Homosexual marriage II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lief and then Lotesse

Quote:
Originally Posted by LiefErikson
How can you be so confident of another private-minded individual human being's personal motivations to deny their true nature? To me, that smacks of "grand, arrogant, loving intolerance," that you'd say that without even knowing them! No offense .

All I'm doing is believing that what a friend and what an acquaintance tell me is true. That is not arrogant.



So, are you saying that if a friend informed you that god did not exist, would you then believe God did not exist, or would you believe that he or she believed that God did not exist? Assuming your friend is not a liar, that is. They are not lying to you about what they believe; they just believe it, therefore, you shouldbelieve them, as their statement comes from a place of honesty within their own heart. Right? Think about it, if you dare.

I would believe that he or she believed God did not exist. And if the person said that he's heterosexual, I would believe that the person believes he is heterosexual. The difference is that in the first case, the person's belief that God doesn't exist is 100% guesswork, so it's irrational to just take him at his word. There cannot be any evidence that a God does not exist. In the second case, however, the person knows for a fact whether or not what he's saying is true. He knows what gender he feels sexual desire for, as he experiences it. So he's not just right or wrong- he's either truthful or a liar.

I speak from a place of honesty in my heart, as do you, both of us saying what we believe is true. Yet we come to many opposite conclusions. So that a person says what he or she believes is true is not a good enough reason to believe that person. We have to know what the evidence is. In the case of God, there is no evidence against him existing. In the case of sexuality, the person knows for a fact whether or not he's telling the truth, so his word is very valuable evidence as to what he feels.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Britney Spears is just harmful, period .

Then lest ban her. Think of the children! Think of the damage on the sanctity of marriage! Society will collapse if we allow her to run around in public drunk and with no underwear anymore!

Look, of course some individuals will do better with their marriages than others. That's only natural.

Natural huh. Ha ha!

However, there are general differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships due to the gender differences that exist between the two different kinds of relationships.

Like what? You like to use this flawed reasoning over and over as if it has any relevance whatsoever to marriage but you never spell out even a hint of a detail as to what you are talking about when you say it. So spell it out. I don’t see why two women getting married should have issues so profoundly harmful as to warrant keeping them from marrying simply because they are two women.

Men and women are genetically different.

Everyone is genetically different Lief… (except for twins). Are we going to start having genetic tests to determine marriage potential now?

The genders matter. They make a big difference as to what a relationship is like in practice.

A million factors make a difference as to “what the relationship is like in practice”. This is such a meaningless statement and certainly isn’t useful at all in providing reasoning for BANNING people from marrying. You need to show clear and convincing facts.

Large-scale, general biological differences can and should be taken into account by our laws, because the two types of relationships are intrinsically and by logical necessity different.

1. prove it.
2. show why it matters even if true.
3. explain why the LAW ignores general biological (and social)
differences when addressing race, culture, or sex and why this
double standard is ok.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then lest ban her. Think of the children! Think of the damage on the sanctity of marriage! Society will collapse if we allow her to run around in public drunk and with no underwear anymore!

This is just ignoring my point. We can't discriminate between couples getting married- that's not society's place. Saying that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equivalent, however, and that therefore the same laws should apply to each, we should have evidence for. That's not discriminating between couples but between two genetically different kinds of relationships, and that is society's place.

We have laws that treat adult-child relations differently than adult-adult relations, because of biological differences between the adult and the child. We should find out whether these biologically different kinds of relationships between adults are similar or different also, before we stamp them all with the same laws.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Like what?

I have pointed out that genetically, the two relationships are by necessity different. Hence, there will be differences between them. Answering the "like what?" is exactly what I have been arguing all this time society should discover through studies, before it asserts that the two different kinds of relationship are the same and treats them as the same in the legal realm! Society shouldn't just assume that the two relationships are the same when they're different in a strong genetic way. That, forgive me for being blunt, is being stupid.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You like to use this flawed reasoning over and over as if it has any relevance whatsoever to marriage but you never spell out even a hint of a detail as to what you are talking about when you say it. So spell it out. I don’t see why two women getting married should have issues so profoundly harmful as to warrant keeping them from marrying simply because they are two women.

Our society should discover what the differences and parallels between homosexual and heterosexual relationships are before it gives homosexual relationships marriage or civil union rights. Otherwise it is being irresponsible.

I have spelled out in previous posts some of the ways in which I think homosexuality is harmful. But my argument concerning genetic difference is not based upon homosexuality being harmful or fine. It is based, instead, upon the simple logic that there will by necessity be differences between different kinds of relationships, and throwing equal laws onto them all without conducting studies and extensive research on homosexual relationships is irresponsible, because the laws we give them might not be suited to their kind of relationships.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Everyone is genetically different Lief… (except for twins). Are we going to start having genetic tests to determine marriage potential now?

We already have them. Humans aren't allowed to marry apes, because apes are the wrong species. That's genetic. Adults aren't allowed to marry children because of biological development. There always have been such restrictions based on biology. That's because there are big, general, overall differences in biology that exist in those cases. And there are also between men and women. The two genders are distinctly different from one another.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

A million factors make a difference as to “what the relationship is like in practice”. This is such a meaningless statement and certainly isn’t useful at all in providing reasoning for BANNING people from marrying. You need to show clear and convincing facts.

