Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On homosexuality

tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 1:18:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
This is, incidentally, my 3000th post (though that's irrelevant to the subject of the OP).

The issue of whether homosexuality is a choice has largely been settled -- most research confirms that, whatever the cause of homosexuality, it isn't a choice. The general scientific conclusions tend to base themselves on environmental and genetic factors. The Royal College of Psychiatrics said in 2014, "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation."

The point of the OP isn't to show that "homosexuality isn't a choice," because (a) if so, I would have posted in the Science forum, and (b) that's a decided issue -- most people, even "homophobic" ones, agree that homosexuality isn't a choice (and that merely increases the sheer idiocy of homophobia). Then what is this OP about?

I've noticed in many debates about the *social* aspect of homosexuality (for instance, debates about gay marriage) that the issue of homosexuality (not) being a choice is brought in. For instance, in certain debates about gay marriage, the side in favor of gay marriage says "homosexuality is not a choice, so gay marriage should be legal," and the side against often says "homosexuality is a choice, so it should be illegal," and so forth.

That logic is weak, because whether or not homosexuality is a choice is *irrelevant* to the issue of gay marriage, and similar issues regarding gay rights. Because, whether or not homosexuality is a choice, homophobia is *still* bigotry and discrimination. Gay marriage should *still* be legal. Homosexuality being a choice is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

Why am I posting this? I'm frequently annoyed by a few people on DDO who believe that homophobia is justified *because,* according to them, homosexuality is a choice. Equality is irrelevant of the origin of the aspect of a person being discriminated against. That's fundamental to equality. And that should be upheld. It's pretty simple.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:01:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I beg to differ though. I see nothing wrong with judging someone by something they *choose* (I used to be anti-gay because I did not know it was natural back then).

I mean, if I were an employer, I would never reject someone for being ugly, since that's discriminatory. But if someone dyes his hair in rainbow colours, or has visible tattoos, there's no way I'd hire them. This sort of 'discrimination' is not unjustified because the choices you make in life are a good indicator of what sort of person you are.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:03:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 1:18:40 PM, tejretics wrote:
This is, incidentally, my 3000th post (though that's irrelevant to the subject of the OP).

The issue of whether homosexuality is a choice has largely been settled -- most research confirms that, whatever the cause of homosexuality, it isn't a choice. The general scientific conclusions tend to base themselves on environmental and genetic factors. The Royal College of Psychiatrics said in 2014, "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation."

The point of the OP isn't to show that "homosexuality isn't a choice," because (a) if so, I would have posted in the Science forum, and (b) that's a decided issue -- most people, even "homophobic" ones, agree that homosexuality isn't a choice (and that merely increases the sheer idiocy of homophobia). Then what is this OP about?

I've noticed in many debates about the *social* aspect of homosexuality (for instance, debates about gay marriage) that the issue of homosexuality (not) being a choice is brought in. For instance, in certain debates about gay marriage, the side in favor of gay marriage says "homosexuality is not a choice, so gay marriage should be legal," and the side against often says "homosexuality is a choice, so it should be illegal," and so forth.

That logic is weak, because whether or not homosexuality is a choice is *irrelevant* to the issue of gay marriage, and similar issues regarding gay rights. Because, whether or not homosexuality is a choice, homophobia is *still* bigotry and discrimination. Gay marriage should *still* be legal. Homosexuality being a choice is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

Why am I posting this? I'm frequently annoyed by a few people on DDO who believe that homophobia is justified *because,* according to them, homosexuality is a choice. Equality is irrelevant of the origin of the aspect of a person being discriminated against. That's fundamental to equality. And that should be upheld. It's pretty simple.

As,someone who doesn't believe the state should give benefits to homosexual relationships, I do recognise that physical attraction is not a choice, and agree that it's irrelevant to the issue.

Congratulations on your 3000 post. You truly are an asset to the website!
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:05:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:01:27 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

That's generic. I'm not saying choices made by a person don't define that person's worth. Specifically with reference to gay couples, if homosexuality were a choice, would you be against gay marriage? Why?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:36:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Sorry I missed where you said this was your 3000th post o_0 Congrats! :)

At 1/9/2016 2:05:47 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:01:27 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

That's generic. I'm not saying choices made by a person don't define that person's worth. Specifically with reference to gay couples, if homosexuality were a choice, would you be against gay marriage? Why?

