The Grey Labyrinth is a collection of puzzles, riddles, mind games, paradoxes and other intellectually challenging diversions. Related topics: puzzle games, logic puzzles, lateral thinking puzzles, philosophy, mind benders, brain teasers, word problems, conundrums, 3d puzzles, spatial reasoning, intelligence tests, mathematical diversions, paradoxes, physics problems, reasoning, math, science.

Legal | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Nerdware

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Should gay marriage be called "marriage"?/Ron Paul
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index -> Off-Topic

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:26 pm Post subject: 281

extropalopakettle wrote:

The title of the thread is Should gay marriage be called "marriage"?/some old white guy. Yes, it's about language.

I would argue that if changing the legal meaning of marriage massively influences the religious meaning even among those most stridently resisting the change, that suggests a serious flaw in the religious meaning.

Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:32 pm Post subject: 282

It's true that language is important. The Republicans have done a great job at renaming things to give people the opinions that they (the Republicans) want them to have. For instance, they've stopped calling it an "Inheritance Tax" and started calling it a "Death Tax." I think that the Democrats should insist on referring to it as a "Good-For-Nothing Layabouts being handed a boatload of money that they didn't earn Tax."

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:41 pm Post subject: 283

bgg1996* wrote:

If it's about language, then you must realize that the word used for gay marriage is gay marriage and not civil union for a reason.

There are those who want same-sex unions and husband-wife marriage to be thought of as equal and the same - that's one reason why some want the same word to be used.

Another reason is that we have legal marriage which confers special legal privileges, and non-legal marriage (which may be religious, or whatever people want it to be), and homosexuals want (and should have) the same legal privileges that heterosexuals have.

There are reasons for all sorts of things that have come to be, not all necessarily good.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:42 pm Post subject: 284

Thok* wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

The title of the thread is Should gay marriage be called "marriage"?/some old white guy. Yes, it's about language.

Then do so. I'd like to hear the argument.

I also don't know if the alternative to legal is necessarily religious.

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:58 pm Post subject: 285

Quote:

Then do so. I'd like to hear the argument.

I won't need to provide the argument. Over time, the population of the US will do so (if there is an actual flaw.)

Yes, this is a cop out, but you're asking me to point out a serious flaw in the religious connotation of marriage when I haven't claimed there is one.

(I've only claimed that changing the legal definition of marriage wouldn't affect the religious definition of marriage if the religious definition of marriage isn't flawed. I personally don't care if individual churches have their own rules about who is allowed to marry who, as long as everybody always has the default option of being married by a justice of the peace.)

extropalopakettle wrote:

I also don't know if the alternative to legal is necessarily religious.

What are you trying to protect if not the ceremony connected to various churches? It's not the actual act of living together under one roof: that doesn't obviously need any sort of ceremony to validate it. We've agreed it's not the legal validation and the rights that come with it, since you're OK with changing those as long as they're part of something called a civil union. So the only thing left is the validation as recognized by a non-governmental authority, and the only one that is relevant are the various churches.

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:09 pm Post subject: 286

Thok* wrote:

Quote:

Then do so. I'd like to hear the argument.

I think he only asked you to make the argument you offered to make. I'd also like to hear the argument that you "would argue".
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:14 pm Post subject: 287

Thok* wrote:

... but you're asking me to point out a serious flaw in the religious connotation of marriage when I haven't claimed there is one.

No, I said I'd like to hear the argument you said you would argue. Nothing more or less.

Thok* wrote:

( ...I personally don't care if individual churches have their own rules about who is allowed to marry who, as long as everybody always has the default option of being married by a justice of the peace.)

And if justice of the peace is government, they should stay out of marriage. You can be married by your next door neighbor or the clerk at the local Kwik-E-Mart as far as I'm concerned, but keep government out of it.

extropalopakettle wrote:

I also don't know if the alternative to legal is necessarily religious.

Thok* wrote:

What are you trying to protect if not the ceremony connected to various churches?

Whatever people believe marriage is.

Thok* wrote:

It's not the actual act of living together under one roof: that doesn't obviously need any sort of ceremony to validate it.

I don't know that a marriage needs a ceremony.

Thok* wrote:

So the only thing left is the validation as recognized by a non-governmental authority, and the only one that is relevant are the various churches.

Again, a couple can be married by their pet canary. Whether people accept it as a marriage or not is up to them. Let it not be defined by government.

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:54 pm Post subject: 288

extropalopakettle wrote:

Whatever people believe marriage is.

The argument that I would make then, is that there's no a priori reason that marriage has a static definition, and the rights and benefits and cultural meaning behind marriage will change as the society feels it it appropriate. Arguing for a static definition implies that you don't trust society to make future decisions in their own interest (or that you have such a limited view of individual free will that the government can subvert it trivially.)
--------------------------
Also, I'd argue that as long as marriage involves people merging their property rights together (and potentially wrangling through those property rights apart) then the government will be involved with the process of handling that merging and splitting of property rights as an arbitrator of last resort. And that official government recognition of marriage helps them defend other useful rights (shared insurance from work and hospital visitation rights being the big ones.)

