tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post3062809359516409739..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Super rightsRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-81430660732597426922008-10-23T08:44:00.000-05:002008-10-23T08:44:00.000-05:00Who's lying? I'm trying to help you formulate your...Who's lying? I'm trying to help you formulate your arguments more coherently.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-72520603619155688112008-10-23T07:22:00.000-05:002008-10-23T07:22:00.000-05:001st, I don't appreciate lies. If you want to chan...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.<BR/><BR/>2nd, it's against the law, so you don't get to.<BR/><BR/>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?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-59282613839784571522008-10-23T07:12:00.000-05:002008-10-23T07:12:00.000-05:00I'm not sure that you really understand the basics...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.<BR/><BR/>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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-70010895571143612952008-10-22T08:09:00.000-05:002008-10-22T08:09:00.000-05:00ou haven't actually made any arguments Whatever. ...<I>ou haven't actually made any arguments </I><BR/><BR/>Whatever. Let the reader judge.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Because that's a defining characteristic of human relationships, particularly in legal terms</I><BR/><BR/>You mean, it has been up to now. I'm simply proposing that we change that.<BR/>It's the exact same as what you're proposing, just introducing the variable in a different spot.<BR/>YOU: Yes, heterosexuality has been a defining characteristic in most human-marriage relationships up to now, but let's change that. <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>To say "But those were BAD relationships!" is to beg the question. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It is laudable to lobby the government.</I>...<BR/><I>No, but you have the right to lobby the government to legalise any of them.</I><BR/><BR/>1) You keep confusing the right to do sthg and whether that action is laudable. I'm talking about laudable right now, OK?<BR/>2) Is it <B>laudable</B> to lobby the gov't for the legally recognised right to rape, torture, and murder you and your entire family?<BR/>If not, why not?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>You have moved the goalposts (again). It was subtle. <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>your specious argument could equally be applied to mixed-race marriages.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>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. <BR/>4) Mixed-ethnicity marriages do not include sexual activities that are of virtual necessity harmful.<BR/>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.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-14229103075377554672008-10-21T12:15:00.000-05:002008-10-21T12:15:00.000-05:00I'm not arguing that sodomy should be illegal; I'm...<I>I'm not arguing that sodomy should be illegal; I'm arguing that gay marriage shouldn't be.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>Why should consent matter?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>It is laudable to lobby the government.<BR/><BR/><I>"A bunch" rather than "a few".</I><BR/><BR/>And my point stands.<BR/><BR/><I>1) I want all kinds of things. Doesn't mean the gov't should legalise all of them.</I><BR/><BR/>No, but you have the right to lobby the government to legalise any of them.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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".<BR/><BR/><I>3) I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: You have the same rights as anyone else wrt marriage.</I><BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-42714306664534939652008-10-21T10:09:00.000-05:002008-10-21T10:09:00.000-05:00Anonymous seems to have this strange idea that gay...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.<BR/><BR/><I>People should be prevented from engaging in behaviour that damages other people - for their own good!</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>And gay marriage is not in place NOW. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Because of the lack of consent involved in murder.</I><BR/><BR/>Why should consent matter? <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I believe an extended family model is far better</I><BR/><BR/>Which includes gay marriage in what scenario?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Already answered. Consent.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, which I challenged and which challenge I haven't seen an answer for.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>People have the absolute right to lobby the government for changes.</I><BR/><BR/>1) Except apparently for the right to do things that do not require consent of the other party, on your position.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>So "some" rather than "all", and my point stands.</I><BR/><BR/>"A bunch" rather than "a few". <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Why do I have to answer it?</I><BR/><BR/>Apparently you don't feel the need to answer very many questions at all, so...<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>because they want it, because I believe that my rights are worthless unless they are extended to everybody</I><BR/><BR/>1) I want all kinds of things. Doesn't mean the gov't should legalise all of them. <BR/>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.<BR/>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.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-2362642986801947532008-10-21T03:30:00.000-05:002008-10-21T03:30:00.000-05:00I fail to see why that same statement is inapplica...<I>I fail to see why that same statement is inapplicable to my counter-examples.</I><BR/><BR/>I realise that you fail to see why. I can't help that. I can't make these points any simpler.<BR/><BR/><I>No, it's actually up to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to 'decide' whether it's destructive...and it is.</I><BR/><BR/>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!