Again, my whole point has been that because not much is known about this genetically different relationship, clear and convincing facts that point either way should be found before any action is taken. Otherwise, our society is tinkering with biology and genetics blindfolded, which is stupid.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

1. prove it.

The relationships will be different by logical necessity because men and women are biologically different, with different kinds of brains. Here's an interesting excerpt about male and female brains differences from a book written by licensed psychotherapist Thayer White MA MFT:
http://www.helpself.com/brain.htm

The question is how different the relationships will be, in what ways, and what laws should therefore apply to them. That's what we need reliable studies to determine.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

2. show why it matters even if true.

Biology's impact already is reflected in our laws, and always has been. It shapes people's behavior to a very large extent. Certain gender roles have been seen across civilizations and countries.

Socialization is going to be a factor, especially now with this feminist wart growing in our culture, trying to take over masculinity.

But biology should clearly be the primary reason. Here's a personal example:

I have four siblings, two sisters and two brothers, and all of us have grown up roughly according to the gender stereotypes. My parents would have had no problem with any of us acting in other ways. My sister could have joined our violent games, and we could have done more with barbies. In fact, one of my brothers did for a couple years, though those games were not "girly" games, but rather were comedy focused. My sisters are more social, my brothers and I are not. My siblings and I have always played with one of my sisters, but she just of her own choice doesn't play the fight sequences in our games that much, because she doesn't feel good at it or particularly interested in it.

Romance films are designed for women. Fighting films are often designed for men. Men tend to be more physical and women more social, innately rather than because they're pressured to be that way.

In my view, this all goes back to the hunter-gatherer situation people had at the beginning of our existence as a species. Men are more aggressive than women- this is an established fact in Political Science. It's acknowledged throughout the profession. They know the statistics and have taught this established fact to us in class. This only makes sense- it is tied, biologically, to our history. We were genetically designed to be physicially stronger and bigger than women, and to be more aggressive, because our species needed one member with those characteristics if we were to survive. We also needed someone more designed for nurturing though. That was also necessary for the survival of our race. So men and women are different automatically, and were designed that way from the beginning.

You can see major physical differences between men and women whenever you look at a man or a woman. Otherwise, you couldn't tell which was which. Why is it so hard for you to accept that biological differences logically would be encoded in the genetic make-up of their brains as well?

Stereotypes cross society in this matter for a reason. That reason is not just because everyone has always been brought up that way, for otherwise you would see more difference between cultures. You would see some Amazons somewhere!

Yet I admit also that society also impacts the way people will behave in a significant way, and everyone is different. Learning impacts thinking to a large extent as well as genetics.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

3. explain why the LAW ignores general biological (and social)
differences when addressing race, culture, or sex and why this
double standard is ok.

People can change culturally, or can accept people of other cultures the way they are. They can help themselves there, can adapt. Social differences are fluid and alterrable. When something is genetically encoded into someone though, then you have a permanent difference between that person and other people that won't change.

Race is a minimal genetic difference- there is no big difference between a Negro and a Caucasian. It's mainly just skin color. That's tiny. Who cares?

The physical differences between a man and a woman are huge though, both in terms of the structure and design of their bodies and also the way they think. There's no process by which they'll alter their genetic make-up.

[Rían]

A male of any race will not ask for directions when lost. Male-ness is a stronger trait than race-ness.

[Lief Erikson]

Yep, and that's because we're far more achievement oriented than women are. I certainly am. My biggest fear is failure.

I think that that kind of instinct also can be traced back to our original condition when we came out on the Earth. We had to have one of the two parts of our species aggressive and achievement oriented in order to survive. We needed the skills, aggression and physical prowess orientation as a species, in the earlier times of humanity's existence.

We also needed, and still badly need, the nurturing angle women possess. Her characteristics and abilities and those of men work together beautifully, and are both essential for our species.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is obviously all based on the premise that homosexuality is bad, and I'm not talking about in some abstract moral sense but in a down-to-earth, hurt-your-life kind of way. Some former homosexuals have said that homosexuality hurt them, and there are other reasons too to believe it does. Knowing homosexuals and observing their lifestyle can give insights. There are a few reasons, and these are some, that I think that homosexuality is harmful.

If this is what you truely believe, then why do you have absolutlely no interest in addressing heterosexual marriage in the same way.

Why aren't christians clamouring for laws that would make it illegal for a heterosexual pedofile to marry and have children?

[Lief Erikson]

Like homosexuality and bisexuality, my personal view is that pedophelia comes from environment rather than genetics, and I think that available evidence supports that belief.

I'm not favoring discrimination between couples based upon cultural differences or environmental influence. But if there is a major genetic difference, responding to it in our laws makes perfect sense. Environment can change or be overcome. Genes can't.

Someone brought up in one culture may feel little attachment to it. He may not care for it at all. Then he may immerse himself in someone else's culture, fall in love with someone in it and get married. He's crossed a cultural divide.

Or people may keep their different cultures and respect one another's different behaviors, and still remain happily married couples.

A pedophile may keep those sexual interests to himself or even overcome them and change completely so that he no longer has them. I bet that that's possible. He can also live a happily married life.

A relationship between the pedophile and a child will very likely have a lot of big differences to that between two adults though, because of the different stages of development between the two. The differences of biology. So that kind of relationship, if it was legalized, would also have to have different laws made up concerning it that are most suited to its specifics.

