Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Deadclown]

I don't think I am taking wild logically fallacious leaps of extrapolation by say that you are in the same ball park where baseball is played and home runs get it. Oh my, the pitcher is deliberately attempting not to get hit and yet despite all his efforts still does. But you are done with analogies.

Wootah, it is not important what you 'think'. I have shown that your analogies are false. You can't just say, 'nuh uh' as your defense. Well, you can, it just is a very poor debate strategy, especially when your entire 'argument' hinges on said analogies. I admit to disliking analogies in general during debate. They are in general overused and poorly used. I'm a decently smart guy. I can understand a person's argument without analogies. In fact, analogies tend to just distract and muddy the waters in my experience.

Just so you can relax. Of course a woman can't get pregnant from non vaginal sex but it happens because in the moment a lot of things can go wrong. The pressure to put the penis in the vagina is omnipresent or at least overwhelming. It seems reasonable from the standpoints I have made that one who engages in these acts is also prepared for all consequences and one of them is pregnancy.

You concede the point and then go back to the old bad argument. Yes, if someone has unprotected fertile vaginal intercourse *then* there is a real possibility of pregnancy. Also, you again try to extrapolate what appears to be a personal opinion, that their is 'omnipresent overwhelming' pressure to have vaginal intercourse. Not everyone has that. I don't, for example. So produce some evidence supporting such an argument or admit it's just your opinion. Your standpoints pretty much amount to personal opinion, personal views extrapolated to all of humanity, fallacious analogies, and stubborn refusal to admit any fault in your perspective to the point that you should actually *support* it.

If you see my post in this thread that started our part of the discussion
ref:Re: Gay marriage I was the one that included more than reproduction in response to dianaiad's post.

Your entire point made earlier is that it is a good thing for heterosexual people to have sex in order to deepen the relationship, because procreation is implied, BUT you try to exclude homosexuals from this because they do not procreate during sex. You seemingly wanted to use a completely different word for sex when it occurs between homosexuals because it cannot result in a pregnancy. I am trying to show how silly that perspective is, since there is all sorts of heterosexual sex that works similarly. Here was the brunt of it.

Whilst procreation is the main reason, I would have added that sex is for pleasure and intimacy and those are purposes that God had in mind for sex as well. For example it is a platform for one man and one woman to deepen their relationship.

Or two men or two women.

Whilst I understand your urge to post, in the context of the thread where dianaiad stated sex is for procreation and I expanded the scope, your point can only be valid if two men or two women can procreate.

If sex is the word for two or more creatures seeking pleasure and intimacy what is the word for two or more creatures seeking pleasure and intimacy and procreation?

No, it doesn't follow. If sex is good for expressing and increasing love between two people, then it's good for that, regardless of whether it actually results in procreation. For example, if one partner has had a vasectomy, their sex would meet your description. It's like that.

Autodidact is right, and you are very wrong. I am just pressuring you to try and make a good argument to defend such a position.

I assure you have I no Victorian era views of sex. If I find the article I'll post it but I read a good article about how those views were Darwinian anyway and not Christian. think along the lines of a stereotyped Victorian woman saying, 'oh I won't have sex like the common people do.' Anyway that is a digression.

Please do not make off the cuff disparaging comments about the theory of evolution. It gets my dander up and distracts from the debate when I have to address it. That vague anonymous and likely misquoted 'Victorian woman' (if your hearsay is even supported), is woefully unaware of the processes of evolution. But yes, all of this is a distraction.

It's far too convenient to label an argument as a personal opinion.

You've yet to make an argument that isn't based on false analogies (that you stubbornly support as being viable without actually defending against the issues I pointed out) and hasty generalization fallacies. When you actually *make* a logical argument supported with evidence, then I'll stop calling it a personal opinion.

Animals are amoral to me.

We are all animals. What does morality have to do with pleasure from sex versus procreation? I was trying to show that we are much like the dogs, seeking momentary pleasure with little thought for future potential outcomes.

Also, I wasn't talking about artificial insemination by the woman or very brief vaginal intercourse. I was *specifically* talking about oral and anal intercourse, and non-specifically talking about any other non-vaginal intercourse. Notice how in both cases you describe there is vaginal penetration with sperm. You also need to present *actual evidence* instead of just 'there are plenty of cases', which is just hearsay. If you can't, don't make vague references to evidence you don't present.

