Train Wreck: Continued

[Busta]

Here, I will define them for you.....

You are confusing "natural" with "normal".
An asteroid striking the Earth and wiping out a significant portion of of it's inhabiting life is natural, but it is not normal because an asteroid striking the Earth with such devastation is not the typical, standered pattern.

Homosexuality occurs in Humans naturally, but it is not the normal sexual orientation of the species because the typical, standered sexual orientation of Humans is heterosexual.

 

[Alex]

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.

This could be used for anything that is different. For example, lets say that a certain hair color is more prevalent than others. We will say "brown" for argument's sake. If brown is the majority hair color of the species, then does that make all other hair colors abnormal?

No. It only means that there is variation in that trait (whatever you want it to be).

As for "the purpose of our design". That is very subjective. A person's purpose is their own choice. There is no standard for this.

I agree that marriage is a religious institution and the appropriate religion has the right to deny any marriage they want to, but the government cannot. If gays are only allowed "civil unions" in the eyes of the law, then that must carry over to all people, regardless of their sexuality. Equality under the law is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

The fallaciousness of the Argument for Naturalism is just as equally present in the Argument from Normality. Something being abnormal is not unethical just as much as something unnatural wouldn't be unethical. Both considerations are ethically irrelevant.

 

[Busta]

"If brown is the majority hair color of the species, then does that make all other hair colors abnormal?"
Yes.

"No. It only means that there is variation in that trait (whatever you want it to be)."
That is exactly what an abnormality is: "a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body". (MSN/Hotmail Dictionary)

"As for "the purpose of our design". That is very subjective. A person's purpose is their own choice. There is no standard for this."
*A person can not choose to use their penis to bare a child for 9 months and give birth.
*A person can not choose to use their spleen to see.
*A person can not choose to digest their food with their skeleton.
*A person can not choose to eat food with their foot, nor does the wast come out their ear.
Rather one subscribes to chance evolution or deliberate creation, every design has a purpose. Every function fulfills a need; and we didn't choose any of it.

The normal sexual design of a human is heterosexuality. Heterosexuality serves a purpose to the species. Heterosexuality fulfills a need required by the species.

Is homosexuality simply a recurring Darwinian *mutation* that only results in the individual's genetic demise?

What is the total purpose of Man, anyway? We won't know that until the end....

"I agree that marriage is a religious institution and the appropriate religion has the right to deny any marriage they want to, but the government cannot. If gays are only allowed "civil unions" in the eyes of the law, then that must carry over to all people, regardless of their sexuality. Equality under the law is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment."
This is where my "Slippery Slope" comes in, being based *not* on gay 'marriage, but on "Equality under the law is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment". You see, my "Slippery Slope" is *not* a logical fallacy, because my final event of "absolutely anyone being able to marry absolutely anyone" needs to occur as a consequence of "Equality under the law is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment". When I use Bigamy as an example of a possable next step in my "slippery Slope", I find myself capable of using every last line of logic in favor of gay 'marriage toward advancing Bigamy when that logic is based on the 14th. Amendment.

By due process we can draw a line in the sand and legitimately limit an individual's or a group's Constitutional rights. In order to justify this limitation we need to show that allowing said individual or group those rights would infringe on the rights of others.

The frustration that I find when engaged in that persuit of justification, is that for every study, statistic or fact that I can find in favor of my view, you can find one for your view. With such a dead-lock of information, how can one logically decide which side is just?

When I concider the last, I realize that I already had a primal/instinctive understanding of the *why* behind my view. My understanding of *why* is my understanding of Natural Law. So, by learning how to express Natural Law, I learn how to express my objection to gay 'marriage.

I believe that this inefficiency in communication is the primary source of so much hat and confusion between people of differing systems of thought.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Why do you care about Natural Law, though? It has no ethical value instrinsically.

 

[Busta]

Why do you care about Natural Law, though? It has no ethical value instrinsically.