Yeah. If, on Twin Earth, homosexuality were a choice, I would certainly be against gay marriage. Gay people could simply choose to be heterosexual, and engage in heterosexual relationships, which allows them to have blood children the traditional way.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:37:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:36:01 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Sorry I missed where you said this was your 3000th post o_0 Congrats! :)

Yeah. If, on Twin Earth, homosexuality were a choice, I would certainly be against gay marriage. Gay people could simply choose to be heterosexual, and engage in heterosexual relationships, which allows them to have blood children the traditional way.

Why do you want them to be heterosexual? By that logic, would you be against same-sex marriage for bisexuals?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:43:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:37:42 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:36:01 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Sorry I missed where you said this was your 3000th post o_0 Congrats! :)

Yeah. If, on Twin Earth, homosexuality were a choice, I would certainly be against gay marriage. Gay people could simply choose to be heterosexual, and engage in heterosexual relationships, which allows them to have blood children the traditional way.

Why do you want them to be heterosexual?
Pretty much what I wrote in my last sentence: allows them to have blood children the traditional way.
By that logic, would you be against same-sex marriage for bisexuals?
Yeah, but it would be pretty silly to have 'sexual orientation tests' to make sure only homosexuals can marry people of the same sex... so I wouldn't support the law imposing such restrictions.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:49:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:43:48 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:37:42 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:36:01 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Sorry I missed where you said this was your 3000th post o_0 Congrats! :)

Yeah. If, on Twin Earth, homosexuality were a choice, I would certainly be against gay marriage. Gay people could simply choose to be heterosexual, and engage in heterosexual relationships, which allows them to have blood children the traditional way.

Why do you want them to be heterosexual?

Pretty much what I wrote in my last sentence: allows them to have blood children the traditional way.

Why do you want them to "have blood children the traditional way," especially since there are so many children in the world that need adoption and care? And why do you care whether they marry people of the same sex?

By that logic, would you be against same-sex marriage for bisexuals?

Yeah, but it would be pretty silly to have 'sexual orientation tests' to make sure only homosexuals can marry people of the same sex... so I wouldn't support the law imposing such restrictions.

So -- in an *ideal* world, where legal problems, etc don't exist -- you'd be for preventing bisexuals from marrying people they love if they're of the same sex? So you'd limit a person from marrying another that they love just so that person can have "blood children the traditional way"? That's nonsense. There's *no reason* to do that. It would just minimize net happiness. The government ought to legislate by means of the harm principle, in that people should be able to do whatever they want insofar as they don't harm a non-consensual other.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:54:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 1:18:40 PM, tejretics wrote:
This is, incidentally, my 3000th post (though that's irrelevant to the subject of the OP).

The issue of whether homosexuality is a choice has largely been settled -- most research confirms that, whatever the cause of homosexuality, it isn't a choice. The general scientific conclusions tend to base themselves on environmental and genetic factors. The Royal College of Psychiatrics said in 2014, "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation."

The point of the OP isn't to show that "homosexuality isn't a choice," because (a) if so, I would have posted in the Science forum, and (b) that's a decided issue -- most people, even "homophobic" ones, agree that homosexuality isn't a choice (and that merely increases the sheer idiocy of homophobia). Then what is this OP about?

I've noticed in many debates about the *social* aspect of homosexuality (for instance, debates about gay marriage) that the issue of homosexuality (not) being a choice is brought in. For instance, in certain debates about gay marriage, the side in favor of gay marriage says "homosexuality is not a choice, so gay marriage should be legal," and the side against often says "homosexuality is a choice, so it should be illegal," and so forth.

That logic is weak, because whether or not homosexuality is a choice is *irrelevant* to the issue of gay marriage, and similar issues regarding gay rights. Because, whether or not homosexuality is a choice, homophobia is *still* bigotry and discrimination. Gay marriage should *still* be legal. Homosexuality being a choice is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

Why am I posting this? I'm frequently annoyed by a few people on DDO who believe that homophobia is justified *because,* according to them, homosexuality is a choice. Equality is irrelevant of the origin of the aspect of a person being discriminated against. That's fundamental to equality. And that should be upheld. It's pretty simple.

