Homosexual Marriage

[devonin]

As an aside, you might want to actually try using the forum's quote functions. They make seperating out what you're quoting us as saying, what you're paraphrasing us as saying, and what you are in turn responding much easier to tell apart.

I've given you several counterexamples right here in this thread, and apparently not a glimmering of comprehension has been displayed in return.

I warned you about the insulting language. I comprehend that you have not provided any counterexamples that met my criteria. Please instead of insulting my intelligence, clearly and obviously restate your counterexamples.

Regarding your request that I "not attack others in that way", I agree with your suggestion, though I believe it's important to note that communication is always a two-way street. Devonin goes on to say that "there's nothing contemptuous in that statement". Actually, there is, I've established beyond all doubt this comment's unmistakable propensity to demean all that disagrees with its premises.

You've established absolutely nothing "beyond all doubt" let alone that. I'm under no obligation to grant equal standing to any opinion that differs from mine. I'm under an obligation to grant equal standing to any opinion that presents any kind of compelling evidence, or reasonable arguement. If you tried to tell me that the moon is made of cheese because "your mother told you it was made of cheese" I see no reason to grant that belief the same standing as say, claiming the moon was made of rocks because "Someone who has been to the moon brought back rocks and not cheese" I have no fundamental and automatic propensity to dismiss opinions that differ from my own. In fact, I'm quite possibly the most open-minded person who frequents this portion of the forum. This is why I was put in charge of this forum, and why I take great offense to you maligning my motives with no actual support for doing so.

First, one could easily correlate the sanctitude of marriage with the biological necessity of reproduction (which obviously entails a mutual compatibility), and basic traditional family principles adopted by humanity and in all forms of nature.

You can't equate sanctity with biology because sanctity is inherantly religious. Something can only be "holy" or "sacred" if it is set apart for the service or worship of a diety.

Second, homosexuality can be regarded as morally deviant on the grounds of one's deliberate alternation of the natural merely to fulfill their sexual satisfaction.

Something is only unnatural if it does not occur in nature. That is what the word unnatural means. Homosexuality occurs in nature, thus homosexuality is not unnatural. Unless of course you want to try and argue that homosexuality is say...a disease (Hey look, biological causes) or a freak mutation (Hey look, biological causes)

Third, it doesn't matter; one simply can't spite all of religion merely for voicing its opinion in such a light, nor are they justified in assuming such beliefs directly trace back to a religious origin. Such comments attempt to degrade one's argument by asserting its illegitimate basis, perpetuate animosity, and merely beg the essential questions. I've said it before and I'll say it again: pure biased conjecture.

I don't recall spiting religion at all. In fact, I seem to recall having originally stated that the only remotely valid reasons for justifying ones opposition to homosexuality are religious reasons. As in, I grant the right of religious people to have the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, because it is a factor of their religious beliefs. However, I also stated, and feel, that while a given religious person is perfectly allowed to belief that homosexuality is wrong, that does not mean that homosexuals should be disallowed from engaging in the actions that they want to. Hindus believe cows are sacred, and I'm not going to make a Hindu eat a hamburger, but I'm going to expect a Hindu to leave me to eat my hamburger in peace too. I begged no questions, perpetuated no animosity unless you are so thin-skinned that you would take my pointing out that "The vast majority of objections to homosexualty stem from religious though" as something offensive, which it clearly isn't.

Dev tries to downgrade the validity of my argument by claiming he's unable to find the group who's discoveries serve as unfavorable to his position. To which one can only respond, perhaps you should've search a bit harder- Family Research Institute.

Neither Google nor Wikipedia generated any useful results whatsoever from a search for "FRI" Perhaps you should have told us what that group was instead of assuming we'd all know. Anyway, I had a look at their website, and right on their main page they state the purpose of the institute as intending "to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family"

So since they are -starting- from an assumption that "homosexuality is an issue that we view as a threat" they are automatically almost unforigveably biased. Let's quote from their main page again:

We welcome all who would join in the fight to restore a world where marriage is upheld and honored, where children are nurtured and protected, and where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level.