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:18 am Post subject: 289

Thok* wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Whatever people believe marriage is.

I agree, but 'static' isn't really the issue. A government definition of "marriage" will always be more static than the people's, and I'm arguing for the people's, not for a static definition.

Quote:

Arguing for a static definition implies that you don't trust society to make future decisions in their own interest (or that you have such a limited view of individual free will that the government can subvert it trivially.)

This is "what, you don't think people are good enough to stand up to government thought control?", to which my answer is "who cares, but why put them to the test?"

Quote:

Also, I'd argue that as long as marriage involves people merging their property rights together (and potentially wrangling through those property rights apart) then the government will be involved with the process of handling that merging and splitting of property rights as an arbitrator of last resort.

Let them arbitrate civil unions, and nothing else. People can have both.

Quote:

And that official government recognition of marriage helps them defend other useful rights (shared insurance from work and hospital visitation rights being the big ones.)

Again, all that stuff for civil unions.

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:36 am Post subject: 290

extropalopakettle wrote:

I'm arguing for the people's

I'd argue that you aren't. First, the biological arguments you've mentioned earlier suggest you believe in some sort of static solution influenced by biology. Secondly, gallup polls indicate that starting this year there's a majority in favor of gay marriage and in any case the percentage who support gay marriage has been rapidly increasing.

Quote:

This is "what, you don't think people are good enough to stand up to government thought control?", to which my answer is "who cares, but why put them to the test?"

No, this is "I don't see random laws as being thought control by themselves." Propaganda, suppression and imprisonment of dissenters, and censorship are examples of government thought control. This is just a law.

Quote:

Let them arbitrate civil unions, and nothing else. People can have both.

Let them arbitrate the legal rights and nothing else. People can have both.

Alternatively, I want to know what you think goes into marriage other than the legal rights. (I've already said that the other part in my mind is the religious confirmation.)

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:30 am Post subject: 291

Thok* wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

I'm arguing for the people's

I'd argue that you aren't. First, the biological arguments you've mentioned earlier suggest you believe in some sort of static solution influenced by biology.

No, the biological arguments simply argue for a factual basis (i.e. not homophobia/bigotry) to the belief that there is a significant enough difference between husband and wife marriage and other arrangements.

Thok* wrote:

Secondly, gallup polls indicate that starting this year there's a majority in favor of gay marriage and in any case the percentage who support gay marriage has been rapidly increasing.

1) It isn't necessarily a simple majority rule issue.

2) I'm fairly certain these polls are conflating support for equal treatment under the law with the question of "is it marriage?".

Thok* wrote:

It is "just a law" which would redefine a common word which has a great deal of significance in the collective consciousness of the people.

Thok* wrote:

Let them arbitrate the legal rights and nothing else.

That's what I'm saying, but in order to do so, they presumably need to give this legal thing a name.

Thok* wrote:

Alternatively, I want to know what you think goes into marriage other than the legal rights. (I've already said that the other part in my mind is the religious confirmation.)

What I personally think is irrelevant, so I'm not going to do the soul-searching for a precise definition right now, but I know it entails a commitment between a man and a woman to spend the rest of their lives together, loving and supporting each other. I also don't think the legal privileges or legal recognition are a part of marriage at all, and I believe atheists can be married.

Scurra
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:20 am Post subject: 292

extropalopakettle wrote:

What I personally think is irrelevant, so I'm not going to do the soul-searching for a precise definition right now,

With respect*, why the hell have we been having this whole pointless discussion then? Revenge most foul!

*meaning "with no respect whatsoever" (see Yes Minister)

I appreciate that one part of your argument is that because you think that evolution is the sole driver of human relationships, it doesn't matter what you think because evolution is the explanation for everything and therefore there can be no argument to be made from e.g. homophobia. I don't have any particular problem with you taking that view, but it will make me far less likely to pay any attention to any other view you express on any other subject, since if everything is down to evolution we just have to live with it. My position is that what makes us different to animals is that we don't have to live with it.

(Incidentally, the idea that this isn't a "simply majority rule issue" is a very dangerous line to walk. Anyone who says that is actually demonstrating their bigotry because they are saying "what I think is obviously correct". It doesn't actually matter if they are indeed obviously correct, they are still being a bigot.)
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.

New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:46 am Post subject: 293

extropalopakettle wrote:

I have a relative who is clearly in a relationship that entails a commitment between a man and a woman to spend the rest of their lives together, loving and supporting each other (the two of them have been living together for 30 years or so.) He also isn't married to the woman in question and likely never will be. I suspect that arrangement isn't particularly uncommon (although I don't have statistics for it.)

As I said before, simply living together in a committed relationship for a long time isn't marriage. Marriage includes some desire to get some additional validation from some sort of authority.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:08 pm Post subject: 294

Scurra wrote:

I appreciate that one part of your argument is that because you think that evolution is the sole driver of human relationships, it doesn't matter what you think because evolution is the explanation for everything and therefore there can be no argument to be made from e.g. homophobia. I don't have any particular problem with you taking that view, ...

Since I'm not getting what you're trying to say, I can't say for sure, but I have doubts that that (what you're intending to say) is my view.

