Gay Thread:6-3-05 Republicans succeed at keeping California discriminatory against Gays

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: dornick
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: dornick
Natural law isn't a theory saying that what we see in Nature is what's morally desirable. Instead, it says humans already know all the basic moral precepts from birth.

In that case, please present a natural law moral argument against homosexuality, without reference to nature (and by nature, I include *human nature*, temperament, personality, the physical body we inhabits, the way we reproduce, etc.)
You're right. You can't argue against homosexuality on the basis of natural law. In fact, it's impossible to logically prove anything because so far we can't prove that people know moral precepts from the start. I just wanted to point out the error in your definition.

That's not true, Aquinas was the classical proponant of natural law, and he thought that it can be derived with reason.

Ok, I suppose I should change that to I can't prove anything with natural law :p Though I have been reading Budzweiski, or however you spell that guy's name, so that might change.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
NO, you are misdefining natural law. It does not rely on observation of the natural world. It relys on two things: objectivity and universality. It also relies on what is seen to be a fundamental part of the "nature" of the universe and humanity, but it does not rely on cultural or societal norms for that justification. Ever.

Ultimately, you can only glean that single, fundamental nature through observation of nature (including observation of human behavior). Hence, at the end of the day, you are turning FACTS (the way you perceive things to be) into ==> a hypothesized, putative single, fundamental nature or end of man ==> into moral prescriptions. If you cannot see that natural moral law is FUNDAMENTALLY NORMATIVE in nature then you are missing the most fundamental aspect of this "philosophy".

Originally posted by: Kibbo
The child-sacrifices of Baal are evil, even though they are a part of that society. Why? Yehowa says so.

The practice of slavery is wrong, even though it has been a societal practice everywhere. Why? Because every man has the right to freedom.

These are statements of natural law.

Any human rights argument, including rights for homosexuals, relies on arguments of natural law, because the very existence of the concept of human rights relies on the concept of "rights" being a fundamental part of human nature. And that this human nature is universal and objective.

No. Not everyone accepts that human rights are natural, inalienable, self-evident.

My own position is that human rights are a social construct.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
One could say that it is always, everywhere and forever morally required that everyone wear purple hats, and that this is objectively "right," because it is a part of human nature to wear purple hats. This would be an assertion of natural law, even though it is not a societal norm anywhere. It is the attributes objectivity and universality that defines natural law as a moral theory.

If you deny natural law as a moral theory, then you deny yourself the ability to use rights-based arguments, unless they are founded in utilitarianist or relevatist arguments. Relevatist arguments are about as convincing to religious people as religious arguments are to secularists, so that's out. That means that you have to conclusively prove that gay marriage will optimize the overall amount of happiness in society over all alternatives. Considering how many religious people it will upset, that will be a tough argument to make.

Gay marriage works best as a rights-based argument. Denying natural law denies that argument. I'd suggest you stop shooting yourself in the foot.


I believe that human rights are social constructs, and that they are open to negotiation.

There is no need to refer to a universal human nature to claim those rights.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
If you deny the universality of human rights, then you reduce rights-based arguments to simple political battles between self-interested parties.

It may be a pretty accurate observation, but as normative rhetoric goes it is somewhat lacking.

And yes, I agree that natural law is normative, but I disagree that it is derived from societal norms.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
This thread, and his posts, all come down to ONE thing. Aidanjm loves to be the victim.

If he thinks that people dislike him because he is homosexual, deep down, he feels like he can do no wrong. He'll always be the victim, the one others should feel sorry for, and never be mad at.
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm

I believe that human rights are social constructs, and that they are open to negotiation.

There is no need to refer to a universal human nature to claim those rights.
ROFL, I'd be willing to bet a whole lot that you don't actually believe that.

If you really thought rights were nothing more than self-assigned constructs, you would be completely silent when society swung in a direction you disliked. Or if you did complain, the best argue you could muster would be "I don't like things the way they are", which is hardly motivation to change them. Judging from your conduct on these forums I'd say that's far from what you do.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
2nd edit: You are also misunderstanding the Church's philosophical foundation for its position. It does not look at a norm and call it God's will, it looks at a revelation handed to them by God centuries before the foundation of the church and obey it. That's how they see it, at least. In theory.

No, I'm not misunderstanding catholic dogma. I'm simply not going to take it seriously. In practice, catholic dogma DOES look at a norm, and then call that God's will. Be aware that the Catholic position on homosexuality is not scripture based, it is based on the work of aquinas. Also, be aware that the church was not rabid in its condemnation of homosexuals, UNTIL the middle ages and the work of aquinas.

