Originally posted by Christine:
Are you seriously comparing mutually consensual adult relationships with pedophilia? Please say you aren't.
ETA: My comment was directed at Geraine, Tom snuck in there while I typed.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:They can? Guess I've been asleep at the switch since I missed that news!
Homosexuals can get civil unions that give them the benefits of marriage...
quote:Sorry, I meant that the majority supports civil unions.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:They can? Guess I've been asleep at the switch since I missed that news!
Homosexuals can get civil unions that give them the benefits of marriage...
quote:Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
Here's a better question, Clive: why do you want to scoff at homosexuality?
quote:The interesting thing about this response is that you can make it and still think you've got the moral high ground.
Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
quote:Communicating with other people using technology is not "unnatural." The act of communication isn't unnatural. The act of using/creating technology isn't unnatural either (for humans.)
Originally posted by Kwea:
So is posting on Hatrack. What's you point?
quote:Why should I concede moral superiority to those trying to legitimize a social and biological abnormality as healthy and acceptable?
he interesting thing about this response is that you can make it and still think you've got the moral high ground.
quote:Civil unions do not give us the benefits of marriage. They give us some, but not all.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
civil unions that give them the benefits of marriage
quote:What do they deny you?
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Civil unions do not give us the benefits of marriage. They give us some, but not all.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
civil unions that give them the benefits of marriage
quote:You claim of moral superiority has been noted.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
"Why should I concede moral superiority to those trying to legitimize a social and biological abnormality as healthy and acceptable?"
I'm not saying you should concede it. I'm saying that I'm amused that you think you have it.
quote:And here I thought homosexuality occurred in nature, thus making it - for some - natural by definition.
Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
quote:You ought to stop using terms like 'social' and 'acceptable'. Both of them mean whatever we as a human society want them to mean. When you use them in this argument in this fashion, what you're really saying is, "It's unacceptable and abnormal because we say it is." That's not an actual reason.
Why should I concede moral superiority to those trying to legitimize a social and biological abnormality as healthy and acceptable?
quote:For all the difference you claim is there between the two situations - race relations and sexual-preference relations - the arguments against equal rights for the latter are strangely...identical...to the arguments formerly used against equal rights for the former.
There isn't a difference between whites and blacks that justifies legalized discrimination. There's a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality that justifies the government not legitimizing the former.
quote:I think the belief is that same-sex marriage will encourage homosexuals to come out of the closet and reveal themselves as ordinary citizens capable of having stable, healthy, societally-valuable relationships, which will effectively show people exactly that.
People have to see for themselves or be shown that it is legitimate...
quote:You say that now, but give us some time. If the black rights movement had given up this easily, we'd still be drinking from separate water fountains.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
There isn't a difference between whites and blacks that justifies legalized discrimination. There's a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality that justifies the government not legitimizing the former.
quote:On the other hand, Animals exhibit "gay" behavior or Homosexual behaviour in animals: an evolutionary perspective.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
... Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
quote:This is exactly right. Although laws are not passing at this moment in time for SSM I would think in less than a decade all states will allow SSM. A human being attracted to, and wanting to give their love to, another human is not deviant behavior.
I think the belief is that same-sex marriage will encourage homosexuals to come out of the closet and reveal themselves as ordinary citizens capable of having stable, healthy, societally-valuable relationships
quote:A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior. Just because we're capable of something doesn't mean we should sell it as normal and healthy.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Clive, have you not read the scientific studies that show that homosexuality is completely natural and present in all human cultures across all times, as well as in other species?
quote:Haha.
Studies show that the people who are the most anti-gay are often the ones who do have those feelings, and wish for social reasons to suppress or refute them. So perhaps the issue matters so much to you for that reason.
quote:"10% of people are gay" is a convenient and false statistic.
In either case, you're badly mistaken. About 10% of the population is gay. As well rail against left-handedness, as they did in days gone by, trying to force kids to be right-handed against their nature.
quote:I think this is the best solution. The government should have an official mechanism for recognizing couples (civil unions) but leave control of the religious ceremonies to those who want them. If homosexual couples want the religious aspect as well then it becomes a problem for them to resolve with their church and its other constituents. This would help take the public spotlight off of certain religious groups (ex: Mormons) and could end up being a more effective way of bringing about gay marriage. Creating social pressure by making a personal appeal to the local community (ex: appealing to a local congregation) is likely to be more effective than marching in a demonstration as it avoids marginalizing those who you are negotiating with.
Originally posted by Christine:
For the record, I'm all for government getting out of the marriage business altogether and would be perfectly content with that solution. I don't know if other pro-SSM people agree, but it seems reasonable to me as long as government really does step out and does not allow discrimination based on family
quote:Are these other creatures that engage in homosexual behavior engaging in sexual acts analogous to those which gays practice? Or is mere bonding between same sex creatures being interpreted as homosexual behavior in order to push an agenda?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:And here I thought homosexuality occurred in nature, thus making it - for some - natural by definition.
Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
quote:Yes there is: People of the same sex are not sexually complimentary. The acts in which they engage in are a perversion of biology.
You ought to stop using terms like 'social' and 'acceptable'. Both of them mean whatever we as a human society want them to mean. When you use them in this argument in this fashion, what you're really saying is, "It's unacceptable and abnormal because we say it is." That's not an actual reason.
quote:Heterosexual sex has a biological function whereas gay sex doesn't. It's not arbitrary.
Biological is, as I've said above, not correct either, but at least you're getting down to strictly rational areas. It's not a 'biological abnormality' anymore than any other uncommon social/sexual activity. But I'm curious, though, in what ways is homosexuality unhealthy? And just to save time, for the purposes of this argument you don't get to use problems caused by society's intolerance of it, because as I've already said, that's arbitrary.
quote:Instead of posting one-liners in response to everyone's objections, how about you post how you feel about homosexuality and why. If you think that it's a "perversion and [a] sickness" then explain why. You currently don't seem to be putting any effort into actually convincing people as to why your view has merit.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior. Just because we're capable of something doesn't mean we should sell it as normal and healthy.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Clive, have you not read the scientific studies that show that homosexuality is completely natural and present in all human cultures across all times, as well as in other species?
quote:No, but it does make it "natural", doesn't it? Or maybe you need to define natural for us, since you're obviously using a definition most of us aren't familiar with.
A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior.
quote:That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The particular statistic came from Kinsey who interviewed men in prison and then extrapolated the results.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
By all means, continue to reply to rational arguments with subjective opinion - 'perversion' and 'sickness' - and to claim one statistic is a lie without, of course, offering any of your own to actually disprove it.
quote:There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is a product of nature so calling it a "perversion of biology" doesn't make much sense. I also don't see why it matters.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Yes there is: People of the same sex are not sexually complimentary. The acts in which they engage in are a perversion of biology.
You ought to stop using terms like 'social' and 'acceptable'. Both of them mean whatever we as a human society want them to mean. When you use them in this argument in this fashion, what you're really saying is, "It's unacceptable and abnormal because we say it is." That's not an actual reason.
quote:So what? Why is it's classification as a biological function related to whether or not we should allow gay marriage? My reasons for supporting gay marriage are completely orthogonal to whether or not homosexuality is a biological function and I suspect that's true for other people here as well. Why does biology matter here?
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Heterosexual sex has a biological function whereas gay sex doesn't. It's not arbitrary.
Biological is, as I've said above, not correct either, but at least you're getting down to strictly rational areas. It's not a 'biological abnormality' anymore than any other uncommon social/sexual activity. But I'm curious, though, in what ways is homosexuality unhealthy? And just to save time, for the purposes of this argument you don't get to use problems caused by society's intolerance of it, because as I've already said, that's arbitrary.
quote:"natural" as in "intrinsic and inseparable." No human society ever needed homosexual unions to thrive whereas we need heterosexual ones to maintain society and pass down our legacy.
Originally posted by Strider:
quote:No, but it does make it "natural", doesn't it? Or maybe you need to define natural for us, since you're obviously using a definition most of us aren't familiar with.
A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior.
quote:Okay but that's not how "natural" is normally (if ever) used. It would have been more productive if you brought up the issue of society first. That would have considerably focused this discussion.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:"natural" as in "intrinsic and inseparable." No human society ever needed homosexual unions to thrive whereas we need heterosexual ones to maintain society and pass down our legacy.
Originally posted by Strider:
quote:No, but it does make it "natural", doesn't it? Or maybe you need to define natural for us, since you're obviously using a definition most of us aren't familiar with.
A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior.
quote:Clive, how long have you been relying on this argument? I assume you've been doing so for years and years and years. Have you simply not had it explained to you that it's a patently false argument that comes off as completely ignorant?