The same goes for homosexual relationships.

You see what I'm saying? Genetics and biology are insurmountable. One can't change their genes, and gender makes a big difference as to what your behavior is like. So culture and environment are one thing, but genetics is in a wholly different department, and studies should be made to find out what homosexual relationships are like before marriage laws or civil union laws are extended to cover them.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is just ignoring my point. We can't discriminate between couples getting married- that's not society's place.

But Lief that’s exactly what you are doing…

Saying that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equivalent, however, and that therefore the same laws should apply to each, we should have evidence for.

But heterosexual relationships by themselves exist on such a wide gamut as to make clean distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual pointless. The fact that they both have X chromosomes or Y chromosomes is just not significant enough to be some kind of defining line as to what to allow. The X-Y relationships are way way too varied all by themselves. If you want to discriminate against gays based on this fact alone you open the door to discriminating against heteros because their examples may be even more extreme and distasteful to you as most of the homosexual relationships.

And by the way where does this kind of silly blind genetic test leave you in regard to transgender and sex change cases? They would be taken down by this distinction as well even though they look and act the part.

We have laws that treat adult-child relations differently than adult-adult relations, because of biological differences between the adult and the child. We should find out whether these biologically different kinds of relationships between adults are similar or different also, before we stamp them all with the same laws.

We aren’t stamping anything the same. Every marriage is different and distinct. We are simply ALLOWING the same freedom for one individual as the other. And using child-adult relations as an example of “biological differences” that are written into law implies that gay adults have a biological distinction so profound from heterosexual adults that it is the equivalent of the biological difference between adults and children and how ridiculous and insulting is that?

An adult is an adult no matter what their sexual persuasion… Being gay doesn’t mean they have the maturity level of a seven year old nor does it mean they are incapable of making normal adult choices for themselves as well as any heterosexual adult. So your argument that we have laws about children therefore we should have laws about gays is horribly misconceived logic.

Answering the "like what?" is exactly what I have been arguing all this time society should discover through studies, before it asserts that the two different kinds of relationship are the same and treats them as the same in the legal realm! Society shouldn't just assume that the two relationships are the same when they're different in a strong genetic way. That, forgive me for being blunt, is being stupid.

“Society” isn’t assuming anything. The burden is not on “society” to prove every stupid thing in the world is ok before allowing it. Quite the opposite. Our society (legal system) allows more dangerous and outright unadvisable things then we could both count. Try taking those away and see what kind of civil liberties traps you fall into and how many libertarian types come down on you like a ton of bricks. But hey its ok to ban gays from marrying? What a double standard…

This whole idea that we must have tests and studies before we allow certain people to marry smacks of poll taxes and jim crow laws if you ask me. Theres no real precedent for it at all. So why the heck use this as your key argument against gay marriages only? Why not apply it to everything else in life that might hurt us… Cause a lot of things do.

Our society should discover what the differences and parallels between homosexual and heterosexual relationships are before it gives homosexual relationships marriage or civil union rights. Otherwise it is being irresponsible.

Nonsense. Its being irresponsible by unfairly discriminating against certain people without ANY evidence in support of this discrimination. You are attempting to put the burden on the discriminated. The burden should be on you…

the laws we give them might not be suited to their kind of relationships.

Laws like what…

We already have them. Humans aren't allowed to marry apes, because apes are the wrong species. That's genetic. Adults aren't allowed to marry children because of biological development. There always have been such restrictions based on biology. That's because there are big, general, overall differences in biology that exist in those cases. And there are also between men and women. The two genders are distinctly different from one another.

So now you are comparing gays marrying to humans marrying apes? More apples and oranges nonsense. See above.

Otherwise, our society is tinkering with biology and genetics blindfolded, which is stupid.

How the heck are we “tinkering with biology and genetics” by allowing two females to marry exactly… Honestly what over the top hyperbole. Its not as if it will result in mutant offspring. You make it out as if gay marriage is the equivalent of cloning humans or something. Come on Lief…

The relationships will be different by logical necessity because men and women are biologically different, with different kinds of brains.

Again theres too much variation in genetic (and phenotypic…) variety WITHIN both the male and female heterosexual populations to make this argument useful at all. And culture plays a huge role in what is “traditional” as well which you are ignoring.

Biology's impact already is reflected in our laws, and always has been. It shapes people's behavior to a very large extent. Certain gender roles have been seen across civilizations and countries.

But not in all. Should we outlaw lifestyles of those civilizations and cultures that don’t operate in the way we deem as “proper gender roles”? Are you ready to TEST women to see if they really are competent enough to vote? I mean if women are SO different genetically then really we shouldn’t be casually allowing them the right to vote so easily without years and years of deep intensive tests and studies right? And I don’t recall a test for that ever taking place. So oh my god weve been allowing a potentially harmful activity for a good hundred years now! The humanity! Are you ready to test to see if Asians are competent enough to operate a motor vehicle? Jews (by genetics) are competent enough to run for office? Did anyone ever give Liederman a test??

I have four siblings, two sisters and two brothers, and all of us have grown up roughly according to the gender stereotypes. My parents would have had no problem with any of us acting in other ways. My sister could have joined our violent games, and we could have done more with barbies. In fact, one of my brothers did for a couple years, though those games were not "girly" games, but rather were comedy focused. My sisters are more social, my brothers and I are not. My siblings and I have always played with one of my sisters, but she just of her own choice doesn't play the fight sequences in our games that much, because she doesn't feel good at it or particularly interested in it.

