FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


I want to get married to my 8 yr old daughter....





S3nd K3ys
I should be allowed to marry anyone I want. How dare the government make laws that say otherwise.

(p.s. mods, if this should be in the "Relationships" section, feel free to move it. Wink )

:Edited from the "Hamster" version to show how things change and evolve with only minor acceptance by a small minority of individuals, and in which direction they're going by allowing 'gay' marriage. (Marriage, IMNSHO, being the joining of one man and one woman in order to procreate the species.)

Disclaimer; I have many gay friends and am not being racial, and I have no problem with giving gay couples all the benefits of a marriage, just not the name.
Scorpio
I am not sure about that..

But at the rate you are raving now, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hamster kicked you in the face

Oh yeah!

And Bigamy is illegal in US

Better go to an Arab Country

They dont mind if you marry a pole for all they care
S3nd K3ys
scorpio wrote:
I am not sure about that..

But at the rate you are raving now, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hamster kicked you in the face

Oh yeah!

And Bigamy is illegal in US

Better go to an Arab Country

They dont mind if you marry a pole for all they care



Error 420


Sarcasm Not Found.






You missed the point, as usual. I expect that often here though, so it's OK.

I'll also excuse the lame personal attacks since you obviously are not cogent enough to identify sarcasm when you see it (either that or I'm living Rent Free in your head). Wink
tidruG
Actually, I quite agree with you S3nd.
If you think you're going to have a happy married life with your hamster, then go for it!
However, you will probably need to divorce your first wife.
Also remember that if you happen to have an extra-marital affair outside of your marriage with the hamster, the hamster is entitled to divorce and sue you for damages caused by emotional trauma.
I suppose the hamster may also file a petition for divorce claiming sexual non-gratification? Wink
S3nd K3ys
tidruG wrote:

I suppose the hamster may also file a petition for divorce claiming sexual non-gratification? Wink


OUCH!!



(runs to get cardboard tube and bottle of Co2 to teach the bastard a lesson)
mOrpheuS
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I should be allowed to marry anything I want. How dare the government make laws that say otherwise.

The biggest advantage being the ability to adopt human children as well as baby hamsters !

I completely agree, apart from "physical infeasibility", there should be no stopping this from happening.

You're not harming anyone (including yourself) in any way, why should anyone bother ?
Speaking of which ... rodents, perhaps no. But cattle, definitely yes!
S3nd K3ys
Please re-read the first post and the topic... it changed. Wink
the_mariska
Heh, isn't your wife enough for you as a wife, do you really wish her to become your mother-in-law ? Laughing Laughing Laughing Better think twice before that decision Twisted Evil
tidruG
Let's see. Currently, as per definition of the "family", having sex with your daughter/sister/etc is "incest". Right from our childhood, we're brought up with the idea that not even we must not even entertain the thought of incest of any form.
Yet, it was customary in ancient Rome to marry your sister. If you feel comfortable marrying your daughter, then go for it! If you really would like to marry your daughter (assuming that the wife is still alive), you'd have to divorce your wife, and then marry your daughter.

Then again, you'd have to face the social stigma.

PS: Marriage to your 8 year old daughter is not possible. The legal marriagable age is 18. Having sex with anyone under that is statutory rape.
mOrpheuS
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I want to get married to my 8 yr old daughter....

Two reasons why this is a bad idea:
Age unsuitable for marriage, and
Inbreeding, which leads to genetic defects
Laughing

But on a more serious note :
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I have many gay friends and am not being racial, and I have no problem with giving gay couples all the benefits of a marriage, just not the name.

That's exactly where the end to this "hydra" lies. Acceptability.

And thus, questions about interspecies coupling or incestuous copuling are totally irrelevant to the discussion regarding homosexual coupling.
We accept homosexual persons forming a couple, but are incestuous couples equally acceptable ? I don't think they can even be compared.

It's a question of morality in case of incest, not the mere technicality surrounding the use of a particular term.


Perhaps this is not something which the government needs to make laws about/against ... it should be upto the universities and other authorities in English language to come up with either a new word (because "homosexual marriage" is unacceptable to some) or a new definition to the word "marriage" itself.
The Conspirator
Theres a big deference between an 8 year old girl and 25 year old man and the two are not even comparable.
Allowing gay marriage and alloying an 8 year old to marry her father is two completely different things. 1 is two consenting adults, where the other is a child and a father which is pedophilic and incest.
Arguments such as these have been used to make things seem wrong that are not, for instance one could argue if its ok to speak out against your government than its ok to take up arms against that government. Speaking out against you government and taking up arms against it are two completely different things.
Just cause its not wrong for two men to marry doesn't mean its not wrong for a groan man to marry a child.
Such arguments are used by those who don't have one.
S3nd K3ys
mOrpheuS wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I want to get married to my 8 yr old daughter....

Two reasons why this is a bad idea:
age unsuitable for marriage, and
inbreeding which leads to genetic defects
Laughing

But on a more serious note :
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I have many gay friends and am not being racial, and I have no problem with giving gay couples all the benefits of a marriage, just not the name.

That's exactly where the end to this "hydra" lies. Acceptability.

And thus, questions about interspecies couples or incestuous copules are totally irrelevant.
We are ready to accept homosexual couples, but are incestuous couples equally acceptable ? I don't think they can even be compared.

It's a question of morality in case of incest, not the mere technicality surrounding the use of a particular term.


Perhaps this is not something which the government needs to make laws about/against ... it should be upto the universities and other authorities in english language to come up with either a new word (because "homosexual marriage" is unacceptable to some) or a new definition to the word "marriage" itself.


You're arguments are good ones. Especially considering they're very much the same claims made decades ago when the 'gay' marriage thing started getting teeth. Wink

So you see my point that as we 'accept' more (or 'give up' more freedoms depending on the situtation) ALBEIT SLOWLY, we get accustomed to it and will be more likely to accept the things we don't accept now, like statutory rape and incest and bestiality.

Seriously, I'm still somewhat on the fence with this one, for reasons stated by others above, but I can't help but look to the future, considering our past. Look at convictions for child rapists. They're rediculous at best.

Anyway, looks like my point was made. Thanks for playing.
mOrpheuS
S3nd K3ys wrote:
they're very much the same claims made decades ago when the 'gay' marriage thing started getting teeth. Wink

Confused
Is there anything wrong with those claims ?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
So you see my point that as we 'accept' more (or 'give up' more freedoms depending on the situtation) ALBEIT SLOWLY, we get accustomed to it and will be more likely to accept the things we don't accept now

Oh comeon, change is not always for the worse!
A lot many things previously unacceptable are now widely accepted, and that just may be the right way to go.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
statutory rape and incest and bestiality.

Seriously, I'm still somewhat on the fence with this one, for reasons stated by others above, but I can't help but look to the future, considering our past.

Once again I can't agree to the comparison here :
A child molester is a criminal - a danger to the society.
There are reasons why paedophilia is illegal, I don't see the reasons which make homosexuality illegal.
How can paedophilia be compared to homosexuality ?

Beliefs or traditions without good reason, should most certainly be subject to review and rectification in the course of civilization and social evolution.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
Look at convictions for child rapists. They're rediculous at best.

I'm in total agreement with you on this ... we should perhaps be spending more energy at protesting against (and getting fixed) the system which doesn't punish real criminals, instead of making laws against something which isn't actually illegal or protecting traditions/beliefs held without good reason.
a_dubDesign
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I have no problem with giving gay couples all the benefits of a marriage, just not the name.

then whats the difference?

I've heard this argument before, and it seems to be so the people saying it can sit back and feel smug about themselves, having kept a word "holy" in thier head, while still being able to feel like they are tolerant. Its pretty much considering how we feel about a word in higher regards than how we feel about people.
S3nd K3ys
a_dubDesign wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I have no problem with giving gay couples all the benefits of a marriage, just not the name.

then whats the difference?.


Exactally. Why can't gays accept the same benis with a different name?

:shrug:
horseatingweeds
a_dubDesign wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I have no problem with giving gay couples all the benefits of a marriage, just not the name.

then whats the difference?

I've heard this argument before, and it seems to be so the people saying it can sit back and feel smug about themselves, having kept a word "holy" in thier head, while still being able to feel like they are tolerant. Its pretty much considering how we feel about a word in higher regards than how we feel about people.


mOrpheuS wrote:
Beliefs or traditions without good reason, should most certainly be subject to review and rectification in the course of civilization and social evolution.


You guys are all over on this one.

Marriage is not a word or a name or even a right. It is a sacred institution. “Sacred” not meaning religious mind you. “Sacred” meaning very important to society.

So why has this institution been held so sacred, independently and universally to so many societies? It has because it is the foundation to society. It is difficult for us to see all of the benefits because OUR society is CURRENTLY so strong. The strength and organization of our society make up for the strengths that would otherwise be found in marriage.

The benefits of marriage start with protection for the woman. Remember in most societies throughout history woman had to have LOTS of children simply to maintain her societies population and thus ability to protect and provide for its self. It also protects the children with a redundant network of care givers. It protects the elderly, sick and injured in the same way. It provides a system of passing on knowledge, land and resources. Marriage builds a household structure that is essential to raising children whilst insuring survival for all members.

The fundamental mechanism of marriage is the commitment, this commitment between a man and a woman to work together for now on.

It has been said, “Gay marriage isn’t hurting anyone”, but it is. It is hurting everyone in the society, however no more than divorce, promiscuity and anything else that breaks down the family system.

In our society with its unprecedented strength we can get away with such things as the homosexual lifestyle and live in relationships. You might consider this an evolution in human relationships in general. Remember though, societies cycle! Although it may seem to many that we are on a flat incline we are not, at best it is an upward trend, cycling all the way. One day our children will require this system for their survival as did our forefathers.

Discarding the institution of marriage would be a mistake.
The Conspirator
Marriage is not an institution nor is it sacred, marriage was invented and existed for the soul purpose of passing on material possession to the next generation. No for love nor not for raising children. The "love" aspect interred in the late 19th century.
Marriage is not an institution nor is it sacred, that is just crap people against same sex marriage made up to justify there position.
If you don;t have a real reason, don't be against it.
horseatingweeds
The Conspirator,

History contradicts your notion, except for marriage being an institute of love. Often in small societies people where coupled based on availability. In other words, if there is a 17 year old boy and a 14 year old girl in a village and no other singles, they would marry. It was also very common for different villages of societies to ‘trade’ wives for their young men, often to ovoid interfamily marriage.

However there is no doubt my friend, marriage along side fertility have been of utmost importance. There is overwhelming evidence for this in nearly every society.
Indi
S3nd K3ys:
Your assertion is nonsense. You should most certainly not be allowed to marry anyone you want. You should only be allowed to marry someone that is capable of giving informed consent. A hamster certainly cannot. An 8-year old girl is biologically, psychologically and legally incapable of giving consent.

Interestingly, there are religions and societies that tacitly accepted sexual relations with children for centuries - but bring the subject of gay marriage up and they fall over themselves to condemn it. Go figure.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
So you see my point that as we 'accept' more (or 'give up' more freedoms depending on the situtation) ALBEIT SLOWLY, we get accustomed to it and will be more likely to accept the things we don't accept now, like statutory rape and incest and bestiality.

Excellent point! So let's go round up those slaves, shall we? We never should have let them go in the first place, since it was obviously just the first step to total anarchy.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Marriage is not a word or a name or even a right. It is a sacred institution. “Sacred” not meaning religious mind you. “Sacred” meaning very important to society.

Er... dude... "sacred" means religious. You can't just reinvent the English language when you feel like it.

But, alright, let's for the sake of the argument say that the institution of marriage is a fundamental building block of society. Why is that?

Let's analyze this. What makes marriage so important to "society" that it should be closed off and protected from an entire subset of humanity? What does marriage provide?

Well, I could wait for someone else to provide answers, but that would take too long, so I'm going to offer my own. If anyone wants to disagree or add more, feel free.

The things that marriage gives society are:
    - A social mechanism by which reproductive couplings can take place.
    - A social and legal union in which individuals can pool resources and accomplish more together than either could accomplish alone.
    - A structure within which children can be raised in a stable environment, with role models of each gender.

Let's look at each of things in depth and see what they would mean if the definition of marriage was really about a non-sex-exclusive secular institution, and not an intolerant, exclusive religious one.

A social mechanism by which reproductive couplings can take place
So marriage is about breeding. Fine. But what does that really mean? It means that only people who are breeding should be married.

What does that mean? Well:
    - Marriages should be denied to anyone who is unable to have children.
      If you are sterile, or not mentally fit to have children, you should be denied permission to marry.

    - At any time, if either partner becomes incapable of having children, the marriage should be terminated.
      If you have an accident and can't have children any more, or pass the age where this is possible, then you don't really need to be married any more.

    - If the participants in the marriage do not have a child within a certain amount of time, the marriage should be terminated.
      If two people don't really intend to have kids - or if they have tried and have been reasonably shown to be incapable, then they shouldn't be married.

    - Records should be kept of attempts to conceive, including doctor-provided charts of both partner's reproductive cycles.
      These records should be reviewed by government-provided reproductive counsellors, who will ensure that the couple is actually trying, and offer assistance if they have not had much luck.

Yikes. Ok, so maybe marriage isn't only about having children. If marriage is open to heterosexuals who cannot/will not breed, then why can't it be open to homosexuals? Fairness demands equality, because if marriage is about breeding, and non-breeding heterosexuals are allowed to marry but homosexuals are not, then marriage is a sham, and based on intolerance.

A social and legal union in which individuals can pool resources and accomplish more together than either could accomplish alone
These days it can be hard to go it alone. Believe me, I know.

Having a partner would make things a lot easier. We could share financial responsibilities - like there would only be one cable bill between the two of us - and we could support each other emotionally and practically - if I were to be hurt in such a way that I cannot reach a phone while I'm alone, I would be screwed.

In short, it sounds like a pretty good idea. I like that definition of marriage.

But...

Why would gays be excluded from that definition? Couldn't two men or two women support each other even better than a man and a woman? You wouldn't need a "his" side of the medicine cabinet with colognes and shaving stuff and a "her" side with makeup and "feminine care products" - you could share the same stuff (within reason), and even buy in greater bulk.

Furthermore, why limit the pairing to two people? Couldn't four people support each other financially and emotionally better than two?

Hm, well, marriage by that definition certainly doesn't imply that it should be restricted to one man, one woman. Thus if you're going to use that definition, "traditional marriage" is a sham, and denying marriage to gays is intolerant bigotry.

(Course, that definition also opens the door to polygamy. ^_^ I guess that definition won't be in common use any time soon.)

A structure within which children can be raised in a stable environment, with role models of each gender
So marriage is about the "family".

Now, this is the definition preferred by defenders of "traditional marriage". It certainly seems to lock the definition in to only two people - a man and a woman.

Or does it?

Let's examine this from two fronts. First, is it true that the the absence of a role model from each gender harms the development of the child?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage wrote:
A number of health and child welfare organizations, however, disagree. They include the Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers. On July 28, 2004, the American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting legalization of same-sex civil marriages and opposes discrimination against lesbian and gay parents.

Hm. Apparently not, according to the laundry list of organizations listed above.

And even if it were true that a role model from each gender were required, why could a gay partnership not provide a male-like role model and a female-like role model without actually being physically male or female. Do you actually have to have a penis to act like a guy for the sake of role modelling one? Do you need a vagina to act like a girl?

And furthermore if it were true that it is so critical to the stability of society that children be provided with appropriate gender role models, marriage partners should be screened and/or trained to ensure the provide such role models successfully. Effeminate men should be denied marriage, and "butch" women should be denied marriage - unless those are acceptible role models, and if so, again, why would a same-sex couple be voided in that case?

You see? The idea that one of each sex is required to role model for children is silly. The idea that such an argument somehow makes gay marriage impossible is absurd.

What about the other front? Well, why is it that only one of each sex should be a role model? If it were true that children require a male and a female role model to ensure stable development... why stop with one of each? The more models available, the better for the child - that way they can amalgamate characteristics they find admirable in all role models. Or to put it in plain English, if it's true that a child needs a father figure and a mother figure... how does that imply there should be only one of each? This definition of marriage invites polygamy.

So, marriage by this definition - if it were scientifically correct, which it is not - is also a sham.



What a mess, hm? Basically, it comes down to this:
    - If marriage is about having children, it should only be open to people capable of having them, not any male-female pair.
    - If marriage is about raising children, it should be open to any person or persons capable of raising children, and studies show that same-sex couples are equally capable.
    - If marriage is about social organizations, then it should be open to all of society, not just heterosexuals.

And Orson Scott Card can kiss my ass. ^_^

PS, if you can tell me what definition you think a marriage with your 8-year old daughter (or a hamster) would fit into, I'd be curious to know. Because I don't see it fitting into any of them.
The Conspirator
Lets review the purpose of marriage in modern world. Though the purpose of marriage is the passing of property from one generation to the other and not the raising of children nor is it about love. In the modern world it has become about not raising of children but "love". To people fall in love, then they get married (then half get divorced and half those that don't end up hating each other anyways.) So if its about love, and two men love each other. Why not?
a_dubDesign
S3nd K3ys wrote:
a_dubDesign wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I have no problem with giving gay couples all the benefits of a marriage, just not the name.

then whats the difference?.


Exactally. Why can't gays accept the same benis with a different name?

:shrug:

if its the same exact thing with a different label, how would it not lead to...
S3nd K3ys wrote:
ALBEIT SLOWLY, we get accustomed to it and will be more likely to accept the things we don't accept now, like statutory rape and incest and bestiality.


If the government decided to change the name of cigarettes to happy sticks, it wouldn't stop them from causing cancer. Same thing here. If you really believe gay marriage would eventually lead to acceptance of rape, incest and bestiality (I don't know how anyone in thier right mind could think that), then changing the name doesn't mean squat.
The Conspirator
Quote:
If you really believe gay marriage would eventually lead to acceptance of rape, incest and bestiality (I don't know how anyone in thier right mind could think that)

No one believed that, originally but people said it to justify there position against same sex marriage. And people are willing to believe a lie.
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
So why has this institution been held so sacred, independently and universally to so many societies?

In Taoism it says much the same thing, that the family is a microcosm of society. I agree completely, but I don’t see how gay marriage would harm this anymore than it harmed the Greeks. Excluding and stigmatizing definitely has a negative effect on society. I don’t see how accepting them for what they are has any drawbacks. That is the way God made them, and I don’t second guess God’s handiwork.

horseatingweeds wrote:
In our society with its unprecedented strength we can get away with such things as the homosexual lifestyle and live in relationships. You might consider this an evolution in human relationships in general. Remember though, societies cycle! Although it may seem to many that we are on a flat incline we are not, at best it is an upward trend, cycling all the way. One day our children will require this system for their survival as did our forefathers.

I think that encouraging monogamy among gays is helpful to society in much the same way as encouraging it among heterosexuals.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Discarding the institution of marriage would be a mistake.

I don’t see how gay marriage has the slightest effect on heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is not effected in any way that I can see.
horseatingweeds
Indi,

Your argument assumes that marriage is for one reason alone. I hope you did not acquire this notion form me. Those unable to have children are still necessary to the family and household as it provides them protection and provision and lends them to protecting and providing for the other members.

Ideally, all of the people unable to have children would marry as would all the healthy individuals. However, most societies have not been as ideal as ours. Putting homosexuals in this category, people unable to produce children, would reduce the productivity of the society as they are healthy and physically able to contribute. As I said earlier, our CURRENT society is strong enough to afford these luxuries. The family structure is certainly open to homosexuals as is marriage. That’s marriage. In a society such as ours we can afford for some of our members to ovoid production and engage in relationships other than marriage for the sake of love.

With regard to role models, a healthy family structure should consist of many examples on either side.

As for the definition of sacred, it does often refer to dedication to a deity or religious doctrine, however it can also mean dedication to an ideal or institution. An example would be the US Marin corp., they certainly hold the corp. sacred.

mike1reynolds,

I was not aware that the Greeks held ‘gay marriage’. They certainly engaged in homosexual sex, but still held marriage up. The Greeks are a good example of a strong society, for a time. They were also a good example of societies at the verge of destruction if their population decreased or became unorganized. Remember, the ‘Greek’ for the most part were a group of independent often warring city states.

mike1reynolds wrote:
I don’t see how gay marriage has the slightest effect on heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is not effected in any way that I can see.


Agreed, as long as you also agree that our current society will flourish for ever and ever and none of our children or their children’s children will live in a society less comfortable as ours. As I stated earlier, one day we will not be so comfortable and we will again require the thing our forefathers held sacred for the reasons they held them sacred.

Homosexuals have the right to live together, within a family system or get married. Holding marriage as a strict institution is not oppressing someone, or some agenda. It is wise to learn from our elders and customs, they are not emplaced to exasperate, they are emplaced to maintain order and survival in a fallen world. We should use wisdom and learn from them.
the_mariska
mike1reynolds wrote:
I think that encouraging monogamy among gays is helpful to society in much the same way as encouraging it among heterosexuals.
So here is a problem, as no homosexual person I know has lasted in one relationship longer than a few months. They also tend to have more frequently sex with strangers than my heterosexual friends. I don't know if it is a general rule or just a phenomena of gays around me, but if gay couples are less stable, they are a worse enviroment to raise children.
tidruG
horseatingweeds wrote:
It has been said, “Gay marriage isn’t hurting anyone”, but it is.

Why would 2 obviously gay men who want to spend the rest of their lives with each other hurt others? It's not likely that they're going to get married to females and start families because they're homosexual. There's no natural "family unit" being formed or destroyed by 2 men getting married to each other.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Ideally, all of the people unable to have children would marry as would all the healthy individuals. However, most societies have not been as ideal as ours. Putting homosexuals in this category, people unable to produce children, would reduce the productivity of the society as they are healthy and physically able to contribute. As I said earlier, our CURRENT society is strong enough to afford these luxuries. The family structure is certainly open to homosexuals as is marriage. That’s marriage. In a society such as ours we can afford for some of our members to ovoid production and engage in relationships other than marriage for the sake of love.

The number of homosexual people who want to get married to each other is (and probably will be) a minority, seeing as how homosexuality has always been a minority.
(I tried to find some sources on the percentage of openly homsexual people in the world. I couldn't find any solid statistics, but I'd put the figure around 2%. Counting closet homosexuals, including in countries where homosexuality is illegal, I wouldn't place this number higher than 5-6%. There are certainly a higher of non-homosexuals who are capable of having an imperfect family unit, for various reasons)

horseatingweeds wrote:
As I stated earlier, one day we will not be so comfortable and we will again require the thing our forefathers held sacred for the reasons they held them sacred.

Prophet of doom? Wink
Well, even if one were to assume that the social structure is eventually going to break down, how do we know that homosexual marriage and live-in relationships could be the cause of the downfall of society? War is much more destructive than gay marriage. But then again, war and gay marriage can't really be compared. On the other hand, overpopulation could be a cause of worry in the future. (As you haven't specified any particular time period in which society is going to degrade, it can be left to one's imagination how long this will actually take. Thus, one can also assume that overpopulation and lack of natural resources will cause problems before social degradation).

the_mariska wrote:
I don't know if it is a general rule or just a phenomena of gays around me, but if gay couples are less stable, they are a worse enviroment to raise children.

Marriage requires commitment. If the homosexual couples you are talking about were not commited to each other for more than a few months, I doubt that they wanted to get married. A lot of heterosexual couples don't last in a relationship for longer than a few months either, and these people know that they're in the relationship for the sake of it, and not till death do them part. If we're talking about 2 homosexuals who want to get married, one would assume that they've thought about it long enough to want to spend the rest of their lives with each other.
Indi
horseatingweeds wrote:
Indi,

Your argument assumes that marriage is for one reason alone. I hope you did not acquire this notion form me. Those unable to have children are still necessary to the family and household as it provides them protection and provision and lends them to protecting and providing for the other members.

Ideally, all of the people unable to have children would marry as would all the healthy individuals. However, most societies have not been as ideal as ours. Putting homosexuals in this category, people unable to produce children, would reduce the productivity of the society as they are healthy and physically able to contribute. As I said earlier, our CURRENT society is strong enough to afford these luxuries. The family structure is certainly open to homosexuals as is marriage. That’s marriage. In a society such as ours we can afford for some of our members to ovoid production and engage in relationships other than marriage for the sake of love.

With regard to role models, a healthy family structure should consist of many examples on either side.

But what does all that mean in plain English?

For the record, I didn't mean to imply that marriage should be for one reason. But given that each and every reason I provided individually does not require the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman exclusively, how does bunching them up suddenly make that definition imperative? Or, if you have reasons I missed, why not share them?

You have made several statements without any evidence or logic to back them up. "Ideally, all of the people unable to have children would marry" - why? "Putting homosexuals in this category, people unable to produce children, would reduce the productivity of the society as they are healthy and physically able to contribute" - your sentence makes no sense grammatically or in context, so I have to guess at what you meant, but it sounds like you're saying that putting homosexuals in the category of people who can marry but not have children (along with sterile heterosexuals) reduces the productivity of society... right after saying that sterile heterosexuals who marry help society towards the "ideal"... why? What's the difference? How are homosexual couples different from sterile heterosexual ones?

All of what you wrote doesn't seem to rule out gay marriage. If you can have marriages between sterile heterosexuals, why can't you have marriages between homosexuals? Why is one ok and the other not?

horseatingweeds wrote:
As for the definition of sacred, it does often refer to dedication to a deity or religious doctrine, however it can also mean dedication to an ideal or institution. An example would be the US Marin corp., they certainly hold the corp. sacred.

One could write a thesis on whether or not the Marines constitute a religious cult... but that's for another topic. For now, I'm just going to look at the definition of "sacred":
dictionary.com wrote:
sacred:
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

So... definitions 1, 2, 3 and 6 mention religion specifically in one form or another. 4 is not relevant in this context. That leaves 5.

So non-religious definition of sacred is "venerable". Cool.

But now, what is the definition of "venerable".
dictionary.com wrote:
venerable:
1. Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position.
2. Worthy of reverence, especially by religious or historical association: venerable relics.
3. Venerable Abbr. Ven. or V.
a. Roman Catholic Church. Used as a form of address for a person who has reached the first stage of canonization.
b. Used as a form of address for an archdeacon in the Anglican Church or the Episcopal Church.

Well, obviously 3 doesn't apply. 1 doesn't really apply either, because we're not talking about a person.

So for our non-religious definition of venerable for our non-religious definition of sacred, that leaves...

D'oh.

You see? Sacred pretty much means religious, any way you slice it.

The only reasonable alternative definition you can get out of all that that doesn't involve religion is that sacred means "old" or "historical". So... basically... sacred by that definition means we should discriminate against a subset of humanity because that's what we've always done historically. Riiiiight.

Anyway, you can't just up and say the institution of marriage is "sacred" in a secular setting without offering some evidence. Why is it sacred? Why couldn't we - for example, have breeding centers, where people who want to have children register themselves so that they could be matched with a partner that is compatible with them. Then they could breed and one or both of them could take care of the baby, or they could return it to an adoption center so that sterile people can adopt. Systems could be put in place to prevent abuse - persons may only put one child up for adoption, and so on. Seems to me that system eliminates spousal abuse, and virtually guarantees that when families do form they won't just be randomly generated out of relationships that pretty much begin as "man, (s)he's hot, I'm gonna ask him/her out." Now I'm not suggesting that that would necessarily be a good system, but before you can say that marriage is "sacred", you're gonna have to show why alternatives like that are all invalid.

Marriage isn't just "sacred" (in the secular sense) because Orson Scott Card says so. There must be a reason. Share it with us.
riv_
Jumping in late and bringing it back to an argument made earlier...

The Conspirator said:
Quote:
Theres a big deference between an 8 year old girl and 25 year old man and the two are not even comparable.

and tidruG said
Quote:
Marriage to your 8 year old daughter is not possible. The legal marriagable age is 18. Having sex with anyone under that is statutory rape.


So, S3ndk3ys, I'd like to propose that we respect the age thing. Only sickos marry 8 year old girls!Mad
Instead, I suggest you marry your 18 year old son. That would be nice. Maybe an outdoor wedding...
S3nd K3ys
riv_ wrote:
Jumping in late and bringing it back to an argument made earlier...

The Conspirator said:
Quote:
Theres a big deference between an 8 year old girl and 25 year old man and the two are not even comparable.

and tidruG said
Quote:
Marriage to your 8 year old daughter is not possible. The legal marriagable age is 18. Having sex with anyone under that is statutory rape.


So, S3ndk3ys, I'd like to propose that we respect the age thing. Only sickos marry 8 year old girls!Mad
Instead, I suggest you marry your 18 year old son. That would be nice. Maybe an outdoor wedding...


Reading and comprehension is key. Wink
freecitizen
scorpio wrote:


And Bigamy is illegal in US

Better go to an Arab Country

They dont mind if you marry a pole for all they care


Hey. Not freakin funny. Sure, having multiple wives is allowed -- 4 being the limit -- and I think it's sick too. But, still. Marriage laws aren't easy here. You can't marry anyone you want. It's much tougher to marry anyone you want here that it is anywhere else in the world -- save other Muslim or conservative countries.

Racism isn't required to make a point.

Now, educate yourself, perhaps?
riv_
[quote="S3nd K3ys"]
riv_ wrote:


Reading and comprehension is key. Wink

I'd love to respond to that, but I don't have any of those fancy animated smiley's you have!! Crying or Very sad
Am I still invited to the wedding?
S3nd K3ys
freecitizen wrote:
Marriage laws aren't easy here. You can't marry anyone you want. It's much tougher to marry anyone you want here that it is anywhere else in the world -- save other Muslim or conservative countries.


Is it just me, or doesn anyone else see the comedy of someone named 'freecitizen' typing that... Laughing Laughing Laughing
S3nd K3ys
riv_ wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
riv_ wrote:


Reading and comprehension is key. Wink

I'd love to respond to that, but I don't have any of those fancy animated smiley's you have!! Crying or Very sad
Am I still invited to the wedding?


I'm sure you'd love to, but I doubt you can. You can hardly handle 'quote' tags and failed to read and comprehend what I wrote. So why bother? Wink
freecitizen
I believe that marrying someone you want should be easy. Except that there should obviously be an minimum age (to protect children) and I don't believe that siblings should marry because it would be potentially harmful for their offspring (if it's a woman and a man), as it's been proven that the closer you are to someone you have children with, the more likely it is that your child is born with deformations. As for sisters marrying and brothers, I don't want to get into that.

If you love someone and they love you and marriage is important to you, why not?
riv_
Wow, S3ndk3ys,
I thought you of all people would know when you'd been hit by the sarcasm truck, being one of it's finest drivers and all. (Master of the fine art of subtlety... but only in one direction... hmmm?)
Who failed to miss the obvious here?
Read my post again. Am I making a point? Rolling Eyes
Why don't we try this one again.
S3nd K3ys
riv_ wrote:
Wow, S3ndk3ys,
I thought you of all people would know when you'd been hit by the sarcasm truck, being one of it's finest drivers and all. (Master of the fine art of subtlety... but only in one direction... hmmm?)
Who failed to miss the obvious here?
Read my post again. Am I making a point? Rolling Eyes
Why don't we try this one again.


Doh!

You ****** er...
freecitizen
S3nd K3ys wrote:
freecitizen wrote:
Marriage laws aren't easy here. You can't marry anyone you want. It's much tougher to marry anyone you want here that it is anywhere else in the world -- save other Muslim or conservative countries.


Is it just me, or doesn anyone else see the comedy of someone named 'freecitizen' typing that... Laughing Laughing Laughing


Free in the mind, honey, free in the mind.

There's also the irony factor.
S3nd K3ys
freecitizen wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
freecitizen wrote:
Marriage laws aren't easy here. You can't marry anyone you want. It's much tougher to marry anyone you want here that it is anywhere else in the world -- save other Muslim or conservative countries.


Is it just me, or doesn anyone else see the comedy of someone named 'freecitizen' typing that... Laughing Laughing Laughing


Free in the mind, honey, free in the mind.

There's also the irony factor.


Well I guess if you can't be free in who you choose to marry, you can be free in your mind, honey.
freecitizen
S3nd K3ys wrote:
freecitizen wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
freecitizen wrote:
Marriage laws aren't easy here. You can't marry anyone you want. It's much tougher to marry anyone you want here that it is anywhere else in the world -- save other Muslim or conservative countries.


Is it just me, or doesn anyone else see the comedy of someone named 'freecitizen' typing that... Laughing Laughing Laughing


Free in the mind, honey, free in the mind.

There's also the irony factor.


Well I guess if you can't be free in who you choose to marry, you can be free in your mind, honey.

Ooh, aren't you feisty.

Yes, it's all there's always left, isn't it?
riv_
Calculating...
Please wait...

This "discussion" is definitely not worth the effort...

Thankyou for using obnoxio-tronic
horseatingweeds
S3nd K3ys and riv_ are at it again.....

Boy, if I didn't how much they love each other......
NemoySpruce
brief history of marriage

its been changing all the time. depending on society's needs and opinions. So if you really want to marry a rodent, you have to convince us why you really need to. The family is the basic unit of your society. Marriage is a society thing, its not a personal choice. Its like asking permission to the society that you are forming a subgroup, a micro version of the society. Today's society is all about genetic enhancement. We want beautiful, intelligent healthy kids. If you can argue that your marriage will yeild this, then society will accept it. you are free to choose your partners, thats personal choice, so you and your hamster can have all the fun you want. but marriage is a society thing.
Indi
NemoySpruce wrote:
brief history of marriage

its been changing all the time. depending on society's needs and opinions. So if you really want to marry a rodent, you have to convince us why you really need to. The family is the basic unit of your society. Marriage is a society thing, its not a personal choice. Its like asking permission to the society that you are forming a subgroup, a micro version of the society. Today's society is all about genetic enhancement. We want beautiful, intelligent healthy kids. If you can argue that your marriage will yeild this, then society will accept it. you are free to choose your partners, thats personal choice, so you and your hamster can have all the fun you want. but marriage is a society thing.

So only people who can produce kids should be allowed to marry? Sterile people, and people who are disabled and unable to do so need not apply?

How should we enforce this? What if people marry and then don't have kids? Then they have cheated society. Shouldn't they be punished?
NemoySpruce
Indi wrote:

So only people who can produce kids should be allowed to marry? Sterile people, and people who are disabled and unable to do so need not apply?

How should we enforce this? What if people marry and then don't have kids? Then they have cheated society. Shouldn't they be punished?


hmmm... I see your point. Im not a sociologist, and I have no data, so anything I say is pure conjecture and possibly pure BS. I suppose society's rules are not binary. They do however have acceptable limits. These parameters depends on how the people around you think. Some families would frown at marrying into a family with cancer. Some families will try to stop you from marrying someone who is sterile. We discourage people who are mentally challenged to get married.

I dont know if gay marriage is right or wrong, Im not sure it matters if its right or wrong. What matters is if society will accept the idea. Personally I think its 'unnatural'. I dont mean that in a religious conservative sort of way.., its just that if you look at how humans are designed, men are supposed to procreate with women. But hey, im all for freedom, so if some people claim that its natural for them, and provides reasonable arguments to back it up, then its ok. Its a slow process though, convincing society, but eventually it comes around.
busman
NemoySpruce wrote:
Indi wrote:

So only people who can produce kids should be allowed to marry? Sterile people, and people who are disabled and unable to do so need not apply?

How should we enforce this? What if people marry and then don't have kids? Then they have cheated society. Shouldn't they be punished?


hmmm... I see your point. Im not a sociologist, and I have no data, so anything I say is pure conjecture and possibly pure BS. I suppose society's rules are not binary. They do however have acceptable limits. These parameters depends on how the people around you think. Some families would frown at marrying into a family with cancer. Some families will try to stop you from marrying someone who is sterile. We discourage people who are mentally challenged to get married.

I dont know if gay marriage is right or wrong, Im not sure it matters if its right or wrong. What matters is if society will accept the idea. Personally I think its 'unnatural'. I dont mean that in a religious conservative sort of way.., its just that if you look at how humans are designed, men are supposed to procreate with women. But hey, im all for freedom, so if some people claim that its natural for them, and provides reasonable arguments to back it up, then its ok. Its a slow process though, convincing society, but eventually it comes around.


It occurs in nature without human interference therefor making it natural. Just wanted to point that out, although you are very right about the rest of your post sir. It seems you are a resonable and intelligent person. Smile
Bikerman
I think the world might be a slightly better place if people realised that 'natural' and 'unnatural' are essentially meaningless. Saying something is natural means what exactly? That it occurs in nature? Well here's the news - SO DO WE. Unless it is proposed that somehow we stand outside nature then everything we do is 'natural'.
Similar confusion applies to the use of the concept in food, medicine etc. 'Natural' food means absolutely nothing. The same argument applies - show me food that has originated outside the natural world and I'll think about becoming a Deist.

This is the fundamental flaw with 'natural law' theory. It starts with false assumptions and therefore can ultimately go nowhere.
loremar
I'm guilty using the word 'Natural' as opposed to 'Man-made'. I grew up comfortable with that thinking probably because it's been frequently used in school and in media. Now I see that's really stupid. Also the notion that what is 'Natural' has something to do with morality only shows a very weak foundation in ethics. It is ignorance at it's best.
busman
Natural is simply a context word and can be used usefully to describe something @bikerman. We just have to realise all that natural is, is happening in nature without any outside interference or naturally occuring and not man-made. In that very true context of the word, that is one of the STRONGEST proponents FOR the argument for homosexuality there is, i wouldn' be so quick as to do away with it just yet considering that it is a useful context word, and if you look at the factual definition and ANY definition of natural you always come to the same conclusion that homosexuality is IN FACT natural in its very definition, and if people are going to try and argue against homosexuality using the "natural" point, i would love to be allowed to destroy their points using the same point that they are postulating and show them how ridiculously absurd it is to try and bend the definitions of words to meet your desires of what "natural" should be.
Bikerman
Sorry I just disagree - quite strongly actually.

Until you can define what you mean by 'unnatural' then natural is a meaningless appendage. It may convey an emotion, or a shared (but WRONG) idea of what is meant, but to me it has zero informational content and is therefore just noise.
By the same token, I do NOT think it is wise to use 'natural law' to support ANY case - whether homosexuality or not. You simply accept a flawed agenda and then use it rather than the correct action which is to reject the agenda - ie debating whether homosexuality is 'natural' is demeaning, insulting and wrong-headed - EVEN if you WIN by showing it IS natural - you have moved the debate onto the opponents ground and accepted their fundamental premise that good=natural and bad=unnatural. Once you accept that, at any level, I think you are lost.
The hypocrisy of those who deploy Natural Law argument actually nauseates me.
Is, for example, marriage 'natural'?
The correct answer is not Yes or No IMHO, it is 'why are you asking and 'why seek to apply an information-free but emotive label to ANY action' if not to simply find a way of expressing bigotry dressed in an apparent new suit which is just as transparently not there as the suit it didn't wear before..
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Until you can define what you mean by 'unnatural' then natural is a meaningless appendage.

Well, there are some reasonably practical definitions of "natural". One would be "not of an intentional act". As in, anything that happens without the conscious intention of a thinking agent could be called "natural". Of course, the counter-argument is that the very thinking processes of thinking agents are all ultimately just "natural", meaning that even their intentions are "natural". True. Still, separating that which would have happened without conscious intervention from that which wouldn't is not an entirely useless distinction.

But of course, that says nothing about the morality or "goodness" of things that natural versus things that aren't.

Also, it makes all sex - heterosexual or homosexual - that humans have unnatural. Unless they have it without intention of course, like the guy trips and falls on a woman, penetrating her, then accidentally ejaculates while the pair are trying to pick themselves up, or something. (i guess the male homosexual case would be one of those "it was a million to one, doc" proctologist moments that were spoofed on Seinfeld.)

Incidentally, it would also make all sex - heterosexual or homosexual - had by all animals natural.

Food for thought. ^_^
catscratches
Indi wrote:

Incidentally, it would also make all sex - heterosexual or homosexual - had by all animals natural.
I'm sorry? Surely some animals other than humans could be considered thinking agents with intentions to have sex? Whether they would understand the consequences is another thing, but that would make all animal conception natural, not the sex?
Bikerman
No, I still don't think it can be seriously suggested without underlying bigotry - therefore I'm fairly happy to take the more extreme position until someone can show a definition of un-natural that has some guts - with all due respect I don't think intent can be equated or even act as a useful reference point or even a very useful quantitative or qualitative measure or cut-off, since we are still left with grey everywhere and no white path to tread and I don't know either where the measure would leave many actions or even what use that information could be even assuming it could be meaningfully measured and gathered.
busman
Bikerman wrote:
No, I still don't think it can be seriously suggested without underlying bigotry - therefore I'm fairly happy to take the more extreme position until someone can show a definition of un-natural that has some guts - with all due respect I don't think intent can be equated or even act as a useful reference point or even a very useful quantitative or qualitative measure or cut-off, since we are still left with grey everywhere and no white path to tread and I don't know either where the measure would leave many actions or even what use that information could be even assuming it could be meaningfully measured and gathered.


Un-natural= Not apearring in nature without outside interference (social, technological, societal etc.).

Idk why that is a bad definition? Or a bad word to use. I'm not going to go as far as to say all things un-natural are bad, just simply stating that homosexuality in an of itself is natural, that's all I was saying and that if you argue that it it is un-natural you are simply wrong. To say all un-natural things are bad to is also shortsighted and insanely stupid haha. I was just makin a simple point, a black and white point with no spin either way. What animals/humans will do when put into a enviroment with no outside interference: Obviously some will turn out homosexual, thats all I ment guy hahaha.
Bikerman
It is a bad definition, IMHO, because it implicitly classes humans as non-natural - ie 'outside'.
I do not see how or why that is justified since it implies we are not part of the natural world - which we self-evidently ARE to my way of thinking.

I also don't see where the 'cut-off' comes. Are the actions of the great Apes 'natural'? Are we to say that Chimps are qualitatively different to us in that only we can perform actions 'knowingly' or 'self-consciously' - because if so I take issue.
Indi
catscratches wrote:
Indi wrote:

Incidentally, it would also make all sex - heterosexual or homosexual - had by all animals natural.
I'm sorry? Surely some animals other than humans could be considered thinking agents with intentions to have sex? Whether they would understand the consequences is another thing, but that would make all animal conception natural, not the sex?

No, of course not. Humans are the only animals we know of that have are conscious, thinking agents. Other animals just have sex out of instinctual drive. When two rams have gay sex, that's not an act of intentionality, it's an act of biological instinct, so it's natural.

Bikerman wrote:
No, I still don't think it can be seriously suggested without underlying bigotry - therefore I'm fairly happy to take the more extreme position until someone can show a definition of un-natural that has some guts - with all due respect I don't think intent can be equated or even act as a useful reference point or even a very useful quantitative or qualitative measure or cut-off, since we are still left with grey everywhere and no white path to tread and I don't know either where the measure would leave many actions or even what use that information could be even assuming it could be meaningfully measured and gathered.

Be careful with the 'b' word there; not all prejudice is bigotry. Bigotry is irrational prejudice. Rational prejudice is... rational. For example, when selecting players for the national team, if you choose to try out only those players who have had the best playing stats over the past year, you're being prejudiced. And, in theory, there may be a great player that has had a lousy year. Nevertheless, that's a rational heuristic, giving the limited time and resources to make a selection, so the prejudice there is good.

We need a working definition of "natural" and "unnatural" for practical reasons. For example, climate change: natural or unnatural? Yes, it's technically "natural" in the sense that anything humans do is technically natural, but that kind of pedantry not only renders the word "natural" useless, it makes it difficult to argue that humans (technically, thinking agents in general) have a moral responsibility for their impacts on the environment. If we say climate change is unnatural - that is, caused by the actions of thinking agents and not simply due to physical laws and biological instinct - then we make it clear that it is our fault, our problem, and our responsibility to fix.

Being prejudicial regarding whether some effect was influenced by moral agency is vitally important in any moral judgement. If a tree toppled over due to the wind and crushed a person, it would be an absurd waste of time to hold a manslaughter trial for the wind. If a tree toppled over due to a lumberjack cutting it and crushed a person, then it makes sense to see if the lumberjack was morally responsible. Prejudicially picking only the moral agents for trial in such cases is hardly bigotry, it's rational prejudice.

So i don't object to being prejudicial against cases where moral agency had an influence, so long as that prejudice is rational. In the case of climate change, very rational. Climate change is unnatural - it is caused primarily by humans, who are thinking agents - which makes it an entirely different sort of concern compared to, say, a sudden outbreak of tectonic activity spurring massive worldwide earthquakes and tsunamis. The former is primarily a moral problem, though it does call for technological solutions; the latter, merely a technological one.

What i object to is irrational prejudice based on the natural/unnatural divide. Moral judgement would be a case of that. It is irrational to say something is good or evil just because it was/wasn't done by moral agents - i mean, put like that you can even see clearly how stupid it is.
busman
Indi wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Indi wrote:

Incidentally, it would also make all sex - heterosexual or homosexual - had by all animals natural.
I'm sorry? Surely some animals other than humans could be considered thinking agents with intentions to have sex? Whether they would understand the consequences is another thing, but that would make all animal conception natural, not the sex?

No, of course not. Humans are the only animals we know of that have are conscious, thinking agents. Other animals just have sex out of instinctual drive. When two rams have gay sex, that's not an act of intentionality, it's an act of biological instinct, so it's natural.

Bikerman wrote:
No, I still don't think it can be seriously suggested without underlying bigotry - therefore I'm fairly happy to take the more extreme position until someone can show a definition of un-natural that has some guts - with all due respect I don't think intent can be equated or even act as a useful reference point or even a very useful quantitative or qualitative measure or cut-off, since we are still left with grey everywhere and no white path to tread and I don't know either where the measure would leave many actions or even what use that information could be even assuming it could be meaningfully measured and gathered.

Be careful with the 'b' word there; not all prejudice is bigotry. Bigotry is irrational prejudice. Rational prejudice is... rational. For example, when selecting players for the national team, if you choose to try out only those players who have had the best playing stats over the past year, you're being prejudiced. And, in theory, there may be a great player that has had a lousy year. Nevertheless, that's a rational heuristic, giving the limited time and resources to make a selection, so the prejudice there is good.

We need a working definition of "natural" and "unnatural" for practical reasons. For example, climate change: natural or unnatural? Yes, it's technically "natural" in the sense that anything humans do is technically natural, but that kind of pedantry not only renders the word "natural" useless, it makes it difficult to argue that humans (technically, thinking agents in general) have a moral responsibility for their impacts on the environment. If we say climate change is unnatural - that is, caused by the actions of thinking agents and not simply due to physical laws and biological instinct - then we make it clear that it is our fault, our problem, and our responsibility to fix.

Being prejudicial regarding whether some effect was influenced by moral agency is vitally important in any moral judgement. If a tree toppled over due to the wind and crushed a person, it would be an absurd waste of time to hold a manslaughter trial for the wind. If a tree toppled over due to a lumberjack cutting it and crushed a person, then it makes sense to see if the lumberjack was morally responsible. Prejudicially picking only the moral agents for trial in such cases is hardly bigotry, it's rational prejudice.

So i don't object to being prejudicial against cases where moral agency had an influence, so long as that prejudice is rational. In the case of climate change, very rational. Climate change is unnatural - it is caused primarily by humans, who are thinking agents - which makes it an entirely different sort of concern compared to, say, a sudden outbreak of tectonic activity spurring massive worldwide earthquakes and tsunamis. The former is primarily a moral problem, though it does call for technological solutions; the latter, merely a technological one.

What i object to is irrational prejudice based on the natural/unnatural divide. Moral judgement would be a case of that. It is irrational to say something is good or evil just because it was/wasn't done by moral agents - i mean, put like that you can even see clearly how stupid it is.


Thank you for putting my thoughts into words exactly Very Happy
kejk0nar
Go to Vegas and get maried...
busman
kejk0nar wrote:
Go to Vegas and get maried...


I can't get married in the USA in almost all 50 states so it's w/e... Sad
Bikerman
Indi wrote:
Be careful with the 'b' word there; not all prejudice is bigotry. Bigotry is irrational prejudice. Rational prejudice is... rational. For example, when selecting players for the national team, if you choose to try out only those players who have had the best playing stats over the past year, you're being prejudiced. And, in theory, there may be a great player that has had a lousy year. Nevertheless, that's a rational heuristic, giving the limited time and resources to make a selection, so the prejudice there is good.
Yes, I take the point, but I think my use is pretty much as I intended here. The only time I hear the word 'unnatural' in context with gay issues of any sort, it is invariably religiously motivated and invariably bigotry
Quote:
We need a working definition of "natural" and "unnatural" for practical reasons. For example, climate change: natural or unnatural? Yes, it's technically "natural" in the sense that anything humans do is technically natural, but that kind of pedantry not only renders the word "natural" useless, it makes it difficult to argue that humans (technically, thinking agents in general) have a moral responsibility for their impacts on the environment. If we say climate change is unnatural - that is, caused by the actions of thinking agents and not simply due to physical laws and biological instinct - then we make it clear that it is our fault, our problem, and our responsibility to fix.
Absolutely I agree that we need to distinguish thinking agents, but I don't see that unnatural is it. Likewise with climate change - I don't actually think the words natural and unnatural help at all. Anthropomorphic is, I grant, a bit of a mouthful, but 'human caused' or even 'man-made' would do the job much better than 'un-natural' IMHO.
Quote:
Being prejudicial regarding whether some effect was influenced by moral agency is vitally important in any moral judgement. If a tree toppled over due to the wind and crushed a person, it would be an absurd waste of time to hold a manslaughter trial for the wind. If a tree toppled over due to a lumberjack cutting it and crushed a person, then it makes sense to see if the lumberjack was morally responsible. Prejudicially picking only the moral agents for trial in such cases is hardly bigotry, it's rational prejudice.
Agreed.
Quote:
So i don't object to being prejudicial against cases where moral agency had an influence, so long as that prejudice is rational. In the case of climate change, very rational. Climate change is unnatural - it is caused primarily by humans, who are thinking agents - which makes it an entirely different sort of concern compared to, say, a sudden outbreak of tectonic activity spurring massive worldwide earthquakes and tsunamis. The former is primarily a moral problem, though it does call for technological solutions; the latter, merely a technological one.
I don't disagree with the point, but I still don't see that it necessitates applying the word natural, let alone defining its antonym as 'the result of thinking agency'......
Quote:
What i object to is irrational prejudice based on the natural/unnatural divide. Moral judgement would be a case of that. It is irrational to say something is good or evil just because it was/wasn't done by moral agents - i mean, put like that you can even see clearly how stupid it is.
I'm still not convinced. I've been trying to think of situations in which natural/un-natural would be useful ways of describing a phenomenon or event and in all cases that I can think of there are better choices....I think that the choice of un-natural is itself a moral action in that it immediately takes the subject in question into the moral arena even when that is neither the intention nor the appropriate discussion......
Indi
busman wrote:
kejk0nar wrote:
Go to Vegas and get maried...


I can't get married in the USA in almost all 50 states so it's w/e... Sad

You also can't even hold office in seven states because you're atheist, and, because of latent bigotry, unlikely to get elected in any of the others, so even if you wanted to run for government to change the laws so you could marry, you're SOL.

This is why i keep telling Americans: you might wanna double-check that you actually have democracy and freedom at home before going out into the world to spread it at the barrel of a gun.

Bikerman wrote:
The only time I hear the word 'unnatural' in context with gay issues of any sort, it is invariably religiously motivated and invariably bigotry

All true. It's because they set up an unjustified dichotomy. They call heterosexual sex "natural" and homosexual sex "unnatural", but give no good reason for the difference. If you play by a consistent set of rules for both terms, they're either both natural, or both unnatural. If you're saying that because they happen in nature - that is, they happen even in the absence of intelligent agency - then both do, so both are natural. If, on the other hand, you're saying that they're something that intelligent agents choose to do - for whatever reasons, let's say fun - then they're both unnatural.

The other trick they try to pull is sneakier, pretending that "natural" means "for the purposes of creating offspring". But they don't use that definition anywhere else in their thinking. In fact, no one uses that definition of "natural", for anything. Besides, very little heterosexual sex between humans is for the purposes of creating offspring, anyway, which means that, aside from a very limited set of cases, heterosexual sex is just as "unnatural" as homosexual sex. Again, if you play fair and use a consistent rule, you get the same answer for both heterosexual and homosexual sex.

But that's all academic, because, as you know, the real reason they bring up "naturalness" at all is to make a naturalistic fallacy - it's natural, so it's good.

Put all that together, and the whole "naturalness" argument against gay sex is specious crap.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
We need a working definition of "natural" and "unnatural" for practical reasons. For example, climate change: natural or unnatural? Yes, it's technically "natural" in the sense that anything humans do is technically natural, but that kind of pedantry not only renders the word "natural" useless, it makes it difficult to argue that humans (technically, thinking agents in general) have a moral responsibility for their impacts on the environment. If we say climate change is unnatural - that is, caused by the actions of thinking agents and not simply due to physical laws and biological instinct - then we make it clear that it is our fault, our problem, and our responsibility to fix.
Absolutely I agree that we need to distinguish thinking agents, but I don't see that unnatural is it. Likewise with climate change - I don't actually think the words natural and unnatural help at all. Anthropomorphic is, I grant, a bit of a mouthful, but 'human caused' or even 'man-made' would do the job much better than 'un-natural' IMHO.

But 'anthropomorphic' is anthropocentric. ^_^ So are 'human-caused' or even 'man-made'.

Granted, that's okay in the case of climate change, because it literally was 'human-caused'... humans were the only thinking agents responsible for that particular mess.

However, in the bigger picture, we have no word for 'thinking-agent-caused'... other than 'unnatural'. Stretch your mind into science fiction for a sec here, and imagine a world populated not just by humans, but by other types of thinking agents: transhumans, electronic intelligences, uplifted chimpanzees, extraterrestrials and super-intelligent shades of the colour blue. Suppose there's a climate change problem on that world. What would you call the climate change, then? How would you characterize it as caused by the conscious decisions made by the population of that world, rather than due to fluctuations in the star, or other such effects? Certainly not 'anthropomorphic' - that's a little unfair to the human population, because presumably the other types of thinking agents are just as responsible.

'Unnatural' is a serviceable word, in that purpose. (Can you think of any other?) It clearly expresses that the climate change was the responsibility of the actions of thinking agents, as opposed to unintelligent phenomena like the solar cycle. Yet at the same time, it doesn't name the particular type of thinking agent - and in particular, it isn't anthropocentric.

What we'd have to do first, though, is ditch the associations between 'unnatural' and 'immoral', or even just 'undesirable'. But we need to do that for dozens of other words anyway, like '(in)human', '(in)humane', and... dun dun dun... 'faithful/faithless', 'godly/godless' and many other such words. So '(un)natural' is hardly the only word that suffers this problem.
Related topics
Judge declares: Let The Moon Shine
Abortion or Murder?
Favorite CMS.
these are our children...
Lego Star Wars 2
Does time fly?
Teen finds, returns $24K in movie theater
Seeking the advice of gamers...
Traffic accident
Hello
Is 13 too young to sail round the world solo?
Banned from sex
Sanity check
People judge too much
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.