The enumeration of Natural Law would be Newton's Laws of Motion, Einstein's E=Mc2, the mathematical representation of a black hole, known psychological attributes, known chemical attributes and their interactions with one another; the "We The People" of Natural Law would be the elusive Theory of Everything....why would anyone be intrested in any of that, if not to understand our universe, indeed the very *nature* of our reality and existence?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

The enumeration of Natural Law would be Newton's Laws of Motion, Einstein's E=Mc2, the mathematical representation of a black hole, known psychological attributes, known chemical attributes and their interactions with one another; the "We The People" of Natural Law would be the elusive Theory of Everything....why would anyone be intrested in any of that, if not to understand our universe, indeed the very *nature* of our reality and existence?

Ok. So you are talking about natural law as it applies to descriptive science, right? I just want to clarify, then, that you are not actually saying Natural = Good.

 

[jallman]

This is where my "Slippery Slope" comes in, being based *not* on gay 'marriage, but on "Equality under the law is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment". You see, my "Slippery Slope" is *not* a logical fallacy, because my final event of "absolutely anyone being able to marry absolutely anyone" needs to occur as a consequence of "Equality under the law is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment". When I use Bigamy as an example of a possable next step in my "slippery Slope", I find myself capable of using every last line of logic in favor of gay 'marriage toward advancing Bigamy when that logic is based on the 14th. Amendment.

By due process we can draw a line in the sand and legitimately limit an individual's or a group's Constitutional rights. In order to justify this limitation we need to show that allowing said individual or group those rights would infringe on the rights of others.

This is such a line of bs. To include homosexuals into marriage as two consenting adults, there is no change in the marriage contract. To attempt to include polygamy or bigamy into the marriage definition is to redefine the entire contract. Inclusion gives way to a total reconstruction of the parameters and guidelines of the contract itself.

It is true that we can draw a line and legitimately limit behaviors. However, in order to do so, we must prove with reason that such limitations are necessary to keep the individual and society from coming to harm. There is no basis for this when homosexuality is considered from a constitutional and legal standpoint. Your slippery slope takes you right down into the bowels of discrimination absolute.

 

[Duke]

You are confusing "natural" with "normal".
An asteroid striking the Earth and wiping out a significant portion of of it's inhabiting life is natural, but it is not normal because an asteroid striking the Earth with such devastation is not the typical, standered pattern.

Homosexuality occurs in Humans naturally, but it is not the normal sexual orientation of the species because the typical, standered sexual orientation of Humans is heterosexual.

No, I am not confusing natural with normal. I can tell the difference.
Astronomically, asteroids hitting planets is very normal. What may seem abnormal in some way can be perfectly normal in another way.


Duke

 

[Busta]

Ok. So you are talking about natural law as it applies to descriptive science, right? I just want to clarify, then, that you are not actually saying Natural = Good.

A.I.D.S. is natural, I would hardly say that A.I.D.S. is "good". Likewise, my computer is unnatural, I wouldn't say that my computer is "bad".
You've got it.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Ok, so now that we are on the same footing, why does natural law ethically matter to homosexuality? We have already established the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[Busta]

This is such a line of bs. To include homosexuals into marriage as two consenting adults, there is no change in the marriage contract. To attempt to include polygamy or bigamy into the marriage definition is to redefine the entire contract. Inclusion gives way to a total reconstruction of the parameters and guidelines of the contract itself.

It is true that we can draw a line and legitimately limit behaviors. However, in order to do so, we must prove with reason that such limitations are necessary to keep the individual and society from coming to harm. There is no basis for this when homosexuality is considered from a constitutional and legal standpoint. Your slippery slope takes you right down into the bowels of discrimination absolute.

Including homosexuals would, indeed, be a change in the marital contract. Currently, opposite genders of the contractual signers is a requirement. If we are to change this rule on the basis of the 14th. Amendment, then we could change the rule regarding the total number of signers allowed in the contract on the basis of the 14th. Amendment as well. After all, any legal contract could have more then 2 signers (rental, loans, cell phones, etc...). Why should the arbitrary limit be 2, as long as everyone involved is a non related consenting adult?