This is why the vast majority of people who argue against same sex marriage don't actually use "choice" in their argument.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 6:22:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:49:45 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:43:48 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:37:42 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:36:01 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Sorry I missed where you said this was your 3000th post o_0 Congrats! :)

Yeah. If, on Twin Earth, homosexuality were a choice, I would certainly be against gay marriage. Gay people could simply choose to be heterosexual, and engage in heterosexual relationships, which allows them to have blood children the traditional way.

Why do you want them to be heterosexual?

Pretty much what I wrote in my last sentence: allows them to have blood children the traditional way.

Why do you want them to "have blood children the traditional way," especially since there are so many children in the world that need adoption and care? And why do you care whether they marry people of the same sex?
Having biological children and adopting are not mutually exclusive. Families can have one biological child and adopt another, if they have the financial means to do so.
By that logic, would you be against same-sex marriage for bisexuals?

Yeah, but it would be pretty silly to have 'sexual orientation tests' to make sure only homosexuals can marry people of the same sex... so I wouldn't support the law imposing such restrictions.

So -- in an *ideal* world, where legal problems, etc don't exist -- you'd be for preventing bisexuals from marrying people they love if they're of the same sex? So you'd limit a person from marrying another that they love just so that person can have "blood children the traditional way"? That's nonsense. There's *no reason* to do that. It would just minimize net happiness. The government ought to legislate by means of the harm principle, in that people should be able to do whatever they want insofar as they don't harm a non-consensual other.
I don't accept utilitarianism or the harm principle. One of the main purposes of the government is to promote morality and uphold positive values. The government should not do anything that is inconsistent with these goals, which includes marrying people of the same sex if they could have married someone of another sex instead.

It doesn't really infringe on the freedoms of the bisexuals. They can still court people of the same sex if they want. The government should not, however, encourage it or grant them the right to marry (on such a Twin Earth).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 6:26:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 6:22:30 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

How is allowing people of the same sex marry against the so-called "positive values"? Who decides these positive values?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 12:16:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I think it can, but doesn't have to be, relevant to the issue. It depends on what grounds one supports or opposes gay marriage. For example, if one thinks that homosexuality is bad for society but concedes that homosexuals have no choice in the matter, then they might consider it cruel to deprive them of meaningful marriage and decide to grant them marriage rights. On the other hand, if they think homosexuality is a choice, then they might say to themselves "Why should we reform a longstanding institution just to accommodate for their immoral choice? They aren't trapped, they can just drop the act and start living a normal life whenever they want to, we shouldn't encourage them leading an immoral life."

Take Tourette Syndrome syndrome. If we found out that suffers of this disorder were actually doing it on purpose, we might not grant them rights which protect them in the workplace, whereas if it were not their choice we probably would (and do, to my knowledge). I'm not saying Tourette Syndrome is analogous to homosexuality, but to some people it is.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 12:42:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:36:01 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Sorry I missed where you said this was your 3000th post o_0 Congrats! :)

At 1/9/2016 2:05:47 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:01:27 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

That's generic. I'm not saying choices made by a person don't define that person's worth. Specifically with reference to gay couples, if homosexuality were a choice, would you be against gay marriage? Why?

Yeah. If, on Twin Earth, homosexuality were a choice, I would certainly be against gay marriage. Gay people could simply choose to be heterosexual, and engage in heterosexual relationships, which allows them to have blood children the traditional way.

I don't think that any of our traditional familial institutions would exist if homosexuality were a choice, so the question is kind of moot.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 5:56:15 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 6:26:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:22:30 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

How is allowing people of the same sex marry against the so-called "positive values"?
I think you can already guess my answer to this lol... but I know you won't agree with it.
Who decides these positive values?
I'm glad you brought up this part because we haven't discussed this in detail before. Such values should be dictated by the government in a meritocratic system. In a meritocratic system, if the rulers impose values that are different from mine, I would accept theirs.

The problem is that most of the world's governments are either bureaucracies with gerontocratic elements or 'democracies' where government decisions hinge on the relative abilities of politicial parties to manipulate and take advantage of the whims of the masses (or something even worse than these two). Before a true meritocracy is established, I will continue to opine on matters as I am presently doing.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 5:57:25 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 12:42:27 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:36:01 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Sorry I missed where you said this was your 3000th post o_0 Congrats! :)

At 1/9/2016 2:05:47 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:01:27 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

That's generic. I'm not saying choices made by a person don't define that person's worth. Specifically with reference to gay couples, if homosexuality were a choice, would you be against gay marriage? Why?

