This is a continuation of THIS THREAD which was started by Sir Kenyth.

Moved to conform to Cloudmeister's request:

Well, I'm not. Incest is fine by me, so long as they are consenting adults -- long live the reign of the Targaryens!! Paedophilia is immoral because the young person has not the ability to choose -- it is one of those "harm to another" instances -- they simply are too young to consent, despite the BS espoused by NAMBLA.

So, unless you are questioning the "don't harm others" and "freedom" moralities, I am perfectly capable of removing my own morality from the equation. ;)

As an aside, however, some moralities are general to all humans, and some are specific to religions. The "incest taboo" and paedophilia taboo, for instance are moralities that exist among nearly all human cultures. I think you'll find a decent discussion of this phenomenon in anthropological works by Ruth Benedict and Margaret Meade -- specifically referencing the Tobroro Indian culture.

A homosexuality taboo, however, is more specific to certain religions, and has not always existed among humans. For the ancient greeks, for instance, the notion of "homosexuality" did not exist, though sexual expressions of love amongst men were common -- as an upcoming movie chronicalling Alexander the Great's life (starring Colin Ferrel) may demonstrate.

Finally, regarding the way sexual tension bars the development of real platonic relationships amongst men and women, that may be true -- but I argue that such tension would be there absent social pressures. It is a tension caused by chemicals, pheromes, and base desires, whether or not society tells us it should or should not be there -- IMO.

Furthermore, I argue that notions of Platonic relationships being limited is very counterproductive to some nice raucous sex. Some of the best casual sex I've had has been with so-called "friends with privileges." I think some of you guys (not pointing fingers at anyone specifically) need to visit a few swingers clubs and see that perfectly loving committed married couples can truly overcome the possessive notions of sex and trade partners for the better sexual enjoyment by all.

You started off comparing homosexual relationships to those with vasectomies or who were otherwise sterile. I was just making the point that homosexuals are generally not sterile any more than the regular populus. </font>[/QUOTE]I hate to get sidetracked, but I still don't think you've added anything to your argument. You said (paraphrased) "marriage is based on procreation, and gays by definition won't procreate." I retorted "neither will sterile people, so based on your logic they can't get married." A direct rebuttal. You replied "gays arent' sterile." Well, that may be true, but it does not refute or support anything stated so far. So, homosexuals usually aren't sterile (any more than anyone else) -- how does that support your argument or defeat mine?? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] I *get* the truth of your statement -- "connect the dots" means follow through on the analysis/applicability portion of it. [/QUOT


Well, if a sterile relationship and a homosexual relationship equate, then by all means get a vasectomy and have a heterosexual relationship instead of being homosexual and the problem is solved, right? Your paraphrasing equals oversimplification in this case. Which I've just done also.

You're equating a sterile person with a homosexual. That's not the point. Sterile or not, they're following the natural way things are meant to be. If they weren't sterile, they could produce offspring. They are built to do it, even if they are malfunctioning. Even if a homosexual is not sterile, they STILL can't produce offspring in their relationship. That makes it unnatural and different. Sterile people who marry are still aspiring to the way things are supposed to be. The point is that homosexual couples are not. I use the point of the ability to procreate as proof of it being the way things are supposed to be.

[ 08-08-2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

uh ho, someone equated the other side with Nazism. Looks like the conversation is over [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Back on point though, you still have not answered by question.
How does allowing same-sex marriages harm anyone?

If your only arguement against same-sex marriage is that a book told you it is wrong then I really feel your case is too weak to take seriously. </font>[/QUOTE]Look I was right! A soon as I posted this Cloudy closed the topic [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Godwin's law strikes again!

But not before she opened the new one. ;)

Rant/debate/carry on! LOL Just keep it civil!

That was my question to the anti side earlier today that has gone unanswered. They seem to be more interested in picking part comments then answering this or chewies list of questions.