That’s great… and maybe we can learn some things from Leave It To Beaver too… but somehow I see this as entirely irrelevant and pointless when it comes to deciding whether we should allow gay marriage.

Romance films are designed for women. Fighting films are often designed for men.

Should we ban women from viewing traditional “male” films then if their little minds are “designed” for it? You realize they do this in some countries. They take your flawed logic to its logical conclusion.

Men are more aggressive than women- this is an established fact in Political Science. It's acknowledged throughout the profession. They know the statistics and have taught this established fact to us in class.

Good catch! We better ban em from holding office then. Quick! Someone throw a rope around Nancy Pelosi and drag her back in the kitchen!

So men and women are different automatically, and were designed that way from the beginning.

You tip your cards here of course. All this talk of biological and genetic differences and you use the word “designed”… Is your argument about science or god? Im gonna guess youll say both…

You can see major physical differences between men and women whenever you look at a man or a woman. Otherwise, you couldn't tell which was which. Why is it so hard for you to accept that biological differences logically would be encoded in the genetic make-up of their brains as well?

I never said men are the same thing as women. You just keep trying to force that argument on me so you can then chop it down and ignore the real argument which you cant contest. The point is that the differences can NOT be a legal reason to ban certain competent adults from doing something in a free society that others can do. The hones is on YOU to PROVE that being gay and married is SO INCREDIBLY harmful that we cant as a SOCIETY allow it to ever happen. Not for you to say oh well youll have to do a bunch of studies and then we’ll get back to you about it…

Stereotypes cross society in this matter for a reason. That reason is not just because everyone has always been brought up that way, for otherwise you would see more difference between cultures. You would see some Amazons somewhere!

Take an anthropology course Lief. You see quite a degree of variation between cultures of just about as many varieties as you can imagine. Patriarchal. Matriarchal. Multi generational families. Even the direct injection of homosexuality into manhood rituals in many native cultures. In fact this whole nuclear family thing that you think is so nifty and traditional is in fact a recent western invention and does NOT reflect the vast history of homo sapiens family dynamics.

Race is a minimal genetic difference- there is no big difference between a Negro and a Caucasian. It's mainly just skin color. That's tiny. Who cares?

And who are you to declare such a thing? do you have TEST to prove this… Im afraid we’ll need tests before we can allow them negros to be amarryin any of them fine caucasions.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You see what I'm saying? Genetics and biology are insurmountable. One can't change their genes, and gender makes a big difference as to what your behavior is like. So culture and environment are one thing, but genetics is in a wholly different department, and studies should be made to find out what homosexual relationships are like before marriage laws or civil union laws are extended to cover them.

You have to meet more people. I know many women who are behaviorally closer to your average man and many men who are more sterotypically feminine, and in many of those cases they are still heterosexual.

Upbringing is also a very strong force when it comes to behavior, and can be completely insurmountable in some cases. Something is not a "choice" if you can never actually make that choice.

How do you feel about openly gay men being able to legally marry a woman if they so choose?

Or two people just getting married for the financial benefits, even if they have no intention of having a relationship?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You have to meet more people. I know many women who are behaviorally closer to your average man and many men who are more sterotypically feminine, and in many of those cases they are still heterosexual.

I know that there can sometimes be variation. Nothing is without exception. These are general, almost always true facts about the genders, though.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Upbringing is also a very strong force when it comes to behavior, and can be completely insurmountable in some cases. Something is not a "choice" if you can never actually make that choice.

I know, environment is certainly a very powerful force upon people's lives. Maybe it becomes "completely insurmountable," in some cases and maybe not. And maybe when it is completely insurmountable, a married couple can live with their differences. But that is much more varied kind of situation, something that is very unpredictable and which it is definitely impossible to generalize about or make laws about.

Biology is powerful and consistent for the vast majority of cases, though. So when you're talking genetics, that's a different matter.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

How do you feel about openly gay men being able to legally marry a woman if they so choose?

I might remind you that I see homosexuality as coming from the environment. So that would be a difference that can be overcome or lived with, or other, like coming from a different culture. A man having a sexual relationship with another man, however, is a different kind of relationship not because a homosexual is innately a different kind of person from a heterosexual, but because a woman-man relationship is different genetically than a man-man or woman-woman relationship. I hope that that clarifies my position .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Or two people just getting married for the financial benefits, even if they have no intention of having a relationship?

Bad for society, but how can we discriminate regarding individual cases and motivations? That's like the cultural example. It's something we just can't handle. Laws can't be taylored for every individual couple- like IR said, every marriage is different.

But the biology intrinsic to a relationship is another matter. Men are different from women in a way that is far, far more consistent and can be and has been studied. The relationship between a man and a woman therefore, logically, will also be different, genetically, than that which takes place between a woman and a woman or a man and a man. That can also be studied, and should be.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But heterosexual relationships by themselves exist on such a wide gamut as to make clean distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual pointless.

This is just an opinion. Nothing more.

