Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-21-2004, 01:53 PM   #41 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
charlatan:

no one was debating whether words were ever changed or not. that has nothing to do with whether that practice is proper or improper.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 02:22 PM   #42 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
@ Zamunda: No governing document of the United States contains the words: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's in the declaration of independance, which predates the actual constitution by a few years.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
Scipio is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 03:49 PM   #43 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally posted by nanofever
All joking aside, mental "differences" as society sees them are just that, "differences", they have no weight on worth of the individual if their is such a thing.
I wasn't referring to kleptomania as a defect in that sense. It's a difference between something that should ideally be treated and that for which there is no reason for treatment.

You've heard of homosexuality being 'cured' by Christian groups, right? Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of it as well. But I haven't ruled out the possibility that science may be capable of 'curing' or 'controlling' it (and that it is a thing that one should seek to cure or control).
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 04:08 PM   #44 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac
Quote:
Originally posted by Zamunda
Lets just call it a gaymarraige (a new word, so we don't' have to debate whether we can change the word marriage... I know a gay couple that really couldn't give a shit what their union is called as long as it holds all the advantages of a marriage).
3 words that caused a LOT of problems in the past come to mind:
"seperate but equal"

I know i keep throwing the race card here, and I apologize, but when a situation parallells it so nicely it's hard to resist. I think the comparison is appropriate, and bears both repition and contempltaion. it was okay to allow blacks some rights... so long as they were seperate and pushed away...
cheerios is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 04:34 PM   #45 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll
I wasn't referring to kleptomania as a defect in that sense. It's a difference between something that should ideally be treated and that for which there is no reason for treatment.

You've heard of homosexuality being 'cured' by Christian groups, right? Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of it as well. But I haven't ruled out the possibility that science may be capable of 'curing' or 'controlling' it (and that it is a thing that one should seek to cure or control).
See what we have here is a massive difference in opinion, I think homosexuality is natural for some people and their is no reason to attempt to "cure" it. You on the other hand believe that homosexuality needs to be curbed.

I so wish I could upload attachments because I have this great debate case from last year that involves curing homosexuality and irony, mostly irony.

Anyway I have a few of the link from that case and I think they might provoke some debate.

http://www.psychotherapistresources....totmframe.html


All from the Szasz interview:

"In the case of mental illness, we are dealing with a metaphorical way of expressing the view that the speaker thinks there is something wrong about the behavior of the person to whom he attributes the “illness.”

"In short, just as there were no witches, only women disapproved and called “witches,” so there are no mental diseases, only behaviors of which psychiatrists disapprove and call them “mental illnesses.” Let’s say a person has a fear of going out into the open. Psychiatrists call that “agoraphobia” and claim it is an illness. Or if a person has odd ideas or perceptions, psychiatrists say he has “delusions” or “hallucinations.” Or he uses illegal drugs or commits mass murder. These are all instances of behaviors, not diseases."

"Diagnoses are NOT diseases. Period. Psychiatrists have had some very famous diseases for which they have never apologized, the two most obvious ones being masturbation and homosexuality. People with these so-called “diseases” were tortured by psychiatrists — for hundreds of years. Children were tortured by antimasturbation treatments. Homosexuals were incarcerated and tortured by psychiatrists. Now all that is conveniently forgotten, while psychiatrists — prostitutes of the dominant ethic — invent new diseases, like the ones you mentioned."

"Only then could we begin to examine so-called “mental illnesses” as forms of behavior, like other behaviors."
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Last edited by nanofever; 01-21-2004 at 04:36 PM..
nanofever is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 04:37 PM   #46 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I'm all for gay marriage. I think our failure to recognize gay marriages paints an incredibly ignorant picture of our country. I think that the generations who inherit this country from us will look back on this issue in this period the same way we look at the attitudes of society pre-civil rights and pre-women's suffrage movement. That is, with a furrowed brow and a shake of the head.

As far as protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, if you think divorce is in any way acceptable, then you have no right to pretend to defend the sanctity of marriage in any kind of religious sense.
I'm not saying that we should outlaw divorce, just that if you care about the sanctity of marriage from a christian standpoint you should be working towards outlawing divorce as well as defending the institution from homosexuals.
I just want to apply some consistency to all this "I just want to protect the sanctity of marriage" posturing, because it generally amounts to nothing more than a convenient way to rationalize bigotry. You only have look to the divorce rates in the u.s. if you want to see how much the average american cares about the sanctity of marriage.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 04:52 PM   #47 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally posted by nanofever
See what we have here is a massive difference in opinion, I think homosexuality is natural for some people and their is no reason to attempt to "cure" it. You on the other hand believe that homosexuality needs to be curbed.
No. I believe it's a possibility that it should be curbed. I don't believe that anyone's disproven it. Honestly, I lean toward your position. That's my intuition.