So, here we come to the nugget of it. It is not that "procreation" matters -- it doesn't in the end. It is "the way it is supposed to be" the "natural law" or whatever. You have come round to what I've been trying to get you round to -- that your belief is founded not on logic but rather on YOUR notion of what "ought to be." But, we live in a FREE country -- where it is our duty to (1) live our lives as we feel they "ought to be" and (2) let others do the same as they think "ought to be." You are simply imposing your view of right, and now we see it bared open. I hope you see it, too. It's not a slam, I just want to show it to you. You are enforcing your morality, and unless that enforcement prevents a real, tangible harm from occurring, it has NO PLACE in a true FREE society.

Live by your morality -- but don't make others do the same. Lest you may subject yourself to have their morality enforced on you when, and if, those "others" ever come into power.

[ 08-08-2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

That was my question to the anti side earlier today that has gone unanswered. They seem to be more interested in picking part comments then answering this or chewies list of questions. </font>[/QUOTE]We went over this circa page 3-5. See my post beginning with "When discussing this with my secretary..." and others following it.

{edit} Clicky for Linky.

[ 08-08-2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I didnt say it was only a religous one, although I would love to hear a non-religous/moral-based argument against gay marriage and against gays in general.

The one I have heard one that had something to do with the prevailing notion of marriage as being male/female in society, but I have offered expert testimony that debunks the idea.

I have heard others call it unnatural, but behavior in nature debunks this as well.

I have heard others say it threatens the family unit, but experts again disagree.

So tell me what are these non-religious veiwpoints that dictates that gays shouldn't have marriage, or even be allowed to behave sexually as they seem fit as long as it harms no one, that haven't been de-bunked?

Besides, I was actually was arguing that this shouldn't neccessarily be solely a religous/moral based issue. That we should see it in the light of our governing system.

I argue we should let reason and the idea of equal civil rights take center stage. We should let fairness prevail. We should accept our diverse society and let freedom ring. No arguement against gay marriage or being gay can at the same time uphold any of these ideas with-out being duplicitous.

*Sigh* I still lack answers to my questions? Are they not valid questions or is it the truth that gays being married doesn't *really* effect anyone else's personal beliefs about marriage?

So, here we come to the nugget of it. It is not that "procreation" matters -- it doesn't in the end. It is "the way it is supposed to be" the "natural law" or whatever. You have come round to what I've been trying to get you round to -- that your belief is founded not on logic but rather on YOUR notion of what "ought to be." But, we live in a FREE country -- where it is our duty to (1) live our lives as we feel they "ought to be" and (2) let others do the same as they think "ought to be." You are simply imposing your view of right, and now we see it bared open. I hope you see it, too. It's not a slam, I just want to show it to you. You are enforcing your morality, and unless that enforcement prevents a real, tangible harm from occurring, it has NO PLACE in a true FREE society.

Live by your morality -- but don't make others do the same. Lest you may subject yourself to have their morality enforced on you when, and if, those "others" ever come into power. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry bud, that don't cut it! I can prove scientifically that heterosexuality is the way it's supposed to be by the fact that it's the only way you can procreate. You got the two things backwards. On purpose I think.

Actually human beings can procreate in a petri dish. Sorry to throw your scientific notion out the window.

Arrrrrrggggh!!!! *bangs head on desk* *again*

Back to square one.

It is NOT fact that it's the only way you can procreate. In fact, with frozen sperm, men are not even needed for the propogation of the species anymore. As well, as I pointed out, there are those who can have what you call "natural sex" all day long without EVER having a child. The "procreation" argument is off the table. You took it off. I took it off. So, it comes down to your belief in what is "natural."

Your "science" is outmoded and untrue, and application of it would dissolve many current hetero marriages. Look, do a yahoo cross-search on "logical reasoning" and "modal logic" to find some wonderful reading materials.

I will bow to your circular reasoning at this point. Yes!! You must be right. Hetero sex is the only right sex because it is the only natural sex. It is the only natural sex because it is the only way people can procreate, despite fallacious rumors of in vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers. And, since hetero sex is obviously the only natural sex, being the only means of procreation, it also follows that only heteros can marry. And, even though they cannot procreate, sterile heteros should be allowed to marry because the *resemble* natural couples and possible could have once upon a time, or in a parallel universe, procreated. You are right, I am wrong. I do not know why I ignorantly questioned this obviously-clear circular reasoning. My bad. End of topic.