 

[leejosepho]

Because homosexuality is natural, gay people deserve acceptance ...
It is human nature.

No, Duke, homosexuality is only natural among homosexuals, and its practice is "homosexual nature", not human nature.

Homosexuality is no disease ...

... and, neither is alcoholism. However, both definitely *are* abnormalities ...

Homosexuality is no ... something that is recoverable from.

That depends upon what you mean by "recoverable from." Just as I am yet an alcoholic even though I no longer have to drink, the homosexual is an individual who can similarly "recover" from the chronic (recurring) element of his or her own abnormality and become a (re)productive member of normal society.

 

[leejosepho]

As for "the purpose of our design". That is very subjective ...

Yes, and subject to what?

A person's purpose is [subject to] their own choice ...

Is that what you mean?

There is no standard for this.

I understand that you mean to specifically exclude all "religious influence" or "authority" or whatever, but your mention of a person's purpose being (subject to) his or her own choice, if actually true, would then be a/the "standard", itself.

But of course, purpose and "standard" are different things anyway.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

No, Duke, homosexuality is only natural among homosexuals, and its practice is "homosexual nature", not human nature.

This is nonsense. Homosexuality isn't only natural among homosexuals any more than sickel-cell anemia is only natural among people with sickel-cell disease. Homosexuality and sickel-cell syndrom are natural regardless of what group has them; they are natural period. Anyone that has it is simply getting something natural.

 

[Columbusite]

This is nonsense. Homosexuality isn't only natural among homosexuals any more than sickel-cell anemia is only natural among people with sickel-cell disease. Homosexuality and sickel-cell syndrom are natural regardless of what group has them; they are natural period. Anyone that has it is simply getting something natural.

I don't know about you, but getting bogged down into this "natural vs unnatural" argument really has nothing to do with gay marriage being legal, which I think should continue to be the focus. Natural or not, choice or no choice it should be legal. Period.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I agree, but for some reason, people don't drop the natural argument, regardless of how irrelevant it is.

 

[Busta]

Ok, so now that we are on the same footing, why does natural law ethically matter to homosexuality? We have already established the naturalistic fallacy.

Man's unique design sets us apart from all other animals by enabling and propelling us to overcome the inherent flaws and limitations of the animal kingdom.

One of the attributes of Man's design that serves us to overcome the inherent flaws and limitations of the animal kingdom is our unique ability to call on the Name of the Creator-Force. One of the tools afforded to Man to assist Man in subduing primitive instinct and establishing Man's Dominion over the Earth is Marriage: A special relationship forged by the Name of the Creator-Force.

Other animals may form life-long bonds and raise offspring together, but they can not forge that relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force and deliberately value and persue that relationship above all others. They do what they do by instinct, nothing more.

A life-long, monogamous relationship between a heterosexual man and woman, who bear and raise children, but who never Marry, does not posses the same value as a similar but Married couple. This is because the unmarried couple, by choosing not too forge their relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force, are doing nothing different then what is found in the animal kingdom.

A life-long, monogamous relationship between two men or two women, who posses and raise children, and legally 'marry, does not posses the same value as an opposite-sex, Married couple. This is because the same-sex couple, by not being able to forge their relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force, are doing nothing different then what is found in the animal kingdom.

The life-long, monogamous relationships of a heterosexual man and multiple women, who bear and raise children, and are legally 'married to each other, do not posses the same value as a 1 man and 1 woman, Married couple's relationship. This is because the man and his harem, by not being able to forge their relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force, are doing nothing different then what is found in the animal kingdom.
(Too be specific, the *first* man-woman Marriage is legitimate, while each of the man's relationships with each woman added after the first is Adultery, and the women's marital relationships with eachother are Adultery and Homosexual.)

Homosexuality, being a variation, is not a part of Man's unique design that sets us apart from all other animals. Homosexuality is one of the inherent flaws and limitations of the animal kingdom, of which, Man's unique design propells us to cure and correct, not surrender too.