<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Because of the lack of consent involved in murder.<BR/><BR/><I>1) True, it has, but not in THIS society.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it has.<BR/><BR/><I>2) Do you deny that the one man-one woman married family unit, raising children, is the best situation for societal stability and prosperity?</I><BR/><BR/>Yep. I believe an extended family model is far better, and the nuclear family concept is a tragedy.<BR/><BR/><I>3) Again, why not change it to include animals, children, plants, vehicles...?</I><BR/><BR/>Already answered. Consent.<BR/><BR/><I>So it depends on the goal, and we'll have to disagree on this one - the fight lies elsewhere.</I><BR/><BR/>No. The basic principle is not up for discussion. People have the absolute right to lobby the government for changes.<BR/><BR/><I>No, a vast number of homosexuals are vastly promiscuous.</I><BR/><BR/>So "some" rather than "all", and my point stands.<BR/><BR/><I>Precisely the question I'd like to ask you.</I><BR/><BR/>Uhhhh... you were the one who tried to make that point. Why do I have to answer it?<BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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 <B>still</B> haven't presented any significant arguments, have you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-77490504412021152112008-10-20T21:35:00.000-05:002008-10-20T21:35:00.000-05:00Because the first point covers who the right appli...<I>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><BR/><BR/>I fail to see why that same statement is inapplicable to my counter-examples.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>that's up to the partner to decide, not you</I><BR/><BR/>No, it's actually up to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to 'decide' whether it's destructive...and it is.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I presume you'd be in favor of repealing that law too?<BR/><BR/>Yep.</I><BR/><BR/>Fair enough - you're consistent on this point, and that's not sthg I see every day, so I congratulate you.<BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>the institution of marriage is not static and has changed with society. This is simply a further change.</I><BR/><BR/>1) True, it has, but not in THIS society. <BR/>2) Do you deny that the one man-one woman married family unit, raising children, is the best situation for societal stability and prosperity?<BR/>3) Again, why not change it to include animals, children, plants, vehicles...?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"bending the gov't to their will" is an entirely laudable objective.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>So it depends on the goal, and we'll have to disagree on this one - the fight lies elsewhere.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Some homosexuals are highly promiscuous</I><BR/><BR/>No, a vast number of homosexuals are vastly promiscuous. It seems to be part of the lifestyle for many, many more than heteros. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And how does getting married "validate" promiscuity?</I><BR/><BR/>Precisely the question I'd like to ask you.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Yes, but we're not talking about my argument for same-sex marriage, we're dissecting the epic failure of your argument against it.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>(And just as surely, it's a bad one, but time will tell.)Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-10649513150792894332008-10-17T20:47:00.000-05:002008-10-17T20:47:00.000-05:00You want to change one part of that, the male/fema...<I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>It's not only individually destructive; it's also destructive to the partner.</I><BR/><BR/>And as previously, that's up to the partner to decide, not you.<BR/><BR/><I>The use of cocaine and LSD is prohibited by law. I presume you'd be in favor of repealing that law too?</I><BR/><BR/>Yep.<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>Homosexuals are ALREADY, NOW highly promiscuous. Why validate that with sham marriages?</I><BR/><BR/>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!<BR/><BR/><I>I'm still waiting for your argument FOR same-sex marriage. Got one yet?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but we're not talking about my argument for same-sex marriage, we're dissecting the epic failure of your argument against it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-35658525877088055442008-10-16T13:29:00.000-05:002008-10-16T13:29:00.000-05:00I've addressed the point that NAMBLA might make in...<I>I've addressed the point that NAMBLA might make in the point about consent.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, addressed and defeated.<BR/>Here is the now definition of marriage:<BR/><BR/>One male adult, one female adult, by mutual consent.<BR/><BR/>You want to change one part of that, the male/female part.<BR/>For what reason could you say that the other parts are off-limits for --ahem-- extension?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It's not up to you or anybody else to prohibit behaviour that may or may not be individually destructive.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not only individually destructive; it's also destructive to the partner. <BR/>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.<BR/>The use of cocaine and LSD is prohibited by law. I presume you'd be in favor of repealing that law too?<BR/>These are feeling-out questions; it's an interesting point you make, and I'm not sure what I think of it either.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Homosexuals getting married = high promiscuity?</I><BR/><BR/>That's not what I said. Again you lost track.<BR/>Homosexuals are ALREADY, NOW highly promiscuous. Why validate that with sham marriages?<BR/><BR/>I'm still waiting for your argument FOR same-sex marriage. Got one yet?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-84759592654357363122008-10-16T12:52:00.000-05:002008-10-16T12:52:00.000-05:00I've addressed the point that NAMBLA might make in...I've addressed the point that NAMBLA might make in the point about consent.<BR/><BR/>It's not up to you or anybody else to prohibit behaviour that may or may not be individually destructive.