Train Wreck: Continued (1 Viewer)

[Busta]

Re: post 1019 by Technocratic_Utilitarian, from "gay 'marriage";

"Note* Jefferson's Declaration that all men are created equal. This is an Enlightenment concept derived from Deism and Secular Humanism. During the Enlightenment, philosophers believed that man's reason was a unifying trait, and via this trait, all men were morally equal. Their "creator" gave them this "reason" by which they could live their own, independent lives from him.

"Creator is used instead of God because they were not Christians, nor did they believe in any active God. Creator = Nature. Deists believed in a God of Nature. They were not Theists. In fact, myriad Founding Fathers decried organized religion, especially Christianity"

I find myself in agreement with these beliefs.
* A man's reason may be the equivalent of what the bible refers to as "knowledge of good and evil";
* The Creator giving Man reason so that Man could live his own unique life for Him;
* I have allways considered "God" to be the English defalt word which is equivalent to "Creator", "Creating Force", "Universal Force", "Universal Being", "Great Spirit", "Allah"...etc.... It is all to easy to fall into the pit trap of personifying such a force.
* "Creator = Nature." I have always considered the universe, its self, to be the literal body of "God". Again, it is all to easy to personify such a Force.
* A God of Nature is exactly to what I refer. I concider "God" to be a natural force that is still well beyond our comprehension.
* I, also, abore organized religion. My faith is my own. You do this conversation a grave dis-service when you throe me, or anyone ells, into the stereo typical group of Christians.
* The Church today is a far cry from what it originally was: Just a few people getting together to discuss ideas. Speaking about God was never suppose to be institutionalized into the bureaucracy that it is today. I could only describe the Church as a work of the Adversary.

My objection to gay 'marriage is based on my understanding of Natural Law, not the literal text of Positive Law.

I do not believe that just because one is born with an abnormality, that they are allowed to participate in an institution without being able to fulfill the nature of that institution. Nor do I believe that simply by virtue of the fact that one is born with an abnormality, that this person has some kind of assumed birthright to change the rules of existing institutions in order to suit their needs.

I would say that an abnormality is a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body.

The male gender was designed to join with the female gender. The male psychology was designed to compliment the female psychology. And vica-versa.

I would imagine that to the individual homosexual person, their sexuality fells completely normal. However, when that individual's sexuality is compaired to the sexuality of the rest of that individual's species, we can see that homosexuality, being a variation, is abnormal.

As it realates to marriage:
Marriage is not just another standered issue right like breathing, voting or protesting. It is an elevated promotion of a heterosexual union that encourages the practice of forming and maintaining a nuclear family.

The core of a nuclear family is a Husband and his Wife.

Since a man can not be a wife and woman can not be a husband, if a family is formed who's core is composed of 2 men or 2 women, then this family, being a variation from the normal nuclear family, would be an abnormality.

I disagree with elevating and promoting a homosexual union which encourages the practice of forming and maintaining an abnormal family.

Try talking to me about unions which do not promote the practice of forming and maintaining any family at all (don't even try it with "civil unions" aka gay 'marriage, I know better).

I'll sterilize this as much as I can: It seems un-natural to promote and elevate behavior which is contrary to the purpose of our design.

 

[Duke]

Re: post 1019 by Technocratic_Utilitarian, from "gay 'marriage";

"Note* Jefferson's Declaration that all men are created equal. This is an Enlightenment concept derived from Deism and Secular Humanism. During the Enlightenment, philosophers believed that man's reason was a unifying trait, and via this trait, all men were morally equal. Their "creator" gave them this "reason" by which they could live their own, independent lives from him.