If we endorse and promot homosexuality as a preferred, elevated and superior relationship, then we, by not being able to call on the Name of the Creator-Force to forge these relationships, are doing nothing better then what is found in the animal kingdom.

If Man's law views alternative relationships as having the same value as a Marriage, then Man's law becomes no better then "The Law of the Jungle". Marriage is *not* "strictly a legal contract", because Man's law is based on Man's reason. Man's reason is an attribute of the same design by which the unique ability to call on the Name of the Creator-Force is also an attribute. Too embrace the attribute of reason but to shun the attribute of calling on the Name of the Creator-Force is too cherry-pick which parts of our design to follow based on what we find convenient.

By choosing too not overcome this inherent flaw and limitation of the animal kingdom, we are choosing too run agents our design, indeed our very purpose; and that is hypocrisy in motion.

Gay 'marriage = hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy = unethical.
Gay 'marriage = unethical.

(You may note that I am assigning the moral value of "unethical" to gay 'marriage, *not* to homosexuality. Like Diabetes, a learning disorder, having been born a preemie crack-baby, possesing a chemical dependence or a physical deformity: homosexuality is a personal flaw and limitation to be overcome, not surrendered to.)

 

[jallman]

Man's unique design sets us apart from all other animals by enabling and propelling us to overcome the inherent flaws and limitations of the animal kingdom.

One of the attributes of Man's design that serves us to overcome the inherent flaws and limitations of the animal kingdom is our unique ability to call on the Name of the Creator-Force. One of the tools afforded to Man to assist Man in subduing primitive instinct and establishing Man's Dominion over the Earth is Marriage: A special relationship forged by the Name of the Creator-Force.

Other animals may form life-long bonds and raise offspring together, but they can not forge that relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force and deliberately value and persue that relationship above all others. They do what they do by instinct, nothing more.

A life-long, monogamous relationship between a heterosexual man and woman, who bear and raise children, but who never Marry, does not posses the same value as a similar but Married couple. This is because the unmarried couple, by choosing not too forge their relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force, are doing nothing different then what is found in the animal kingdom.

A life-long, monogamous relationship between two men or two women, who posses and raise children, and legally 'marry, does not posses the same value as an opposite-sex, Married couple. This is because the same-sex couple, by not being able to forge their relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force, are doing nothing different then what is found in the animal kingdom.

The life-long, monogamous relationships of a heterosexual man and multiple women, who bear and raise children, and are legally 'married to each other, do not posses the same value as a 1 man and 1 woman, Married couple's relationship. This is because the man and his harem, by not being able to forge their relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force, are doing nothing different then what is found in the animal kingdom.
(Too be specific, the *first* man-woman Marriage is legitimate, while each of the man's relationships with each woman added after the first is Adultery, and the women's marital relationships with eachother are Adultery and Homosexual.)

Homosexuality, being a variation, is not a part of Man's unique design that sets us apart from all other animals. Homosexuality is one of the inherent flaws and limitations of the animal kingdom, of which, Man's unique design propells us to cure and correct, not surrender too.

If we endorse and promot homosexuality as a preferred, elevated and superior relationship, then we, by not being able to call on the Name of the Creator-Force to forge these relationships, are doing nothing better then what is found in the animal kingdom.

If Man's law views alternative relationships as having the same value as a Marriage, then Man's law becomes no better then "The Law of the Jungle". Marriage is *not* "strictly a legal contract", because Man's law is based on Man's reason. Man's reason is an attribute of the same design by which the unique ability to call on the Name of the Creator-Force is also an attribute. Too embrace the attribute of reason but to shun the attribute of calling on the Name of the Creator-Force is too cherry-pick which parts of our design to follow based on what we find convenient.

By choosing too not overcome this inherent flaw and limitation of the animal kingdom, we are choosing too run agents our design, indeed our very purpose; and that is hypocrisy in motion.

Gay 'marriage = hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy = unethical.
Gay 'marriage = unethical.

