Author Topic: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"  (Read 114166 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #490 on: May 16, 2012, 01:34:40 PM »
Quote
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
I think it does. Nature plus nurture, right? Nature (your genotype) is obviously static, but sexuality also depends on surroundings, upbringing, habits, etc.. It works the same way as many other phenotypes.
Again, this is no reason to justify the illegality of same-sex marriage.
I don't think I actually argued for the illegality of same-sex marriage in this thread. I only recall arguing for:

- gay rights as nonexistent
- the gay marriage issue as not being a civil rights issue
- sexuality as changeable spectrum

Even given all that, I wouldn't sweat it if gay marriage was legal.
Ignoring that gay rights do exists (as much as any other rights do), that gay marriage is certainly a civil rights issue, and that sexuality is not changeable, this thread is about same-sex marriage so this discussion seems to be quite irrelevant.
No. If someone says "Same-sex marriage should be legal because the right to same-sex marriage exists," then my statements are completely relevant.
The right to same-sex marriage does not exist in every state in the union (evidently; if it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation), but some people are arguing that it should.

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12785
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #491 on: May 16, 2012, 01:38:53 PM »
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).

I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)? 

For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage).  I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way.  I don't believe it does.  If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak). 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #492 on: May 16, 2012, 01:39:54 PM »
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines


Make no mistake, I am in full agreement with this. 

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #493 on: May 16, 2012, 01:42:20 PM »
Marriage, in the US is a civil institution.  You need a license to do it.  In order to obtain that license you need to have a blood test

Wait really? For what purpose?
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Ryzee

  • Posts: 1259
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #494 on: May 16, 2012, 01:47:35 PM »
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).

I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)? 

For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage).  I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way.  I don't believe it does.  If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak).

So what the heck then Bosk?  Come on and join us and say that gays should be able to marry, everybody who's anybody is doing it! 

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #495 on: May 16, 2012, 01:49:06 PM »
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).

I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)? 

For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage).  I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way.  I don't believe it does.  If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak).

So what the heck then Bosk?  Come on and join us and say that gays should be able to marry, everybody who's anybody is doing it!
We have bacon! :yarr

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5311
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #496 on: May 16, 2012, 01:49:20 PM »
Marriage, in the US is a civil institution.  You need a license to do it.  In order to obtain that license you need to have a blood test

Wait really? For what purpose?
In some states maybe. I didn't need one.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13979
  • Gender: Male
  • Kelly Clarkson BEEFS
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #497 on: May 16, 2012, 01:52:53 PM »
For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage).  I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way.  I don't believe it does.  If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak).

:clap:

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #498 on: May 16, 2012, 01:53:31 PM »
I don't know, for what it's worth though I'll announce that I think gays should be able to marry, and that one day they will be able to as society continues to progress.  Just like blacks and women are now allowed to do things that they previously weren't, and when we look back on how they weren't allowed to do those things it seems quite silly to us now.  I saw a thing on the internet that was a picture of people protesting gay marriage in D.C. and an older picture of people protesting interracial marriage in D.C.  The caption was "imagine how silly you're going to look in 40 years."  I thougt it was pretty much right on.
Out of curiosity I Googled the image. I'm not sure, but does one of the protester's signs say "Race mixing is communism"? :lol

Offline Ryzee

  • Posts: 1259
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #499 on: May 16, 2012, 01:55:51 PM »
That it does!  The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?  Oh, and I guess I was being kind.  I replaced "stupid" with "silly."

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12785
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #500 on: May 16, 2012, 02:01:17 PM »
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).

I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)? 

For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage).  I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way.  I don't believe it does.  If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak).

So what the heck then Bosk?  Come on and join us and say that gays should be able to marry, everybody who's anybody is doing it! 

:lol  Well, as I said.  I believe engaging in homosexual conduct is immoral and, therefore, the government should not grant special privileges to immoral conduct.  But homosexuals marrying does not impact me directly, and if they do, okay--the sun will come out tomorrow, I will continue to love my friends, family members, and acquaintances who are gay/straight/other, and life will pretty much carry on as it has.  That's where I'm coming from, in a nutshell. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12785
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #501 on: May 16, 2012, 02:01:49 PM »
That's where I'm coming from, in a nutshell. 

Anyone else suddenly in the mood to impersonate a pistachio?
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #502 on: May 16, 2012, 02:02:52 PM »
Apparently you didn't hear me.
We have bacon! :yarr

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12785
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #503 on: May 16, 2012, 02:05:17 PM »
Well, bacon and pistachios go really well together.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #504 on: May 16, 2012, 02:08:27 PM »
Thoughts on bacon-pistachio marriage, everybody?

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5311
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #505 on: May 16, 2012, 02:10:41 PM »
I wouldn't want bacon to be tied down like that. I prefer my bacon slutty, matching up with basically anything.

Offline Nick

  • A doctor.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 20050
  • Gender: Male
  • But not the medical kind.
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #506 on: May 16, 2012, 02:19:42 PM »
Wow, I was just going to link to that video. Nerdfighters!


Also another video, this time from John Green:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI&feature=youtu.be

Though I can't do the gesture with my right hand, I thought that dude kinda looked like me immediately...



In hindsight it's probably just the glasses and thick hair, but I got a chuckle out of it.
For the best online progressive radio: ProgRock.com
For the best in progressive news, reviews, and interviews: SonicPerspectives.com
For a trove of older podcasts and interviews: WPaPU.com
Awesome Majesty Pendant Club: Member #1

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #507 on: May 16, 2012, 02:28:42 PM »
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).

I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)? 

The argument (at least, not any type of argument I would ever support) isn't that allowing same-sex "marriage" will lead to the infringement of anther's civil rights (and God forbid that the argument to support same-sex "marriage" is that allowing it will not infringe upon anyone's rights; by that same misguided logic, an animal-human "marriage" would not infringe upon anyone's rights either and would therefore also be fair game to institutionalize). The argument against same-sex "marriage" (or at least one of the worthy ones, as I see it) is that the very idea of same-sex "marriage" is a metaphysical absurdity and a moral abomination.

Too many conservatives natter on about whether it ought to be the courts or "the people" who get to "define" marriage, effectively conceding to their liberal opponents the absurd supposition that the question fundamentally concerns what meaning we ought arbitrarily to attach to a certain word. It is no more up to the courts or "the people" to "define" marriage than it is up to them to "define" whether the Pythagorean Theorem is true of right triangles, or whether water has the chemical structure H2O. In each case, what is at issue is a matter of objective fact that it is the business of reason to discover rather than democratic procedure to stipulate.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 02:34:25 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline the Catfishman

  • Posts: 490
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #508 on: May 16, 2012, 02:37:45 PM »
And yet you still haven't given a single source or reason why marriage is such a historically fixed definition you make it ought to be.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #509 on: May 16, 2012, 02:38:20 PM »
Marriage is not a fundamental law like the laws of mathematics or gravity. Marriage is an invented social rite.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #510 on: May 16, 2012, 02:39:53 PM »
Consider moral realism. If it's true, then there very well might be fundamental laws of marriage.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #511 on: May 16, 2012, 02:45:28 PM »
And yet you still haven't given a single source or reason why marriage is such a historically fixed definition you make it ought to be.

I needn't. Even if I were to concede -- which I wouldn't for an instant -- that the historical, traditional and rational reason for the existence of the institution of marriage wasn't to oversee the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint, that wouldn't at all affect the metaphysical absurdity of the idea of same-sex "marriage." For natural law and natural teleology entail that marriage is determined by its final causes, thus inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual. The thing about natural teleology, though, is that it isn't something that you can merely chose to "subscribe to" or not; natural teleology is self-evident and you'd be irrational to deny it (for example, the final cause of our eyes is to allow us to see; the final cause of our lungs is to allow us to breathe; the final cause of our sexual organs is to reproduce -- and expel waste -- etc).
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #512 on: May 16, 2012, 02:49:44 PM »
Consider moral realism. If it's true, then there very well might be fundamental laws of marriage.
I've not yet seen any evidence that that would be the case. Considering how different marriage looks today than fifty years ago or a hundred years ago or two thousand years ago, it's extremely hard for me to believe that marriage is anything other than something a guy made up one day which, for whatever reason, stuck around.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #513 on: May 16, 2012, 02:58:07 PM »
And yet you still haven't given a single source or reason why marriage is such a historically fixed definition you make it ought to be.

I needn't.
Yes, you do. This is what discussion is. You have to support your arguments.

I needn't. Even if I were to concede -- which I wouldn't for an instant -- that the historical, traditional and rational reason for the existence of the institution of marriage wasn't to oversee the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint, that wouldn't at all affect the metaphysical absurdity of the idea of same-sex "marriage."

As has been mentioned, I don't know, forty times in threads you've posted, children have historically not been the reason to get married. In the past, people got married because they wanted to have sex and the church told them they had to get married to do that.

Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
As others have said in all of the threads you've posted this rant in (which you continually ignore whenever it's brought up), this is historically not the reason that marriage has existed. Marriage, up until the relatively recent past, has been an exchange of property, the wife being the property. Historically and factually, marriage has not served the purpose you claim it to serve. Children have been inconsequential as far as marriage is concerned; the romantic concept of getting married to a woman who loves you, buying a house, and having some kids is really very recent, and exists only in developed countries.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #514 on: May 16, 2012, 03:07:53 PM »
Theseoafs, I'm not relying upon any sort of weak historical assessment for my opposition to same-sex marriage (at least certainly not in my recent few posts). I'm not interested in diving into a desperate siege-thy-wikipedia-for-historical-occurrences-that-would-support-my-idea-of-marriage routine. What I am arguing is completely independent of historical examples and concerns itself with natural teleology and natural law, encapsulated within the confines of a more broader, metaphysical framework and discussion. These "but wait, in Spain in the 1340's, a lot of people married because of x" not only does not affect the proper, principal understanding of marriage, but also does nothing to justify same-sex "marriage" in any kind metaphysical foundation (indeed you can't).
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36084
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #515 on: May 16, 2012, 03:09:27 PM »
Theseoafs, I'm not relying upon any sort of weak historical assessment for my opposition to same-sex marriage (at least certainly not in my recent few posts). I'm not interested in diving into a desperate siege-thy-wikipedia-for-historical-occurrences-that-would-support-my-idea-of-marriage routine. What I am arguing is completely independent of historical examples and concerns itself with natural teleology and natural law, encapsulated within the confines of a more broader, metaphysical framework and discussion.

You want to argue the histriocity of marriage devioid of any historical examples because they don't agree with you? Have at it hoss.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #516 on: May 16, 2012, 03:10:28 PM »
You want to argue the histriocity of marriage?

No, that's exactly what I'm not interested in doing.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36084
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #517 on: May 16, 2012, 03:11:25 PM »
You want to argue the histriocity of marriage?

No, that's exactly what I'm not interested in doing.

So you want to redefine marriage as it has never been defined your way. Yet somehow are against the idea of redefining marriage.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #518 on: May 16, 2012, 03:14:50 PM »
Theseoafs, I'm not relying upon any sort of weak historical assessment for my opposition to same-sex marriage (at least certainly not in my recent few posts). I'm not interested in diving into a desperate siege-thy-wikipedia-for-historical-occurrences-that-would-support-my-idea-of-marriage routine. What I am arguing is completely independent of historical examples and concerns itself with natural teleology and natural law, encapsulated within the confines of a more broader, metaphysical framework and discussion. These "but wait, in Spain in the 1340's, a lot of people married because of x" not only does not affect the proper, principal understanding of marriage, but also does nothing to justify same-sex "marriage" in any kind metaphysical foundation (indeed you can't).
But there is no proper, principal understanding of marriage. This is the whole point. Marriage has taken a lot of forms in the past few thousand years, and if we're to take anything from that indisputable fact, it's that trying to figure out what marriage looks like "ideally" or "in principle" is bound to fail because marriage is nothing more than an invented social rite.

EDIT: I realized just now that I initially wrote "This the whole point". It's been like that for a couple hours. :lol
« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 04:49:47 PM by theseoafs »

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #519 on: May 16, 2012, 03:20:26 PM »
Besides, you're butchering nature vs. nurture. There are somethings which are genetically determined. Period. My genetics determined that I have a penis, no amount of nurture is going to change that (okay, castration...). Gay men pretty much have the brains of a woman, gay women pretty much have the brains of a man. Nurture isn't going to just change that.
I'll say it again in a different way. There is rarely a straight line between genotype and phenotype. Yes, the fact that you have one X and one Y sex chromosomes is biologically fixed. But the fact that you have a penis isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

Just examine twins who grew up in different environments. They can look completely different and have completely different personalities.

You're really just avoiding the issue. "Nurture" is not some magical thing that can cause anything to happen, and showing twins that have different appearances and personalities is a far cry from saying their brain structures can somehow turn from male to female. To more properly use my example, I was born with a penis, and nothing that I experience in life will make me grow a vagina. What you're suggesting is pretty much this, that a male brain can suddenly turn into a female brain.

You started with the fact that sexuality is found to be a sliding scale, and then you just added some hypothesis that it's possible to move along this scale. That's not true. People's skin colors are found to be on a sliding scale as well, but ignoring Michael Jackson, people born black don't turn white. There would possibly maybe be slight movement, but nothing so much as going from homosexual to heterosexual, as you are claiming.


*edit*

By the way, doing a quick glance through that wiki article you linked to, they seem to be laying a lot of the cause for what happens on genetics and mutations. So even there, it's not so cut and dry as you make it out to be.


Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5311
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #520 on: May 16, 2012, 03:28:03 PM »
There is obviously a nurture aspect to homosexuality. How else can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is not? It's not purely genetic.

I would say the best way to explain H's phenomenon would be to say that a person could choose to focus on one side or the other of their sexuality if they find themself somewhere in the middle. It's possible for a man to be say 60% gay, but meet a woman who he falls in love with and wants to have a monogamous heterosexual relationship with. That doesn't mean he's not still attracted to men and still 60% gay, he's just acting on the 40% straight side of his sexuality at that point and may for the rest of his life.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #521 on: May 16, 2012, 03:31:59 PM »
There is obviously a nurture aspect to homosexuality. How else can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is not? It's not purely genetic.

Identical twins still have genetic differences: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline SeRoX

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2425
  • Gender: Male
  • The VoiceMaster
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #522 on: May 16, 2012, 03:52:22 PM »
There is obviously a nurture aspect to homosexuality. How else can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is not? It's not purely genetic.


Well, I don't know where you read this but this is absolutely wrong. Monozygotic twins have genetic differences. We can only say that their phenotype could be %99 alike which is caused by genetic codes. Apart from that genotype is completely another matter in biology. It has its differences in each person even they are monozygotic twins.
Quote from: Plasmastrike
SeRoX is right!
Quote from: Nihil-Morari
SeRoX is DTF's JLB!
As usual, SeRoX is correct.

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #523 on: May 16, 2012, 04:39:47 PM »
Wow, I was just going to link to that video. Nerdfighters!


Also another video, this time from John Green:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI&feature=youtu.be

Though I can't do the gesture with my right hand, I thought that dude kinda looked like me immediately...



In hindsight it's probably just the glasses and thick hair, but I got a chuckle out of it.

wait, that isn't you??

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #524 on: May 16, 2012, 04:47:06 PM »
There is obviously a nurture aspect to homosexuality. How else can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is not? It's not purely genetic.

https://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

Quote
Bocklandt has collected DNA from two groups of 15 pairs of identical twins. In one group, both twins are gay. In the second, one twin is gay, and the other is straight. Identical twins have the same DNA, but the activity of their genes isn’t necessarily the same. The reason is something called methylation.

Methylation turns off certain sections of genetic code. So even though we inherit two copies of every gene—one from our mother, one from our father—whether the gene is methylated often determines which of the two genes will be turned on. Methylation is inherited, just as DNA is. But unlike DNA, which has an enzyme that proofreads both the original and the copy to minimize errors, methylation has no built-in checks

Just becuase it's not purely genetic, doesn't mean it's someones "choice," or that differing social environments are what lead to this difference.