equality blooms with spring, pt. II - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-17-2009, 08:28 PM   #201
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
If this is belittling, can I have some more?


i don't feel belittled at all ... quite the opposite ...
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-17-2009, 09:24 PM   #202
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 12:03 PM
heh heh...
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 10:23 AM   #203
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511
and we get all these contortions from you two, and very little substance -- you still have not answered the question about what it is that straights can do that gays cannot
You’ve admitted a difference between men and women, at least at the biological level. You identified a male is a male by virtue of having a penis, and a female is a female by virtue of having a vagina. Since you have identified biological differences between a male and a female – you have at the same time identified a biological difference between couples comprised of male/ female vs. male/male vs. female/female. At this point, there is not assumption of “best” or “better” – just different (at least biologically). So, the question of “what is the difference” is at least partially answered.

Terms like “best” and “better” in this case, are at their core – value judgments. When discussing these “couples” as heterosexual vs. homosexual – part of the discussion is trying to determine which has more “value” to society, or if it is even possible that one could have more value than the other couple. Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other?

I agree that it would be impossible for heterosexual couples to have more value to society if there is no actual difference between them and homosexual couples. Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions. So, if everything else is the same between the heterosexual couples and homosexual couples – the one key biological difference is that continuation of the species is naturally possible through one union, and not the other. So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point?
AEON is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 10:26 AM   #204
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:03 PM
But even then, before modern science, were couples required to have children to marry?

I think you know the answer.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 10:37 AM   #205
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
But even then, before modern science, were couples required to have children to marry?

I think you know the answer.
I was simply addressing the question "what is different" between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples on a purely biological level - and whether or not heterosexual unions had more biological value than homosexual unions to the species before modern science.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 10:54 AM   #206
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions. So, if everything else is the same between the heterosexual couples and homosexual couples – the one key biological difference is that continuation of the species is naturally possible through one union, and not the other. So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point?
I have read you use the reproductive argument in the last little while, the "continuation of the species", if you will.

How will allowing gay marriage for 5% of the population affect that, exactly?

The only thing I can think of, is that you think that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic, and that by allowing gay marriage it will do two things: encourage other adults to become homosexual; and encourage children who come from same gender relationships to think homosexuality is "normal" and encourage them to engage in the homosexual "lifestyle".
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 10:59 AM   #207
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Y When discussing these “couples” as heterosexual vs. homosexual – part of the discussion is trying to determine which has more “value” to society, or if it is even possible that one could have more value than the other couple. Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other?

I agree that it would be impossible for heterosexual couples to have more value to society if there is no actual difference between them and homosexual couples. Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions.

so now you're predicating marriage upon having offspring that is 50% each of the partners?

so all those adopted kids don't count? those couples who choose to remain childless? those couples who marry much later in life beyond their years of fertility?

gay people can have children that are biologically related to one partner, why is that child not entitled to have his parents married?

and in a world where we're often bemoaning the amount of children who need to be adopted, isn't there a huge "value" in protecting a couple who potentially could adopt these excess children? isn't there a "value" in providing stability for gay people who, and i haven't even brought this up yet, might actually benefit tremendously from having structure, meaning, and purpose to their romantic lives the way that straight people have structure, meaning, and purpose and a goal?



Quote:
So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point?

i think i've stated this point before, and i think the most important point is that we understand marriage to be a far more complex thing than a baby making factor. in fact, AEON, you've outlined a good argument for polygamy if we're going to assign "value" to the ability of people to continue life. one man can impregnate many women at once, so we're all better off as a species if one man keeps his 5 wives pregnant. further, we better do away with age-of-consent laws, because a woman only has a limited time to produce children, and risk of birth defects go up once she turns 35. so better get her breeding the day after she has her first period so that we can maximize her reproductive potential.

i think we'd both agree that this is all absurd, and that people are more complex than their ability to reproduce, and that's why marriage is far more complex.

i think that the idea behind marriage is absolutely tied to reproduction, but more as a way of making a man stay and provide for a woman with a child. it has more to do with civilizing heterosexual men than it's about sanctifying the actual heterosexual union that produces a child.

as our understanding of marriage has evolved, so should the institution evolve.

i'll point back to that Thomas Jefferson quote i posted last sunday:

Quote:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:00 AM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other?
I think that sentence speaks to the apparent view that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are a choice. For, if both weren't a choice, society, or the government, could never encourage or discourage either one. Except for, maybe, making homosexuals hide their true identity and agree into heterosexual relationships. Which, very sadly, is the case in reality all too often.
Vincent Vega is online now  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:04 AM   #209
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 02:03 PM
If we're to follow the "continuation of th species" logic, then infertile couples should also not be allowed to marry, since they cannot biologically reproduce.

Nevermind the fact that your argument contains it's own rebuttal (modern science), ignores reality (child rearing is not a requirement of marriage and there are many more things in marriage that are beneficial to society than merely procreation) and again dodges the real question.
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:06 AM   #210
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
How will allowing gay marriage for 5% of the population affect that, exactly?

The only thing I can think of, is that you think that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic, and that by allowing gay marriage it will do two things: encourage other adults to become homosexual; and encourage children who come from same gender relationships to think homosexuality is "normal" and encourage them to engage in the homosexual "lifestyle".
Actually, I wasn't addressing gay marriage directly in this above post – only addressing the question of “difference” and raising the possibility that this difference had more biological value before modern science since it was critical to the survival of the species.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:09 AM   #211
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:03 PM
dp.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:10 AM   #212
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:03 PM
i do think that AEON is correct -- marriage was about having children, not so much as a celebration of the sacredness of the heterosexual act (that was grafted onto it by religion in order to use notions of God to scare people), but to keep men from impregnating lots of women.

not much holds a society back more than having a surfeit of children that cannot be provided for.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:11 AM   #213
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Actually, I wasn't addressing gay marriage directly in this above post – only addressing the question of “difference” and raising the possibility that this difference had more biological value before modern science since it was critical to the survival of the species.
See below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
I think that sentence speaks to the apparent view that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are a choice. For, if both weren't a choice, society, or the government, could never encourage or discourage either one. Except for, maybe, making homosexuals hide their true identity and agree into heterosexual relationships. Which, very sadly, is the case in reality all too often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
If we're to follow the "continuation of th species" logic, then infertile couples should also not be allowed to marry, since they cannot biologically reproduce.

Nevermind the fact that your argument contains it's own rebuttal (modern science), ignores reality (child rearing is not a requirement of marriage and there are many more things in marriage that are beneficial to society than merely procreation) and again dodges the real question.
Can you answer these questions for me, AEON: do you think that homosexuality is a choice?

And, if so, do you think that by allowing gay marriage, it would encourage others, such as myself, to say 'hey, gays can marry now! Why don't I find myself a nice man to settle down with?'"
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:15 AM   #214
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
and again dodges the real question.
Again, the only question I was addressing above was that of difference. I used Irvine's accepted definition of a male and female to demonstrate that there is at least a biological difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. For some reason, it seems difficult for all of us to get past this point before continuing the discussion.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:22 AM   #215
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
See below:





Can you answer these questions for me, AEON: do you think that homosexuality is a choice?
I would like to reserve this question for later, because it is a good one and I think it deserves more attention than I can give it right now.

Quote:
And, if so, do you think that by allowing gay marriage, it would encourage others, such as myself, to say 'hey, gays can marry now! Why don't I find myself a nice man to settle down with?'"
Ultimately, as you may or may not know - I have come to the conclusion that the state should have nothing to do with marriage.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:32 AM   #216
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Ultimately, as you may or may not know - I have come to the conclusion that the state should have nothing to do with marriage.
You did not answer the question.

Please answer the question.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 12:25 PM   #217
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I would like to reserve this question for later, because it is a good one and I think it deserves more attention than I can give it right now.


couldn't you just ask a gay person as to whether or not they chose to be gay?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 12:35 PM   #218
WCF
The Fly
 
WCF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 259
Local Time: 11:03 AM
We are a modern society. The "continuation of the species" argument really doesn't apply anymore. We have advanced medicine, technology, laws, governments, etc. We no longer follow those basic rules regarding reproduction and survival. It's not like we're not barbarians on the verge of extinction or anything like that.

Therefore, our focus is now more on rights and equality, rather than "survival of the species," because, face it, our survival as a race by reproduction really isn't much of a relevant issue anymore. In fact, it's probably the opposite now that we're stuck with overpopulation. Anyways, even if it were to be somewhat of an issue, gay marriage is not something that is too huge on scale. Even if our "survival as a species" was threatened by reproduction rates, the gay population wouldn't make much of a difference. And as someone before pointed out, gay couples may be beneficial in that sense by adopting and raising children (and no, the idea that that is somehow detrimental to the children is only an assumption).
WCF is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 01:29 PM   #219
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:03 PM
AEON/INDY/whoever -- why do you think there are gay people?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 01:56 PM   #220
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Ultimately, as you may or may not know - I have come to the conclusion that the state should have nothing to do with marriage.
Which allows more choice for churches to marry who they want, which honestly negates any real meaning or importance you ever gave to any previous arguments you had against. For now you're basically saying well if I can't be the only ones to reap such benefits then no one can. Plus you open a whole new set up legal headaches for couples and families.
__________________

BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Random Risque U2 Pictures (PT II) FallingStar PLEBA Archive 147 07-28-2003 02:01 PM
MERGED --> When will Cleveland II be? + Rock Hall Celebration (Spring) CMM Interference Gatherings 80 04-14-2003 09:02 PM
Getcher Classical on! Psst...Dieman. Johnny Swallow Lemonade Stand Archive 8 03-07-2003 03:53 PM
the Europe photos pt. II (including interferencers!!!) sulawesigirl4 Lemonade Stand Archive 61 01-05-2003 02:29 PM
When hormones go bad Pt. II: MacPhisto WildHonee PLEBA Archive 9 11-02-2001 06:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×