|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 02/03/2010 : 10:48:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Paulos23
What is different about interracial marriage compared to same sex marriage? Other then the sexes involved, nothing.
|
The difference is that a interracial man and women couple can produce children while a homosexual couple, interracial or not, cannot. Therefore a homosexual society cannot sustain itself, without heterosexual interaction, and any homosexual society will have vanished after one generation. So as you can see homosexuality leads to the death of a society while heterosexuality remains the only means by which a society cannot only advance, but sustain itself. The only way a society continues is through heterosexual relationships.
|
Ergo allowing homosexual marriage as well as heterosexual marriage will mean the death of society.
Ergo a heterosexual couple unable or unwilling to re-produce should not be allowed to marry.
Correct?
|
The biggest difference between interracial marriage and same sex marriage, other then the sexes, is the fact that homosexuals cannot produce children. Correct?
|
Lesbians certainly can produce children with donor sperm. Gay men can produce children with donor egg. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 10:49:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill Scott
Originally posted by Paulos23
What is different about interracial marriage compared to same sex marriage? Other then the sexes involved, nothing.
|
The difference is that a interracial man and women couple can produce children while a homosexual couple, interracial or not, cannot. Therefore a homosexual society cannot sustain itself, without heterosexual interaction, and any homosexual society will have vanished after one generation. So as you can see homosexuality leads to the death of a society while heterosexuality remains the only means by which a society cannot only advance, but sustain itself. The only way a society continues is through heterosexual relationships.
|
Why do you care that they are not going to have kids while married when they are not going to have kids anyway? By your argument homosexuality should have been breed out of the human race long ago, but that clearly isn't the case. There is as much a homosexuality society as there is a Gothic society, a gamer society, or a Christian society.
By you logic, married couples that don't have kids shouldn't be married. Would you have the State dissolve their marriage?
Nice side stepping of the civil rights being voted on issue. I guess I should not expect to hear a peep out of you when your civil rights are voted away. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 10:51:44 [Permalink]
|
| Bill keeps talking like America is a Democracy and Dave keeps talking like America is a republic. Which is it? It cannot be both. What form of government did the founding "fathers" create? I did not create this video, so if there are errors bring them out. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 10:53:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Lesbians certainly can produce children with donor sperm. Gay men can produce children with donor egg.
|
And they can adopt. There's enough children out there waiting for a loving family to take them in. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 10:56:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Just more semantics from Dave as he twists my words around when he knows that I meant was that Dave believes the court's rule should be whatever Dave believes is the right one. And yes I believe the court should rule in the way as I see as right. |
So you base your opinions on how the court should rule on the exact same thing that I do, yet you claim I'm playing semantic games? Your hypocrisy shines through again.| And there in lies the impasse. Who gets to decide what is right? And it has been my history that Dave gets to decide what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, subjective or objective. At least in Dave's world he does. |
And in your mind, so do you. Yet you'll fault me for stating it out loud, while when you do it, you seem to think that you're speaking truth. Just more rank hypocrisy from you, Bill.| Or do you believe in some things that you think are wrong? |
I believe in slavery but not the boogie man. Slavery happened many different times over many different corners of the world. That is a fact. I also at the same time believe that it is wrong. |
Wow, talk about semantic games! I used the term "believes in" in its ubiquitous shorthand sense of "morally supports and condones" (and due to the context, that was the clear meaning), yet here's Bill to argue back with a different meaning: "thinks exists." Is this post of yours nothing but hypocrisy, Bill?| Those are your words and not mine. What is with you guys and your baseless claiming that anybody who disagrees with you on anything is a racist? I have no problem with an interracial marriage between a man and a women, I have no problem with women, even black women, voting and I am sure glad the North won the civil war. You guys play the race card way to much, even to the point where it loses it's credibility. |
Those were simply examples of things that others like you have argued against on much the same basis as you are doing here. If it upsets you so much, I'll retract it.| When you make baseless claims over and over you just get tuned out eventually. |
As you have demonstrated aptly.| But many state governments have on the books marriage defined between a man and women only. So now you have a court who is trying to trump a states constitution as well as trump the will of the people. Hence ramming it down our throats. |
Your ignorance of how the higher courts work is astounding. Their job is, in part, to ensure that the "will of the people" doesn't violate the rights of minorities. So, your faulting the courts for doing their job is nothing more than a demonstration of your failure at basic civics.
You also wrote:| It does tell me something. Many states constitutions define marriage as between a man and a women. All the states who brought gay marriage to a vote have rejected gay marriage. So the gay marriage activists who continue to push this agenda see no other way to force this on the will of the people then to try and ram it through the courts. |
Which is the proper functioning of our government. You say this as if it were somehow improper.| And what this all tells me is that showdowns are inevitable between states and the courts. The many are and will grow tired of the few forcing their agenda on the many and eventually the many are going to revolt in one way or another. |
What "agenda," Bill?| Just look at what happens when they try and force obamacare on the masses against their will. You get a social conservative in Teddy's seat. |
Again: only in your wildest dreams is that what happened. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, Bill.