I direct you to a number of scientific groups in the past several decades and centuries that explicitly intended to generate scientific proof to support sexism, racism, slavery et al.

Your institute sets forward "Our purpose is to prove that Homosexuality is evil bad and wrong" which is horrible science right from the get go.

Highly dubious. In either case, had it ever occured to you that heterosexuals make up the majority of the population?

Even on a per capita basis. Given recent statistics on the general incidence of bi- and homo-sexuality in the country, I've seen far more heterosexuals engaging in romantic and intimate behavior in public than homosexuals.

Preaching of one's religions views or political affiliation is neither illegal, nor what could be considered public social annoyance. On the other hand, public sexual-activity or obnoxious behavior to that effect is typically regarded as deviance, by all definitive criteria.

"Or obnoxious behavior" I like that, compare the volume of obnoxious behavior in public carried out by heterosexual teen males to the overall amount of "obnoxious behavior" and I think you'll see that it represents a firm majority. As for sexual activity, I agree that two people having sex in the middle of a public space is inappropriate no matter the gender of who is doing it, but outside the concept of the Gay Pride Parade (which I've already stated my issues with anyway) I'm hard pressed to think of a single incidence of "gays having sex in public" that I or anyone I know has ever reported seeing, though I've seen heterosexual sex in public on more than one occasion.

My comment regarding Grandi's orientation was merely an addon to the same hasty presuppositions initiated by Grandi himself. Grandi opines " many gay people remain "in the closet" for years before revealing their orientation, and many don't come out at all, unless caught.

But see here's the thing. Grandi stating that many homosexuals stay in the closet unless found out is actually backed up by a great deal of evidence that this is -precisely- what many homosexuals do. Nowhere in what he said did I get the impression that he was even thinking that "all those who disagree on his position be rendered mere self-hating closet homosexuals " Quite the opposite in fact. I think you'll find that the two thoughts are completely unrelated. He was making a general statement about the degree to which many homosexuals are uncomfortable coming out into today's social climate unless they are found out. That in no way implies that people who are anti-gay are somehow themselves gay. I saw no personal attack in any of that.

I already mentioned that current consensus postulates the origin of homosexuality to be a combination of environmental and cognitive factors only.

The only evidence you have given in support of this claim is to direct us to a website conducting studies from pre-determined conclusions. When they explicity state that their whole purpose is to -prove- that homosexuality is -wrong- then it should come as no surprise that lo and behold, all their research backs themselves up. Do you really think they would publish something that was DIRECTLY AGIANST their explicity stated purpose? I think not.

Moderator Note: I think you can take a day off to relax, and think about insulting the intelligence of other people. You might also consider formatting your posts in a way that makes it more clear what you are directing to whom about what text. As I mentioned at the top of the post, there is a very conveniant set of "quote" tags that can make your posts much easier to parse.

[Kilroy_x]

Something stupid happened here. I'll be back in 8 hours or so after I've gotten my sleep.

[Corbin Wells]

No matter what one believes, the fact remains, if one marries another, it has nothing to do with the couples around you and therefore shouldn't even be a problem at all.
And constantly turning to "God" as an excuse to why certain people shouldn't be married is about as cheap as you can get!

[bluguerrilla]

So after checking out the FRI's website I was unable to determine whether their "scientific articles" are published in refereed journals (I doubt it since no publications, only references, were listed).

Seems more like a twisting of data to see a trend that you want to see.

[gnr61]

Not to mention their founder was dropped from the APA and they are considered a hate group.

And they have ONE scientist on staff (Dr. Kirk Cameron.........lol?).

Pretty sure there's no credibility to be found here.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

letting people do what they want to do is definitely not a freedom

Of course it is. It may be the case that some freedoms infringe upon other freedoms; for instance , your ability to point a gun in my face and pull the trigger. In this case we prohibit that freedom, since doing so permits maximum liberty.

In essence, both sides are just trying to fight for some extra meaning put into something that's subjective. If you tell yourself your union is holy, then it is. If you tell yourself that gay marriages aren't holy, then they aren't. Problem solved.

