Friday, October 03, 2008

Super rights

An opinion editor on a local student newspaper posted a rant on the evils of 'discrimination' against homosexuals in not legalising homosexual marriage.

It's not dissimilar from a small conversation I had recently at another local-based blog recently.

So (surprise, surprise) I decided to weigh in. Here's what I said:


You have missed the obvious and glaring fact that homosexual behavior is just that - BEHAVIOR.
One is born black, white, Asian, whatever. One might even born with homosexual tendencies and desires, just as one might be born with the tendency to prefer to sit on one's bum all day and eat pizza while watching soap operas, or born with a tendency towards a very violent temper, or towards alcoholism, or towards impatience with small children. Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior.

Being white is not a behavior - it is a state of being.
Performing a homosexual act is a behavior. And it is a destructive one.

You said:
-The sexual orientation of a person should have no effect on that person’s right to marry.

Well and good, and I agree with you and Sally Kern agrees with you. Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have - the right and privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex. To change that is to demand a super-right, one not granted to me. I do not see why, based on a simple behavioral preference, the law should be changed in this way, especially one related to something so fundamental to society as the family unit.

Perhaps I should pursue a change in law that would rewards me for carrying out my from-birth predilection to be a drunk. And maybe I like to drive. So maybe I can get the drunk-driving law annulled by my efforts towards "equality".

You might say:
-But drunk driving 1) is dangerous and 2) hurts people and 3) it's foolish to change the law just based on your desire to carry out your own weird tendencies!

A few responses:
1) Indeed, but who are you to judge my chosen lifestyle! Seriously, who are you?
2) Homosexual behavior is dangerous as well. And it hurts people - the average life expectancy of a homosexual is vastly shorter than a heterosexual. It's just the way it is, and it's b/c homosexual sex is harmful. It involves activity using a part of the body that is designed for something completely different, and that part of the body just happens to be the canal for eliminating poisonous waste, which is easily introduced into the body if it is damaged by, say, sexual contact.
3) Quite so. So why write this article?

You said:
-it’s pretty clear that the DOMA is unconstitutional.

But what if the DOMA applies to every state? Wouldn't that make the state's recognition of homosexual marriage against the law and destroy this argument?


You said:
-Rep. Sally Kern said...homosexuality “is deadly, and it’s spreading, and it will destroy our young people (and) this nation.”

I challenge you to read the entire transcript of her speech. It is much more enlightening than the lame YouTube "You do not speak for me" video, and she explains why she said that. You may not agree, but at least don't misrepresent her. That is a sign of intellectual cowardice, and this argument needs all the help it can get.

40 comments:

Kyle said...

The idea of 'anti-discrimination' has been programmed into the average American so that the 'D' word provokes knee jerk responses of indignation and horror. But, if one reflects on it beyond a mere emotional secretion it is apparent that discrimination is neither good nor bad but depends on the context. For example, our elementary schools discriminate against convicted pedophiles from being teachers. No one seems to be crying 'discrimination'. Children under 18 are discriminated against for many things such as smoking, voting, military service, etc. Few people except the kids are complaining. So a few seconds of reflection reveals that discrimination can be good.

When it comes to marriage, common sense tells us that marriage is something in particular, not anything in general that we define. IOW, it has ontological value. For example, marriage is not a man and a tree in love. The US gov't does not allow (to the tree huggers' chagrin) for Arboralsexuals to marry their favorite tree. So 'marriage' at least does not include non-human participants. Nobody cries about that.

So, among human participants there are a number of people who are discriminated against in regards to marriage:
Children
siblings
mother/son
father/daughter
men/women with multiple spouses
Catholic Priests (just kidding)

So when someone says discrimination is wrong! We should say: Please clarify what you mean because discrimination is most certainly not wrong in all cases and unfortunately you must apply your mind and figure out in which cases it is wrong and in which cases it is right.

The Jolly Nihilist said...

Homosexual behavior is dangerous as well. And it hurts people - the average life expectancy of a homosexual is vastly shorter than a heterosexual. It's just the way it is, and it's b/c homosexual sex is harmful. It involves activity using a part of the body that is designed for something completely different, and that part of the body just happens to be the canal for eliminating poisonous waste, which is easily introduced into the body if it is damaged by, say, sexual contact.

Just one point, I think, demands clarification. When you say “homosexual sex is harmful,” presumably you are referring to anal sex between two male partners. Fine. However, you seem to be conveniently forgetting homosexual sex between two female partners. There is not the slightest reason to believe that lesbian sex poses greater risk to health and well-being than heterosexual coitus. Let us take HIV/AIDS as the gravest case in point. According to a June 2006 report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database." By clear contrast, the risk of female-to-male transmission is well documented. Thus, using HIV as the litmus test, women who insist on being sexually active should be encouraged to participate in lesbianism, in order that health risks are minimized.

The lawgiver above might deplore anal sex, but, given disease transmission statistics, said lawgiver is OK with lesbianism.

Rhology said...

No reason to assume that, JN.
But lesbian sex is harmful b/c it's usually aided by an implement. And they don't just stick with well-lubricated dildos, sad to say.
And don't even get me started on homsexual "committed monogamy".

That's the nature of sin - it starts off easy to please, so as to draw you in, but it gets more and more demanding of greater and greater perversion if you indulge it.

The Jolly Nihilist said...