Scurra wrote:

... but it will make me far less likely to pay any attention to any other view you express on any other subject, ...

(... first they ignore you ...)

Scurra wrote:

...since if everything is down to evolution we just have to live with it.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but I think it employs some sort of ad hominem fallacy (the use of "you" makes me suspect this).

Scurra wrote:

My position is that what makes us different to animals is that we don't have to live with it.

What does that mean? The discussion from evolution in this topic was about the relative qualities of different kinds of sex. Sex involves anatomy, and to a great extent we have to live with anatomy. Even the emotional and mental aspects of a relationship and life are highly dependent on the physical brain. We are animals of a particular kind, and there is obviously a great deal about what we are that we have to live with.

Can you tell me what we don't have to live with that's relevant to this discussion?

Scurra wrote:

(Incidentally, the idea that this isn't a "simply majority rule issue" is a very dangerous line to walk. Anyone who says that is actually demonstrating their bigotry because they are saying "what I think is obviously correct". It doesn't actually matter if they are indeed obviously correct, they are still being a bigot.)

That's absurd. Suppose atheists were a small minority, theists are a large majority, and that I am a theist. Would I be a bigot to say government should not take a stand against atheism?

But anyway, the polls don't say what you suggest they say. They give people two choices:
1) deny same-sex couples the legal privileges granted to man-woman couples
2) affirm that a same-sex union deserves to be called "marriage"

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:23 pm Post subject: 295

Thok* wrote:

If they should choose to call themselves married, I'd accept that they are.

Thok* wrote:

As I said before, simply living together in a committed relationship for a long time isn't marriage. Marriage includes some desire to get some additional validation from some sort of authority.

You asked what I think goes into a marriage, and I don't think validation, or the desire for validation, from any authority is necessary.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:37 pm Post subject: 296

Scurra wrote:

My position is that what makes us different to animals is that we don't have to live with it.

What do you think about homosexual conversion therapy? Can happy homosexuals be converted to happy heterosexuals through therapy if they are willing? Or is sexual orientation something we have to live with?

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:46 pm Post subject: 297

extropalopakettle wrote:

If they should choose to call themselves married, I'd accept that they are.

I think they would be insulted by the implication that they are married, since they've specifically chosen not to be all these years. My point is that there are people who are currently in a "commitment between a man and a woman to spend the rest of their lives together, loving and supporting each other" and don't view themselves as married, which suggests a flaw in your definition even before the gay-straight issue comes up.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:58 pm Post subject: 298

Thok* wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

If they should choose to call themselves married, I'd accept that they are.

I think they would be insulted by the implication that they are married, since they've specifically chosen not to be all these years.

Or at least they chose not to call themselves that.

Quote:

My point is that there are people who are currently in a "commitment between a man and a woman to spend the rest of their lives together, loving and supporting each other" and don't view themselves as married, which suggests a flaw in your definition even before the gay-straight issue comes up.

No, I said "A entails B", and you're working from "B entails A"

(A being "marriage", B being "commitment between a man and a woman to spend the rest of their lives together, loving and supporting each other")

Also, maybe I misunderstood this:

Quote:

I want to know what you think goes into marriage other than the legal rights.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:06 pm Post subject: 299

BTW, common law marriage may be relevant here as an example. This is just legalese.

Quote:

a common law marriage is not created when two people simply live together for a certain number of years. In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:

live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and
intend to be married.

Your friends don't "hold themselves out as a married couple". I said if they did ("if they should choose to call themselves married"), I'd accept that they are.

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:31 pm Post subject: 300

extropalopakettle wrote:

No, I said "A entails B", and you're working from "B entails A"

When you give a definition, you are trying for "A equals B". That's the point of a definition.

And since this discussion seems to be fundamentally about what the definition of marriage should be, a definition that doesn't lead to a situation where "A equals B" isn't acceptable. And I've clearly shown that what you've given for B isn't enough in the eyes of some of the people who are actually in committed relationships.

Basically, there's no point wasting time on a partial definition.

Quote:

Also, maybe I misunderstood this:

Quote:

I want to know what you think goes into marriage other than the legal rights.

Since you've claimed to support a definition of marriage that "reflects what people think it is", it seems disingenuous to then suddenly switch to your own personal opinion of what marriage entails.

Quote:

BTW, common law marriage may be relevant here as an example.

One of the big steps in common law marriage is getting legal validation of a relationship in return for some other benefit.

Which reflects what I've been saying about the definition of marriage all along (that it's not about the relationship, but validation/recognition of that relationship by some authority, typically either the government or a religious organization.)

Scurra
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:52 pm Post subject: 301

extropalopakettle wrote:

What does that mean? The discussion from evolution in this topic was about the relative qualities of different kinds of sex. Sex involves anatomy, and to a great extent we have to live with anatomy. Even the emotional and mental aspects of a relationship and life are highly dependent on the physical brain. We are animals of a particular kind, and there is obviously a great deal about what we are that we have to live with.
Can you tell me what we don't have to live with that's relevant to this discussion?

