Prop 8

[tea_and_blues]

Considering that the the very nature of this communication is over something that probably could be considered to not exactly line up with what nature intended, it's a bit short sighted to believe we should not do something because it isn't in nature.

Science does not talk about 'what nature intended', and neither do we need to. There is no reason for us to think that 'nature' (ie. stuff in general) has intents at all, all we know is that nature (or 'stuff in general') exists.

'Nature' is not a very useful word, because it doesn't mean more of anything specific.

 

[Janenmori]

Apologies. I only have you 'pegged' as such because you have made extremely religious claims about "nature". Nature is not prescriptive, it is merely something that we can describe. It is only if you believe there is some sort of magical guiding force (like a god) that you can start prescribing behaviour based on nature (or a distortion thereof).

Religion is an organized following of a deity based on common ideas. How my views are "religious" I do not know. I am saying homosexuality is "wrong" because it serves no function in the natural world, but as humans we tend to separate ourselves from out animalistic roots and create new laws and infrastructures like marriage and to a further point homosexual marriage.

The fundamental problem we have, in arguing with each other, is that you're not a materialist, so any material observations about the world (eg. science) mean nothing of any very serious import to you. You can, in theory, pick and choose what you want to keep from any observations we make about reality, and replace all the gaps (such as the question of whether homosexuality is acceptable or not) with a prescription from your deity/force/thing

You certainly have an interesting perspective of me. I think you are correct in what you say, but I am not looking at it scientifically. To look at a matter of love such as the one we are discussing scientifically serves no point because one cannot reason love.

You don't know, because you refuse to take an interest today's science

I do know because that IS a fact. Simply because I may interpret homosexuality in a non scientific manner does not mean I am ignorant of science. The two cannot associate freely because spirituality has NO relation to science. As defined science deals only in physical things that hold reason and logic. Love between two people, homosexual or heterosexual is a matter of spirituality which is where science has no right to be lest there be some sort of misunderstanding. Love cannot be explained by logic therefore the love of homosexuals should not be interfered upon by science. Love is love regardless of the biological purpose. Whether that love should be acted upon is a different matter entirely but I digress.

I think if you wish to discuss this further we should take this to PMs because I really think the thread is being derailed by this train of thought and discussion.

 

[umbarsc]

Janenmori, your entire argument is just one giant logical fallacy. "Appeal to nature" is assuming that we should comply with what is consistent with "nature" or what is "natural". And in this case, it just simply isn't true, because homosexuality is observed in nature.

And yes, love can be scientifically explained. We aren't advanced enough to have it down exactly, but there is absolutely no reason to believe we won't in the near future.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Love between two people, homosexual or heterosexual is a matter of spirituality which is where science has no right to be lest there be some sort of misunderstanding. Love cannot be explained by logic therefore the love of homosexuals should not be interfered upon by science. Love is love regardless of the biological purpose. Whether that love should be acted upon is a different matter entirely but I digress.

Wait, are you serious? You really think this and you voted YES on Prop 8? Are you out of your mind or did you accidentally just contradict everything you've said in this thread?

 

[Janenmori]

Janenmori, your entire argument is just one giant logical fallacy. "Appeal to nature" is assuming that we should comply with what is consistent with "nature" or what is "natural". And in this case, it just simply isn't true, because homosexuality is observed in nature.

Are you saying that my argument is logical and flawed at the same time. Homosexuality is observed in nature true, but those organisms do not pass on their genes, which is the biological purpose to life is it not?

And yes, love can be scientifically explained. We aren't advanced enough to have it down exactly, but there is absolutely no reason to believe we won't in the near future.

Love cannot be scientifically explained. It is a phenomenon. It can be OBSERVED, but not reasoned or explained. And if we do not have it down now then it does not matter. We could also have a remedy or prevention to homosexuality, but we do not right now, so we have an ongoing battle between advocates and adversaries. There is no science to love. It is not something you can write down in a book with logical steps of why and how it happens. Sure you can explain hormonal influence on mate choices, but humans are good at breaking the rules.