"Creator is used instead of God because they were not Christians, nor did they believe in any active God. Creator = Nature. Deists believed in a God of Nature. They were not Theists. In fact, myriad Founding Fathers decried organized religion, especially Christianity"

I find myself in agreement with these beliefs.
* A man's reason may be the equivalent of what the bible refers to as "knowledge of good and evil";
* The Creator giving Man reason so that Man could live his own unique life for Him;
* I have allways considered "God" to be the English defalt word which is equivalent to "Creator", "Creating Force", "Universal Force", "Universal Being", "Great Spirit", "Allah"...etc.... It is all to easy to fall into the pit trap of personifying such a force.
* "Creator = Nature." I have always considered the universe, its self, to be the literal body of "God". Again, it is all to easy to personify such a Force.
* A God of Nature is exactly to what I refer. I concider "God" to be a natural force that is still well beyond our comprehension.
* I, also, abore organized religion. My faith is my own. You do this conversation a grave dis-service when you throe me, or anyone ells, into the stereo typical group of Christians.
* The Church today is a far cry from what it originally was: Just a few people getting together to discuss ideas. Speaking about God was never suppose to be institutionalized into the bureaucracy that it is today. I could only describe the Church as a work of the Adversary.

My objection to gay 'marriage is based on my understanding of Natural Law, not the literal text of Positive Law.

I do not believe that just because one is born with an abnormality, that they are allowed to participate in an institution without being able to fulfill the nature of that institution. Nor do I believe that simply by virtue of the fact that one is born with an abnormality, that this person has some kind of assumed birthright to change the rules of existing institutions in order to suit their needs.

I would say that an abnormality is a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body.

The male gender was designed to join with the female gender. The male psychology was designed to compliment the female psychology. And vica-versa.

I would imagine that to the individual homosexual person, their sexuality fells completely normal. However, when that individual's sexuality is compaired to the sexuality of the rest of that individual's species, we can see that homosexuality, being a variation, is abnormal.

As it realates to marriage:
Marriage is not just another standered issue right like breathing, voting or protesting. It is an elevated promotion of a heterosexual union that encourages the practice of forming and maintaining a nuclear family.

The core of a nuclear family is a Husband and his Wife.

Since a man can not be a wife and woman can not be a husband, if a family is formed who's core is composed of 2 men or 2 women, then this family, being a variation from the normal nuclear family, would be an abnormality.

I disagree with elevating and promoting a homosexual union which encourages the practice of forming and maintaining an abnormal family.

Try talking to me about unions which do not promote the practice of forming and maintaining any family at all (don't even try it with "civil unions" aka gay 'marriage, I know better).

I'll sterilize this as much as I can: It seems un-natural to promote and elevate behavior which is contrary to the purpose of our design.

There are these things in exisitence called "facts of life". They are not things that work, that make sense, and you usually dislike them. But you can hate them and disregard them all you want and they do not go away. Homosexuality seems to be like that. It must be acknowledged, even if it doesn't fit.


Duke

 

[Busta]

There are these things in exisitence called "facts of life". They are not things that work, that make sense, and you usually dislike them. But you can hate them and disregard them all you want and they do not go away. Homosexuality seems to be like that. It must be acknowledged, even if it doesn't fit.


Duke

Homosexuality exists, not just in Humans but in @ 450 species on the Earth. Yes, it is a "Fact of life".

That is acknowledgment.

Homosexual people should be able to go to school, get a job, vote and be able to live out their lives without being harassed or attacked for who they are.

That is tolerance.

Homosexuality should not be reflected in the elevated union of marriage.

That would be acceptance.

I WILL acknowledge and tolerate homosexuality.

I will NOT accept homosexuality.

I draw the line at marriage. This far, and no further.

 

[Duke]

Homosexuality exists, not just in Humans but in @ 450 species on the Earth. Yes, it is a "Fact of life".

That is acknowledgment.

Homosexual people should be able to go to school, get a job, vote and be able to live out their lives without being harassed or attacked for who they are.

That is tolerance.

Homosexuality should not be reflected in the elevated union of marriage.

That would be acceptance.

I WILL acknowledge and tolerate homosexuality.

I will NOT accept homosexuality.

I draw the line at marriage. This far, and no further.

So, what do you have against gay people, huh? What, do you not think that they are acceptable? Do you think gay poeple are inferior, like Hitler did? Could it possibly be about religion? If so, then you must not think that church and state should be kept apart.


Duke

 

[jallman]

Homosexuality exists, not just in Humans but in @ 450 species on the Earth. Yes, it is a "Fact of life".

