Secular Case Against Gay Marriage Compared to ID.

[rez]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins Do you have proof of a gay gene rez? I wasn't aware that a gene had been identified that was common to every homosexual and missing from every heterosexual. Please provide a link to this study and finding

My belief is that there is a biological explaination for homosexuality; however, this does not take away from my point. Homosexuality is not dying, there must be a reason for it - what is it?

What does one gain from learning how to be a homosexual?

Now please respond to the real post.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/op...17pinker.html? --- read about the gay gene

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

It is impossible to respond to your post when it is based on a flaw........please provide a link to a published study that identifies a gay gene as you claim.

[rez]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins It is impossible to respond to your post when it is based on a flaw........please provide a link to a published study that identifies a gay gene as you claim.

genetic evolution: A hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. Genes undergo mutation when their DNA sequence changes.

memetic evolution: Memetic evolution, like genetic evolution, cannot happen without mutation. Mutation produces the essential variations, whereupon those variations that prove "better" at replication will become more common and therefore have a greater chance at replication again.

So either way.....homosexuality as come a long way..it does not matter if homosexuality is genetic or a nurtured idea.....remember....."replication will become more common and therefore have a greater chance at replication again."

P.S. memes are ideas, they are not physical. I stated that homosexuality could of been learned experienced, but it has been replicated. Like I said before, my post still stands...I hope we are on the same page now.

[Flip Jackson]

Here is a response from my personal view, Rez. ( I apologize for moving from the topic.) You seem to claim that only things that benefit us last. Why do people smoke? Why is divorce rate so high? Why do people drink? Why do bad habits last and begin again in new generations?

People don't allows choose to do what is beneficial for them. That's a fact pure and simple. The reason for homosexuality still being around could be a number of things. I will admit that genetics probably plays a part. But what about depression, curiosity, rebellion, experimentation, poor growing up conditions, child molestation, and such? All of these could lead to homosexuality while not implying a benefit.

Not everything we learn to do is beneficial. I would even argue that society TURNS some people gay that may not have been. You know in school there are boys that have higher voices, have different mannerisms, or just don't ft in? Society says people like this are usually gay. In turn our little uninformed school kids start calling this oddball kid "gay," "fruity," "flaming," "homo," and whatever other slang for homosexual you can think of. I truly think that actions like this can cause someone to BECOME homosexual that may not have been if he had been treated like everyone else.

[rez]

Quote by: Flip Jackson Here is a response from my personal view, Rez. ( I apologize for moving from the topic.) You seem to claim that only things that benefit us last. Why do people smoke? Why is divorce rate so high? Why do people drink? Why do bad habits last and begin again in new generations?

Who are you to say they are bad habits?

Quote by: Flip Jackson People don't allows choose to do what is beneficial for them. That's a fact pure and simple. The reason for homosexuality still being around could be a number of things. I will admit that genetics probably plays a part. But what about depression, curiosity, rebellion, experimentation, poor growing up conditions, child molestation, and such? All of these could lead to homosexuality while not implying a benefit.

but wait - Republican idealism suggests that citizens are good and politicans are bad. Citizens can make their own decisions!

Quote by: Flip Jackson Not everything we learn to do is beneficial. I would even argue that society TURNS some people gay that may not have been. You know in school there are boys that have higher voices, have different mannerisms, or just don't ft in? Society says people like this are usually gay. In turn our little uninformed school kids start calling this oddball kid "gay," "fruity," "flaming," "homo," and whatever other slang for homosexual you can think of. I truly think that actions like this can cause someone to BECOME homosexual that may not have been if he had been treated like everyone else.

sure this could happen, but what is your point? Homosexuals want to marry and start a family. Now that they got out of highschool they still have to deal with ignorance?

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Quote by: rez genetic evolution: A hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. Genes undergo mutation when their DNA sequence changes. memetic evolution: Memetic evolution, like genetic evolution, cannot happen without mutation. Mutation produces the essential variations, whereupon those variations that prove "better" at replication will become more common and therefore have a greater chance at replication again. So either way.....homosexuality as come a long way..it does not matter if homosexuality is genetic or a nurtured idea.....remember....."replication will become more common and therefore have a greater chance at replication again."

I think it matters rez. Firstly you claimed that homosexuality was genetic and therefore homosexuals had no choice as to who they are. Secondly, if homosexuality is not genetic, but nurtured as you now claim, then normalising homosexuality in society would increase the number of people willing to experiment with it as a lifestyle choice thereby affecting the human race long term and the sanctity of the male/female family short term.

So which is it? Genetic or nurtured?

[rez]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins I think it matters rez. Firstly you claimed that homosexuality was genetic and therefore homosexuals had no choice as to who they are. Secondly, if homosexuality is not genetic, but nurtured as you now claim, then normalising homosexuality in society would increase the number of people willing to experiment with it as a lifestyle choice thereby affecting the human race long term and the sanctity of the male/female family short term. So which is it? Genetic or nurtured?

Like I said it doesnt matter wither it is genetic or nurutred - it is almost the same!

To go on homosexuality as being nurtured:


If one were to experiment with homosexuality and enjoyed it then that is their choice. You are claiming that because people CAN experiment they will. This means, to you, more and more people will catch on resulting in a earth filled with homosexuals. That is what you are claiming - not me.

The topic is about homosexual marriage, so let us please stick to the topic. Dirty Name is suggesting homosexuality is going to destroy marriage as if marriage is something concret. Marriage is a concept, a word - words change. Homosexual Marriage will not kill off the human species.

[belverron]

rez, you've been off-topic since you started posting. I'm tempted to report you.