Gender observably makes a big difference across cultural divides and there are strong parallels between male and female roles across cultures and throughout history. I have already cited the Genetics Organization as providing evidence for this. So telling me that so many factors influence relationships that this one shouldn't be singled out doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The fact that they both have X chromosomes or Y chromosomes is just not significant enough to be some kind of defining line as to what to allow. The X-Y relationships are way way too varied all by themselves. If you want to discriminate against gays based on this fact alone you open the door to discriminating against heteros because their examples may be even more extreme and distasteful to you as most of the homosexual relationships.

I am not arguing that I'd discriminate against homosexual marriages because they're distasteful to me. You're putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And by the way where does this kind of silly blind genetic test leave you in regard to transgender and sex change cases? They would be taken down by this distinction as well even though they look and act the part.

I think that that's valid. Applying marriage laws to them that may not fit their relationships at all because of the inescapably different biological make-up of their relationships is pretty ridiculous. One should know what one is doing when making laws like this. That, again, is why I propose studies in the first place. We don't know what we're doing, as I've also shown with evidence from the psychiatric branch of science. Extending marriage laws to homosexuals is making laws blindly.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We aren’t stamping anything the same. Every marriage is different and distinct. We are simply ALLOWING the same freedom for one individual as the other.

Setting up laws for homosexual relationships that are the same as heterosexual relationships, I know. That is saying that there isn't any significant difference between the different kind of relationships, to the public. If you give them the same legal status, it's saying they are the same. Blindly.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And using child-adult relations as an example of “biological differences” that are written into law implies that gay adults have a biological distinction so profound from heterosexual adults that it is the equivalent of the biological difference between adults and children and how ridiculous and insulting is that?

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that homosexual adults are hugely different from heterosexual adults. I am saying that a sexual relationship between a man and a man must be very different from that between a man and a woman.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

An adult is an adult no matter what their sexual persuasion… Being gay doesn’t mean they have the maturity level of a seven year old nor does it mean they are incapable of making normal adult choices for themselves as well as any heterosexual adult. So your argument that we have laws about children therefore we should have laws about gays is horribly misconceived logic.

My point was not about maturity but about biology. My point was only that we do make laws because of biological differences between people or relationships in our society. A relationship between a child and a man is different from a relationship between a man and a woman, because of biology, and we take that into account in our law. A relationship between a man and a man will also be different because of biology. Acknowledging a physically different kind of relationship to be different is not without precedent in our society.

That was my only point. I'm not saying anything about homosexuals and heterosexuals being different, or about maturity level or anything else.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

“Society” isn’t assuming anything. The burden is not on “society” to prove every stupid thing in the world is ok before allowing it.

I'll get back to you on this point.

I'll respond to the rest of your argument when I find time.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That's the relative sense. Relative to how you grew up. Relative to what religion you espouse. Etc.

No, that is simply not true. It has nothing to do with my particular religion. It's the sense in which Augustine and Aquinas speak of nature, but also the sense in which Aristotle and Epictetus speak of nature; I'm sure you won't go so far as to claim that they were also dirty Papists.

But anyway, regardless of where it comes from, it is the sense which is generally meant when one objects that homosexuality is not natural; that being the case, it is mere sophistry to prove it is natural, when you mean something else by "natural".

Lief, it wasn't pedophilia, but pederasty. Pedophilia involves pre-pubescents; pederasty adolescents.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

1) Cigarettes are bad, 2) cigarettes are legal, 3) publicizing that cigarettes are good for your health is illegal.

Hey, now, don't get on the cigs' case.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, that is simply not true. It has nothing to do with my particular religion. It's the sense in which Augustine and Aquinas speak of nature, but also the sense in which Aristotle and Epictetus speak of nature; I'm sure you won't go so far as to claim that they were also dirty Papists.

But anyway, regardless of where it comes from, it is the sense which is generally meant when one objects that homosexuality is not natural; that being the case, it is mere sophistry to prove it is natural, when you mean something else by "natural".

Lief, it wasn't pedophilia, but pederasty. Pedophilia involves pre-pubescents; pederasty adolescents.



Hey, now, don't get on the cigs' case.

O.K., so that meant - what, exactly? Rolling on the floor laughing over here, with that mega hard-core overdose of pseudo- and real-intellecectualism just shoveled in my face. Augustine? Aquinas? Sophistry? EPICTETUS??? Please, so superior you are my dear with your superior ancient greek references, we all feel meekly humbled to be in the presence of someone so well read - and even knowledged in Latin!! Oh, bow, bow, bow low to someone much more highly and extensively educated thatn you, dear lower-person... Gwaimir, your knowledge of Greek history and the name-dropping thereof does absolutely nothing to either furthur or retard this ongoing Homosexual Marriage debate. I am JUST saying. Think about it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

“Society” isn’t assuming anything. The burden is not on “society” to prove every stupid thing in the world is ok before allowing it. Quite the opposite. Our society (legal system) allows more dangerous and outright unadvisable things then we could both count. Try taking those away and see what kind of civil liberties traps you fall into and how many libertarian types come down on you like a ton of bricks. But hey its ok to ban gays from marrying? What a double standard…

That's not a double standard in the least- see my post to brownjenkins. You're right that it's legal for people to do many dangerous things, and I'm not suggesting banning homosexuality. I'm advocating banning homosexual marriage, and by giving homosexual relationships marital status, the government is essentially saying that the activity is fine, even though they have no evidence that that is true.