You also wrote:| The difference is that a interracial man and women couple can produce children while a homosexual couple, interracial or not, cannot. Therefore a homosexual society cannot sustain itself, without heterosexual interaction, and any homosexual society will have vanished after one generation. So as you can see homosexuality leads to the death of a society while heterosexuality remains the only means by which a society cannot only advance, but sustain itself. The only way a society continues is through heterosexual relationships. |
Finally, the reasoning comes out!
Unfortunately, marriage isn't about having children. Unmarried people have children all the time, and married people fail to have children all the time, too. The only way for this argument of yours to be at all compelling is if only married couples could legally bear live young. Marriage as a governmental institution (which is what you are arguing gays shouldn't have access to) is about (1) creating a more stable society (not necessarily a growing society) and (2) contractual obligations. Governmental endorsement of marriages is neither permission to have children nor an order to have children.
So, your argument fails, Bill, because its premises and conclusion are utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether gays should have the same rights as straight people.
And as Pleco noted, if your argument were correct, then there would be a compelling legal argument for the government to demand fertility and genetic tests before each and every marriage, to ensure that the couple could have children who might themselves have children. Infertile people would be banned from marriage, as well as anyone who never intends to have children, along with all of those who have a reasonable chance (genetically speaking) of conceiving children who might be sterile or not live long enough to have children of their own. And to ensure that these tests and standards are met, the government would have to outlaw sex between unmarried people of all sorts, which, because people are people no matter what the law says, would lead to a tremendous increase in back-alley abortions and thus dead women (since extramarital sex would be illegal, so would birth control and abortion). Hell, to ensure that society grows at some mandated amount, the government might have to create laws in which married couples would have to have sex to meet some quota system (sterile, marriage-inelligible people could act as record-keepers).
Yeah, as well as being irrelevant, if your argument held water, society could easily become nightmarish.
Oh, one more thing:| So as you can see homosexuality leads to the death of a society while heterosexuality remains the only means by which a society cannot only advance, but sustain itself. |
So if gays were to be allowed to get married (but otherwise continue to do what they're already doing in the bedroom, fertility clinics and adoption agencies) it would lead to the death of society?
If gays are allowed to marry, Bill, will you get divorced? Kill your kids? Refuse to have any more kids? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 10:58:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Bill scott
Or they cannot reproduce. Thus whether you claim to be a naturalist or not, the fact remains that either God concluded, or natural selection selected, heterosexuality to be the base of society and the only means to proliferate life.
|
And? I'm trying to see an argument against homosexual marriage here but I can't find it.
It's an ideal argument in favor of promiscuousness though. I'm going to the local swinger's club tonight. It's sanctioned by God!
|
| And? I'm trying to see an argument against homosexual marriage here but I can't find it. |
I found mine.
1. It is against my state's constitution
2. It goes against the will of the people in my state
3. It goes against the bases for any social structure of a society, whether from a naturalist view point or not.
| It's an ideal argument in favor of promiscuousness though. I'm going to the local swinger's club tonight. It's sanctioned by God! |
Suit yourself but that is a good way to catch a nice disease |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 11:03:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Bill keeps talking like America is a Democracy and Dave keeps talking like America is a republic. Which is it? It cannot be both. What form of government did the founding "fathers" create? I did not create this video, so if there are errors bring them out. SS
|
It can be both. It is both. The USA is a constitutional republic. One of the characteristics of most (if not all) constitutional republics is having a representative democracy.
In a republic the head of state is not a kind or queen, and the people have an influence on government. For example through a representative democracy, where the people choose representatives to represent them in government and make decisions on their behalf.
Furthermore, the USA is a constitutional republic, meaning that the actions of it's government and people is limited by the constitution. The constitution tempers the will of the majority to protect individual rights, preventing mob rule.
Here ends the lesson. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 11:11:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| And? I'm trying to see an argument against homosexual marriage here but I can't find it. |
I found mine.
1. It is against my state's constitution |
So was interracial marriage. That is not an argument.
| 2. It goes against the will of the people in my state |
So did interracial marriage in many states. So that's not an argument either.
| 3. It goes against the bases for any social structure of a society, whether from a naturalist view point or not. |
You still haven't presented an argument for that. The only argument you presented only works in a society where all marriages are homosexual, only married couples get children and no other routes to children (artificial, donor, adoption) are used.
| It's an ideal argument in favor of promiscuousness though. I'm going to the local swinger's club tonight. It's sanctioned by God! |
Suit yourself but that is a good way to catch a nice disease
|
Doesn't matter. It's all about getting children to you. As long as we get more children than die of disease, we'll be good. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 11:40:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Bill keeps talking like America is a Democracy and Dave keeps talking like America is a republic. Which is it? It cannot be both. |
It is indisputable that the United States is a Representative Republic in which those represetatives are elected democratically. This thread is now about the failure of direct democracy (Proposition 8 was a voter referendum) to protect the rights of a minority. In my opinion, people like Bill are only in favor of direct democracy so long as they aren't victims of it themselves.| What form of government did the founding "fathers" create? I did not create this video, so if there are errors bring them out. SS |
As soon as the narrator asserted that "on the left" there is 100% government, no matter what you call it, thus lumping together liberal utopias with theocratic enslavement, I stopped watching. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 12:12:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
It can be both. It is both. The USA is a constitutional republic. One of the characteristics of most (if not all) constitutional republics is having a representative democracy.
