That's illogical, self-serving and circular in itself, blarman...

Your foundational premise is that, according to... (what, again?) "it's different." So according to Your Foundational Source, het and homo 'marriage' "are different" so the logical conclusion should BE that 'they're different'?

A=A, or is that C=?=G ???? We need to 'acknowledge the difference' in order to see/understand that there IS a difference as you assert there IS?

Any debate coaches out there? Pass/Fail?

sdesapio.... here's another score/report-card to consider, along with the Ignore Function...

# of thumbs-up for the original post, divided by the number of Comments....

:)

No, blarman... not exactly... I would claim that 'who one is' is the sum-total of a Great Deal of events, proclivities, decisions and experiences...

My belief/observation/conclusion is that what you call 'rational choices' ARE, nearly always, created out of 'emotional reactions' to life's situations. And sometimes Nature and sometimes Nurture... or a combination!


There was an old 'est' exercise about "Choice" and how it differed from "Decision."

What I got from it was that Everything you did, rationally or emotionally, was part of the Decision Process, but when that process was complete, the next move was that of Choice... picking the alternative, and Choice was the culmination of ALL of the processes that went before.

If you think that ALL 'choices' (including sexual preferences) are the result of Rational Thought, so be it... your 'conclusion' is congruent with your premises....

So long as you never re-evaluate your premises.

Ah, but you've done that and "the science is in... the Facts are Complete.... Everyone [should] Agree that Global Warming is.... oh, sorry... conflated those 'arguments' again... damn!

:)

"You're still conflating the concepts that marriage has been or can be defined by something or someone other than members of a culture..."

If one accepts a theistic viewpoint, one can not accept that man determines the definition of marriage. If one accepts the atheistic viewpoint, one can not accept that anyone other than man defines marriage - or any other social construct either. This entire debate is one of theism vs atheism, which is what I have pointed out ad nauseum.

"The gay community wants to enjoy the LEGAL rights and privileges currently enjoyed by ... "married" couples"

Yes, because they want to ignore the real differences between the two situations rather than acknowledge them. They want to pretend that the two situations are identical even though they are not. Could they get what they want by simple acknowledging that they are different and then asking for similar privileges? They certainly have that course of action open to them. Why don't they, then? It worked in Vermont, but that wasn't enough even though legally they had all the same privileges.

Ask yourself THAT question. Why go to all the trouble of trying to redefine marriage if you can achieve the same goal of legal privileges by simply and honestly acknowledging the difference in the first place? The answer is simple: because it never has been and never will be about "equal rights" and that argument is a facade. The real goal is to attack theism.

Your claim is that one's emotions determine who one is. Mine is that actions are what matters. Your viewpoint leads to the conclusion that we are slaves to our emotions and we can do nothing about them. Mine is that emotions only lead to choices - rational or otherwise. Your viewpoint is that people can't do anything other than to succumb to the feelings that creep into their heads. Mine is that we can rule over our feelings through logical choice.

If you want to claim that the emotional, irrational man is king over the logical, rational man, you are welcome to that opinion. I will not be swayed into thinking such.

ok, I'll bite a few last times...

You're still conflating the concepts that marriage has been or can be defined by something or someone other than members of a culture and that Laws and legal systems 'merely' reflect the codification of the mores of the society into rules it collectively agrees on.

Redefining marriage seems to be the hot button for the Religious Right, and to accuse 'gay activists' of that still looks like a red herring to me.

The gay community wants to enjoy the LEGAL rights and privileges currently enjoyed by COUPLES who are now referred to as "married couples" and it's the Churched groups that have their knickers in a twist over losing Power and Control over what They Want and Need to Define and Control.

Follow the Money? Hell, no! Follow the Power and the Control!

Why are 'you' so unwilling to give up the Power and Control over the WORD "Marriage" when the gays are looking for Equal Treatment Under the Law... things that include hospital visitation rights, inheritance laws, tax laws, and so on?

What is so scary about that?! Since nobody's been able to demonstrate any TANGIBLE negative effects, what else could 'you' have as a basis for argument?!

.... as if you haven't.... see other post....
:)

... well, at least your illogic is consistent...
If my 'self-identification' [as whatever] is a lie, is anyone ELSE'S Identification OF ME more valid, or valid At All?!