That might or might not be theologically sound reasoning, but still, scientifically speaking, which is the argumentative ground on which I am most comfortable, the statistics simply are what they are: According to the CDC--hardly a sexual liberation advocacy organization--HIV has NEVER been demonstrated to have been passed through female-to-female sexual conduct. The same definitively cannot be said for female-to-male intercourse.

Rhology said...

I agree with you about HIV, but there's alot more to the unhealthy practice of gay/lesbian sex than just HIV.

The Jolly Nihilist said...

Can you think of any sexually transmitted diseases from which lesbians suffer at a higher rate than do heterosexuals?

Rhology said...

No, not offhand.
But STDs are not the only reasons for lower life expectancy.

http://www.narth.com/docs/riskfact.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/hazardous.html

And the differences in life expectancy between lesbian and hetero women are very significant, and must be accounted for either way.

Anonymous said...

Lindley puts forward the idea.. that high-risk lifestyles among lesbians are likely due to pressures resulting from society's disapproval.

So even if those studies are correct, the main factor generating those risks is not lesbianism itself, but people like you. Presumably you're okay with that.

Rhology said...

Why "presumably"? Even if lesbians were found to live 2X longer than heteros doesn't change the fact that lesbian sex is morally wrong. It just changes my appeal a little.

Anonymous said...

You said:

Homosexual behavior is dangerous as well. And it hurts people - the average life expectancy of a homosexual is vastly shorter than a heterosexual. It's just the way it is, and it's b/c homosexual sex is harmful. It involves activity using a part of the body that is designed for something completely different, and that part of the body just happens to be the canal for eliminating poisonous waste, which is easily introduced into the body if it is damaged by, say, sexual contact.

The evidence you have now linked to suggests that the shorter life expectancy can in many cases be attributed to negative social pressures - such as your attitudes, not because homosexual sex is inherently harmful.

(Of course homosexual sex is not inherently harmful, particularly as you are reducing it to anal intercourse - which is not the be-all and end-all of sex. You also seem to think that using parts of the body designed for waste disposal for sex is inherently wrong, so can we assume that your penis doesn't get much action?)

So it doesn't just change your appeal - it completely removes one leg from under it. I just wondered if you were comfortable knowing that part of the responsibility for those reduced lifespans rests on your shoulders?

Rhology said...

the shorter life expectancy can in many cases be attributed to negative social pressures

True, but that's hardly the whole of it. Especially not for gay men.

(Of course homosexual sex is not inherently harmful, particularly as you are reducing it to anal intercourse - which is not the be-all and end-all of sex.

No, it's not, but it's very common. And it moves diseases around, and you can get those diseases in most cases via oral sex. Etc.

You also seem to think that using parts of the body designed for waste disposal for sex is inherently wrong

I think you know exactly what I mean.
The penis has a dual function. The anus doesn't - it's not designed for it.
Besides, my point here is that it is HARMFUL.

I just wondered if you were comfortable knowing that part of the responsibility for those reduced lifespans rests on your shoulders?

It hardly rests on my shoulders. I treat gay people like --gasp!-- people. People who need to repent of their sin and be saved by Jesus, just like anyone else, though their particular type of preferred sin will kill them faster on average, which makes the mission more urgent.

Anonymous said...

True, but that's hardly the whole of it. Especially not for gay men.

Well, I was only referring to the reports that you linked to. You seemed to think they were quite critical to support your case, but feel free to qualify that. What are your other arguments?

No, it's not, but it's very common. And it moves diseases around, and you can get those diseases in most cases via oral sex. Etc.

Okay, so oral sex is off the agenda as well. I understand that it's also possible to transmit diseases through straight sex, so presumably that's off the agenda as well - or is there a cut-off point in your head which says "just dangerous enough"?

I think you know exactly what I mean.
The penis has a dual function. The anus doesn't - it's not designed for it.
Besides, my point here is that it is HARMFUL.


Oh, I know exactly what you mean. So what if the penis has a dual function? Doesn't that simply make the argument that the anus might also have a dual function - excretion and pleasure?

Prediction: you don't believe that "pleasure" counts as a purpose.

It hardly rests on my shoulders. I treat gay people like --gasp!-- people.

Sounds convincing to me! Let's just hope all those dangerous gays find it as convincing as I do, otherwise they might find themselves at the receiving end of some negative social pressure.

Rhology said...

What are your other arguments?

Well, about what? Why gay marriage is a bad idea? That's what the post was about.


I understand that it's also possible to transmit diseases through straight sex, so presumably that's off the agenda as well - or is there a cut-off point in your head which says "just dangerous enough"?

You're losing track of my argument.
This is one of the reasons that gay marriage is a bad idea, and one of the reasons why I try to ask homosexuals to repent and leave their lifestyle.
The cut-off point is sex outside of heterosexual marriage.
Yes, it is possible to transmit diseases thru hetero vaginal sex, of course. But there's a reason why gay men have such a lower life expectancy. Lesbians do too, but it's less obvious and surely due to other factors.


Doesn't that simply make the argument that the anus might also have a dual function - excretion and pleasure?

The damage that it sustains during sex militates against that. As does its relatively thin tissue, subject to easy tearing. And the proximity to noxious waste. You do realise that urine is sterile, don't you? Feces are, well, not.