It's illegal to publicize that cigarettes are healthy. That is comparable to saying that homosexuality is fine, and that's what you'd be doing if you gave it marriage status.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

This whole idea that we must have tests and studies before we allow certain people to marry smacks of poll taxes and jim crow laws if you ask me. Theres no real precedent for it at all. So why the heck use this as your key argument against gay marriages only? Why not apply it to everything else in life that might hurt us… Cause a lot of things do.

Same answer as above: because this involves the government saying that the activity is fine. If the government said that driving without your seatbelt on was fine, in spite of statistical evidence, I'd have a big problem with that too.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Nonsense. Its being irresponsible by unfairly discriminating against certain people without ANY evidence in support of this discrimination. You are attempting to put the burden on the discriminated. The burden should be on you…

I think that there should be a sound reason to change the law, if we are going to. We don't know that there is, in the case of homosexuality, so the law shouldn't be changed until we do. Otherwise we're just being stupid. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Laws like what…

Again, that's what studies would determine. I have some personal thoughts on at least one law that wouldn't apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples, and I think you may remember from our previous debates which it was, but I'd like to see some real evidence dug up as to what homosexual relationships are like. We should base future decisions of this kind of magnitude upon real evidence, whatever that evidence turns up. Not on guesswork.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So now you are comparing gays marrying to humans marrying apes? More apples and oranges nonsense. See above.

I don't know if you're understanding me. It seems like not. I'm not saying that homosexuality is similar to bestiality. I am saying that we make laws based upon genetic differences, and this is an evidence I drew on to prove that point.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

How the heck are we “tinkering with biology and genetics” by allowing two females to marry exactly… Honestly what over the top hyperbole. Its not as if it will result in mutant offspring. You make it out as if gay marriage is the equivalent of cloning humans or something. Come on Lief…

I've been through that before just a few posts ago, if that, and I provided evidence to back my case. Post 123.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But not in all. Should we outlaw lifestyles of those civilizations and cultures that don’t operate in the way we deem as “proper gender roles”?

How in the world do you propose that we are going to outlaw lifestyles that are being engaged in in other countries? The Supreme Court's jurisdiction doesn't extend that far.

But of course we're allowed to outlaw lifestyles from other countries because we don't deem them proper. In Columbia and Afghanistan, it's fine in many areas to be involved in the drug trade. That's a lifestyle we consider improper. And in ancient Rome, men used to have complete control over their families in an intensely patriarchal society. We don't consider that to be a "proper gender role." Though your putting that term in quotes is in itself improper, for you certainly aren't quoting me there.

When you use the word "proper," that again implies morality, which means you again are assuming I'm just talking about my personal moral views and nothing else. When have I once mentioned morality in this thread as a reason for not going for homosexual marriage? I don't think I have once, except to ward off accusations that that is what I'm saying.

I resent your typecasting me like this.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Are you ready to TEST women to see if they really are competent enough to vote? I mean if women are SO different genetically then really we shouldn’t be casually allowing them the right to vote so easily without years and years of deep intensive tests and studies right? And I don’t recall a test for that ever taking place. So oh my god weve been allowing a potentially harmful activity for a good hundred years now! The humanity! Are you ready to test to see if Asians are competent enough to operate a motor vehicle? Jews (by genetics) are competent enough to run for office? Did anyone ever give Liederman a test??

There is enough evidence about biology to show that the races are very, very similar and genetics is no big difference between the two. There is also enough evidence right now to show that there is a very large genetic difference between men and women. You're comparing two entirely dissimilar things.

And as for women voting, there is already plenty of evidence that they do just as well as men in the classroom, or possibly even better. So you don't need any more studies there- you already have them.

In both those cases, studies have already been done and the cases are proven. In the case of homosexuality, there is a very good reason to doubt that it is the same as heterosexuality in terms of the relationship kind, and there is no strong evidence available yet as to what kind of a relationship it is, exactly. It is understudied.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That’s great… and maybe we can learn some things from Leave It To Beaver too… but somehow I see this as entirely irrelevant and pointless when it comes to deciding whether we should allow gay marriage.

It's one example indicating differences between the genders, and that is near the crux of this issue.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Should we ban women from viewing traditional “male” films then if their little minds are “designed” for it? You realize they do this in some countries. They take your flawed logic to its logical conclusion.

I can't follow the logical connection. There seems no connection at all, here, that I can see. Would you explain it to me?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Good catch! We better ban em from holding office then. Quick! Someone throw a rope around Nancy Pelosi and drag her back in the kitchen!

Actually, there have been problems noted with women in office that seem to spread throughout the gender. Most women are nurturing and most men aggressive. Jeanet Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress, is one example. She voted against US involvement in both World Wars. But that's only part of the problem.

While many women are more nurturing and focused on peaceful resolution, others, noting that their ability to lead a country in a difficult situation might be doubted, have overcompensated and been much more aggressive than most men simply because they want to prove themselves. That is a major problem right now that has been noted in the political science field. There's a dual problem with women in high places- they tend to be either an extreme hawk or an extreme dove, much of the time.

My own thinking on this matter is a little unclear. While I note that there are problems with women in leadership positions, there have been astounding female leaders. Elizabeth the First of England and "King" Hatchepsut of Egypt are two good examples.

So while overall problems tend to exist, there are a few glowing exceptions. That makes it a bit trickier, for me.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You tip your cards here of course. All this talk of biological and genetic differences and you use the word “designed”… Is your argument about science or god? Im gonna guess youll say both…

By designed, I meant genetically designed, genetically encoded to succeed. I didn't mean "both."

