How will inter-species marriage affect intra-species marriage?
(Just because I like to stir the pot lol)
Although, I think an argument can be made more for freedom of religion. There have been several cases where gay couples have already sued photographers, etc for refusing their business. Will they also be allowed to sue a Church for refusing to marry them?
Of course, it wouldn’t be an issue at all if the gov’t just got out of the marriage business.
Yours is the usual straw man argument. That means what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with the real issue.
The objection to gay marriage is that it will destroy the basis for all human rights since it is a sexual disorder. It is absurd that a sexual disorder be a source of civil rights.
All men are equal because of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
Without the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God to establish an objective, universal definition for human rights, mankind returns to the days of government sanctioned slavery, oppression, bone grinding poverty and ruthless tyranny.
In short, gay marriage is not progress, it is a death sentence for Western Civilization and thus a return to the pre-human rights past.
@grim_truth - The photography case seems to clash with the photographers first amendment rights. See Volokh’s arguments on that point here: http://www.volokh.com/tag/elane-photography-v-willock/. But regardless of how that gets sorted out, churches should be a much easier case–churches/pastors can still refuse to marry interracial couples, non-christians, etc. today because state and federal discrimination laws can’t impede on protected first amendment rights.
Interestingly, humans tend to want to pair up in relationships and most humans want to establish long term relationships. However, it seems that while this is probably “hard-wired” into us, the attractions that motivate humans perhaps are also hard-wired and may include attractions that favor same sex relationships. Now, this was a problem for most cultures. However, recently, many cultures worldwide began to accept same sex relationships. Additionally, it is now possible for science to support all sorts of options for creating life. I believe that same sex marriages will have far-reaching effects. Possibly, humans may in the future also begin to live in relationships that involve many significant others and perhaps including many male and female participants. Some of you may know that I am Christian and that I don’t agree with options such as may yet still become common practice in probably less than 50 years.
@AutumnStrength - It is not only obvious that homosexuality is a sexual disorder but it is scientifically proven.
First, let me state the obvious:
If everyone were homosexual, the human race would go extinct.
Second, here is the science:
Human beings, like all other sexually reproducing creatures on earth, have gender male and female because they evolved that way. The existence of gender therefore proves that heterosexuality is the norm and that homosexuality is a disorder.
Guess what? You couldn’t care less about any kind of proof, right?
That’s why I say that the acceptance of gay marriage is actually the return to pre-civilization and barbarism.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – ‘Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality; in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders.’
Nothing has been ‘proven’. It’s all theory and there are lots of them out there. One theory is that it benefited early human civilization to have some non-producers living in the group or tribe, as these individuals would never be occupied with courtship or raising offspring of their own, and so would be able to help raise others’ children in the group and be available to help out at all times.
‘You couldn’t care less about any kind of proof, right?’ – that’s astonishingly funny, seeing as you believe in a man in the sky that made everything, simply because you were told to believe it, even though you were presented with no proof.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - Purpose is a human concept, and so to define purpose is to abandon objectivity, and relinquish any hope of deriving facts from these assertions of purpose. Objectively, there are merely causes and effects. Reproduction is one potential effect, when fertile individuals of opposite genders engage in intercourse. That in no way defines it as the sole purpose of intercourse. Clearly, if it were the sole purpose of intercourse, then nobody who couldn’t reproduce would ever fuck. What you have is not a valid argument, but a throughly failed attempt to rationalize bigotry.
@Maverick83 - Just as nature gave separate, definable purposes to your stomach and eyes, it also gave purpose to sexuality.
That is a one sentence proof that your statement, “Purpose is a human concept,” is obviously false. For no matter how hard you try to define the purpose of your asshole, you’ll never be able to see with it. Your asshole has the defined purpose that nature gave it.
Your inability to see the obvious means that whatever brainwashing you went through turned you into a complete moron. That should concern you.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - Not purposes. Effects. Objectively, there are only effects. We defined those effects as purposes based on the common position that continuing to live and see is our goal. Certainly a goal I agree with, but that doesn’t make it any less subjective. If I suddenly decide I want to be blind, I could just as well permanently damage my eyes, and redefine their purpose as “face decorations”.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - Again, purpose assumes a defined goal. Living, breathing, seeing, these are all common goals among living organisms. Natural selection saw to that. But they are subjectively defined goals, no matter how common. I am addressing your assertions directly and in context. You may disagree with my argument, but it is in no way a strawman.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - “The best reasoning starts out with the obvious.” All reasoning starts with the obvious. That’s the first thing to be observed. That’s why we call it the obvious. But your reasoning also ends with it. As I’ve found it necessary to say to so many conservatives, the problem isn’t that I can’t see the obvious, it’s that you can only see the obvious.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - The obvious proves* a lot of points. That everything in the sky is revolving around the Earth, that the Earth is flat…or you could just google “optical illusions” and see what points the obvious proves*.
@Maverick83 - Straw man usually simply means hallucinating a change of subject because that’s what’s needed to keep from having to deal with simple facts, simple logic, common sense or the meaning of words.
You changed the subject from the obvious being good to the obvious being bad after you changed the subject from the simple definition of the word, purpose.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - I’m going to stop responding, after this comment, because if I don’t, I’m sure this could go on forever. I’m amused and somewhat perplexed that it’s gone on for this long.
The strawman argument, or strawman fallacy, is the practice of misrepresenting an opponent’s argument, to make it easier to attack. For example, when creationists use the argument that one species never gives birth to another, to debunk evolution, it is a strawman, because the theory of evolution does not claim that one species gives birth to another.
Changing the subject and the strawman fallacy can coincide, but are not necessarily related, nor dependent on one another. Moreover, what you’re accusing me of, in the first instance, is not changing the subject, but changing my position on the subject. The subject is the obvious. You’re saying I first said it was good, and then said it was bad. But I don’t recall saying either. (So that, right there, might just be the strawman you’ve been searching for.) What my argument is, is that the obvious, by its nature, tends to be the first observation made. But it is seldom all that there is, and can even be misleading. It’s not wise to assume the obvious is all there is to consider. Regarding the second instance, your argument against gay rights was predicated on your perceived purpose of sexuality, so I addressed that. It seemed that your perception of purpose was predicated on purpose being obvious (and more than that, that because the purpose of an eye or a stomach appears obvious, all things and behaviors would therefore serve only a single purpose that is for you to define) and I am addressing the limitations of the obvious, as a foundation for one’s beliefs.
@Maverick83 - What you have just demonstrated is that even after you write out the definition of something you do routinely, you still don’t know what you are talking about.
Btw, here is the definition of purpose: The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. LINK
The reason for which the eyes exist is to see. That is another way of saying the purpose of the eye is to see. Which is what I said at the very beginning.
So your entire argument is a series straw men because you refuse to acknowledge the obvious, which is embodied in the simple meaning of the word, purpose.
You remind me of President Clinton when he was being questioned by legal authorities about getting blow jobs in the Oval Office from one of his female interns. He responded: ”It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.”