Let's just hope all those dangerous gays find it as convincing as I do

You said "dangerous", not me. What is dangerous is not so much an individual as the movement towards full societal acceptance of homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle.


otherwise they might find themselves at the receiving end of some negative social pressure.

Since what they are doing is harmful, self- and partner-destructive, subject to rampant promiscuity, and sinful, why would I want them NOT to be subject to negative social pressures? Murder is another wrong action, and it does not find wide social acceptance, nor would any reasonable person want it to.

Anonymous said...

Well, about what? Why gay marriage is a bad idea? That's what the post was about.

If that was what the post was about, then why didn't you advance any actual arguments against gay marriage? Your main points were:

1. "Performing a homosexual act is a behaviour" - but presumably performing a heterosexual act is a behaviour as well - "And it's a destructive one" - except it doesn't appear to be, unless "homosexual act" is a euphemism for anal sex, and even then doesn't appear to be particularly "destructive".
2. "Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have - the right and privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex" - yet that's not my definition of marriage, nor does it appear to be a particularly useful definition of marriage.
3. Um... and that's it.

Rhology said...

1. Yes, and I'm glad you concede the point. In question is the BEHAVIOR, not whether someone "is" or "feels" gay.
Homosexual sex includes anal sex, which is destructive.
There are reasons why homosexuals have such low life expectancies. You seem so keen to take a few possible causes off onto rabbit trails - maybe you could provide a hypothesis as to the causes thereof. Surely it's not ALL due to "societal pressure", whatever that is.

2. Who cares what YOUR definition of marriage is? It's the legal one.
What is your argument for that definition's non-utility?

Anonymous said...

1. Yes, and I'm glad you concede the point.

I don't concede the point. I'm just pointing out that the argument that homosexual behaviour is "just" behaviour also applies to heterosexual behaviour; and is therefore not an argument at all.

In question is the BEHAVIOR, not whether someone "is" or "feels" gay. Homosexual sex includes anal sex, which is destructive.

a. The "behaviour" has no bearing on marriage per se.
b. Homosexual sex does not of necessity include anal sex, most obviously for lesbians.
c. You have not explained why anal sex is "destructive", except in the sense that it carries with it a higher risk of transmitting disease, which is not in itself a substantial argument against gay marriage.

There are reasons why homosexuals have such low life expectancies. You seem so keen to take a few possible causes off onto rabbit trails - maybe you could provide a hypothesis as to the causes thereof. Surely it's not ALL due to "societal pressure", whatever that is.

"Societal pressure" is people like you incessantly condemning them. There are clearly numerous reasons why homosexuals have lower life expectancies, and I wonder if those life expectancies vary depending on the environment they live in. Presumably HIV has cut quite a wide swathe on its own; but that doesn't help your argument since it would mean that until HIV became widespread, homosexual behaviour was far less "destructive">

2. Who cares what YOUR definition of marriage is? It's the legal one.
What is your argument for that definition's non-utility?


Who cares what my definition of marriage is? The law cares. The law reflects social concerns, not the other way around, otherwise we'd all still be buying and selling Africans, sending children down the mines and smoking opium.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Since what they are doing is harmful, self- and partner-destructive, subject to rampant promiscuity, and sinful, why would I want them NOT to be subject to negative social pressures? Murder is another wrong action, and it does not find wide social acceptance, nor would any reasonable person want it to.

Provided the people doing it consent, I don't really see that it's harmful/reduces life expectancy should be too much of a factor in the argument - eg I'm a keen SCUBA diver, and even at the not-so-extreme ends never mind the more daring aspects of the sport (eg cave/tech/depth diving), the risks of death or some kind of injury such as paralysis or lung overexpansion injuries are considerable. I blogged on a SCUBA cave diving book a while ago, which at one point said something like "If you participate in this sport, expect that many of your friends involved in it will die young".

Likewise, people are free to join the military or firefighting service, skydive, base jump etc etc all of which are perfectly legal (and even generally considered admirable pursuits by a lot of people), in the full knowledge it will reduce their life expectancy (often considerably).

Or to look at other social factors, why not ban alcohol, tobacco, eating unhealthy food to excess etc if harm reduction is a major concern? After all, smoking is one of the worst things around as far as human health is concerned.

Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have - the right and privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex. To change that is to demand a super-right, one not granted to me.

Well now you have the same rights as them - to marry a member of the same sex. So there's no super right as there is nothing being offered to gay people that is not also on offer to you or anyone else who wishes to do so. Since it's a free country you also have the right to turn down the opportunity, and to voice you distaste, whether anyone else agrees or not. Win-win all round as far as I can see.

Rhology said...

I'm just pointing out that the argument that homosexual behaviour is "just" behaviour also applies to heterosexual behaviour; and is therefore not an argument at all.

I was identifying it as behavior, as opposed to a state of being. Many homosexuals argue that that's the way they are. I don't buy it like they want to sell it, but my argument here is based on homosexual ACTS.


b. Homosexual sex does not of necessity include anal sex,

But it very often does.


c. You have not explained why anal sex is "destructive", except in the sense that it carries with it a higher risk of transmitting disease,

The insertion of a foreign object into the anus... should be kind of obvious, unless one is inclined to be intentionally dense.
Plus, as I mentioned and as you've ignored, the anus is not made for this kind of activity, unlike, say, the vagina. It has much more delicate tissue.


"Societal pressure" is people like you incessantly condemning them.