<BR/><BR/>Homosexuals getting married = high promiscuity? Interesting argument, let's see if we can make it fly in court.<BR/><BR/>Still waiting for an actual argument against same-sex marriage. Got one yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36331960904555872922008-10-16T11:38:00.000-05:002008-10-16T11:38:00.000-05:00So when NAMBLA asks us to "extend" the "right" to ...So when NAMBLA asks us to "extend" the "right" to marry to include children, no problem, right?<BR/>What reason would we give them?<BR/>I mean, hey, everybody would still have equal rights wrt marriage.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>Neither does high promiscuity make any difference to those elements of society. It's all completely compartmentalisable.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-78608095937013675302008-10-16T11:30:00.000-05:002008-10-16T11:30:00.000-05:00The "extension" would be an extra right - the righ...<I>The "extension" would be an extra right - the right to marry someone that I don't have the right to marry now.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Gee. Let me think for about a one second span.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-17126285268679099642008-10-16T11:00:00.000-05:002008-10-16T11:00:00.000-05:00The "extension" would be an extra right - the righ...The "extension" would be an extra right - the right to marry someone that I don't have the right to marry now. <BR/>Everyone has the same right wrt marriage. They want to change that.<BR/><BR/>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.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-26507155734407780532008-10-16T10:58:00.000-05:002008-10-16T10:58:00.000-05:00They're clearly not asking for extra rights to be ...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-79373716977733770712008-10-16T10:52:00.000-05:002008-10-16T10:52:00.000-05:00It's getting pretty clear who can and can't keep t...It's getting pretty clear who can and can't keep track of the argument at hand.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-34049566324727341762008-10-16T10:30:00.000-05:002008-10-16T10:30:00.000-05:00Your reasoning is unbelievably coherent and well-w...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:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Do you actually have any arguments against same-sex marriage?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-67251667291832593022008-10-16T07:39:00.000-05:002008-10-16T07:39:00.000-05:00You were talking about "homosexuality" as a state ...<I>You were talking about "homosexuality" as a state of being, as opposed to heterosexuality - not "human" as opposed to "plant".</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but I didn't base my argument on being homosexual.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>A donkey or a watermelon vine cannot actually consent to marriage</I><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>can't understand the concept of marriage. </I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>that humans under a certain age do not possess the necessary maturity to enter into that institution.</I><BR/><BR/>Age discrimination! You're no better than we freaky conservatives, at the core. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Computer keyboards aren't.</I><BR/><BR/>Please.<BR/>You could've surprised me - both of us seem to be using ours fairly well. Unless you have some awesome voice-recog software.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Yet apparently many people have anal sex without suffering the sort of "damage" that you feverishly obsess about. </I><BR/><BR/>I doubt it. What backup could you have for this statement? Barna surveys?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Many people have straight sex and suffer some sort of damage</I><BR/><BR/>Not for nearly the same reasons. There's a difference between incidental damage and damage due to obvious misuse.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If the anus is not for sex, then how come it works so well for sex?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The anti-slavery agendy didn't speak for most Americans </I><BR/><BR/>That must be why it won out in the end.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>you would have been arguing against abolition</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>apparently a majority of the US population believe that abortion should be available</I><BR/><BR/>That's actually not true. And it was "legislated" from the bench, so there was never a chance to prove it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>somebody said that they'd come to expect consistency from you. I continue to find that puzzling.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>as far as I'm aware there's no such thing as the "advancement of humanity"</I><BR/><BR/>So humanity is not evolving.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>evolution is neither a "good" or "bad" thing</I><BR/><BR/>Just curious - is ANYthing a good or bad thing? HOw do you know?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>the choice of an individual has no significant bearing on the evolution of the species</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>nobody believes that evolutionary theory should provide the basis for ordering our society.</I><BR/><BR/>Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and their followers. Just to name a few. <BR/>Seriously, that's a dumb statement.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-53826842824077463842008-10-16T01:40:00.000-05:002008-10-16T01:40:00.000-05:00Sure I do. "Human" is a state of being, as is "pla...<I>Sure I do. "Human" is a state of being, as is "plant".</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm arguing that the rights should stay the way they are - you get to marry someone of the opposite sex.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>If one were stupid, I guess so. Not I.</I><BR/><BR/>*coughes nervously*<BR/><BR/><I>1) But keyboards are made for hands.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Yeah, your arguments - watertight. Watertight. WATERTIGHT.