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
Here's a better question, Clive: why do you want to scoff at homosexuality?
quote:In a word, yes.
Are these other creatures that engage in homosexual behavior engaging in sexual acts analogous to those which gays practice? Or is mere bonding between same sex creatures being interpreted as homosexual behavior in order to push an agenda?
quote:They're sexually compatible among each other, I dare say. I really don't see where you get the authority to claim you know better what is sexually complimentary between two individuals than those two individuals themselves do.
Yes there is: People of the same sex are not sexually complimentary. The acts in which they engage in are a perversion of biology.
quote:And what about couples who either choose not to have children or are, one or both, sterile and have no children? No biological function there, except to...well, come to think of it, exercise, pleasure, intimacy, etc., between the couple which is the exact same purpose it serves among homosexuals as well.
Heterosexual sex has a biological function whereas gay sex doesn't. It's not arbitrary.
quote:Let's say you were a lawyer. I could use the exact same logic you're using now to say "No human society ever needed lawyers to thrive whereas we need farmers to maintain society and pass down our legacy. Ergo, being a lawyer is unnatural, and wrong."
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
"natural" as in "intrinsic and inseparable." No human society ever needed homosexual unions to thrive whereas we need heterosexual ones to maintain society and pass down our legacy.
quote:It is a perversion of biology the same way being born with nine fingers is a perversion of biology. It isn't good and healthy to be born with nine fingers. Why then pretend that being homosexual is good and healthy?
There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is a product of nature so calling it a "perversion of biology" doesn't make much sense. I also don't see why it matters.
quote:The benefit of marriage to society is in bringing children to this world and attaching them to two people who feel a biological urge to take care of and protect them. Gay marriage fundamentally cannot result in children to whom the gays feel biological attachment to. Maybe the gay men will adopt, or maybe one of them will use a surrogate mother, in which case, one of the partners loses out. Pretty much the same thing with lesbians. Point is, adoption/sperm bank/surrogacy are imperfect, and society saying that two men marrying is as respectable and healthy as a man and a woman marrying undermines the functional purpose of marriage.
So what? Why is it's classification as a biological function related to whether or not we should allow gay marriage?
quote:Heck yeah! Go go embryonic stem cell research, you're clear to go!
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
The act of using/creating technology isn't unnatural either (for humans.)
quote:OK, I'm done taking you seriously, and barring some very untroll-like behavior, well, you're derogated to the troll category. Being born missing body parts has an obvious, easily tested and easily observed negative impact on a human being completely divorced from society. Less coordination being the most obvious example. You can't say the same about homosexuality. Hell, not only have you not proven the same about homosexuality, you haven't even made any arguments that, if you substantiated them, would prove or even provide evidence for your conclusion.
It is a perversion of biology the same way being born with nine fingers is a perversion of biology. It isn't good and healthy to be born with nine fingers. Why then pretend that being homosexual is good and healthy?
quote:This is a profoundly stupid argument as well, and seals the troll status. We allow completely promiscuous men and women to get married all the time. We're going to continue to allow it. The government has no business intervening.
Moreover, gays have a different conception of "marriage" then do heterosexuals. For instance, male gay couples are supposedly FAR more likely than heterosexual couples to engage in "open relationships." By allowing these sort of people to marry we will fundamentally alter the meaning and purpose of marriage.
quote:So are the girrafes having anal sex with each other or merely bonding?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB] Clive,
In a word, yes.
quote:They think they're sexually compatible because they're confused and sick. Unlike you people I refuse to pretend that confusion and sickness is healthy and normal.
They're sexually compatible among each other, I dare say. I really don't see where you get the authority to claim you know better what is sexually complimentary between two individuals than those two individuals themselves do.
quote:Most heterosexual people find the acts we're talking about loathsome and don't practice them. But I think in general there's a difference between heterosexual couples expanding their repertoire and homosexuals making their primary sexual practices what is merely kinky behavior among normals.
Stop using 'perversion' as an argument. It's subjective, it's arbitrary, and until you explain why it's not in a persuasive and rational manner, it's not bolstering your argument, you're just repeated a failed argument. However, for the sake of argument, let me ask: if it was 'biologically perverted', would it matter? The exact same sexual act between heterosexuals faces no restrictions or claims of being so perverted it must be legislated*, while among homosexuals it's supposedly so dangerous and bad we can't let it be tolerated.
quote:Sterile/infertile people don't threaten heterosexual people because their sterility/infertility stems from a biological flaw in their sexual organs, not from the fact that they're trying to use those sexual organs inappropriately.
And what about couples who either choose not to have children or are, one or both, sterile and have no children? No biological function there, except to...well, come to think of it, exercise, pleasure, intimacy, etc., between the couple which is the exact same purpose it serves among homosexuals as well.
quote:Clive, does it have to be laid out in extremely unerring wording?
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
[QB]
I remember years ago walking home from school and passing on the sidewalk two elementary school boys who seemed to be immigrants from South Asia. They were holding hands in the way that Western romantic couples do, but I'm pretty certain that in their culture such behavior carries no homosexual implications. It's as if scientists with ax to grind are observing similar, innocent behavior in other creatures and then claiming "Ah, homosexuality occurs in nature! So it's normal and okay after all!"
quote:Ah, you believe this only because you're confused and sick. </worthless-subjective-caveat-judgment>
They think they're sexually compatible because they're confused and sick. Unlike you people I refuse to pretend that confusion and sickness is healthy and normal.
quote:Hey, don't knock it until you've tried it.
Most heterosexual people find the acts we're talking about loathsome and don't practice them.
quote:This argument doesn't seem to address people, like me, who CHOOSE not to have children. I have no flaws in my sexual organs and without much effort, I could probably have five more babies. So if I decide to have sex with my husband anyway, is that then an inappropriate use of my sexual organs?
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Sterile/infertile people don't threaten heterosexual people because their sterility/infertility stems from a biological flaw in their sexual organs, not from the fact that they're trying to use those sexual organs inappropriately.
And what about couples who either choose not to have children or are, one or both, sterile and have no children? No biological function there, except to...well, come to think of it, exercise, pleasure, intimacy, etc., between the couple which is the exact same purpose it serves among homosexuals as well.
quote:"Most INSERT ASSUMED NATURAL GOOD GROUP HERE people find the acts we're talking about loathsome and don't practice them."
Most heterosexual people find the acts we're talking about loathsome and don't practice them.
quote:Why do you feel threatened by homosexuals?
Sterile/infertile people don't threaten heterosexual people...
quote:Because they are deviant and perverted, duh
Why do you feel threatened by homosexuals?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Have you even been paying attention?
quote:Show me where using a computer to communicate happens in the wild (naturally) and I'll concede the point. It is natural (maybe) for humans to talk to other humans face to face. Using an electronic device to communicate with people you will never meet, all based on a similar taste in books isn't a natural impulse. It is an unnatural
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Communicating with other people using technology is not "unnatural." The act of communication isn't unnatural. The act of using/creating technology isn't unnatural either (for humans.)
Originally posted by Kwea:
So is posting on Hatrack. What's you point?
quote:Why should I concede moral superiority to those trying to legitimize a social and biological abnormality as healthy and acceptable?
he interesting thing about this response is that you can make it and still think you've got the moral high ground.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:He doesn't (see my big edit on page one woohoo). He's just slotting it as a word that means "objectively wrong"
Define deviant, because I doubt you understand the actual meaning of the word.
quote:Samprimary, I was willing to entertain that possibility until he likened homosexuality to as unequivocally bad as missing fingers. It's such a profoundly stupid argument that I can't believe it's not either intentional, or willful, if you understand the distinction.
Clive is just particularly adamant about his very weak, easily refuted position. Does that make him a troll if he's genuine about his beliefs?
quote:Only if you're meaning "he is being dumb on purpose." Y'know, to purposefully get a rise out of the community for his own entertainment.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Samprimary, I was willing to entertain that possibility until he likened homosexuality to as unequivocally bad as missing fingers. It's such a profoundly stupid argument that I can't believe it's not either intentional, or willful, if you understand the distinction.
Clive is just particularly adamant about his very weak, easily refuted position. Does that make him a troll if he's genuine about his beliefs?
quote:oh oh I can field this one.
2) As for being sick/confused, I'd have to challenge you to demonstrate a pathology that is actually independent of societal condemnation and punishment of homosexuality.
quote:technology you say.
3) Duh, gay couples can't reproduce by themselves, without some advanced technology.
quote:phew! all disagreements of opinion RECONCILED.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
The act of using/creating technology isn't unnatural either (for humans.)
quote:In Florida, even with the paperwork showing a that you have signed over right to make medical decisions to your gay lover, the gay lover will probably be denied. And that paperwork costs a lot more in legal fees then a marriage license.