I'm sure that accounts for the nearly 20 years of difference in avg life expectancy. It's all that social pressure. Life can be a witch, man.


that doesn't help your argument since it would mean that until HIV became widespread, homosexual behaviour was far less "destructive"

It wouldn't mean that at all; it would simply mean that the consequences became more obvious once HIV became more widespread.


Who cares what my definition of marriage is? The law cares.

1) And the law says marriage is one man and one woman. Thanks for playing.
2) And of course the gay agenda wants to change the law. We change the law to fit what we think is right, so I have asked a 100% fair question.


Now, I'd like to ask you a question. I assume you hold to Darwinian evolution. If not, just let me know and ignore the question. Homosexual behavior is highly counterproductive in terms of producing offspring, for obvious reasons. It therefore serves less than no purpose in advancing the evolution of humanity. Homosexuals will not pass on their genes. What bearing does that have on this question for you?


Dr Funk said:
I don't really see that it's harmful/reduces life expectancy should be too much of a factor in the argument...compare to scuba diving

So you're arguing for super rights for scuba divers? The law should change to grant them special favors?


, people are free to join the military

I'm not necessarily arguing here that sodomy should be illegal. I'm not sure about that.
The question here is whether homosexuals should be granted this super right.


Or to look at other social factors, why not ban alcohol, tobacco, eating unhealthy food to excess etc if harm reduction is a major concern?

No, a true analogy would be to ask: Why not grant gov't subsidies to you the more you eat McDo's french fries?


Well now you have the same rights as them - to marry a member of the same sex.

1) Rights? According to whom?
2) Whence does an atheist derive any objective basis for human rights?
3) Remember, the law (in the USA at least) is that I *don't* have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Only of the opposite. Only one at a time. Only an adult. But all that could be changed if the society gets sufficiently screwed up that it the law is changed.


So there's no super right as there is nothing being offered to gay people that is not also on offer to you

You mean except for marrying someone not of the opposite gender. That's what you meant, right?

Anonymous said...

I was identifying it as behavior, as opposed to a state of being. Many homosexuals argue that that's the way they are.

Yes, and my point is that if homosexuality is a state of being, then you have no grounds for objecting to same-sex marriage, regardless of the "dangers" that you're so concerned to protect homosexuals from. One could argue that mixed-race marriages aren't a good idea, based on the social pressures, blah blah blah, but luckily nobody listens to people who make those arguments any more.

The insertion of a foreign object into the anus... should be kind of obvious, unless one is inclined to be intentionally dense. Plus, as I mentioned and as you've ignored, the anus is not made for this kind of activity, unlike, say, the vagina. It has much more delicate tissue.

Hands aren't made for computer keyboards (as the high prevalance of RSI attests) yet somehow I don't think you'd use that as an argument against using computer keyboards.

2) And of course the gay agenda wants to change the law. We change the law to fit what we think is right, so I have asked a 100% fair question.

Uhhh... that was my point. So if you believe we change the law to fit what we think is right (where "we", broadly defined, is society) why do you have such a problem with this?

I assume you hold to Darwinian evolution. If not, just let me know and ignore the question. Homosexual behavior is highly counterproductive in terms of producing offspring, for obvious reasons. It therefore serves less than no purpose in advancing the evolution of humanity. Homosexuals will not pass on their genes. What bearing does that have on this question for you?

No bearing whatsoever. Why, should it?

Rhology said...

if homosexuality is a state of being, then you have no grounds for objecting to same-sex marriage,

Sure I do. "Human" is a state of being, as is "plant". There less than no reason to change the law so a human can marry a watermelon vine. Or a donkey.
Or why not change the law so that a grown man can marry fraternal triplets, two boys and one girl, 3 years old?
Each of those, along with gay marriage, would be a super right. I'm arguing that the rights should stay the way they are - you get to marry someone of the opposite sex.


One could argue that mixed-race marriages aren't a good idea, based on the social pressures

If one were stupid, I guess so. Not I.


Hands aren't made for computer keyboards

1) But keyboards are made for hands.
2) Keyboard work just fine - I am using one now to communicate, and I use a keyboard in most every part of my job. It DOES work well. But just like most anything, overindulgence, overuse, can damage.
The same is not true of anal sex. Obviously, more is worse, but once is bad enough. The anus is not for sex - it's for other functions.


So if you believe we change the law to fit what we think is right (where "we", broadly defined, is society) why do you have such a problem with this?

For one thing, the gay agenda doesn't speak for most Americans. You don't get to define society as supporting gay marriage until it, well, actually supports it.
And of course, it would still be morally wrong.
And it would run afoul of the super-rights problem.


No bearing whatsoever.

This lifestyle militates against the evolutionary advancement of humanity. That's not a good thing, is it?

Anonymous said...

Sure I do. "Human" is a state of being, as is "plant".

That wasn't your argument in the original post. You were talking about "homosexuality" as a state of being, as opposed to heterosexuality - not "human" as opposed to "plant". Try to stay focused on your argument.

There less than no reason to change the law so a human can marry a watermelon vine. Or a donkey. Or why not change the law so that a grown man can marry fraternal triplets, two boys and one girl, 3 years old?

A donkey or a watermelon vine cannot actually consent to marriage - indeed, can't understand the concept of marriage. Similarly we apply an age limit on marriage because we believe that marriage a) should be an institution which is entered into voluntarily and b) that humans under a certain age do not possess the necessary maturity to enter into that institution.