Yeah. If, on Twin Earth, homosexuality were a choice, I would certainly be against gay marriage. Gay people could simply choose to be heterosexual, and engage in heterosexual relationships, which allows them to have blood children the traditional way.

I don't think that any of our traditional familial institutions would exist if homosexuality were a choice, so the question is kind of moot.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. A ceteris paribus twin earth isn't always a possible world... such is the nature of causation :)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:05:15 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
The problem is that you are not distinguishing between the attraction and the behaviour. I might be attracted to leggy blondes but choose to marry a brunette because there is a lot more to relationships than sexual attraction. Similarly
.gays do choose willingly to marry the opposite sex. So despite any objections to the contrary there is a conscious choice between choosing same sex or opposite sex partners. And despite what the evil gay activists will tell you, an opposite sex partner might just be a healthier and more fulfilling choice.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:21:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 12:16:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
For example, if one thinks that homosexuality is bad for society but concedes that homosexuals have no choice in the matter, then they might consider it cruel to deprive them of meaningful marriage and decide to grant them marriage rights.

Pretty much my position.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 10:38:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 5:56:15 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:26:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:22:30 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

How is allowing people of the same sex marry against the so-called "positive values"?

I think you can already guess my answer to this lol... but I know you won't agree with it.

I don't know. It is "unnatural" or some sh!t like that?

Who decides these positive values?

I'm glad you brought up this part because we haven't discussed this in detail before. Such values should be dictated by the government in a meritocratic system. In a meritocratic system, if the rulers impose values that are different from mine, I would accept theirs.

I don't understand- what do you mean by "values"?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:17:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:21:48 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:16:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
For example, if one thinks that homosexuality is bad for society but concedes that homosexuals have no choice in the matter, then they might consider it cruel to deprive them of meaningful marriage and decide to grant them marriage rights.

Pretty much my position.

Don't you see the flaw in this argument?

You are using sexual attraction as the fundamental starting point. If we all based our choices on sexual attraction, how do you think that would affect the longevity of marriage?

Why do you think marriage is in such a f*cked up state as it is?
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:22:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:17:23 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:21:48 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:16:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
For example, if one thinks that homosexuality is bad for society but concedes that homosexuals have no choice in the matter, then they might consider it cruel to deprive them of meaningful marriage and decide to grant them marriage rights.

Pretty much my position.

Don't you see the flaw in this argument?

You are using sexual attraction as the fundamental starting point. If we all based our choices on sexual attraction, how do you think that would affect the longevity of marriage?

Is it better to stigmatize any kind of orgasm before marriage, making people pursue marriage for saying "YES! Finally I can have sex!"

Why do you think marriage is in such a f*cked up state as it is?

My way of seeing this is that people do not force themselves anymore to stay in bad relationships. An illegalization of divorce would make people having to stay in abusive marriages.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:46:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 10:38:32 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/10/2016 5:56:15 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:26:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:22:30 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

How is allowing people of the same sex marry against the so-called "positive values"?

I think you can already guess my answer to this lol... but I know you won't agree with it.

I don't know. It is "unnatural" or some sh!t like that?
Ugh, no. My disdain for appeals to nature is every bit as great as yours, and I wish both sides of the homosexuality argument would stop using it. The inability to procreate normally is my main and only complaint about homosexuality. It has always been. Extending the family line is the responsibility of every child to his/her parents, grandparents, ancestors; this value cannot change.
Who decides these positive values?

I'm glad you brought up this part because we haven't discussed this in detail before. Such values should be dictated by the government in a meritocratic system. In a meritocratic system, if the rulers impose values that are different from mine, I would accept theirs.