Originally posted by just_me:
If my wife is hit by a car and in the hospital I can go there, tell them I'm her husband and we're married, show no other proof and be admitted to see her.
A gay man with a civil union going to see his partner in the same situation better have his "civil union" paperwork in hand and his lawyer on speed dial.
It works in fantasy, I am sure it will work in real life.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Yes. By the same token, it is unnatural for people to be left-handed or albino. Left-handers can write with their right hand, but we naively tolerate them when they choose to immorally write with their sinister hand. Clearly this is a mistake.
Now even though some scientists say that it is "natural" for homosexuality to occur, the same argument could be made to people that are attracted to young children. Yet this is a socially unacceptable behavior that is not tolerated.
quote:We have defined "minors" as a group who, among other things, are not capable of granting informed consent. As a consequence, sexual contact with a minor cannot be consensual sex. Do you believe that there is no obvious distinction between censuring non-consensual sex and censuring consensual homosexual sex?
I know most of you will disagree with me and say that it is completely different, but I want to know how? I really want to read a good reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't.
quote:Could be argued? It's the absolute truth. That's what the group is for. They point out, as you have pointed out, that our decision as a society to define consensual sex so narrowly is one that, due to its somewhat arbitrary age-based rules, will always have unfair edge cases. Surely a really mature 14-year-old should be allowed to have sex?
It could be argued that some people in the homosexual agenda ARE also trying to legitimize pedophilia through groups like NAMBLA.
quote:The reasoning has been posted here many, many times. With homosexuality, both people in the relationship are adults who, in the eyes of the law and most people I know, are able to understand what they are doing and are responsible for their actions. With children, they are not yet mature, in the eyes of the law and most people I know, and thus not able to consent. Thus, anyone having a sexual relationship with a child is imposing their will on a child who cannot fully understand what it happening, and therefore cannot give consent.
Now even though some scientists say that it is "natural" for homosexuality to occur, the same argument could be made to people that are attracted to young children. Yet this is a socially unacceptable behavior that is not tolerated. (On a side note, everyone knows that scientists are always correct, always objective, and always agree with each other. Especially psychologists! Am I right?)
I know most of you will disagree with me and say that it is completely different, but I want to know how? I really want to read a good reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't.
)
quote:Well, no, that's not actually the system we have here in the United States, thankfully. The 'majority decides' only when they decide to put it into state and the federal constitution, at least in the sense you're meaning 'the majority decides'.
It all comes down to this dilemma. I may believe that something is not natural or is hurtful to someone, but another person may think it is harmless. Who then decides? Both sides can argue forever, but the reality is that the only way to decide what is harmful or not, or what is socially acceptable or not, is the majority of the people.
quote:What you're doing here is shifting the argument. The claim being made is that homosexuality is 'unnatural', not that it's objectionable. That claim is made of course, but it doesn't bear on whether or not it's natural or unnatural. What some folks are doing is pointing out that this one oft-repeated argument in opposition to legalizing SSM - that is, that homosexuality is 'unnatural' - is untrue.
Now even though some scientists say that it is "natural" for homosexuality to occur, the same argument could be made to people that are attracted to young children. Yet this is a socially unacceptable behavior that is not tolerated. (On a side note, everyone knows that scientists are always correct, always objective, and always agree with each other. Especially psychologists! Am I right?)
quote:Here's a real concrete question that can be answered. The reason homosexuality between consenting adults is different from pedophilia is because of the important word in the first and the only word in the second. The important word in the first isn't homosexuality or adults, it's consenting. The important word in the second is the only word, pedophilia, which by definition cannot be consented to, any more than a child can legally or morally consent to a tricky financial contract.
I know most of you will disagree with me and say that it is completely different, but I want to know how? I really want to read a good reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't.
quote:Well, not really. The difficulty lies, frankly, in opponents of SSM not believing in the American experiment to the extent that they ought to. And no, the American experiment isn't just, "The majority rules." There's more to it than that. There's also the part about the majority minding its own business with respect to affairs that don't harm the majority.
I feel you will have just as difficult time explaining this that those that oppose SSM do.
quote:Well, this is just silly. I'm guessing you're indulging in some hypberbole, but no one, anywhere, ever, has been convicted of statutory rape just for hugging an underaged non-relative. And as for the question of women marrying young, yes that was the way society was.
Women married young in the middle ages and even into the early 1900's. It was not uncommon for a man to marry a 13 year old, or a 16 year old. That was just how things were done. The man was not branded a pervert or a pedophile, that was just how society was. But NOW in society it is frowned upon, and even hugging someone that is under the age of 18 that is not your relative can get you branded a pervert and thrown in jail for statutory rape.
quote:Because in this country you're supposed to have a better reason for interfering in another person's private life than 'God says so', which ultimately is the only persuasive argument in opposition to SSM there is. The supposed rational, secular arguments against aren't nearly as persuasive as those for SSM.
So I ask again how homosexuality is different? Homosexuality is simply something that has been socially unacceptable in the past that some groups are trying to legitimize. Please help me understand [Frown]
quote:Who said that? All I pointed out was that very young wives, by modern standards, went part and parcel with a lot of other things that are either inapplicable in today's society (life expectancy) or undesirable (submissive wives).
Marriage was invented so that men could own their wives?
quote:I did.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Who said that? All I pointed out was that very young wives, by modern standards, went part and parcel with a lot of other things that are either inapplicable in today's society (life expectancy) or undesirable (submissive wives).
Marriage was invented so that men could own their wives?
quote:KMB: Jews still get married that way. Where do you think the ring came from? Giving the ring to a woman was a form of "purchase." Furthermore, a marriage is invalid without a contract stipulating business terms.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Anyway, marriage was invented so men would have a legal rationale to own their wives.
quote:You've probably been told it was somewhere around 30. Life expectancy is a very misleading statistic, and heavily influenced by infant and child mortality. If a woman lived to be 13, she did NOT consider her life almost half over. She could expect to live well into middle (or even old) age if she made it to 13.
What was a woman's life expectancy in the Middle Ages? That's why she married at 13. Not so much true today.
quote:He wasn't offering it to me. That is the point. I was goods in this situation. It was not up to me to decide. Fortunately, the man who was offered the cows recognized that I did not belong to him and declined to make the deal.
Originally posted by MattP:
And you turned him down!?!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:That's all well and good, but in addition to the symbolic, ideal meanings, we also have to look at the actual practice in life.
However - all these are symbolic of the commitment a man is supposed to have toward a woman, and of his duties to her. IMO, i think that it raises marriage beyond a social mechanism involving communal recognition that you are in a monogamous sexual relationship. It is about the acceptance of a man's responsibility to care and provide for his wife.
quote:Oddly enough, it was a Maasai man who offered quite a few cows for my younger sister, my mother refused for her, that's how controlling she is!
Originally posted by kmbboots:
That was an example of a marriage, but the exchange of goods or services for a daughter was the pattern of marriage. It still is in some places. A Maasai once offered an extravagant number of cows in exchange for me.
quote:You don't have to be a Biblical literalist to see the description of how their marriage functioned. Unless Moses was some sort of feminist writing to a community that just didn't agree with him, or unless the oral histories got muddled somehow with a progressive streak, I just don't see how you can read about their relationship and conclude that Adam simply possessed Eve, and that it was a monetary transaction.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
BB, I am not a biblical literalist.
quote:I see you are trying to trap me into this argument, and I'll play along.
Originally posted by Christine:
Are you seriously comparing mutually consensual adult relationships with pedophilia? Please say you aren't.
ETA: My comment was directed at Geraine, Tom snuck in there while I typed.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Like hell they did. You think a child bride was going to be consulted in the matter?
Do you think a 13 year old girl is mature enough to make a decision to marry an older man? I don't! People a few hundred years ago sure thought so though.
quote:Um....In what way is that an argument against same-sex marriage?
My argument is that socially unacceptable behavior in the past has become more accepted over time, while other behavior that used to be socially acceptable is no longer so.
quote:Yes, but this is after being chucked out of Eden.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
KOM: The phrase "Adam knew his wife, and she conceived." Could not be more obvious in it's message that Adam had sex with Eve.
quote:Oh I don't know, I think "Adam had sex with Eve" as you've written may be slightly more obvious.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
KOM: The phrase "Adam knew his wife, and she conceived." Could not be more obvious in it's message that Adam had sex with Eve.
quote:It's not that simple. A number of my grandmothers (1 great, 2 great, etc.) were married at ages 14/15, and maybe some as early as 13, (this was the norm in the rural South 80-100 years ago and more) and I'm pretty sure they weren't forced into it.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Like hell they did. You think a child bride was going to be consulted in the matter?
