BBcodes (which you may test in this topic)

our continued existence,,,,

I think the whole reward concept is overplayed anyhow. What is a reward to one may not be a reward to another but EVERYONE has consequences to their actions and some are more desirable(rewards) than others(punishment),,so really


whether you are nice for the reward of the personal feeling it gives you, or whether you are nice to gain popularity, or whether you are nice to please GOD, or some combination of all three

its disingenous to pretend that the desire or interest in reward is any indication of disingenouse intent

That's a fair question posed in a respectful manner. I mst say though, that one not justify what they mean, unless they are justifying changing the conventional meaning of the terminology being used. One justifies their beliefs through figuring out how they have arrived at them. Anyway, this is greatly appreciated and lends itself to a mutually shared understanding. It is a matter of principle. Being biased for equal affordances of rights/priveleges to all means that the best case scenario would be that everyone be equally afforded those rights/priveleges.

Denying one such rights/priveleges is not necessarily a matter of whether or not one "deserves it". Everyone deserves as much freedom and self-direction as possible. However, sometimes our discernment prevails. We know that certain behaviors pose an imminent danger to the success of a free society. Thus the betterment of the society as a whole often supercedes individual freedom. Thus, we cannot go around robbing people, etc. because such behavior poses a clear and present danger to everyone's freedom.



The objection being given here refutes itself, Pan. It unknowingly offers prima facie evidence of the important role that justification has. I mean, the objection itself holds(as justification) that the term "justification" is 'subjective', and then uses that as a means(reason) in order to further justify our not placing much importance on the role of justification.

Thus, I strongly contend that this kind of comment stifles the understanding. There are other issues with it as well. I mean, what is it supposed to mean? Is there a meaningful distinction between 'subjective' terms and not 'subjective' ones? If that distinction cannot be made and adhered to, then the above objection has little value. Rather, it is seen by me as an unnecessary distraction that cannot deny the critical and extremely important role that justification plays in everyone's thoughts. Justification is real, not imagined. It is the most influencial element in all thought, belief, and knowledge.

Objectivity is the aim to remove as much bias as possible. We cannot completely remove the fallibility inherent in the way we frame and experience the world, however there are ways to remove some. We must also keep in mind that just because everything comes through a subject, it does not follow that everything coming through is equally subjective.



Incestuous marriage has it's own set of reasons for the objections. I do not believe that genetic mutation is the only one. There is over a hundred years worth of psychological studies which object on much different ground. I have trouble believing that two family members would, as adults, find one another to be attractive candidates for life-long partners without there first being some kind of sexual abuse during childhood.



I don't know.



I don't know. I would think that those standards are already based upon scientific data.



I suppose I'm failing to understand how these points bear on gay marriage issues. I mean, how are they similar enough to apply?



In public places, meaning like McDonalds on the corner of fifth and main? Yes. On public beaches which clearly post signs describing the freedoms being allowed on the beach? No. Same goes with any other place designated for nudity and non-nudity alike.

Does homosexual activity endanger this?

it doesnt need to, it doesnt PROMOTE It, which is the UNIQUE reason to promote heterosexual relations

So any liefstyle/behavior that does not promote our continued existence should not be promoted itself?

Could you explain what "promote our continued existence" means? I mean, do you mean results in, like heterosexual relationships results in newborns and that promotes our continued existence?

Who the hell needs to promote heterosexual behavior anyway???

Do the fanatics really believe that if homosexuals get married that all heterosexuals will suddenly become gay???

Sorry but that is just a stupid concept.

Thanks for the link – I read all of Ezekiel 16, several times. There is a lot of information that can be discerned from the text. Since we’re discussing same sex marriage I read it again with only that in mind.

I think you’ve been in the forums long enough to have seen my objections to the interpretations of the 5 places in scripture that ‘supposedly’ refer to homosexuals. So what I gleen from Ezekiel 16 may seem like confirmation bias, but I can’t it any other way.

