(July 29, 2015 at 11:43 am)Ace Wrote: That is a good question; am I only a bigot when I don't agree with you? Do I have to always agree with you to not be a bigot? . . . Can I ever say no? . . .If so, then how is that not what you accuse the religious of doing, "you can't force your own beliefs (ideas or views) on other people?

You don't have to agree with anything. But you can't say no to other people about things that don't concern you. It's not about beliefs, ideas, or views). You can think whatever you want about it. So long as you're not harassing anyone or trying to deny them rights that you have. You must feel pretty special to think anyone gives any fucks about your beliefs. We don't. No cares what you believe so long as you're not using your beliefs to restrict someone else's rights.

(August 1, 2015 at 10:16 am)Losty Wrote:

(July 29, 2015 at 11:43 am)Ace Wrote: That is a good question; am I only a bigot when I don't agree with you? Do I have to always agree with you to not be a bigot? . . . Can I ever say no? . . .If so, then how is that not what you accuse the religious of doing, "you can't force your own beliefs (ideas or views) on other people?

You don't have to agree with anything. But you can't say no to other people about things that don't concern you. It's not about beliefs, ideas, or views). You can think whatever you want about it. So long as you're not harassing anyone or trying to deny them rights that you have. You must feel pretty special to think anyone gives any fucks about your beliefs. We don't. No cares what you believe so long as you're not using your beliefs to restrict someone else's rights.

This is right on the money!

(July 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: [color=#cc3399]Wow, Ace. Just wow.

Everything below the line was directed at Animal...not you. Seriously though, if you think the last word gives you the win, you're a child. Whatever helps you sleep,  I guess.

Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)

It is a wasted rhetorical method that only works on those foolish enough to subscribe to sola scriptura (which I do not). After all the bible does not say you cannot eat people, skin them alive, or have sex with dead bodies... So have at it?

Not to mention you (and everyone who makes reference to this quote) are severely misinterpreting it meaning. The quote is taken in terms of the moral standing of the actor and not in regards to the morality of the action. As is commonly said in the Church, "Condemn the Sin not the Sinner". As such while I may say murder is immoral and unethical such that it should be denigrated and legislated against I may not say the murderer is a bad person. So the same may be said with any immoral action; the goal of which is to eliminate the improper conduct, not to eliminate the conductor.

Furthermore if I am to subscribe to the bible argument (which I generally do not and am only discussing because you bring it up.)

"If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 13If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." - Leviticus 20:12-13

So kill the gay and the incestuous but lesbians are cool?

Like I said I have put forth a logical argument in regards to biology (you may not like it, but it is logically sound). Which has not been rebutted. I further await an argument in their favor that is not a fallacy. Which I have yet to hear. So how about we keep religion out? I know many on here only have arguments geared against religion. I would expect as much on an atheist site. However, I would like to say you need to stop depending on religion to define who you are. It is wrong when the theist defines themselves by their adherence to religion and equally wrong when the atheist defines themselves by their opposition to religion. So let's leave religion out of it and stick to the argument at hand or a logical counter argument?

(August 1, 2015 at 10:16 am)Losty Wrote:

(July 29, 2015 at 11:43 am)Ace Wrote: That is a good question; am I only a bigot when I don't agree with you? Do I have to always agree with you to not be a bigot? . . . Can I ever say no? . . .If so, then how is that not what you accuse the religious of doing, "you can't force your own beliefs (ideas or views) on other people?

You don't have to agree with anything. But you can't say no to other people about things that don't concern you. It's not about beliefs, ideas, or views). You can think whatever you want about it. So long as you're not harassing anyone or trying to deny them rights that you have. You must feel pretty special to think anyone gives any fucks about your beliefs. We don't. No cares what you believe so long as you're not using your beliefs to restrict someone else's rights.

I do not think Ace is referring to religious "belief" in their quote.  I think he is referring to a sentiment of correctness in a given course of action where there is insufficient evidence to verify the sentiment is proper or the course is correct. Thus, one believes their sentiment and acts according to it; even though there is no or insufficient proof their sentiment is correct or the subsequent course of action followed because of the sentiment is correct.  For example the idea of equal rights.  

It is very easy to argue equality of rights is incorrect or why it should not be believed as an ideal.  Many great minds have done so including Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Locke, and Neitzche.  It is further observed in human history (and in US history in particular) that we do not consider all persons equally, much less as having equally rights.  You BELIEVE this to be a blemish upon society, but that belief is unfounded when you considered that discriminatory treatment is also why we are more lenient on the infantile and insane; we are more considerate of the protection of women and minorities; and we are inclined to the assistance of the elderly and disabled.  The issue is not discriminatory treatment or inequity of rights.  That is just the catch phrase or characterization being utilized.  

However, if you would like to stick with that I would like to know how it is not a fallacy of False Equivalency?  

Ha ha!!  You are right!!  You CAN think whatever you want about things, but when you decide to act based upon those thoughts the rest of us are affected (you know just like when religious nuts act upon their thoughts).  Thus we may readily say NO to certain conduct and YES to other conduct; especially when that conduct involves "innocence" such as an unwilling victim or children (I take it you are in staunch opposition to same sex adoption or surrogacy, which be definition involves an unwilling person who may be hurt by the conduct in question.)  As such it seems the the question, once again,  is how do we determine the rights given in general as well as in particular to persons or groups.  To which it may be said the more general natural rights may be determined according to adaptability and benefit of biological factors (Biological Teleology); while the more particular civil rights may be determined based on ethical utility (Social Teleology).  

So what are your arguments for their adaptability/biological benefit and ethical utility of same sex orientation and subsequent action?

The point you are missing is that when two actions have the same potential effect, the judgment levied on the actions has to be the same unless you provide additional reasons of different effects that are also worthy of judgement. You have, again, undermined your entire argument by alluding to the use of reducto ad absurdum. The point of such an argument is wholly divorced from the probability of such an action occurring and wholly wedded to showing that a certain attitude or perspective is not appropriate in all instances.

You used reducto ad absurdum to point out one thing, and then I used reducto ad absurdum to point out that your conclusion is true for all cases of sexuality, and so all of humanity is bad by the same token.

You have done everything you can to admit your argument sucks, without simply admitting that it sucks. You are very very close now, and this is going to be the last time I repeat what I have been saying.

So again, what are your arguments for why homosexuality is bad? The only argument you have brought forth so far is an argument that suggests to me that all of humanity is bad. Since we are discussing why we should be more partial to heterosexuals, a conclusion that all forms of sexuality are bad is not a conclusion that adds weight to the argument that we should be more partial to heterosexual groups.

(August 1, 2015 at 10:16 am)Losty Wrote: But you can't say no to other people about things [u]that don't concern you[/u].

If you only react to things that only concern you, by definition does that not make you selfish.  

Selfish: 1. Devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interest, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. "

"Selfishness is blind"-Gandhi

It is wrong to ask others to be just as selfish as you when wanting others to only take action/address things that only concern them.  One, it is common but wrong to assume that you have knowledge of what are concern's of another. Two, one’s level of being selfish may not be the same for another. {You personal have no knowledge what so ever of what my ties to the homosexual community I have. Whether it is personal, professional or mutual.}

(August 1, 2015 at 10:16 am)Losty Wrote: It's not about beliefs, ideas, or views).. . .to think anyone gives any fucks about your beliefs. We don't. No cares what you believe so long as you're not using your beliefs to restrict someone else's rights

I think you misunderstood the team belief in how I was using it.
I am not using belief as in religion but as ideology/sentiment. . "that what you feel/thing/view to be''?

(August 1, 2015 at 10:16 am)Losty Wrote: You can think whatever you want about it. So long as you're not harassing anyone that you have.

I agree, but want is considered harassment? Who decides that? And what if I fell that your post are harassing to me

(August 1, 2015 at 10:16 am)Losty Wrote: or trying to deny them rights

I have not ejected the idea for any one's rights to be taken away. On the contrary I want true equality just as much you, perhaps more. Before the ruling, the restrictions of two people only, non-incest, adult age, of free will and sound of mind to enter into marriage were, and still are today, applied to ALL who marry. Even the restriction of opposite sex only, all marriages had to be heterosexual this to was also marriage applied equally to both heterosexuals, bisexual, , asexual, homosexuals, any and all type of sexual preferences had this requirement placed on them. One self-identifying a sexual preference was never an issue of obstacle to marry.

In fact many bisexuals, trans, hetero, and even homosexuals had agreed to this requirement by engaged in an opposite sex marriage. (Thus, to marry was always present for the homosexual to act upon. Never was it denied them.)

Even now, after the ruling equal rights is still what I articulate for. Now marriage has elevated those who are in this institution to be seen as one of dignity and security with benefits. Creating second-class citizens of all who are not married. This is no different from Civil Unions V. Marriage which was rule unconstitutional because it created a second class citizen (civil unions were not viewed as marriages but something different) and allocated different rights between the two groups.

This discrimination is still present but has now been created between the married and non-married: asexual, heterosexual and homosexuals signals who are also signal parents, or cohabitation parents. Who are not legally classified as a dignified class or granted little to no a benefits. This is classic separate and unequal in legal and social classification as well as financial, insurance or spousal benefits. Yes to this I call discrimination.

(August 1, 2015 at 10:16 am)Losty Wrote: You must feel pretty special

Not at all. But I do know that I live in a democratic nation that gives its citizen's rights, such as the right of free speech. Free speech constitute that which is vertebral, written, expression, and action.

(August 3, 2015 at 11:36 am)Aristocatt Wrote: The point you are missing is that when two actions have the same potential effect, the judgment levied on the actions has to be the same unless you provide additional reasons of different effects that are also worthy of judgement.  You have, again, undermined your entire argument by alluding to the use of reducto ad absurdum.  The point of such an argument is wholly divorced from the probability of such an action occurring and wholly wedded to showing that a certain attitude or perspective is not appropriate in all instances.  

Undermine? How so? The two actions do not have the same effect (as we illustrated and even simplified on your behalf). I made this point already and even showed how your logic to introduce an externaltiy of over-consumption to gain the same effect is logically invalid. Now I see you want to introduce another externality and express probability of application. In this manner the reducto ad absurdum does not fail to make consideration for it simply endeavors to determine the validity of the thing in and of itself or universally. By introducing the probability of application you endeavor to state that while a particular thing is bad in and of itself or even if universally normalized it should still be permitted because probability is minimal it will be normalized to the deleterious universal resulting harm (while forgetting the particular resulting harm, which is still present). I believe RedBeard made a similar argument as:

(August 3, 2015 at 11:36 am)Redbeard Wrote: As for the appeal to popularity, that only applies to ideas that are popular for bad reasons. If the consensus claim is based on little to no evidence, and/or a bad interpretation of that evidence, and/or logical fallacy, then it makes sense to redress that claim and examine it more closely. Those are not the reasons for the consensus claim on homosexuality, though. That consensus claim is generated by experts looking at evidence and finding that homosexuality is ubiquitous throughout both nature and human culture, that it is essentially harmless to the success of any species where it appears, that sexual orientation is set long before choice is a meaningful factor, and that it is generally harmful to force individuals to change or ignore their sexual orientation. In short, the current, secular claims regarding homosexuality are popular for some really, really good reasons.

To which I responded:

(August 3, 2015 at 11:36 am)Anima Wrote: Now you wish to argue it is essentially harmless to any species it appears (which is not to say it is harmless, but more to say it is effectively so while still being harmful). And in this regard you would be right if and only if its presence is not prevalent (the same may be said for pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, and murder. Overall the impacts of these conditions do not present a threat to any species as a whole so long as its presence is not prevalent, so why prohibit them? Are you going to special plead again?) Now throughout nature and cultures the world over the treatment of this particular harmless ubiquity (and the others) is to eliminate it or to at minimum isolate it from doing harm in the given society.

Regrettably the arguments presented by both you and Redbeard are applicable to the aforementioned undesirables (I specifically asked for a solution to that problem to which I received no answer). But the point of our whole logical chain is to determine why the aforementioned undesirable is undesirable. To this end we outlined a method stemming from biology which proceeds from orientation to action to particular resultant to universal resultant. Thus we observe both the particular resultant is bad and the universal is bad in such a manner as to say this orientation is undesirable. (Indeed the orientation has no positive result beyond emotional satisfaction of a desire. Something readily observed as impermissible for a wide array of desires and conduct due to the particular and universal resultants. As we exhibited by supplanting our logic with the subject of murder).

In both cases you and Redbeard do not dispute the undesirability of the nature (which our argument exhibits), but rather endeavor to argue that which is undesirable should be tolerated because it is unlikely the particular harm shall ever be normalized to a universal harm (this would be your probability) or for the sake of the emotions of a minority of a minority of undesirables who feel mental anguish they then manifest as physical harm at being undesired (this would be his harmful to a minority of a minority). Neither case presenting an argument in their favor or giving a reason based on the orientation and action which invariably follows for equalization or sanction with other desirable orientation or conduct.

(August 3, 2015 at 11:36 am)Aristocatt Wrote: You used reducto ad absurdum to point out one thing, and then I used reducto ad absurdum to point out that your conclusion is true for all cases of sexuality, and so all of humanity is bad by the same token.  

Your effort to apply reducto ad absurum is invalid for the very reason I have told you time and again. By means of the improper introduction of an externality in the logical chain (where you introduce either IVF or Over-consumption) you render your conclusion invalid.

2. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (opp sex) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act (over-consumption) -> Universal Result (extinction due to over consumption)

3. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Act IVF (hetero) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act Result (continuation by conception).

Thus you do not proceed from orientation, to action, to particular result, to universal result in keeping with proper logic. Your argument is logically invalid while mine is not. You fail to show hetero orientation is bad. I doubt you ever could as it is essential, while homo is not (it does not take all kinds. It just takes the right kind). Though I do like the effort to argue extinction is a good thing because over-consumption is bad (that is the logical maxim of your argument after all).

(August 3, 2015 at 11:36 am)Aristocatt Wrote: You have done everything you can to admit your argument sucks, without simply admitting that it sucks.  You are very very close now, and this is going to be the last time I repeat what I have been saying.

So again, what are your arguments for why homosexuality is bad?  The only argument you have brought forth so far is an argument that suggests to me that all of humanity is bad.  Since we are discussing why we should be more partial to heterosexuals, a conclusion that all forms of sexuality are bad is not a conclusion that adds weight to the argument that we should be more partial to heterosexual groups.

HA HA. Indeed I am tired of repeating myself as well. But as Joe Biden said before the VP debate with Sarah Palin, "Getting people to understand is like selling tires...You have to say it seven times before they ever remember it and even more times before they finally understand it."

I have in no way admitted my argument sucks nor have I implied as much (which is why I keep referring back to it!! Though I confess you got lost in the forest much quicker than I anticipated). As stated above, you have yet to convert my argument into one where all sexualities are bad. You like to keep saying you did but all you did was make an argument to why over-consumption is bad, which I agree with in part. Over-consumption of necessary resources is bad! However, it is bad regardless of sexual orientation and would be just as bad if done by hetero or homo (I do admire your efforts to argue that nothing is better than something).

Not only are we not arguing over-consumption, it may further be stated population does not have a invariable relationship to over-consumption as illustrated when we pointed out that China has 15x the population of the US and consumes 1/4 the resources (an inverse relationship? Not quite, but definitely an illustration of over-consumption not being a population issue much less a procreation issue and being more of a lifestyle issue). As I stated before, if you wish to introduce an externality that does not logically follow from orientation to act to particular result to universal result it may just as readily be rebuttaled by an externality. So leave the externalities out of the argument as they avail you not and serve only to confuse.

Tell you what, we may now discuss your argument in their favor. What was it again?

This has become futile. Your distinctions from my perspective are arbitrary and pointless. When you appeal to arguments of absurdity, you lose the right to distinguish that one scenario is more likely than the other. Population is a direct cause of consumption there is no way of divorcing one from the other. They represent both inputs of production and inputs of consumption. The examples you are using suggest you don't understand economics.

I don't need an argument in favor to suggest that marriage should be allowed for all groups. The law is supposed to be impartial. The burden of proof is on you.

(July 11, 2015 at 8:44 am)Ace Wrote: I have a question. Why must a relationship be only among the consenting (legal)? We know many young people, even children engage with each other sexually, with some becoming pregnant in the process) but why only legal consenting? True, the issue of maturity can be argued however, many of those who engaged in sex at a young age (such as primary, middle and in high school) would say that it was their full right to do so and feel that it was their right to decide the issue of their own body. Many have no regrets and many want to start having children at a young age, (also forgo any argument to economic because not all have children)

hell, like many have argued sex is the most natural act of humans that  has been done the dawn of our existences, regardless of ones education, race, religion, nation, ect.
Why should such a natural act have any restrictions to it?


is it not natural to become desirable to become another, attracted to another, become aroused?

Why trying to stop or hinder such a natural effect/reaction that individuals just do?

I can see where your coming from, but the issue here is one of protecting young people from predators who take advantage.

(August 3, 2015 at 1:21 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: This has become futile.  Your distinctions from my perspective are arbitrary and pointless.  When you appeal to arguments of absurdity, you lose the right to distinguish that one scenario is more likely than the other.  Population is a direct cause of consumption there is no way of divorcing one from the other.  They represent both inputs of production and inputs of consumption.  The examples you are using suggest you don't understand economics.

I don't need an argument in favor to suggest that marriage should be allowed for all groups.  The law is supposed to be impartial.  The burden of proof is on you.

HA HA. They do represent inputs of production and consumption; supply and demand. Your argument is population is an increase of consumption (demand) only while ignoring its impact on production (supply) which will serve to offset consumption. I gave consideration to your argument by not arguing how population will increase production (supply), but rather in multiple responses regarding financial and physical barriers to entry (allocation of supply) which will occur with scarcity of resources that will curtail population growth (demand reduction) without the need for homosexuality. In short your effort to render my argument void by externality is rendered void by two other externalities of increased production (supply) and capitalistic market forces (allocation of supply and demand reduction). Or do you not understand economics? I happened to agree more with Keynesian economic theory rather than Austrian. Since to me Austrian economic theory devolves into an argument to ignorance.

Oh but you do need an argument in their favor. You see the impartiality of the law is not the same as being uniform or applied evenly to all regardless of any qualities of persons. Impartiality means free of passion or based upon objective criterion. So the law does not care about dignity, companionship, or who you love! That is impartiality; but the law does care if you are infantile or elderly, insane or of sound mind and body, with or without child, a first or repeating offender, married or single, and treats you differently accordingly. Impartiality does not mean it is to be non-discriminatory (as we have argued and exhibited to RoboValue the law can, should, and does discriminate).

So what is your argument in their favor? Or in this regard, like theism, are you only adept at tearing things down?