Do you think a 13 year old girl is mature enough to make a decision to marry an older man? I don't! People a few hundred years ago sure thought so though.
quote:Mature enough to be raped and beaten if they were too upset about it? Or maybe just beaten if they got upset before the marriage? Sure, folks thought that hundreds of years ago.
Do you think a 13 year old girl is mature enough to make a decision to marry an older man? I don't! People a few hundred years ago sure thought so though.
quote:I don't think it's an argument for or against. It's just an observation on the fluidity of socially acceptable behavior. I think you could use the argument either way. If you say that people used to be okay with child marriages in a way that we find morally repugnant today, then you're essentially arguing that mankind fixed a previous moral error. Likewise, allowing gay marriage would be to make a similar mistake all over again.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Um....In what way is that an argument against same-sex marriage?
My argument is that socially unacceptable behavior in the past has become more accepted over time, while other behavior that used to be socially acceptable is no longer so.
quote:So, they weren't culturally conditioned from birth to be obedient, submissive, and to expect and accept such young marriages?
A number of my grandmothers (1 great, 2 great, etc.) were married at ages 14/15, and maybe some as early as 13, (this was the norm in the rural South 80-100 years ago and more) and I'm pretty sure they weren't forced into it.
quote:Actually, as you have probably noted by now, it's actually remarkably easy. :/
Now even though some scientists say that it is "natural" for homosexuality to occur, the same argument could be made to people that are attracted to young children. Yet this is a socially unacceptable behavior that is not tolerated. (On a side note, everyone knows that scientists are always correct, always objective, and always agree with each other. Especially psychologists! Am I right?)
I know most of you will disagree with me and say that it is completely different, but I want to know how? I really want to read a good reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't.
I feel you will have just as difficult time explaining this that those that oppose SSM do.
quote:It is official, you win the thread.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:He wasn't offering it to me. That is the point. I was goods in this situation. It was not up to me to decide. Fortunately, the man who was offered the cows recognized that I did not belong to him and declined to make the deal.
Originally posted by MattP:
And you turned him down!?!
ETA: My father (who was not there) still claims that he should have been consulted. It was a lot of cows.
quote:The responses Clive Candy got back are a reasonable response to the shallowness of his logic. He is relying on very dated and very easily contradicted arguments that people still use only if they can not figure out why they are bogus.
Originally posted by Geraine:
Clive, like Darth said, it is a lost cause. No matter what you post, people here will rip it down. We have had numerous topics regarding SSM, and none of them really end well for those opposing it.
quote:And I would argue that being gay is just as disadvantageous to a community just as a person with missing body parts would be. Consider: people contribute and invest in their communities because of their families/children. Families and children are connected most importantly by biology. A gay person wouldn't be as connected to his community -- wouldn't have as much of an investment in it -- as a heterosexual who has sired children. Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB] [QUOTE]OK, I'm done taking you seriously, and barring some very untroll-like behavior, well, you're derogated to the troll category. Being born missing body parts has an obvious, easily tested and easily observed negative impact on a human being completely divorced from society. Less coordination being the most obvious example. You can't say the same about homosexuality. Hell, not only have you not proven the same about homosexuality, you haven't even made any arguments that, if you substantiated them, would prove or even provide evidence for your conclusion.
quote:Heterosexual couples who break their vows are failing to live up to their obligations. Homosexual men, on the other hand, overwhelmingly tend to have relationships that are "open." They by nature disregard the expectation of fidelity that we expect from heterosexual unions. If we allow gays to marry, this aspect of homosexuality will impact the overall meaning of "marriage" and weaken the institution.
This is a profoundly stupid argument as well, and seals the troll status. We allow completely promiscuous men and women to get married all the time. We're going to continue to allow it. The government has no business intervening.
quote:Stupid male animals confusing anuses with vaginas doesn't justify homosexuality. Offer many a male mammal a hole to poke and he will take it gladly. That doesn't mean he's gay.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Clive, does it have to be laid out in extremely unerring wording?
Throughout nature, there are male animals that have sex with other male animals. It is male animals sticking their male penises into the male anuses of other males. They are copulating. Sometimes you have female analogues but they are understandably much harder to interpret as being so blatantly gay as what you get when there is documented penis-in-butt action. It has been documented in many species that there is homosexual attractions between like-gendered individuals of certain species.
quote:People have to be programmed not to find homosexuality repulsive. This suggests that our revulsion to it is innate.
Ah, you believe this only because you're confused and sick. </worthless-subjective-caveat-judgment>
quote:No, Clive. There are gay animals. This isn't just a case of "well, it looked like a vagina." There are gay animals. There are even animals which all exhibit a tendency towards homosexual rape (bedbugs, etc).
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Stupid male animals confusing anuses with vaginas doesn't justify homosexuality. Offer many a male mammal a hole to poke and he will take it gladly. That doesn't mean he's gay.
quote:Wanna know something cool? Human beings have to be programmed not to steal or use physical force to take what they want. Our more primitive tendencies towards immoral behavior are still somewhat innately hardcoded into us. It doesn't mean that it's right, or that it's wrong to extinguish it through early life acculturation.
People have to be programmed not to find homosexuality repulsive. This suggests that our revulsion to it is innate.
quote:Look, many men who end up in prison end up engaging in gay sex. That doesn't mean they're gay. It just means they're using other men as an imperfect substitute for women. So too with these so called "gay" animals.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:No, Clive. There are gay animals. This isn't just a case of "well, it looked like a vagina." There are gay animals. There are even animals which all exhibit a tendency towards homosexual rape (bedbugs, etc).
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Stupid male animals confusing anuses with vaginas doesn't justify homosexuality. Offer many a male mammal a hole to poke and he will take it gladly. That doesn't mean he's gay.
besides, I don't need to justify homosexuality. I just need to point out that when you say "Homosexuality is unnatural!" you're saying something which is strictly false.
You don't want to admit its false, so you'll try to contort around the evidence against it or come up with new meanings and reinvent the word 'natural' using a self-selective revisionary definition in order to inure yourself from having to admit that the statement 'homosexuality is unnatural' is untrue.
quote:In the U.S., an estimated 5.2% of the population is infertile. 7.2% of women are infertile.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
quote:No. There are animals who engage in homosexual sex with other males out of a personal tendency regardless as to the availability and willingness of the local female population of the same species. These are animals that have easy methods of broadcasting their sex unmistakably (pheremones, etc) and some animals are still gay.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Look, many men who end up in prison end up engaging in gay sex. That doesn't mean they're gay. It just means they're using other men as an imperfect substitute for women. So too with these so called "gay" animals.
quote:Clive, I am going to start repeating myself.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Also, consider: Some are saying that homosexuality is okay because it occurs in nature. Do you people also then hold that polygyny should be legalized because it occurs in nature?
quote:Here, I'll say it again, in bold.
I don't need to justify homosexuality. I just need to point out that when you say "Homosexuality is unnatural!" you're saying something which is strictly false.
quote:
I don't need to justify homosexuality. I just need to point out that when you say "Homosexuality is unnatural!" you're saying something which is strictly false.
quote:People who choose not to have children often change their mind. And I maintain we can carry them so long as they're merely abstaining from having children. As it stands, the end goal of marriage -- in addition to love/partnership -- is to bring children into this world. Those who are of a sexual orientation that makes reproduction impossible should not be able to get "married."
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:In the U.S., an estimated 5.2% of the population is infertile. 7.2% of women are infertile.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
The percentage of the population which is gay is significantly lower.
The percentage of Americans who are heterosexual and simply choose not to have children is phenomenally higher than either category.
If America can't "carry" the people who 'misuse their sexual organs' (by being gay) then that's you asserting that America is critically imperiled by those who 'misuse their sexual organs' by choosing not to have kids.
Heavens to betsy, Clive. We'd better go use the state to enforce procreation before it's too late. I bravely volunteer for the babymakin' gestapo.
quote:You're being obtuse. Is it intentional?
Also, consider: Some are saying that homosexuality is okay because it occurs in nature. Do you people also then hold that polygyny should be legalized because it occurs in nature?
quote:So? That doesn't contradict anything I've said. The percentage of people who opt not to have children in their life still tremendously exceeds the number of people who won't have children because they are gay.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
People who choose not to have children often change their mind. And I maintain we can carry them so long as they're merely abstaining from having children.
quote:There's a word for that.