That is acknowledgment.

Homosexual people should be able to go to school, get a job, vote and be able to live out their lives without being harassed or attacked for who they are.

That is tolerance.

Homosexuality should not be reflected in the elevated union of marriage.

That would be acceptance.

I WILL acknowledge and tolerate homosexuality.

I will NOT accept homosexuality.

I draw the line at marriage. This far, and no further.

well busta, when your acceptance particularly is required to elevate my status, I will be sure to let you know first. :roll:

 

[Busta]

So, what do you have against gay people, huh? What, do you not think that they are acceptable? Do you think gay poeple are inferior, like Hitler did? Could it possibly be about religion? If so, then you must not think that church and state should be kept apart.


Duke

I spelled that out in my first post. It is not the people, it is the behavior.

 

[Busta]

well busta, when your acceptance particularly is required to elevate my status, I will be sure to let you know first. :roll:

Isn't the point of all of this discussion to convince people like me to support gay 'marriage? My acceptance of homosexuality is required in order for me to vote in favor of it, sign a petition, or send a letter or e-mail of support to a congressman, yes.

 

[leejosepho]

...
My objection ... is based on my understanding of Natural Law ...
I do not believe that just because one is born with an abnormality ...
Nor do I believe that simply by virtue of the fact that one is born with an abnormality, that this person has some kind of assumed birthright ...
I would say that an abnormality is a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body ...
I would imagine that to the individual ... their ... feels completely normal. However, when that individual's ... is compaired to the ... of the rest of that individual's species, we can see that ..., being a variation, is abnormal.
...
I'll sterilize this as much as I can: It seems un-natural to promote and elevate behavior which is contrary to the purpose of our design.

Praphrasing and applying those same principles to alcoholism:

Just because one is born with an abnormality does not give that individual some kind of assumed birthright to drink himself or herself to death free of the objections of others.

An abnormality is a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body, and a real alcoholic has both:
1) a mental obsession for the effects of alcohol;
2) a physical "phenomenon of craving" that is set off by alcohol.

To the alcoholic, their indulgence feels completely normal. However, when that individual's drinking is compared to the drinking of the rest of that individual's species, we can see that the real alcoholic, being a variation, is abnormal.

It seems un-natural to promote and elevate behavior which is contrary to life itself.

Personally, my point here is a simple one:

Yes, both the alcoholic and the homosexual might truly be predisposed (I believe) toward their particular and respective abnormal behaviours - I was toward mine (alcoholism) - and yes, each has a dubious "right", so to speak, to do as s/he pleases. However, neither has any right to expect society's acceptance and/or approval of his or her chosen-or-not abnormal behaviour, and society is actually obligated to offer each sufferer a condemnation-free opportunity to recover.

 

[Columbusite]

Homosexuality exists, not just in Humans but in @ 450 species on the Earth. Yes, it is a "Fact of life".

That is acknowledgment.

Homosexual people should be able to go to school, get a job, vote and be able to live out their lives without being harassed or attacked for who they are.

That is tolerance.

Homosexuality should not be reflected in the elevated union of marriage.

That would be acceptance.

I WILL acknowledge and tolerate homosexuality.

I will NOT accept homosexuality.

I draw the line at marriage. This far, and no further.

Let's just apply some REASON here and think about how dumb this really is.

Atheism should not be reflected in the elevated union of marriage.

That would be acceptance.

I WILL acknowledge and tolerate Atheism.

I will NOT accept Atheism.

I draw the line at marriage. This far, and no further.[/QUOTE]

So following your logic you, and everyone else opposed to Atheism have to accept Atheism because they can get married, not merely tolerate it. Yeah...right...

 

[Duke]

I spelled that out in my first post. It is not the people, it is the behavior.

As much as you may hate to admit it, homosexual behavior is normal. It is much less common then heterosexual behavior, but since there are millions of gay people living in the world today, it is very normal.


Duke

 

[Busta]

Praphrasing and applying those same principles to alcoholism:

Just because one is born with an abnormality does not give that individual some kind of assumed birthright to drink himself or herself to death free of the objections of others.