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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!<BR/><BR/>On another thread, somebody said that they'd come to expect consistency from you. I continue to find that puzzling.<BR/><BR/><I>This lifestyle militates against the evolutionary advancement of humanity. That's not a good thing, is it?</I><BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-90129782049362751822008-10-15T13:22:00.000-05:002008-10-15T13:22:00.000-05:00if homosexuality is a state of being, then you hav...<I>if homosexuality is a state of being, then you have no grounds for objecting to same-sex marriage, </I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>Or why not change the law so that a grown man can marry fraternal triplets, two boys and one girl, 3 years old? <BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>One could argue that mixed-race marriages aren't a good idea, based on the social pressures</I><BR/><BR/>If one were stupid, I guess so. Not I.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Hands aren't made for computer keyboards</I><BR/><BR/>1) But keyboards are made for hands.<BR/>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. <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>And of course, it would still be morally wrong.<BR/>And it would run afoul of the super-rights problem. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>No bearing whatsoever. </I><BR/><BR/>This lifestyle militates against the evolutionary advancement of humanity. That's not a good thing, is it?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-75284887162588737662008-10-15T08:30:00.000-05:002008-10-15T08:30:00.000-05:00I was identifying it as behavior, as opposed to a ...<I>I was identifying it as behavior, as opposed to a state of being. Many homosexuals argue that that's the way they are.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>No bearing whatsoever. Why, should it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-61882163831207786692008-10-15T07:43:00.000-05:002008-10-15T07:43:00.000-05:00I'm just pointing out that the argument that homos...<I>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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>b. Homosexual sex does not of necessity include anal sex,</I><BR/><BR/>But it very often does.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>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,</I><BR/><BR/>The insertion of a foreign object into the anus... should be kind of obvious, unless one is inclined to be intentionally dense. <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"Societal pressure" is people like you incessantly condemning them.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>that doesn't help your argument since it would mean that until HIV became widespread, homosexual behaviour was far less "destructive"</I><BR/><BR/>It wouldn't mean that at all; it would simply mean that the consequences became more obvious once HIV became more widespread.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Who cares what my definition of marriage is? The law cares.</I><BR/><BR/>1) And the law says marriage is one man and one woman. Thanks for playing.<BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dr Funk said:<BR/><I>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</I><BR/><BR/>So you're arguing for super rights for scuba divers? The law should change to grant them special favors?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>, people are free to join the military </I><BR/><BR/>I'm not necessarily arguing here that sodomy should be illegal. I'm not sure about that. <BR/>The question here is whether homosexuals should be granted this super right.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>No, a true analogy would be to ask: Why not grant gov't subsidies to you the more you eat McDo's french fries?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Well now you have the same rights as them - to marry a member of the same sex.</I><BR/><BR/>1) Rights? According to whom? <BR/>2) Whence does an atheist derive any objective basis for human rights?<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>So there's no super right as there is nothing being offered to gay people that is not also on offer to you</I><BR/><BR/>You mean except for marrying someone not of the opposite gender. That's what you meant, right?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-82317380747256158232008-10-14T20:53:00.000-05:002008-10-14T20:53:00.000-05:00Since what they are doing is harmful, self- and pa...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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". <BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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.Rocky Rodenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620894198842461714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-57721979241972479952008-10-10T16:15:00.000-05:002008-10-10T16:15:00.000-05:001. Yes, and I'm glad you concede the point.I don't...<I>1. Yes, and I'm glad you concede the point.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>In question is the BEHAVIOR, not whether someone "is" or "feels" gay. Homosexual sex includes anal sex, which is destructive.</I><BR/><BR/>a. The "behaviour" has no bearing on marriage per se.<BR/>b. Homosexual sex does not of necessity include anal sex, most obviously for lesbians.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>"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"><BR/><BR/><I>2. Who cares what YOUR definition of marriage is? It's the legal one.<BR/>What is your argument for that definition's non-utility?</I><BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-56244785253905562392008-10-10T15:57:00.000-05:002008-10-10T15:57:00.000-05:001. Yes, and I'm glad you concede the point. In qu...1. Yes, and I'm glad you concede the point. In question is the BEHAVIOR, not whether someone "is" or "feels" gay. <BR/>Homosexual sex includes anal sex, which is destructive.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>2. Who cares what YOUR definition of marriage is? It's the legal one. <BR/>What is your argument for that definition's non-utility?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com