I don't understand- what do you mean by "values"?
Principles of morality and ethics, judgements about the relative importance of moral and ethical rules, etc.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:46:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
@Dylancatlow

You've misunderstood my post. I'm not saying it's *impossible* to justify being Pro or Con gay marriage due to homosexuality being a choice. I'm saying such a position isn't really defensible. I agree that a person, like Diqiucun_Cunmin, could believe that homosexuality is a net harm to society, but since it's not a choice, gay marriage should be legal. What I'm saying is that it's impossible to defend that homosexuality *is* a net harm to society. Such an argument wouldn't work. My position is that homosexuality being a choice *does not* affect whether gay marriage should be legal, while it can be argued that it does, and there are such possible positions. Gay marriage does not present a net harm to society regardless of whether homosexuality imo, and that's what I've outlined primarily in the OP.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:50:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:46:22 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/10/2016 10:38:32 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/10/2016 5:56:15 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:26:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:22:30 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

How is allowing people of the same sex marry against the so-called "positive values"?

I think you can already guess my answer to this lol... but I know you won't agree with it.

I don't know. It is "unnatural" or some sh!t like that?

Ugh, no. My disdain for appeals to nature is every bit as great as yours, and I wish both sides of the homosexuality argument would stop using it. The inability to procreate normally is my main and only complaint about homosexuality. It has always been. Extending the family line is the responsibility of every child to his/her parents, grandparents, ancestors; this value cannot change.

That's just a bare assertion, and I disagree with the position. There's no productive point to extending the family line. There's no reason to accept that it's a "value [which] cannot change." But that's something we've expressed disagreement on in the past, so let's keep that aside. An important point would be, extending the family line, even presuming that value, doesn't imply having a *biological* child. As long as they have a child, it's "extending the family line." That child could be adopted. There's no reason to favor a biological child over an adopted one except natural impulse, and we've established that appealing to nature is dumb. So adoption could perfectly solve the issue for gay couples. So even under your framework, gay marriage is irrelevant to homosexuality being a choice.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:51:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:17:23 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:21:48 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:16:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
For example, if one thinks that homosexuality is bad for society but concedes that homosexuals have no choice in the matter, then they might consider it cruel to deprive them of meaningful marriage and decide to grant them marriage rights.

Pretty much my position.

Don't you see the flaw in this argument?

You are using sexual attraction as the fundamental starting point. If we all based our choices on sexual attraction, how do you think that would affect the longevity of marriage?
I'm not. I don't even disagree with you, but your argument isn't realistic.

Imagine a Twin Earth where only people of the *same* sex can procreate, and you're heterosexual. Would you be willing to marry someone of the same sex? Personally, I would not. I would be completely grossed out.

If homosexuals decide to marry people of the opposite sex, I applaud their decision. But you cannot expect all homosexuals to do so. Some (e.g. Tchaikovsky) tried it, and could not stand it.
Why do you think marriage is in such a f*cked up state as it is?
There are many reasons for that. Increase in sexual openness (which is a polite word for promiscuity), increased acceptance of divorce, abolition of arranged marriage, increase in the number of households where both parents work, rampant individualism and hedonism etc. Not sure how this is related to the subject at hand.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:33:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
There are many reasons for that. Increase in sexual openness (which is a polite word for promiscuity), increased acceptance of divorce, abolition of arranged marriage, increase in the number of households where both parents work, rampant individualism and hedonism etc. Not sure how this is related to the subject at hand.

Okay let me see if I can join the dots for you.

I'm not entirely religious myself, but I firmly believe there is an abundance of wisdom in the bible that we don't understand, and that it must come from a higher intelligence eg God, or Gods, or Aliens.

Just think about all those issues you mentioned, and think of how many are condoned by the Bible.

The link is quite plain to see if you ask me. Simply the disintegration of morals and values - society no longers knows the difference between right and wrong.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:59:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Imagine a Twin Earth where only people of the *same* sex can procreate, and you're heterosexual. Would you be willing to marry someone of the same sex? Personally, I would not. I would be completely grossed out.


How could you possible know? i wouldn't have a clue how I would go personally, but I will say that there are homosexuals that do marry the opposite sex, they do have a great sex life even if it isn't totally fulfilling, and there are many reasons more important than sexual attraction why you would marry someone.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 9:24:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I agree with the point of the OP, but while I agree that the issue of choice is technically irrelevant, it is still useful as a rhetorical tactic to persuade the uninformed, stupid, or hopelessly ideological.