I'm arguing that the rights should stay the way they are - you get to marry someone of the opposite sex.

In which case, you should probably advance an argument as to why those rights should stay the way they are - as I pointed out, all we've got so far is that "Performing a homosexual act is a destructive behaviour" and "Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have - the right and privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex", neither of which seem to be standing up very well.

If one were stupid, I guess so. Not I.

*coughes nervously*

1) But keyboards are made for hands.

Computer keyboards aren't. Computer keyboards are just a legacy of typewriter keyboards, and the reason that RSI is so problematic now is that computer keyboards don't provide the same level of resistance to the fingers. The keyboard layout we have is not optimal for our hands, but to avoid typebar clashes in the original mechanical typewriter.

2) Keyboard work just fine - I am using one now to communicate, and I use a keyboard in most every part of my job. It DOES work well. But just like most anything, overindulgence, overuse, can damage. The same is not true of anal sex. Obviously, more is worse, but once is bad enough. The anus is not for sex - it's for other functions.

Yet apparently many people have anal sex without suffering the sort of "damage" that you feverishly obsess about. Many people have straight sex and suffer some sort of damage, yet you're not arguing against sex in general. Shaving damages your skin even if you do it once, yet you're not arguing for massive beards. If the anus is not for sex, then how come it works so well for sex?

Yeah, your arguments - watertight. Watertight. WATERTIGHT.

For one thing, the gay agenda doesn't speak for most Americans. You don't get to define society as supporting gay marriage until it, well, actually supports it.

The anti-slavery agendy didn't speak for most Americans - presumably you would have been arguing against abolition. Oh, and good news for you - apparently a majority of the US population believe that abortion should be available, so I guess you're all good with the current legal status of abortion as well. Oh wait - you're not!

On another thread, somebody said that they'd come to expect consistency from you. I continue to find that puzzling.

This lifestyle militates against the evolutionary advancement of humanity. That's not a good thing, is it?

I'm no expert, but as far as I'm aware there's no such thing as the "advancement of humanity", evolution is neither a "good" or "bad" thing, the choice of an individual has no significant bearing on the evolution of the species, and nobody believes that evolutionary theory should provide the basis for ordering our society.

Rhology said...

You were talking about "homosexuality" as a state of being, as opposed to heterosexuality - not "human" as opposed to "plant".

Yes, but I didn't base my argument on being homosexual.
Your statement "if homosexuality is a state of being, then you have no grounds for objecting to same-sex marriage" doesn't respond, then, to the original statement at the top of this post. *That* is losing track of the argument.


A donkey or a watermelon vine cannot actually consent to marriage

Since we're changing the definition of marriage, why not remove the 'by mutual consent' part of it too? Just b/c YOU say so? What reasonable answer will we have for someone who sues to get married in a few years to someone who doesn't consent, or to sthg that can't give consent, and they accuse you of consent-centrism if you refuse?


can't understand the concept of marriage.

That's precisely what I'd argue for homosexuals who want to get married. But that's not stopping you from advocating it for THEM.


that humans under a certain age do not possess the necessary maturity to enter into that institution.

Age discrimination! You're no better than we freaky conservatives, at the core.


Computer keyboards aren't.

Please.
You could've surprised me - both of us seem to be using ours fairly well. Unless you have some awesome voice-recog software.


Yet apparently many people have anal sex without suffering the sort of "damage" that you feverishly obsess about.

I doubt it. What backup could you have for this statement? Barna surveys?


Many people have straight sex and suffer some sort of damage

Not for nearly the same reasons. There's a difference between incidental damage and damage due to obvious misuse.


If the anus is not for sex, then how come it works so well for sex?

Question-begging assertion. It doesn't work well for sex. It tears and introduces fecal matter and semen into the bloodstream, and gets in the way of waste removal, which is an essential bodily function.


The anti-slavery agendy didn't speak for most Americans

That must be why it won out in the end.


you would have been arguing against abolition

I have no idea what I'd do in a totally different historical context. But I wouldn't have all that many good reasons to argue against it. Though I sh/would have argued against the Civil War.


apparently a majority of the US population believe that abortion should be available

That's actually not true. And it was "legislated" from the bench, so there was never a chance to prove it.


somebody said that they'd come to expect consistency from you. I continue to find that puzzling.

The Jolly Nihilist is better able to follow arguments than you are, and is more consistent himself. He must be more used to seeing it.


as far as I'm aware there's no such thing as the "advancement of humanity"

So humanity is not evolving.


evolution is neither a "good" or "bad" thing

Just curious - is ANYthing a good or bad thing? HOw do you know?


the choice of an individual has no significant bearing on the evolution of the species

If no individuals make use of their adaptive advantages to survive, then the species doesn't either. that's pretty transparently obvious. 1 billion multiplied by zero = zero.


nobody believes that evolutionary theory should provide the basis for ordering our society.

Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and their followers. Just to name a few.
Seriously, that's a dumb statement.

Anonymous said...

Your reasoning is unbelievably coherent and well-written, but I'm not going to bother with your attempted defense of computer keyboards. Try reading about things before you try writing about them; it may help you (although I fear it may not). I'll keep it brief:

So far you have presented exactly one argument against same-sex marriage - that anal sex is "dangerous". This doesn't apply to lesbians, and doesn't apply to all gay men. Heterosexual married couples might also have anal sex - or other "dangerous" activities - yet this not an argument against heterosexual marriage.