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The point is that the differences can NOT be a legal reason to ban certain competent adults from doing something in a free society that others can do.

Marriage laws have never been between "two adults," in the US, except in recent times in Massachusetts. They have been between men and women. If you think the law should be changed, show that it should be changed. Assuming it, when we're applying it to an intrinsically different kind of relationship, makes no sense. But I know we're both just now repeating ourselves.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The hones is on YOU to PROVE that being gay and married is SO INCREDIBLY harmful that we cant as a SOCIETY allow it to ever happen. Not for you to say oh well youll have to do a bunch of studies and then we’ll get back to you about it…

I do think someone should prove it either way! I think that they should do that before making a potential major gaff that could hurt large numbers of people, both among homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Take an anthropology course Lief. You see quite a degree of variation between cultures of just about as many varieties as you can imagine. Patriarchal. Matriarchal. Multi generational families. Even the direct injection of homosexuality into manhood rituals in many native cultures. In fact this whole nuclear family thing that you think is so nifty and traditional is in fact a recent western invention and does NOT reflect the vast history of homo sapiens family dynamics.

I know that there have been matriarchal and patriarchal societies (the latter of which is much more common). In some cases, homosexuality has been accepted in societies. That has never been the norm, though, but rather the exception. In most societies and cultures, homosexuality was not accepted.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And who are you to declare such a thing? do you have TEST to prove this… Im afraid we’ll need tests before we can allow them negros to be amarryin any of them fine caucasions.

We have Negro Congressmen, IR. If Negroes were dumber than most humans, as people used to think, and different in significant ways, they could not have fitted into American society as smoothly as they have. There is plenty of evidence now concerning this, so suggesting that it wouldn't work is just absurd.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Lief, it wasn't pedophilia, but pederasty. Pedophilia involves pre-pubescents; pederasty adolescents.

You're right.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Hey, now, don't get on the cigs' case.

TOO BAD!

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We have Negro Congressmen, IR. If Negroes were dumber than most humans, as people used to think, and different in significant ways, they could not have fitted into American society as smoothly as they have. There is plenty of evidence now concerning this, so suggesting that it wouldn't work is just absurd.

Woah, woah, WOAH!!!!! WTF?>? Lief, I. Rex was being flippantly sarcastic to make a point; the way you're coming off talking about black americans, i.e. african americans, calling them "Negroes" in the archaic pre-civil-rights era superiorly conservative way, that's just straight out creepy. Very, very creepy. Methinks there's a closet bigot running around here amongst us, one gifted with a young, flicking silver tongue, no less...

[Lief Erikson]

I find it ironic that you call me a closet bigot based on a quote from an argument of mine in which I was saying that there is ample evidence Negroes are equally intelligent to Caucasians and just as much people as everyone else. That irony, I find quite amusing .

Lyndon B. Johnson referred to blacks as Negroes throughout his speech arguing for the Civil Rights Act. I watched the speech last week. The terms "black" or "Negro" never had any racist connotations when used in the past, and saying "African American" all the time is longwinded. "Black" or "Negro" are not racist terms. That's just modern hypersensitivity.

I don't care in the slightest if anyone calls me a "white." It's simply a use of language intended to make conversation easier.

But go ahead and think me a racist if you want .

[Nurvingiel]

Negroes Lief? Let's review.

Black? Yes.
African-American? Yes.
Negro? No.

Negro is way out of date and has racist connotations. Its usage needs to stop.

This message is brought to you with your best interests in mind.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I've all along been arguing that more studies have to be done on homosexuality. I know that various medical organizations have said things about homosexuality not being "immoral," though that seems to me to be mere personal opinion.

No. You've been arguing that it's harmful, whilst at the same time saying that more studies are needed, which is a revealing contradiction. All we get from your side of the debate is assertion, while all the systematic evidence favours the equality position.

Wiki is no kind of source for this discussion. Look up the websites of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. Look at their well-researched statements and see the evidence which is cited.

Since you say "vast majority", then there is obviously a minority that disagrees, so how can you make your sentence 1 statement? I think a more accurate sentence would be "... most people feel that homosexuality is not harmful, although many disagree." I'm not even sure that "most" is accurate, though, if you consider the whole world's opinions instead of just Western-type-civilization opinion ...

Some people appear to still believe that smoking is not addictive. So should we put "Smoking is probably addictive but might not be?" on health promotion literature? No. We have enough information to make a moral decision. It's interesting that such pedantry is largely confined to topics which coincide with the religious right's agenda (see also "Evolution is just a theory").

As for some/most, that is a question of both culture and of quality of evidence. If we're thinking about what's medically true, I don't think we should poll everyone in the world to decide such issues: they should be based on a systematic assessment of unbiased evidence. (From which the APA position derives). If we're thinking about what's "culturally true", then it is clear that a) Western culture is gradually embracing gay rights in a progressive way and b) the views of those outside that culture don't apply.

So, basically, what this boils down to is that some religious believers have a problem with gays and will still make the argument against gay marriage no matter what the evidence is. They seem to think they "own" marriage. It will be polluted in some way by the sodomites.