I am watching your inability to accept information that would contradict your position, not because it's not compelling, but because it would contradict your position. It is pervasive. It is defining you right now.
quote:Well, let's outlaw having the wrong number of body parts!
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
And I would argue that being gay is just as disadvantageous to a community just as a person with missing body parts would be.
quote:They dO? News to me. I thought there were a number of ways to contribute/invest in society including, but not limited to, holding a job, being a consumer, volunteering, donating money, helping a friend in need, being an all-around nice person....
Consider: people contribute and invest in their communities because of their families/children.
quote:I think a few of the adoptive parents in this forum are about to lay siege to this one, so I'll leave it alone and let them.
Families and children are connected most importantly by biology. A gay person wouldn't be as connected to his community -- wouldn't have as much of an investment in it -- as a heterosexual who has sired children.
quote:I'm still not clear on what it means to "misuse sexual organs."
Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
quote:Oh, I like the simplicity of that.
Originally posted by Christine:
Homosexuality is ok because it's none of your business what two consenting adults do with and to one another.
quote:I can't speak for Christine, but as I agree with nearly all of her points, I can say that I am in favor of legalizing polygamy.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Christine, are you for legalizing polygamy, then?
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Christine, are you for legalizing polygamy, then?
quote:Presumably not, as this is in his logic apparently a 'burden' that can be 'carried' by the proper couples. But gay couples can not be carried, and therefore should not exist.
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Clive, are you for making marriage between infertile couples illegal?
quote:uh, I think that, uh
Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)
quote:uhhhh
About 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an affair at some point in some marriage
quote:oh man, that sucks. we need to ban heterosexual marriage immediately. they're ruining this sacred practice.
Younger people are more likely candidates; in fact, younger women are as likely as younger men to be unfaithful.
quote:Let me just point out that my wife and I did not marry to bring children into this world. This was manifestly not the purpose of our marriage. We happened to have children, but that's not why we got married.
As it stands, the end goal of marriage -- in addition to love/partnership -- is to bring children into this world.
quote:If this were true (and that's a big "if"), it would be true for gay people whether they're married to each other or not. How is this an argument against SSM?
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
And I would argue that being gay is just as disadvantageous to a community just as a person with missing body parts would be. Consider: people contribute and invest in their communities because of their families/children. Families and children are connected most importantly by biology. A gay person wouldn't be as connected to his community -- wouldn't have as much of an investment in it -- as a heterosexual who has sired children. Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
quote:I don't think he's a troll. I suspect it's biological: his brain simply has trouble coming up with or accepting alternate models of how the world works. I'd love to see what would happen if he reread this thread after squirting cold water into his left ear.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:There's a word for that.
I am watching your inability to accept information that would contradict your position, not because it's not compelling, but because it would contradict your position. It is pervasive. It is defining you right now.
Good for you charging into the gap repeatedly, but I saw this coming once the 'nine-fingers' stuff came out.
quote:And sibling incest as I recall from our last discussion. Or maybe I'm misremembering and that was someone else.
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Christine, are you for legalizing polygamy, then?
Note: As long as minors are not involved as they cannot give consent.
quote:I don't think I said that, but it's a good and reasonable point.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:And sibling incest as I recall from our last discussion. Or maybe I'm misremembering and that was someone else.
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Christine, are you for legalizing polygamy, then?
Note: As long as minors are not involved as they cannot give consent.
quote:Restricting sexual coupling of close relatives is much different than allowing close relatives to marry.
I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
quote:Seriously? You read the whole thing? I did that in high school.
Originally posted by Christine:
(Although I did just finish read VC Andrew's entire Dollanganger series which has a unique perspective on the issue.)
quote:There's also the fact that we don't require proof of genetic compatibility prior to marriage. Should we make a genetic test mandatory for marriage, in the interest of preventing real, physical harm to potential offspring?
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Restricting sexual coupling of close relatives is much different than allowing close relatives to marry.
I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
quote:Actually, it's only the sexual *reproduction* part of the coupling that's dangerous. What if siblings wanted to marry but consented to never have children? Or artificially inseminate from an outside donor? Or years from now when we can go in and genetically alter either the egg or the sperm to prevent harm to the offspring?
Originally posted by Christine:
I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
quote:Well then, that would be a restriction, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Actually, it's only the sexual *reproduction* part of the coupling that's dangerous. What if siblings wanted to marry but consented to never have children? Or artificially inseminate from an outside donor? Or years from now when we can go in and genetically alter either the egg or the sperm to prevent harm to the offspring?
Originally posted by Christine:
I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
quote:i don't disagree with your statement. I would just change "since" to "in cases where", since it's not the sexual coupling itself that could harm offspring, but the decision to have the potential offspring in the first place. Though I obviously understand where babies come from.
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Well then, that would be a restriction, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Actually, it's only the sexual *reproduction* part of the coupling that's dangerous. What if siblings wanted to marry but consented to never have children? Or artificially inseminate from an outside donor? Or years from now when we can go in and genetically alter either the egg or the sperm to prevent harm to the offspring?
Originally posted by Christine:
I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
I don't remember making any particularly strong assertions about this issue. It's not something I've really thought that hard about, to be honest.
quote:Conversely, it could be argued that married couples who don't have children are taking less from their community. Recall the recent discussion on the Duggars' carbon footprint.
Originally posted by Clive Candy:
Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
quote:There are other relationships that exhibit power asymmetry where marriage is unrestricted. Why should this type be singled out?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
My problem with close relatives marrying is that it is difficult to establish free consent. Power relations between siblings often hinder free consent.
quote:What sort of blight like effects should we expect to see if a married couple have an open marriage?
Originally posted by Tatiana:
The reason why I feel sure homosexual behavior is not a sin is because sin blights people's lives. Yet the homosexual couples I know are stronger better people because of their close connection to their partners. Just as married hetero couples make each other stronger and better people, they bless each other with their bonds. The same thing is what I observe with gay couples I'm friends with. They're good for each other. They make each other happier. They make stable families together. I don't see that sort of blessing resulting from something that's a sin. That's why I feel almost completely sure that homosexual love is not in any way sinful. I wonder why that's not obvious to everyone?
quote:Neither, I'm not convinced that all things that are wrong simply blight the person's life. Tatiana made a very interesting point, I'm trying to flesh it out for myself.
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
BB: It says edited for clarity, but I still confused about which point you're actually intending to make, and whether it's a Devil's Advocate you're doing or a Devil's Devil's Advocate?
quote:not to be a pain, but isn't that totally leading into circular reasoning? It's true because you've been told it's true. Because you've been told it's true, it's true.
There really is a real reason for every single commandment. If it were not true we would have been told.
code:See? It's linear. Okay, let's see if this will work without having to use code tags, lol. =)Reality ------> |
Revelation ---> | Our moral discernment --> Fewest possible errors either way --> Least Damage, Greatest Personal Growth possible
Commandments--> |
quote:This thread should have ended here.
Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
quote:In my hypothetical I'm not sure I would feel a blight.
If, assuming that is really how you personally feel you would react, and assuming you aren't deceiving people in your hypothetical quest to sleep with numerous people, what is the blight that you suggest would still be there, regardless of whether you hurt anybody?
quote:I agree with you, however Tatiana's original point is that the lack-of-blight is evident to her, not just the gay people. And while it is easy to be deluded about the consequences of your own actions, it's also tends to be easier for someone outside the situation to notice bad things than someone within.
In my hypothetical I'm not sure I would feel a blight.
quote:Yeah I have a number of posts floating around talking about how the LDS is pretty much coming around on this.
Women's equality, which we're making progress on. The Proclamation on the Family has the words "equal partners", which I don't believe the church would have used in the 1950s. We believe the number and timing of children is something that's between a couple and God now, whereas once the commandment was no birth control at all. Over time this error is beginning to be corrected as well.
quote:
God, as appropriated by the experts within heavily authority-structured religions, only rarely goes from "This is totally true" to "nevermind, that's totally false now, disregard it, this is now totally true and always was." Sometimes He does (as observed in the history of Mormonism) but usually He follows a four-step plan to keep Himself from falling to the wayside.
1. The 'We strongly believe this and openly argue for it' phase
2. The 'Ehhhhhhhhh it is true based on gospel but we don't like to stress it' phase
3. The 'Oh well, a certain reading of our gospel may say that but we try to distract you from it HEY LOOK OVER THERE' phase
4. The 'We strongly disbelieve this and openly renounce it' phase
Example relating to above issue: In 1920, pope pius XI or whoever openly condemned (phase one) giving women the right to vote, saying that suffrage debased the divinely founded obedience of women through masculine activities such as, say, political involvement, and it was a distraction from women's sole role as mothers and homemakers.