Um, making judgements about the way other people choose to live together in a relationship? (The whole subject of this thread, after all.) If evolution has driven animals towards reproductive sexual intercourse as a foundation of relationships (and that seems to be the case since it applies to a lot of other species besides our own), then how can making a decision to enter a long-term relationship with someone that is not built upon the primacy of reproductive sexual intercourse be a result of evolution? It must surely be the result of some sort of conscious decision making process, no?

Quote:

Scurra wrote:

That's absurd. Suppose atheists were a small minority, theists are a large majority, and that I am a theist. Would I be a bigot to say government should not take a stand against atheism?

Yes. Because you are expressing your own opinion and presuming that it has moral superiority over other opinions that are not your own. As I said, that's what makes us different from animals - because we can not only hold moral opinions but express them as well.
I am not saying that there are not moral opinions that may be judged to be "better" than others (for instance, it may be true that murdering people is morally suspect, although it is difficult to argue this one when governments do a lot more murdering than any individuals. But again, that's a whole different argument!)

What I am saying is that maintaining that your own moral position is inherently superior to someone else is surely the very definition of bigotry.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.

New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:58 pm Post subject: 302

Quote:

a common law marriage is not created when two people simply live together for a certain number of years. In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:

hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return

You've got a serious chicken and egg problem here. (Not that THAT controversy has any merit. Of course the egg is first.) They can't file a joint tax return unless they are considered married, and you are saying that they aren't considered married until they file a joint return.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject: 303

Thok* wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

No, I said "A entails B", and you're working from "B entails A"

When you give a definition, you are trying for "A equals B". That's the point of a definition.

And when I say the following, it's clear I'm not doing that:

Quote:

... I'm not going to do the soul-searching for a precise definition right now, but I know it entails ...

Thok* wrote:

And since this discussion seems to be fundamentally about what the definition of marriage should be, ...

The discussion is about:
1) one aspect of the definition, should it include same-sex couples or be reserved for husband and wife, and
2) should government be defining it.

Thok* wrote:

Basically, there's no point wasting time on a partial definition.

I cannot precisely define "life" (as in "plants and animals are forms of life"), but I can name certain things I'm sure are not.

Thok* wrote:

Since you've claimed to support a definition of marriage that "reflects what people think it is", ...

You're not quoting me there.

Thok* wrote:

... it seems disingenuous to then suddenly switch to your own personal opinion of what marriage entails.

It's what you asked.

I said I support people deciding for themselves what marriage means without government influence.

Quote:

One of the big steps in common law marriage is getting legal validation of a relationship in return for some other benefit.

If they live together in a loving committed relationship for many years, and call themselves married, they are married. There need be no legal validation. If there should ever be some legal issue depending on whether they were married all those years, the courts (where common law marriage is recognized) will say yes, without any legal or other validation for all those years, they were, all along, married.

Again, I offered that "as an example. This is just legalese", and it was pertaining to your friends, as an example only to suggest that my saying "If they should choose to call themselves married, I'd accept that they are" is not all that unusual.

Quote:

Which reflects what I've been saying about the definition of marriage all along (that it's not about the relationship, but validation/recognition of that relationship by some authority, typically either the government or a religious organization.)

I believe anarchist atheists can get married. A husband and wife are the only ones that need to validate their own marriage. And it's fine if others don't agree with that ... fine if that's inconsistent with their definition of marriage. I'm not suggesting everyone needs to agree, just that government shouldn't be taking a side.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:19 pm Post subject: 304

Zag wrote:

Quote:

a common law marriage is not created when two people simply live together for a certain number of years. In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:

hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return

That was from here: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/common-law-marriage-faq-29086.html (the link was in my post).

Are you saying a man and woman can't file a joint return without a legal registered marriage? I don't know the law that well. I do know when I got married, we put the certificate in a safe deposit box, and it hasn't seen the light of day since. Nobody ever asked us for proof. Not that the IRS doesn't likely have means to check, but what would they do if the marriage was not legally recorded somewhere?

How about this: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch02.html

Quote:

Considered married. You are considered married for the whole year if on the last day of your tax year you and your spouse meet any one of the following tests.
...
You are living together in a common law marriage that is recognized in the state where you now live or in the state where the common law marriage began.
...

OK, it does seem chicken-egg.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:47 pm Post subject: 305

Scurra wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

What does that mean? The discussion from evolution in this topic was about the relative qualities of different kinds of sex. Sex involves anatomy, and to a great extent we have to live with anatomy. Even the emotional and mental aspects of a relationship and life are highly dependent on the physical brain. We are animals of a particular kind, and there is obviously a great deal about what we are that we have to live with.
Can you tell me what we don't have to live with that's relevant to this discussion?

Um, making judgements about the way other people choose to live together in a relationship? (The whole subject of this thread, after all.)

Making judgements based on facts and higher reasoning is one of the things that sets us apart from other animals, but yes, I agree, we can choose not to do such a thing. I don't see what you're driving at though.