Actually human beings can procreate in a petri dish. Sorry to throw your scientific notion out the window. </font>[/QUOTE]Not naturally(unaided by scientific apparatus)! And you still need both the egg and sperm from a female and a male respectively. Weak arguement.

Sterile people can't procreate naturally. Tell me again why we aren't dissolving their marriages. I think your only answer will end up translating to "they LOOK LIKE people who could procreate."

Also Sir K, sex for reproductive purposes is not related to sex for sexual purposes. The existance of one does not obviate the other. Just because (before scientific help) the only way for species propagation is M-F sexual relations does not mean "that's the way it's supposed to be" vs other sexual relations. Many species "learn the ropes" so to speak with homosexual conduct until the individuals mature enough to move up to the big games of the mating rituals.

The existance of one or the other neither lends legitimacy to nor obviates the other.

EDIT: In fact, noting that homosexual behaviour occurs in nature as well shows that is just as natual.

[ 08-08-2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Arrrrrrggggh!!!! *bangs head on desk* *again*

Back to square one.

It is NOT fact that it's the only way you can procreate. In fact, with frozen sperm, men are not even needed for the propogation of the species anymore. As well, as I pointed out, there are those who can have what you call "natural sex" all day long without EVER having a child. The "procreation" argument is off the table. You took it off. I took it off. So, it comes down to your belief in what is "natural."

</font>[/QUOTE]The procreation fact is NOT off the table! You want it off the table because it's a hard point to argue against. It just dictates what the natural order of things is irrevecably. Where did the sperm come from? Not a woman I'll betcha! That means you need men to get it. Just like the egg can't come from a man, so you need women for it even if you throw the uterus out of the question totally with some scientific device. It takes two to make a baby, man and woman, period. Egg and sperm.

Actually human beings can procreate in a petri dish. Sorry to throw your scientific notion out the window. </font>[/QUOTE]Not naturally(unaided by scientific apparatus)! And you still need both the egg and sperm from a female and a male respectively. Weak arguement. </font>[/QUOTE]Not weak, you said that scientifically heterosexuality is way its supposed to be done naturally and implied that scientifically sex is the only way to procreate. I demonstrated factual this is incorrect and not based in science.

Besides, how can argue something scientifically on one point, and then remove the apparatuses of science on rebuttal to the same point? You want to have the cake and eat it too.

In Nature, some organisms dont need sex to procreate. Naturally and unaided by science many animals practice homosexual behavior. So if you are looking to nature to back up your stance against homosexuality I think you will find more to debunk your argument than you could ever find to support it.

bzzzzzzzzztttttt wrong but thank you for playing!
Within 5 years you will see the birth of the first cloned human. Therefore all that is needed is a uterus to carry the fetus. Give it another decade or two and you may not even need that.

It is off the table. You took it off and so did I. Sorry to point it out, but we argued it up one side of the forum and down the other, and I led you by the nose to a royal logical trouncing (*flexes left brain lobe for show-off effect*). Once we threw other issues (like sterility and homosexual adoption) into the mix, you backed off of it. Read the post of yours directly before my "Nugget of it" post and you'll see, si tu abres los ojos. I wouldn't have come round to posting my "nugget" post if I didn't feel it was obvious to me, you, and anyone that the "procreation" bit had been shown to be a distinction without a difference.

But, I'm happy to do it again. Hell, Socrates had patience when dealing with Menes, and I can exhibit the same virtue. Try answering this, and we'll begin again:

Because they are still following the natural order of things. If they weren't sterile they could procreate. Homosexuals cannot procreate regardless. The fact that procreation is possible sets the precedent for the natural order of things. I do not care if homosexuals have sex. I care that they want to be a part of the institution founded upon the natural order of things for thousands of years. If you want to be a part of something special like that, you've got to follow the rules.

bzzzzzzzzztttttt wrong but thank you for playing!
Within 5 years you will see the birth of the first cloned human. Therefore all that is needed is a uterus to carry the fetus. Give it another decade or two and you may not even need that. </font>[/QUOTE]Rokenn!! [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] Please quit pointing this out. My single greatest fear is that women will wake up one day and realize (1) women are more attractive than men, and (2) men are not needed for procreation. Then it's "DRONE CITY" for all of us, I'm afraid. :(

Because they are still following the natural order of things. If they weren't sterile they could procreate. Homosexuals cannot procreate regardless. The fact that procreation is possible sets the precedent for the natural order of things. I do not care if homosexuals have sex. I care that they want to be a part of the institution founded upon the natural order of things for thousands of years. If you want to be a part of something special like that, you've got to follow the rules. </font>[/QUOTE]Anyone else want to take this? I have some actual work to do, and must go for a bit. I'm sure some of you students were paying attention -- perhaps you can explain it better than I, because my words are merely echoing off the forum walls. Carry on 'til I get back. :D

[edit]:
Sir K, let me pose this off-the-wall hypothetical, though. Just go with it, mkay? Suppose that tomorrow, some girl nibbled her girlfriend in that "special place," and a child was begat due to the act. I know, totally ridiculous, but just go with it for s**ts and giggles. Okay, would you then be okay with homosexual marriage? What about just for those female couples that could "lick-procreate"?? I know it's a crazy hypo, but bear with me.

[ 08-08-2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Well Rokken, let's be fair .... let's leave scientific advancements out of the picture. There are plenty of "natual" examples to debunk his hidebound "it's the way nature intended" beliefs.

Now if he would admitt that his beliefs are his preference, as Timber is leading him to (OBJECT COUNSELOR! LEADING THE WITNESS! :D ) then we would all have to agree to disagree .... live and let live and all that.

Which is presisely the gay community is asking for!

You are allowed to lead during cross-examination of an adverse witness. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It is off the table. You took it off and so did I. Sorry to point it out, but we argued it up one side of the forum and down the other, and I led you by the nose to a royal logical trouncing (*flexes left brain lobe for show-off effect*). Once we threw other issues (like sterility and homosexual adoption) into the mix, you backed off of it. Read the post of yours directly before my "Nugget of it" post and you'll see, si tu abres los ojos. I wouldn't have come round to posting my "nugget" post if I didn't feel it was obvious to me, you, and anyone that the "procreation" bit had been shown to be a distinction without a difference.

But, I'm happy to do it again. Hell, Socrates had patience when dealing with Menes, and I can exhibit the same virtue. Try answering this, and we'll begin again:

Quote:

Sterile people can't procreate naturally. Tell me again why we aren't dissolving their marriages. I think your only answer will end up translating to "they LOOK LIKE people who could procreate."

</font>[/QUOTE][img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

"I led you by the nose to a royal logical trouncing"

[img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Reminds me of a song lyric.
"I put that bouncer in his place! I smacked his elbow with my face"

Listen killer, I'm at work and doing this between digital emergencies, which are a'plenty! When I disappear for a few posts I've got business to take care of. I'm not hiding my head in the sand.


Male + Female IS the natural order of things. As a matter of fact, it's the natural way for all mammals, so it's not a new concept. Homosexual behavior has always been the deviant behavior. Heterosexuals can procreate naturally under normal conditions with exceptions. Homosexuals can NEVER procreate, period. Taking into account that it's the natural way to do it, you can see that homosexuality is the unnatural way to do it. Possible procreation points to the natural way to do it. Not, "If the natural way to do it doesn't lead to procreation in all instances then it's null and void!" Which seems to be your stance.

I'm not accusing you of hiding your head in the sand. And, I was bragging about how I argue, not how I fight. But, touche nevertheless. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Killer. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Can, I keep that title?

[ 08-08-2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Hey Timber! You must be psycopathic! er telemorphic! er a PreCog! This sounds vaguely like "They look like us ..."!!! This 'institution' you are clinging to has nothing to do with natural order. It is a social contract of sorts that arose for a method of raising children. There are other successful childrearing models in the world. It then morped into a religeous institution.

Just what sort of Institutional Perks do you want to deny "those people"? Most of the rights and recognition they are looking for have nothing to do with religeon, or child bearing. And why should they be denied them?

Wrong, A female homosexual will be able to procreate via cloning in the very near future. Once this is the case will they be allowed to marry?

Because they are still following the natural order of things. If they weren't sterile they could procreate. Homosexuals cannot procreate regardless. The fact that procreation is possible sets the precedent for the natural order of things. I do not care if homosexuals have sex. I care that they want to be a part of the institution founded upon the natural order of things for thousands of years. If you want to be a part of something special like that, you've got to follow the rules. </font>[/QUOTE]Anyone else want to take this? I have some actual work to do, and must go for a bit. I'm sure some of you students were paying attention -- perhaps you can explain it better than I, because my words are merely echoing off the forum walls. Carry on 'til I get back. :D

[edit]:
Sir K, let me pose this off-the-wall hypothetical, though. Just go with it, mkay? Suppose that tomorrow, some girl nibbled her girlfriend in that "special place," and a child was begat due to the act. I know, totally ridiculous, but just go with it for s**ts and giggles. Okay, would you then be okay with homosexual marriage? What about just for those female couples that could "lick-procreate"?? I know it's a crazy hypo, but bear with me. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, then they wouldn't be strictly female, would they? They would be a bisexual organism or hermaphroditic. They would not be homosexual at all and following their natural biological order.

Hey Timber! You must be psycopathic! er telemorphic! er a PreCog! This sounds vaguely like "They look like us ..."!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: I do not care if homosexuals have sex. I care that they want to be a part of the institution founded upon the natural order of things for thousands of years. If you want to be a part of something special like that, you've got to follow the rules.

This 'institution' you are clinging to has nothing to do with natural order. It is a social contract of sorts that arose for a method of raising children. There are other successful childrearing models in the world. It then morped into a religeous institution.

Just what sort of Institutional Perks do you want to deny "those people"? Most of the rights and recognition they are looking for have nothing to do with religeon, or child bearing. And why should they be denied them? </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree! Marriage was founded on that very natural order. If they don't follow the institutions foundations, then they don't get to be a part of it. Should I be able to marry myself for a tax benefit if I work two jobs?

Just because heterosexual relations are required for species propagation does not make homosexual relations devient.

They are mutaully exclusive. As I already said, males in other mammal species often practice on each other before joining the mating game. Also, esp in pack type societies, sexual behaviors are practiced on both male and female members by both male and female members to enforce social order and dominance. This is important because in this structure, only the Alpha male are female are allowed to breed. All other sexual activity is play or social manuvering.

Actually human beings can procreate in a petri dish. Sorry to throw your scientific notion out the window. </font>[/QUOTE]Not naturally(unaided by scientific apparatus)! And you still need both the egg and sperm from a female and a male respectively. Weak arguement. </font>[/QUOTE]Not weak, you said that scientifically heterosexuality is way its supposed to be done naturally and implied that scientifically sex is the only way to procreate. I demonstrated factual this is incorrect and not based in science.

Besides, how can argue something scientifically on one point, and then remove the apparatuses of science on rebuttal to the same point? You want to have the cake and eat it too.

In Nature, some organisms dont need sex to procreate. Naturally and unaided by science many animals practice homosexual behavior. So if you are looking to nature to back up your stance against homosexuality I think you will find more to debunk your argument than you could ever find to support it. </font>[/QUOTE]That is NOT homosexual behavior. That is Asexual or Bisexual(hermaphroditic) behavior and is perfectly within the realm of the natural order of things for those creatures. We are not Asexual or Bisexual animals.

Marriage was not founded on the the prinicples of a male/female monagomous relationship designed to raise a family.Marriage means different things to different cultures and is different through out the ages of history.

Simply put- the ideals of marriage have changed alot through the ages, so if anything, trying to fight this current change is inconsistent with the history of the "institution" of marriage.

[quote]Originally posted by Sir Kenyth:

Quote:

That is NOT homosexual behavior. That is Asexual or Bisexual(hermaphroditic) behavior and is perfectly within the realm of the natural order of things for those creatures. We are not Asexual or Bisexual animals.