Yeah, that's the pope, yo. This was the church's very official position. But obviously if you ask Pope Whichever Pope Is The Pope Today XI about the church's official stance on the issue ~today~, this inerrant truth of god is apparently not true anymore! something else is true! Pope Is Not The Pope Anymore VII has essentially been doctrinally told to go stuff it.
Over the years the church flipped through the phases to phase four. The catholic church is now solidly Pro-Allowing-Women-To-Vote.
Look at other even more controversial issues! Stuff like the issue of homosexuality has already entered phase two. Birth control is mutating from phase two to phase three. Evolutionary theory is in stage three, beginning to mutate to stage four. The church's heliocentric stand is long ago stage four.
Really, I would bet a lot of money that social circumstances (sorry, God) is going to suddenly inspire the vatican to 'discover' that god is actually okay with condoms for people with HIV, followed by them 'discovering' still later that ehhh okay god is okay with this whole birth control thing, etc. Honest. This is going to happen.
An excellent demonstration of this is going on RIGHT NOW with christianity's take on whether or not the husband is the boss of a family and a woman must submit to that authority.
Not but a handful of decades ago, it was in the 'Definitely True' category. Total phase one. Ask the keepers of scripture about it and they would have said "that is absolutely true, the bible says so, the man is to have dominion over the woman always."
Then as this sentiment became increasingly viewed with hostility and created issues for the church, it morphed into the 'Essentially True, But It's Far More Nuanced Than It Reads, Of Course' phase two. The step where they're still assuring that yes it is gospel but they don't like to stress it and they would rather coach it in more acceptable verbiage. At this point, they would say "yes, this is how a family is supposed to work, the man is supposed to be in charge, but, you see, being in charge, while, yes, he's in charge, this more, you see, represents responsibility, you see, than .. ah, authority, as it is his sacred duty to be strong, for the, ah, woman." (this is actually not such a blatantly silly transcription of their actual statement on this affair. It does actually come off sorta like that).
Then as this fails to placate the new social order, it morphs into the Well Here's What We Mean When We Say That Is True, Don't Get Us Wrong phase three, the point where they're saying that it is only a certain interpretation of the gospel which gives people a misapprehension of the truth of the gospel and most of the energy is spent in deflecting criticism. it is a phase where the truth is being blatantly remade into something completely different! This is the final stage before 'No, That's Not True' phase four where the church is now openly renouncing the idea it previously held. Today, the official line is going to read something like "This does not at all imply that the couple is unequal in authority, no, it's not quite like that, what the bible actually means when it talks about that is that the man has a responsibility as a role model and to walk a righteous path, this is what constitutes being the head of the household, in the bible, that's what that means, you know, so, feminists don't have to get all up in arms, just remember they're joined, they're one, that's equal, guys!"
Eventually, we get to the final phase. The bible's text is unchanged, it still says the same thing about the role of men and women in marriage, but now it is bypassed/ignored like the stuff that says you supposed to off a dude for wearing a polyester-cotton blend. Men and women become now totally equal partners in marriage according to the new official church dogma, something Pope 40 Years Ago XVX would have hardcore disagreed with. Today it getting there. an example currently in motion of how predominating cultural forces often supplant or override holy texts themselves in the way a religion is transmitted and taught. God's constantly changing eternal truths.
Think about that.
God's constantly changing eternal truths.
I am utterly fascinated by all this additionally (not meanly, by the way, just strictly as a fascination with our confirmation biases, ability to alter reality on preference, cognitive dissonances, etc) because of the means by which all religions invariably justify this to themselves.
quote:Largely true.
religion is not in any way different from other human institutions.
quote:Except Tatiana's argument is that following commands from god reduces the amount of badness in the world.
it doesn't need to involve any discussion about whether or not God exists!
quote:That's an impressively quick turnaround time! I like that kind of story. I got a friend who grew up in a baptist family who pretty much took three years to be able to shake hands with a gay person.
And I, despite having been of a similar, uncomfortable opinion mere weeks before, could say, "Why? They're just people." And I remember realizing after I said it that I meant it.
Two or three weeks. That's all it took.
quote:See also: Organized personhood.
but organized religion is just as able to promote unity.
quote:Ah I see.
Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:See also: Organized personhood.
but organized religion is just as able to promote unity.
quote:So? All that means is that you're hanging around with a certain segment of the population -- one that for reasons environmental, genetic, or otherwise has trouble handling alcohol.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
As for alcohol, almost nobody I know who drinks at all has never once gotten drunk.
quote:I wouldn't say this. I drink alcohol very rarely, usually once or twice a month, and usually just 1 or 2 drinks -- not enough to get drunk. But I have gotten seriously tipsy and I have gotten drunk. Not because I had trouble with anything, but because I was frankly curious what it was like. So, in my case, 4 or 5 times in my life I have set out to consume enough alcohol to make myself drunk.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:So? All that means is that you're hanging around with a certain segment of the population -- one that for reasons environmental, genetic, or otherwise has trouble handling alcohol.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
As for alcohol, almost nobody I know who drinks at all has never once gotten drunk.
quote:This.
I'm not saying that you should drink, but I have to completely disagree with the colorization that paints it as an inherently superior position to one that allows for moderate consumption of alcohol.
quote:That may be, but I also think some of the opinion about the Word of Wisdom have a character of folk doctrine. There's some post-hoc reasoning about why these commandments were given, but it's not actually explicit in the WoW that these prohibitions are related to specific health concerns.
To be fair, the word of wisdom was written for the weakest among the saints (and then was applied to everyone). So, the idea of complete abstinence was really initially for people who could not be moderate (and I know many alcoholics for whom moderate is not an option).
quote:This may be true, but I hope it's not. Factual beliefs about the existence of gods should not depend on moral beliefs about whether tab A goes in slot B or C.
There is a growth in atheists in modern countries because of the widening gulf between popular tolerance of things like homosexuality and evolution and the official position of major religions on those subjects.
quote:Not that most people here have expressed the sentiment, but there are, of course, quite a lot of people out there who do enjoy the buzz, else it wouldn't be quite so popular a pastime in college settings especially.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
I don't really understand the pleasures of drinking alcohol, personally. When one first tries it, it tastes bad. It is an acquired taste. The buzz it gives is not really pleasant, and quite often it makes a person feel bad afterward.
). quote:What made you decide that cocaine was worth the risk?
There are some drugs I have turned down due to what I learned.
quote:Well if its spelt instead as Clive Kandhi it sounds Somalian.
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
I may have been offline for about a month, but the humor of a topic about homosexuality with a pseudo-literate troll named Clive Candy is pretty apparent and laughable.
I mean really, "Clive Candy" sounds like a poorly contrived male stripper name.
quote:He's fairly entertaining, I'll give him that. And that's all.
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
I may have been offline for about a month, but the humor of a topic about homosexuality with a pseudo-literate troll named Clive Candy is pretty apparent and laughable.
I mean really, "Clive Candy" sounds like a poorly contrived male stripper name.
quote:Only moderately?
Originally posted by King of Men:
I feel moderately convinced that your suggested course of action would not be an improvement to my diet.
quote:I must admit that hedging adjectives are a weakness of mine, even where they're not that appropriate. Comes of working in academia. 'Moderately convinced', in this case, should be taken as meaning 'quite certain'.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Only moderately?
Originally posted by King of Men:
I feel moderately convinced that your suggested course of action would not be an improvement to my diet.
I'm afraid to ask what your current diet is like. So I won't.
quote:Your digestion, nevertheless, takes place closer to the end that's not your mouth, but where you apparently keep your brain. And since it's the digestive action that's important for the diet, there you go.
Originally posted by steven:
Oh, wait, I get it. By "course of action", you meant the anal insertion of my book. I usually put my food in the other end, but, you know, whatever.
quote:Dude, I have no desire to fight with you. If I am publicly disagreeing with you, it's because I am certain you are wrong, and I am right, and I am telling you so. Otherwise, I have decided you are either trolling, too stupid to be worth trying to help, or actually right (which does happen sometimes, but then again, so do the other two). I have decided that you are a sociopath, and incapable of actually caring about other human beings. It's hard to invest in you emotionally when I'm pretty sure you are not capable of investing in me. Therefore, I do not fight with you. I tell when I think you are wrong, or I simply say nothing to you.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Your digestion, nevertheless, takes place closer to the end that's not your mouth, but where you apparently keep your brain. And since it's the digestive action that's important for the diet, there you go.
Originally posted by steven:
Oh, wait, I get it. By "course of action", you meant the anal insertion of my book. I usually put my food in the other end, but, you know, whatever.
quote:So let's get to the heart of it, KoM. You
Originally posted by King of Men:
I see. And when you tell someone they are wrong, do you usually instruct them to insert books in places where books do not usually go? Or is that merely a point where I am wrong and you are right?
I think, perhaps, it is a little late for you to try claiming the high moral ground in this discussion.
quote:I dont believe emotions have anything to do with a conversation about the insertion of a book into ones rectum. Honestly, you two were having a perfectly entertaining argument for a while there. Its just the internet, dont get so huffy.
It's hard to invest in you emotionally when I'm pretty sure you are not capable of investing in me.
quote:QFT. I don't like wine, hard stuff feels like self-punishment, and beer is just gross. I never have and never will understand the draw.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
I don't really understand the pleasures of drinking alcohol, personally. When one first tries it, it tastes bad. It is an acquired taste. The buzz it gives is not really pleasant, and quite often it makes a person feel bad afterward.
quote:I think you are just plain mistaken here, and I support this position by reference to happiness studies on people who lose limbs in accidents. About six months after the accident, they report being roughly as happy as they were before. You can't tell me they're all consciously trying for a cheerful demeanour; no, they've got some particular set point for their happiness, and in the long run they stay there no matter what happens.
I do believe that it is possible to consciously develop one's personality towards a particular goal.
quote:I disagree, in a limited sense. I think it's possible over relatively long stretches of time to adopt patterns of thought and behaviors that will make yourself happier. Some people will do so more naturally than others, but most people are capable of it.
Originally posted by King of Men:
I agree to an extent; my experience is that people are happy or unhappy according to their personalities, rather than their circumstances. (Within limits.) I think you've got the causality backwards, though: It's not a question of consciously keeping a positive attitude; you cannot choose these things. Rather, happy people have a positive attitude in almost any circumstances. This is possibly the only part of the design of the human brain which is even more unfair than the already monstrous disparities in general intelligence.
quote:Or, the loss of a limb does not significantly alter one's ability to choose behaviors that produce happiness.
ou can't tell me they're all consciously trying for a cheerful demeanour; no, they've got some particular set point for their happiness, and in the long run they stay there no matter what happens.
I think more importantly we should be asking ourselves what is going on in society that a large number of people have no interest or motivation in being more active in their lives. quote:Tom, I can't answer for Danzig, but I can answer for myself. I certainly didn't use cocaine to the extent that Danzig did. I tried it a grand total of two times, decided it was not for me, and never tried it again. How did I view the risks? To me the only risk would be a possible overdose. I wasn't worried about the risk of addiction, I know myself too well to view that as a realistic possibility. And the risk of overdose was equally unrealistic. People make risky decisions every day. They bungee jump, or sky dive, or get in a car, or fly on a plane. Every one of these acts carries a risk along with it, but the people who choose to do these things apparently decide that the risk is worth it.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'd still like to know what led Danzig to decide that cocaine was worth the risk.
quote:Well, I can certainly agree about beer. I've never developed a taste for beer and don't drink it. But certain wines taste really great, and while I don't enjoy the taste of straight hard liquor, there are many mixed drinks that are just fantastic. A white russian being an example of quite possibly the tastiest thing ever created!
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:QFT. I don't like wine, hard stuff feels like self-punishment, and beer is just gross. I never have and never will understand the draw.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
I don't really understand the pleasures of drinking alcohol, personally. When one first tries it, it tastes bad. It is an acquired taste. The buzz it gives is not really pleasant, and quite often it makes a person feel bad afterward.
Humans and their wacky chemicals...
quote:What kind of self-knowledge do you have that made you certain you wouldn't be biologically predisposed to a physical addiction to cocaine?
I know myself too well to view that as a realistic possibility.
quote:Not surprisingly, the research into people's happiness is more extensive than just these studies. It a large and often seemingly contradictory topic. The indication is that both inherent dispositional factors and a person's perspective and cognitive strategies contribute to their sense of happiness.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I think you are just plain mistaken here, and I support this position by reference to happiness studies on people who lose limbs in accidents. About six months after the accident, they report being roughly as happy as they were before. You can't tell me they're all consciously trying for a cheerful demeanour; no, they've got some particular set point for their happiness, and in the long run they stay there no matter what happens.
I do believe that it is possible to consciously develop one's personality towards a particular goal.
quote:I'm sure you're aware of the significant differences in chemical interaction with the body between cocaine and chocolate.
Originally posted by Strider:
Okay, I grant you there was a possibility that addiction would result from my trying cocaine. I viewed it as an acceptable risk. But seriously Tom, you might as well say I shouldn't ever try chocolate because I might be biologically predisposed to a physical addiction.
quote:But all of that also applies to alcohol, and people make that calculated risk every day. Works out for some, not others, just like for cocaine I'd imagine. Alcohol is considerably more dangerous than many drugs that most people would never imagine trying because "it's too risky", but they drink anyway.
The issue on the whole (besides a general equivalency argument between the potency of cocaine and chocolate) is that for all the intent and logic behind assuming that one is above being 'taken' by a drug's addiction (in your case, 'too self reflective'), biology can easily short-circuit people's assumed resilience to addiction and leave them as the world's latest casualty to a drug they were positive they had the mental fortitude to resist addiction to.
quote:Link to full article
"Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems … a minority of people … use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences."
quote:Yes. I have seen too many people who believed themselves too "reflective" to become addicted to a substance become easily addicted to something over time. The temporary positive effects of cocaine don't seem to me to be worth the very heavy potential downsides; for the same reason, I'm not remotely interested in skydiving.
Do you view the risk of physical addiction too great in relation to any perceived positive effects?
quote:I do. IIRC, cocaine is indeed an order of magnitude more addictive than alcohol, but still less addictive than heroin. I'm curious whether Danzig decided that heroin was too dangerous for him to dabble in.
I don't think the difference is an order of magnitude greater.
quote:Pharmacologically, it is. If you had cocaine use as socially acceptable and prevalent as alcohol use, the number of people that blow would wreck through its use would be magnitudes higher than the people who are wrecked by alcoholism. Compare the degree of fallout between the two drugs based on the percentage of the population that imbibes these drugs, and it becomes readily apparent before you even analyze the nature of the drug's chemical interaction with our brain.
Originally posted by Xavier:
I don't believe alcohol is more harmful than cocaine, but I don't think the difference is an order of magnitude greater.
quote:Sure. I had the same anecdotal experience with some of my friends using heroin, complete with the 'doing well in school' part and the 'most eventually stopped' parts. But I don't let anecdote determine for me at all whether or not heroin seems like an acceptable risk or let it influence my decision to take or not take heroin. There's a good reason why.
I'm sure the personal experiences of the people I witnessed around me influenced that decision as well. No one I knew ever overdosed or became addicted. Most did well in school and most eventually stopped using the drug.
quote:I said it was one of the "influencing" factors of my decision, not the "determining" factor. In fact it was mostly an add on to the decision. As in, I had already decided it was mostly harmless and that I'd be willing to try it, and those experiences had they been different could have served as a warning regardless of the facts and caused me to nix that decision. As it was it made me feel more comfortable in my decision.
Sure. I had the same anecdotal experience with some of my friends using heroin, complete with the 'doing well in school' part and the 'most eventually stopped' parts. But I don't let anecdote determine for me at all whether or not heroin seems like an acceptable risk or let it influence my decision to take or not take heroin. There's a good reason why.
quote:Can I ask that you do my homework for me on this one? The only thing I could find with a few quick google search seems to contradict this. It wasn't from a site I'd consider to be reliable though. Am having a hard time finding a better site.
Compare the degree of fallout between the two drugs based on the percentage of the population that imbibes these drugs, and it becomes readily apparent before you even analyze the nature of the drug's chemical interaction with our brain.
quote:Have you seen a study confirming this? I can think of at least one example where feature X puts its bearer at a reproductive disadvantage and feature X has been shown to have a genetic component, yet feature X persists in the population. One explanation is that being epsilon away from feature X is reproductively advantageous.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Another thing is that human populations have had around 12,000 years to adapt to alcohol. In effect, those most susceptible to addiction have been weeded out of the gene pool due to the fact that they die young from accident or disease, and that their children have a lot fewer chances in life.
quote:number of coke users in america
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Can I ask that you do my homework for me on this one? The only thing I could find with a few quick google search seems to contradict this. It wasn't from a site I'd consider to be reliable though. Am having a hard time finding a better site.