Why is this the case? Because you cannot blame someone for what they did not choose to do. If homosexuality is not a choice, it is not a blameworthy condition. Framing the issue like this helps persuade people. Whether or not it is needed to make a convincing argument for equal rights is immaterial, since this is an effective way to do the same that.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 1:41:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:50:11 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/10/2016 2:46:22 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/10/2016 10:38:32 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/10/2016 5:56:15 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:26:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:22:30 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

How is allowing people of the same sex marry against the so-called "positive values"?

I think you can already guess my answer to this lol... but I know you won't agree with it.

I don't know. It is "unnatural" or some sh!t like that?

Ugh, no. My disdain for appeals to nature is every bit as great as yours, and I wish both sides of the homosexuality argument would stop using it. The inability to procreate normally is my main and only complaint about homosexuality. It has always been. Extending the family line is the responsibility of every child to his/her parents, grandparents, ancestors; this value cannot change.

That's just a bare assertion, and I disagree with the position. There's no productive point to extending the family line. There's no reason to accept that it's a "value [which] cannot change." But that's something we've expressed disagreement on in the past, so let's keep that aside. An important point would be, extending the family line, even presuming that value, doesn't imply having a *biological* child. As long as they have a child, it's "extending the family line." That child could be adopted. There's no reason to favor a biological child over an adopted one except natural impulse, and we've established that appealing to nature is dumb. So adoption could perfectly solve the issue for gay couples. So even under your framework, gay marriage is irrelevant to homosexuality being a choice.
There is important symbolic (and genetic) meaning to having biological children to extend the family line. Adoption cannot replace that. My position is that, given that having a biological child is possible, it should be done. Failing that, adoption can work as a lesser substitute.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 1:43:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:33:05 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
There are many reasons for that. Increase in sexual openness (which is a polite word for promiscuity), increased acceptance of divorce, abolition of arranged marriage, increase in the number of households where both parents work, rampant individualism and hedonism etc. Not sure how this is related to the subject at hand.

Okay let me see if I can join the dots for you.

I'm not entirely religious myself, but I firmly believe there is an abundance of wisdom in the bible that we don't understand, and that it must come from a higher intelligence eg God, or Gods, or Aliens.

Just think about all those issues you mentioned, and think of how many are condoned by the Bible.

The link is quite plain to see if you ask me. Simply the disintegration of morals and values - society no longers knows the difference between right and wrong.

Honestly, the Bible has zero significance for me. It is rife with absurdities, and really hit and miss when it comes to morality. Some of its teachings are downright immoral. I'd link you to a site, though it's in Chinese and I don't know if you understand it.

In any case, just because 99% of a book is true doesn't mean the remaining 1% is. A plenty of books are right on 99% of things and wrong on 1%.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 2:08:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 1:41:56 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/10/2016 2:50:11 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/10/2016 2:46:22 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/10/2016 10:38:32 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/10/2016 5:56:15 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:26:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:22:30 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

How is allowing people of the same sex marry against the so-called "positive values"?

I think you can already guess my answer to this lol... but I know you won't agree with it.

I don't know. It is "unnatural" or some sh!t like that?

Ugh, no. My disdain for appeals to nature is every bit as great as yours, and I wish both sides of the homosexuality argument would stop using it. The inability to procreate normally is my main and only complaint about homosexuality. It has always been. Extending the family line is the responsibility of every child to his/her parents, grandparents, ancestors; this value cannot change.

That's just a bare assertion, and I disagree with the position. There's no productive point to extending the family line. There's no reason to accept that it's a "value [which] cannot change." But that's something we've expressed disagreement on in the past, so let's keep that aside. An important point would be, extending the family line, even presuming that value, doesn't imply having a *biological* child. As long as they have a child, it's "extending the family line." That child could be adopted. There's no reason to favor a biological child over an adopted one except natural impulse, and we've established that appealing to nature is dumb. So adoption could perfectly solve the issue for gay couples. So even under your framework, gay marriage is irrelevant to homosexuality being a choice.

There is important symbolic (and genetic) meaning to having biological children to extend the family line. Adoption cannot replace that. My position is that, given that having a biological child is possible, it should be done. Failing that, adoption can work as a lesser substitute.

"Genetic meaning" is an appeal to nature. "Symbolic meaning" is nonsense - the world has children who need to be taken care of, not more children. If a family can have two children, I'd say adopt both and give two children a home. All you've said so far is a bare assertion. I've understood your position. I want *justification* for it.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass