Here Today... Gone To Hell!

While I think this is good legislation...couldn't it have waited just TWO WEEKS!!!!!  :-\


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_13

Keep it simple. Send out a referendum to the people and have them vote yes or no on the issue. If the people want to allow gay marriage, let them decide, not Washington.

I think every American has the same right as everyone else. That doesn't need a vote.

I bet those gay couples belong to the Log Cabin group. Bastards! :hihi:

Kind of funny the same thing happend on the eve of an election two years ago and all of a sudden it sprouts up again... on the eve of an election.

Imagine that..............

Yeah, just like we should have put a referendum on segregation.  Let the people decide if blacks have equal rights.  ::)

That's a terrible analogy.  The two things are even remotely the same.

Not the same - similar.  And the analogy wasnt meant to directly compare the issues as much as it was to address the implication of that posters suggestion: let the majority decide the rights of minorities.  And in that respect, it is similar.   

Berkely, you really believe we should have a vote to determine whether or not these people should have equal rights? ?

I worked with a great woman up to about a month ago who is a lesbian. ?She and her partner and twin boy and girl had to move out of Delaware back to NY state. ?Why? ?She was not allowed to adopt her own children (her partner is the birth mother). ?They are super-intelligent, devoted parents who are more committed to each other than most straight couples I know. ?Not that it matters but they've been together for more than 10 years. ?Now, because local courts in lower slower Delaware are anti-gay, she can't be recognized as a real parent. ?Very nice.

Now, let me tell you about the interviews! ?:-[ ?Get this, companies can tell you how they don't discriminate against race, religion, or sexual orientation...but they can then tell you without a threat of legal action, that they will not provide health benefits to same-sex partners or their children. ?It's 2006, and we're treating a segment of our population (which is and apparently has been about 10% of all folks throughout history) like they are 2nd class citizens. ? ?:-[

Jersey's taking a step in the right direction. ?They have not legalized gay marriage. ?What's happened will open the door for the legislative branch to establish laws they see fit that will give same-sex couples the same rights as hetero couples. ?How in the hell will this affect the straight majority in this country negatively??? ?It won't! ?Do I have to say what I say in half my posts on this board? ?"This is just another reason why the rest of the world looks at the United States and just shakes its head. ???? " ? ? ?:peace:

They are exactly the same issues. Human rights issues shouldn't be left to tyranny of the majority. It's a good thing people couldn't vote on women's suffrage, the right for blacks to vote and the end of slavery.

oh man I'm so glad I live in the Netherlands, we have none of this bullshit over here, everyone has the same rights...give me one good reason why gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people?....

BAH!  You gutless liberals would have every decision be taken away from the people (ahem....democracy) and decided by a few people on a court.  Now THAT'S tyranny.

You're right though, it is a issue about "rights."  Inherent rights, specifically.  And when it comes to marriage, gays don't have any.

Depends on what rights you're talking about.?

Marriage?? The relationship between two men or two women should not be recognized the same way (let alone equal) as the marriage between a man and a woman because it is inherently inferior.

Who gives a shit what the rest of the world thinks? 

Not the americans, that's for sure! :hihi:

You're damn skippy.

Please, one bad apple shouldn't spoil the whole damn bunch right?  Don't judge us all by the rantings of a prejudiced, narrow minded individual.  : ok:

inherently inferior eh?  How so?  can't wait to hear this one....

I don't understand why people are so afraid of letting same sex couples say they are married.  how in the world is that a "threat", as some people say, to their marriage?

You're right, don't take it from me.  Take it from the majority of Americans (i.e. most of the apple bunch) who are against gay marriage.

I can't believe I have to answer this.  Hmmm....well, first off, because two men or two women can't procreate.  You remember that whole perpetuation of the species thing?  That's one way a gay relationship is inferior.  (And don't give me the whole, "What about straight couples who can't have kids?" argument, 'cause it doesn't fly.)  Another way gay relationships are inferior is in raising kids.  The best environment for a child to be raised in is one with a loving father and a mother.  Each gender has something unique to offer.  I know that's not PC to say nowadays, but it's true.  Gay parents can't offer that.  I'm not saying they can't be good parents, especially compared to a lot of the bad father and mother combos out there.  But the best gay parent situation will always be inferior to the best heterosexual parent situation.


I'm not "afraid" of it.  I don't necessarily see it as a "threat," at least not to me personally.  But we all have a stake in the societies we live in.  Marriage is a symbol and symbols are powerful things.  Some of us still believe in the traditional family.  Ya know, husband, wife, kids, a dog named Fido.  Marriage between man and woman is a bedrock of human society.  Always has been.  Nobody's saying two men or two women can't hook up.  They can call their relationship whatever they want.  But not marriage. 

Funny, I always thoght marriage was about LOVE, not "perpetuating the species".  Sorry dude, but its pretty likely that the love a man and a woman has is just as great as the love two girls or two guys might have for each other. 

Also, by your logic single parents are "inferior" b/c they can't offer what the opposite sex can.
"
As for marriage being a "symbol", then the 50% of marriages ending in divorce in this country isn't saying much for "human society" is it?  The days of the traditional family have long since passed my friend.  50% of them end in divorce, people today are staying single for a lot longer then normal, people of different races are getting married (are you against that "non traditional" occurence as well???) and homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted.

Mainline, wow, I don't know what to say after your posts. ?Okay, here goes, I'll give it a shot. ?First off I disagree with just about everything you say...except when it comes to this portion of your post: ?Take it from the majority of Americans (i.e. most of the apple bunch) who are against gay marriage. ?Yes, for a country that on paper prides itself on freedom, independence, and liberty, we sure don't show it on this issue. ?Sadly, the majority of this country is against legalizing gay marriage.

On a positive note though, I do believe you'll see in the coming years more court decisions giving gay couples the same rights under the law that straight couples have. ?It's a progression that's inevitable. ?While most folks oppose using the term marriage, most Americans are in favor of allowing gay unions the same rights as straight couples. ?

Mainline, what do you think of my lesbian co-worker, her partner, and their 2 beautiful children? ?Is it right she was denied the right to be a parent? ?Is it right she had to move to a different state to be recognized as the parent she is? ?Hell, my dad's legally my father, and he left when I was a kid. ?I think alot of folks here might be able to tell you that just because you're straight, you're not necessarily a great parent.

Mainline, c'mon. ?Gay people exist. ?Relax, they aren't after you or your family. ? :hihi:
 :peace:

BTW, I tried posting, but Hanna Hat's post came up before mine.  Hanna Hat is 100% right on this one.  I couldn't have said it better myself!   :yes: 

Along with freedom, independence, and liberty, some of us (well most of us) also believe in morality and are religious. I know how much you secularists wish those two words would go away.

?

I'll agree with you there.? Sooner or later, some court will overstep its bounds (yet again) and trump the will of the people.? I'll also agree about gay "unions" and rights.? Marriage aside, I'm not looking to deny gay partners certain rights.


I'm conflicted on that one.? I can sympathize and I wouldn't necessarily want to deny either of them parental rights.? But I'll never think two men or two women raising children is an inherently good thing.? It may be the best thing possible sometimes, but it isn't what I'd consider optimum.



I've got 3 people in my family who are gay.? Thanks for the info though.... : ok:

?

It's about both.  At least it should be....



Nope.  I mentioned this.  They can adopt and offer what a gay couple can't - being raised by a father and a mother.  (I realize that is meaningless to you.)


I'm aware of the statistics.  It's definitely a sad thing.  But the failure of so many traditioal marriages doesn't automatically make gay marriages OK.  You don't add one bad thing to another.  You seem to think the end of traditional marriage, as we've known it, would be a good thing.  Well, it's not.  Neither is people staying single longer.  As for inter-racial marriage, no, I'm not against it.  Oh, but that's right, us conservative/traditional/religious types are really closet racists at heart who sneak out at night and beat up the first gay or minority we see......

Mainline, before I go to bed, here are some real quotes.  The first 2 are from the same man.  I'll be back tomorrow afternoon to see if you got the answer!  (I felt these were appropriate for this thread because it involves taking one's personal, religious belief and forcing it down the throats of the entire nation)

"State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

and...

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

and who said this:
   "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature ... [In] the formation of the American governments ... it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven ... These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

the 2nd man also wrote this, "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"


Okay, I can't wait!  The first 2 were Thomas Jefferson, and the second 2 were John Adams.
Good night.   :)

I'm aware of comments regarding religion many of the founding fathers made.  (Consider much of the religion they had been familiar with....abuses by the Church of England, the history of the Inquisition, etc.)   They said a lot of things at various times in their lives.  Often a view they held at one point contradicted with one they held at another.  I've noticed that you secularists manage to only pick out the ones that appear against organized religion.

Nobody is forcing their beliefs down your throat.  Bottom line, the majority of this nation - "under God" - is religious.  Always has been.  Therefore, certain things have more or less been the rule or what is commonly accepted.  It's the small, outspoken, shrill minority who are trying to change any number of things by forcing their will down the thoats of everyone else. 

You might as well get it out in the open and say blacks are inferior too while you are at it. Why beat around the bush?

Read what I said a few posts up genius....

LOL............so.

Learn how to use the "quote" function, then get back to me.  : ok:

mainline I'm gonna ask you some thing, when do you wanna get together, and have a fight, like a man to man fight where I kick your ass.


You are probably the most narrow minded bigoted poster I have come across. And you my(not) friend are really finding yourself in the minority these days on this. you speak as if you are god, as if you have a divine right to say what is good or bad, right or wrong, what is moral or not. Buddy, you are probably a fucking kid, who is being reared by backwards thinking god forbid I should say it but i will the same thread of fiber you were conceived! 

Seems to me you don't get out much, or are on a worldly basic, but probably sheltered and hiding the fact you are morally raped by your own kind. Hell I wonder does inbreed mean anything to you, how about incest. Cause I feel like you would totally find a argument to justify those things!

Maybe your twisted and are warped by harsh realities you cant confront just yet, thats not my problem. BUT from this FAG TO YOU  SUCK SOMEONE ELSE'S PUSSY. Cause you are lost , so last!

Mainline is somebody who's been banned from here in the past for his/her bullshit stories and narrowminded opinions.





/jarmo

I'm a bit surprised nobody's posted this yet. From, once again, south park:

Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of referring to you as "married," you can be “butt buddies”. Instead of being "man and wife," you'll be “butt buddies”. You won't be "betrothed," you'll be “butt buddies”. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom," you'd be “butt buddies”.

Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!

Governor: You are equal. It's just that instead of getting "engaged," you would be “butt buddies”.

I think that is hysterical! And so damn true, !

Hmm, I think maybe its when you get a clue you'll be able to get back to me.  Mastering the quote function doesn't have much to do with this discussion.  :rofl:

Mainline said, "Bottom line, the majority of this nation - "under God" - is religious.  Always has been."

You left out the fact that in the Pledge of Allegiance, the "under God" part was added in the 1950's.  As far as I know, our country was born in the 1700's.  And yes, you are correct, the founding fathers were very well aware of what happens when you allow government and religion to act as one.  This is why they designed a separation of church and state.

I used the "fear" quote from Maddy earlier...Mainline, I think the more appropriate snippet from Maddy is, "...hate isn't something you're born with, it gets taught!"  Think about it.  : ok:

Mainline needs to keep doing what he is doing. We need a personification of the term "right wing moron" on this site, but then again, we have a number of those already.

But one must admit, on a moron scale of 1 to 10, he scores "totally fucking stupid".

Thank you Mr Fox :-*

I'm going to stay mostly out of the conversation but need to comment on this one bit:

It's not that secularists want morality and religion to go away.  It's that they see no reason why THEY should be held up to someone elses religious beliefs and moral compass.  They prefer to leave those kinds of decisions (gay marriage and adoption, abortion, etc) up to the individual, rather than having them forced on the population.  And leaving them as a personal decision doesn't force those that are religious, or think they go against their personal morality, to engage in any of them.

But SLCPUNK can call people racist, as he did to me, and espouse viewpoints such as the US inflicted 911 upon itself?

Well, that is a complicated question.? It depends what rights you are talking about.? If they are rights already protected in the Constitution, no.? If they are rights that the Constitution does not protect - and therefore not really rights - then yes.  The Courts only have authority to interpret the Consitution and statutes which are things created by popular will.  They do not have authority to rewrite the Consitution or create rights which they see are fit.  If you think that is what Courts should do, then we may want to reevaluate which type of people we place on these high courts.?

What about budfox? hes ruined alot of threads by calling people with opposing views moron, murderers, racists, pigs, stooges, fags, closet homosexuals, nambla members.. But yet he is still around.

On the gay marriage issue.. I neither support or oppose anyones views on it. I have no opinion of it.

Don't worry Brody.  I still believe Bud Fox is someone's alternate user name.  He's already got -2 Karmas.  He won't be around much longer.

well lets just say that someone just happend to slip up when spamming my forum.

I know who you mean, and I stated earlier that I think it's him.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted "equal protection of the laws" to mean the following:

 - Racial segregation in public schools is impermissible (Brown v. Board of Ed.)
 - Government cannot ban the sale of contraceptives; further providing that 14th Amendment created a "zone of privacy" (Griswold v. Conn.)
 - Ending all race-based legal restriction on marriage (Loving v. Virginia)
 - State laws prohibiting sodomy were unconstitutional <Thank God>(Lawrence v. Texas)

Obviously, there are many more cases, too many, to list, but it's clear that the US Supreme Court has historically interpreted the 14th Amendment very broadly and America is a better country for it. ?

See this whole gay marriage thing is heading in the wrong direction.  If two gay people want to spend their lives together, more power to them.  The state should not give benefits to any married couple, be it straight or gay.  Each person should be treated as an individual and not receive special benefits or privlidges because they're married.  Marriage is a personal committment between two people and the government should have no role in that.  I mean think about it : "Baby, this relationship we're in is getting hot.  I want to spend the rest of my life with you.  We gots to get the government in on this one."  Why would you want to invite lawyers into your private life.  Love is an emotion and I fail to see the logic in signing a legal document making you fiscally responsible for the other the rest of your life.  I say play the love lotto, see if you come up lucky.  But if it doesn't work out, walk away happy and not fucked the rest of your life because it didn't work out.  You're committing to an emotion, it's like me signign a contract saying I promise to be mad at you or scared of you the rest of my life.  It's ridiculous.  Find someone you love and be happy, but don't get lawyers and the government involved in your private life.  I mean isn't that the basis of this argument afterall; the right of two individuals to be with whom they want without government restriction?

well then i can just say it. slc + Buddyfox are the same people.

ps. I think jameslofton came to me with this same question to.

seeing as i cant post members / a members personal info i wont.

I totally agree with you in regards to marriage being an emotion.  Its a committment and I don't see what signing a piece of paper does to that.  However, I think the govt gets involved in terms of tax breaks and what not b/c they want people to get married, they want people to have kids (more tax breaks) so we can create new workers to populate the country when the current ones get to old.  Those tax breaks help out a lot of families who otherwise couldn't afford to have kids (and I don't mean welfare and that nonsense, I mean normal regular middle class americans) and buy houses etc...

In a perfect world though, I agree, everyone should be treated equally.  Its sort of an affront to single people that we have to pay higher taxes just b/c you can't find anyone (or choose not to).

So the fact of the matter is that marriage (in a governmental way) is here to stay....so who gets to say they are married??  Just straight people, or everyone?  Thats the issue at hand.

Did you pull your post from a website or did you come up with these cases on your own?? Your post is not entirely accurate.? Have you read any of these cases?? If not, you shouldn't be posting them in support of a proposition that you do not understand.? If you have, lets discuss.? I am not trying to be condescending, but this is a very complex area of law that takes a substantial amount of studying to grasp.

The originally understood and intended meaning of this Amendment is not what the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean.? Thus, from my perspexctive, the Supreme Court is imposing its viewpoints on the populace.? However, even assuming the Supreme Court has correctly interpreted the equal protection clause, there is still no foundation for in the Constitution for gay marriage.

I am not sure if you know this, but different types of discrimination and cases are treated differently.? Race based discrimination or differential treatment based on race is automatically considered suspect and subject to strict scrutiny.? Sexual orientation cases are given rational basis scrutiny.? Here, there is definately a conceivable state interest in protecting the sanctity of marriage.

This is a due process case, not an equal protection case.? A zone of privacy does not support state sponsored marriages.

Again, a race case where heightened scrutiny is given.? Homosexuals have never been considered a suspect class.? On its face, a heterosexual marriage only law applies to all sexes and all races.

I am not sure what the thank god is for?? You are probably looking at the result rather than the path to the result.? This is also a due process case, and I suggest you read Scalia's dissent.? He makes the majority look like ridiculous on several counts.? Only Justice OConnor used equal protection grounds to support the opinion.? However, in her concurence she specifically states that her position would be different if a gay marriage case was before her because states have a legitimate interest in upholding the sanctity of marriage.? As for substantive due process, the right must be a fundamental liberty interest in order to get strict scrutiny.? To be such an interest, the liberty must be one that has been traditionally protected in our society.? Gay marriage is not such a liberty interest.? In fact, no state has ever allowed it.? Personally, I think Lawrence is one of the Court's worst opinions in recent times.  I tend to support Justice Thomas' position:

 I write separately to note that the law before the Court today ?is ? uncommonly silly.? Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

    Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to ?decide cases ?agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.? ? Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I ?can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,? ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the ?liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,? ante, at 1.


?

Mainline is HolyWar if I can recall...........from Utah too, if I remember right.

I never said 9-11 was an inside job. But rather we should explore all options presented, as the official story does not add up.

Damn HolyWar is back.  I remember that guy.  He was a good poster, along with popmetal.  Damn I miss the old days.

I never really go away.  I was back briefly before certain people needed Jarmo to run interference for them.  Needless to say, I was quickly shown the exit door, as I'm positive I will be again....

For the record, SLC, you being banned from ever coming back to Utah still stands.....

Don't type checks your ass can't cash.

LOL, I'll be back in March, wanna have some coffee?  ;D

Wow, mainline was banned again...............What would Jesus say dude?

Good thing that was a dissent and not a majority opinion.?

I'm impressed by your knowledge of those cases and unfortunately can't discuss at the same level of detail as you, given I read them 9 years ago.? With that said, get off your high horse and don't tell me what I should or shouldn't post - surely you're capable of understanding that the cases I cited (not from the Internet, from memory) were evidence of the Court taking a broad view of the Constitution, rather than the narrow one you favored.? I find it incredible that you can be critical of court decisions that expand[/i] our freedoms all in the name of some false democratic ideal - as though you're oblivious to the tyranny of the majority.? Race-based restrictions on marriage were fortunately deemed to be bullshit based on that broad view.? Do you have a problem with that decision?? Oh, the result is OK but the path to that result was not?? Guess what - the country was scorchingly racist then, so laws like that got passed.? Similarly, we now have a lot of homophobia in this country, so homosexuals at this time will not be afforded the "equal protection of the laws" via the democratic process.? To come back and say they're not a protected class is completely arbitrary.? On what basis do you make a distinction?

Well in your post, you claim married people get tax breaks to have children.  Since homosexual couples can't have their own children (unless they use science to do so which would nullify their need for tax breaks if they can afford that operation), then they don't receive benefits under this reasoning.  I say again that no one should receive benefits for having children. We should stop rewarding people for overpopulating the world and not having the means to provide their children with proper care.  We spay and neuter cats and dogs because they can't control themselves and their breeding.  Don't you think that some people might need to be considered for this too.  Talk about an advantage to being gay, all the sex you want and no risk of pregnancy. 

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

The fact that you have actually read them is good for me.  I haven't read some of them in a while myself.

I am not trying to be on a high horse.  I see far too often people posting legal arguments on this board that were cut and pasted from propoganda websites.  I was just making sure you didn't pull this from one of those sites.  I guess what I was trying to convey is that those cases do not support gay marriage even though they do take a broad interpretation of the Constitution.

I find it incredible that you believe that the majority should be subject to the tyranny of the minority.  First, let me say that when you allow the Court to step away from the original meaning of the Constitution it opens up a whole can of worms.  Some times they expand rights, other times they narrow them.  So to say that they always expand freedoms is just not accurate.  The protections that we have are based on a democratic process.  You seem to espouse overriding the democratic process and to let 5 justices determine what rights should be expanded and which ones should be narrowed.  How are these people qualified to do this?  Isn't this, in effect, a small group of people that are deciding democratically based on their own viewpoints of the Constitution?  I am not sure what you are calling a false democratic ideal?   

I never said the decision was wrong.  I said that the decision was made within a different framework and does not necessarily support gay marriage. 

Based on the Supreme Court's decisions.  See Romar v. Evans and Bowers v. Hardwick.  It is not arbitrary at all.  The 14th Amendment was passed to prohibit race-based discrimination.  Other discrimination has always been treated differently under the amendment.  Even gender discrimination is only given intermediate scrutiny.  How are homosexuals any more of a protected class than pedophiles that like to look at child pornography?  Certainly those laws are aimed specifically at pedophiles.  Men and women can look at adult pornography all day long.  Isn't that discrimination.  Even if these people never act out on it they can still be punished.  Should they be a protected class also?

We're on opposite sides of the spectrum - I believe that the Supreme Court serves as an effective check against any legislation that violates anyone's individual rights.  No question, there's an immense amount of power there, but like I said, I believe the cases I cited are evidence that historically it has worked out for the best for our country for individual rights to be interpreted broadly.

The timing of the 14th Amendment was no coincidence, so I agree that race was the trigger for it.  However, if it was only "passed to prohibit race-based discrimination" that would have been written into the text of the Amendment.  I believe it wasn't in order to allow for a broader interpretation.

Finally, I appreciate that you took the time to provide thoughtful posts on this subject, but you might lose a lot of people here with that last section of your post.  It sounds like you're saying that there's no basis for a distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that's not what you were saying, but, likewise, won't waste my time explaining the difference between (1) consensual same-sex relationships among 2 adults and (2) monsters that prey upon and destroy the innocence of children.

Berkeley lost me at hello. 

but yeah, his last post is just beyond ridiculous.  homosexuals are like pedophiles?  ::)  It doesn't even warrant a response.

Why?  Both are sexual preferences beyond the control of the individual afflicted.  There is a distinction in making a conscience effort to attack children and rape them versus a loving relationship between two adults.  However, there is no distinction between someone being attracted to the same sex and small children.  I think that's what Berkley was hinting at.

 ??? ??? ??? ??? :nervous: :confused:

Huh? Wha??  Am I reading this right?

There is NO DIFFERENCE between two 30 year old, mature men being attracted to each other and a 60 year old creep who is attracted to a 2 year old girl?

Are you serious?

Both are deviant behaviors caused by a chemical imbalance or mutation in the brain.? In other words, something didn't click upstairs.? Do I have a bias towards one of those, absolutley, I despise pedophiles.? But from a psychological standpoint, there is no difference between a homosexual and pedophile in terms of abnormality.? I'm not demonizing either imbalance.? I certainly am demoninzing pedophiles who act out on their urge, but I'm not distinguishing on a psychological (thus legal) level on the sexual attraction itself.? If you were objective about this, and not reactionary you'd understand my point and be forced to agree with it.


Neither the gay man, straight man or pedophile have any control over whom they're attreacted to.  God, Ka, Gan, Nature, Gaia, etc. made that choice for them.  Since any sexual preference other than hetero is abnormal (read not immoral, evil or wrong, just abnormal) there is no grounds to justify why one preference is "higher" than the other.  The problem or cause for concern is when the preference is acted upon.  No one is hurt when two gay men have a relationship.  Someone is very hurt when a pedophile acts on his sexual desires.

Yes.........he is serious.

well, at least this post was a little bit more explanatory.  As for being "forced" to agree with you, last time I checked this was America dude and I have the choice to agree with whoever and whatever I want to.  I do NOT think homosexuality is "deviant", nor is it abnormal.  By your logic, would "deviant" behavior also mean anal sex between a man and a woman?  Who is to decide what "abnormal" behavior is, even on a pychological level?  What if Berkeley (just as an example, not saying I think this is true) and his girlfriend enjoy crapping and peeing on each other and then smearing it all over each other and then eating the excrement...is that deviant or abnormal even though they are both hetero??  I see the point you are trying to make, but I think you're just using definitions and semantics to make your point.

Put all that shit aside and you KNOW there is a huge difference between an adult, consensual homosexual relationship and the raping of a small child by an adult man.

This is one of the most patently offensive, disgusting posts I think I've ever seen on this message board...and I've seen quite a number of them. How you can equate homosexuality with pedophelia is beyond explanation, on any level.? Never mind it's wrong headed to the extreme, displaying an appaling lack of knowledge of a) sexuality, b) psychology, and c) biology.? It is SO patently wrong it doesn't even deserve discussion.

When you guys want basis for something....do you just make things up?? You're implying a studied correlation between two things when absolutely NO such study exists.

That's an inflamatory, wrongheaded example and you know it, even if you are using it to prove a point about individual rights.? Equating homosexuality with pedophelia, in the context you're using, is misleading and intellectually dishonest, even if it's meant to be a juxtaposition.? You're better than that, and you know it.

Pedophiles irreparably harm their victims.? The creation of child porn harms it's victims.? Pedophiles are punished for acting on their urges or possessing material it is illegal to create, and thus own.

Homosexuals are consenting adults engaging in consensual sexual activity.

I know you know the difference, but to even imply the correlation is just wrong....

I'm not equating the two.  Everything you wrote Pilferk I agree with.  Pedophiles harm their victims while homosexuals are consenting adults.  End of case.  I do understand the psychology and biology between the two.  Most research indicates an underdeveloped portion of the brain in homosexuals, and pedophiles have a similar problem.  Are there exceptions to the rule, absolutely.  I state again, the act of homosexuality and pedophilia are not one in the same or even similar.  I'm simply stating that both homosexuality and pedophila are abnormalities - that is accepted fact in biological studies and I know you know this.

Hanna, your post is juvenille at best.  You're so scared to admit that homosexuality is the least bit irregular that you would defend gross sexual acts to defend homosexuality (which I think is an insult to being gay.)  Read Kinsey's work.  Although I disagree with some of his methods and numbers, he did define the subject of sexuality.  Humans by design are supposed to procreate with one another to create offspring.  Any human who does not possess that inate desire is abnormal.  Is that simple enough for you?  Does that make them any less human or morraly corrupt?  No.  I support the right of two adults to live with whom and however they choose.  Your saying that there is something unique to pedophiles that makes them abnormal without citing what causes this abnormality.  You're attacking the act (because you don't agree with it) and not understanding what causes the act.  What causes one to be homosexual and a pedophile are biologically similar.  That is all I have said, and with no malice towards homosexuals at all.

Actually, it's not an accepted fact. I assume you're talking about Levay's hympothalamus/limbie system theory....you might want to do more checking on that particular theory before you espouse it being "fact".? It's been widely and completely discredited.

And your asserted "cause" for pedophilia is also not an accepted fact.? There's lots of research on the subject...you'll want to look at a lot more of it before even remotely trying to assert a chemical imbalance or brain abnormality as absolute causation.  There's lots of theories on causation, many of them with much more compelling clinical (both biological and psychological) research behind them than the "brain abnormality" theories.

AND You're asserting correlation, again, where none exists.? And calling homosexuals "abnormal" isn't the most apt label, any more than calling twins abnormal is. Less apt than that, even, because you're odds are better of being gay than they are of being a twin.?

In short, you have no earthly idea what you're actually talking about, no matter how much you assert to the contrary.

Obviously I do or I wouldn't have been able to justify my opinion based on research.? You can disagree with it, but you'd be in the minority of objective parties.? Unless you possess a degree in psychology you're no more qualified than I am to interpret the works of others.? You don't see me attacking your buddies everytime they post something from a GED level blog.

That being said, I don't care to participate in this discussion anymore.? It's far too emotional for most members here and the debate has gone far from socratic.  And before someone accuses me of "copping out",  "I refuse to repeat myself when I've clearly indicated my stance.  I won't repeat myself, do your own research and read what I've said."  You might actually find something with me unlike others where thry continually reference vague or ghost post.

Eh hem...based on old, widely discredited research that happens to be at the top of the "google list" when searching on terms pertinent to this conversation....but still cited by a number of "anti-gay" and homosexual hate groups, despite the clinical proof to the contrary.

And, actually, the clinical proof discrediting the theory you're espousing (Levay's research/theory) is wide spread and readily available (again, through quick google search...which I'm sure you did after my post...).? The majority of the medical research community (and, by the by, that's what my profession is related to...though I can't say where exactly, it IS an Ivy League institution so my information might be just a BIT more first hand than yours) actually sides firmly on MY side...no matter how much you would like to assert otherwise.? The "brain abnormality" theory for homosexuality just isn't clinically sound...and that's not an interpretation from an objective party.? It's a depiction of what the actual clinical research on the subject has shown.

And I'm not surprised you've chosen to remove yourself from the conversation.......all things considered.

Oh, and as far as "doing my own research"...I daresay I have...and then some..on this particular subject.? You might want to read some more (current, FYI) on the subject and "adjust" your stance...or not.? Hey, my siggie says it all....

Lets get back on track here - this latest discussion started when Berkeley tried to say if homosexuals are a "protected class" then pedophiles should be too.  You basically agreed with him when you posted saying the cause for their attraction is the same.

you then called homosexuality DEVIANT behavior - thats what I was referring to in your post.  Yes, the acts I mentioned are disgusting, some would even call them "deviant" but people performing those acts are allowed to marry - so where do you draw the line between what is deviant and what is accepted and who can marry and who can't, who is a "protected class" and who isn't based on sexual preference.  My disgusting example and those engaging in homosexual acts, regardless of the pychology or biology behind it are both CONSENSUAL.  A 2 year old child isn't consenting when a 60 year old perv is molesting them.  Molesting, raping pedophiles should NOT be a protected class.  Its laughable you'd try to say I was being insulting to others being gay.....have you read your last few posts!??!?!  The fact you thought I was equating the pissing/shitting on each other act with that of homosexuality just shows your true disdain for the act, that or you completely missed my point. 

Berkeley tried to say that it should be ok for a pedophile to look at pictures of little kids naked if thats what hes into (so long as the perv doesn't do anything other then look).  Do I need to explain to you why this is completey moronic too?  Little boys/girls shouldn't be photographed in the nude or in sexual acts to begin with!

so instead of calling me juvenile and trying to make your "scientific" points (which Pilferk basically shot down), lets just use some common sense here.

RandallFlagg, your opinions disgust me.  Your statement that HannaHat is "in the minority of objective parties" is completely wrong, and the psychological reserach you cite is decades old pseudo-science.  you act like an expert and you wirte with big words, but it is clear from reading your posts that you know nothing about the science behind this issue.  I don't have time to get into an argument about this with you, but I am a theoretical ecologists at a large research university in canada and I have studied this topic quite a bit. 

let me first say that psychology isn't a science, it's a social (pseudo) science. the field uses case studies and 'clinical' methodologies which aren't designed to test causal mechanisms. furthermore, the quality of the work and questions asked is, at best, laughable.

any understanding of 'psychology' should stem from biology (biochemistry linking social behaviour to heritable genetics). humans are animals, afterall.  psychology will really go no where until this happens. i'm sure you're aware of sociobiology (e.o. wilson) - this is the only future for psycholgy.

I would like to recommend a reference to you: Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People by Joan Roughgarden (one of the most important evolutionary biologists EVER).  Joan argues that diversity in gender and sexuality is ubiquitous across all life (plants and animals).  she is working on a group game theory to explain how thise diversity is essential and maintained in population genetics.

anyhow, i gotta get back to work!

EDIT:  and where do you get the statement "Both are deviant behaviors caused by a chemical imbalance or mutation in the brain."  i would like to see the primary reserach on this.  furthermore, the problem with psychology is that the 'deviant' isn't linked to the genetics so there is no way to explain why it is ubiquituous across nature!!!!

nonlinear,

First off, Randall was saying I was the one? in the minority of objective parties.

Second, I've no idea why he attributes the theory he's espousing strictly to psychology, or to needing to be a psychologist to interpret Levay's findings.? In fact, Levay's study was largly biological.? The issues were that a) he "assumed" the sexual orientation of some of the subjects, b) he was working on cadaverers without much prehistory, c) he assumed a causation, rather than a correlation (even with his flawed methods).? When the clinical community got their hands on the research, and it's methods, it was pretty quickly discredited.?Repeated attempts at his clinical research were also made and the findings were never able to be replicated, even with better clinical methods. There was certainly some psychology involved, but you wouldn't need to be a psychologist to interpret his work.? I glossed over that in my initial post, figuring it wasn't real important to point out, but it's representative, again, that Flagg doesn't know much about the subject at hand....nor much about the research in question.

and BTW, Simon LeVay is a fraud.  please read this letter by Joan Roughgarden: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Joan-re-LeVay.html

FOREWORD (by Lynn Conway):
One of the key supporters of J. Michael Bailey is an old-guard gay male psychologist named Simon LeVay. LeVay is a minor academic who never achieved tenure anywhere, and whose past research has not proven repeatable. Nevertheless he has name recognition in academic circles as a writer of trade popularizations of "queer science". LeVay has leveraged this dubiously gained visibility into status as a serious pundit on gay matters within academe.

 

It was from this position as a gay male science pundit that he joined forces with J. Michael Bailey, supporting Bailey's defamations of transsexual women in a mutual alignment of personal and psychological ideologies. In mutual ignorance of the realities of transsexualism, they both exploit transsexualism as a science discussion topic in order to further their own personal, academic and ideological agendas.

In the essay below, Joan Roughgarden explores some of the scientifico-ideological dimensions of the connections among psychologists LeVay and Bailey, and their further connections with psychologists Dennis Buss and Steven Pinker. This background on LeVay is highly relevant to the discussion in the related webpage "IT'S FICTION: Bailey Admits to Anjelica Kieltyka that he Fabricated the Key Final Scene in His Book".

Oops, sorry about the confusion pilferk!
anyhow, i really don't want to get too deep into this argument on a Guns n' Fuckin' Roses forum ( :peace:), but I highly recommend the Roughgarden book to anyone who is interested.  there is also a recent theoretical paper in the journal Science on the issue (and no, you won't see any of LeVay's work anywhere near Science!)  I can get a pdf copy of this paper to anyone who doesn't have a subscription.

EDIT:  I've also been re-reading all of the previous posts (my initial posts were made in a rage/hurry), and I'm sorry if i've offended anyone who may work in psychology.  I come from a different backgroud which uses different methods and I'm very biased  :hihi:

Dude, you're the LAST person that should worry about offending people....I think Flagg did enough of that to last the rest of the year.

I'll admit that I'm obviously not as informed as Pilferk or Nonlinear.? So if my beliefs are in fact wrong, I stand corrected.? But let me break this down to my area of knowledge - philosophy.? Do we have any choice in what we find sexually arrousing?? The answer is quite simply, no.? As a species, how do we procreate to assure the longevity of the species?? Man and women have intercourse and a child is conceived.? Any sexual act that breaks from that would be "abnormal" because it goes against the most inate desire to spread your genes.? So someone who fancies the opposite sex is no more special than someone who does not by no fault of their own, but the person not desiring the opposite sex is abnormal.? Can we agree on that at least?? Therefore, anything deviating from that is abnormal, no matter what the circumstances of that abnormality.


In logical terms:
r1a. All biological organisms are programmed through their DNA to propagate the species.
r1b. Humans are biological organisms.

R1.? Humans are designed to propagate the species.

      r2a.? Homosexuality is the sexual attraction between two members of the same gender.
      r2b.? Two members of the same gender can not propagate the species.

R2.? Homosexuals are not able to propagate the species.

C3.? Therefore, homosexuals are not designed to propagate the species; making them abnormal.?

but RandallFlagg, homosexuals are able to propagate the species, through mechanisms like (for example) the economy or education!  did you read the cooperatuve game theory paper?

Dude, quit while you can...sadly, you just don't get it.  :no:

I don't think were are as opposite as you might think. ?I also beliueve it is the Supeme Court's role to be an effective check against the legislative process. ?However, I think they should enforce the rights in the Constitution and not make up new ones. ?In fact. they have absolutely no authority to create new ones or pick and choose which ones they want to enforce. ?We are at the point where rights that are explicit in the Constitution are not protected at all and rights not in the Constitution are strongly protected. ?The Court does not interpret all rights broadly - it picks and chooses which ones to interpret broadly and which ones to give any effect.

I believe that hte jurisprudence of the Fourtheenth Amendment has strayed far from the original meaning or that amendment. ?Originally, the privileges and immunities clause was meant to be the main anti-discrimination provision. ?However, the Slaughter Hosue Cases basically removed this clause from any meaning. ?

Different classifications are given different levels of scrutiny. ?The fact is that any law can be characterized as violating the equal protection of the Consitution. ?Which classificaitons do you give strict scrutiny to?

It looks like I have. ?See below. ?I sometime overestimate people's ability to actually read and follow logical arguments. ?Nevertheless, I appreciate the discussion.

Equal protection of the laws can be interpreted broadly. ?Basically, if you give one person a right (or punishment), you have to give it to all. ?There isn't much difference in arguing that the denial of a homosexual the right to marry violates equal protection of the laws, but the punishment of a pedophile for looking at child pornography is not specifically aimed at the child pornographer. ?In other words, legally you can't pick and choose like you can legislatively ?You can't say that gay marriage is OK, but then outlaw bigamy and pologomy. ?If one has a Consitutional right to marry who he/she chooses then that carries over into other areas.

I agree. ?This is precisely why these issues need to be left to the legislature. ?They can pick and choose morality, the Court cannot.

No, you are not reading right.  Try again.

Sorry, not it's not.  How do you determine what a suspect classification is and what one is not?  If you are not looking at the original meaning of the amendment then you have to look at any discrimination.  Here, you are specifically targeting a law at pedophiles.  Of course, I agree with the law, but don't sit and say that it isn't targeted at pedophiles.  This is no different than targeting a law at homosexuals.  Am I saying that pedophiles are the same as homosexuals?  Of course not.  The same goes with pologomists and bigamists.  Legislatures can pick and choose, courts cannot.

The only intellectually dishonest thing is you stating that I am equating the two.  The only way that I am equating them is that they both have laws that are specifically targeted at them.  Yet some want to label one group a suspect class but not the other.  Legally, the courts don't have the luxury to pick and choose.

What about computer generated child pornography?  Who does that hurt?  I agree, there is no question that there is a state interest in banning child pornography and certainly it is a stronger one than bannin gay marriage.  However, neither have been considered suspect classes.  What about polygamists or bigamists?  Are they the same as homosexuals?

I actually do not have too much of a problem with gay marriage.  I oppose the way that it is being pushed on the american people through incorrect interpretations of the law.

I actually understand the logic behind that.

I don't think it's a question of being better than others, or making someone a worse person than others. It's just the way it is. Abrnormailty, by definition is "to deviate from the normal or average". I'd say it fits the category.

I for one, have a weaker color vision than most people. Doesn't make me a bad person, but it is an abnormality as opposed to majority that has a normal color vision. In similar manner, some people hear a lot higher frequencies than most. They have a 'superior' hearing compared to us with 'normal' hearing. But it is an abnormality.

Please explain to me what it is, that he's not getting.

Completlely wrongheaded and incorrect logic, not to mention poor use of terminology.

Twins, through no fault of their own, are born as a pair.? They are not "abnormal".? They are a less likely outcome following the natural and normal cource of conception, incubation, and birth.  There's also more than one way to become a twin.

Being homosexual, similarly, is not "abnormal".? It is a less likely outcome following the normal and natural course of conception, incubation, birth, and development.? That's represented not just in the human race, but throughout nature.

Using your logic, which is essentially one of "natural selection", the trait of being homosexual would eventually "die out".? That's just not the case...not in homosapiens and not in the rest of the natural world.

Not to mention you're walking down a pretty slippery slope from a logical fallacy standpoint.

Sorry, but it is.? And no amount of rationalizing or backpedaling with change that fact.? You used the example SPECIFICALLY because it was inflamatory.? And it IS wrongheaded.? You could have used far better examples and you know it (the polygamy example was a bit better, for example).? You did it for effect.? And that's pandering no matter what you try to assert to the contrary.

Berkley, I've often respected your opinion, whether it differs from mine or not, on many issues.? This time...well, you've lost some of that respect.? I know that might not matter much to you, but I think it deserves to be said.


You are equating the two, even if it is for the purposes of juxtaposition.? You asked what makes the two classes so different and presented a situation which equates the two. I know WHY you did it...but it was intellectually dishonest to do so.? You now seem to want to backpedal from that but...you'd be better served just appologizing for using the inflamatory argument and move on.

The problem is, from a clinical and research perspective, both his terminology and his logic is faulty.

Abnormal means outside the natural or expected results.  Being homosexual is neither.  It is both a natural and expected result...it is just one with a decreaed likelihood.

Here's an example:  2 blue cards, 1 green card.  You have a 1 in 3 chance of pulling the green card. Pulling the green card is not "abnormal", it's just less likely.  Abnormal would be if you somehow pulled 2 cards stuck together.

There's nothing incorrect about my logic. ?That's the great thing about logic, it's either right or it isn't just like math. ?There's no room for interpretation. ?Which one of my claims is inaccurate Pilferk, tell me please. ?We already know the study I referenced, but you have provided nothing as to why people are born gay. ?In the most simplest terms, there is something different in homosexuals that isn't that common, only 3-4% of the population is gay (and that's a high estimate). ?That 3-4% is deviating from the norm, thus making them abnormal. ?Why is that so hard for you to grasp. ?Don't confuse natural and normal. ?It's completely natural for someone to be gay, it's just not normal. ?You're so scared that by admitting "common sense" (as Hanna would put it) that you're somehow harming or bashing homosexuality. ?I was born without one incisor and one peg shaped incisor. ?My teeth are abnormal (luckily I had that all fixed), so I was abnormal in as much as my teeth development or DNA if you want to go back far enough. ?Is it natural for me to have been missing teeth, sure but it's abnormal. ?That's all I'm saying here. ?I'm not condeming the behavior, just stating that it's abnormal.

Pilferk, please explain to me how something isn't natural.  Everything is natural because it all stems from nature - from the atom bomb to the pollination of a flower.  Un-natural is a term trumpeted by people who don't like the results or possibilities of certain scenarios.

It's called logical fallacy.? Look it up.? I could just as easily use your quote against you and suggest you do your own research.

In addition, using your logic and following it to it's natural conclusion, everyone is abnormal, in one way or another.? That's just not true because you're using the term incorrectly.

Oh, and on your anecdotal "teeth" example:? That is abnormal.? It is something that would not be expected within natural and normal development.

The confusion lies in that you have very little knowledge, apparently, in how that terminology is used within a research and/or clinical setting.? If you want to (correctly) say that homosexuality is a less likely outcome..fine.? But that's not the same as "abnormal".


You're confusing nature and natural.

Natural, in the context of this discussion, would be the common and normal process of development.  Un-natural would imply something outside the normal process of development (ie: introduction of a foreign process, body, or environment).

Notice I rarely, if ever, use the term exclusively, but in combination with another term (ie: "natural OR expected").

Okay.. So we're stuck with the definition of abnormal. As English is not my primary language, I check some words from Merriam Webster for a definition, and their definition for abnormal was the one I posted.

Abnormality - to deviate from the normal or average.

But by your definition, it would make his logic incorrect. edited to say:Or at least his wording.

The trouble in this is that nothing has been proved beyond doubt about what makes a guy want to fuck other men instead of a woman. So we're stuck arguing about definitions. Accroding to MW's definition on abnormality, twins would be abnormal as well as the majority of us are not twins.

But this has again deviated from the topic. It's not abnormal, since a lot of threads deviate from their original topic. :)

But it's an interesting discussion and I'll let it continue. (feel free to post about whether two guys or girls should be allowed to be wed as well...)

You're really onto to something there Skeba.  It seems that people in academia continually try to re-define key words to fit their agenda.  The dicitionary is kind of the authority on definitions, no matter how much Pilferk might not want it to be.  I recall an argument I got into with a professor in a Sociology class.  She was trying to re-define 'family' to include fraternities, fans of grateful dead, basket ball teams, etc.  While each of those groups may share a characteristic or two with the term 'family', they are most certainly not a family and defined words already exist to describe those groups.  But family is a more powerful word than 'social organization' so they try to re-define it to utilize its importance.

But it's also the case that words do change their meanings, and they do have different definitions in different circumstanses. I'm not saying Pilferk is wrong here. I'm saying that it seems as you agree (at least to some extent) with each other in different words. And now to argue on whose terms should be used kinda goes beyond the point.

Unfortunately for you there is ample clincial and medical research that defines precisely what "abnormal" is in this context...and how the terminology should be used as a descriptor within the sorts of discussion we're having.? You're using it incorrectly which is entirely the point.? You don't have the knowledge or experience to understand the assertions you're making in the form of the argument you're constructing.? It's not "Pilferk" wantiing it to be that way, it's just the way it is.

So, as I suggested, change the terminology to "less likely outcome within the norm".

Actually, the arguemnt isn't as semantic as you would think...though there are parts of that, as well.

He's arguing that it's abnormal because homosexuality is outside the norm.

The fact is, it's a statistically modelable, observable, and "normal" (though less likely outcome) in it's existence.  In a clinical setting, it would be considered a statistically less likely outcome within the norm.

Well... Statistically, if a large enough sample space is taken, it can be argued that almost every abnormality can be statistically measured and observed, and in some circumstanses even better predicted than being gay (a number of 2 headed or one armed babies born after a year at close range from a nuclear catastrophy).

I still think it's a case of terms.

Like when a parent tells his/her child that if he/she doesn't do theit homeword, they'll be beaten.

Now if we're talking mathematical terms, the kid doing the homework in no way says that the kid wouldn't get the living shit beaten out of them as well. But of course in standard everyday usage it would be in the best interest not to hit the kid. Especially if the homework gets done.

Well I think I've joined this a little late, but here goes.....basically I agree with Pilferk 100% here.  As I said before things got a little heated I felt people were using definitions/semantics to prove their points and, to me, it just wasn't adding up.  I think Pilferk explained why a lot better then I could have.

Flagg, I understand what you are trying to say.  But, and correct me if I'm wrong, your use of the term "abnormal" and the logic you use to define homosexuality as abnormal could be used to define Skeba's weak color vision, or left handed people, or any physical feature that is in the minority of the population.  So anyone not in the majority would be abnormal?   That is a very dangerous way of thinking, even if you're just speaking scientifically.  Lets also remember the context of this entire thread - gays right to marry.  The whole logic/abnormal vs. normal/definition discussion came about when it was being discussed if homosexuals should be a protected class.  Sorry, it kinda makes my skin crawl to even imply that b/c homosexuality is abnormal scientifically that they don't deserve the same rights us heteros do.  If that wasn't the implication, it sure seemed like it.

But what really offended me, and I think others who responded, was Flagg's use of the word DEVIANT to describe homosexual behavior.  Comparing pedophilia to homosexuality was also inflammatory - I think berkeley's later comparison between polygamy is a much better arguement/discussion.

But you can take that to the other extreme, as well.? Any tiny difference from the norm, no matter how large the sample set of occurances (say, like being left handed...or having blue eyes...or being a twin) would be considered abnormal.? And that's just not the case.

In addition, I think we've patently disproved the point that I entered the discussion to take issue with:

That pedophiles and homosexuals have anything remotely similar between the two from a biological standpoint.  We've now gone off on a pretty wild tangent having little to do with the initial assertion.

I actually have to get shit done today ( :hihi:), but just wanted to point out (again) one of the flaws with RandallFlagg's logic (in bold below)

In logical terms:
r1a. All biological organisms are programmed through their DNA to propagate the species.
r1b. Humans are biological organisms.

R1.  Humans are designed to propagate the species.

      r2a.  Homosexuality is the sexual attraction between two members of the same gender.
      r2b.  Two members of the same gender can not propagate the species.

R2.  Homosexuals are not able to propagate the species.

C3.  Therefore, homosexuals are not designed to propagate the species; making them abnormal. 

The flaw with this is that homosexuals can and do propagate the species.  Earlier, I used economics and education as an example.  Now imagine a population in which there was 100 females, 1 heterosexual male, and 99 homosexual males (and pretend they are impotent so there is no chance that they can fertilize females).  Now, lets say these 100 women each have a child.  There is no way on hell that the paternal male could work to provide enough food/shelter/defense etc. for these children.  However, there are 99 other members of the community who all are working and contributing to the well being of the community.  thus, although they are not contributing dna (directly), they are propagating the species.  now this is an oversimplified and problematic example, but hopefully it helps explain what i'm talking about.

Also, I really can't stand the use of the word 'abnormal.'  i think pilferk made a good point when he said that every individual is abnormal.  And I think the best evindece of the normality of homosexuality is that it is ubiquituous accross all living plants and animals.  Many species don't even have sex (and thus no sexes), some species have 2 sexes, and most have 3+ sexes.  Many animals (a good example is fish spp.) also switch genders throughout their life, and in some fish there is 3 or even 4 or 5 genders, where there is one male gender who actually reproduces and 2 other genders who assist the reproduction by fending off predators (if all of the males were trying to dump sperm no one could fight off predators), etc.  Because this is so common across all of nature, I hardly think is coincidental.

And really, as roughgarden points out, we have to ask ourselves why why sex exists in the first place (recombination).  anything that faculitates sucessful recombination is part of sex and, thus, important for propagating the species.

(http://www.joandistrict6.com/EvolutionsRainbowCover.jpg)

I've been pushing that book hard.  if anyone is interested, you can read the intorductory chapter for FREE here:
http://joandistrict6.com/rainbow-preface.html

It overviews the book's organization and arguments

Nonlinear.? You're using an extreme hypothetical scenario to try and proove your point.? Human soceity is beyond the wilderness, so you can't say homosexuals propagate the species in this false environment if homosexuality crosses all species.? I've glanced over your paper (I don't really want to reference it because I haven't paid it due respect yet) and it appears that they're trying to say homosexuals help the species by performing tasks in society in lieu of sexually reproducing.? This is absurd, becuase there is not a single job out there that requires or even benefits from having a homosexual do it.? your example with the fish is shady as well.? There are only two genders of fish, some just play a different role in reproduction.? They still either have semen or eggs, trying to claim there are 5 genders of fish (which is false) has nothing to do with human sexuality.? Jaguars can run really fast, black widow females eat their mates.... what does that have to do with humans.? Again, no one has yet to proove my logic wrong.? you're trying to re-define a term (propagate) to suit your agenda and it isn't working.? If homosexuality is inate in all species, you can't use advanced human society to justify it in our case.

On the contrary.? There have been numerous examples provided that prove your logic is not well founded and there is ample clinical proof that at least one (and, actually, I can see one other) of your assumptions, in your slippery slope logical fallacy, is incorrect.

But you choose to continue to restate your opinion, over and over, contrary to evidence and examples provided, and to use terminiology incorrectly in a setting you're not experienced in.

You're obviously not going to take MY word for it (or nonlinear's), no matter how much more knowledge, exposure, and experience we have on the issue.? So my suggestion is to go out and find the rest of the canon, definitive research on the subject and more than casually peruse it.

OK, well I tried to give a simple example and I cited a book which gives a much clearer (and documented) expolination.  I really can't argue with you all day again, and I will just tell you to read the book as that is essentially my argument.  but i should point out that

1) humans are animals, and the processes governing human life are no different than the processes governing any other living organism,

2) YES there are fish (and other animals, too) with multiiple genders (read the book) and NO THEY DON"T ALL HAVE SEMEN OR EGGS.  Don't try to tell a biologist about biology....

3)And Randall, you are the one who used the word 'propagate' in the first place.  so you'll have to substitute a different term if you like and see what happens.  that's the problem with logic, it uses words and not numbers.  words are subjective, numbers aren't.  that's why scientists abandoned logic centuries ago  :hihi:

Do you even know what a slippery slope fallacy is? ?You must have the fallacies confused because I see no way you can gather a slippery slope from this. ?The basic premis behind a slippry slope fallacy is if x > z without proving x >y and y > z. ?none of my claims fall under that. ?But keep trying Pilferk, you're saying I'm making logical fallaces but have yet to identify what part of my claims violates a truth table.

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.? Words aren't subjective, they have absolute meaning.? Whether I say white, fleiss or blanca it still means the color of fresh snow or clouds in a blue sky.? Scientist abandoned logic centuries ago eh?? Well since math is logic and math is used in every form of science, to claim it's been abandoned is simply not true.? However, the study you and pilferk are each citing is very subjective, not alot of logic in that.? Just simple observation and theories.

I mean, that just shows how ignorant you are when it comes to logic.  Logic isn't just words, I converted a logical equation into written form.  Ever hear of a ven diagram?  Waste of time to even bother.  Let me add my needed smiley faces  :nervous: :confused: :no: ::) :o ???

Thanks for the definition. ?Now revisit your "proof". ?See if you can find out where you created the slope. ?It's there, plain as day, right in one of your assumptions. ?If you're really stuck, I can' point it out for you, I guess. ?But it's pretty obvious if you have any knowledge of the subject we're talking about, genetics, research, etc.

Oh, and you have to understand (once again, being out of your element in the discussion) that from a biological and medical point of view, propagate does not mean procreate. ?Propogate means doing ANYTHING that causes an organism to multiply or breed.

Um, I didn't cite anything.  While I have a passing familiarity with RoughGarden's work, I haven't yet cited it in anything.

well, I say I'm right and you say your'e right, but who's righter?  :hihi:  how's that for subjective?

So how do two men fucking in the ass cause an organism to multiply or breed? ?

Umm, the words themselves are as far from subjective as you can get.  Assuming our arguments were both equally sound (and they're not), subjectivity would come into play, but as far as the words or logic being subjective, not even close.

We're way off topic here....the thread title is "NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK".

Flagg, lets suspend reality and assume your statement that homosexuality is abnormal is correct.  Ok, now what??  Does that mean they shouldn't be granted the same rights to marry that herero (normal?) sexual people have?

Good use of the smileys by the way  : ok:  :hihi:

Droll, I must say.

Any task taken in society that encourages breeding can be consider propagation...worker ants minding the needs of the colony, for example, in biology is consider part of propagation. ?Instilling an exothermic reaction in a organism's environment can also be considered propagation.

It's not the simple display of their sexual preference or the act of procreation.

OK, this conversation has descended into the trailer park, I'm outta here  :hihi:

(http://www.umbusiness.co.uk/uploads/small_white_trash.jpg)

Ok, but those ants you use have a specific role in their colony do they not? ?What role do homosexuals exclusively play in the propagation of human beings?

Homosexual sperm is just as potent as heterosexual....I know plenty of cases and know women personally who have used the sperm of gay people/their gay friends to impregnate themselves.

Nah, this is a much better image of me.

(http://home.comcast.net/~gunsnrockmusic/curt3.jpg)

Many...any, really, other than actual procreation. Care giver, provider (directly or indirectly), protector (directly or indirectly)....any of the archtypical roles. ?They can even fulfill the roles of paternal or maternal figure....as well as hetero adopted parents can (we'll leave out the morality debate on that one and focus strictly on the biological parenting role).

You can't just assert that their role can be "played" by any other human. ?You have to prove they don't play any role at all. ?And you can't do that because it's just not true. ?A role doesn't have to be "specialized" to be part of the process, it just has to occur.

Again, your taking advanced human technology to justify something at a primal level. ?Gay apes can't donate their sperm to female apes, nor can they work at wal-mart to pay taxes for head start.

Whatever, we're arguing in circles here.? I have no problem with gay people being married to one another.? Put it up to vote and I'll punch the ballot.? However, by standard definitions, I have logically shown that being gay is abnormal.? It doesn't take logic to show that, it's just common sense.? But if you want to argue semantics, fine I don't care anymore.? I harbor no malice towards homosexuals and to continue to argue this point would be futile.? I've come to realize that putting this much effort onto a stance that makes it look like I hold certain views that I don't is just stupid.? So I'll wave my white flag.? You win.

Good point, you're right. 

Can you answer my question about how all this logic and "abnormal" conclusions relates to gay rights to marriage though?

And you're assuming ?a) the lack of an instinct rather than the inability to carry out the instinct, b) that tool use in the ability to accomplish a goal, satisfy a need, or complete an instinctual behavior is outside of the norm. ?Homo-erectus would be interested to learn that...of course, they'd also all be dead if it was true.

This is pretty much what I expected your response to be, now.

You haven't, by standard definitions or otherwise, shown, logically or otherwise, that being gay is abnormal.? You've presented a logical fallacy, based on your opinions and no clinical knowledge on the subject of genetics, biology, or human sexuality, that shows what you want it to show.? It's not common sense, it's common rhetoric...and it's certainly not entirely semantics.? I've shown (and nonlinear, too) that, on the contrary, homosexuality is actually well within the norm...it's just a less likely occurance.? Again, not "abnormal" within the context of the kind of discussion you're engaging in.

Using your logical "proof", you realize that one could take it to prove that homosexuals are not biological organisms or humans?? The fact is, your "assumptions" aren't based in hard science.? They're based wholly on your very limited understanding of the subject we're discussing.? And that's where the logical fallacy rears it's ugly head.? You can't draw a conclusion, logically, based on an unproven (or disproven) conclusion.? And you've got a big one in there.

It doesn't, that's why I don't want to argue it anymore.  I don't want people to confuse my argument with being anti-gay or in this case, anti-gay marriage so I'm going to stop.

It's not backpedaling.  It is simply an attempt to make you understand the argument.  Clearly you don't.

You are absolutely right; that is exactly why I chose that example.  However, the example is not meant to criticize homosexuals or condone pediphilia.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I am trying to explain to you guys that the courts cannot pick and choose morally what is a suspect class and what is not.  I am not going to get too far into it because it is complex, but under a substantive due process analysis courts have to frame issues.  The broader they frame the issue the more things are taken out of the hands of the legislature.  The same is true of equal protection, which is the subject of the posts.  All laws discriminate to some extent.  Outside of race, and arguably gender, there are no classifications that can be made that isn't simply the opinion of five judges.  On the contrary, the legislature can say that we think that polygamy, bigamy, and child pornography is bad, but sodomy, gay marriage, and gay rights are not.  In the Courts it is all or nothing.  The example I used was simply to show that there are still moral choices that need to be made.  However, by having the court decide these issues in broad swoops of the law, the Court's decisions preempt any state government from making these moral choices.

Pandering to what?  It's more like proving a point.

And I have often respected your opinion.  Despite some of our disagreements, I have always thought that you make well-thought out arguments and are pretty reasonable.  I definately consider you to be one of the two to three most intelligent and thoughtful posters on this board.  With that said, your opinion does matter to me.  However, after rereading my posts, I am sorry to say that I think you missed the argument and immediately throught I was comparing homosexuality and pedophilia on a moral level.  You were right, I was.  However, the comparison was to show that there is certain nonheterosexual behavior that is on a higher moral ground and valued higher than others.  I was using the example to boost homosexuality not demean it.  If you still cannot follow the argument, I apologize.  My argument is sound and not offensive to any reasonable person.  If you can't follow it, it is probably my failure to express myself sufficiently.

Again, I am not equating the two the way that you believe I am equating them.  I do not see how it was inellectually dishonest at all.  I wish you would not use that term.  Otherwise, explain to me how I was intellectually dishonest.

Apologize for what?  I hope you will better understand the argument after reading this post.  If not, tell me where it is wrong.  Don't make broad statements that are impossible to respond to.

I actually am in favor of absolute equal rights.? I am against calling it marriage.? Just as I think the Christian right should be sensitive to equal rights for homosexuals, I think homosexuals should be sensitive to the importance of marriage within the Christian faith.

Every state where gay marriage has come to a vote, the people have soundly rejected it.? Courts are imposing it the states by broad interpretations of the Constitutions.?

If a legislature passes it, I am all for it.? However, this is not the strategy.? The strategy is to shop the cases to liberal judges that remove the issue from the legislature and debate.

Hope that claifies my position.

Guess you don't fuck your girlfriend in the ass huh?

you mean his boyfriend ?

I understand the argument.? But by using a specifically inflamatory example you undermine the strength of the argument.? It's intellectually dishonest because you're attempting to tie in the reaction to the example to strengthen your argument.? That's pandering (meaning this definition: "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses", not the one involving prostitution. :) ) rather than hyperbole.? And, quite frankly, I think it's beneath you.


That's my point.? And you just admitted it.? So, again, I find that offensive when better, less inflamatory examples could have just as easily made your point.? Drawing the comparison, even for the justaposition you were using it for, just serves to weaken your point.


No, I understood the argument.? I thought you constructed it poorly by choosing the examples you did....and if you look at Mr. Flagg's early arguments, you'll see more of an example of just WHY I thought it was a poor choice...a very, very, very poor choice.

I respectfully disagree.? Other examples, such a polygamy, are not considered as morally repugnant as child pornography.? The reaction to a polygamy example may be: hey, that should be legal as well.? I don't think anyone would say the same of child pornography.? Thus, important moral choices must still be made.? How is it intellectually dishonest to tie in a reaction?? That is the specific point of the argument.? Certain things we find more morally repugnant than others.? Legislatures are a better place to pick and choose.? Courts make broad sweeping decisions that can't pick and choose as easily.?

Although I don't care to discuss my private life on a public forum, the two aren't related.  If I were to engage in anal sex with my girlfriend, it would be purely for sexual gratification.  I would still be attracted to her because she is a female and has a vagina, not because I want to poon her in the ass.

Really classy Wat-Ever.  Aren't you supposed to be making video games, or did they reject your ass because of your total lack of originality and humor.

Because rather than live or die on the merit of the argument, you're attempting to bolster your point with emotion rather than merit.? Again, it's pandering...which by it's definition, when used in "debate",? is intellectually dishonest.? I'm sorry you don't like the term, or take offense by it's use, but it is what it is.? You can feel free to disagree (obviously you do).? But I just don't respect the way you made your point....and it's obvious others posting here feel the same way.  And it's made even more obvious by the turn the discussion took after your post.....rather than discuss the point, the discussion instead turned to the inflamatory piece of it.  I think that's all the evidence you should need about the effectiveness of the tactic you used.

I think you are missing the point.? Because this is a complex argument, beyond the grasp of many on this board, an example must be used to explain the argument to many.  Under my argument, an example has to be chosen that shows the difference between two things morally.? Many people believe that polygamy and gay marriage are on the same level.? The point would not be made by using polygamy as an example.? The merit of the argument is that we must make moral choices.? On the one side, we have two things that are totally different but would be looked at the same under a broad decision on the basis of moral jurisprudence.? I am not appealing to emotion to skew the merit of the argument.? The argument is that we judge things differently morally.? I gave a perfect example of that.? Your reaction to the example, in fact, confirmed the strength of the example in support of my argument.

Again, I don't see how I am exploiting the weakness in others.? I simply used a clear cut example of two things that are not at the same moral level.? How is it intellectually dishonest to use a strong example?? Sometimes examples have to be used to prove arguments.? Is it pandering everytime SLC or others quote the death toll in Iraq to bolster their position?? Just because an example is strong, and a lesser example could be used, does not mean you are pandering.? It is definately not intellectually dishonest.? I believe it is intellectually dishonest to characterize the nature of my argument and call me intellectually dishonest when you have yet to counter or explain how my argument or my example is wrong or misguided.? Instead, you simply continue to state that my use of child pornography as an example is pandering.? If I am being intellectually dishonest then tell me where my argument is incorrect?? Tell me why my example does not work?? I assume that either you can't or you don't understand the argument.? ?

I can't speak for other people that can't handle an adult discussion.? Some people don't read closely enough and follow logical arguments.? They read what they want to read.? I can't help that; I also do not take responsibility for that.? Notice how I did not enter that discussion.? There are many posters on this board that can't handle intellectual debate.? I have limited my posts to the legal side the gay marriage debate.? I have purposely not entered the debate on the moral arguments.? ?

Again, tell me how my example is wrong or incorrect?? Tell me how it doesn't prove my point.? Perhaps you don't like the substance of my argument or the conclusion that I come to.? If so, counter it.? Tell me how my example is wrong.

I have, and well.  But you don't want to accept, or see, the layout of my point.  That's fine and your perogative.  I stand by my assertion, and will continue to do so.  Your argument engaged in sensationalistic pandering and, as such, was intellectually dishonest, relying not on merit (which it might have had if presented less offensively) but on calculated emotional response.  You admitted, right in your last post, that you did it and your motive, that is your lack of respect for most/some posters reading your words and a lack of faith in their ability to grasp your point otherwise.  Your own admission makes my point for me.  You said, yourself, you used the example BECAUSE it was inflamatory...not because it was particularly strong (you've come back to that because the Emperor has no clothes, I assume).  And my reaction to your argument ACTUALLY speaks directly to how ineffective it was.  Because, in using the example (and as you can see from other posters) you made it almost impossible to get PAST the example and TO the point for many.  Again, that also goes to my point about intellectual dishonesty.: You're waving  sensationalistic things out there to grab attention but could effectively make an actual point with much less extreme, much less offensive, subjects.  You're drawing attention away from what the actual point was....because you obviously didn't think you could make a strong point without the sensationalistic pandering (something you admit to in your post, actually).  I disagree.  I think you can.  But by catering to a more base element, you undermine your construct, perverting it.

You don't need to be incorrect to engage in intellectual dishonesty.  You can be completley correct.  Sometimes it's about HOW you display being correct, and construct your argument, and not just being right.  That's why it's "intellectual" and not "actual" dishonesty.  You're involved with the law...you know that perfectly well.

And not "taking responsibility" for the results of your words, and also not respecting your audience, is a cop out,  and you know it.

OH, and:
"To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses" .

You continuously defend your characterization of my argument through false assumptions of the point I was trying to make.  The fact that you still characterize my post the same despite my explanations can only be that you fail to understand the argument and perhaps I have failed to present it  in an understandable fashion

That's fine.  I continue to stand by mine, and I am completely certain you point is without merit.

This is where I think you having trouble grasping the argument.  How was it offensive?  The argument was specifically meant to show that there are many areas that aren't recognized legally based on moral perceptions.  This is absolutely true.  The argument I presented is that among these different areas there is a wide spectrum of things.  On the one hand, we have homosexuality and gay marriage.  Which is not seen as repugnant to most and certainly not on the same level as others.  On the other hand, we have child pornography.  This is something that I believe everyone can agree is offensive and should be outlawed.  Under the analysis of equal protection or substantive due process, the Court has to frame the issue in a broad fashion to decide that either of these is protected by the Constitution.  The Court cannot pick and choose.  This is undeniable.  Thus, I am arguing that by leaving these issues to the legislature, we can pick and choose what illegal or unrecognized areas we think should continue to be banned and unrecognized and which ones should not be.  Tell me how this analysis is flawed or offensive?

If people want to take the words pediphilia/child pornography and homosexuality/gay marriage - when placed in the same sentence - out of the context that I was putting it in and draw other comparisons, they are free to do so.  I do not agree with those comparisons.  However, I can't prevent them from making them.  There is always going to be certain people that can't keep an argument at an intellectual level.

I guess I probably shouldn't have said that was why I used it.  I did not mean inflammatory in the sense of trying draw attention to the argument or appealing to people's prejudices.  I think "strongest" would be the more appropriate word.  It is the most clear cut example of two things that are illegal for moral reasons, but that are clearly on a different moral ground.  Why would I use polygamy when that example is clearly not as strong?  I will backtrack from agreeing with your characterization of inflammatory; that is not how I meant it.  Hopefully, this clarifies my position.   

Again, if people can't handle grown-up conversations without taking things out of contexts, that is their problem not mine.  My argument does not degrade homosexuals or gay marriage in any way.  Please tell me how it does?  Your reaction to my argument has lead me to believe one of two things: either you just don't understand the argument or I didn't explain myself sufficiently.  In all do respect, your failure to understand my argument despite several posts of explaining it leads me to believe that either still down understand it or you just don't want to concede that my post was not how you originally characterized it.

I am using the strongest clear-cut argument to prove my point.  I think any effective writer or debater would do the same.  I am sorry, but we are talking about moral laws.  When you are distinguishing between things that are moral and comparing it to things that may not be, you get into offensive subjects.  It is specifically this line of demarcation that underlies the entire point I was trying to make.


You have failed to demonstrate that any part of my argument was constructed poorly.  Your only argument is that I juxtaposed two subjects that are completely different and not morally on the same level.  However, the entire point was that they are completely different and not on the same level, but, unfortunately, they are on the same level legally.  My argument was geared at how to legally recognize one without legally recognizing the other.

? But the only instance of being intellectually dishonest that you pointed out is inaccurate.  Your characterization of my post as offensive and appealing to sensibilities is also inaccurate.  You constructed my argument the way you perceived it and then called it intellectually dishonest.  I am trying to explain to you that your construction of my argument is false.  Our entire discussion is based on a false premise that you made about my argument.

I am supposed to take responsibility for people taking my arguments and examples out of context?  Come on now.  I can't believe you would try to place the blame of that on me.

Apparently it' s you having a hard time grasping the point....which doesn't surprise me all things considered. And now you're backpedaling on earlier statements because they prove my point.? And I'm convinced it's has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with desire.? But I'm not going to continue to argue in circles.? I'm sure you WISH to think my dissent has no merit but....I think it's obvious, all things considered, that it does.

I understand your argument quite well. I understand the point you were trying to make (there are two seperate moral decisions, one more reprehensible than the other...the legislature should decide which, not the courts).? It's just irresponsibly constructed using inflamatory examples simply to pander to readers you don't respect.? That's it, in a nutshell.? I'm characterizing it exactly as you have presented it, and explained it, and then using the motive you admitted to....not to mention you have, in previous posts, admitted to every bit of it.? You're waving a sensationalistic example around simply becasue it's sensationalistic and inflamatory (which you admitted and now backpedal from)....rather than because it illustrates your argument strongly.? The example you use, and the comparison it conjures, is offensive and unneccessary.? But you knew that when you constructed the argument in the first place (and admitted as much).....and thought it added some sort of weight to the point.? It doesn't.? In fact, the intellectual dishonesty of doing so detracts and obfuscates your point.

Again, you go back to the point itself.? I'm not arguing the point.? I'm arguing the way it was presented and the examples used to illustrate it....you're pandering, not solely making a point, and using examples to draw attention to the point (really, to the examples), rather than MAKE the point.

I have demonstrated, quite well, your argument was poorly constructed, I think.? YOUR OPINION is that I did not....I can live with that, all things considered.? I think my dissent has merit.? Your opinoin is that it doesn't.? Again, I can live with that, all things considered.? I had little hope of changing your mind from the get go....

As for the construction of your argument....you can argue "false premise" all you want.? But the original is there, for everyone to see, as is the resulting discussion....and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, as are your admissions to doing exactly as I assert (though you've backpeddled now on one of your statements).? I think, as an assertion, that's all the proof I need to validate MY point.

And with that....I've made my point.? We're arguing in circles now.....

One question! Why don't we take this out of the courts and put it on the ballots? Why? how do you think the American people would vote for it?

Once Again I due not intend to offend anyone!

It's a tough question. The use of an extreme example I think.

For some, it might be exactly that, that turns someone away from the point itself. A person reads someones post to a certain point, sees an example like that, totally misinterprits the point and the whole post for that matter, and flames the shit out of the original poster. But that, I think, is in a way very similar to what happened with Kerry's words the other day. Repubplicans took his words out of context and since the wording was not the best possible, they attacked the point taken out of the context and the whole point was lost. I believe it is a more a question of not wanting to understand something, than not actually understanding it.

BerkleyRiot's example was over the top (though I don't mind). I admit doing that sometimes myself. Especially if I'm not that fond of the opposing side. Sort of throwing a bait to see if someone actually understands the point or just grabs the hook without seeing beyond that. I don't think using an extreme example undermines the point every time though. Like in this example. It might at first though. A persons reaction at first might be directed more towards the example if he/she doesn't think it's acceptable or politically correct. But after explaining the point in more detail (in the following posts), the opposing side will be more commited to reading the posts, and maybe understanding the original point better. Though there's always the part of the people that after the first post will only be commited to searching flaws in the opposite side's latter posts even more instead of actually listening. But those type of people will be very hard to convince no matter what you say (not talking about you pilferk since you obviously do understand the point, just don't agree with the presentation). They've usually based on their opinion on the poster itself rather than the subject already before the original post. This opinion comes usually from past behaviour in previous threads, or the differences in views on other issues (usually people who post in these threads are people who've been posting here for some time).

It's a tough

to go back on subject:
what are you defending here :
sanctity of marriage ?
heterosexual lifestyle?
perenity of human race ?

tough call.  in my opinion i don't think the majority should always rule.  The rights of the minority have to be protected as well.  I'm going to assume that the majority of people back in the day didn't want woman voting or non-whites voting - yet I don't think anyone here will argue that those were bad ideas. 

well it depends ...

Who gives a rat's ass.

Everybody should have equal rights in America.

We have more important things to vote on.

Who Gives a rats ass? Maybe the American Public? Majority rules with respect for minority rights, does not mean you can circumvent the publics right to have an opinion and vote on this. Instead of going directly to the courts maybe we should direct this with the people of this country, Not Activist and Conservative judges. If the people with that feel strongly enough about this would spend half the time and effort to maybe inform the public about there cause I believe they would be alot farther then they are currently.

Now budfox why don't you go sling some half ass insults around!

You should not have to vote on basic human rights.

In America we are all entitled to them.

I know you hate to hear that.

We are arguing in circles.  I believe you have completely missed the point, and you are simply regurgitating your previous argument instead of stating how the example was offensive in the context I presented it in.  You have simply failed to address it.  Insted, you continue to make conclusory assertions. 

Again, I shouldn't have said that it was meant to be inflammatory.  That is not what I meant.  If you don't believe me, so be it.  As I explained earlier, I simply used the strongest example to prove my point. 

Does the unborn child have a say in his human rights?

 How does bringing unwanted children into the world make the world a better place?  I'm no expert but I can abso-fucking-lutely guarantee you 9 times out of 10 the unwanted kid will be more likely to fuck our world up.Unloved children are a burden on society.  Handicapped children are not a burden, the real burden is unloved children. 

 Bad parents create bad children, and bad children become bad adults.  No child brought into this world by parents that love and care for the baby inside and outside the womb is a bad kid.  They're all good.  However, parents that don't want kids...parents that have kids to keep up with the Jones's...parents that aren't involved in their kids' lives...parents that care more about their socio-economic status than their kids' lives...parents that don't know how to use birth control...these parents create shitty kids.  9 times out of 10, scratch that, 100% of abortions (when not medically necessary or if in response to rape) are due to irresponsible acts.  Do you really want a higher ratio of irresponsible parents to responsible parents to exist?  That's not a good plan to create a better society.

 I've said it before, I'll say it again, in time technology will devise a way to eliminate the chance of fertilization with sex.  In 100 years, the only folks making babies the old-fashioned way will live in 3rd world countries, or belong to organized religions that will gently force them to have babies the way "god" intended them to have babies.  :)

My point was not to bring up the abortion debate because i really dont think anyone here knows my pov on the issue. It was simply to prove his hypocrisies.

What does that have to do with gay rights?  :hihi:

I think he might be admitting that homosexuality can be present in utero!   Just kidding, everybody knows that homosexuals make the choice to be gay.  They make the choice to live as 2nd-class citizens.  (sarcasm alert!   ;D )

What a gaggle of focking hypocrites.

Fox is going to start selling crank to GOP evangelical base soon. Please place an extra few bucks in the collection plate this week, cold medicine is getting harder to get a hold of.

down.


You say that everyone is entitled to basic human rights, but your blind to your own hypocrisies.

smooth one little boy. I hope some day you find that your pointless godless life leads you to some purpose.

And I believe the exact same of you (though I don't think you MISSED the point, I just feel you don't want to address it)...that's why I said we were arguing in circles.? It's not that I've failed to address it, it's that you don't want to see the point I've made.? Fair enough.

Again, I feel I've made? my point to anyone objectively reading the discussion.? Others (like Skeba, for example) seem to have "gotten the point" quite easily, so I have no thoughts I haven't presented my point well.? Your reaction to it, all things considered, isn't surprising.

Oh, and on the "inflamatory" thing...you're right, I don't believe you.? Sorry, I just don't. And I don't think many others reading this thread will, either.?It was a clear and decisive admission when you made it.  I think you're backpedaling because it so clearly illustrates my point.....

Great, I got that already..............

When did I say anything about abortion ?

I think he has: pointing out hypocrites like yourself................

Why do you keep calling him boy? I'm pretty sure he is old enough to be your Daddy.

well when you act childish people will treat you like a child, now go play.

Okay, both sides...

If you have nothing to add that has to do with the actual subject... don't say anything at all.

Gaggle... :hihi:...I love it!

(insert third person MCT pun here)

Just because somebody says something you don't like while making a fool out of you, does not mean they are "acting like a child."

He is correct: The right wing (especially the Christian base) are a bunch of hypocrites. On one hand they preach against gays, denying their rights (which is unAmerican), and making the false argument that gay marriage would "erode the institution of marriage." At the same time, these very same people are having gay sex and doing drugs!

 

Those bastards.

Actually, your entire argument is based on a false premise.  You characterize my original post as a comparison of two things which you contend is offensive.  I have repeatedly asked you to explain how it is offensive or inflammatory.  You have failed to do so and continue to dodge the question.  I have explained how it was not meant to be offensive or inflammatory.  You fail to address any of those points.

You have presented your point fine.  However, it is based on a mischaracterization of my point.  Your entire premise is that my characterization is offensive and inflammatory.  Yet, you have failed to state how.  I have repeatedly explained that it is not offensive, and in fact, quite the contrary. 

Again, that's your problem.  I admit when I make a mistake.  I made one in responding to your post.  Your assertion that my agreement that the example was inflammatory has no basis in reason or logic.  I explained that I chose the example because it was the "strongest" example of the point I was trying to make.  I did not make it because it was offensive or inflammatory.  If you can't see the distinction based on the argument I have presented, that is your problem.  It makes no sense to characterize the example as offensive or inflammatory, and you have failed to show how the example is such.  Instead you will simply say it is so because I mistakenly agreed with you as I was trying to make another point in a quick post.  Your conclusory argument that it is so, does not make it so.  If you would rather stand on that instead of tackling the fundamental question - how is it offensive? - then that is your perogative.  However, it does show to me that you are more focused on escaping this discussion believing that you are right than actually discussing the issue at hand.  I have repeatedly stated that the exmaple was meant to show that homosexual marriage is on a separate moral platform from other things that are banned morally - most notably child pornogrpahy.  How is that offensive or inflammatory?

So here is the question: how is the example offensive or inflammatory in the context of my argument?  I don't want you to say that you have already explained how because you have not. 

You are usually a pretty stand-up guy, however, your failure to actually address these issues, your mischaracterization of my argument, and your failure to address or counter my explanation for the mistake I made is particularly illuminating.  You have chosen to simply stand on that mistake as the entire basis that you are correct in your characterization.  I have repeatedly explained how you are wrong.  You fail to address these points in every one of your posts, and instead choose to simply argue the same rehtoric with the same conclusory arguments.  Again, I will believe that your position and failure to address the points that I have made is based on stubborness rather than a lack of understanding.

How is it a false argument?  Just because the institution of marriage has been eroding over the years, does not support eroding it more. 

It is a false argument because nobody can explain how it is "eroding" the institute of marriage.

Let me ask again: How is it eroding marriage?

Nobody has ever been able to answer that.

How do two men getting married erode my relationship with my wife? With you and your wife?

Please tell us all.

No one said that it affects individual relationships.  Again, I am kind of indifferent on the issue.  I recognize the argument on both sides.  The argument is that marriage is, and always has been between a man and a woman.  It is a religious relationship that dates back centuries.  Most religions - Islam, Christianity, and Judaism - believe that homosexuality is immoral and goes against the traditional man/woman relationship.  Now, it is one thing for these relationships to exist and for them to be sponsored by the state.  It is another thing for them to be called marriage - a term symbolizing a relgious relationship.  Most religions promote the traditional family.  The marriage between the man and the woman is at the center of the traditional family.  Allowing two same-sex people to marry undercuts this traditional family relationship.  There are many moral judgments that occur everyday in regards to relationships between people.  I am sure that you make your own as well.  Whether or not the government should pick and choose morality is a debateable issue and one that is at the center of today's culture war.  However, I think it is naive and insensitive to say that allowing a relationship which is considered immoral by most all religious standards to take part in the most sacred of all religious activities does not and should not have any effect on these religious people or their sacred institution of marriage.

Overtime, there have been numerous things that have undermined or has begun to tear away at the traditional religious institution of marriage.  For example, the high divorce rate which has been a result of no-fault divorces has undermined the institution of marriage by allowing any easy exit from the institution of marriage.  Does this damage my relationship with my wife or your relationship with yours?  No.  Nevertheless, it does affect the overall institution.

Recognizing these arguments, and the fact that I believe it is a good thing to promote commitments between gay couples, I think there is an alternative.  Whether we want to call it civil unions or, to quote a paper I once read, "smarriage", I think we definately should provide the couples the same rights that we provide heterosexual couples.  This is the easiest way to solve the issue and to be sensitive to both sides.

Berkeley you're assuming all people that get married are involving religion.  Half the weddings I've been to thats been the case, the other half there was no place of worship, no priest/rabbi, no praying - nothing at all to do with religion - it was simply about the love of the husband/wife getting married.  You don't need to be religious in America to be married under the eyes of the government.  If religious people don't understand that some people aren't as religious as they are or simply not religious at all that is their problem - and as said before, it doesn't undermind or weaken their marriage whatsoever.

As for "calling it something else" for gays - that is not an answer.  Its either equal for everyone or not equal at all.  If someone told you, you can have the same rights as this person, but you had to call it something else, I'm sure it would bother you.  To those who would argue, well its just a word who cares - well, then just call it marriage!

I'll never understand why people get SO upset over what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.  It just blows me away (not saying anyone in particular, just people in general).

I am not making that assumption; I am simply outlining the argument by those that disagree with gay marriiage.? I agree that not all married people are religious.? However, most people do get married to start a traditional family.?

Marriage is an area where the government now takes part in what has traditionally been a religious institution.? I agree that this complicates the issue.? Nonetheless, marriage is a relgious institution that came from religion.? The more that the tradition of marriage moves away from this, the more that religious people may take offense.? As you well? know, the traditional family is what underlies these religions and marriage.? Homosexual marriage is a clear step away from the tradition of marriage.? I understand the argument made by the religious people, and I think that people should be sensitive to it.

But why does it have to be called marriage?? Every gay couple I have ever heard speak on the issue has said that they merely want the same rights such as social security, taxation, and other rights.? I think it is the only way to be sensitive to both sides, and it is surely the quickest way to get equal rights.  If it is just a word, and not actual rights, then why is it such a big deal to call it marriage.  The american public wants to provide equal rights, but they agree with me on the use of  the term.  I don't see why it is such a big deal to call it marriage. ?

I agree.? I am not a big advocate of legislating what people do in the privacy of their own homes, although there are lines that should not be crossed.? However, that is not really what is at issue with this debate.?

I did address them.? Repeatedly.? That's what I mean about you not WANTING to get the point.? Reread my posts.? It's all laid out, right there.? Skeba understood it just fine.? Other posters seem to understand it to.? I think your inability to view your own words objectively is clouding your comprehension. But you wish to distract from the initial point and drag the conversation to other avenues, rather than actually discuss my point.

 As for "how is it inflamatory and offensive"....are you serious?? How is an implied or conjured juxtaposition with pedophelia, simply to garner attention and pander to your audience, offensive?? Why is pedophelia, as an example, inflamatory?? You seriously need me to explain that?

By using a purposefully inflamatory example (again, it's not a false premise, you admitted to it and backpedaled....say, again, you were mistaken.? I doubt many reasonable people will believe you), simply to garner attention, you are pandering.? You are also inviting a comparison, based on your juxtaposition, an ability to comprehend it and reach a conclusion, on a moral level (witness the discussion immediately after your posts) which has nothing to do with your point but is, instead, salacious, inflamatory, and offensive.? You do all this because you, admittedly, lack respect for your "audience" and their ability to see your point, so you feel the need to offer them something that will grab their attention, rather than make your point. You wave the red flag, rather than stand on the merit of the point itself, using a less inflamatory, but equally strong, example.? And, rest assured, there were other ones out there....hell, you've mentioned at least one of them in this thread.


No, it's your problem, actually....just as the problem of the offensive construct is yours...and just as the problem with your "audience" comprehending your argument is yours.?You were the author of the original post(s)...so, whether you want the responsibility or not, you have it.? ?You were the one who made the admission so now have to take the lumps, so to speak.? First off, if the situations were reversed, you would come to the exact same conclusion:? That someone was backpedaling.? Second, logically, I'm left to assume one of two things: a) That you, an intelligent person who is usually quite reasonable and "crafts" their responses, misread my post, misstated your intent, and misrepresented his viewpoint or b) you're backpedaling because you realize the admission proves my point.? I have more respect for you than to believe a) and I've seen you discuss things enough, sticking closely to your original opinion, to believe b) to be more likely.

 And I have explained why it's offensive.? In at least 3 different posts.? Why should I explain it yet again if you refuse to understand it thus far?? If others weren't grasping the point, I'd wonder if I was making myself clear.? But, given the comprehension displayed by anyone LEFT in this thread, at this point, I have to think the issue lies elsewhere...


I sure have, and I'm not going to do it for a 4th time.? Reread my posts.  Heck, you even admitted it was...backpedal or not.? You can't just say I haven't when my previous posts contain the information you're asking for....because saying it simply doesn't make it true.
 

I have addressed the issues.? You just refuse to comprehend my argument.? Fair enough.

I have not mischaracterized your argument.? I summarized it quite well in a previous post.? Your own admissions, backpeddaling or not, prove that summary quite well.

You haven't explained how I was wrong.? You say "I don't understand'.? That's not true.? I do..and layed out your argument in pretty straightforward terms to prove it.? But you haven't addressed my point because you refuse to comprehend it.? And I would offer you have given me nothing to comprehend, besides "no, you're wrong" or "no, you don't understand" because of your OWN stubborness (are you projecting?).? In re-reading YOUR posts, you've essentially admitted almost everthing I've asserted so I'm not even sure why you continue to argue the point.....

Here's what the entire discussion now boils down to:? I say you've admitted to every assertion I've made, pretty much, in my reasoning, and you don't even argue that point.? Your only argument is that you "made a mistake" when copping to purposefully using an inflamatory argument.? So that's where we're at....the entire dicussion hinges on that....You're going to say you made a mistake, and no matter how much you do, I'm not going to believe you.? So...why are we continuing to talk in circles again?? I think reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion in reading what's already been written. Don't you?

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying.

The problem is we're really talking about 2 seperate instituations with the same name.? There is "marriage", the religious institution, and "marriage", the state sponsored institution.?While they cover, in a broad manner, the same sort of thing (a commitment to a relationship) they really have completely seperate "domains", rules, and benefits. Homosexuals are not, necessarily, asking for blanket endorsement of the first but would like the benefits of the 2nd.

I'm not really for reinventing the wheel, and rewriting all the tons of legislation that exists, to create a "new institution".? If the legislators could find a way to do it with minimal fuss and fudget....that's fine.? But, realize, I think if there is a change in terminology, it should apply to EVERYONE: gay or straight.? That way marriage remains a religious sacrement/institution and the "state sponsored" institution, "smarriage" is a good a name as any, becomes the governmental institution.? And never the two shall meet, if you get my meaning.? I mean, other than terminology, I think we pretty much have that now.

All that being said, I think the recognition of marriage (or "smarriage", if you'd rather) is a state right, not anything the fed should get involved in, at this level.

I hear what you're saying Berkeley and you make some great points... but I think we're forgetting another group of people who wouldn't be ok with calling their union something other then marriage: Homosexuals who are religious.

There are plenty of homosexuals who are deeply religious and their take on god (lets face it, there are dozens) is that god loves everyone and what not.  So to tell them they can have rights is one thing, but to tell them they can't be married.  I don't think they'd find that acceptable.  Just food for thought. 

Again, if you change, completely, the terminology in the realm of governmental oversight...you then leave the sactioning of "marriage", rather than "smarriage", up to the individual churches. 

I wil pretty much take your post as a concession that you cannot demonstrate that the example was offensive or inflammatory.  I pretty much anticipated that you would not be able to prove that it was in the context of my argument.  Instead, you go back to your original misreading of the argument.  Again, "my mistake" does not make it inflammatory or offensive.  In my last post, I demonstrated that it could not be offensive or inflammatory in the context of my argument.  Rather than addressing those points, you decided to simply stand on a post that I said was mistaken.  I would understand your position if it made sense in the context of my argument.  However, it does not.  And you cannot show that it does, and you continue to refuse to attempt to do so. 

The reason we are talking in circles is because you fail to address an issue that is the basis for your entire argument.  Instead you assume it to be true and simply stand on my mistaken agreement.  I admit that I made a mistake.  However, that in itself does not make it inflammatory or offensive.  You still cannot prove this to be true. 

I explained how this example was the strongest example and how lesser examples were inadequate.  I placed the two together to demonstrate that there certain areas where things are outlawed/not permitted because of moral reasons.  My example demonstrated that there is a wide spectrum of things that are banned morally.  The exmaple was to actually place homosexual marriage on a higher platform, not degrade.  Nevertheless, you continue to state that I am comparing the two in a degrading way.  I am tired of explaining to you that I have done no such thing.  You will not address these points; thus I assume you cannot.  Tell me how it is offensive in the context of my argument.  You have still failed to prove this point which your entire argument is based on. 

I agree with you 100%.  That is another logical step that can be taken to minimize the fuss on both sides.  Don't call it marriage for either group.

I also agree with you on your last point.  What do you believe legally?  Is there a basis in the federal Constitution to overturn the state laws prohibiting gay marriage?

I think Pilferk answered this question sufficiently.  Let me just add, individual churches can still marry gay couples today.  They are just not recognized legally today.  The main problem is that gay couples are treated differently than heterosexual couples under state law.  Calling both institutions something different under state law solves this problem.  It also is sensitive to the religious people that don't want the term marriage to be changed by the state.

No, I've pretty much layed out why we're talking in circles....and you continue to do so anyway. Just because you SAY I haven't addressed the basis of my argument doesn't make it so....no matter how many times you say it.? I invite any objective reader/poster in this thread to re-read my posts and offer up the same objection...I doubt you'll have any takers.? Skeba, on the other hand, while disagreeing with me, immediately saw my point, and your tactics, and pointed them out.? I think that speaks volumes, here.

And I take YOUR post as a concession that you are unwilling to actually understand what's been written....and your desire to drag the discussion's focus off your initial post, in general.? Every assertion you make, above, concerning me not addressing the issue is false and the proof is in my posts. Others understand it, and have commented on it.? You saying otherwise doesn't make it so, and, actually, just makes you look foolish.? It astounds me that you continue to flat out ignore what I've written simply because it attacks your construct.? Using pedophelia, in an example such as the one you portray, is inflammatory. Do I need to provide you a definition? Inflammatory:? tending to cause anger, animosity, or indignation.? Ignore, for a moment, the topic itself is inherently inflammatory....How can you, a reasonable person, NOT think the discussion of pedophelia, in justaposition to homosexuality or homosexual marraige....and inviting a moral comparison of the two, no matter what conclusion you WANT your "audience" to come to ,isn't inflammatory?? The answer is...you can't.? You know full well the make up of these discussions.? You know full well some of the belief sets espoused here. You can't bury your head in the sand and shirk responsibility for what your audience is going to take away (and be drawn to) in your words...hell, you WANTED them to be drawn to them so you pandered to them..and you then admitted it.? It's absolutely cut and dry, no matter how much you deny it.

 You saw the results immediately following your post..how can you even argue it was NOT inflamatory? Your "I dont' take responsiblity for them" argument is a complete cop out...you wrote it.? They're your audience. You know the make up of it. It "inflamed" the suffixing poster(s), for gods sake.? It's the very definition of inflamatory, and you used it BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT WOULD BE. And you admitted it, no matter how much backpedaling you want to do now.? Using that argument, in the manner you did, is offensive because it's intellectually dishonest and it conjured a comparsion, regardless of whether or not that comparison was related to the original point or not, that was offensive.? And you did it all for shock value to draw in an audience you admittedly have no respect for.? What more proof needs to be offered up?

But, of course, I've said the same things over and over and you just refuse to comprehend them...instead choosing to continue to unproductively argue in circles.

As for standing on your "mistaken agreement"....in truth, the confession is all, really, any reasonable person needs.? And your backpedaling, quite frankly, seems further proof of it's definitiveness.? You're right in that you did make a mistake....the mistake was owning up to the real reason for using the argument rather than the backpedal stance you've now adopted.? But now, it's the crux of the matter.? Say what you want.? I don't believe you were "mistaken".? So...there you have it. I'm pretty content, at this point, to let the "jury" decide....but you do keep protesting.? Again, the boiled down reason we're still arguing in circles.

As for the "purpose of your example", we've covered that in your own admissions.? I understand your original point and argument, no matter how much you seem to want to convey otherwise.? It was recklessly, irresponsibly, and intellectually dishonestly constructed to draw attention to it, rather than provide good foundation for it.? You can argue that other comparisons are "weaker", but I think you're wrong.? That's demonstrated by the fact you made the same point using those examples later, and everyone "got it" with no problems and you certainly haven't proven otherwise (your explanation is simply opinion based on your closeness to the construct being discussed, rather than an objective view of strength). The other examples illustrate the point just fine....better, in fact, because they don't draw attention away from the point, itself, because they are not as inflammatory.? They just don't draw as much attention to your point.....which you knew when you constructed your post, and is entirely the reason you used the example you did.  Shock value.

What you dislike is that you were "called" on it......and thus, the discussion that has ensued, and your recent attempt to deflect the conversation a bit to what I've said (or, as you claim, not said) rather than what you have, in fact, said.

I don't think there is any Constitutional point that would give the fed the right to overturn laws prohibiting (or allowing) state sanctioning of gay marriage, per se.? Marriage has always, pretty much, been within the realm of state rights, to the point that it is up to the individual states to even recognize marriages from another state or not.? Short of some sort of Constitutional Ammendment, I think the fed has no basis to get involved because, unlike other areas where they've stepped in in relation to marriage, this version does nothing to harm the federal government or take advantage of federal programs.

Now, whether someone could argue that there was discrimination, or not, to get the state to offer the same rights to gay couples (but not call it marriage...perhaps "legal cohabitation with companion rights"..something like that) that they offer to married couples...I don't know.? I tend to think not, but that would surprise me less than the Court "taking on" the actual institution of marriage, in general.? The court has been known, in the past, to do things like that...though the current make up of the Court makes them more of an enigma right now...not alot of bench precedent as SCJ's for the newbies, ya know.

OK, one last attempt.

With all due respect, I don't believe that many people on this board have an understanding of the argument that was made. ?It was a legal argument. ?I have tried to explain it. ?You are one person that I would have expected to understand it considering some of our past discussions. ?Whether you do not, or refuse to, I am not sure.

Actually, my friend, you have drawn the discussion off the initial post. ?You have not once discussed the merit of the actual argument presented in the post. ?Instead, you have attacked construction of the argument through a mischaracterization of an example that was made in the post.?

Actually, I don't think they have. ?Skeba wrote a broad post on using extreme examples. ?His conclusion was that extreme examples are sometimes needed. ?I still do not characterize my example as an extreme one as I have explained repeatedly. ?I don't think anyone has followed our posts or our arguments to a level to come to a conclusion on who is right.

Actually you look foolish for failing to tackle a question that is the root of the entire disagreement. ?I asked it in about four or five posts in a row. ?Everytime, you say that you answered it. ?Call me all of the names you want, but you never answered this question.

Actually, the example was child pornography, not pedophelia. ?Here you go, more conclusory arguments. ?I will attack your argument line by line:

How does my example cause anger, animosity, or indignation? ?And against whom does it cause it??

Again, the comparison was of things that are banned/not permitted because of moral reasons. ?My argument is that not all things that are banned for these reasons are at the same level. ?I gave an example of two prime things. ?I can understand your argument if I was arguing that these two things are similar. ?But I was not. ?In fact, I was arguing that they are no where near similar, yet they are treated the same under the law. ?So who is that inflammaroty to? ?Who does that offend? ?

Are these things not both banned because of moral reasons?

Are these things not at different levels morally?

Does the fact that these things are different morally support my argument that not all moral things are at the same level?

Does my argument offend homosexuals? ?If so, how? ?I am arguing that it is on a different moral level than other things that are banned for moral reasons. ?Please explain how this is offfensive to homosexuals?

Tell me how my construct is flawed. ?You simply cannot do so.

The conclusion that I want my audience to come to is that these things are on a different level. ?The fact that they are treated the same under the law is not my problem. ?I think your problem is that they are treated the same under the law - banned/not permitted. ?I am pointing that out. ?This makes me dishonest? ?This makes my example inflammatory? ?The fact that I pointed this out does not make my argument inflammatory. ?In fact, quite the opposite; it supports my argument that they should be treated differently. ?I think the motive of the writer and the conclusion that I am trying to draw from the argument is very important in determining the merit and motivation of the example that I have used. ?Unfortunately, my argument does call one to compare two things that are on a different level morally. ?However, the example is used to show that currently these things are treated the same, and they should not be treated the same. ?I don't know how else you can construct the argument that I have constructed. ?

Pandered to who?  Those that are against homosexuality?  My argument goes completely against the thoughts of that crowd.  How can you sit there with an honest face and say that I am trying to pander to them.  I will bet you that everyone of them disagrees with the conclusion and argument that I have presented.  That is the fundamental flaw in your argument.  You are comparing the two things in my example and assume that I am arguing that they are similar.  In fact, I am saying they are treated similarly by are completely different.  There is no flaw in that argument whatsoever.  Just because people want to compare the two and argue that they are the same is not my problem.  It is completely inapposite to the argument I have made.  I strongly disagree with those people.

Your arguing that it is so does not make it so.  People's arguments get taken out of context all of the time.  That is what happened here.  I have repeatedly said that I disagree with the comparisons that were made after my post.

I have explained myself. You refuse to understand or read that explanation, but choose to believe what you want because it supports your position.  I have explained how it makes no sense in the context of my argument. 

I used it because it was the strongest example.  Many people believe that polygmay and bygamy are the same as homosexual marriage.  Thus, that example was not as strong.  No one agrees that child pornography should be legal.

You're pandering to the audience you admittedly don't respect.? You admitted to it in an earlier post.? You chose the example because you had no faith they would "get it" otherwise, or pay attention to it.? Why are we revisiting something you already admitted to and conceeded?

I am not saying you're comparing them as similar. You keep saying I do, and that it's the basis for my argument, but it's not.? In fact, I say the opposite. Say it over and over again. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.? I'm not sure how many more times I need to say it.? I'm saying, by conjuring the comparison AT ALL, you are inviting the moral lines to be drawn in opposition to the conclusion you're trying to make. That's irresponsible.? It's inflammatory because you know (and now, again, admit you know) it's likely some of your audience, with a particular viewpoint, is going to draw that conclusion/make that juxtaposition. Creating a construct you KNOW is going to invite that comparison is offensive and intellectually dishonest.? That's entirely the point.? You've now just made it for me, admitted you know it exists, and acknowledged it's validity.? I realize it was unwitting, but.....

Thanks, once again, for proving my point with your own words.? I'm sure you'll now backpedal.

Once again, I'm not saying your overall POINT is wrong.? The two things ARE quite different.? I'm saying the CONSTRUCT of your argument is "wrong".? I'm not sure how many times I have to say it before you abandon the "but my point is right" stance.? I agree.? Your point is right.? I've said it ad nauseum.

YOU conjured the comparison to the audience.....that your conclusion is different than theirs doesn't matter, especially when trying to make a point.? Just that fact you knew some readers very well WOULD reach a different, offensive conclusion is reason enough not to use the example because, when coming to that conclusion, it obliterates your point, obfuscating it behind the wrongheaded conclusion it can lead to.

It's the contstruct that caused it. You created it.? Not taking responsibility for that contstruct is a cop out....and I rather think you know it.


No, but you doing it makes it so.? Demonstrably doing it...right there, in black and white (or grey an black, as the case may be).? They didn't take it out of context, actually.? They drew their own conclusion FROM the context you provided them with (as you just admitted you thought they would) and with the conclusion you left them to make....granted, in opposition of your own opinion.? And THAT'S what happened.?


On the contrary...I have read what you wrote and believed it.? I have read your later explanation and believe it to be a cop out backpedal because, quite frankly, within the context of this discussion, and the post in question, it did make sense within the context of your argument...until you changed the context when conforted with your admission.? So now I'm left to choose one statement of yours to believe:? The initial one that made sense withint the context of the discussion, your tone, and the actual context of that post OR the one that appears disingenious, later, once confronted by your own words and their ramifications.? I think, all things considered, that's an easy call...no matter how much you protest to the contrary.? But, again, that's the boiled down crux of the matter...and I'm not sure why we're still discussing it.? He said....he said.? Do you really expect to get anywhere by continuing to rehash it?

You can assert it's only because it supports my postion that I adopt this stance...but your proof of that is your own biased opinion.? My proof, to the contrary, is contained within your own posts.? In this, again, I think I'm content to let the "jury" decide on their own...I know I'm not going to change YOUR mind...but you don't seem to be willing to do the same. Perhaps it's because you view your "explanation" the same way I do.


Obviously there are many people who believe (as evidenced by the posts after yours) pedophelia and homosexuality are the same thing, too....or roughly equivalent.? Using your own logic about strength, how is that example any stronger? More inflamatory...yes.? More offensive...yes.? More salacious...yes.? But stronger?? You've not provided evidence of that by a long shot....only your opinion that it is so.? Of course, that doesn't MAKE it so.

Oh, and your last sentence isn't exactly true, nor does it fit into your statement other than to be some sort of redirection.? There are probably roughly the same % of people that believe child porn should be legal as believe bigamy should be legal....I'm not sure of the exact number of bigamists or pedophiles but I'll bet both are relatively small numbers. Given the Christian Rights' opinion of bigamists.....I'd say it's a pretty strong parallel to draw.? ?Legality has nothing to do with the moral comparison you conjured, though.....other than to depict "moral" based legislation (which, FYI, I'm not so sure the child porn laws soley are...and I know the bigamy laws aren't) so it's all pretty much a moot point.

So I am making a comparison to people that I know won't be able to grasp the comparison in the context I am making it so that they make their own comparison that is completely inapposite to the point I was trying to make. ?Do you realize how ridiculous that is?



I constructed the argument to prove the point I was making the best that I could. ?People used compared the two things in ways that were opposite to my own. ?I think everyone did a good job in countering those arguments. ?To call me intellectually dishonest because people made a comparison that contradicts mine is patently ridiculous. ?You are better than that.

Thanks for clarifying it. ?It has nothing to do with my argument or the example that I made in the context of my argument. ?Your entire quibble is that you have somehow decided that I had an evil motivation for comparing the two things. ?Ironically, that motivation completely contradicts the argument that the example was meant to prove.

Actually you have just proved mine. ?All I can say, is that your argument is ridiculous and that I had no such motivation. ?You can believe it or not. ?I will soundly stand on all of the posts I have ever made in this forum as proof that I never write posts with underlying motivations as you allege. ?

Actually that is not what you are arguing. ?You admit that my argument is correct. ?You even admit that my example proves my argument. ?You simply call me wrong and intellectually dishonest because you contend that I made the example in order to pander to those that are against homosexuality even though my argument was meant to contradict the arguments from that crowd.

Thanks. ?My argument is sound as well. ?Regardless if my motivation was as you believe, the construct of the argument is not incorrect.

I think it is very important. ?I will disagree with you on this point. ?How can you blame me for viewpoints that are in clear contradiction to my own? ?When ever a point is made there are certainly those that will disagree with that point. ?Is it my problem that others do so? ?If someone posts an article or makes an argument that regarding the historical facts behind the holocaust, is that person responsible for those that are anti-semitic and make anti-jewish comments? ?If someone questions the language of the Koran and the use of Islam by Al Qaeda, is that person responsible for anti-muslim comments that may follow? ?If someone argues that Bush and the United States made a mistake in going into Iraq, is that person also responsible for anti-Bush or anti-american comments that follow? ?In each one of these cases, the resulting comments can be predicted. ?Nevertheless, I don't think it is fair to blame the person making the original argument. ?More importantly, in my case, the comments that came afterward are more contradictory to the argument that I made than the resulting comments in each of the example just stated. ?Again, these are big boy discussions. ?I will not refrain from discussing matters or arguing a viewpoint just because someone may take me out of context or present the opposite viewpoint.

As just stated, I don't believe this is the case, and franly, I am surprised that you do.

Yes they did take it out of context. ?My argument was based on how both things are treated legally and how two separate the two. ?Not one person has commented or addressed the argument that I have presented. ?Instead, they made their own comparisons regarding different issues. ?Again, I disagree with those comparisons, ?However, those comparisons are irrelevant to the point that I was making.

Again, that's your decision.? Considering that I never usually argue at that level, I am surprised you are so confident in determining my motivation.? I guess we will just have disagree.? I have explained my argument and why your characterization is wrong the best that I can.

That's fine.? Let people decide if they believe I had the motivation - which is opposite to the argument that I presented - that you say I had.? I guess I am the only person that knows what my motivation was for sure.? You don't seem willing to listen to my explanation.

There probably are.? How does this undercut my argument.? Remember, my argument clearly contradicts this viewpoint.? So to argue that I am pandering to this viewpoint is ridiculous.

Bigamy and pologamy a relationships that occur between two consenting adults.? Although many people don't consider them on the same moral leval as homosexual marriage, many do.? If I used that example there would be some, such as Hanna in a recent post, that may argue that he doesn't care what people do in the privacy of their own home.? Unlike, homosexual marriage, pologamy, and bigamy, the state interest behind outlawing child pornography is much stronger.? Even though a lot of child pornography is viewed in the privacy of one's own home, people still find it morally repugnant.  Not only does it affect the kids that are used in the child pornography setting, but it also may push people to act on the images that they see on the computer.? No one is in favor of child pornography.? Many people are in favor of homosexual marriage.? Most people in favor of homosexual marriage realize that it is difficult to argue that people should be able to marry who they choose and then in the same breadth say that we should ban polygamy or bygamy.? Thus, most people would not buy into the "pick and choose" argument I was making with the use of one of those examples.? On the contrary, child pornography clearly demonstrates that morality clearly is a state interest and that we may still want to ban things because of moral reasons.

As I just explained, I think the people that make this argument are somewhat hypocritical.? You may be right, I would not expect too many people to hold that position if they look at the arguments logically.?

You can argue that there are secondary effects to these things.? You can also argue that there are secondary effects to homosexuality and homosexual marriage.? The argument over the secondary effects of these things is debateable.?

Once again, you intentionally ignore what I actually said, and instead, adopt your own incorrect viewpoint on what I said.? You refuse to comprehend what's actually written, and instead project what you WANT the words to say, rather than what they actually say.? The words I actually wrote, and most of your responses to them, are at complete odds.?

Which is fine (and obvious)....but it's getting monotonous.

Not to mention your rationalization for your viewpoint is wrongheaded, flawed, and filled with examples in no way similar to this one.? ?You're talking about the discussion of issues, not the use of specific examples.? Yes, if someone compared Bush to Hitler, even if to illustrate Bush is "not as bad", as in the manner you used your examples, I would, if I noticed it, have the same issues with their construct...because it invites a certain comparison that you know, when making the construct, is going to invite those in your audience, with a particular political 'bent" to start drawing comparisons and come to a different, offensive, conclusion. I do think the author, or the speaker, has a responsibility to their audience in crafting their words...and any "splatter effect" they might cause.? ? That you do not pretty much speaks to the disconnect here.

As to your motivation...evil is certainly too strong a word.? Disingenious, certainly.? What I find amusing is that in your post you protest that the motivation (to use the most inflammatory example simply to garner more attention and comprehension from an audience you don't respect (ie: pandering)) I've brought forth isn't right...but yet you admit to it all in an earlier post.

As to your construct..again, I haven't contended it's incorrect..at least not in the conclusion it MIGHT lead to, and, in your mind, does lead to.  It's simply pandering, inflammatory, sensationalistic, intellectually dishonest and offensive.

Again, I'm content to stand on the discussion, as it is, rather than continue to argue in circles.  I think we've said the same thing over, and over, and over....

You seem to be unwilling to do the same, and the motivations behind that is, I think, pretty obvious.

PS: Nice job on the predictable backpedal.....

I will agree to disagree.  I think your last post pretty much revealed how ridiculous your argument is.  I will stand on my rebuttal to that post.

No hard feelings. :peace:

Okay...

Let's try to focus on the subject itself. If you wish to continue this discussion. Please do it in PMs as it has very little to do with the subject itself.

Well with the NJ court ruling and last nights rejection of the gay marriage ban in Arizona I wonder if things are starting to steer back towards the middle. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_st_lo/eln_ballot_measures

Of course not!  :peace:

By the by...which state constitutional ban, approved last night, banning gay marriage, do you think will be the first tested in the courts?  I'm thinking Wisconsin....

To tell you the truth, I haven't read the text on too many of them.  I am sure they will choose the one that is most likely to prevail. 

By the way, two interesting oral arguments took place today on partial birth abortion. 

Wisconsin's was the one that activists targeted as being the most vulverabel during the campaign cycle, partially, at least, because of it's wording.  It was the one they thought they had a real shot at defeating because of it's shortcomings...but they didn't.  So I think it's the first one, as a "test case" they'll run through the courts.  I think they'll lose....though something may come of it that's not an entire loss for them.  We'll see.