An abnormality is a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body, and a real alcoholic has both:
1) a mental obsession for the effects of alcohol;
2) a physical "phenomenon of craving" that is set off by alcohol.

To the alcoholic, their indulgence feels completely normal. However, when that individual's drinking is compared to the drinking of the rest of that individual's species, we can see that the real alcoholic, being a variation, is abnormal.

It seems un-natural to promote and elevate behavior which is contrary to life itself.

Personally, my point here is a simple one:

Yes, both the alcoholic and the homosexual might truly be predisposed (I believe) toward their particular and respective abnormal behaviours - I was toward mine (alcoholism) - and yes, each has a dubious "right", so to speak, to do as s/he pleases. However, neither has any right to expect society's acceptance and/or approval of his or her chosen-or-not abnormal behaviour, and society is actually obligated to offer each sufferer a condemnation-free opportunity to recover.

I can not tell you how much I can personally appreciate that analogy. Alcoholism runs in my family, primarily with our men. My Father and Grandfather are both heavy drinkers to this day. On the rare occasion that I have a drink, I can feel an urge to drink more...I'm not sure how too describe it.

The common consciences in our family is that we have a, possibly genetic, predisposition to alcoholism. Knowing this, I do not drink....with rare exception. The last drink that I had was a shot of something (that was actually good, some kind of Irish Cream mixed shot) on new-years 2000.

Thanks for that, though.
Good post.

 

[Busta]

Let's just apply some REASON here and think about how dumb this really is.

Atheism should not be reflected in the elevated union of marriage.

That would be acceptance.

I WILL acknowledge and tolerate Atheism.

I will NOT accept Atheism.

I draw the line at marriage. This far, and no further.

If we were debating rather or not "non-believers" should be permitted to engage in the State recognized religious ceremony of Marriage without recognizing the faith based origin of marriage, then that would be a possable argument.

I do acknowledge and tolerate Atheists. Being a part of God's creation, Atheism, like homosexuality, has a perpose and function toward the betterment of Humanity; otherwise they wouldn't exist.

I do not accept Atheism, because, generally, Atheists deny an as yet uncomprehended natural creating Force. I see that denial as being an abnormality like homosexuality; though of a different kind and to a different degree.

 

[jallman]

If we were debating rather or not "non-believers" should be permitted to engage in the State recognized religious ceremony of Marriage without recognizing the faith based origin of marriage, then that would be a possable argument.

I do acknowledge and tolerate Atheists. Being a part of God's creation, Atheism, like homosexuality, has a perpose and function toward the betterment of Humanity; otherwise they wouldn't exist.

I do not accept Atheism, because, generally, Atheists deny an as yet uncomprehended natural creating Force. I see that denial as being an abnormality like homosexuality; though of a different kind and to a different degree.

So now you are taking it upon yourself to define a standard of abnormality. And it would appear that the relative standard for normal is now Christian Heterosexual. How simplistic...Busta...come on, you can do much better. :yawn:

 

[Busta]

So now you are taking it upon yourself to define a standard of abnormality. And it would appear that the relative standard for normal is now Christian Heterosexual. How simplistic...Busta...come on, you can do much better. :yawn:

"Standered of abnormality"...that's a bit like 'military intelligence'.......
I'm not defining anything on my own. I get my definition of "Abnormality" from the dictionary.
Heh....BEHOLD:
MSN/Hotmail Dictionary;
abnormality n

1. a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body

2. condition that is not the usual or expected one

You will note, Duke, that "wrong" and/or "bad" are not in that definition. No morality at all in included in that definition. Abnormality's definition is based on *reason*, not religion; and that is how I use it.

