/joke]
—There have been studies that show that children raised by normal, heterosexual couples grow up to be happier than either those raised by single-parent households, or those raised by same-sex households.—
There have also been studies showing that homosexual households are superior to heterosexual households. (though I am perfectly willing to concede that this superiority is due to selection bias, since adoptive gay couples are generally more motivated than heterosexual parents in general, having to jump over many more hurdles to become parents in the first place.)
Regardless, it is downright wrong to deny people the right to marry even if they belong to a group that on average doesn’t do as well as another group does on average. The same logic would suggest that we not allow certain racial groups to marry, or certain social classes, simply because their average might be below the general average. That’s simply insane logic.
If people have objections to the specific child rearing abilities of a specific couple, that’s one thing, and there are already plenty of laws on the books that allow the state and others to intervene in situations of negligent parenting. But to blanket prohibit all members of an arbitrarily defined group from marrying, destroying the possiblity of many obviously good parents, is flatly wrong.
—If you can’t reproduce you ARE unhealthy if you don’t reproduce you are acting in an unhealthy manner.—
Says who? Define “unhealthy” in some meaningful way for which this would be true.
------No. People who do not produce life are still alive. People who actively take life are still alive. I don’t know what you are inducing from.
Biologically people who do not reproduce are as bead as a dodo. In any case this is yet another strawman, I did not say an individual person is not alive right now if he doesn’t reproduce. Are you even trying to see what I mean?
-------This is how you define perverse?
This is one of the meanings of perverse. It follows from perverse meaning ‘against the right or good’. If you take right and good in other than their moral senses, right as in best and good as in good for you, healthy, and healthy to apply to the whole life cycle (without which life is extinct) them it follows. Perversion meant, at least until 1973, “a disorder of sexual behavior in which satisfaction is sought by means other than normal heterosexual intercourse”. Which is not the definition I am using in this case.
UncleToby, I’m somewhat reluctant to argue with you, as doing so might give the impression that there is any actual logic or reasoning behind your position. You seem to think you’re doing a good job supporting your straight supremacist viewpoint, though, and as long as you do so people get to see the ridiculousness of your arguments, so let’s keep the fun going, huh?
Societal benefits of marriage that are unrelated to reproduction:
[ul]
[li]The establishment of a standard contract by which property disputes between married couples can be ironed out, in cases such as divorce. Fewer lawsuits.[/li]
[li]The encouragement of stable financial unions between couples. Two people have a much better chance of remaining financially viable than one, in events such as disasters, unemployment, health problems, etcetera. Fewer homeless.[/li]
[li]The establishment of couples who are better able to provide a stable economic environment in which to raise adoptive children. More happy, productive children.[/li][/ul]
And as to your earlier point about whether this argument revolves around equality or acceptance into society, equality is a very important step towards acceptance into society. They’re not mutually exclusive.
While I knew Uncle Toby would eventually be called to the Pit. I had no idea it would be Polycarp that would do it.
No. Dodos are extinct: they no longer exist. Organisms which do not reproduce that still exist are still alive.
Well, then we stop at the definition. I find that there are such things as good choices which may include, among other things, behavior such as:[ul][li]Not reproducing[]Killing others[]taking one’s own life[/ul]all of which may be considered in your obtuse “biological” sense, outside of morality (though I have no idea how you conceive of morality given this).[/li]
To me, survival is the context in which life operates; it is neither “good” nor “bad” in any sense.
Given modern reproductive techniques, even if the entire world were comprised of homosexuals the human race would not become extinct. I fail to see where you are going with any of this, other than to attempt to justify an already arbitrary social convention from becoming any more arbitrary.
Finally, as an aside, “right as in best and good as in good for you, healthy, and healthy to apply to the whole life cycle” is not separate from morality as much as I understand the term.
Esprix:
Thank you for the kind thoughts.
Let me ask you what you mean by ‘equal treatment under the law’? It is a very broad subject. Laws must have the power to discriminate. To endorse a blanket statement that you can never discriminate against anything would be anarchy. Why ‘discriminate’ against kleptomaniacs, or speeders. The question is whether there is a defensible (note I do not say good or compelling) reason to discriminate in this case.
Please note I do not mean to imply you said these things. I’m only trying to clarify.
---- They’re not mutually exclusive.
Didn’t say they were but in the original post they were confounded and they’re definitely not the same thing.
The social benefits of marriage are not the question. Im dissappointed in your jibe MrVisible because you have come closest so far.