Edit: altho the Catholic position has become more complex since the 70s, they now acknowledge the existence of "constitutional" homosexuals, i.e., people who are homosexual by nature. (This is a difference between catholic and protestant positions on homosexuality - the fundamentalist protestants will just say homosexuality is an illness or sickness, or the result of immoral choices). Altho catholic dogma acknowledges such homosexual people (people who are homosexual by nature) do exist, and suggest they be treated with "compassion", they still insist that for these people to ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex would be a grave sin.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
This thread, and his posts, all come down to ONE thing. Aidanjm loves to be the victim.

If he thinks that people dislike him because he is homosexual, deep down, he feels like he can do no wrong. He'll always be the victim, the one others should feel sorry for, and never be mad at.

??

I don't perceive myself to be a victim, at all.

 

davestar

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2001
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard I'd like to see where the pope spoke out against homosexuals - just one example.

One example. Hope you enjoy.

Cyclo's 3-month avoidance of aidanjm's long, valid, and thoughtful post is getting tiresome.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Kibbo
2nd edit: You are also misunderstanding the Church's philosophical foundation for its position. It does not look at a norm and call it God's will, it looks at a revelation handed to them by God centuries before the foundation of the church and obey it. That's how they see it, at least. In theory.

No, I'm not misunderstanding catholic dogma. I'm simply not going to take it seriously:yes, in practice, it DOES look at a norm, and then call that God's will. Be aware that the Catholic position on homosexuality is not scripture based, it is based on the work of aquinas. Also, be aware that the church was not rabid in its condemnation of homosexuals, UNTIL the middle ages and the work of aquinas.
That's because the Romans at the time of Constantine didn't so much mind a new God and some renamed holidays, but damned if they were gonna stand for someone trying to take away their bu77-s3cks.

Seriously though, homosexuality as we perceive it is (at least in part) socially constructed. Different societies have differing definitions of what constitutes homosexual behaviour (in some, man-boy love is perfectly normal, in others only the receptive male i stigmatized as 'homosexual).

Developmentally, I've seen claims that up to one-third of children have a sgnificant homosexual experience around the time of puberty; considerably more than the number that have a significant heterosexual experience at the same age (man - I feel like I missed out or something:p). This tendency might explain the 'educational' attitude towards many-boy love in the ancient world.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Perhaps, but Aquinas has some scriptural support regarding the prohibition on homosexuality. And he claimed (and I have little reason to doubt his sincerity) that he was basing his conclusions on scripture, personal revelation and reason. Of course, one could make psychological argument regarding the fallability of that aproach.

And you have yet to give me one reason to want to support gay marriage (which I do anyway, but for argument's sake) apart from the fact that you want it. If rights are just social constructs, why should I construct society in a way that makes you happy? Why shouldn't I construct society in a way that makes CycloWizard happy? I've had discussions with him that were just as interesting as this one (which I am enjoying), and at the end of them he's turned out to at least be internally consistent, even if I disagree with him.

I'm curious to see if you are as well.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: bamacre
This thread, and his posts, all come down to ONE thing. Aidanjm loves to be the victim.

If he thinks that people dislike him because he is homosexual, deep down, he feels like he can do no wrong. He'll always be the victim, the one others should feel sorry for, and never be mad at.

??

I don't perceive myself to be a victim, at all.


i'm with aidan on this one... most of his posts do revolve around this sort of discussion, but why should he deviate from something he feels strongly about? aidan doesn't just tie his wife beater in a sexy knot and dance around singing "we're here, we're queer..."

he's carried himself well in the forums so far as i know (the occasional lash out, but who among us hasn't done that?)

(triple snaps) you go boy!
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

he's carried himself well in the forums so far as i know (the occasional lash out, but who among us hasn't done that?)

(triple snaps) you go boy!

I agree. And I can't think of a single argument in which bmarcre has distinguished himself. Maybe he's just a troller. That'd be unusual for this forum.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: bamacre
This thread, and his posts, all come down to ONE thing. Aidanjm loves to be the victim.

If he thinks that people dislike him because he is homosexual, deep down, he feels like he can do no wrong. He'll always be the victim, the one others should feel sorry for, and never be mad at.

??

I don't perceive myself to be a victim, at all.
No, he defends homosexuality because he understands homosexuality.
It's one thing to defend something you understand. It's another to fear and hate something you are completely ignorant of, something you don't understand. Something you won't understand.


 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

he's carried himself well in the forums so far as i know (the occasional lash out, but who among us hasn't done that?)

(triple snaps) you go boy!

I agree. And I can't think of a single argument in which bmarcre has distinguished himself. Maybe he's just a troller. That'd be unusual for this forum.

So bamacre is a troll? Thats news to me.

The problem is that Aidan's going after specifically Catholics while ignoring other religions who are just as opposed to homosexual marriage and consider it a sin. He has a certain thing against the Pope (or Poop as he says it, when he enters his usual troll mode). Lets not ignore the fact that some people who are not religious are also opposed to gay marriage and consider some gay behavior to be dangerous.