Quote:
"In the case of mental illness, we are dealing with a metaphorical way of expressing the view that the speaker thinks there is something wrong about the behavior of the person to whom he attributes the “illness."
Kleptomania is something that should be treated, because the behavior that it can lead to is immoral.

Homosexuality might fit in the same category. It depends on whether the behavior that it can lead to is immoral. If you have some method of demonstrating that it's morally okey-dokey, then the analogy will be defeated.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 05:17 PM   #48 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll

Kleptomania is something that should be treated, because the behavior that it can lead to is immoral.

Homosexuality might fit in the same category. It depends on whether the behavior that it can lead to is immoral. If you have some method of demonstrating that it's morally okey-dokey, then the analogy will be defeated.
Moral an immoral are such slippery terms. No behavior is ever always moral or always immoral. I don't think you can really compare kleptomania to homosexuality in that way. I think kleptomania is a compulsion, while homosexuality is no more a compulsion than heterosexuality. That is to say, a gay man likes to sex-up other men, but isn't compulsively sexxing-up another man at every opportunity. Kleptos steal uncontrollably. Stealing also requires a victim, homosexuality does not.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 05:19 PM   #49 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll
No. I believe it's a possibility that it should be curbed. I don't believe that anyone's disproven it. Honestly, I lean toward your position. That's my intuition.
Funny thing is that you can "cure" anyone of anything depending on the method used. If you wanted, I could cure you of your will to eat through shock therapy. Funny aside, 13 methods have been developed to cure homosexuality. I like methods 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 for curing homosexuals.

"Thirteen Theories to "Cure" Homosexuality
by Don Romesburg
from Out in All Directions: An Almanac of Gay and Lesbian America

Since the late nineteenth century doctors and religious leaders have been attempting to cure the desire for same-sex intimacy. The desire to "cure" homosexuality comes from societal discomfort with same-sex love rather than from any real pathology on the part of lesbians and gay men. Despite claims to the contrary, none of these "cures" work.

1. Prostitution Therapy (late nineteenth century): Through sex with prostitutes, "inverted men" would experience co-gender sexual desire. Famous sexologist Havelock Ellis noted that "the treatment was usually interrupted by continual backsliding to homosexual practices, and sometimes this cure involved a venereal disorder."

2. Marriage Therapy (late nineteenth century): When presented with the option of courting and marriage, the "deviant" would naturally go "straight." Dr. William Hammond, a New York medical researcher, prescribed a gay man "continuous association with virtuous women, and severe study of abstract studies (like math)."

3. Cauterization (late nineteenth century): Dr. Hammond also suggested that homosexual patients be "cauterized [at] the nape of the neck and the lower dorsal and lumbar regions" every ten days.

4. Castration/Ovary Removal (late nineteenth century): In a pre-Hitler world, the medical community did not consider castration particularly horrific. Aside from believing that removal of the testes would eliminate the sexual drive of the homosexual, many doctors also thought homosexuality to be hereditary.

5. Chastity (late nineteenth century): If homosexuality could not be cured, then homosexuals had no moral choice but to remain chaste. Catholic doctor Marc-Andre Raffalovich confessed that "the tendencies of our time, particularly the prevalent contempt for religion, make chastity more difficult for everyone."

6. Hypnosis (late nineteenth/early twentieth century): New Hampshire doctor John D. Quackenbos claimed that "unnatural passions for persons of the same sex"--like nymphomania, masturbation, and "gross impurity"--could be cured through hypnosis.

7. Aversion Therapy (early to mid twentieth century): Reward heterosexual arousal and punish homosexual attraction, often through electric shock. In 1935, New York University's Dr. Louis Max said of a homosexual male patient that "intensities [of shock] considerably higher than those usually employed on human subjects definitely diminished the value of the stimulus for days after each experimental period."

8. Psychoanalysis (early to mid twentieth century): With Freud came a whole new discussion of possible cures through a psychoanalytic approach. In the 1950s, Edmund Berger, M.D., spoke of homosexuality as a kind of "psychic masochism" in which the unconscious sets a person on a course of self-destruction. Find the cause, such as resentment toward a domineering mother, and you find the cure.