They aren't holy to you, at least. But there are more than two sides to this, and more problems than simply the one you named (Although perhaps not many).

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

NEWSFLASH: Marriage isn't intrinsically religious, and that's not why gay people want marriage.

Honestly, that's one of the most ignorant arguments i've heard an intellegent person use.

Gays want marriage for A) Economic equality B) Social equality.

It was a fallacy of excluded middle. But it was partially correct. Do economic and social equality come from the government, Grandi? Also, why are they desirable and why should they be given?

Originally Posted by sayuncle990

I think killing people and drinking the blood of newborn infants is holy.

Then we have no choice but to interfere with your religious practices. But murder and saying mean things aren't quite in the same boat.



ok, now for, um... thing

Originally Posted by A_Godsend

Actually, the FRI’s analysis shows most of those who engage in homosexuality are a result of direct recruitment by seduction or molestation, wherein the clarity of this correlation (though perhaps not this one in particular) is undeniable.

This is ridiculous. You were getting on someone's case for not examining an argument before dismissing it. Now you're trying to get the same person to accept an argument uncritically. If the study you are talking about actually is Science, then it is deniable. It may be correct, but falsifiability is the mark of science. So to say that someone doesn't need to bother trying to falsify it is the height of arrogance, uncritical thinking, and (in this case) hypocrisy.

I suppose one could argue that demanding gay marriage is a just another way to secularize and demoralize our nation - as if America isn't already a sexually immoral one.

These comments need some rather serious explaining.

Marriage between man and woman is, and always has been, the fundamental building block of society.

This is false, the nuclear family is not present in every society, and almost certainly hasn't been around as long as human society has. The fundamental building block of society would probably be broader anyways; something like "human resources" perhaps.

Furthermore, if it was, in fact, genes and not environment which caused the twins homosexuality, one would expect 100% of identical twins to both be homosexual... instead of 52%.

So either we do not fully understand genetics, the causes are social, the causes are supernatural, or there is an alternate, non-genetic biological etiology for the condition.

It adheres perfectly with the discussion by demonstrating the inadequacy of referencing wildlife activity as a means of justification.

True. Unfortunately, the conversation has moved beyond that now. So you'll have to start facing the arguments that are adequate.

Heterosexuals only question one's sexual orientation if they leave themselves in question; that is, if they openly display taunting, stereotypical personality features that suggest it

These aren't the same thing. A person could "leave themselves in question" quite easily by, say, not stopping to ogle a female when their coworkers do. Or perhaps they aren't interested in sports. Many of the stereotypical personality features of which you speak don't have anything to do with sexuality at all. You use awfully big words, for instance (perhaps not very well). Have you been called gay for that yet? If not, I stand surprised.

Second, your willigness to defend the validity of homosexuals more or less implies your indulgence in such activity, than one who sincerely displays opposition. Sorry, your childish defense mechanisms only preveal for the simple minded. Suffice it to say, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Yeah, so much for that critical mind of yours...

Seriously, you start out yelling at others for not taking your argument seriously, and then here you are, saying that another person's willingness to contradict you about whether or not homosexuality is bad, demonstrates that they are homosexual and therefore bad.

...yeahhh, ok. Top notch critical thinking there.

As is evident to anyone reading, along with anyone who's acknowledged science's consensus...

Science has not reached a consensus about this.

Irregardless, I still fail to detect a significant correlation; where merely being your ethnicity clearly infringes upon no one in any case, public sex-activity and disorderly conduct are significant disturbances.

Let's say your 15% number is somehow accurate, and somehow implies what you think it does. In that case, the 15% would deserve no disrespect, would they?

Originally Posted by A_Godsend

First, one could easily correlate the sanctitude of marriage with the biological necessity of reproduction

What's so necessary about it?

Second, homosexuality can be regarded as morally deviant on the grounds of one's deliberate alternation of the natural merely to fulfill their sexual satisfaction.

What's immoral about this?