Do you actually have any arguments against same-sex marriage?

Rhology said...

It's getting pretty clear who can and can't keep track of the argument at hand.
At any rate, you'll note, upon review, that the title of this post is "Super rights". My argument has been mostly that homosexuals that want gay marriage want super-rights that aren't given to anyone else.

And yes, I have other arguments against gay marriage, but they aren't as relevant to the topic of the article to which I was responding when I wrote this post.

Anonymous said...

They're clearly not asking for extra rights to be extended to them and wouldn't be given to anybody else. They're asking for the extension of an existing right, and everybody would have that right. Hence your argument is specious.

Rhology said...

The "extension" would be an extra right - the right to marry someone that I don't have the right to marry now.
Everyone has the same right wrt marriage. They want to change that.

Now that that's settled, maybe you could give us a few reasons why we SHOULD consider extending super-rights to one group of people due to their special, harmful and individually and societally destructive behavioral choices.

Anonymous said...

The "extension" would be an extra right - the right to marry someone that I don't have the right to marry now.

No, it wouldn't. It would be an extension of the existing right to marry. After the extension of this right, everybody would still have equal rights wrt marriage.

Now that that's settled, maybe you could give us a few reasons why we SHOULD consider extending super-rights to one group of people due to their special, harmful and individually and societally destructive behavioral choice.

What, apart from the observable fact that there are no super-rights proposed here, that it's not a behavioural choice, that it's not individually destructive, and that it's not societally destructive?

Gee. Let me think for about a one second span.

Oh right - because some people want this right to be extended, and neither you or anybody else has ever presented any intellectually substantive reasons why not.

Rhology said...

So when NAMBLA asks us to "extend" the "right" to marry to include children, no problem, right?
What reason would we give them?
I mean, hey, everybody would still have equal rights wrt marriage.

And I guess it's NOT individually destructive when lifespans are much shorter. That doesn't affect families, emotional health, health care plans, employers, none of that.
Neither does high promiscuity make any difference to those elements of society. It's all completely compartmentalisable.

Anonymous said...

I've addressed the point that NAMBLA might make in the point about consent.

It's not up to you or anybody else to prohibit behaviour that may or may not be individually destructive.

Homosexuals getting married = high promiscuity? Interesting argument, let's see if we can make it fly in court.

Still waiting for an actual argument against same-sex marriage. Got one yet?

Rhology said...

I've addressed the point that NAMBLA might make in the point about consent.

Yes, addressed and defeated.
Here is the now definition of marriage:

One male adult, one female adult, by mutual consent.

You want to change one part of that, the male/female part.
For what reason could you say that the other parts are off-limits for --ahem-- extension?


It's not up to you or anybody else to prohibit behaviour that may or may not be individually destructive.

It's not only individually destructive; it's also destructive to the partner.
If you're consistent, then, BTW, you're a libertarian, not a liberal. You may consider yourself libertarian; just thought I'd bring it up.
The use of cocaine and LSD is prohibited by law. I presume you'd be in favor of repealing that law too?
These are feeling-out questions; it's an interesting point you make, and I'm not sure what I think of it either.

But marriage is not simply a private ceremony or agreement. There are witnesses, a judge, neighbors, children, in-laws. It's the foundation of society, for childbearing and child-rearing, of societal stability. Has been for millennia. When there's no good reason to tinker with it, why tinker with it? Just b/c people want to be legally recognised as different and flaunt their differences, the way they were able to bend the gov't to their will? Not a laudable objective.


Homosexuals getting married = high promiscuity?

That's not what I said. Again you lost track.
Homosexuals are ALREADY, NOW highly promiscuous. Why validate that with sham marriages?

I'm still waiting for your argument FOR same-sex marriage. Got one yet?

Anonymous said...

You want to change one part of that, the male/female part. For what reason could you say that the other parts are off-limits for --ahem-- extension?

Because the first point covers who the right applies to, the second part provides a caveat to that right, and neither are the right itself. You can't extend a caveat, but you can extend the coverage of a right - just as we did with voting, despite the belief of some people that women weren't morally equipped to exercise the vote.

It's not only individually destructive; it's also destructive to the partner.

And as previously, that's up to the partner to decide, not you.

The use of cocaine and LSD is prohibited by law. I presume you'd be in favor of repealing that law too?

Yep.

But marriage is not simply a private ceremony or agreement. There are witnesses, a judge, neighbors, children, in-laws. It's the foundation of society, for childbearing and child-rearing, of societal stability. Has been for millennia. When there's no good reason to tinker with it, why tinker with it?

Because your vision of marriage is not the only one on the face of the earth, the institution of marriage is not static and has changed with society. This is simply a further change.

Just b/c people want to be legally recognised as different and flaunt their differences, the way they were able to bend the gov't to their will?

Governments exist to reflect the will of the people - and not just the majority, either - so "bending the gov't to their will" is an entirely laudable objective.

Homosexuals are ALREADY, NOW highly promiscuous. Why validate that with sham marriages?

Some homosexuals are highly promiscuous. Some heterosexuals are highly promiscuous, but I assume that you don't think that's an argument against heterosexual marriage. And your basis for calling any marriage a sham is mysterious. And how does getting married "validate" promiscuity? So many questions, so little sense!

