NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK

[pilferk]

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.

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.

[nonlinear]

I actually have to get shit done today ( ), 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.

[nonlinear]

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

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.

[pilferk]

? Again, no one has yet to proove my logic wrong.?

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.

[nonlinear]

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.  The 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.

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 

[Guns N RockMusic]

? Again, no one has yet to proove my logic wrong.?

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.

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.

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.? The 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.

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?

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 

[pilferk]

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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

[nonlinear]

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.  The 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.

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 

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 

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

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.

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.

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

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.? The 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.

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?

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?

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

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.

[The Dog]

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   

[pilferk]

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

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.

[nonlinear]

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.

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.

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

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

[Guns N RockMusic]

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

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, 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?

[The Dog]

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.

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.

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.

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

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

Nah, this is a much better image of me.

[pilferk]

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

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.