 

[jallman]

Since we had to begin this thread again, I thought maybe this would be a good time for everyone to take an opportunity and sum up not only his/her position, but also sum up his or her clearly defined motives and reasonings for holding that position. This thread got up above 1000 post before being shut down and that is a lot of reading and opportunity for disorganization and confusion. That is true even if you disregard the purely inflammatory posts by Dhard and other "enlightened guests" we have had in this debate. Busta inadvertantly makes a good point when he says that it is a forum like this that is our tool to sway one another to our respective opinions, and thereby institute change. So, here is open invitation for the key players in this debate to regroup their stances without retaliation in an effort to organize the flow of conversation once more and then begin the debate in earnest. Anyone interested?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I can work with this, however, it is really difficult to debate when myriad people are throwing stuff in and the posts get backed up. Hard to really make a point, because each point is flooded with outher points.

 

[jallman]

I can work with this, however, it is really difficult to debate when myriad people are throwing stuff in and the posts get backed up. Hard to really make a point, because each point is flooded with outher points.

True, but we can weed through that. Lets just start now with a couple of good clean posts by kelzie, shuamort, busta, albqowl, and you to start. Mr.Fungus, anyone else...but I think we should use some selectiveness when it comes to flamers like dhard and others...just ignore them and when they stop getting the attention they will just go away and let us have a real discussion.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Fist off, I don't understand why people think being gay is wrong, immoral, bad, and I don't comprehend why they think it is therefore bad that homosexual marriage is wrong. I have noticed several major arguments in play on the side of ant-homosexuality.

A = Argument P = Response

The Argument from Nature.

A. People like to say that Homosexuality is Unnatural, therefore it is wrong.


P. This is a fallacious argument even if we assume homosexuality to be unnatural, for "unnatural" as a characteristic does not make something wrong. In ethics, you cannot go from the factual to the ethical, because ethics are normative and facts are descriptive. Saying being "gay" or "gay marriage is wrong" is a normative conclusion, and in ethics, every normative conclusion must be backed up by at least one normative premise. Saying Homosexuality = Unnatural = unethical is the Naturalistic Fallacy. This is an invalid argument, thus people cannot legitmately use it.

P. This argument is also wrong factually, because Homosexuality is not unnatural. It is found in myriad animals in various forms and degrees of bisexuality, especially humans. I can logically show why this entire argument is not valid. For this thought experiment, I am assuming animals that are not manufactured in a lab.

1. All Animals are natural
2. All traits/habits of an animal are natural
4. Homosexuality is an animal characteristic
5. All Humans are mammals, thus animals
6. Ergo, homosexuality is natural.

If you want to be technical, the concept of "natural" is quit semantic. Nature is everything around us, and all humans are intrinsically part of nature.
Unnatural is typically used to refer to something that is not found in nature. Humans are PART of nature. The only thing that cannot be part of nature is something that is not naturally found in nature, and it is obvious to see that since animals have traits and characteristics, and these habits and traits are perfectly natural, and humans are animals in nature, and a human trait is sexuality type, it follows that homosexuality, as a trait in humans, is also natural. Homosexuality/sexuality, unlike sunglasses, skyscrapers, etc isn't a manufactured item; it's found in nature. It's a trait, a characteristic. It's not elements or particles that were lab-made. Man did not make it and thrus it into nature.

Thus, the entire "it's unnatural argument" is both logically fallacious as well as factually incorrect. THis means you cannot use them and still remain credible.


The Argument from Icky

A. Gays and Gay marriage is bad because I don't like it.
P. Who gives a ****? Liking it does not make it right, not liking it does not make it wrong.


The Argument from Slipperly Slope

A. If you allow those gays to marry, then you will have people marrying their toasters and goats! Soon, marraige will mean nothing!

P. This does not logically follow from an ethical perspective, because A does not lead to B does not lead to C. The ethical justifications behind homosxual marriage are not ONLY justice and fairness, but the concept of moral personhood and how that ties into contractual relations and freedom of association. It is also balanced by the concepts of pain/suffering utility.

Goats and toasters can never be married, because in ethics and law, contracts can only be made between and among concentual figures. Unless you can get a goat to conscent...this argument is invalid. Gay marriage will not lead to Goat Marriage, just as it won't lead to Toaster Marriage.



The Argument from Tradition

A. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman! Therefore, we ought not change it.