I'm still waiting for your argument FOR same-sex marriage. Got one yet?

Yes, but we're not talking about my argument for same-sex marriage, we're dissecting the epic failure of your argument against it.

Rhology said...

Because the first point covers who the right applies to, the second part provides a caveat to that right, and neither are the right itself.

I fail to see why that same statement is inapplicable to my counter-examples.


that's up to the partner to decide, not you

No, it's actually up to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to 'decide' whether it's destructive...and it is.


I presume you'd be in favor of repealing that law too?

Yep.


Fair enough - you're consistent on this point, and that's not sthg I see every day, so I congratulate you.
May I know, then, upon what basis you'd say that murder, which is undeniably destructive to one party, should be prohibited? Then, just to forestall my next question, ask yourself why THAT is, then answer it.


the institution of marriage is not static and has changed with society. This is simply a further change.

1) True, it has, but not in THIS society.
2) Do you deny that the one man-one woman married family unit, raising children, is the best situation for societal stability and prosperity?
3) Again, why not change it to include animals, children, plants, vehicles...?


"bending the gov't to their will" is an entirely laudable objective.

As I'm sure you'd agree, it is not laudable that the Atheist Haters and Eaters Society of America would probably like to bend the gov't to their will so that it be legal to hate and eat atheists.
So it depends on the goal, and we'll have to disagree on this one - the fight lies elsewhere.


Some homosexuals are highly promiscuous

No, a vast number of homosexuals are vastly promiscuous. It seems to be part of the lifestyle for many, many more than heteros.


And how does getting married "validate" promiscuity?

Precisely the question I'd like to ask you.


Yes, but we're not talking about my argument for same-sex marriage, we're dissecting the epic failure of your argument against it.

Gay marriage was not allowed in any states 5 yrs ago; that's 200+ yrs it hasn't been. Now it's only allowed in 3. Surely you have some argument for why the rest should change.
(And just as surely, it's a bad one, but time will tell.)

Anonymous said...

I fail to see why that same statement is inapplicable to my counter-examples.

I realise that you fail to see why. I can't help that. I can't make these points any simpler.

No, it's actually up to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to 'decide' whether it's destructive...and it is.

Ah, I see. People should be prevented from engaging in behaviour that damages other people - for their own good! In that case, I think that you should be prevented from having children. The government will shortly be showing up to sterilise you - enjoy the end result of your arguments!

May I know, then, upon what basis you'd say that murder, which is undeniably destructive to one party, should be prohibited? Then, just to forestall my next question, ask yourself why THAT is, then answer it.

Because of the lack of consent involved in murder.

1) True, it has, but not in THIS society.

Yes, it has.

2) Do you deny that the one man-one woman married family unit, raising children, is the best situation for societal stability and prosperity?

Yep. I believe an extended family model is far better, and the nuclear family concept is a tragedy.

3) Again, why not change it to include animals, children, plants, vehicles...?

Already answered. Consent.

So it depends on the goal, and we'll have to disagree on this one - the fight lies elsewhere.

No. The basic principle is not up for discussion. People have the absolute right to lobby the government for changes.

No, a vast number of homosexuals are vastly promiscuous.

So "some" rather than "all", and my point stands.

Precisely the question I'd like to ask you.

Uhhhh... you were the one who tried to make that point. Why do I have to answer it?

Gay marriage was not allowed in any states 5 yrs ago; that's 200+ yrs it hasn't been. Now it's only allowed in 3. Surely you have some argument for why the rest should change.

I've already presented the argument; because they want it, because I believe that my rights are worthless unless they are extended to everybody, and because you still haven't presented any significant arguments, have you?

Rhology said...

Anonymous seems to have this strange idea that gay marriage is the default, is in place now, and that I'm arguing that it should be illegalised. Let's remember where the score actually stands.

People should be prevented from engaging in behaviour that damages other people - for their own good!

Which is not my argument at all. I'm not arguing that sodomy should be illegal; I'm arguing that gay marriage shouldn't be.
And gay marriage is not in place NOW.


Because of the lack of consent involved in murder.

Why should consent matter?


I believe an extended family model is far better

Which includes gay marriage in what scenario?


Already answered. Consent.

Yes, which I challenged and which challenge I haven't seen an answer for.


People have the absolute right to lobby the government for changes.

1) Except apparently for the right to do things that do not require consent of the other party, on your position.
2) Stop moving the goalposts. The question is not whether people have the right to lobby the gov't, it's whether it's LAUDABLE. That was your original statement.


So "some" rather than "all", and my point stands.

"A bunch" rather than "a few".


Why do I have to answer it?

Apparently you don't feel the need to answer very many questions at all, so...


because they want it, because I believe that my rights are worthless unless they are extended to everybody

1) I want all kinds of things. Doesn't mean the gov't should legalise all of them.
2) Lots of people want lots of bizarre things that in many cases are hurtful or exclusionary. Apparently, though, your arbitrary standards are enough for you. Not for me, though.
3) I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: You have the same rights as anyone else wrt marriage. Just like I do. By your own standard here, gay marriage falls. Thanks for playing.

Anonymous said...