Your conclusion seems to be hinging on the folks' NOT being 'satisfied with who[m] they are' as if YOUR conclusion is, somehow, more valid than theirs or has some Higher Power of Logic and Awareness.... It seems that if you were to ask Anyone if they were 'satisfied with who they are,' the only valid, honest answers can come from heterosexuals whom you know are heterosexual. Anyone self-identifying or appearing to you to be homosexual are immediately concluded to be incapable of Being Satisfied with who[m] they are, and You are the judge, jury and executioner.

How Un-'Rand'-y can one be!?

So, I continue to dispute your assertions.

Yes, blarman, I did read your postings, and I think I understood them pretty well...

On the other hand, you seem to be glued to the concept that gay/straight is some kind of 'intellectual/rational decision that everyone makes on their unique Sexual Orientation Day-of-Epiphany, an I believe that premise is not accurate or reasonable (or logical or borne out by comments from many gay friends).

It's not a matter of 'let's agree to disagree,' it's a matter of your mind is made up, based on the assumptions and beliefs you've chosen, and you're (YOU ARE) not open to the possibility that your premises are false and that, consequently, your conclusions and beliefs might be erroneous, too.

But they're not, right? Because they're yours! And you're right. End of possible discussion!

Cheers!

That is precisely what is being argued at the Supreme Court however as they are using the Fourteenth Amendment as the crux of their argument. That is precisely what the redefinition of marriage is all about: it is the attempt to equate two things: homosexuality and heterosexuality. If one accepts that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, then that defense under the Fourteenth Amendment utterly fails and the Federal Court rulings are overturned, leaving the popular votes of the various States to define marriage as a man and a woman standing - to the exclusion of the homosexual community.

Could one do as Vermont and pass a law providing for civil unions? Of course. But that is not sufficient for the activists because that's not really what the fight is about. It's not about equal treatment and never was. If it had been, the homosexual community would have been satisfied with civil unions and wouldn't have cared about the definition of marriage.

Yes, homosexual activity has been around since the beginning. It's been documented in Rome and in Greece, and it was noted in the Bible as well. But as was pointed out during questioning in the Supreme Court case and acknowledged by the Solicitor General, NEVER at any time in history was there an attempt to _define_ marriage to include homosexuality until now. Certain civilizations tolerated homosexuality, but it never had the same standing as heterosexual marriage.

"But a THEISTIC government can not countenance that same competition for the possibility of NOT being based on the Existence of a Deity."

Most religions don't care about atheists because they have reason to hope for something beyond this life - something better. Most religious people look at atheists and go "Why would you accept that oblivion and annihilation are the end product of existence?" If you want to claim that it amounts to religious persecution NOT to redefine marriage, I would also point out one more observation made by the Supreme Court questioning. The Solicitor General was specifically asked if a decision to redefine marriage would affect the tax-exempt status of religious institutions. He was forced to agree that it was definitely a possibility. So who is really at jeopardy of persecution for their beliefs here: the religious or the atheists?

All that tells me is that you're not interested in having an honest discussion on the matter. You've already made your decision. So be it.

If you can find it where others have failed, you'll no doubt earn yourself a Nobel Prize for biology. All who have tried so far have failed, leaving the origin a mystery.

I have a brother-in-law who is married to my sister-in-law and they have two boys together. He is most assuredly heterosexual. His identical twin brother, however, is attracted to men. If there is something genetic, I'm sure both these two would like to know what it is.

I believe Ayn Rand pointed out that the universe is not subject to change simply by our force of will alone and I agree with her. We do not "wish" for something to be so and it becomes so. You can paint yourself blue and call yourself a Smurf, but does that make it so? "Self-identification" is a lie told to themselves by people who are not satisfied with who they are. If you want to indulge yourself in such, that is your choice. I'm not interested in self-deception.

Did you even read anything of what I said? The only point I have been making all along is to point out the separation between feelings and actions. The point is that until one acts, the feelings are only that: feelings. We are defined by what we DO.

If you want to allow your emotions to rule you and give a pass to anyone who believes the same, that is your choice. The other choice is to accept that you have the ability to choose differently than your feelings: that your logical mind has the ultimate say. That choice is an individual choice that must be made by every single person on the planet. Control or be controlled.

Yep, true, and that's what happens when changes in culture (or holding on to an unchanging culture) runs smack into the legal system whose umbrella is thought to protect the entire country.

Sorry about that.... Like I said many times... and here, too... when the hot-button word "marriage" leaves the building, progress will result.

I still favor "civil union license" for the Legality crap and "Holy Matrimony Ceremony" for anyone and everyone who feels they must do it in front of a church official.

Just for grins... http://www.plusaf.com/pix/homepagepix/pr...

:)

Oh, you crack me up....
"An atheistic government built on the policy of man as the ultimate ruler can not countenance competition for that claim to authority with the divine. That to me is the real nature of the entire argument about government and gay "marriage" - WHO has the authority to write the rules regarding marriage. "

..... it's a shame the Founding Fathers had no concept of large-magazine automatic rifles... would have been easier to clarify the 2nd Amendment for our consideration....

But a THEISTIC government can not countenance that same competition for the possibility of NOT being based on the Existence of a Deity.

Oh, and by the way, homosexual activity has been documented back into Roman times and I've read that homosexual "couples" were socially and legally recognized, too. Funny thing is, that after the Christian Religions grew in power, THEY seemed to DO the DEFINING of "marriage" to Their Standards, and consequently, many folks now think 'it's always been that way' (it hasn't) and it Will Always Be That Way... (witness: Ireland today and the growing percentage of US states that are changing their laws in response to cultural changes in society.)

cheers!

http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#39th

There is absolutely no shortage of "evidence" to "prove" BOTH sides of ANY 'discussion.'

So I'm not going to click your generously-supplied links.

Thanks.

Thanks... it's funny, because to me, to argue that the 'situation of a homosexual couple' is NOT equivalent is nonsense, too.

It seems that you're defining the differentiation based on the genders of the two people in the "couple" and not at ALL on what should be the commonality that, no matter what the genders, a "couple" should have the right to .... what is it?.... oh, yes.... "Self-Identify As A Couple" and be accorded the same rights as anyone else who 'self-identifies' the same way.

Why does that seem to be a problem?
:)

re:" All that aside, however, it is not the proclivity which defines the individual, but the actions taken on conscious choice. "

Sorry, blarman, but that's a classic 'chicken or egg' non-explanation. It's fairly logical, even under the umbrella of your assertion, that the 'conscious choices made' just MIGHT be driven by some 'proclivity' of which nobody has yet discovered a scientific, experimentally-proven reason.

And how can you even make your last statement?! Does EVERY person decide their sexual preference AFTER some mystical exposure to the same OR other gender?!

Toddlers kiss and get kissed by their moms AND dads. Is THAT the instigating event? I can assure you that when I started to notice Mary-Ann's gorgeous tits around sixth or seventh grade, it was certainly NOT because I'd had ANY sexual experience with her or anyone else. So many gays report that 'they'd been attracted to the same gender since they were very young' to fairly well gainsay your 'proclivity proclamation.'

Pitch another, thanks.

Your opinion, but thanks... ciao!

One doesn't have to think about being heterosexual? About when to employ their sexuality with another human being? That somehow a difference in attractions makes all the difference? I'm not sure I really got the point of your argument, but it seems that you are merely arguing that because the proclivity differs, that somehow the situation is entirely different? Can you clarify?

Let's examine rape. Now, I know you are going to argue that rape involves force, and I completely agree. But really, the point one makes there is philosophical in nature with the real question being: is it acceptable to express one's sexuality without the consent of the other person. That _is_ a moral and philosophical question. The same applies to necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, sado-masochism, polgyamy ... ad infinitum. All are splinters of the same shaft.

I don't see any denial from any side that people have sexual urges. The base question of the entire debate is simply this: under what conditions is it appropriate to express one's sexuality. The answer to that question is one of morality. The choices made to answer that single question of appropriateness of sexuality very much determine how a person defines "happiness". Thus, it becomes a philosophy because it becomes the driving factor for value assignment and alternative valuation with wide-ranging effects and outcomes for that individual's life. The fact that a large part of our social debate rages around the topic tells me that this is all the _more_ reason to label it a philosophy.

Look-if I was attracted to women, and I suppressed that for whatever reason, THAT is moe likely to part of a philosophy, at least a reason. If you are hetero -you don't ever even have to think any of that out-maybe when to lose your virginity and whenor if to have children. but for someone who is homosexual, there is alot to think about. That's not philosophy, that's just consequences and managing. If the culture completely accepted it, then they (gays) could be like us (heteros) and not even have to go through all of that. It's like saying someone with a disease has to really formulate a philosophy around themselves and their disease. That's not pro-life and pro-flourishing.

Here's another one that just came out today:

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2015/05/2...