Wait, are you serious? You really think this and you voted YES on Prop 8? Are you out of your mind or did you accidentally just contradict everything you've said in this thread?

Hahahahaha yup pretty much. I am a strange person for sure. I am not saying they cannot love each other. There is no law or restriction that can be put upon that. I am simply against an offical union. That is my stance on it. I am entitled to it. You can disagree with it all you like and hate it all you like. You should also not omit the fact that I am refering to loves relationship with science. I am not so ignorant to think that there cannot be love between homosexuals. It just disagrees with my opinions.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

So, because you are not homosexual, you are for removing Constitutional rights of homosexuals?

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

Hahaha are you trolling or have you really never heard the term "logical fallacy"?

Um. Biology and psychology have both made massive headway into explaining love scientifically. We know what makes others attractive to us physically, we know the chemical processes involved in love and can break it down into a series of logical steps forming a process. I mean, we have actually done this.

Read up on the Natural Fallacy. You think you're crusading for science, but science is laughing at you right now.

Also, really might want to tone down the hate speech. A remedy to homosexuality, Christ

 

[Janenmori]

So, because you are not homosexual, you are for removing Constitutional rights of homosexuals?

No. I disagree with it is all. That is all the reason I need as a person and an American. And where does it say it is a right? Please show me because people keep saying that but in 8th grade I did not read anything about there being a right to marry.

 

[Danigi]

Does this biological purpose overrule people's desire though? Again, humans do so many things that are so "outside of nature" that are beneficial that I fail to see why homosexuality is such a big deal.

And actually, virtually everything is a phenomenon. Everything from breathing to the earth's rotation is a phenomenon. So really explaining how phenomena occur is not exactly a herculean task.

 

[sanjay120]

They have the same rights. They want MORE rights. They have a right to marry a woman if they are a man and to marry a man if they are a woman.

Well that makes it easier.

The right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender is somewhere in the Constitution. If a government makes a distinction between one kind of legal contract and another on the basis of gender (not sexuality, gay people can get married, just not to someone of the same sex), then it is being discriminatory. And if the people want the government to be discriminatory, it is the government's responsibility to step in and say 'no'.

@ Luduan: Homosexuality is not a RACE. How can you compare the two?

Nope. Gender : Homosexuality :: Race : Miscegeny is a perfectly valid analogy.

 

[tea_and_blues]

I am saying homosexuality is "wrong" because it serves no function in the natural world, but as humans we tend to separate ourselves from out animalistic roots and create new laws and infrastructures like marriage and to a further point homosexual marriage.

You're ignoring my points. I've proposed a possible 'function' for homosexuality many times in this thread, and it is only one of many that have been proposed. Moreover, not everything has to have a function, we have huge tracts of 'junk' DNA in our own coding, for example? Do you want to trim all that away to make a God happier?

Moreover, NATURE IS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE. This is like talking to an invisible brick wall.

 

[Janenmori]

You're ignoring my points. I've proposed a possible 'function' for homosexuality many times in this thread, and it is only one of many that have been proposed. Moreover, not everything has to have a function, we have huge tracts of 'junk' DNA in our own coding, for example? Do you want to trim all that away to make a God happier?

Yes I get why you are saying this. That DNA is there because it is not activated in us but is activated in another creature to define its traits. It does serve a function, but not necissarily in us as humans. I have had a biology class or two in my life. What does God have to do with that? Do you think what we do matters to God as long as we are not wreaking destruction to ourselves or to others?

What is your function for homosexuality? And why does it need a function if not everything needs a function?

Everything does need a function or it would not exist. That makes sense correct?

 

[Kira]

And where does it say it is a right? Please show me because people keep saying that but in 8th grade I did not read anything about there being a right to marry.

By the way, I don't know if anyone here has said that marriage isn't a fundamental right of man, but...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination."

- C.J. Earl Warren, for the Majority, Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Janenmori]

That says racial. And homosexual marriage cannot prolong existence when it cannot create new life. Yeah ok the civil right thing may be correct, but they have the same civil rights. They can marry a man if they are a woman or a woman if they are a man regardless of race and if they are within legal age or with parental or guardian consent. I think I am repeating myself.