(You may note that I am assigning the moral value of "unethical" to gay 'marriage, *not* to homosexuality. Like Diabetes, a learning disorder, having been born a preemie crack-baby, possesing a chemical dependence or a physical deformity: homosexuality is a personal flaw and limitation to be overcome, not surrendered to.)

Thats all well and good, however, there is one prime flaw to the entire foundation of this argument. The law does not forge contracts in the name of your so-called Creator Force. The law DOES forge contracts based on man's reason. If you look at the law and its conditions, then there is no reason under the sun not to allow gay marriage.

And whether you wish to approach homosexuality as a disorder or as a flaw or as a choice, then you must not cherry-pick based on personal preference or spiritual reasons, who the law will restrict and whom it will protect. Nothing stops a diabetic from marrying, no one stops the crack addict from marrying (under the law). And personal choice is guaranteed under the constitution. It seems to me you are saying that "My not permitting homosexuals to marry is not discrimination, it is the homosexuals fault for loving the wrong person." Makes me kind of glad you didnt get to decide that about interracial marriage 50 years ago.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

The notion that mankind has a "unique, creator-driven design" is dubious to begin with. There's no evidence of that. Nature does not have a "design." Nature isn't teleological.

There is also no reason to assume that the Institution of Marriage is anything driven by a "creator-Force." Marriage is not even a religious institution universally. It is in SOME cultures, but you can have marriage that's completely secularized and variating among different cultures. It's wrong to impose your cultural beliefs on individuals who wish to be free of it. Tradition != moral.

Personally, I don't want to create a marriage in the name of a "creator-force." I am an Atheist. There's no reason to. I can decide with whom I wish to union by virtue of my own reason. I don't need God's help.

There is also no "flaw" inherent in the animal kingdom. Nature is governed by evolution and natural selection. Each creature is as evolved as it ought to be. THere is no "bad" or "good" insofar that each creature can flourish.

 

[nkgupta80]

The notion that mankind has a "unique, creator-driven design" is dubious to begin with. There's no evidence of that. Nature does not have a "design." Nature isn't teleological.

There is also no reason to assume that the Institution of Marriage is anything driven by a "creator-Force." Marriage is not even a religious institution universally. It is in SOME cultures, but you can have marriage that's completely secularized and variating among different cultures. It's wrong to impose your cultural beliefs on individuals who wish to be free of it. Tradition != moral.

Personally, I don't want to create a marriage in the name of a "creator-force." I am an Atheist. There's no reason to. I can decide with whom I wish to union by virtue of my own reason. I don't need God's help.

There is also no "flaw" inherent in the animal kingdom. Nature is governed by evolution and natural selection. Each creature is as evolved as it ought to be. THere is no "bad" or "good" insofar that each creature can flourish.

even if there is creator force, as assumed by many religions, how is a person supposed to go about defining our relationship with the creator force

 

[Busta]

You do not feel a connection with the Creator-Force?
Until that attribute of our moral core coincides, we have reached an impasse.

You will note that I did *not* refer to homosexuality in terms of "good" or "bad" in that post. That was your projection, not mine.

Also, I did not include any cultural references, either.

The "flaws" that I enumerated as being a sample of those found inherent in nature were "...Diabetes, a learning disorder, having been born a preemie crack-baby, possesing a chemical dependence or a physical deformity....homosexuality...".

Non of those fulfill a need. Non of those serve a purpose to the species. They are not the products of adaptation (like Race is), nor are they any fundamental element of any specie's biological or physiological design (like Gender is). They are naturally reoccurring flaws in that specie's design found only in individuals, nothing more.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

You do not feel a connection with the Creator-Force?
Until that attribute of our moral core coincides, we have reached an impasse.

I cannot do that. I don't support morality stemming from an imaginary being.

The "flaws" that I enumerated as being a sample of those found inherent in nature were "...Diabetes, a learning disorder, having been born a preemie crack-baby, possesing a chemical dependence or a physical deformity....homosexuality...".