In a republic the head of state is not a kind or queen, and the people have an influence on government. For example through a representative democracy, where the people choose representatives to represent them in government and make decisions on their behalf.
Furthermore, the USA is a constitutional republic, meaning that the actions of it's government and people is limited by the constitution. The constitution tempers the will of the majority to protect individual rights, preventing mob rule.
Here ends the lesson.
|
Fully agree. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 12:29:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
1. It is against my state's constitution
2. It goes against the will of the people in my state |
Statements of fact are not arguments in favor of a proposition. And that which is popular is not always morally correct.| 3. It goes against the bases for any social structure of a society, whether from a naturalist view point or not. |
This would be true if and only if by "social structure of a society," you meant "couples having children without medical help or adoption" (it would be true, but still morally wrong, because we don't deny marriage to straight couples who need medical help or adoption in order to have kids). But in reality, GBLT cultures are social structure within our society (just like "chess club" is a social structure within high school, and a demonstrably different social structure than, say, the cheerleading squad), and same-sex marriage certainly does not "go against" most GBLT cultures in America today. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/03/2010 : 14:18:09 [Permalink]
|
Coincidently.....
2/03/2010
Note to John McCain: Gay Soldiers Don't Want to Rape Your Ass:
Underneath the glowing sheen of rationality given to the most despicable of beliefs, there is always irrational fear. Implicit in the language of the men who want to leave in place the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gays and lesbians in the military is this fear: "Gay guys might rape my ass." The proper response to that is, "Oh, get over yourself, Mary."
|
I do not understand why gays are so feared by the conservative community. The few I've been acquainted with, including those on these boards -- yes Bill, there are queers around these parts! Heavens to de Sade! -- seemed perfectly reasonable people.
But lets take short look at what would happen if we managed to exile them, or kill them off, as so many conservatives would love to do but won't admit it -- unless it's a Republican caught wanking Congressional page boys, that is. That's ok.
We would lose big-time in the arts, engineering, and science. Like to go to a good flick? Many of the writers and production people are gay, as well as some of the actors. Might just as well stay home and stare at the fish tank.
I once worked as a millwright setting up foundry equipment, much of it designed in house. The head engineer was gay and in a relationship with someone outside the plant. He was very damned good at machinery design.
I knew a lesbian couple in VT that had a good thing going with three kids.
And do forth. None of these people were anything to be afraid of and that holds true with the gay population in general. Of course, there is some certain percentage of gays who are as creepy as any of the many heterosexuals we read about in the news -- page boy wankers for example -- but the law can manage them quite nicely.
So, again I ask; what's the big deal? Why can't law-abiding gays enjoy the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as anyone else?
Why do you fear them so?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 15:37:08 [Permalink]
|
Billscott....
As a bitter old man of 81, I look back at some of the decisions I made and the conclusions about life that I came to at age 40 and I am just amazed and bewildered at what I could have been possibly thinking. I will paraphrase Bill here as he sums it up well: When I was forty I believed and behaved like a child, but now that I have become a man I have put away obeisance to authoritarian doctrine and have learned to think for myself.
In response to:| And? I'm trying to see an argument against homosexual marriage here but I can't find it. |
You state:
I found mine.
1. It is against my state's constitution.
2. It goes against the will of the people in my state.
3. It goes against the bases for any social structure of a society, whether from a naturalist view point or not. |
1. Would your argument be weakened if you lived in a state whose constitution supported gay marriage?
2. Does this mean that you agree with the premise of banning same sex marriage, partially because it is against the will of a majority of people in your state? And that your support for that "will of the majority" would be lessened if you lived in a state where the majority approved of gay marriage?
3. You have defined one of the "bases for any social structure of a society" as the reproduction of offspring by married couples of opposite sexes. Obviously this is utterly irrelevant as in vitro fertilization by both sperm and egg donors is not affected by bans on same sex marriage, and married homosexuals of either sex can and do have all the children they want.
Even legislation banning marriage of opposite sex couples and allowing only homosexual couples to marry - (perhaps in a Brave New World dreamed of by civilization-and-Bible-hating "queers") - would in no way impede reproduction of the species unless egg and sperm donation was also banned by law.
Also, instances of children conceived out of wedlock are extremely commonplace, as you may have noticed. Marriage is becoming increasingly irrelevant to childbearing in our society.
So this part of your argument has been shot to pieces by many in this thread and cannot be seen as credible
What are the other "bases for any social structure of a society" to which you refer, Bill?
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 16:15:37 [Permalink]
|
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 16:20:20 [Permalink]
|
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Deceiving in the name of Jesus, again