Scurra wrote:

If evolution has driven animals towards reproductive sexual intercourse as a foundation of relationships (and that seems to be the case since it applies to a lot of other species besides our own), then how can making a decision to enter a long-term relationship with someone that is not built upon the primacy of reproductive sexual intercourse be a result of evolution? It must surely be the result of some sort of conscious decision making process, no?

1) You're saying homosexual orientation is a choice???

2) The whole sickle cell anemia thing - evolution sometimes produces disorders, selectively disadvantageous traits, inferior qualities. These traits are not selected for, but are an accidental byproduct of something else that is selected for.

Scurra wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Suppose atheists were a small minority, theists are a large majority, and that I am a theist. Would I be a bigot to say government should not take a stand against atheism?

Yes. Because you are expressing your own opinion and presuming that it has moral superiority over other opinions that are not your own.

I'm really not seeing how me saying "government should not take a stand against atheism", which I see as supportive of people who believe differently than I do (I'm a theist), presumes my moral superiority.

Scurra wrote:

I am not saying that there are not moral opinions that may be judged to be "better" than others ... What I am saying is that maintaining that your own moral position is inherently superior to someone else is surely the very definition of bigotry.

And in the context of this discussion, what would be an example of "maintaining that your own moral position is inherently superior to someone else"? Calling people bigots sure as hell seems like it would fit. Anything else though?

thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: 306

extropalopakettle wrote:

If there should ever be some legal issue depending on whether they were married all those years, the courts (where common law marriage is recognized) will say yes, without any legal or other validation for all those years, they were, all along, married.

The courts (aka the government) is providing the legal validation for the common law marriage in this case. It's retroactive validation, but it's still validation.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:42 pm Post subject: 307

thok* wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

The courts (aka the government) is providing the legal validation for the common law marriage in this case. It's retroactive validation, but it's still validation.

But the marriage was a marriage without the validation, and would be a marriage if it never went before the courts. They're not any more married after the validation than before.

In any case, I'm just citing another opinion - the government's. I don't consider it to carry weight.

Scurra
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:54 pm Post subject: 308

extropalopakettle wrote:

1) You're saying homosexual orientation is a choice???

No, I'm saying that "making a decision to enter a long-term relationship with someone that is not built upon the primacy of reproductive sexual intercourse" is a choice. Where does "homosexual orientation" come into that?

Quote:

Well it does, yes. But given that I had already basically called myself one earlier in the thread for exactly the same reason, I'm not sure what your point is. Because that's what we all do, all the time - we make judgements about people based on our own moral positions. You have consistently maintained the superiority of heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse over all other forms of sexual intercourse, because evolution has "made" us this way ¹ . That's a moral position (albeit one that is derived from a scientific rather than philosophical basis. Although, to invoke Godwin, that was one of the justifications the Nazis used. Extreme Delectation

)
And you are asserting your particular moral position (that because evolution has - allegedly - made heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse inherently better it deserves a special status) is indeed superior to any other position.
Have I wildly misrepresented your position here?

Quote:

Because I misunderstood your intent. I read the sentence as asking the government to take a stand against people who believe differently. Upon reading your response, I can see that you meant it the other way. For which I apologise. Although I still think my argument as to the definition of bigotry still stands.

I have to admit that I am not sure how we ended up in this position at all. It appears that we only really differ in terms of degree on the basic issues. But then again, maybe that's why it gets so heated - only people who agree can really get that angry!

^1. Yes, OK, that was a cheap shot. But it's not wildly inaccurate, is it?

P.S. I missed this one in the middle of the last exchange.

Quote:

One of my favourite jokes: God created us with seven genders, but for a laugh told us there were only two.
It seems clear to me that there is a whole spectrum of sexual attraction and that's just in the 2 dimensional space that runs from "purely homosexual" to "purely heterosexual". We don't just magically fit at one end or the other, but it is convenient to maintain this fiction. And I am also not at all sure whether an individual remains fixed in one "sexual orientation" for all their life, or even if that is a meaningful term for everybody. It sounds as though I am dodging the question, but in the end I think it's the same basic argument. Everybody is different but we live in a rather modular world in which we expect people to fit into nicely defined boxes. And then get surprised when they don't.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.

New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:07 pm Post subject: 309

Scurra wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

1) You're saying homosexual orientation is a choice???

OK, pardon my confusion, but this "long-term relationship with someone that is not built upon the primacy of reproductive sexual intercourse" ... What kind of relationship is this? Is there sexual attraction involved? Are the two persons of the same sex, or man and woman? Is the relationship in any way like a marriage, such as to be relevant to the "is it marriage?" question? (because I think we can eliminate relationships that are in no way like a marriage from that question).

Scurra wrote:

Quote:

I think it would avoid a lot of confusion if you said "everyone's a bigot, all positions stem from bigotry", because most people have a narrower definition of bigotry in mind, and when someone says "he's a bigot" or "that's bigotry", most people read that as "more bigoted than something else", rather than "bigoted like everything".

Scurra wrote:

You have consistently maintained the superiority of heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse over all other forms of sexual intercourse, because evolution has "made" us this way (Yes, OK, that was a cheap shot. But it's not wildly inaccurate, is it?). That's a moral position ...

