Originally posted by Dace AceNature - your body was not designed. Full stop. Nothing in your body is "meant" to do anything. It just happens to have some useful aspects for things like eating, vision and sex, because these aspects were selected by evolution.
OK remove gut reactions.
Nature - your body was not designed for sex in the homosexual manner.
Religion - the norm in the US, the majority = the norm, believes in the Bible and it say homosexuality is a no-no.
Law - says its a no-no.
Religion - the Bible preaches a lot of things which are not law in the US, such as killing nonbelievers, witches and homosexuals, forbidding the consumption of shrimp, and so forth.
Law - already refuted; circular argument.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell yes I agree, but I think its understood that this whole family orgy scenario is implausible. Nemesio is playing some game with it though and I'm playing along. If I understand him so far he does believe the incest scenario should be illegal, and that gay marriage should be legal, but he's not yet explained why. I'm waiting for the punchline.
It's always advisable to start with some concrete particulars before wracking your brains with ethical considerations.
Just imagine, if the incidence of consensual incest amounts to zero, you're worrying about a problem that doesn't exist.
Edit: Well he's explained in other threads why he thinks gay marriage should be legal, but he seems to be trying to connect the concepts here.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Well yes I agree, but I think its understood that this whole family orgy scenario is implausible. Nemesio is playing some game with it though and I'm playing along. If I understand him so far he does believe the incest scenario should be illegal, and that gay marriage should be legal, but he's not yet explained why. I'm waiting for the punchline.
Whoa whoa whoa.
I'm not playing a game. I take the issue of rights very, very seriously.
And I make sure that, when I'm inclined to restrict rights, I'm doing it
for just reasons, not gut reactions or because I have some sort of
general queeziness about the issue. For example, I believe in free speech,
but I think the harm caused by falsely yelling 'Fire!' in a crowed theatre
outweigh the freedom itself. The example is, of course, self evident, I
think. I think it is just to restrict such speech.
Further, in the scenario posited by Dace Ace and modified by me, the
reasons one might have to consider such behavior impermissible (either
morally or legally) may or may not have any bearing whatsoever on the
issue of granting civil privileges to same-sex couples.
But before anyone supports or opposes anything legally, the question of
whether the issue is just must be resolved. If you want to enable
a group of people to do or have something and restrict another group
from having it, is it just?
If one cannot articulate why some issue is or is not just, then what exactly
are they articulating? Opinion? Gut reaction? These two drives are not
a basis for law. Religious conviction? Absolutely irrelevant.
Dace Ace as offered no just reason for restricting the civil privileges
to opposite-sex couples, and Der Schwartz Ritter always backs out of the
conversation whenever some asks him to back his 'reasons' up (this is
perhaps the fourth time I've tried to engage him in this discussion).
You posited a potentially legitimate claim: it causes society harm because
it putatively undermines a integral social unit, 'family.'
So, we must ask:
1) Is this the only thing which undermines this social unit?;
2) Does this undermine the social unit worse than other existing institutions?;
and,
3) What harm does it exactly do?
(There are certainly other questions, but these are the ones that come
to my mind immediately.)
To 1) I respond, of course not. The ease with which one can get a divorce
undermines the 'family' to a far greater degree. The fact that cohabiting
and having children out of wedlock are legally permissible also undermine
'family' by this definition.
To 2) I observe that divorce literally tears children's and families' lives
apart. Do we have any evidence that granting health proxy benefits to
same-sex couples would do worse? Do we have any reason to believe
that giving same-sex partners respective powers of attorney would do so?
Of course we don't.
To 3) I answer 'none.' The giving of civil privileges to same-sex couples
in no way prevents me (a man, who is married to a woman) from having
those civil privileges. If one or ten thousand gay couples formed unions
in the city of Pittsburgh today, I would have no less power of attorney
in the unfortunate case that my wife were incapacitated. I would have
no less capacity to make medical decisions on her behalf. I would
receive no fewer dollars if she were to die and leave me her estate. I
would have no less custody of our son in such a circumstance.
The issue here is civil privileges. Mine are not undermined if one,
some, a thousand or tens of thousands of gay couples married. Therefore,
I have incurred no harm, nor has any other married person. Therefore,
I have no stake in the claim to harm.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLet me be clear before I answer this: I don't believe in 'Design' in that
Nature - your body was not designed. Full stop. Nothing in your body is "meant" to do anything. It just happens to have some useful aspects for things like eating, vision and sex, because these aspects were selected by evolution.
sense (although, as I've said, I'm an observant theist).
But, subtracting the Divine out of the equation altogether, this is just a
parsing argument.
The anus evolved to expel waste. The vagina evolved to harvest sperm
more effectively. The ears were not 'meant' to see, the eyes not 'meant'
to hear. &c &c &c
Our body parts have evolved biological purposes to achieve the end of
survival. A million years ago, males who decided that having anal sex
was exclusively preferable to vaginal sex didn't survive. This is patent
to any biologist. I think that was his point, even though he used the
charged word 'designed.'
But to that point, I ask, 'So what?' We've obviously stepped out of the
gene pool in the biological sense. We nurture our elderly, our blind, our
severely mentally handicapped, even at our own expense and to our
own biological detriment. We offer paliative care to those whose death
is imminent, even though those resources would make more biological
sense to use somewhere else.
That is, we do all sorts of things which violate the normative biological
imperatives which drive other organisms.
Furthermore, the argument Dace Ace is making is that it is 'natural' to
accord opposite-sex couples civil benefits and 'unnatural' to accord the
same to same-sex couples. But 'civil benefits' are an arbitrary social
convention, not some biologically driven urge. So, the argument from a
biological perspective is spurious to begin with.
Lastly, Dace Ace is ignoring the tremendous number of opposite-sex
couples who engage in the very activities he considers unnatural. That is,
if there are 200 people, 100 men and 100 women, approximately 10
men and 10 women are going to be homosexual. Let's assume that
everyone pairs off and finds a partner, that leaves us with 5 male-male
partners, 5 female-female partners, and 90 male-female partners.
Let's assume for simplicity, that all the participants MM couples engage
in anal and oral sex, and that all FF couples engage in oral and digital
sex. That's 10 couples engaging in 'unnatural behavior.'
We know that 25% of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, so that
means 22 MF couples engage in anal sex. Where's Dace Ace's outrage
on this number, more than twice the entire homosexual population?
And where is his outrage on the nearly 80% of heterosexual couples
who engage on one or both forms of oral sex (i.e., male on female, and
female on male) Why aren't these reasons for preventing those opposite-
sex couples from receiving civil privileges?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI didn't mean to imply that you weren't serious, just that you appeared to be playing a "thought game" of sorts. You told Dace Ace (I think) that you could articulate a reason for why the family orgy scenario should not be legal, but challenged him to do so on his own. Anyway, interesting discussion but I'm out of time for it (again). Gotta get kids from school.
Whoa whoa whoa.
I'm not playing a game.[/b]
Originally posted by generalissimoOnce again, you are wrong. He admitted as much earlier in this thread:
I don't think so
"Originally posted by CliffLandin
So, do you agree that people that have oral sex shouldn't be allowed to marry?
If the only reason to marry is to have children, should people that are married and either choose not, or can't, have children have their rights as married couples revoked?
If it keeps homosexuals from marrying, sure."
Proving that he a bigot and that the only reason that he thinks homosexuals shouldn't marry is because he doesn't like them.
It is pretty amusing when one bigot says that he doesn't think that another bigot is a bigot.
You guys make a great team. Too bad you can't marry in California.
Originally posted by CliffLandinbut thats how it starts. First homosexuals are born that way therefore they should be allowed to marry, whats next? paedophiles are going be considered normal as well because they were born that way?
Once again, you are wrong. He admitted as much earlier in this thread:
"Originally posted by CliffLandin
[i]So, do you agree that people that have oral sex shouldn't be allowed to marry?
If the only reason to marry is to have children, should people that are married and either choose not, or can't, have children have their rights as married couple ...[text shortened]... bigot is a bigot.
You guys make a great team. Too bad you can't marry in California.
Somethings are not natural, like gay marriage for example.
However don't get me wrong, I don't dislike gay people, I just think they shouldn't marry.
Originally posted by generalissimoHomosexuality and pedophilia are two different things.
but thats how it starts. First homosexuals are born that way therefore they should be allowed to marry, whats next? paedophiles are going be considered normal as well because they were born that way?
Somethings are not natural, like gay marriage for example.
Originally posted by generalissimoI was waiting for the 'slippery slope' argument.
but thats how it starts. First homosexuals are born that way therefore they should be allowed to marry, whats next? paedophiles are going be considered normal as well because they were born that way?
Somethings are not natural, like gay marriage for example.
However don't get me wrong, I don't dislike gay people, I just think they shouldn't marry.
Pedophilia shouldn't be considered legal because children lack the capacity to consent, lack the
understanding of what sexual contact means, and consequently are harmed by pedophilic acts.
Homosexuals engage in consensual, mutually reciprocal, self-affirming acts. One has nothing
in common with the other by virtue of the consent.
And no one is talking about 'gay marriage.'
We're talking about affording same-sex couples civil privileges. Your 'opinion' -- that you 'just
think they shouldn't marry' -- is legally irrelevant.
Nemesio
Originally posted by SleepyguySo you would say its not natural? That humans were designed not to mate within the same family.
Off the top of my head, how about because it might lead to an incestuous pregnancy, i.e. inbreeding, which is reportedly bad for the gene pool, and therefore detrimental to society?
Nemesio, you are very articulate, and I enjoy reading your argument. Thank you!
I guess that I do feel as if I am standing on the slippery slope (I am interested on your thoughts on this). I have drawn my line in the sand at a different place that others do. 50 years ago to come out of the closet as a homosexual was risking your life. Today its parades. What will be next? What is lurking in the shadows today, will be demanding their rights and having parades. A feel that a society must define boundries of what is acceptable and what is not, and you not please everybody. If we do not, we will digress into many of the third world countries I have been too. They are not pretty.
Originally posted by jlillyNow thats not nice. I do not concider myself a bigot. I do not treat homosexuals with any disrespect on the individual level. I would give you a hug and share a milkshake with you, if you allowed it. 🙂 I am just agaist providing those outside of a marraige of a man and a woman with any special rights. That is the beauty of America, just like the millions in California, I oppose a homosexual marrige.
Dace Ace is clearly a bigot.