Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:43:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2389 times
|
| |
|
|
John, I want to go back and apologize for saying that one thing or another that
you wrote sounds dumb. It was a stupid way for me to communicate.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
All I am asking is upon what do you believe our society is based. If you
think it is a myriad of things, fine. What are they?
|
OK, I’ll approach this seriously. To claim that our society is “founded” upon
any thing(s) (by which we mean social institutions, I think) is to claim that
our society was purposely built. I think (hope!) that we can claim that this is
largely a misrepresentation. Our society (and here we may have to define what
it is exactly that we mean) has evolved over thousands of years and at root
shares foundation with all societies. Now, because we’re going to continue to
discuss foundational principles, it’s worth defining what makes something
qualify as one. And I’m not sure. Under any set of definitions that is
inclusive of many such social institutions, marriage seems like fair game.
But, to reflect back on one of Dave Eaton’s points, once, so was slavery. It
was another institution that was harmful to a minority and was part of the
bedrock of our social environment. And we did away with it and now universally
revile it as wicked. I hope that’s what is happening with the exclusionary
marriage institution.
Does this discussion satisfy you? I know that you asked for a list of
foundational issues, but I think this is apropos.
| |
| |
| |
| |
It wouldn’t erode at the fabric of marriage as a “sacred”
institution.
|
Excuse me? It would completely change it!
|
It would improve it!
|
Upon what exactly do you base your assertion?
|
When you say that marriage would be “completely” changed, what do you mean?
how, for instance, would it affect your marriage? How would it affect
(especially adversely) the marriage prospects for your children? I agree that
it would change it -- as noted above, I think it would be improved. I think
that society would benefit from the inclusion of homosexualls fully into the
social and cultural spheres of our life. I think that homosexuality has an
important role in nature with regard to resource collection and disbursement and
I see no reason that humans shouldn’t take advantage of that. My marriage is
not in the slightest harmed by the fact that homosexuals are marrying in
Massachusetts and I think that more options for my kids is a good thing.
| |
| |
| |
| |
It wouldn’t erode at the “foundation” of society.
|
With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
I think you left out some of the respect due.
|
What I mean is that you are asserting things for which you have absolutely no
basis. You are talking about the unknown as if it were known.
|
I believe one thing and you believe another. They are both educated conjecture.
How is your wild-ass guess any better than mine?
| |
| |
| |
| |
We would
just be normallizing relations with one of the many groups that are harmed
dramatically and daily by the majority in this country.
|
“Harmed dramatically”??? Please! What in the world are you talking about?
|
Subjugating citizens to a second-class status,
|
Say again? Cites, please.
|
Um...like what? I’m not even sure what part of it you’re disagreeing with? We
do not accord the legal perks to gay partners that we do to straight partners.
How is that in doubt? What can I cite?
| |
Which RIGHTS? Cites, please.
|
The right to marry. The right to pursue happiness. The right to carry on his
private business in his own way. The right to unlimited contract.
What do you want for citations? Read the Constitution of the United States.
Read the Uniform Commercial Code. Read the findings of the Supreme Court.
| |
| |
and
further emphasizing the scant difference between them and the norm based on
a difference that harms no one,
|
Do you claim to know the social and psychological ramifications of teaching
little Suzy and Jimmy in Kindergarten that they can marry a boy or a girl?
Or 2 boys and 1 girl, or any other combination you can think of?
|
I have read no study of such treatment, but I can guess. I was explicitly
raised with the notion that I could love men instead of women and would remain
an equally valuable member of my family community. That does not say anything
about marriage, but it’s something. My kids are raised with the same
understanding -- and in a world where marriage is a likely option. My kids are
also raised with an understanding of polyamory as a valid life option -- to the
extent that I can provide it. So far, there’s no harmful effects showing up.
What do you specifically imagine the “social and psychological ramifications” of
such teaching to be? And do you know what the social and psychological
ramifications are to the child that is told that they can not? I am much more
fearful of the ramifications to a homosexual child who is shamed for his innate
being than these hypothetical reactions of children to open-minded rearing.
| |
| |
is genetic and unpreventable,
|
Cites, please.
|
I’ll retract both claims. I suspect it is genetic and thus, preventable through
gene therapy. But it may not be. It might be entirely physio-environmental.
What I do know for sure is that it’s not a choice. I spent a good deal of my
time during my 20th and 21st year trying to be gay and I simply could not. If
it were a choice (as I believed before trying) I would have succeeded. If it’s
a choice, then you could turn off the attraction you hold for your wife and
start grooving and guy’s asses. Can you?
| |
| |
100 years ago, most people lived in family units with at least three
generations present.
|
Many still do today. I don’t consider that a valid variation from the
nuclear family structure model.
|
This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking to avoid by starting the whole
conversation with a dictionary definition that we could agree to. Now, after
arguing in circles, it turns out that you actually reject the dictionary that we
both claimed to accept.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
What does govern animal behavior then, Tom? Reason? Ethics? Religion?
|
Satisfaction of preference just like ours.
|
So you are claiming that animals have emotions? Any proof of that?
|
I hadn’t claimed that, but I’m certainly willing to. What proof would you
accept?
|
Any scientific study, for starters.
|
Do you have any scientific study that lends evidence to the hypothesis that
humans have emotions? Your request is absurd. We would have to quantifiably
define the nature of emotion and what tests would validly detect said states.
Then do a review of the literature for studies that were closely aligned to the
quantification method that we agreed to. If we found any such studies (and it
may well be that we would not) you would have nearly infinite wiggle room to
claim that it’s not exactly what we agreed to. Frankly, I don’t believe you
want to know the truth about this. If you did, just spending time with animals
would be enough.
| |
| |
Animals (even those as simple as house cats -- who I happen to think
have a much broader mode of emotional expression than do dogs) clearly have
moods, in the commonly understood human sense. How could moods be possible
without emotion? Just instinct?
|
Without scientific study? How about anthropomorphizing.
|
Are you purposely not answering? Or are you claiming that my perception of the
animals’ moods is completely in my mind and that, in fact, they behave exactly
without variation across their lives?
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) All I am asking is upon what do you believe our society is based. If you think it is a myriad of things, fine. What are they? (...) Upon what exactly do you base your assertion? (...) What I mean is that you are asserting things for which you (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