I never said marriage didn’t have other concepts attached to it only that a rational person could object to homosexual marriage on the grounds that the function of marriage is to produce children. This is what a lot of people think, they excuse the extraneous stuff because they see the law as a blunt instrument.
Sexuality is as arbitrary as race. I never chose to be gay, I never wanted to be gay, I had no choice about being gay.
And even then, you have a right to be treated equally before the law, NO MATTER WHAT, in this country. Religion is not arbitrary, people do choose their religions, unlike their sexualities. So you’re saying that someone could morally be treated as an inferior before the law simply because they’re not the same religion as everyone else?
Marriage is a social institution that binds two romantically involved people together legally in order to create a stable society. Yes, it has a goal of providing a suitable environment for the rearing of stable children, but that is not the sole purpose of marriage. Some of the most vibrant marriages never produce children, and some of the best children are not produts of marriage.
You do realize that we have inalienable rights in this nation specifically to prevent what you are proposing, which is the tyranny of the majority, don’t you?
By your logic, if the majority of a society decides that all Jewish people, remember religion is chosen, should be rounded up into death camps, that’s a “just” society. You are sick.
For the good of the gene pool, please take this opportunity go consume large amounts of dishwasher fluids.
Kirk
Uncle Toby,
I am just curious about something. If you had a child and he/she turned out to be gay, would you instill in them your opinion that they are perverse and unhealthy? Would you label them as such? Would you still love and accept them? Or would you attempt to “convert” them. There is always the possibility that you could be faced with this scenario. Then what?
It is not essential for an organism to reproduce. In fact, not every organism can, or will, do so. Reproduction is not a prerequisite to being a living organism. If I do not reproduce, I am still alive. If gays do not reproduce, they are still alive. If a worker bee cannot reproduce, it is still alive. Reproduction may be essential to continue life, but it is not essential to life itself.
**
It does not matter what “purpose” a non-reproducing individual serves in a community. Your claim was that non-reproducing individuals were a perversion of nature, since they went against your first (false) claim that the purpose of life is to reproduce. The whole idea behind “reproductive success” is that some organisms will be more likely to reproduce than others; it’s what makes sexual selection work. To argue that all organisms who can reproduce, will, is simple ignorance.
My point here is that your biological basis for describing homosexuality as a “perversion” has no basis in reality. It does not follow from either definition or logic.
That’s not discrimination. Discrimination involves the infringement on someone else’s rights. Those kleptomaniacs do not have a right to property that is not their’s, nor do speeders have a right to speed. However, if one group of people was given a right to steal, then everyone must be. If you give one pair of consenting adults the right to have thier relationships recognized by the government, then equal protection implies, no states, that you must extend that to all pairs of consenting adults.
Stealing and speeding are also against the law because they infringe on other people’s property rights. Property rights are the foundation of American society. We are, after all, a Locke-ian culture. No one’s property rights are infringed upon by allowing gay people to have their just-as-loving-as-a-straight-couple’s relationship codified and protected under the law.
But that’s BS, because under our system of law that is NOT the function of marriage. The fuction of marriage is to form a stable society, and, from a Locke-ian perspective, to provide a legal means by which two people may inseperably (by government standards, at least) unite their property.
Kirk
Are you saying that you don’t believe what you’ve espoused in this thread? That you don’t really believe “what a lot of people think” and have been arguing it anyway?
Uncle Toby said, “If marriage is defined by function (to produce the next generation) then people who cannot by definition fulfill that function can be treated differently and this is not oppression.”
You are the only person I’ve ever heard that defines marriage this way. Not only does our government not define it that way, but none of the participants define it as a means to produce the next generation. The means to produce the next generation is called “fucking.”
“Perversion” depends upon some definition of “normal.” But this definition is almost always a normative opinion, not an objective fact. Perversity, as you use it Toby, is nothing more than your opinion. There is no objective content to it that would provide a sound basis for legislative guidance.
The idea that nature has some sort of objective “intent” that creatures obey or violate, is strictly speaking a religious belief, not a scientific one. That animals happen to have a drive to reproduce (which isn’t even usually in their interests, but exists to serve their genomes) is interesting in understanding the motivations of animals (including people), but not particularly helpful in deciding social and legal matters.
Kirkland:
Sex is not as arbitrary as race. The law makes distinctions about sex all the time. It used to make more but some of those have been abandoned. when they were seen to be arbitrary.