I'm not arguing that sodomy should be illegal; I'm arguing that gay marriage shouldn't be.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, you haven't actually made any arguments why gay marriage should not be legally recognised except that you consider anal sex to be "dangerous". It may well be, but it is not illegal, and therefore offers no impediment to same-sex marriage.

Why should consent matter?

Because that's a defining characteristic of human relationships, particularly in legal terms. Making somebody work without their consent? Slavery. Having sex with somebody without their consent? Rape. Do you see a pattern? You apparently think you've challenged the principle of consent, but I fail to see where you've done that.

2) Stop moving the goalposts. The question is not whether people have the right to lobby the gov't, it's whether it's LAUDABLE.

It is laudable to lobby the government.

"A bunch" rather than "a few".

And my point stands.

1) I want all kinds of things. Doesn't mean the gov't should legalise all of them.

No, but you have the right to lobby the government to legalise any of them.

2) Lots of people want lots of bizarre things that in many cases are hurtful or exclusionary. Apparently, though, your arbitrary standards are enough for you. Not for me, though.

You fail to see the point of this entire discussion. Homosexuals and lesbians have the right to lobby the government to recognise their marriages legally; you have the right to lobby the government not to. However if you are going to lobby the government, you need to have a better argument than "anal sex is dangerous".

3) I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: You have the same rights as anyone else wrt marriage.

Roll back the clock to the 1950s, and your specious argument could equally be applied to mixed-race marriages. Everybody had the same right in states where anti-miscegenation laws held - to marry somebody of the same race. As times moved on, this was no longer considered acceptable, and so mixed-race marriages were recognised. Times have moved on again; I suggest you get used to it, and remember that they are your rights as well.

Rhology said...

ou haven't actually made any arguments

Whatever. Let the reader judge.


Because that's a defining characteristic of human relationships, particularly in legal terms

You mean, it has been up to now. I'm simply proposing that we change that.
It's the exact same as what you're proposing, just introducing the variable in a different spot.
YOU: Yes, heterosexuality has been a defining characteristic in most human-marriage relationships up to now, but let's change that.
ME: Yes, consent has been a defining characteristic in most human relationships (excepting the numerous occasions throughout human history of rape, incest, murder, slavery, etc) up to now, but let's change that.

To say "But those were BAD relationships!" is to beg the question.


It is laudable to lobby the government....
No, but you have the right to lobby the government to legalise any of them.

1) You keep confusing the right to do sthg and whether that action is laudable. I'm talking about laudable right now, OK?
2) Is it laudable to lobby the gov't for the legally recognised right to rape, torture, and murder you and your entire family?
If not, why not?



Homosexuals and lesbians have the right to lobby the government to recognise their marriages legally; you have the right to lobby the government not to.

You have moved the goalposts (again). It was subtle.
No one is disputing anyone's right to lobby the gov't. But I am questioning this "right to gay marriage". And lots of people want lots of bizarre things that in many cases are hurtful or exclusionary (not lobbying the gov't, I'm talking about gay marriage). Apparently, though, your arbitrary standards are enough for you. Not for me, though.


your specious argument could equally be applied to mixed-race marriages.

1) Where did the law of the land at that time apply to mixed-ethnicity marriages? If it didn't apply, your example is disanalogous.
2) (Since we're talking about me now,) I get my morality from the Bible. The Bible prohibits homosexual acts, but in no way makes any statement about mixed-ethnicity marriages. They are not immoral. Once again, disanalogous.
3) The right of a man to marry a woman has almost never been questioned throughout human history. It's b/c one of them is a MAN, the other a WOMAN. I know that can be hard to grasp, but 2nd grade sex ed wasn't a total waste of time, you know.
4) Mixed-ethnicity marriages do not include sexual activities that are of virtual necessity harmful.
5) To equate the struggle for civil rights for persons of a different ethnicity to the struggle for civil rights for people who choose to behave a certain way is to degrade the former to an unbelievable extent. You probably didn't even realise you were doing it, but you have, and that's a serious shame.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that you really understand the basics of what's being discussed, so let's try another approach, shall we? I'll pretend to be a homosexual who wants to get married, and you pretend to be... well, you can just be you.

I want to get married for exactly the same reasons that you got married, and I'd like my marriage to be viewed legally in the same way as your marriage. Why shouldn't I be able to get married, and why shouldn't my marriage be treated the same as yours?

Rhology said...

1st, I don't appreciate lies. If you want to change the law to include you, be honest and straightforward. Don't BS me and insult my intelligence. We've already established that you DON'T want to get married for the same reason as I.

2nd, it's against the law, so you don't get to.

3rd, you already have the exact same rights related to marriage as I do. Why should the law change just to accommodate your harmful and disgusting behavior?

Anonymous said...

Who's lying? I'm trying to help you formulate your arguments more coherently.

1st, why did you get married, Rhology? I'm assuming it's because you were in love with your partner and wanted to make a lifetime public commitment, If you had other reasons, I'd love to hear them; if not, then we want to get married for exactly the same reasons.

2nd, my point is that I would like the law to change to view my marriage - my lifetime commitment, made in public - the same as your marriage. Marrying people of a different race used to be against the law, so the argument "you don't get to" is wholly specious.

3rd, until the law changes, then I absolutely don't have the same rights as you do - for example, my partner isn't covered by my insurance plan. What is harmful and disgusting about wanting to make a lifetime commitment in public, exactly?

Rhology said...

I responded.