[Flip Jackson]

Rez you are being amazingly difficult. I pointed out that I wasn't addressing the topic, but your claims.

First, many "habits" are bad. I bite my nails. Not proud of it, but I certainly don't benefit from it. Smoking, drinking, and divorce are all common practices that do physical or emotional damage. You cannot argue that. I am merely arguing your statement that homosexuality CANNOT be learned because there is no benefit from learning to be homosexual. Benefit is unecessary for something to be learned. That was the point of my post.

You obviously don't understand psychology well if you claim that citizens make any choice they want with no effects from previous experience. True we do have choices, but we don't choose what happens to us. Believe it or not, things from our childhood have HUGE effects on who we become. I suppose you could argue that people can change flaws that were learned in childhood, but that is extremely difficult and sometimes maybe not possible.

Keep in mind that I am not addressing the marraige issue now, as I have said a couple times already. I am just pointing out that the claim that "homosexuality is entirely innate" is false, as well as the idea that " we only learn things that benefit us" is also false. Keep your remarks to my comments in perspective.

[belverron]

All of this is very nice, but I believe we have had threads devoted to the topic of the causes of homosexuality. THIS ONE IS NOT.

[Flip Jackson]

Sorry, Belverron, I too am off topic. But when I see blatant falsehoods paraded as truth I feel the need to correct them.

I will give my opinion on the actual topic later, but I need to go to bed now. :)

[belverron]

Thanks, Flip. And for the record, Flip is more correct on this issue, to my knowledge.

[rez]

Quote by: belverron rez, you've been off-topic since you started posting. I'm tempted to report you.

False; I stated why Dirty Name was wrong in stating that "homosexual marriage would hurt society" I simply pointed out that I feel that homosexuality exists for a reason. Either by nature or nuture, Steven Pinker said it best "Regardless of where homosexuality resides in the brain, the ethics of homosexuality is a no-brainer: what consenting adults do in private is nobody's business but their own." This is why gay marriage should be allowed. Those against gay marriage are NOT using a legitimate argument because their disgust stems from God and his teachings.

[Giglap]

Quote by: rez Those against gay marriage are NOT using a legitimate argument because their disgust stems from God and his teachings.

Homosexuality has been so normalized in our society, that disgust is unlikely even for those of us who believe homosexuality is destructive.

That said, I wouldn't make a secular argument against homosexuality, I suppose I could, but it would ultimately be arbitrary in the absence of God's moral authority.

Of course, outside of that framework, all you have left is "might makes right" but I suppose that's another thread.

Mark me as other,
-Jim

[Jack]

You, like many other gay-marriage supporters on this forum, continue to make the same fundamentally-flawed assumption - that the central premise of the "Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" (TSCAGM) is limited strictly to the birth of children and the propagation of society. This couldn't be further from the truth. TSCAGM is grounded in the concept that heterosexual couples experience a greater burden throughout their entire lives - regardless of whether or not their relationship has resulted in actual, living children. TSCAGM is also grounded in the fact that heterosexual couples provide our society with tangible benefits in the form of healthier children who go on to become healthier adults. Finally, TSCAGM argues that homosexual couples experience fewer burdens and produce fewer benefits, while demanding the exact same benefits as couples who experience higher burdens but produce more benefits to society

"heterosexual couples experience a greater burden throughout their entire lives"...such as?
"TSCAGM is also grounded in the fact that heterosexual couples provide our society with tangible benefits in the form of healthier children"...but you just said TSCAGM was not strictly limited to the birth of children, so it's only a minor factor?
"homosexual couples experience fewer burdens and produce fewer benefits"...such as? And based on who's interpretation of "benefits"?
There are too many undefines parameters and standards for me to consider this seriously.

[Dirty Name]

The point I am trying to make here is that even though you say homosexual marriage does not benifiet society you forget to ask the question how homosexuals surpassed natural selection. WHY DO THEY EXIST!?

Beats me dude. Do you want me to guess? Hmmm. I'll just throw this out there for kicks:

Homosexuality is nature's way of terminating an inferior set of genes.

I don't know if I can back that up with anything scientific, but your notion that the mere existence of homosexuality somehow validates it is the ultimate example of circular reasoning.

[Dirty Name]

There are too many undefines parameters and standards for me to consider this seriously.

This isn't the thread for discussing TSCAGM, Isherwood. If you want the parameters defined, one doesn't have to look very hard. I have already posted multiple links in this thread, and even the original poster referenced where the discussion could be found.

What I find most amusing is how quickly some of my opponents attempt to dismiss the argument without even making an effort to learn what it's about. It's absolutely laughable how ignorant some people choose to be.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Homosexuality is nature's way of terminating an inferior set of genes.

You did not just go there.

[belverron]

Quote by: rez False; I stated why Dirty Name was wrong in stating that "homosexual marriage would hurt society" I simply pointed out that I feel that homosexuality exists for a reason. Either by nature or nuture, Steven Pinker said it best "Regardless of where homosexuality resides in the brain, the ethics of homosexuality is a no-brainer: what consenting adults do in private is nobody's business but their own." This is why gay marriage should be allowed. Those against gay marriage are NOT using a legitimate argument because their disgust stems from God and his teachings.

I apologize for dismissing your idea so entirely, and I do find merit in it. But you went off on that tangent instead of applying it to the question at hand.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Starboy, all you have done is demonstrate that you gave a cursory inspection to the articles presented, yet still fail to understand the general concept.

I have examined the so-called secular arguments you provided and they are not "legitimate" arguments. They are not legitimate because they are not about marriage as it exists in our society today. They are straw man arguments because they presume a kind of marriage that is not actually practiced any more. Not sure that kind of marriage was ever practiced.

Starboy