9. Radiation Treatment (early to mid twentieth century): X-ray treatments were believed to reduce levels of promiscuous homosexual urges brought on by glandular hyperactivity. In 1933, New York doctor La Forest Potter lamented Oscar Wilde's being born too soon, because if he were still alive, "we could [have] subjected the overactive thymus to X-ray radiation, atrophied the gland, and suppressed the overactivity of its function."

10. Hormone Therapy (mid twentieth century): If homosexual men are too effeminate and lesbians are too masculine, steroid treatments would theoretically butch up the boys and femme out the girls. Prolonged use also had effects such as sterility and cancer.

11. Lobotomy (mid twentieth century): By cutting nerve fibers in the front of the brain, homosexual drives (indeed, most sexual and even emotional reaction capabilities) were eliminated. Lobotomies for homosexuality were performed until the 1950s in the U.S.

12. Psycho-Religious Therapy (mid twentieth century): Religious doctors and therapists combined religious teachings with psychoanalysis to inspire heterosexuality. Man on a Pendulum (1955) written by rabbi/psychoanalyst Israel Gerber, is the "true story" of such a treatment.

13. Beauty Therapy (mid twentieth century): All a butch lesbian needs is a good make-over. In Is Homosexuality a Menace? (1957), Dr. Arthur Guy Matthew tells of how he cured a lesbian by getting her hair "professionally coiffured," teaching her to apply cosmetics--"which she had never used in her life"--and hiring "a fashion expert (not a male homosexual) who selected the most elegant feminine styles for her to bring out the charm and beauty in her body."

Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll


Kleptomania is something that should be treated, because the behavior that it can lead to is immoral.
Why must it be treated and why is it immoral ?

Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll

Homosexuality might fit in the same category. It depends on whether the behavior that it can lead to is immoral. If you have some method of demonstrating that it's morally okey-dokey, then the analogy will be defeated.
I'm pretty sure that any behavior can lead to immorality, however you choose to define that, and no behavior can be cleared against immorality. In essence, homosexuality is no more moral or immoral than any other activity on the face of the earth, including posting on the TFP.
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."
nanofever is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 05:58 PM   #50 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally posted by irateplatypus
charlatan:

no one was debating whether words were ever changed or not. that has nothing to do with whether that practice is proper or improper.
Actually, someone was debating whether words were ever changed or not and that would be you, right here:
Quote:
Originally posted by irateplatypus
i'm not entirely against granting gays a sort of civil union status that gives them the same tax breaks and rights that a marriage does, but i think it is ludicrous to call that relationship a marriage. a marriage is a personal/social/legal bond between a man and a woman. it is NOT anything between 2 people of the same sex. that is how it has been defined since the birth of our language. why is it that people think it is ok to hijack words like this?
The underlining is done by me to point out he relevant parts of the quote.

I think it's pretty clear that you were talking about the evolution of language...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 06:03 PM   #51 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally posted by irateplatypus
i'm not entirely against granting gays a sort of civil union status that gives them the same tax breaks and rights that a marriage does, but i think it is ludicrous to call that relationship a marriage. a marriage is a personal/social/legal bond between a man and a woman. it is NOT anything between 2 people of the same sex. that is how it has been defined since the birth of our language. why is it that people think it is ok to hijack words like this?
English is quite possibly the youngest of all languages (aside from Klingon or Esporanto) so it doesn't mean much to me if the word marriage hasn't changed in it's history.

Besides, words are hijacked all the time. What's the worry? I bet the definition of the word vertigo will soon be changed to mean the fear of heights...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 06:05 PM   #52 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll
Was some study done or some argument made that proves him wrong? As far as I know, science hasn't actually said anything about whether homosexuality is just a difference or also a deficiency.

I agree fully that gay marriage should be legal, however. The sanctity of marriage was broken way back when Las Vegas was created.
Science also hasn't said anything about whether being a geek is just a difference or also a deficiency...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 06:06 PM   #53 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
No behavior is ever always moral or always immoral.
Theft for selfish reasons? Lying for selfish reasons? Rape? Murder?

Quote:
That is to say, a gay man likes to sex-up other men, but isn't compulsively sexxing-up another man at every opportunity. Kleptos steal uncontrollably. Stealing also requires a victim, homosexuality does not.
Two good points. I'll conceed that it can't be a great analogy. The main point of it is the idea that homosexuality/kleptomania can lead to spiritually unhealthy (immoral) behavior, so it's a good idea to treat it.