Such comments attempt to degrade one's argument by asserting its illegitimate basis, perpetuate animosity, and merely beg the essential questions. I've said it before and I'll say it again: pure biased conjecture.

In which case it's your job to correct it. You claim anti-homosexual feelings don't stem from a Judeo-Christian background. This is something you need to establish. "bias" is a stupid allegation, because any critical opinion will inevitably exclude other opinions. That doesn't make it bad.



Oh, here's something special...

Dev defends the arrogance displayed in Grandi's comments "No it doesn't. It suggests that even in a condition wherein you want to claim that all beliefs are subjectively valid, some beliefs should be considered more seriously than others..."- Aside from the fact that this belabors the obvious, you fail to correctly interpret its connotation- resting on the assumption that all contrary opinions be immediately rendered substandard and disregarded- the clarity of this arrogance is demonstrated right in his moon-cheese analogy.

I actually agree with this Devonin. I'm sorry, but I think you got a little out of hand.

Although his general disposition certainly doesn't make it any easier.

To me, this is so utterly transparent that I consider any further discussion of this matter to be futile.

Here's another pretty grand instance of hypocrisy, for example.

Au contraire, I merely provided an adequate demonstration of the issues entailed with using wildlife phenomena as evidence for the validity of homosexuals. Obviously, for one to make the contrast, one is also entitled to use instances of immoral nature as a legitimate counterexample to such assertions.

True, but irrelevent. The nature example was invalid. The debate had moved on though; perhaps a little disjointedly, defaulting to arguments of consent and natural rights certainly segways a little jerkily from trying to use empirical justification, but nonetheless a new argument was presented which you indeed failed to address.

But as a matter of fact, recent polls documented only 15% of gays and lesbians reported intimate relationships in their own residence.

I would need to see how the polls were conducted. This could mean any number of things. It might mean 85% of homosexuals have sex in public. It might mean 85% of homosexuals don't have sex. Hell, it might even mean that 15% of documented homosexuals responded to the poll. Remember, this is math, so the other 85% would simply be individuals who don't have sex in their own residence. That doesn't imply that they have sex elsewhere. You're thinking of things in terms of what you consider positive opposites (public vs private, in this case) rather than in terms of a positive status versus a negative/nonexistent status.

As we all know, constructive and insightful criticism can help one to refine, clarify or correct one's ideas, and I've never held myself forth as an a priori exception.

You sure seem to have done so. Multiple times.

I did not claim that science has entirely "disproven" or disregarded such ideas, but one can only speculate in such a light without supporting empirical data (though it does violate Occam's Razor).

I'm not sure how it violates Occam's Razor. Please clarify. The existence of genetic processes we don't understand contains Ontological commitment, but almost certainly not more than any competing theory, and surely not more than an argument stemming from belief in God.


And now I start getting ready for work. Yay 50 hour weeks!

[devonin]

danielruffolo18: I'm almost upset that you won't be able to respond to Kilroy_x's post in the thread
Novacaaine: Kilroy is a fringe element
danielruffolo18: A fringe element of what exactly.
Novacaaine: regarding this discussion
Novacaaine: I bet you he had nothing constructive to say whatsoever
danielruffolo18: Aww, shame you dismiss him out of hand.
danielruffolo18: He even took your side on one or two things.
Novacaaine: i stand corrected
danielruffolo18: So you only accept the validity of opinions that support your own...You'd even retract a blatant dismissal of someone's whole argument to support the elements that you prefer.

Now that we suddenly lack an "anti-homosexual marriage" standpoint in this thread, I think we ought to let it die a quiet death.

I actually agree with this Devonin. I'm sorry, but I think you got a little out of hand

Fair enough. I'm willing to agree that I let my issues with the illogic of other elements of his argument bleed into my reaction to what I still think was an overexaggeration of the claim that Grandi was making. He used an absurd example in order to more clearly demonstrate the distinction he was talking about, I don't feel he did so to try claiming that the comparison made in the discussion was equally absurd.

[Grandiagod]

I was making a point that homosexuals aren't all necessarily attending gay parades and flaunting their orientation though that outlet. That some are ashamed and are living in fear of rejection by their friends and family.