Gays are in a much better position today than they were ten years ago, but they're also much more open today, so that turns off many people. Aidan, noone is stopping you from practicing your gay lifestyle. Italy is very open to gays and has a large gay population even though that is the heart and soul of the Catholic church. I think that says something.
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: davestar
Originally posted by: CycloWizard I'd like to see where the pope spoke out against homosexuals - just one example.

One example. Hope you enjoy.

Cyclo's 3-month avoidance of aidanjm's long, valid, and thoughtful post is getting tiresome.

Dude, look at the quote. It says homosexuals, not homosexuality. CW's point is that the Pope might denounce homosexuality as a sin, but he wouldn't say homosexuals are sub-human.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
Originally posted by: dornick
Originally posted by: davestar
Originally posted by: CycloWizard I'd like to see where the pope spoke out against homosexuals - just one example.

One example. Hope you enjoy.

Cyclo's 3-month avoidance of aidanjm's long, valid, and thoughtful post is getting tiresome.

Dude, look at the quote. It says homosexuals, not homosexuality. CW's point is that the Pope might denounce homosexuality as a sin, but he wouldn't say homosexuals are sub-human.

good point..

i don't care what the pope says (just like i don't care what the bum with the sign around his neck has to say), but to denounce a sinful discourse is not to denounce the person, but the action. paul was called out for his actions against christians... was he denounced personally? certainly not, he was given a very important position by jesus. he recognized paul's zeal and used it to forward the christian ministry. could it be said that paul was punished for his actions? possibly. when judas fell from the fold, the position of #12 was given to timothy (i think) and not paul. paul will be of the earthly flock, those which will reside on earth once armageddon and the G.T. are done. a lesser outcome, for sure, but still better than not existing.

(for more on the "great crowd" and armageddon consult revelations, or laugh it off as nonsense)

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: davestar
One example. Hope you enjoy.
Ah, what's the title of the article? "Pope Calls Gay Marriage Part of 'Ideology of Evil'"

Let me know when you find one example of the pope speaking out against homosexuals. Homosexual marriage != homosexuals.

Aidan, if you truly believe that rights are granted by society for its members, then you have absolutely ZERO argument for homosexual marriage. Society has seen fit to NOT let you marry, so that should be the end of it. You can try to convince them otherwise, of course, but calling them bigots is completely bassackwards, given your own statements. In fact, if you really believe this, then YOU are the bigot for arguing against society. In short, from this perspective, you don't have a leg to stand on at all.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Kibbo
This being said, you have pointed out several inconsistencies in CycloWizard's argument, and I would like to hear how he responds.
Well, since you said that without calling me any names, I guess I probably should do so.

First, as I mentioned in this thread (or maybe another one?), I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. But, since the government already has its hand in the cookie jar, the problem arises all the same. If marriage is a contract, by which government grants the couple rights, what does government (or society) get in return?

The major benefit that a heterosexual couple gives society is the possibility of having children. As was pointed out, there is no guarantee of a couple having children. However, there is a reasonable expectation that, if a heterosexual couple gets married, they may at some point have children. Short of the government testing every couple for fertility prior to marriage, there is no way to determine the likelihood of them having children. Even sterile couple can conceive using artificial means within their couple.

Now, the question is: WHY is this something the government confers benefits for? Production of future taxpayers is the most obvious reason. If the birth rate had not dropped so significantly in the past few decades, social security would not be in its current bind. Tax revenues would be much higher. Essentially, our society was built on a certain input:eek:utput ratio of taxpayers during the last century, which is proving to be unsustainable during times of lower birth rates. Thus, it is in the interest of government and society to reward those who bring children into the world. This view is reinforced by the marriage tax penalty in which married couples pay more than unmarried couples making the same income (I believe this was repealed a few years ago, so now married couples pay the same as the relevant two singles). This was compensated for by child tax credits. Thus, no marriage benefit actually existed until the couple produced those future taxpayers.

If Aidan wants to argue that homosexuals should be allowed to attend funerals, visit the sick, and what have you for their loved one - I would fight for that right for you. If this truly is blocked by families, then a great injustice is being done.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The major benefit that a heterosexual couple gives society is the possibility of having children. As was pointed out, there is no guarantee of a couple having children. However, there is a reasonable expectation that, if a heterosexual couple gets married, they may at some point have children. Short of the government testing every couple for fertility prior to marriage, there is no way to determine the likelihood of them having children. Even sterile couple can conceive using artificial means within their couple.