The limits of the power of the majority are only on certain fundamental inalienable rights. Your right to privileges enjoyed by someone else can be limited if the inalienable rights do not apply. I have no right to go and sleep on the sofa in the ladies room no matter how comfy it is.
I think I’ve already answered your other points at least twice. Read the posts carefully.
Musicguy:
This has nothing to do with the argument. I have already gotten into trouble with Polycarp for answering things like this.
Darwinsfinch:
Strawman: I said it was essential for life to reproduce not AN organism.
-----It does not matter what “purpose” a non-reproducing individual serves in a community. Your claim was that non-reproducing individuals were a perversion of nature, since they went against your first (false) claim that the purpose of life is to reproduce.
Strawman: I am not concerned with the purpose of individuals in a society except as it supports the thesis that reproduction is essential to life. My point is that nonreproducing individuals are not perverse in communal societies because these societies are more a single organism from a biological point of view.
-----The whole idea behind “reproductive success” is that some organisms will be more likely to reproduce than others; it’s what makes sexual selection work. To argue that all organisms who can reproduce, will, is simple ignorance.
Yes, but this does not contradict the assertion that an organism’s life in the sense of life cycle requires reproduction. Of course all do not succeed many die.
Kirkland 1244:
You may have stolen the lead from MrVisible. You can’t have a right to steal. You can be granted the privilege to steal it’s not the same thing at all. You may have a right to steal if someone else has one but not always it depends on the grounds. Read about the central banking system of the US.
----. under our system of law that is NOT the function of marriage.
Correct, but it is the grounds on which many people base their last ditch logical opposition to homosexual marriage.
MrVisible:
— Are you saying that you don’t believe what you’ve espoused in this thread? That you don’t really believe “what a lot of people think” and have been arguing it anyway?
No, not exactly I think some of it is true and all of it is logical and rational…
Echokitty:
---- You are the only person I’ve ever heard that defines marriage this way
Well that’s probably because you haven’t discussed the matter deeply with people of opposing views. In my experience it is the final nub of the argument against homosexual marriage.
Apos:
The psychological definition of perversion requires a concept of ‘normal’ certainly which is why I decline it. The biological definition requires only an inductive observation of life processes.
You keep using that word – I do not think it means what you think it means.
Toby, grow a brain and learn how to quote. Not only are your posts non-sensical, arrogant and bigotted, they are also impossible to follow due to your lack of any basic posting skills.
Gee, I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you just don’t want to dig yourself into a deeper hole. I asked an honest question as politely as possible. Your answer is a copout.
Bullshit. You said:
You quite specifically said organism there. Try again.
**
Conveniently forgetting, of course, that reproduction isn’t essential to life. That such societies can even exist is evidence of that. Non-reproducing indivudals aren’t perverse in any society, except in those which explicitly make that determination.
However, what applies to the general case (“Life”, or a species’ life cycle) is irrelevant to the discussion of individuals, particularly individual humans. The “life cycle” of humans has nothing to do with your argument. What matters is your claim that for an individual to not reproduce is preverse. And that claim has not been supported by any argument you have made. In fact, nature clearly disagrees with you on this matter, as you yourself admit that not all individuals do, in fact, reproduce.
All of this, of course, completely ignores the fact that, as humans, we have the ability to not only make a conscious choice regarding reproduction, but to serve our community, society, and species despite not reproducing, regardless of the particular reason(s) for not doing so. Again, your appeal to nature falls flat, as humans are more than capable of circumventing or transcending natural laws with respect to our sexuality. And again, I fail to see where the “perversion” lies.
“under our system of law that is NOT the function of marriage.”
Uncle Toby said,“Correct, but it is the grounds on which many people base their last ditch logical opposition to homosexual marriage.”
I wouldn’t say “many” people…it looks as though this is YOUR last ditch opposition, and I wouldn’t call it logical.
AND THEN…
EchoKitty said, "---- You are the only person I’ve ever heard that defines marriage this way "
and Uncle Toby said, “Well that’s probably because you haven’t discussed the matter deeply with people of opposing views. In my experience it is the final nub of the argument against homosexual marriage.”
On the contrary, I’ve discussed it at length with many people from the other side of the fence, and none of them define marriage in this way. I don’t think you could find five people out of the thousands on this board that would agree. (Feel free to put your hands up, folks!)Of course it’s the final nub in YOUR arguments! It’s your NUB fercrissakes!