gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

[Ωbright]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Well the penis has 2 functions though waste elimination and dispersing genetic material...it was just easier to put them into one tube.

Have you ever tried?

[Czechs Mex]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Yeah, if you want to try and make a compelling argument against gay marriage, you really need to keep religion out of it.

Something like this:

-------------
1. Supporting gay marriage is supporting the gay lifestyle,
2. The gay lifestyle is detrimental to society.
3. Our government should not fund anything that is detrimental to society.

Thus, our government should not support gay marriage.
-------------

And actually, judging by the drug addict comments, I think that's what Geno is going for. He hasn't really been quoting the bible or anything. So Geno, if this is the case, please elaborate on point (2), because I think that's where your viewpoint is different from most people's in this topic.

[ErikaFuzzbottom]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

The thing is, it's not detrimental. People just think it's wrong either because it's religous issues, or the simple idea that if there were supposed to be same-gender loving there'd be some... and I really can't think of a good way to word it.

[Ωbright]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

2. The gay lifestyle is detrimental to society.

Nobody has ever lived in a society where there were no gay people...so how would anybody know? What's the control group?

[Czechs Mex]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

A control group is not necessary for a logical argument.

For example, to argue that murder is detrimental to society, you do not first need to find a society where there were never any murders.

[Ωbright]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

A control group is not necessary for a logical argument.

Arguing that being gay is detrimental to society is not a logical argument. At best there's a big gaping hole in your logic.

For example, to argue that murder is detrimental to society, you do not first need to find a society where there were never any murders.

And there it is...

I'm anxious to see how you draw a parallel between gay people and murderers...I mean besides the fact that both are looked at as being detrimental...

[Czechs Mex]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

This is not a logical argument.

Uh, yes, it is a logical argument. It has three premises and an implied conclusion.

1. Supporting gay marriage is supporting the gay lifestyle,
2. The gay lifestyle is detrimental to society.
3. Our government should not fund anything that is detrimental to society.

Thus, our government should not support gay marriage.

Just because you think point (2) is untrue does not make it an illogical argument.

I'm anxious to see how you draw a parallel between gay people and murderers...I mean besides the fact that both are looked at as being detrimental...

No. You were implying that a control group is necessary to show something is detrimental to society. I gave an example to make it clear that it's not. Any further connections you make between the two are made by you, not me.

[Geno Blue]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Well I can't really keep Christianity out of it because I am a Christian...so accepting that the Bible is God's word then I draw upon that as my source of conclusion. Not sure how much flack I am going to get for that though.

[Red Dragon]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

gay people are discriminated against in any country whose minds are clouded by religion.

I'm just saying it isn't JUST America. As the title suggests.

[thetruecoolness]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Well the only detriment I see is that if everyone were to become gay, then the propagation of the race might stop, but even then there are other means for reproduction now not involving heterosexual relations, so... even that argument would fall through. Plus that would mean the whole society would have to be gay for the argument to hold.

So besides the argument the gay community has more sexual diseases than the hetero one (which I'm not sure it completely true though with AIDS it is statistically), the main cause behind that is promiscuity, not being homosexual. Really it would be hard to find an objective reason that homosexuals are somehow detrimental to society as a whole, since besides their sexual habits most are no different than the general populace. I guess kids being raised by homosexuals might be an issue, though I don't see how that would be much different from being raised by a single parent. Since most kids never see their parents in the act, and a lot of sex ed is taught in schools now anyway (plus kids aren't only influenced by their parents, and a lot of times parents are not the strongest influences in a kids life).

Also logical arguments typically do not rely on empirical studies, so a control group is not necessary to make a logical argument. Though it would probably be needed to prove it.

And Geno while that may be fine for your opinion on the topic, it cannot be used in the solution to whether homosexuals should be able to have a legal union, given the supposed separation of church and state in our government. Separation of church and state is important to keep freedom of religion, since typically religions disagree on very important topics, having one of them have a say on it would mean all the others couldn't legally. Really the debate here is whether gays should be allowed to have a legally recognized union, not necessarily if it is moral or not. This is why Czechs is trying to get someone to come up with a reason why allowing homosexuals to be regonized as a union would be detrimental to society. If this were the case then it probably should not be legalized.

[Karim]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Well, its fine for you to believe that, but to think you should be able to force your beliefs on the rest of society just because you think its wrong doesn't make sense.

That's the whole thing we need to get away from doing in this country.

[Geno Blue]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

where am I forcing my beliefs on you?

[irate giraffe]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Well I can't really keep Christianity out of it because I am a Christian...so accepting that the Bible is God's word then I draw upon that as my source of conclusion. Not sure how much flack I am going to get for that though.

Exactly:

"You have to keep religion out of it, because we believe religion should stay out of <insert whatever you are arguing about here>."

Best argument ever.

Secularist use it all the time, as if secularism isn't itself religious. What's even better is when secularist say that you can only argue based upon logic, as if that isn't a religious statement either (to choose logic as a starting point/pressuposition).

Didn't this all get disregarded along with positivism or are we all still living 60 years in the past?

[Ωbright]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Uh, yes, it is a logical argument. It has three premises and an implied conclusion.

Premise 2 is DELUSIONAL.

Just because you think point (2) is untrue does not make it an illogical argument.

I didn't say I didn't agree with it, I said it was illogical...and yes, that does tend to erode the credibility of your argument, seeing as how that's what it hinges on.

No. You were implying that a control group is necessary to show something is detrimental to society. I gave an example to make it clear that it's not. Any further connections you make between the two are made by you, not me.

WHAT I WAS IMPLYING (rather blatantly), was that there have always been gay people...since the dawn of man...so how would anybody know what a world without gay people would be like?

[Czechs Mex]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Premise 2 is DELUSIONAL.

The point of my original post was to get people to elaborate on why premise 2 is true (or false). So far thetruecoolness has done that, but that's about it. You can't just say "IT'S DELUSIONAL" and have that be the end of the argument, you need to argue why.

I didn't say I didn't agree with it, I said it was illogical...and yes, that does tend to erode the credibility of your argument, seeing as how that's what it hinges on.

Well, before you edited your post, it sounded like you were calling the entire argument illogical. If you think premise 2 is untrue, like I said, please elaborate.

WHAT I WAS IMPLYING (rather blatantly), was that there have always been gay people...since the dawn of man...so how would anybody know what a world without gay people would be like?

Yes, you were saying that a society without gay people (your "control group") is necessary to show that the gay lifestyle is detrimental to society. Go back and read your post. And what thetruecoolness and I have said is that this "control group" is not necessary for a logical argument such as this.