NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.?

[nonlinear]

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?

[The Dog]

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. 

Dude, quit while you can...sadly, you just don't get it. 

[Surfrider]

 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.

?

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

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

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.

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

? 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 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 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.?

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?? ?

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.

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.?

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?

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.

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.

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 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?

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

It sounds like you're saying that there's no basis for a distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles.

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'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.

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

[Surfrider]

However, there is no distinction between someone being attracted to the same sex and small children.?

 

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?

No, you are not reading right.  Try again.

[Surfrider]

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?

That's an inflamatory, wrongheaded example and you know it, even if you are using it to prove a point about individual rights.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Dog]

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.

Oooooh ok...you don't have TOO MUCH of a problem with gay marriage..thats cool 

I don't understand what you mean by the way gay marriage is being pushed on the american people?  If it becomes a law and gays have the right to marry, what is being pushed on to anyone?  straight people can still get married, still have the same benefits.  I'm not being a smart ass, I'm just curious what you mean.

[Skeba]

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.?

Dude, quit while you can...sadly, you just don't get it.?

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.

[pilferk]

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.?

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.?

Completlely wrongheaded and incorrect logic.

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.

Being homosexual, similarly, is not "abnormal".? It is a less likely outcome following the normal and natural cource 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.

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.

[pilferk]

there's nothing incorrect about my logic. ?That's the great thing about logic, it's either right ot 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 sudy 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.

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".

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.

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").

[Skeba]

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...)

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.

[Skeba]

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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".

[pilferk]

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.

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.

[Skeba]

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.

[The Dog]

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. 

Dude, quit while you can...sadly, you just don't get it. 

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.

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.