I don't realize how that can be construed to mean "You're gay because you're against gays".

After which I was promptly told I was gay because I supported gay rights.

[A_name1]

I warned you about the insulting language. I comprehend that you have not provided any counterexamples that met my criteria.

I'd say this speaks more of your unreasonable criteria than it says about the validity of my examples. When one person takes another to task for being a poor expositor, he runs the risk of being called a poor listener in return. I can only hope that my critics will bear this in mind. Nevertheless, I suppose I'm forced to repeat myself.

Heterosexuals where one partner is impotent or barren are allowed to marry.

Yes, because heterosexual marriages still retain a higher level of mutual consistency concerning natural criterion family principles.

Dev then claims

You've established absolutely nothing "beyond all doubt" let alone that.

Regarding Dev's flat denial that I've effectively proven such comments to be inconsiderably presumptuous, I can respond only that as far as I'm concerned, it has been. Dev then contradicts his initial reply

I'm under no obligation to grant equal standing to any opinion that differs from mine.

which clearly discards all opinions that disagree with your initial premises (as you've clearly just admitted). As such, I'm afraid that this is not a reasonable approrach by any stretch of the imagination. Devonin then levels

I'm under an obligation to grant equal standing to any opinion that presents any kind of compelling evidence, or reasonable arguement.

As far as I know, I've substantiated each of my claims with factual evidence, and I'm still at loss as to why you and certain others can't seem to understand word one. Dev continues

if you tried to tell me that the moon is made of cheese because "your mother told you it was"

I believe he meant to offer this as some kind of analogy to the lack of validity oin my argument, though I'm puzzled as to where he derived such erratic ideas. If devonin finds flaws in the consistency of my argument, then the flaws exist solely within the minds of devonin. Dev then goes on to claim that he's "the most open-minded person who frequents this portion of the forum". Unfortunately, I find his recent comments to be somewhat inconsistent with this claim.

Dev then asseverates

You can't equate sanctity with biology because sanctity is inherantly religious. Something can only be "holy" or "sacred" if it is set apart for the service or worship of a diety.

I merely provided adequate examples as to why marriage can be regarded as sacred (or heterosexually valued) without respect to religion, given its sheer compatibility with general biological phenomena.
Dev conjectures

Something is only unnatural if it does not occur in nature. That is what the word unnatural means. Homosexuality occurs in nature, thus homosexuality is not unnatural.

What is this, devonin, "Fun With Semantics" time? As it is, your definition of unnatural is simply fallable and ambiguous. For, in that case, one might as well remove it from the dictionary altogether, since according to you, all events that occur within the universe must be "natural", rendering all usage of it null and void. In any case, your attempt at diverging from the current context is futile. The definition I'd referred to was simply what's inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom. Obviously, homosexuality is in direct violation, for reasons I assumed were quite obvious.

Dev then elaborates on his already evident statement

I seem to recall having originally stated that the only remotely valid reasons for justifying ones opposition to homosexuality are religious reasons.

-
Unfortunately, for those who don't share this same assumption, your statement is meaningless.
Dev claims that he's

begged no questions, perpetuated no animosity unless you are so thin-skinned that you would take my pointing out that "The vast majority (a contradiction of his initial assertion that ALL counterargument stems from religious origin) of objections to homosexualty stem from religious though" as something offensive, which it clearly isn't.

Not offensive; rather, profoundly unwarranted and unjustified.

Dev claims that

So since they are -starting- from an assumption that "homosexuality is an issue that we view as a threat" they are automatically almost unforigveably biased.

much like your propensity to err on the side of homosexuality neglecting all initial opposing views. Furthermore, their opinion regarding homosexuality in no way diminishes factually documented statistics. Aside from your not providing linkages whatsoever, I could just as easily discard the examples provided by Grandi, from the simple fact that each of those men were self-identified homosexuals. However, given that I see no percentage in blatantly neglecting it (regardless of its invalidity), I provided several extensive refutations for each of its accusations. In any case, if you're wanting to disregard all external references, my argument still retains logical ascendancy .
Dev criticizes my reference point

Your institute sets forward "Our purpose is to prove that Homosexuality is evil bad and wrong" which is horrible science right from the get go.

- Don't just take their word for it, you have the entire conesnsus position going against you.

Dev then makes a huge mistake in referencing bi-sexuality

ven on a per capita basis. Given recent statistics on the general incidence of bi- and homo-sexuality in the country...

I strongly advise you to refrain from mentioning anything in accordance with "bi-sexuality". In my personal opinion, one might as well stick an apple in his mouth and hand over plenty of salt, pepper, and a bag of charcoal briquets while one is at it, since by the time I'm finished with him, he'll probably feel like everyone at the luau has had his piece, so to speak. Something that can't be explicitly defined (bi-sexuality), implies that it lacks influence or expressive nature, even in principle. Therefore, since there be no exclusive sexual preferences, this means that for all practicle purposes, bi-sexuality is a choice, not a genetic consequence. This would invalidate such claims to the effect that 1.) homosexuality is a natural trait (because such people with the genetic intention to have same-sex partners would (or should) naturally distance themselves from heterosexual activity), or 2.) Homosexuality is not a natural subconscious trait. Demonstrated by the nonconformability to one particular preference, effectively extingushing its own validity, and legitimately labeled deviance. Though I may be mistaken, I have a hunch that you'll posit bi-sexual genetics as well?

Dev then says

I'm hard pressed to think of a single incidence of "gays having sex in public" that I or anyone I know has ever reported seeing, though I've seen heterosexual sex in public on more than one occasion.

-
You mean aside from their parades? Irregardless, it's all beside the point; I simply meant that anyone who's sexuality be exemplified in their personality e.g. fake lisps, taunting, exaggerated perversity (the only conceivable way to detect homosexuals), are doing themselves a disservice. There are many distinctive factors, which don't include sex, that account for the general way in which people associate.

Dev, determined to keep his error streak snowballing furiously downhill, yet again tries to defend Grandi's arrogance

Grandi stating that many homosexuals stay in the closet unless found out is actually backed up by a great deal of evidence that this is -precisely- what many homosexuals do.

Such claims that correlate to that effect merely attempt to demean all of the opposition by associating a lack of self esteem, rigorously implying that their own biased self-hatred be held responsible for beliefs they view as insensible. Of course, such attitude typically entails a failure to appropriately acknowledge any disagreements. Unfortunately, without a considerable background check on said person, this ultimately boils down to associative ad hominem and strawman. Devonin then complains that in response to Grandi's inane and prosecutorial "you're a self-hating closet homosexual" line of reasoning, of which the clarity of this implication was sincerely demonstrated in his more than overtly higlighted comment -"(I'm thinking of a specific pastor here )-", I merely rebutted with the propensity of those who defend homosexuality as possible self-indulging homosexuals themselves (a considerable hypothesis). I could, of course, go on at considerable length, but as we can see, the quality of the objection merits no such effort. The sheer denial of this overt demonstration of immaturity alone constitutes a transparent attempt to circumvent what one would consider well-meritied scrutiny. With anyone who fails to see this, I really don't know what more there is to discuss. Suffice it to say that any such person be stuck with a teetering pile of intractable contradictions waiting to collapse, which he'll neither resolve nor constructively circumvent. And said person is clearly in no position to criticize anybody else's counter accusation.

Dev then makes a most curious offer

I think you can take a day off to relax, and think about insulting the intelligence of other people.

-
While I greatly appreciate the offer, I'm afraid I shall respectfully decline . There's an old saying attributed to Mark Twain: "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." I can only suggest that (A specific pastor here ) consider whether it might, in some small way, apply to him.

As for Kilroys comments, all I can say is, it can be hard to formulate a legitimate counterargument for one that you've not yet achieved an adequate understanding. Peace everyone!

[devonin]

Oh right, I was going to close this thread because the only person taking the anti-homosexual standpoint was a ban evader. I should get on that.