Its natural behavior, just homosexual behavior is natural because it occurs in nature, both human and animal.

I know a hermaphrodite human, born that way, who would disagree with you by lifting up shis skirt.

Well, then they wouldn't be strictly female, would they? They would be a bisexual organism or hermaphroditic. They would not be homosexual at all and following their natural biological order. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]No, that's not the hypo. Hypo is some lesbian couple. Lady licks lady, completely intending it to be like every other lady-licking-lady event in history. Licked lady begets lad, much to the surprise of licking lady. Perhaps it's some hermaproditic thingy, perhaps we can hypo something else. Now that they have begat their own get, do we let these licking ladies get together in a marriage??

(Whether it's hermaphroditic mutation or not does not matter to the licking ladies, who are quite oblivious, and simply consider themselves gay. They are not intending [thinking] anything you consider "natural," and are acutely aware of the "devient" nature of their licking.]

[ 08-08-2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Yes it does. That's my point and belief.

Lower animals don't marry, and we as humans should know better.
Animals don't have the cognitive ability. They have to learn from mistakes. I don't know of any animal that practices homosexual behavior for life and avoids mating with females.

Shis. [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] Sorry, I know it's a bad situation the person is in, but SHIS -- oh sh**, I think I just lost it. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Well, then they wouldn't be strictly female, would they? They would be a bisexual organism or hermaphroditic. They would not be homosexual at all and following their natural biological order. </font>[/QUOTE]No, that's not the hypo. Hypo is some lesbian couple. Lady licks lady, completely intending it to be like every other lady-licking-lady event in history. Licked lady begets lad, much to the surprise of licking lady. Perhaps it's some hermaproditic thingy, perhaps we can hypo something else. Now that they have begat their own get, do we let these licking ladies get together in a marriage??

(Whether it's hermaphroditic mutation or not does not matter to the licking ladies, who are quite oblivious, and simply consider themselves gay. They are not intending [thinking] anything you consider "natural," and are acutely aware of the "devient" nature of their licking.] [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]What you're speculating is impossible. To have male and female portions of the procreation process is Bisexual or hermaphroditic by definition. Once they can do that they are no longer homosexual and are excluded from all the restraints of this topic. I'm not sure what you mean with your hypothetical situation. If you mean would I allow them to marry once they became orally hermaphroditic then, yes I would. But they then would not be homosexual and marriage would STILL not apply to homosexuals.

<font color=deepskyblue>No, <font color=coral>Rokenn</font>, that isn't any better...because nobody has said this in any post in either thread. In fact, the Bible doesn't even say this. It does call homosexuality an <font color=white>"abomination"</font>, but it does not arbitrarily relegate all homosexuals to Hell.

I know you have a disdain for Christianity and the above statement seems a logical extension of statements made. Perhaps it would be IF <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> and myself had not both stated (more than once) than we "hate the sin but love the sinner". Specifically, I have pointed out more than once that I can "disagree" with homosexuality as a practice without being prejudiced against homosexuals. I have homosexual friends. I've had a friend tell me he finds me attractive and has always wanted to have a "date" with me. I told him I'm not interested in that, but he is still my friend and I still greet him with a hug when I see him because that's how I've always greeted him.

You've also asked repeatedly how homosexuality "harms" anybody? I realize this answer is an oversimplification, but the obvious response is the HIV virus and AIDS. From the time of it's emergence till present day, it occurs predominantly among those that practice homosexuality (either currently or at some point in the past). No, that's not the only way the disease is spread, but it is still the most common (TTBOMK anyway).</font>

Shis. [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] Sorry, I know it's a bad situation the person is in, but SHIS -- oh sh**, I think I just lost it. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Well, they do refer to themselves as a shim. Dont worry about the "bad" situation. A testimony of self-love (snicker- no pun intended though) and acceptance can be found in the way the person has embraced the way they were quite naturally born. S/he likes to say that God works in mysterious ways, and the s/he is just one of them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

A while back the discovery channel had a special on human hermaphrodites, very interesting what nature conjures up in the realm of humans.