And this means.....nothing to this debate. You cannot compare crack babies to homosexuals either.

Non of those fulfill a need. Non of those serve a purpose to the species. They are not the products of adaptation (like Race is), nor are they any fundamental element of any specie's biological or physiological design (like Gender is). They are naturally reoccurring flaws in that specie's design found only in individuals, nothing more.

Who cares if they fufill a need. THere is no teleology in nature. They don't have to serve a purpouse. Purpouse servering != moral, good, or bad. Playing hockey doesn't serve a purpouse for special survival either. This is an irrelevant concept.

Its also irrelevant if they are part of the physiological design--it simply does not matter. Even if it were a "design flaw," that does not logically equate to a normative conclusion--homosexual marriage should not be allowed. That's going from an IS to an OUGHT. You cannot do that.

 

[Busta]

I cannot do that. I don't support morality stemming from an imaginary being.

And this means.....nothing to this debate. You cannot compare crack babies to homosexuals either.

Who cares if they fufill a need. THere is no teleology in nature. They don't have to serve a purpouse. Purpouse servering != moral, good, or bad. Playing hockey doesn't serve a purpouse for special survival either. This is an irrelevant concept.

Its also irrelevant if they are part of the physiological design--it simply does not matter. Even if it were a "design flaw," that does not logically equate to a normative conclusion--homosexual marriage should not be allowed. That's going from an IS to an OUGHT. You cannot do that.

I, also, could not support morality seaming form an imaginary being. That's why I base my morality on an actual being: God.

Crack babies and homosexuality sher a very general commonality in that they are both personal flaws and limitations.

You loose me with the whole "!=..." thing. I have no idea what that is.

Playing Hockey serves a purpose to the species in that commercial sport produces allot of money and, thus, is good for our economy. The health of our economy dictates everything from taxes collected (which results in state funded medical heath care and other social fail-safes) to scientific research and development (at the very least, you have to pay to keep the lights and refrigerators on).

The attributes of an individual player will attract mates, thus ensuring the survival of that Hockey player's genetic line.

Oh well. Like the name of the thread says..."Train Wreck: Continued".

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I, also, could not support morality seaming form an imaginary being. That's why I base my morality on an actual being: God.

I don't believe God exists. Why should I take the moral system of something that has no evidence for its existence? If you want to use that as your personal moral guide, fine, but you cannot force it on others, becaues it's not universalizable. You must believe in the deity. I shouldn't have to follow your god's rules any more than you ought to have to follow Shinto morality. Give one ONE good OBJECTIVE reason why I ought to support your God, and not you mine. And you cannot say "cause he's real." Everyone thinks his God is real and his neighbor's false.

Crack babies and homosexuality sher a very general commonality in that they are both personal flaws and limitations.

The difference is that crack babies are mentally deficient and unhealthy; homosexuals can lead very healthy lives, and many of them are extremely intelligent, productive members of society. Furthermore, most crackbabies are "created" via improper, criminal conduct. Homosexuals aren't.

You loose me with the whole "!=..." thing. I have no idea what that is.

!= essentially means, not equal to/does not equate to.

Playing Hockey serves a purpose to the species in that commercial sport produces allot of money and, thus, is good for our economy.

Playing Hockey also wastes time that could be put to better use somewhere else. It's a diversion. People should be working, not playing. If people worked more and played less, more would get done.

Still, why does the "attraction" of mates equate to morality? Homosexuals attract mates as well. Since Homosexuals make up an extremly small global population, there is no reason to fear that "homosexuals" will make reproduction of the race impossible. Why? First, there is zero evidence homosexuality is learned as a practice. You cannot "create" new homosexuals other than by having them biologically. Whether or not you allow them to marry has zero impact on the production of new homosexuals. Therefore, the argument from Population need has no merit.

If they marry, nothing happens to the population.
If they don't marry, nothing happens to the population


Homosexuals will always exist, unless you propose we exterminate them all because they are a drain on society :roll: