In the thread homosexuality, humanism, Other Quadrant has posted what amounts to a claim that gay people being given equal status in our society is the equivalent of giving equal status to rapists and pedophiles.
Here is his disgusting post:
Yes Lois. Fully genetic explanations for homosexuality should be taken as suspect, in the first place, because an integral part of the “equality" movement is the cultural normalization of homosexuality so there is clearly an agenda. And also, such explanations fail in their purpose for multiple reasons.
*There are many other sorts of natural, biologically based behaviors that can be easily illustrated as not being in the interest of others or society as a whole. For example, rape or other violent sorts of activities. It is normal, according to the usual line of reasoning about homosexuality being normal simply because there are people and animals who do it, that people commit acts of pedophilia. That doesn’t mean that we ought condone those condone such behaviors.
*It is no less difficult to unjustly discriminate against or abuse individuals if they are different because of their nature then it is to do so because of experience, or nurture. History shows us countless examples of abuse inflicted upon persons because of their biological difference, or perceived difference.
Moreover, from a scientific perspective there is no meaningfully such absolute thing as nature vs. nurture. There is the interaction of the two.
In the thread homosexuality, humanism, Other Quadrant has posted what amounts to a claim that gay people being given equal status in our society is the equivalent of giving equal status to rapists and pedophiles. Yes, that's what he seems to be saying. Yet there are more rapists and pedophiles amomg heterosexuals, so maybe he should rethink his position. Lois Here is his disgusting post: Yes Lois. Fully genetic explanations for homosexuality should be taken as suspect, in the first place, because an integral part of the “equality" movement is the cultural normalization of homosexuality so there is clearly an agenda. And also, such explanations fail in their purpose for multiple reasons. *There are many other sorts of natural, biologically based behaviors that can be easily illustrated as not being in the interest of others or society as a whole. For example, rape or other violent sorts of activities. It is normal, according to the usual line of reasoning about homosexuality being normal simply because there are people and animals who do it, that people commit acts of pedophilia. That doesn’t mean that we ought condone those condone such behaviors. *It is no less difficult to unjustly discriminate against or abuse individuals if they are different because of their nature then it is to do so because of experience, or nurture. History shows us countless examples of abuse inflicted upon persons because of their biological difference, or perceived difference. Moreover, from a scientific perspective there is no meaningfully such absolute thing as nature vs. nurture. There is the interaction of the two.
In the thread homosexuality, humanism, Other Quadrant has posted what amounts to a claim that gay people being given equal status in our society is the equivalent of giving equal status to rapists and pedophiles.
Yes, that's what he seems to be saying. Yet there are more rapists and pedophiles amomg heterosexuals, so maybe he should rethink his position.I stated explicitly that was not my position. I also clarified my actual position upon false accusation, and remained composed despite considerable verbal abuse. To clarify a second time, I do not consider homosexuality to be equivalent in any way to homosexuality. I consider that for something to be natural is not a sensible argument for condoning it. Handydan is welcome to find my views disagreeable. But he is not welcome to say what I think, feel or believe.
Not sure what the topic is here. We’ll see if Mr. Moderator has a problem with it.
I certainly have a problem with OQ. Sorry bud, your clarification didn’t pass. If you thought the “natural” argument wasn’t valid, why did you bring it up? As is, you made a strawman argument. You started with “There are many other sorts of natural, biologically based behaviors that can be easily illustrated as not being in the interest of others or society as a whole.” But that’s not how you apply the “natural” argument. True, natural does not equal good. True also, if we observe something in nature, then we are informed that it occurs naturally. That is, gay people are born that way. There is a lot more to explaining why that’s true, but let’s move on.
You go on, at length, discussing behaviors antithetical to civil society. The problem is, two people loving each other, living together and possibly raising children is behavior that helps society. That’s why we have marriage. It’s a good thing. The current contract of marriage helps reduce the problems of one partner having more power than the other, it makes the death of one easier to handle, and many other advantages. Those are reasons for a partnership of two people, and you have presented no reasons against that partnership being between two people of the same sex.
In the thread homosexuality, humanism, Other Quadrant has posted what amounts to a claim that gay people being given equal status in our society is the equivalent of giving equal status to rapists and pedophiles.
Yes, that's what he seems to be saying. Yet there are more rapists and pedophiles amomg heterosexuals, so maybe he should rethink his position.I stated explicitly that was not my position. I also clarified my actual position upon false accusation, and remained composed despite considerable verbal abuse. To clarify a second time, I do not consider homosexuality to be equivalent in any way to homosexuality. I consider that for something to be natural is not a sensible argument for condoning it. Handydan is welcome to find my views disagreeable. But he is not welcome to say what I think, feel or believe. Eh? You haven't made a single logical, rational, or supportable argument to support your stance against marriage equality. You have not demonstrated any way in which homosexuality is harmful to anyone or our society at large. You can't really even articulate a logical argument because in the end you don't really know why you dislike homosexuals, you just do. All of the reasons you have given have been employed in the courts to suppress marriage equality and have roundly failed. It must suck to be on the loosing end of a need you have to suppress others that you can't effectivly articulate, even to yourself.
To clarify a second time, I do not consider homosexuality to be equivalent in any way to homosexuality.This was bad writing on my part. What I was trying to say is that I do not consider homosexuality to be equivalent in any way to rape or pedophilia.
You have not demonstrated any way in which homosexuality is harmful to anyone or our society at large.I have not been trying to demonstrate that homosexuality is harmful to anyone or to society at large. I have been demonstrating that society does not have a vested interest in bestowing special privileges to homosexual couples on the basis that they declare their exclusive love to one another. I have also said that I do believe that society does have a vested interest in bestowing special privileges upon biological parents for the the sake of supporting their successes in raising their children. Perhaps an argument can be made about both heterosexual and homosexual monogamy being beneficial society in some way other then being in the interests of children, and that being good reason for society to support gay marriage. I haven't worked that much out yet. I also think that I am open to changing my views on the topic. But I am looking for reasons.
you don't really know why you dislike homosexuals, you just do.I don't particularly dislike homosexuals at all.
It must suck to be on the loosing end of a need you have to suppress others that you can't effectivly articulate, even to yourself.I don't lose much sleep over it. Pretty much all of the candidates that I voted for today support gay marriage. I honestly don't care enough about the topic to vote for candidates based on their position on gay marriage. And as I said before, I even think that there are some good arguments in support of legalized gay marriage. In particular, where it involves assisting adoptive homosexual parents in their efforts at raising children. Dan, I'm really sorry but you really don't understand my views on the subject at all. You assume a great deal about them that is way off. I try to clarify but you are very emotional and don't seem to want to give me the chance. You keep trying to tell me what I believe and put me in the same bucket as other people that I do not think like. Whatever bad experiences you may have had with bigots, I do care about your feelings. I will stop talking about the topic if it makes you feel better. If you want to discuss it further, though, let's do so in the "homosexuality" topic instead of here, in the interest of maintaining focus.
That’s better OQ, but still could use some improvement. Your paragraph that talked about things in nature that are dangerous and unhealthy can hardly been seen as a slip of the tongue. Especially since you were typing and could have reviewed your words and took them back at several points without anyone knowing.
Are you aware that over 50% or American families are not two parents with their own offspring. It is normal to blend, adopt, be raised by grandparents, etc. And that has been normal throughout history. That part of your argument is very weak.
But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners.
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. What?
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. Can't be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. Can't be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.The same level of social relevance.
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. Can't be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.The same level of social relevance. And the words "social relevance" means what according to you exactly?
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. Can't be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.The same level of social relevance. And the words "social relevance" means what according to you exactly?Relevant to society. 1) Gays only make up a small portion of society. 2) Since only a man and a woman can reproduce, straight relationships are fundamentally more important to society at large.
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. Can't be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.The same level of social relevance. And the words "social relevance" means what according to you exactly?Relevant to society. 1) Gays only make up a small portion of society. 2) Since only a man and a woman can reproduce, straight relationships are fundamentally more important to society at large. Somehow I don't see gays and straight people as being in some sort of contest or competition. Does your social hierarchy extend to other minorities and their respective relevance? Whom else do you consider less relevant?
Your paragraph that talked about things in nature that are dangerous and unhealthy can hardly been seen as a slip of the tongue. Especially since you were typing and could have reviewed your words and took them back at several points without anyone knowing.Why is that a "slip of the tongue?" The point was in illustrating that whether or not a behavior is natural has no relevance to the whether or not society should support or condone it. That was a point well made? No? What is a better and simpler way to make that point then to list a few abhorrent behaviors that can also be argued to be natural?
Are you aware that over 50% or American families are not two parents with their own offspring.Yes, and I find that to be distressing.
It is normal to blend, adopt, be raised by grandparents, etc. And that has been normal throughout history.Sure. And I think that we should support persons engaged in such efforts. But that does not mean that such situations are ideal, as is the case with biological parents raising their children in a supportive and nurturing environment.
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. Can't be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.The same level of social relevance. And the words "social relevance" means what according to you exactly?Relevant to society. 1) Gays only make up a small portion of society. 2) Since only a man and a woman can reproduce, straight relationships are fundamentally more important to society at large. Relevant to society until we have uncontrolled and uncontrollable overpopulation. Sterile heterosexuals can't reproduce, either. What should we do about them? Prevent them from getting married because they are "irrelevant"? "What's good for the goose . . . " Lois
society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society.I think that you make a good point here, Dan, although I am sure that most non-monogamous persons (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) will disagree with the idea. How would you articulate the value of monogamy, in terms of stabilizing relationships and families?
Your paragraph that talked about things in nature that are dangerous and unhealthy can hardly been seen as a slip of the tongue. Especially since you were typing and could have reviewed your words and took them back at several points without anyone knowing.Why is that a "slip of the tongue?" The point was in illustrating that whether or not a behavior is natural has no relevance to the whether or not society should support or condone it. That was a point well made? No? What is a better and simpler way to make that point then to list a few abhorrent behaviors that can also be argued to be natural? I find it hard to believe that, after a couple days of consideration, you can't see that saying "sure, gay is natural, but so is rape" is insulting and abhorrent. And you went on to name other abhorrent behaviors as if homosexuality belonged in that list. At the very least, thank Handydan for pointing that there is a problem with the filter between your brain and your fingertips. Hopefully he's saved you from ever saying something like that in polite company. You didn't need to list any behaviors at all, you could have just stated the supposed fallacy. No one had brought up the naturalistic fallacy until you did so why did you feel the need to make the point with such vulgar examples? And I already told you that you mis-applied it. Do you disagree? Have you looked it up and found any other way to explain yourself?