 

[tea_and_blues]

What is your function for homosexuality? And why does it need a function if not everything needs a function?

Everything does need a function or it would not exist. That makes sense correct?

Firstly, I already outlined one possible function of homosexuality TWICE. It is not 'my function', it is a kin selection theory that is, actually, pretty old now. I repeat, again:

"[...]there are quite a few theories about how useful it could be insofar as kin selection goes. In short: It may be that while homosexuality is not highly advantageous to individuals' reproducing, it is instead advantageous to populations of social animals because it provides them with more fully functional adults that are less burdened by raising young. A predisposition towards gayness would be preserved not through gays passing on their genes, but through the brothers and sisters of gays passing on those genes."

Secondly, I did not say homosexuality had to have a function, it just happens that it *may* have a function.

Thirdly, things can exist without a function. I can draw a tiger holding a flamingo to ransom in a hospital right now on a piece of notepaper, and that elaborate drawing would serve no function at all, but it would, nonetheless, exist. Unless its function is to prove my point, in which case my example is getting pretty foggy.

My point should really be that the concept of 'function' is subjective. Nature is not a grand, elaborate wheel geared towards any particular function that I can see. Humans exist, and they do not serve a particular 'function' that we specifically know of.

That says racial. And homosexual marriage cannot prolong existence when it cannot create new life.

Surrogacy. Adoption. Kids from previous marriages. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of gay families exist. Many gay people have kids. It's no big deal, all those families are as healthy and moral as any other. Except that those kids, those citizens, and those marriages are not offered equal status in a country that is, supposedly, secular and free.

You're using religious language again. Why do you imagine that 'prolonging existence' is the end-goal of marriage at any rate? Millions of couples get married then choose not to have children.

 

[Janenmori]

"[...]there are quite a few theories about how useful it could be insofar as kin selection goes. In short: It may be that while homosexuality is not highly advantageous to individuals' reproducing, it is instead advantageous to populations of social animals because it provides them with more fully functional adults that are less burdened by raising young. A predisposition towards gayness would be preserved not through gays passing on their genes, but through the brothers and sisters of gays passing on those genes."

Alright, so it holds a function in a social society, but in our social society, there are means to care for young and such and also serve a purpose in that society. Homosexuals would be freer to do these things, but they also want to adopt. So as humans this theory does not really hold much viability, but it is highly situational as most things are.

Secondly, I did not say homosexuality had to have a function, it just happens that it *may* have a function.

Fair enough.

Thirdly, things can exist without a function. I can draw a tiger holding a flamingo to ransom in a hospital right now on a piece of notepaper, and that elaborate drawing would serve no function at all, but it would, nonetheless, exist.

It does have a function. It, as a piece of art, serves the function to be interpreted. I think we are getting off topic with this.

Humans exist, and they do not serve a particular 'function' that we specifically know of.

The purpose (function) of life is to find the true purpose (function) to life. Philosophers and theologians alike will agree on this.

 

[tea_and_blues]

The purpose (function) of life is to find the true purpose (function) to life. Philosophers and theologians alike will agree on this.

I know a lot of academic philosophers, and not many have said they are looking for a 'purpose' for life. There is not even evidence that there is even a purpose to look for, and philosophers tend not to stray into nonsense metaphysics (theology).

Of course theologians agree there HAS to be a purpose somewhere somehow. If they didn't insist on inventing and interpreting more tales and ancient cosmogonies then they wouldn't have jobs. Their livelihood depends on unhelpful discourses that don't lead any closer to knowing any purpose that they purport to be looking for.

 

[Ancien Régime]

However, the current, widely-accepted word is marriage? Why change it to appease a few theocrats? Why be so Orwellian, and why allow Theocrats to redefine the word marriage so that it is, quite suddenly, a Christian tradition? It is currently widely used to describe a secular tradition.

You're being impractical with this proposal. Marriage is, as it stands, the popular, secular civil union. People - gay and straight alike - will use the word to describe that union. It's the word everyone knows and loves. Why do imagine we should force the law to stop using it, rather than opening up the law to homosexuals?