P. THis is a variation and combination of two major logical fallacies.

1. Naturalistic fallacy
2. Appeal to Tradition

For the first, the answer should be obvious. Ought = ethical concern. Ethical concerns != facts. Even if it were naturally the state of marriage, it doesn't really matter.

For the latter, the case is unique. You cannot logically appeal to the tradition of something and have it automatically be justified or correct. The fact that something always was is not a case for it always being.

 

[jallman]

Ok, so here goes my reasoning...

Before we can even approach the topic of gay marriage and its viability as a constitutional right, we must first deconstruct the opportunistic opposition of homosexualities moral consequence. A fundamental argument of this opposition is the choice vs inheritance debate, which I feel is actually a non-issue. However, it is a pillar of the anti gay marriage stance and so, must be addressed before we can move any further. Now Kelzie has provided, on numerous occassions, studies which prove that homosexuality is a common trait among fraternal twins and between siblings when the trait is present. I would also like to add to her information by pointing to a recent study using drosophilia (aka the fruit fly...and no, the irony is not lost on me).

This study was published in the scientific journal "Cell" and was entitled "Genetic and Neural Control of Drosophilia sexual behavior. The study detailed how turning one single gene in the female fruit fly caused a shift in her gender role in the mating ritual. In other words, shifting this gene turned the female gay and made her attempt to mate with other females. To put it simply, the study proves the causal link between genetics and a predisposition toward homosexuality.

Recognition of this study certainly undermines the very foundation of the anti-gay marriage stance by delivering a preponderance of evidence against the moral objection against homosexuality in general. However, it is not a facet of the moral majority, the religious objectors, and the unthinking bigot to accept scientific fact when constructing their homophobic rhetoric...or any rhetoric for that matter. It is clear from the Intelligent Design/Creationism versus Evolution debate that scientific reasoning is not held to the same standard as, say, religious opining and so, will not be pivotal in winning the debate against institutionalized ignorance. To accept scientific evidence is to break down the standard illogic and to undermine the fundamental moral imperative that homosexuality must be guarded against lest the vile homosexual infiltrate society and sway virtuous children who might otherwise remain innocent of such "perversions."

It must also be acknowledged that if inheritance is accepted, then homosexuality may be regarded as a disability or a handicap such as alcoholism or genetic dysfunctions such as deafness or blindness. Some may even go so far as to call it a handicap on par with down's syndrome or retardation. The retort to this illogic becomes evident when it is pointed out that alcoholism is afforded no special protection nor is it regarded with any restriction. Blindness and deafness are a tolerable handicap to society and such individuals are barred from no rights save those that pose an immediate threat by their participation (i.e. driving). If the opposition would like to tow the retardation line as a possible deterrent, then one must look at precedent where couple with down's syndrome have been married. It is a further benefit to proponents of gay marriage to point out that social risk is even less in the case of homosexual matrimony because there is no risk of passing the genetic trait on as a result of the union.

With the end of the choice vs genetic argument, the next goal in defense of gay marriage is to turn one's attention to the legal/constitutional issue. The opposition will tout that marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. However, it is important to note that even in the past 50 years that marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman of the same race. Even well before that, marriage had been defined as being between one man and many women, though that point is irrelevant when considering the modern standard we are attempting to shift. The point is that the lines have been redrawn before and so can be redrawn again in light of the progressive inclusiveness of our society. The law is living and it is constantly evolving at the same rate as the society it governs. And so it is fallacious to even attempt the argument that it should not change. To cry that not giving homosexuals the right to marry is not discriminatory on the part of the opposition, but rather is the fault of the homosexual for choosing the wrong partner is, in effect, a futile argument when you hold the issue up to the standard of historical precedent.