Note also that many gay couples have no interest in "simulating" the straight married relationship. All they want is the same legal recognition and rights that straight people have. I think a society has to have a pretty clear reason for denying important rights to subsets of its population.

Anyway, my best pal, who is bent as a nine pound note, announced the other day that he is getting CPed (Civil Partnershipped) to his partner of 15 years or so. Their reasons are mostly legal: pensions, wills, medical consent etc etc etc. After the ceremony, we will cruise down the Thames on their narrow boat quaffing champagne, then alight at their private mooring and get royally toasted in their honour.

Hooray for gay marriage!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No. You've been arguing that it's harmful, whilst at the same time saying that more studies are needed, which is a revealing contradiction.

I believe it's harmful for various reasons that I have argued here before. My belief that it's harmful isn't the point, though. One of the points I've been raising is that it might be harmful. Here are the three arguments I've been making as regards this issue. And the main responses I've gotten so far have been on number 3. There hasn't been much yet on either of the other two arguments.

1) Marriage loses its meaning. If it is not defined as between a man and a woman, then its definition is up for grabs. Polygamy is the next step. I'm sure that if homosexual marriage becomes commonplace, polygamy will be right around the corner and probably would become law in my lifetime. Other kinds of sexual relationships, though, may very well also gain legal equivalence under the banner of freedom and tolerance. Marriage could become anything.

2) Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are innately different, because men and women are mentally genetically different from one another, so applying laws that have been tried and tested over hundreds of years in many different countries as regards heterosexual unions to the untested and untried homosexual relationships is negligence. It'll be a legal snare, because some laws that have been designed to work for the two genders together will probably not work so well for people of the same gender. Different laws should perhaps be made for homosexual relationships that are based upon tests and studies of what relationships between members of the same gender are like. It'll be a legal mess.

3) If our government gives homosexuals marriage rights, it will be saying implicitly through its action that homosexuality is fine. It will be doing that without having established tests, studies or scientific research to find out. That would be as the medical community saying a new drug was fine without having tested it. What homosexual and heterosexual relationships are like has to be studied more, and comparisons and contrasts made, before they are given legal equivalence. If homosexuality is harmful, innocent people will be harmed if homosexual relationships are given marriage status because those people will see the government's verdict and choose to embrace their homosexual instincts because the government says homosexuality is fine by giving it marriage rights. I do not want innocent people to be hurt by the government being misleading. It's the same thing as with abortion nowadays. Often, people think it's okay just because it's legal. If homosexual relationships have marriage equivalence, the government will be saying that they are okay without knowing they are.



I can't see any contradiction between these arguments. Can you?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

All we get from your side of the debate is assertion, while all the systematic evidence favours the equality position.

I have provided evidence from the psychiatric branch, from the political science department, and from several other sources, along with some personal examples.

But as to the rest of what you said, there isn't enough solid systematic evidence. That's what I've been arguing we need to get. Throughout the psychiatric branch, homosexuality is considered understudied.

I strongly disagree with your stated conclusion.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Wiki is no kind of source for this discussion.

A study has found it to be comparable in accuracy to Encyclopedia Britanica. If you disagree with something from Wikipedia that I've quoted, please provide evidence and show why.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Look up the websites of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. Look at their well-researched statements and see the evidence which is cited.

I pointed out earlier that according to the minority who were voted against the decision of the American Psychiatric Association to change its position on homosexuality, there was no new evidence that was brought up concerning the matter, but rather the change was made for political reasons.

But again, my main point on this matter is, as I pointed out earlier and previously cited, the psychiatric branch recognizes that homosexuality is decidedly understudied.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Some people appear to still believe that smoking is not addictive. So should we put "Smoking is probably addictive but might not be?" on health promotion literature? No. We have enough information to make a moral decision.

Agreed. And that's what we should get before essentially saying through our government, "homosexuality is healthy and fine." We don't have enough information to make a moral decision as regards homosexuality.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

O.K., so that meant - what, exactly? Rolling on the floor laughing over here, with that mega hard-core overdose of pseudo- and real-intellecectualism just shoveled in my face. Augustine? Aquinas? Sophistry? EPICTETUS??? Please, so superior you are my dear with your superior ancient greek references, we all feel meekly humbled to be in the presence of someone so well read - and even knowledged in Latin!! Oh, bow, bow, bow low to someone much more highly and extensively educated thatn you, dear lower-person... Gwaimir, your knowledge of Greek history and the name-dropping thereof does absolutely nothing to either furthur or retard this ongoing Homosexual Marriage debate. I am JUST saying. Think about it.

I was not name-dropping, I was merely replying to the accusation made that I was using the word in a sense which solely belongs to Christianity; by pointing out that it was used in the same way by pagans, I was gaining credit for it.

I'm not sure why you have such a huge problem with me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Negroes Lief? Let's review.

Black? Yes.
African-American? Yes.
Negro? No.

Negro is way out of date and has racist connotations. Its usage needs to stop.

This message is brought to you with your best interests in mind.

The word "Negro" never used to have any racist connotations. "Nigger," yes, absolutely and definitely. But not "Negro." It used to be used all the time without racist intent of any kind, and I really think that that's all just modern hypersensitivity.

But I only use the word "Negro" because it's less longwinded than "African American." If the word "black" is okay with everybody (I was under the impression that people had problems with it nowadays, too), I'll use that one instead. It's just as short a word as "Negro."

So that's settled .