Nobody is redefining it. We're undefining it under the law. Anyone can call their unions whatever they want. The point is that there is no one legal definition of marriage, therefore, nobody has any reason to complain about the definition is marriage.

Thus the fact that evangelicals don't want marriage defined as "other than one man + one woman" and gays don't want marriage defined as "nothing but one man + one woman" becomes irrelevant - both sides are the ones doing the defining, not the government.

 

[tea_and_blues]

Nobody is redefining it. We're undefining it under the law. Anyone can call their unions whatever they want. The point is that there is no one legal definition of marriage, therefore, nobody has any reason to complain about the definition is marriage.

Marriage is a part of our society that won't go away easily, and the state cannot just drop it without near universal protest, nor without continuing to provide marriage's legal framework (ie, without continuing to provide marriage under another name).

So all you seem to be proposing is that we stop calling marriages 'marriages' and start calling them 'civil unions'. What will a semantic switch solve, in the longer term? The law and the government will still have to define 'civil unions', and no differently to how they currently have to define 'marriages'. 'Marriage' is just the popular name for 'civil union', and we should not have to desert that popular name every time some crazy religious fascists start tap-dancing in the streets.

I don't really understand what your proposal would do, other than offend a large number of people.

 

[Janenmori]

I know a lot of academic philosophers, and not many have said they are looking for a 'purpose' for life. There is not even evidence that there is even a purpose to look for, and philosophers tend not to stray into nonsense metaphysics (theology).

Philosophy literally means "to seek knowledge or truth". So they must be pretty bad philosophers. The purpose is looking for the purpose itself, not what is to be achieved. It is the action itself not the reward or incentive.

 

[Ancien Régime]

The entire issue is semantic - marriage is a social institution, civil unions are simply the legal underpinning of a fundamentally social institution.

Many if not most evangelicals don't give a shit about the legal side, they care about the social side - but about the fact that "redefining" the legal aspect of marriage by neccesity universally redefines the social aspect in a way that it offensive to them. So we follow the Constitution, extend equal legal rights to gays and straight couples, and let the various communities in society define the social institution of marriage how they wish.

 

[tea_and_blues]

My point is you can only look for something if there is a mechanism for looking at it, and if there is a place to start looking.

However, as far as anyone can tell, we have neither a good mechanism for investigating 'the meaning of life', nor a good place to start that investigation.

 

[tea_and_blues]

The entire issue is semantic - marriage is a social institution, civil unions are simply a legal institution. Many if not most evangelicals don't give a shit about the legal side, they care about the social side - but about the fact that "redefining" the legal aspect of marriage by neccesity universally redefines the social aspect in a way that it offensive to them. So we follow the Constitution, extend equal legal rights to gays and straight couples, and let the various communities in society define the social institution of marriage how they wish.

So you feel we should divorce 'legal' marriage from 'social marriage'. The problem is, marriage is not 'the social institution', it is the civic institution.

If it matters so much to the religious then they should invent a new 'more pure' name for their marriages, but we need not pander to reactionaries, surely?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

That says racial. And homosexual marriage cannot prolong existence when it cannot create new life.

Your view on this extremely unrealistic. When was the last time the human race was concerned about its population needing to be replenished? 25000 B.C.? If we were in the middle of a population crisis, I would buy this argument. But we arent, we are in a food crisis where millions of people on this planet go starving on a daily basis. If anything the "gays cant reproduce" argument is one FOR gay marriage, lol.

Homosexual marriage isn't going to replace heterosexual marriage. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to cause a drop in population, nobody is going to magically turn gay just because they are allowed to marry. Who cares if homosexuals can produce children, thats what we have heterosexuals for.

Yeah ok the civil right thing may be correct, but they have the same civil rights. They can marry a man if they are a woman or a woman if they are a man regardless of race and if they are within legal age or with parental or guardian consent.

Again, an irrelevant statement. Every time you post you demonstrate that you lack basic comprehension of the problem. A man is allowed to marry a woman, but a woman is not allowed to marry a woman (only because of her gender). That is sexual discrimination by definition, since the heterosexual couple is entitled to legal benefits that are not extended to the homosexuals. The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees equal coverage and protection under law, which means that the discrimination is illegal. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

I think I am repeating myself.

Maybe instead of keeping your mouth open you should read what people are saying and try to understand it. Every single point you have brought up has been answered for in this thread, but you just keep rambling on to the next asinine "reason" without using any reading comprehension.

Can you or Deck Knight please respond to my posts? I am really wondering about your answers to these questions that are getting ignored by the anti-gay crowd here:

A separation of gay civil unions and heterosexual marriages doesn't violate religious freedoms or erode the Constitution for the reason you claimed (to be fair to the anti-gays, it DOES only contradict the 14th amendment), it just places emphasis on the fact that there is a huge divide in this country. It basically legalizes the sentiment that homosexuals are not normal people and they should not be entitled to the same legal institutions as heterosexuals are, even if the only difference is name. If the only difference is name, why even bother doing that? That would clearly only serve to set up even more barriers and promote even more intolerance....

If "I want to keep gay people healthy by eliminating their culture and their STD loving lifestyle" is really your argument, then Akuchi's point about Lesbians having a significantly lower STD rate comes into play. Do you support lesbian marriages?

And to pre-empt the inevitable bullshit you will spew if you ever decide to man up and actually respond to someone that is proving you wrong, of course if you go around and have sex with dozens of partners then the chance of having a disease skyrockets. This is no different from promiscuous heterosexuals.

You seem to be painting a picture of how homosexuals are different from heterosexuals, and that those choices should impact how they are treated. With this in mind, how can you say that gays are automatically going to have an embarassing 50/50 divorce rate, just because straight couples do? Your disproof of the claim here really calls a lot of your other claims into question.

So, you say that gays will act exactly like hetero couples do if they are granted marriage? So why don't we just give them the same priveleges and incentives? Oh wait, being fair means that gay culture is forcing us to be normal, and not our own stated declarations of equality and justice.

What is logical about gay marriage? How about the fact that it is blatant sexual discrimination to not allow it? How about the part where sex is not what marriage is about? Or maybe because a relationship isnt about offering something to society, but instead offering something to your partner?

What is logical about not allowing incest? What is logical about not allowing men to have multiple wives? What is logical about not being able to capture wives so that we can reproduce at will? If your whole argument is based off of the fact that the ability to have have reproductive intercourse with your spouse is the qualification for being married (which it is), you should logically be in favor of these things too.

Speaking of which, what is stopping gays from reproducing? I'm not sure if youve opened your eyes in the last 150 years, Deck Knight, but there are perfectly legitimate ways for gays to reproduce, raise kids and be productive members of society. Artificial ensemination and adoption come to mind here. If the ability to raise kids is the only qualification to you, would you support those gay couples who wish to reproduce but still continue their disgusting perverted relationships? A huge number of straight couples that have kids are clearly not cut out for parenting, yet they still get benefits for being married. Would you support testing for things like this, so that we don't give out benefits to people who don't deserve them?

 

[Janenmori]

Actually, the fourteenth ammendment states that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The law provides that, in California, any man may marry a woman and any woman may marry a man but not man and man or woman and woman. The people voted to ban the option for a man to marry a man or a woman to a woman. In the fourteenth ammendment it also states that all people have an equal right to vote, and that is what they did. They all voted to not allow the court's decision to overturn the previous ban to stand. You cannot say(well you really can, but that is not the point) more than fifty percent of voters decided to remove the judgment to overturn the previous ban, and ban homosexual unions again. Regardless to whether you are right or not, or whether I am right or not, it does not matter. The people have chosen to ban homosexual marriage in California. I am sure this is going to go on for a very long time until both sides can be at peace, but there will be turmoil until then, unfortunately. People just cannot agree on this issue, regardless of fact or reason, more people are led by what they feel. That is all that matters. If I feel that homosexual marriage should be banned, I am allowed to express that like any other voter (I am too young to vote btw haha). The people who know or feel or whatever that homosexual marriage is right get the same right to express their view as me. So to all of you who disagree with me, as Voltaire said, "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."