Quote:
Funny thing is that you can "cure" anyone of anything depending on the method used.
Yeah, I know. The question is whether or not it should be cured.

Quote:
Why must it be treated and why is it immoral ?
Not 'must'. I leave that choice up to the person (or if a minor, his/her guardian). 'Should' is the word I used.

Are you really questioning whether theft is immoral?

Quote:
I'm pretty sure that any behavior can lead to immorality
But that's not what I said. I talked of the idea that the behavior itself immoral.

Quote:
In essence, homosexuality is no more moral or immoral than any other activity on the face of the earth, including posting on the TFP.
Homosexuality isn't an activity. It's a condition. Conditions can't be moral or immoral, they aren't choices.

Is moral relativism lurking about? Because if it is, I can make this really simple.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 06:25 PM   #54 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll
Two good points. I'll conceed that it can't be a great analogy. The main point of it is the idea that homosexuality/kleptomania can lead to spiritually unhealthy (immoral) behavior, so it's a good idea to treat it.
So anything that can lead to immoral behavior should be treated? If this is the case, we should be treating sexuality in general, as it can lead to rape, adultery, lust, etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll

Homosexuality isn't an activity. It's a condition. Conditions can't be moral or immoral, they aren't choices.
This raises an interesting point. What would you call your sexuality if not "a condition"? Assuming you subscribe to the belief that it's not a chosen thing, I'd say "characteristic," like hair color or height.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 06:49 PM   #55 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
"quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll

Homosexuality isn't an activity. It's a condition. Conditions can't be moral or immoral, they aren't choices.


This raises an interesting point. What would you call your sexuality if not "a condition"? Assuming you subscribe to the belief that it's not a chosen thing, I'd say "characteristic," like hair color or height."

Yeah I mis-spoke, homosexuality is a characteristic, not an activity. If you look at the stuff by Szasz I posted it is pretty evident that it is a characteristic and not a condition.
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."
nanofever is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 07:06 PM   #56 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Someone is actually trying to make the argument that homosexuality is immoral and comparing it to a psychological disorder...

shakes his head and walks away...
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 08:17 PM   #57 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Okay, toss condition. Characteristic suits me fine.

Quote:
Someone is actually trying to make the argument that homosexuality is immoral and comparing it to a psychological disorder...
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this thread.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 08:17 PM   #58 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Scipio
@ Zamunda: No governing document of the United States contains the words: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's in the declaration of independance, which predates the actual constitution by a few years.
Sorry it took so long to respond, but I did not say it was in the constitution, i said it was in the govt, because it was one of the founding principles, the decleration of independence. If you think this document doesn't hold a foundation of our indpendence, then thats different.
Zamunda is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 08:33 PM   #59 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
When is consensual sexual behavior between two people ever immoral?

Here are a few thoughts as to why someone might think this.

1. Nature intended that sexual intercourse only take place between a man and a woman, and then only for reproduction.

Response: First, I don't know what "nature" is, and if "nature" even exists at all, I don't think it is capable of intending anything. This is similar to a religious or "intelligent design" argument, and there's a crucial question that needs to be asked. "If nature, or God, or whatever intended for us to live a certain way, why is sex so pleasureable, and why is our knowledge of this ideal life so elusive?" If our designer, or nature, intended that our sexual behavior be governed by point 1., they did a rather poor job of it.

In short, the creator designed us in such a way that immoral sexual behavior is rewarded, and we are designed with no innate way of telling which kinds of sex we ought to be having.

Now, how would I argue the immorality of homosexuality without an argument from religion or nature?

I don't see any need to restrict sex to increase the population, so it would be silly to say people can't have sex unless they want to have babies. Recreational sex ought to be allowed, as it increases happiness, interpersonal connections (between couples), and these gains in personal satisfaction translate to a more harmonious society. But this looks like an argument FOR permitting homosexuality.

So, can I make a secular argument against homosexuality? I can't think of anything now, so if someone else would like to attempt, I will help.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
Scipio is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 08:49 PM   #60 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Well if you want to argue "Nature", homosexuality would definently be a dsiadvantage. Gay's don't reproduce, thus they will be eliminated from the gene pool.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:00 PM   #61 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
So, can I make a secular argument against homosexuality? I can't think of anything now, so if someone else would like to attempt, I will help.
I don't think a secular argument is possible.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:09 PM   #62 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac
and, since the government is not religiously-affiliated, they have no reason to deny homosexuals marriage, or the right to be gay, for that matter. thank you for wrapping that up nicely.
cheerios is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:13 PM   #63 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I can think of several dozen animals off the top of my head who engage in homosexual and bisexual activity outside of humans.

For instance, leave female cows cooped up long enough together and they will start humping each other. Not just a small percentage of them, but virtually all of the animals will attempt this.

So, since it isn't against nature, the only reason people can be against it is because "God says it's bad"
But if God thought that, why would he allow homo and bisexuality to be so prevalent in nature?
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:14 PM   #64 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Well if you want to argue "Nature", homosexuality would definently be a dsiadvantage. Gay's don't reproduce, thus they will be eliminated from the gene pool.
turn: And since a lot of people are anti-gay that would be an argument for allowing gay marriage...
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."
nanofever is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:33 PM   #65 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Well if you want to argue "Nature", homosexuality would definently be a dsiadvantage. Gay's don't reproduce, thus they will be eliminated from the gene pool.
You're not arguing nature, you're arguing natural selection, which in many ways, doesn't apply in the way your trying to apply it. For example, i know plenty of people with gay mothers or fathers. Gay people do reproduce. Gay men can donate sperm, lesbians can use donated sperm. It is feasable for a gay man to father a child through a lesbian woman. Don't say it isn't natural either because if "nature"(in the convenient, personified sense) didn't want us to be able to do it we wouldn't be able to do it.

Quote:
from FoolThemAll
Theft for selfish reasons? Lying for selfish reasons? Rape? Murder?
We're talking about behavior, not the reasoning behind it. It takes only a brief look around this world of ours to find a "moral" justification for murder(war, self-defense), theft(stealing bread to feed the family), and if you want to get purely hypothetical, rape(well, if i didn't rape so and so they said they'd kill five people).
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 11:28 PM   #66 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
Sometimes, homosexuals reproduce with members of the opposite sex. It might be a slight disadvantage, but it doesn't preclude the transmission of genes either.

Now, the principle you're getting at probably isn't one that you want to follow through on. One of the greatest accomplishments of human civilization is that we no longer have to be subject to natural selection.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
Scipio is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 11:55 PM   #67 (permalink)
Natalie Portman is sexy.
 
omega2K4's Avatar
 
Location: The Outer Rim
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
A better question is why would homosexuals want to get married?
Why would heterosexuals want to get married?
__________________
"While the State exists there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form."- Karl Marx
omega2K4 is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 04:57 AM   #68 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally posted by cheerios
and, since the government is not religiously-affiliated, they have no reason to deny homosexuals marriage, or the right to be gay, for that matter. thank you for wrapping that up nicely.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
We're talking about behavior, not the reasoning behind it. It takes only a brief look around this world of ours to find a "moral" justification for murder(war, self-defense), theft(stealing bread to feed the family), and if you want to get purely hypothetical, rape(well, if i didn't rape so and so they said they'd kill five people).
I've always taken murder to mean "unjustified killing". (Just replace 'murder' with this if you don't accept that definition.) Thus, war is not necessarily murder and self-defense is certainly not murder. "Lying/stealing for selfish reasons" is most certainly behavior, behavior distinct from "lying/stealing for altruistic reasons". And please, you aren't going to find an uncoerced instance of rape that isn't immoral.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 06:47 AM   #69 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
All right, I wrote a big old response and my computer crashed, so I'll drop some quick science on you all. Assuming for one terrible, stupid moment that sexuality is a genetic trait and that homosexuality is recessive, if both parents have the trait, they have a 25% chance of having a homosexual child. This is junk science, not realistic, overly simplistic. It's just to remind people that gay parents do not necessarily have gay children, nor do straight parents always have straight children. Gays are in no danger of being eliminated from the gene pool, as evidenced by the fact that they're still around and have been for thousands and thousands of years. Enough.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 08:36 AM   #70 (permalink)
Tilted
 
not that this is exceedingly pertinent, but some people have also mentioned that homosexuality might be an evolutionary development as nature's way of controlling population. I think its hogwash but then again so are most arguements against homosexuality.

Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
I can think of several dozen animals off the top of my head who engage in homosexual and bisexual activity outside of humans.

For instance, leave female cows cooped up long enough together and they will start humping each other. Not just a small percentage of them, but virtually all of the animals will attempt this.
?
and, im very surprised by this because I long thought the only animals that engaged in homosexual sex and orgies as such were bonobo chimps.
Zamunda is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 09:44 AM   #71 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally posted by Zamunda
and, im very surprised by this because I long thought the only animals that engaged in homosexual sex and orgies as such were bonobo chimps.
Nope. It is not as uncommon as we were led to believe. :P

As for gay marriage, I will post what I have posted in the twelve other gay marriage threads on this board -- the government has no business involving itself in a social institution like marriage.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 10:36 AM   #72 (permalink)
My future is coming on
 
lurkette's Avatar
 
Moderator Emeritus
Location: east of the sun and west of the moon
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis

As for gay marriage, I will post what I have posted in the twelve other gay marriage threads on this board -- the government has no business involving itself in a social institution like marriage.
Word.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France
lurkette is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 12:06 PM   #73 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll

I've always taken murder to mean "unjustified killing". (Just replace 'murder' with this if you don't accept that definition.) Thus, war is not necessarily murder and self-defense is certainly not murder. "Lying/stealing for selfish reasons" is most certainly behavior, behavior distinct from "lying/stealing for altruistic reasons". And please, you aren't going to find an uncoerced instance of rape that isn't immoral.
Coerced or not. Would the moral person rape someone if that meant that five more people wouldn't get raped? Completely hypothetical, but then i think any debate on morals has to be. I guess it depends on whether your morals are flexible to allow you to adapt to new situations on conditions.
Again, you have to consider the bahavior inepentdently to the motivation. Of course when you apply motivations that are inherently immoral to the majority of society to certain behaviors those behaviors seem immoral. Defining murder as "unjustified killing" completely ignores the fact that "justification" is in the eyes of the beholder. Some think all war is immoral, some think some wars are immoral. No doubt there is someone somewhere who thinks war is the ultimate form of morality.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 12:55 PM   #74 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
Coerced or not. Would the moral person rape someone if that meant that five more people wouldn't get raped? Completely hypothetical, but then i think any debate on morals has to be. I guess it depends on whether your morals are flexible to allow you to adapt to new situations on conditions.
Again, you have to consider the bahavior inepentdently to the motivation. Of course when you apply motivations that are inherently immoral to the majority of society to certain behaviors those behaviors seem immoral. Defining murder as "unjustified killing" completely ignores the fact that "justification" is in the eyes of the beholder. Some think all war is immoral, some think some wars are immoral. No doubt there is someone somewhere who thinks war is the ultimate form of morality.
Denotological- you can't morally rape the woman

Consequentialism- you have to rape the woman

done.
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."
nanofever is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 01:20 AM   #75 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: seattle
Quote:
Originally posted by irateplatypus
i'm not entirely against granting gays a sort of civil union status that gives them the same tax breaks and rights that a marriage does, but i think it is ludicrous to call that relationship a marriage. a marriage is a personal/social/legal bond between a man and a woman. it is NOT anything between 2 people of the same sex. that is how it has been defined since the birth of our language. why is it that people think it is ok to hijack words like this?
hehehehehehehe...

yeah, im really pissed about the hijacking of the word 'gay' too. not to mention 'black'!!
asterjolly is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 06:31 PM   #76 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
the government has no business involving itself in a social institution like marriage.
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 06:56 AM   #77 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
the government does not have the right to withold the same legal status and tax benefits to gay married couples as it does to mixed couples, the government also does not have the right to prevent any two consenting and reasonable adults marrying.

Of course, this can become difficult, should a daughter and a father be allowed to marry, if both genuinely wish to, or canwe assume the daughter cannot be reasonable if she wants to do so?

Once you start enforcing your own standards of reason on other people's actions, then it becomes a matter of degree what is repressive and what is necessary.

Clearly, we do not want parents to be able to marry their children, and most people would think it is right that this is illegal, and I believe most people do believe gay marriage should be allowed. We should always trust the democratic instincts of the people - not the media, the government, the religious zealots, those who cry the loudest - ordinary men and women normally will make the right decision if they are allowed to.

I am slightly biased though, since my mum is gay, and I dont think it is fair, legal, or decent that she should be prevented from marrying her girlfriend if she wants to.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 07:13 AM   #78 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Norway
I had gay rabbits when I was a kid, both male. They humped each other just about every 5th minute. Sometimes it looked like they did oral too. Bet God hated those pagan faggy bunnies.
European Son is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 07:47 AM   #79 (permalink)
prb
Psycho
 
Gay marriages should be forbidden by law.
The sacred institution of marriage should be protected for people like Newt Gingrich, Jimmy Swaggart, and Brittany Spears.
prb is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 08:09 AM   #80 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
"Britney"

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
 

Tags
gay, marriage, merged, thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:24 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360