The advocacy of gay marriage must approach the debate with a resolution that the standard of law, not the law itself, must remain constant. Whether homosexuality is a biological trait or whether it is moral to the far right or not should not be the issue at all, but rather the reasoning behind the law should be brought to the fore. Laws meant to restrict are put in place only to prevent and deter harmful behaviors and actions. It is evident that theft, murder, arson, drunk driving, and labor violation are all harmful to individuals and society. However, there can be no argument that homosexuality is any more harmful to an individual or society than perhaps participating in heterosexual oral sex. Whether it be choice or inheritance, the fact still remains that there is no harm being done to anyone and we have demonstrated with the abolition of interracial marriage laws that a person's choice of life partner is not to be governed by the state. Unless you can create a neutral reasoning for denying the legal contract of marriage (moral opposition nor religious reasoning qualify as neutral), then it stands to reason that said denial is, in fact, unconstitutional and implies a degradation of personal choice. At this juncture, the law becomes not an institution of protection, but rather an institution of oppression.

So what then is the fundamental reasoning for denying homosexuals equality when it comes to the legal contract of marriage? (Please take note, I am only discussing marriage in terms of the legal construction and taking great pains to exclude the religious aspect.) It is established that we are not a theocracy so the argument that "it is a sin" will go nowhere with the rational body of this debate. If you want to look at it as a disability, then you must accept the fact that we did away with eugenics long ago and so all manner of genetically coded abnormalities are not only afforded equality, but protected further by discrimination laws. I, for one, dont feel a need to go that route and I am sure that would undermine all reasoning for the anti-gay marriage stance if they took up that standard.

It is evident from history that we have strived to become an inclusive and pluralistic society from day one. And so, to deny anyone, be they black or handicapped or homosexual, the right to share their life with whomever they choose and to be legally recognized as bonded to the one they love and further to be protected legally by such a simple contract as the marriage contract is to align one's self and our society with absolute bigotry.

 

[Duke]

Personally, my point here is a simple one:

Yes, both the alcoholic and the homosexual might truly be predisposed (I believe) toward their particular and respective abnormal behaviours - I was toward mine (alcoholism) - and yes, each has a dubious "right", so to speak, to do as s/he pleases. However, neither has any right to expect society's acceptance and/or approval of his or her chosen-or-not abnormal behaviour, and society is actually obligated to offer each sufferer a condemnation-free opportunity to recover.

Because homosexuality is natural, gay people deserve acceptance. Homosexuality is no disease or something that is recoverable from. It is human nature.


Duke

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Now, I do have to mention we should be consistant in our logic. If we are to argue that homosexuality is not wrong because it is unnnatural, we must also forget saying it is "ok" because it is natural. Natural is irrelevant either way. Natural != moral or immoral. We must do this in light of the N.F.

 

[Duke]

"Standered of abnormality"...that's a bit like 'military intelligence'.......
I'm not defining anything on my own. I get my definition of "Abnormality" from the dictionary.
Heh....BEHOLD:
MSN/Hotmail Dictionary;
abnormality n

1. a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body

2. condition that is not the usual or expected one

You will note, Duke, that "wrong" and/or "bad" are not in that definition. No morality at all in included in that definition. Abnormality's definition is based on *reason*, not religion; and that is how I use it.

Well, now you get to define normal, because homosexuality is natural, so it must be normal by some personal definition. My argument is that since homosexuality is natural, gay people should get all the priviliges that heterosexuals do. That is *reason* at its best.


Duke

 

[jallman]

Well, now you get to define normal, because homosexuality is natural, so it must be normal by some personal definition. My argument is that since homosexuality is natural, gay people should get all the priviliges that heterosexuals do. That is *reason* at its best.


Duke

The problem with this logic is that you are invoking moral relativism. "normal by some personal definition" is easily shot down.

 

[Duke]

Here, I will define them for you.

Normal, adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical.

(person)Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Occurring naturally and not because of disease, inoculation, or any experimental treatment. Used of immunity.
Of, relating to, or being a solution having one gram equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution.
Of, relating to, or being an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight and unbranched chain of carbon atoms.
Of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development.

Abnormal, adj.

Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.


As you can see, according to this,
"(person)Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies."
Homosexuality is "normal" becuase (yes, I am going to have to spell it out to them, Jallman,) homosexuality occurrs in a natural way.


Duke

 

[Duke]

The problem with this logic is that you are invoking moral relativism. "normal by some personal definition" is easily shot down.

Well, people do have different feelings on what's normal and what's not, even if they can't defend them.


Duke