It seems clear to me that homosexuality was not the sin of any city destroyed under God’s influence. In fact it is quite clear to me that



Homosexuality (defined as same sex attraction between two people who desire a caring long-term relationship) has no role what-so-ever in bringing disfavor on any city. Though it is only hinted at in these verses, the offerings to other gods through the priests and priestesses may have called for sexual acts and those acts were not limited to heterosexuals or even to adults only.

That kind of sexual activity being offered up to other gods was the ‘sin’ but it was not the only sin, it was, however, the sin that made God jealous. It was the sin by which God called Jerusalem an adulteress, whore, and harlot.

So to me, this is verse points out the misinterpretation that has led to the discrimination against ‘homosexuals’ today.

Throughout history, there have been civilizations that have accepted homosexuality, some have even called it the third gender or another kind of gender (as in transgendered people). Some civilizations considered it a ‘pass-time’ something men and women would do (as they say today) on the down low. That way they fulfilled their ‘duty’ to marry, ‘procreate’, and take care of family, while seeking sexual fulfillment “on the down low”.

If anyone is paying attention here they might make the connection between the preceding paragraph and the CDC statistic that cites the largest increase in HIV is among black females. Those would be heterosexual females, because the black subculture ‘values’ family above all relationships and so black males (not wanting to disappoint) do their duty and marry, or cohabit with a female, often they have children, and all the while the male is on the down low.

That’s not an analogy based of stereotyping, it is based on research.

All of that leads me to ask – How do we decrease new cases of HIV?

1. We need to educate our young people about safe sex (hetero and homosexuals) but we can’t do that in this atmosphere of hate, disgust, and discrimination.
2. We need to accept that some people ARE homosexual (for whatever reason, they just are) and that discrimination is the greatest tool in the spread of HIV in the U.S.
3. We need to learn to appreciate our differences and not fear them

If we accomplish the above, then religious beliefs about homosexuality would not be a problem, because the only way to accomplish those things is through the law. It took 100 years to recognize that SAYING the slaves are African Americans and so they should be equally free men, meant nothing unless people could be held accountable under the law for their discriminations.

Saying that Homosexuals are free and equal is not cutting it, we need the LAW that holds people accountable for their discriminatory actions. That doesn’t change a person’s religious belief or their freedom to hold those beliefs.

Of course if some people choose to interpret Ezekiel 16 as homosexuality as the sin that brought God’s wrath upon the ancient cities, then those people are bound to think that God will destroy America for accepting homosexuality. For these people justification becomes whatever will save the continued discriminatory beliefs.

So what did you have in mind PP, when you suggested I read the scriputre?


OK - I'm catching up here and I just saw a post you (PP) wrote to Miles, so I guess on some level we have agreement about Ezekiel - am I right?

Therein lies my point. "We know that certain behaviors pose an imminent danger to the success of a free society."

What danger to society does incestuous marriage pose? What danger does mentally challenged marriage pose? What about the younger people being allowed to marry, where is the danger in that?

The only harm or danger would be to the individuals, no?




And this is a point I always bring up. Opinions are subjective, ALWAYS... While someone poses their justification for whatever given point, someone else says "that's not justified" and cite bias, racism, religion or even ignorance. Often times there's not a valid reason for objecting to a counter arguement except that it doesn't agree with the objectors point of view.

You have to remember, we're talking about a subject here that the OP clearly has a bias for. The OP also clearly has an unfounded bias against anyone who would object as witnessed by what was written before there were any objections voiced. All you have to do is look at the language used...




Objectivity is the aim, but will never be the result. The best we can hope for as a society is an open discussion without the name-calling, without the derogatory comments and with the hopes that there be a civil discussion. The closest we can get to objectivity is a majority descision after an open and honest discussion. What ends up happening though is that the "bigot card" is played in hopes of silencing the opposition or at least dimminishing their credibility.
Opponents of gay marriage are often compared to the likes of Hitler and the KKK, do you agree?



And I have trouble believing that two same-sex people would find each other attractive. But that is a personal opinion and shouldn't even be mentioned, right? Yet that's what we get when we bring up incest or a 14 year old marrying an adult isn't it? It's a double standard that is ignored whenever one feels like it...

There are several instances of children switched at birth, adopted out, step relations or just clear incest where no abuse was reported nor suspected. There is a major case in the Netherlands I believe about a sister-brother couple who got married and never knew they were related. They had their 4 children removed and are in jail still I think. What about granting two people who genuinely love each other the same freedom that you think should be afforded to homosexuals?

There are also psycological studies about homosexuality, but what is the general reaction if they were to be brought up? Biased? Homophobic? Unjustified? You do realise that the APA clasified homosexuality as a mental illness until the mid 70's? Since then though, they have become allies of "gay rights" and there is not one desparaging study posted on their website. Their whole agenda is not the welfare of the people, this should be evident by the amount of new "mental disorders" created (made up) in the last 20-30 years.
A new drug comes out with such and such properties, and a new condition is "discovered" to prescribe the drug for.




But any scientific data opposed to gay marriage is stiffled. Silenced. Deemed homophobic.




They're both about marriage and the privelege to marry whomever one chooses...




But how does being nude in McDonald's pose a "threat"? Everyone is born naked, that is a proven fact. It's perfectly natural and beautiful.

There is a way to avoid going back and forth on EXACTLY what has previously been posted. If a responder suggests that there other information which seems to invalidate the opinion, then researching the matter further would either provide greater support for Exactly what was originally said OR it should prevent the person from repeating EXACTLY the same think repeatedly.




The legalities surrounding who may or may not be eligible for marriage is generally in the hands of the state. Also, every state has age restrictions, competency restrictions, laws related to bigamy, and so on. If none of the restrictions are prohibitive to a same sex couple then they should have been allowed to be married. But they weren’t.



This fear is unfounded because NO STATE has a law that requires factors of love for marriage eligibility – such a requirement could never be proven.



The laws of ‘consent’ vary from state-to-state but in EVERY state ‘consensual’ laws are more explicit than just stating, adult relationship . There are other factors that make ‘consent’ legitimate. Marriage is a legal contract, both parties need to be able to understand what they’re doing. All of the prohibitions have different reasons for existing that’s why they are listed as different items. If it were not for the addition of DOMA type laws in response to homosexual’s desire to be married, those laws would not have prohibited the vast majority of homosexuals from marrying.

To understand why that’s so would require gaining knowledge about why each of the laws is on record.

No there is not. Incest has been studied extensively, cross-culturally and historically. Some studies have even shown that the ‘degree’ of incest (i.e. third degree or 1st cousins) within particular tribal units could actually increase certain characteristics that prove beneficial to the tribe.

While genetics still plays a prohibitive role to marriage, it is the psychological components involved that continue to make incest a taboo in all developed countries. I’ve read of a few instances where such marriage was allowed but only if the couple submitted to permanent sterilization. Those cases were in other countries and they were unusual in that the couples only met for the first time as adults.



So by that logic, heterosexual couples present the exact same risk as incestuous couples and since homosexuals cannot produce children together, their harm to future generations is less likely than either incestuous or heterosexual couples.

But that too is flawed because the logic assumes that genetic factors are the only reason to prohibit incestuous marriage and that’s not so. Perhaps even more harmful in cases of incest is the psychological harm.

They are statistics, they give numbers and correlations of those numbers to different groups of people BUT they offer no causal relationship. To understand the number, it’s important to question WHY – WHAT IS CAUSING those numbers to be so high.

Many people understand that the use of statistics has certain limitations. What most people don’t understand is what those limitations are. Statistical validity is the basis for further research. To make assumptions based on the groups of people who make up the statistics is bad science. We often begin with statistics in order to hypothesize the causes.

So to the untrained mind all statistics are random as are the sources of those numbers. In fact, the greatest amount of ‘skew’ given to any set of statistical information comes from those who don’t understand how statistical validity is attained or how those figures apply to further research.



And my point (made above) indicates that knowing how to assess the validity of all that information, and what to do with the data does not support your argument.

Any idea how many homosexuals have their own biological children? Are the adopted children of heterosexuals any less their OWN children than the adopted children of homosexuals? Are not all those children benefited by the same laws when their (adoptive) parents are married?



I have trouble making sense of that quote.

“That lifestyle” is forced upon homosexuals and their children when they are not allowed to marry.

If they could marry, how would their ‘lifestyle’ be so much different than other married couples?



Many homosexuals have their own biological children – many bisexuals who partner with someone of the same sex have their own biological children.

Heterosexual married couples who cannot have children can adopt and the birth certificate shows the couple as parents to the child. Homosexual couples have to go to great lengths and much greater expense to do the same thing but somehow they AND THEIR CHILDREN are not as important. Why?

What is important to you – the tradition of one man and one woman or the children, family, and community?

I fail to see your point. You've partially quoted something that applied to a certain kind of behavior and are attempting to remove the context and apply it where it doesn't.

I'm not arguing for or against incestuous marriage, nor mentally challenged marriage based upon those behaviors being an imminent danger to the success of a free society.

You have however argued such a thing against gay marriage.



The fact that people's opinions vary does not make them all equally true, false, nor justified by equal ground. Pointing out that opinions differ tell us nothing meaningful about the particular opinion.

What does "subjective" mean to you, Pan?



I would suspect that that pov may be unreasonable(unjustifiable).



This is not necessarily true, nor does it make all opinion equally justified, nor does it make all arguments equally valid/reasonable.

I'll say it again...

Just because all things come through a subject, it does not follow that all things coming through are equally subjective.



Majority decisions are not indicative of being the closest we can get to objectivity.



Do not confuse being "played" with being properly identified and subsequently called out.



Do not confuse the opponents with their 'reasons'.



You can mention your opinion all you want, as can I - and I did. My expressed belief is not the reason that incestuous marriage is not allowed. It seems that you think otherwise. As above, so below...





This is quite simply untrue. I accepted all but one instance of Thomas' recent studies, then clearly showed how the facts were being selectively applied to only gays, when by all rights they applied to much broader groups of people.

That constitutes adequate evidence of discrimination in the application itself, and as such it also clearly demonstrates and reinforces the need to aim for objectivity.



That's as far as the similarities go Pan.

But this is the problem I think.

I'm not aguing against gay marriage. I am arguing for incestuous, underage and mentally challenged.

When and if you can give a valid argument against any of those, I will show you how they can be applied to gay marriage.

That's my point!

there ya go,,,

this is the definition I had in mind:

promote

b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being

what is important is that we continue to EXIST< which is why government steps in and offers an INCENTIVE for heterosexuals to continue to bond and COMMIT to each other and the families that might create,,,

Are you prepared to also not promote the following choices?

1. Preisthood(who do not engage in procreation)
2. Convent life(being a nun - no procreation)
3. Any form of celibacy, including all forms of birth control
4. Marriage between senior citizens(who cannot have children)
5. Marriage between infertile people(who cannot have children)
6. Intentionally deciding to not getting married or having children



We will continue to exist regardless of whether or not some people choose to not procreate, or even in light of the fact that some cannot procreate. On the other hand, the following other examples fulfill your purported requirements for continuing our existence...

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Children out of wedlock
4. Polygamy
5. Promiscuity
6. Arranged(forced) marriage

Now, I am not saying that you have explicitly endorsed or denied any of these behaviors. Rather, I am saying that the criterion you've put forth does not satisfy being a reasonable nor sufficient criterion from which to compare what is or what is not to be promoted. These twelve examples above show why that is the case.

By the way, overpopulation has become a legitimate concern as well; one of which is not being taken into consideration on your part. Gays, and all others who choose to not procreate are doing the world a favor in that regard.