Compare the degree of fallout between the two drugs based on the percentage of the population that imbibes these drugs, and it becomes readily apparent before you even analyze the nature of the drug's chemical interaction with our brain.
quote:number of coke users who, according to NSDUH data from 2007, meet DSM criteria for dependence or abuse of cocaine in any form:
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) estimates that in 2007 there were 2.1 million current (past month) cocaine users, of which approximately 610,000 were current crack users. Adults aged 18 to 25 years have a higher rate of current cocaine use than any other age group, with 1.7 percent of young adults reporting past month cocaine use.
quote:Out of 2.1 million current coke users, you have 1.6 million people who have reached the testable point of addiction and possibly abuse. That's over three quarters of the total population. Out of the fraction of the population that regularly uses coke, you have almost half a million ER visits for drug misuse and abuse. That translates to about one ER visit for every five people who takes up coke as a habit.
In 2007, according to the NSDUH, nearly 1.6 million Americans met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for dependence or abuse of cocaine (in any form) in the past 12 months. Further, data from the 2005 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) report showed that cocaine was involved in 448,481 of the total 1,449,154 visits to emergency departments for drug misuse or abuse. This translates to almost one in three drug misuse or abuse emergency department visits (31 percent) that involved cocaine.
quote:(italics mine)
Originally posted by Tatiana:
It slowly erodes people's character as their brain receives no good feelings from normal life experiences, like honor and honesty and love. The rewiring takes place little by little over time. How quickly it happens is determined by your genes, but eventually it will happen.
quote:No, no, a perfect example of the brain rewiring itself to respond to whatever reward you're giving it. In your case, fake belief.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Perfect example of what? How am I deciding that I know better than you what is right for you?
Do you think that I think you would be better off if you believed as I do? Why would you think that?
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:And, you know, wine.
Originally posted by Strider:
also, what about cultures who throughout history have used marijuana, coca plants, and hallucinogenics as a normal part of their daily lives or for religious enlightenment?
I was including wine under the "alcohol" umbrella.
quote:What do you mean death rate?
Originally posted by Xavier:
All my googling about Cocaine deaths and Alcohol deaths seems to indicate that even adjusted by number of users, Alcohol has a FAR higher death rate.
I'd love it if someone could find me something definitive.
Added after seeing Samp's:
That is interesting, if I had more time I'd look further. Do you have access to death rate info though? Not that death is the only form of harm, but from my googling at random sites the death rate from alcohol (at 60% of adult americans using: 75,000 deaths per year) is at least 10 times as high as what little data I could find for Cocaine. This was a pretty big surprise to me, I had always assumed the death rate from Cocaine was higher or at least comparable.
quote:Ah...I was mostly pointing it out as something used in religious ritual. But you are correct.
Originally posted by Strider:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:And, you know, wine.
Originally posted by Strider:
also, what about cultures who throughout history have used marijuana, coca plants, and hallucinogenics as a normal part of their daily lives or for religious enlightenment?
quote:"rate?" I'm not sure about that.
Originally posted by Xavier:
All my googling about Cocaine deaths and Alcohol deaths seems to indicate that even adjusted by number of users, Alcohol has a FAR higher death rate.
quote:The phenomenon you are describing is called "anhedonia" (except for the 'erosion of character' part, which is an unsubstantiated and fully subjective assertion) and the notion that any use of a substance like alcohol is necessarily creating the phenomenon is false. As far as I know, it is possible to be a lifelong alcohol or marijuana user without any significant danger of anhedonia, nor is there any assurance that "eventually it will happen"
It slowly erodes people's character as their brain receives no good feelings from normal life experiences, like honor and honesty and love. The rewiring takes place little by little over time. How quickly it happens is determined by your genes, but eventually it will happen.
quote:I have yet to find a way to derail the thread about Oreos. As for your brain, it appears in fact that I do know more about it than you. The phrase "Escher drawing" comes to mind.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Is there any thread you won't abuse?
You don't know anything about my brain either. And I am as little inclined to appreciate your decisions about what is right for other people as I am to appreciate Tatiana's.
quote:Some can. Use of cocaine can, but it's much easier with crystal meth, which has an excellent capacity to damage portions of the brain relevant to 'morals' by cutting pathways related to impulse control, creating an acquired antisocial personality disorder.
Tatiana, drugs do not erode morals.
quote:I think that link got overlooked in all the hoopla that's followed, but it really was an amazing story.
Originally posted by Danzig:
Strider, that kid is awesome.
quote:I'm fairly skeptical of that claim. My understanding is that until the 19th century, peyote use among native populations was pretty limited. It was common in populations native to what is now the American Southwest and Mexico, but until the Native American Church really took off that was about it. It's possible that it was traded prior to that--humans like things that change their mental state, after all--but it wasn't a common enough substance to be incorporated into Native American cultures much outside of the region where it grew.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
My understanding is that many Native Americans are resistant to peyote because of their culture's long access to and use of the drug.
quote:Again, this is a fine example of a technique of doublethink: The ability to be bored or annoyed by any argument which contradicts orthodoxy. There is ultimately no answer to consistent doublethink except the Genickschuss. To borrow a cliche, the sufferer has to want to be helped. To move your refusal to be helped into a private space is in nobody's interest.
Honestly, we have evidence that this conversation is just boring. If you must continue it, you could move it to email so at least I will be the only one annoyed.
quote:Are you sure about this particular point?
I'm sorry they're sorry, but it's my life, not theirs.
quote:There is a bit of clarification due here; most alcohol-related ER visits are not associated with alcohol dependence, but rather alcohol abuse (i.e., "binge drinking"), which is often not associated with alcohol dependence (typically what is meant by "alcoholism.")
Originally posted by Samprimary:
... you see that the same level of hazard is not present in alcohol use; you don't have three quarters of about 60% of the population going on to be alcoholics and causing hundreds of millions of ER visits.
quote:I'm also curious about what is meant by 'resistant'. Tatiana's original claim concerned susceptibility to addiction to alcohol. Is this what is meant by being 'resistant' to alcohol? My impression was that being 'resistant to alcohol' really meant having a high tolerance for alcohol e.g. having to consume more before becoming tipsy. While an alcoholic's liver is still functioning don't alcoholic's often have pretty high tolerance? Anyway, is my impression of what it means to be resistant to a drug wrong?; if not, in which sense are Native Americans resistant to peyote (I could not find a viewable article not requiring enrollment)?
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:I'm fairly skeptical of that claim. My understanding is that until the 19th century, peyote use among native populations was pretty limited. It was common in populations native to what is now the American Southwest and Mexico, but until the Native American Church really took off that was about it. It's possible that it was traded prior to that--humans like things that change their mental state, after all--but it wasn't a common enough substance to be incorporated into Native American cultures much outside of the region where it grew.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
My understanding is that many Native Americans are resistant to peyote because of their culture's long access to and use of the drug.
quote:That's not too surprising. Last I heard, something like 22% of the general population has herpes.
Seriously, like 20% of my school has herpes.
quote:Exactly the way it's spelled.
Originally posted by Dobbie:
How do you pronounce Vrijmand?
quote:Yes, but under which phonetic rules?
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Exactly the way it's spelled.
Originally posted by Dobbie:
How do you pronounce Vrijmand?
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That's not too surprising. Last I heard, something like 22% of the general population has herpes.
Seriously, like 20% of my school has herpes.
quote:I'm not sure how to interpret this: do you mean that your classmates have herpes in the genital area rather than oral, and that location makes the numbers "pretty bad?"
Originally posted by Xann.:
Not on their face though. Which makes it pretty bad.
quote:I am going to guess Vree mand
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Yes, but under which phonetic rules?
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Exactly the way it's spelled.
Originally posted by Dobbie:
How do you pronounce Vrijmand?
quote:They have herpes on there face, not the cold sore type either but full blown it is gross to look at them herpes. I guess it may not be out of the norm for the country but it seems to me like I have only seen high schoolers in my area with herpes.
Originally posted by CT:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That's not too surprising. Last I heard, something like 22% of the general population has herpes.
Seriously, like 20% of my school has herpes.quote:I'm not sure how to interpret this: do you mean that your classmates have herpes in the genital area rather than oral, and that location makes the numbers "pretty bad?"
Originally posted by Xann.:
Not on their face though. Which makes it pretty bad.
Because the best estimate is that somewhere between 21% and 25% of the general population has genital herpes, which would be quite in line with your student population. Furthermore, exposure to oral herpes approaches 80% by adulthood, and most kids have been exposed by schoolage.
I think people tend to underestimate the prevalence of herpes as a sexually-transmitted infection. It's definitely out there, and it is common. [And for what it's worth, although we used to think of HSV-I as oral and HSV-II as the sexually-transmitted genital version, either can occur and be spread in either area.]
quote:Me too.
Originally posted by scifibum:
I would have guessed acne.