Right here, you whittle away a moral argument with a practical one. I'll challenge your viewpoint with yet another sci-fi thought experiment:

Imagine a future world where fertility tests were so cheap and easy, they could happen instantaneously and for practically no cost. If marriage's purpose really were to grant a special status on child rearers, and that the impossibility of having bilogical offspring was enough justification to deny others of that special status, then you would encourage fertility tests on prospective married couples as a pre-condition of getting their licence. This would be similar to how some states require blood tests.

If you would not endorse this step, I cannot see how you can be opposed to gay marriage. You would be descriminating between a same-sex couple who is incapable of having children and a hererosexual couple who is incapable of having children.

And what happens if technology develops to the point that it allows same-sex couples to have children? Or of same-sex couples (more easily imagined today as female) who want to have a child with the help of a donor?

Absent moralistic discrimination, these couples fulfill the economic function you want from marriage.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: davestar
One example. Hope you enjoy.
Ah, what's the title of the article? "Pope Calls Gay Marriage Part of 'Ideology of Evil'"

Let me know when you find one example of the pope speaking out against homosexuals. Homosexual marriage != homosexuals.

Aidan, if you truly believe that rights are granted by society for its members, then you have absolutely ZERO argument for homosexual marriage. Society has seen fit to NOT let you marry, so that should be the end of it. You can try to convince them otherwise, of course, but calling them bigots is completely bassackwards, given your own statements. In fact, if you really believe this, then YOU are the bigot for arguing against society. In short, from this perspective, you don't have a leg to stand on at all.

The pope calling "Gay Marriage" evil is just as bad as those who go around ranting that those agaisnt gay marriage are bigots, which they are it's a rather rude way of explaining your stance.

The major benefit that a heterosexual couple gives society is the possibility of having children. As was pointed out, there is no guarantee of a couple having children. However, there is a reasonable expectation that, if a heterosexual couple gets married, they may at some point have children. Short of the government testing every couple for fertility prior to marriage, there is no way to determine the likelihood of them having children. Even sterile couple can conceive using artificial means within their couple.

It's a major benifit to the goverment! You don't have to get married to have kids, though it's a good idea. We should have NEVER used the term "marriage" we should have used "civil union". As that what is really is.

People DO NOT get married to pro-create or to benifit the goverment. People get married beacuse they LOVE each other.

Gays just want the same LEGAL rights as homosexsual. I don't see anything wrong with that.
 

davestar

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2001
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
First, as I mentioned in this thread (or maybe another one?), I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. But, since the government already has its hand in the cookie jar, the problem arises all the same. If marriage is a contract, by which government grants the couple rights, what does government (or society) get in return?

agreed on this point.

Now, the question is: WHY is this something the government confers benefits for? Production of future taxpayers is the most obvious reason.

ok, treating this as your thesis, it makes no sense that you DON'T support gay marriage. a child will certainly become a much more productive and lucrative taxpayer if raised in a stable and supportive household. would you (would society?) rather see a kid grow up on the street or with two moms? if you don't want to ban sterile couples from marrying because they can use artificial means to conceive, then why ban fertile homosexual women from marrying, where either partner could carry a child?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Right here, you whittle away a moral argument with a practical one. I'll challenge your viewpoint with yet another sci-fi thought experiment:

Imagine a future world where fertility tests were so cheap and easy, they could happen instantaneously and for practically no cost. If marriage's purpose really were to grant a special status on child rearers, and that the impossibility of having bilogical offspring was enough justification to deny others of that special status, then you would encourage fertility tests on prospective married couples as a pre-condition of getting their licence. This would be similar to how some states require blood tests.

If you would not endorse this step, I cannot see how you can be opposed to gay marriage. You would be descriminating between a same-sex couple who is incapable of having children and a hererosexual couple who is incapable of having children.

And what happens if technology develops to the point that it allows same-sex couples to have children? Or of same-sex couples (more easily imagined today as female) who want to have a child with the help of a donor?

Absent moralistic discrimination, these couples fulfill the economic function you want from marriage.
I would endorse this. I'm not sure that any state requires a blood test prior to marriage at this point, as I would think the USSC would readily rule this against the right to privacy. This would probably happen to the instant fertility test as well.

If same sex couples can have children, then they can get married. My only purpose in making this argument is to demonstrate that there needs to be some motivating factor for society to confer benefits on the married couple as part of the contract, and child-bearing seems like the obvious one (though I can think of others, which I don't have time to go into right now). I don't really see legal marriage as having anything to do with morality, as it is, in its essence, simply a contractual agreement. The moral implications of marriage should be left up to the church the couple marries in, if any.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Blood test states.

Hey, what about polygraph tests regarding a couple's intentions to have children?

What about getting rid of marriage altogether and just create a new legal contract called "spawners?"

You have effectively destroyed your own argument. If you don't ask for fertility tests, but you do ask for the gender of the licencees, then you are discriminating against one kind of infertile couple over another. And as such, the policy should be changed in one way or another.