Not a cheap shot, entirely accurate, but it isn't a moral position at all. When I say the red blood cells of someone with sickle cell anemia have an inferior capacity to carry oxygen, is that a moral position? Is that bigoted?

Scurra wrote:

And you are asserting your particular moral position (that because evolution has - allegedly - made heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse inherently better it deserves a special status) is indeed superior to any other position.

This is really getting silly. It isn't a moral position at all, and I'm not saying it is RIGHT (a superior position) that the term "marriage" be reserved to heterosexual pairs, but only that the people, and not government, should decide. There is no moral superiority in saying "this thing means a lot to me, and I'd like it not to be confused with other different things, so let's have a word for it that distinguishes it from those other things". From what you're saying, anyone who speaks, or supports speaking, a language with more than one word is bigoted (unless maybe all the words mean the same thing).

Scurra wrote:

Have I wildly misrepresented your position here?

"asserting your moral position is superior to any other position" is a very wild misrepresentation on many counts.

OK, I do assert that positions based on factual knowledge and valid reasoning are superior to positions based on make believe, and/or mistaken facts and/or invalid reasoning. There's an assertion there of some positions being superior to others. From that I sometimes say "you're wrong", and I say why. It isn't bigotry to say 2 is a better answer than 3 to the question "what is 1 plus 1?".

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:24 pm Post subject: 310

extropalopakettle wrote:

OK, pardon my confusion, but this "long-term relationship with someone that is not built upon the primacy of reproductive sexual intercourse" ... What kind of relationship is this?

Obviously, it's a "commitment between" two consenting adults "to spend the rest of their lives together, loving and supporting each other." That doesn't seem to require reproductive sexual intercourse.

Quailman
His Postmajesty

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject: 311

I know several childless heterosexual couples. They planned when they committed to each other to not spawn. I respect and even envy their choices. Would this not qualify as a marriage since it is "not built upon the primacy of reproductive sexual intercourse"? They may have normal intercourse with precautions, but I don't know.

bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:33 pm Post subject: 312

Marriage is a 2 syllable word. Civil Union is 4 syllables. Civil Union has no past tense. Civil Union is ambiguous. That's why we call it marriage. _________________ The one member below 18

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:40 pm Post subject: 313

Thok* wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

OK, pardon my confusion, but this "long-term relationship with someone that is not built upon the primacy of reproductive sexual intercourse" ... What kind of relationship is this?

Is there sex involved, like there typically is in a marriage?

I feel like I'm playing 20 questions, and by the time I guess the answer, I'll have forgotten if you were trying to make a point.

Quailman wrote:

I know several childless heterosexual couples. They planned when they committed to each other to not spawn. I respect and even envy their choices. Would this not qualify as a marriage since it is "not built upon the primacy of reproductive sexual intercourse"? They may have normal intercourse with precautions, but I don't know.

I never suggested reproduction, nor "reproductive sexual intercourse", is a necessary ingredient to marriage.

Quailman
His Postmajesty

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:41 pm Post subject: 314

I thought it was someone else, but I haven't kept up with every entry.

Scurra
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:22 pm Post subject: 315

extropalopakettle wrote:

Well, I don't know. Are you proposing to deny certain legal status to those people? After all, it's not that similar things haven't happened in the past. We did eventually get around to conceding that, e.g. women should be allowed to vote. (Heck, even Saudi Arabia has got around that... almost!)

Quote:

OK, I do assert that positions based on factual knowledge and valid reasoning are superior to positions based on make believe, and/or mistaken facts and/or invalid reasoning. There's an assertion there of some positions being superior to others. From that I sometimes say "you're wrong", and I say why. It isn't bigotry to say 2 is a better answer than 3 to the question "what is 1 plus 1?".

And I haven't completely disagreed with you over this, other than to wonder if you think that philosophy is meaningless - on the basis of this answer, it sounds as though you do. However, I would give the same answer to the one I gave above. Are you proposing to deny legal rights to people who say that 1+1=3?
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.

New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:51 pm Post subject: 316

Scurra wrote:

Are you proposing to deny certain legal status to those people?

I've been very clear on that: No. I'm proposing that no legal status be called "marriage".

Scurra wrote:

Quote:

And I haven't completely disagreed with you over this, other than to wonder if you think that philosophy is meaningless - on the basis of this answer, it sounds as though you do.

More astonishment. Just what is philosophy? To me it has a lot more to do with valid reasoning than fantasy and invalid reasoning. How do you conclude that philosophy is meaningless to me?

Scurra wrote:

Are you proposing to deny legal rights to people who say that 1+1=3?

I never remotely proposed denying anyone rights or equal treatment under the law, and in fact asserted many times, I believe, and assert it again with all the bigotry I can muster, that all should be treated equally under the law.

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:53 am Post subject: 317

Scurra wrote:

Are you proposing to deny legal rights to people who say that 1+1=3?

I wouldn't. But I'd be glad to make two interest free $1,000 loans to that person.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:14 am Post subject: 318

Settled at last! _________________ All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:59 am Post subject: 319

extropalopakettle wrote:

I'm assuming you understand the argument, which you clearly do not.

I actually understand it very well, and have worked through variants and refinements and continuations, and all of them fail at several points:

1) Heuristics like "evolution should select for heterosexual pleasure, but not homosexual" are ridiculously simplistic with regard to the insanely chaotic complexity of how evolution really works. It has about as much predictive power as "Evolution should select for quiet nestlings, so they don't attract predators." Seems reasonable on the surface, but actually has no argumentative power whatsoever, because it is too simple. Also, we know both are incorrect, because reality reveals to us that baby birds do chirp, and homosexuals do enjoy sex.

2) Even if your argument from evolution had merit, and the conclusion "the penis is designed to fit in a vagina" was adequate description for how evolution works, it would still be irrelevant, because the hardware actually functions in the same way whether the vagina is there or not. Many men with coitus as an option deliberately choose anal and/or oral sex instead. They still orgasm. The pleasure is still had.

3) Even if the untruth that coitus was inherently more pleasureable than any other sexual act were granted, you have still failed to provide any justification for the idea that somewhat unequal pleasure makes for a fundamentally different character of relationship. This contention is badly poisoned by the fact that even among relationships that you would call marriages, the sexual pleasure varies considerably. Your argument concludes that couples that have sex daily are more profoundly married than those who have sex every other day, who are themselved more profoundly married than those who have sex weekly, or who are for various physical reasons incapable of sex. Your argument concludes that circumsised men cannot be married, because they cannot feel the "evolutionarily designed" amount of pleasure they are supposed to feel. Several people have asked questions aimed at this point, and you ignore them.

4) You have refused to touch the question of female-female relationships. Nothing you've said even begins to apply to that question. But they are still same-sex marriages, and you've made your position that they cannot be married quite clear, despite not even having your sketchy evolution argument to back it up.

Re: "Intention":
I've answered you several times, with the same answer. When you told me you meant intended to mean something other than intent, I accepted that and moved on. There is no need for us to waste 5 paragraphs every post because you feel hard done by.

extropalopakettle wrote:

I'm gonna use wikipedia ... some will always cry foul, but I'll back it up with other sources if you do.

It's funny to me that you have other, presumably more authoritative sources prepared, but you chose to go with Wikipedia anyway. *shrugs* I am not crying foul, but I find it worthwhile to point out that laying rhetorical groundwork to support a later "see, I knew you would cry about this" is pretty suspect.

Wikipedia wrote:

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency).

Natural selection "acts" on the phenotype in exactly the way it "acts" on an individual, which is to say that individuals with particular phenotypes breed more or less effectively. But the evolutionary results are on the genotype. The change effected by the selection is on the frequency of genes. This quotation agrees with me.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Regarding "but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common", the article goes on to point out an example where there can be a limiting factor to that:

Quote:

Finally, a number of forms of balancing selection exist, which do not result in fixation, but maintain an allele at intermediate frequencies in a population.

First, I note that instead of just building your comments from the quotation, you have injected your own "basis of any phenotype that give a reproductive advantage" language. The section you quote from does not mention phenotypes, and your "explanatory" addition to colour the reading is bogus.

Second, the section you quote from talks about allele frequencies and favoring genotypes, because selection is about genes. This is exactly what I have been saying, and you have been disagreeing with. That you are using this quotation as a bridge to sickle-cell does not mean you have dealt with the ways in which your quotes disagree with your position.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Your claim (further below) that:

casinopete wrote:

Sickle-cell anemia is not selectively disadvantageous, because selection doesn't operate on trait level.

... is patently false on both counts, and it isn't just a matter of phrasing, but an irreperable logical flaw in your argument.

It may be incorrect on one count, and if so, it is exactly a matter of phrasing. When I've said advangeous and disadvantageous, I meant them holistically. Genotypes are successful or unsuccessful depending on whether they are advantageous or disadvantageous. That there are separate "partial pressures" of advantage and disadvantage in various phenotypes that the genes can express is irrelevant to the evolutionarily important final sum of how advantageous a gene is. If you want to use them in this partial advantage sense, we can do that. It may even be the historically standard way to use them*; I'm not sure. For the sake of conversation, I will henceforth try to adopt your terminology.

But please, please describe the irreparable logical flaw in my argument which isn't a matter of phrasing. It's such a tease to say it's there and then not bother describing it at all.

extropalopakettle wrote:

The second sentence is also patently false. We can measure what percentage of individuals have which phenotypic traits, and we can, in a number of ways, accurately determine the relative selective advantage of those phenotypic traits.

You can measure individuals with a phenotype, but it is not evolutionarily significant information, because it is the frequency of genotypes that matters. The quotations you are using from wikipedia actually say exactly this. Evolution is about allele frequency, not trait frequency.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Individuals with sickle cell anemia, like individuals with homosexual orientation, are less likely to reproduce (fact). Both of these phenotypic traits are a selective disadvantage, in that both result in an inferior potential to perform a particular function, leading to decreased likelihood of passing on ones genes.

Ah ah ah. Hold on a sec. "Less likely to reproduce" is probably a fact. "Decreased likelihood of passing on one's genes" is missing the point. There is no need for an individual organism to pass on its genes if relatives pass on their copies. Evolutionarilly, it matters whether the genes get copied, not whether an individual organism has children.

extropalopakettle wrote:

That the genes responsible for these disadvantageous traits have not been bred out of the species in no way contradicts that nature selects against these traits. They are both inferior traits in terms of how they fair against natural selection. And yes, I'm using the word inferior deliberately. I do it to demonstrate it is a reasonable and valid conclusion, and not a prejudice (for whoever may have thought it was, not necessarily you).

Ive also cited the evidence of genetic factors that contribute to both increased fecundity in women and homosexuality in men, again suggesting a mechanism whereby the selectively disadvantageous trait of homosexuality would be maintained at a certain level in the population.

Now that I am using your terminology, yes, we can call those traits disadvantageous, but it doesn't matter, because it is looking at things from the wrong point-of-view, the wrong scale.

extropalopakettle wrote:

It is extremely obvious why there would be strong selective advantage to male-female vaginal sex being pleasurable.

It doesn't matter if it's "obvious". That doesn't make it predictively sound.

extropalopakettle wrote:

There is no discernable reason why male-male sex being pleasurable would confer a selective advantage, i.e. a greater likelihood of passing on ones genes.

You cannot second-guess evolution like this. Male-male sex is pleasurable, unless you argue that all male homosexuals are delusional. This is exactly what I meant about reality demonstrating that your guesses about how evolution must work are simply wrong.

extropalopakettle wrote:

To claim that somehow the trait with no selective advantage (pleasurableness of homosex) would evolve to as great an extent as the trait with a very definite selective advantage (pleasurableness of heterosex) is absurd. The alternative to the absurdity is that it isn't that way - the one is not as pleasurable as the other.

It is absurd to guess to how "great an extent" a trait should evolve.

extropalopakettle wrote:

You haven't expressed the thought anal sex between men is not inferior to vaginal sex between a man and a woman? I apologize for that then.

I haven't. Apology accepted, I guess, though it's plain you don't mean it.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Heterosex is better than homosex because:
1) it confers a great selective advantage in terms of increased likelihood of reproduction (duh!)

When I compare this to the arguments you've been making so far, I cannot find myself reading this as anything other than a claim that anything that results in increased reproduction is inherently more profound. I don't think you mean that. I'll wait to answer until you clarify.

extropalopakettle wrote:

2) anything else advantageous about any genetic variation that makes homosex "better" in whatever sense of "better" you choose is moot if it won't contribute to greater likelihood of that genetic variation being passed on

By whatever measure you choose for "better" or "good", if it doesn't confer increased likelihood of one's genes being passed along, it isn't selected for.

This is more second-guessing of evolution. Your simplifications have no argumentative power. Also, by this argument, homosexuals should get no pleasure out of sex. You keep softening it to "not as much pleasure", but that's not what the argument you make implies. Either you are wrong, or every homosexual is delusional.

extropalopakettle wrote:

I trust it's now clear you're completely wrong there, yes?

It is clear that the terminology we were using is different.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Genes which have an advantage (i.e. they are likely to be propagated and persist in the gene pool) may well produce disease, disorders, selective disadvantages, inferior capacity to perform some function.

Of course. I have been in agreement with this from the start. I was denying your terminology of calling the traits disadvantagous, not that some advantageous genes express disadvantageous traits. Hopefully, my agreeing to your terminology will get us past that.

extropalopakettle wrote:

If we're talking about some relative inferiority of homosexuals - their likelihood of reproducing, the quality of their relationships, whatever, we are not talking about their genes.

Do you even realise how disagreeable it is that you conflate inferior likelihood of reproducing with inferior quality of relationships in this way?

Anyway, if we're talking about an individual homosexual, and his likelihood of reproducing, you are correct, we are not talking about genes. But if we are talking about the evolutionary effect of a lower likelihood of reproducing for homosexuals, then yes, we most certainly are talking about their genes, because the effect is on allele frequency.

extropalopakettle wrote:

It's not just a phrasing mistake to say "selectively advantagious/disadvantageous", which typically means natural selection or nonselection of traits, when one means purely the genes involved.

How can you point out that I'm not using the word in the "typical meaning"* and then say it's not about phrasing in the same sentence? It makes it exactly a phrasing mistake.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Your argument depends on the claim that: If the phenotypic trait homosexual attraction was selectively disadvantageous, it would have been bred out of the species.

Your words, through the lens of my terminology, indicated that the genes were disadvantageous. My answer was that the genes were not disadvantageous. That is a directly pertinant answer. You are simply wrong in your guess at what I must have been saying.

* In hopes of heading off a fruitless discussion about how ignorant my choice of terminology must have been - my choice of the level on which to discuss advantage/disadvantage is straight selfish gene thinking, which is nowadays mainstream evolutionary biology.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:13 am Post subject: 320

The thread is "Should gay marriage be called "marriage"", not "Is homosexuality "advantageous" in evolution?" And homosexuality isn't genetic. _________________ The one member below 18

Display posts from previous: by

	The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index -> Off-Topic	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 8 of 10

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Site Design by Wx3