Beards and Gay Marriage

[Prodigal_Son]

I think as long as there is some correlation between “information” (using the term loosely here) and some set of expressions (gesture, signals, pattern of flag waving, numerical or alphanumeric sequences,…) I think it could be considered a language without being figurative about it . Even the chemical emissions of bacterial have been labeled as language.

But without boundaries, nothing would be indicated. Thus, no language.

Communication requires two people to have roughly the same ideas about the words they use – at the very least, overlapping ideas. (Hence the confusions on this thread).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is your subjective religious view. Surely the whole point of this thread has been about placing objections to same sex marriage on a secular, objective foundation. After all, if you feel justified in forcing homosexuals to live a life of celibacy based on your personal religious views when you are in the majority, why should liberals not force you to actively celebrate gay marriage (even beyond just being willing to sell them cakes) once they are in the majority?

We haven’t forced anyone to live a life of celibacy. They can find a suitable partner of the opposite sex any time they want. I think the government has an interest in supporting and defending heterosexual marriages as opposed to homosexual unions. And why should the resources of a country be used to support " drones. ? "

The health and prosperity of the nation depends on the health and security of the traditional institution of marriage.

Martial, Juvenal and Cicero all refer to same sex marriages in ancient Rome. Cicero even argues that Curio the elder is legally responsible for the debt of his son’s husband, implying legal recognition of these relationships. Two different emperors were allegedly married to other men on three seperate occasions.

Where did you dig that up.

And plenty of other civilisations had same sex marriage of one form or another.

How come we have never heard of them? And why should we take your word?

You do see that men and women were made for each other don’t you? Think of a world of only men or of only women. Wouldn’t have gotten very far, right? And since you reject God and Divine Revelation, why did Evolution think it best to make both men and women and why is it only women who bear children.? I think the case, even from a non-theist point of view, is totally on the side of heterosexual unions. Arguments for homosexual unions are purely emotional and political and their tactics have become similar to those of Sal Alenski.

Linus2nd

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That is your subjective religious view. Surely the whole point of this thread has been about placing objections to same sex marriage on a secular, objective foundation. After all, if you feel justified in forcing homosexuals to live a life of celibacy based on your personal religious views when you are in the majority, why should liberals not force you to actively celebrate gay marriage (even beyond just being willing to sell them cakes) once they are in the majority?

This is a classic straw man. No one here has said that we were going to make gay sex illegal, or make people of the same sex living together in a romantic relationship illegal. No one is forcing anyone to live a life of celibacy.

And no one is forcing any religious views on anyone, either. We’re forcing moral views on people – and that is exactly what law is supposed to do. The only question is: which moral views?

 

[PRmerger]

If there is an ambiguity I ask for clarity. “Are you referring to a circle with a circumference or a circle with 4 sides.”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Stop. Please. Just stop with the nonsense.

I can’t even believe that you are entertaining the possibility of a dialogue as absurd as what you have just posited.

This is just beyond ridiculous.

I am almost speechless that a rational person could write the above as something worthy of consideration

“or a circle with 4 sides.”

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Those interested in defending traditional Marriage should take a look at the Ruth Institute. The president, Dr. Jennifer Roback Mores, was on C.A. radio tonight discussing this very issue.

ruthinstitute.org/

Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I can’t even believe that you are entertaining the possibility of a dialogue as absurd as what you have just posited.

I won’t get into that. There is already another ongoing discussion on whether or not belief is a choice.

.This is just beyond ridiculous.

Possibly. Though you can see how it would provide disambiguation for the redefinition of the circle example that came up in the thread. For those to which it matters the same thing can be done with the evolving meaning of marriage. “Is it a marriage of opposite sexes or a marriage of same sexes.” Contextual cues and qualifiers are also used for some of the other auto-antonymns.

.I am almost speechless that a rational person could write the above as something worthy of consideration

Well I am glad it is only “almost speechless” instead of “speechless.” I look forward to your continued contributions in this thread.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I won’t get into that. There is already another ongoing discussion on whether or not belief is a choice.

Possibly. Though you can see how it would provide disambiguation for the redefinition of the circle example that came up in the thread. For those to which it matters the same thing can be done with the evolving meaning of marriage. “Is it a marriage of opposite sexes or a marriage of same sexes.” Contextual cues and qualifiers are also used for some of the other auto-antonymns.

Well I am glad it is only “almost speechless” instead of “speechless.” I look forward to your continued contributions in this thread.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

Say Thinking, what are you and Taffy going to do after the world becomes Muslim, Hindu, or Communist Chinese? I think that will end homosexual " marriages."

Linus2nd

 

[SplendidSt]

On the one hand, I feel that all three are human social constructs, but I realize that you probably do not feel that about the sacrament.

Well, marriage is pre-Catholic, pre-Jewish, pre-Monotheist. Marriage is not a religious question so I tend not to bring up religion by expounding on the sacrament. Human beings socially construct many things, I don’t see how that statement can be followed by “therefore make way for gay marriage”. If all marriage is pure social construct, what is it exactly that is being constructed? I would like you to expound on that, what actually does marriage mean?

these have, in the past, been referred to as ‘marriage.’ As, for that matter have incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, forced marriages, and underage marriages. And we all know what is meant by ‘marriage’ in these cases. There is no ambiguity or internal contradiction.

Well, if I took your word for it, incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, forced marriages, and underage marriages could either be gay or straight and it really doesn’t matter. With the climate in which you propose marriage, now there is this ambiguity when previously there wasn’t. You also said “in the past have been referred to a s marriages” what do you mean?

can you explain to me if and (if so) why you want to limit the definition of ‘marriage’ to only some of these, as opposed to saying that all of these are ‘marriage’ but that some should not be allowed?

Good question, The definition is limited because it makes logical and historical sense to define it as the conjugal union. It makes perfect sense for human persons and for the government to recognize the union that brings men and women together and connects the child with his/her biological parents for the good of any of the children that may or may not be produced by their relationship. The government is not in the business of handing out romantic lovers certificates, nor is it governing your romantic life or friendships. The government doesn’t recognize your marriage because “aww they love each other and are deeply committed personally to one another”. The government has an interest in making and providing for it’s citizenry.
Marriage makes it easy for the government to stay out of our personal romantic and family lives. If we perpetuate the notion that parents are not mother and father, but merely two people raising a child, the government is by default actively involved in assigning who’s the “real mother” and being actively involved in keeping the child away from his/her biological parents. With “gay marriage” comes the idea that biology has no ground in parenthood either, a parent becomes whomever the government decides is a parent or whomever he or she chooses to be, Motherhood and Fatherhood are merely nominal, ungrounded in biology (very messed up). It is also rather unnecessary to change what marriage is because of some personal romantic need. Benefits for two people living together are possible without going to such great lengths to change an existing definition. There is no convincing benefit of creating an institution called “gay marriage” other than making someone feel personally validated. I really don’t see why gay couples need the government to tell people that they love each other. It has no logical ground at all.

Contrast with sex: there are many things that we accept to be ‘sex’ without approving of them. e.g. rape, child abuse, adultery. Why would anyone define these as not being ‘sex’ rather than explaining why they think they are wrong?

You assume “gay marriage” is in fact marriage. Simple question, what is marriage?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Say Thinking, what are you and Taffy going to do after the world becomes Muslim, Hindu, or Communist Chinese? I think that will end homosexual " marriages."

Linus2nd

Sorry, I am not familiar with the laws in those countries enough to speak on it. I understand the push for the change in the definition of (civil) marriage in terms of 5th amendment rights, property inheritance, and some of the other implications that may or may not be applicable in those worlds.

 

[Stephen168]

Ignored for the very simple reason that it was not answering any question that I had asked.

As the question has yet to be answered.

It has but you ignore it.

 

[Stephen168]

and instead issue licenses….that would give a pair of life partner’s rights such as claims to each other’s property, fifth amendment rights, and tax benefits

The state steps out
and the state steps back in.

It seems to me that in conversations on this subject four different conversations get mixed together.
-What is Marriage?
-What is the governments role (support/discourage/regulate) in marriage?
-Is sodomy moral?
-What is the governments role (support/discourage/regulate) in sodomy?

Usually the conversation is about the second question and is begging the first question. And uses the third to justify their position.

Sorry, I am not familiar with the laws in those countries enough to speak on it. I understand the push for the change in the definition of (civil) marriage in terms of 5th amendment rights, property inheritance, and some of the other implications that may or may not be applicable in those worlds.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Human beings socially construct many things, I don’t see how that statement can be followed by “therefore make way for gay marriage”. If all marriage is pure social construct, what is it exactly that is being constructed?

The packaged granting of property and benefits rights, the right to share personal information without being compelled by law to disclose it, visitation rights for various scenarios, survivor’s benefits, ability to jointly adopt children, tax benefits, access to employee benefits (which can fall in several domains including health, sometimes travel, legal services), access to otherwise confidential data and even some simple things like the ability to go through customs together. Many of these things can only be acquired through civil marriage.

You assume “gay marriage” is in fact marriage. Simple question, what is marriage?

Good question. It has and still does vary over time and geography. Here is a brief browsing of the variances and similarities. youtube.com/watch?v=ZZZ6QB5TSfk

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A great article on this question is here:

Let’s just put this one in the grave, alright? Sexual identity cannot be based on the object of our sexual arousal.

patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2014/05/the-usually-ignored-difference-between-sexual-identity-and-sexual-event.html

 

[PRmerger]

A great article on this question is here:

Ah, gotta love that Marc Barnes.

And now I have another GIF for my repertoire!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting perspective.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A great article on this question is here:

Perhaps I missed it and it went over my head. I can see how this would be relevant to a discussion on some one feeling confused after an experience in band camp, but I’m not quite sure how it’s related to two people of the same gender that are seeking to be legally bound to each other. Could you explain further?

I do have a friend (another Software Engineer) living in New York that lives with another guy that he interacts with sexually. There is also a female that this friend identifies as his girlfriend. This friend states that he can’t be homosexual or bisexual since there’s no such a thing as homo-/bi- sexuality (I’ve got my speculations on why he says this, but I will keep those to myself). From reading the article I get the impression the author might support what this friend has said, but I’m not sure.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Perhaps I missed it and it went over my head. I can see how this would be relevant to a discussion on some one feeling confused after an experience in band camp, but I’m not quite sure how it’s related to two people of the same gender that are seeking to be legally bound to each other. Could you explain further?

I do have a friend (another Software Engineer) living in New York that lives with another guy that he interacts with sexually. There is also a female that this friend identifies as his girlfriend. This friend states that he can’t be homosexual or bisexual since there’s no such a thing as homo-/bi- sexuality (I’ve got my speculations on why he says this, but I will keep those to myself). From reading the article I get the impression the author might support what this friend has said, but I’m not sure.

It comes down to the nature of ‘identity.’ Is one’s identity fixed and unchangeable or is it malleable by choices made?

The assumption behind the idea of ‘same sex orientation’ is a kind of eliminative determinism. You (as intentional agent) are what you have been determined to be by your physiological makeup, therefore you don’t make “choices” concerning your actions, you act according to your makeup.

So how do you discover your “identity?” Well, obviously by what “floats your hormonal boat.” How is that principle known to be true? It isn’t. It is assumed as part of the mythology surrounding same sex orientation. As long as a person who believes themselves to be “same sex attracted” continues to act as if they are, there is no way for any other possibility to take effect.

Thus, the object of attraction becomes either the fixed determiner of identity or proof of the non-existence of identity in any permanent sense:

One could argue, I suppose, for a shifting sexual identity, one that moves between pornosexuality, homosexuality, and so on. Or we could argue that identity is really about a “norm,” not who you are, just what you usually do. Fine, but to give up on permanence is to give up on identity. If identity can be anything, what is the difference between having an identity and not having an identity at all? If identity does not indicate a permanent equality between ourselves and who we are, it is not identity, which says a=1, not a=1 and maybe later 2.

In which case, identity is either non-existent or ineffectual, both of which essentially deny moral agency.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It comes down to the nature of ‘identity.’ Is one’s identity fixed and unchangeable or is it malleable by choices made?

The assumption behind the idea of ‘same sex orientation’ is a kind of eliminative determinism. You (as intentional agent) are what you have been determined to be by your physiological makeup, therefore you don’t make “choices” concerning your actions, you act according to your makeup.

So how do you discover your “identity?” Well, obviously by what “floats your hormonal boat.” How is that principle known to be true? It isn’t. It is assumed as part of the mythology surrounding same sex orientation. As long as a person who believes themselves to be “same sex attracted” continues to act as if they are, there is no way for any other possibility to take effect.

Thus, the object of attraction becomes either the fixed determiner of identity or proof of the non-existence of identity in any permanent sense:

In which case, identity is either non-existent or ineffectual, both of which essentially deny moral agency.

Peter,

Just so you know, there are plenty of people with same-sex attraction that don’t think it is a central part of their identity. They may or may not call themselves “gay”, but it isn’t thought of as some deeply important trait. It can be no more or less important than hair color, for example.

Ironically, both the gay rights movement AND the reaction against that movement reinforce the view that same-sex attraction is some very important fact about a person’s identity.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As long as a person who believes themselves to be “same sex attracted” continues to act as if they are, there is no way for any other possibility to take effect.

So would you suggest a gay person try dating some one of the opposite sex to see if he or she becomes interested? (note: I wonder how the other person would respond to knowing that their date isn’t on an extreme end of the Kinsey scale).

In which case, identity is either non-existent or ineffectual, both of which essentially deny moral agency.
…]

One could argue, I suppose, for a shifting sexual identity, one that moves between pornosexuality, homosexuality, and so on.

I doubt it. First people would need to adopt/accept his semantics and thus far they seem to be unique to that article. It appears the author argues against “identity” being synonymous with a system of classification (which I think is what most people are referring to when talking about “sexual identity”) so I get the feeling he may already be on a different page than others I encounter.

People identify themselves differently in different audiences and scenarios. In these forums “religion” is one of the identifying attributes that many people are using (you can see above I’ve identified myself according to another attribute). In another scenario the same people may identify as a smoker/non smoker, drinker/non-drinker, Cowboys fan, so on. Whether or not some one likes porn is an attribute that is not mutually independent on if a person finds themselves more attracted to males or females and still seems to not be related to gay marriage at all.

 

[frobert]

It comes down to the nature of ‘identity.’ Is one’s identity fixed and unchangeable or is it malleable by choices made?

How about “it depends?” Scientific studies observe both, they also observe numerous variations of sexual activity that are classified as homosexual in nature. See Homosexuality and Pseudohomosexuality by Lionel Ovesey.

The assumption behind the idea of ‘same sex orientation’ is a kind of eliminative determinism. You (as intentional agent) are what you have been determined to be by your physiological makeup, therefore you don’t make “choices” concerning your actions, you act according to your makeup.

So how do you discover your “identity?” Well, obviously by what “floats your hormonal boat.” How is that principle known to be true? It isn’t. It is assumed as part of the mythology surrounding same sex orientation. As long as a person who believes themselves to be “same sex attracted” continues to act as if they are, there is no way for any other possibility to take effect.

You note two assumptions: “eliminative determinism” and “mythology surrounding same sex orientation.” Under one change is not possible under the other it is possible.

There is no doubt that some individuals have changed sexual behaviors or at least been able to switch between them.

How about the many young people who do not know their orientation but find themselves attracted to the SS and want to eliminate those feelings? Under the mythology assumption it should be easy because there is nothing inherent, after all its only hormones, much like masturbation. Unfortunately reality has shown it hasn’t been easy, ask the many who tried through prayer and various therapies. Ask the clergy and therapists who tried to help them overcome SS attractions. Do you honestly believe that the thousands upon thousands of failures to overcome the suffering of SS attraction some feel is due to the inability to dispel a myth?