I am making the claim that these activities are within the set of sexual activities and intersect with the set of reproductive activities. Going back to your evolutionary point, one could argue that we put our penis in so many unnecessary places because we can't be sure that we won't produce babies when we do. But evolution is ripe for reductio ad absurdum like that. Oh or perhaps oral sex evolved as a way of getting the woman to consent to something and it is just a strategy of preparing her for vaginal sex later. Wow. Go evolution.

Your lack of understanding regarding the processes of evolution is unfortunate. It would wildly distract from the point at hand for me to correct all of your evidently glaring misunderstandings, and so I'll just let the above quote stand on its own in that respect. I do not believe you are willing to try and learn about it further, but if you are, please start a new thread in order to discuss the evolution of sex. I am reading a very good book on the subject, 'The Red Queen', and would delight in speaking more on it.

Now, again, you fail to present evidence for your hearsay. I can just present 'stuff I heard' too, Wootah.

When I go for a walk I do it because it is good, getting fitter happens from that action. Would you argue that if we found a method of walking that made us less fit that walking was no longer associated with getting fit (argh no more analogies ... sorry)? But yes I think people should be more conscious of what they are doing. It is reckless to engage in activities that can harm others and I do think that people should be able to acknowledge that they will raise a child should one occur from that action. If you can then - go for it.

Yeah... your analogy is a bit confusing. Are you trying to compare 'a new form of walking that is not exercise' with 'sex that does not involve chances of procreation at all'? It's a weird hypothetical and I'm not sure what your point is on it.

I agree that it is reckless to engage in activities that could hurt others. I agree that people should be willing to accept responsibility for their actions. However, neither of those points have anything to do with anything. If people who are responsible want to have tons of sex without babies, they can manage quite well, regardless of sexual orientation.

I think we do understand each other. I am not arguing that non vaginal intercourse causes pregnancy just that the reproductive process should not be separated from the sexual acts. I think each analogy shows that there are risks implicit in many activities no matter how many precautions we take. I think the other analogies showed that we know those risks which is why we take actions to avoid them. I think it is debatable whether we have co-opted sex from its evolutionary purpose as opposed to using deception to get woman to spread their legs more easily.

The problem with your viewpoint is that the majority of occurrences of sex is NOT for reproduction. There is all sorts of ways one can avoid procreation. You are simply wrong (and have admitted to it) and sex can be had with zero risk of it. You can think whatever you like, but I showed your analogies to be false. Continuing to insist they are not without showing why my reasoning is wrong is not much of an argument. Also, again, please stop using strawmen of evolution. I should have avoided bringing it up because I think you don't 'believe' in it.

Quite honestly I think it is an absurdity if a woman thinks pregnancy is not possible from a penis being inserted into her. Just the same as I think it is absurd to think that crashing is not possible when you get in an aeroplane. I think were one to crash or get pregnant they could express their dismay or displeasure but I also think they should be able to say, 'well that was possible and I took the risk'.

You continue to ignore all of the ways that that woman can not get pregnant at all during even *vaginal* intercourse. What if she is post-menopausal? What if she is already pregnant? What if she is medically infertile? What if she's had her tubes tied surgically? You just assume far too much.

When you make broad sweeping all encompassing commentaries about human sexuality in an attempt to segregate homosexuals from heterosexuals you need to be well aware of the many exceptions that make your generalizations false. You also need to firmly state that it is just your opinion, or else actually present evidence/logic, which you have not. If you want to maintain your stance, then *please* present some logical arguments or some psychological/medical studies that support your point. Anything else is just your personal feelings.

[Wootah]

Wootah, it is not important what you 'think'. I have shown that your analogies are false. You can't just say, 'nuh uh' as your defense. Well, you can, it just is a very poor debate strategy, especially when your entire 'argument' hinges on said analogies. I admit to disliking analogies in general during debate. They are in general overused and poorly used. I'm a decently smart guy. I can understand a person's argument without analogies. In fact, analogies tend to just distract and muddy the waters in my experience.

Oh so your opinion > my opinion.

You concede the point and then go back to the old bad argument. Yes, if someone has unprotected fertile vaginal intercourse *then* there is a real possibility of pregnancy. Also, you again try to extrapolate what appears to be a personal opinion, that their is 'omnipresent overwhelming' pressure to have vaginal intercourse. Not everyone has that. I don't, for example. So produce some evidence supporting such an argument or admit it's just your opinion. Your standpoints pretty much amount to personal opinion, personal views extrapolated to all of humanity, fallacious analogies, and stubborn refusal to admit any fault in your perspective to the point that you should actually *support* it.

You would have to provide counter evidence to maintain that assertion. Why not try a counter analogy - I might understand you better!

Your entire point made earlier is that it is a good thing for heterosexual people to have sex in order to deepen the relationship, because procreation is implied, BUT you try to exclude homosexuals from this because they do not procreate during sex. You seemingly wanted to use a completely different word for sex when it occurs between homosexuals because it cannot result in a pregnancy. I am trying to show how silly that perspective is, since there is all sorts of heterosexual sex that works similarly. Here was the brunt of it.

I didn't exclude homosexuals any more than apple excludes oranges. Maybe we can invent a word for homosexual acts. Most words and their variations are simply more subtle distinctions to allow humans to better describe reality. My personal preference is that where possible we leave words with their common meaning. Do we ever really want someone to say 'oh I see a rainbow' and have the common meaning not be light refracting in the sky. That was the underlying point I was making.

Autodidact is right, and you are very wrong. I am just pressuring you to try and make a good argument to defend such a position.

You should post in the thread on (T)ruth. I appreciate this thread can push buttons.

Please do not make off the cuff disparaging comments about the theory of evolution. It gets my dander up and distracts from the debate when I have to address it. That vague anonymous and likely misquoted 'Victorian woman' (if your hearsay is even supported), is woefully unaware of the processes of evolution. But yes, all of this is a distraction.

Actually I would prefer you to dismantle why either of those comments are invalid. You made the claim that:

If you are talking about an evolutionary drive for reproduction, we've already been over that. Sex has been co-opted for a lot of purposes by a lot of animals (not just us).

I might inject humour but I am serious.
How does an animal know that it can't or won't conceive by spraying its seed anywhere - most fish basically work that way?
How do you know all non vaginal sex acts are not simply deception to get a female to agree to vaginal sex? Foreplay is foreplay to what? Golf?

You've yet to make an argument that isn't based on false analogies (that you stubbornly support as being viable without actually defending against the issues I pointed out) and hasty generalization fallacies. When you actually *make* a logical argument supported with evidence, then I'll stop calling it a personal opinion.

It shouldn't be hard to dismantle my position then.

Also, I wasn't talking about artificial insemination by the woman or very brief vaginal intercourse. I was *specifically* talking about oral and anal intercourse, and non-specifically talking about any other non-vaginal intercourse. Notice how in both cases you describe there is vaginal penetration with sperm. You also need to present *actual evidence* instead of just 'there are plenty of cases', which is just hearsay. If you can't, don't make vague references to evidence you don't present.

OK to address this. I'll retract the claim. I still argue the principle.

http://www.sexualhealth.com/question/read/11787/

The problem with your viewpoint is that the majority of occurrences of sex is NOT for reproduction. There is all sorts of ways one can avoid procreation. You are simply wrong (and have admitted to it) and sex can be had with zero risk of it. You can think whatever you like, but I showed your analogies to be false. Continuing to insist they are not without showing why my reasoning is wrong is not much of an argument. Also, again, please stop using strawmen of evolution. I should have avoided bringing it up because I think you don't 'believe' in it.

I think I have a good grasp of evolution. You can point out why I am wrong.

You continue to ignore all of the ways that that woman can not get pregnant at all during even *vaginal* intercourse. What if she is post-menopausal? What if she is already pregnant? What if she is medically infertile? What if she's had her tubes tied surgically? You just assume far too much.

You are simply seperating the act from the result for personal moral positions. If walking was a moral issue then I am certain people would have developed different walks.

When you make broad sweeping all encompassing commentaries about human sexuality in an attempt to segregate homosexuals from heterosexuals you need to be well aware of the many exceptions that make your generalizations false. You also need to firmly state that it is just your opinion, or else actually present evidence/logic, which you have not. If you want to maintain your stance, then *please* present some logical arguments or some psychological/medical studies that support your point. Anything else is just your personal feelings.

Deadclown honestly I just feel the same.

Words have meaning. If marriage means any two things can form a union then I want to know what the word is for a man and a woman that form a union. I would prefer to keep the word marriage as defined and use new words to describe other couplings/triplings/social relationships. Now for the word sex I think it is too late to defend, probably marriage is too late as well. I just want to know what the word is for a man and a woman performing the act they creates children. Then you can have sex, oral sex, anal sex and I'll have sexx, oral sexx and anal sexx.

From there I argued that sex acts are all in the same set and you have said nothing to counter to that. Heck, the irony here is that if we were talking evolution/creation and each sex act was an animal you would be arguing they were related and I would be denying it- lol. This should help you realise why you are fighting your point so hard, it isn't logic or reason you are defending its your moral position.

[Slopeshoulder]

The desire to keep a word by narrowing its meaning to apply to a priviledged group is simply bigotry.
Shall we find new words for rock music and hip hop because fans of sinatra or montovani don't think it's music?
It's pure bigotry, xenophobia, mususe of power, otherizing, and violence.
You get the same word we all get: marriage. If you want a special word call it traditional, hetero, christianist marriage. But that would be divisive.

[Autodidact]

Deadclown I disagree that my analogies are false and red herrings. If crashing is being related to getting pregnant then oral sex is like the flying in a plane, unlikely to crash but it can happen.

It can?!? That's news to me. Has it ever happened in the history of the world?
I think one woman is more likely to get another woman pregnant than two heterosexuals engaging in oral sex.

[Deadclown]

Oh so your opinion > my opinion.

That is quite a strawman. I showed the problems with your analogies and politely requested you not use them. Our unsupported opinions are exactly equal to one another in debate (worthless), but I am not the one defending my opinions without logic or evidence. If I have an opinion that I cannot defend, I do not state it in a debate forum.

You would have to provide counter evidence to maintain that assertion. Why not try a counter analogy - I might understand you better!

The burden of proof is squarely on you for your assertions. Also, I have stated my case against your position, and was able to do so clearly with a minimal number of analogies.

I didn't exclude homosexuals any more than apple excludes oranges. Maybe we can invent a word for homosexual acts. Most words and their variations are simply more subtle distinctions to allow humans to better describe reality. My personal preference is that where possible we leave words with their common meaning. Do we ever really want someone to say 'oh I see a rainbow' and have the common meaning not be light refracting in the sky. That was the underlying point I was making.

A separate... but equal word? If you have to invent a 'special word' to refer to sex between homosexuals, then you are segregating them with language, that should be taken as offensive (maybe we can come up with a special word for black people having sex, next). If you want to make up a word specifically for 'sex for the purposes of procreation', then go for it. Otherwise the English language is totally capable of just turning it into a sentence (as shown) that gets the idea across. You should just leave the words with their common meanings and accept that sex is an all inclusive term that does not always imply conception.

You should post in the thread on (T)ruth. I appreciate this thread can push buttons.

I did, but do not see what point you are making. If your Truth here is personal opinion, then that's fine. You just have to say as much.

I assure you have I no Victorian era views of sex. If I find the article I'll post it but I read a good article about how those views were Darwinian anyway and not Christian. think along the lines of a stereotyped Victorian woman saying, 'oh I won't have sex like the common people do.' Anyway that is a digression.

Actually I would prefer you to dismantle why either of those comments are invalid. You made the claim that:

What comments? Present documentation for the vague anonymously quoted 'Victorian woman' and I'll address her comments. Your potential strawman of her statements implies that she believes that having sex like the 'common people' has anything to do with evolution, whatsover. I am not even sure what is meant by the statement. I fail to see how it makes anything resembling a point.

I might inject humour but I am serious.
How does an animal know that it can't or won't conceive by spraying its seed anywhere - most fish basically work that way?

It doesn't. You are attributing long term planning to fish, when people stink at it.

How do you know all non vaginal sex acts are not simply deception to get a female to agree to vaginal sex? Foreplay is foreplay to what? Golf?

Stop trying to thrust the burden of proof onto me. That's your assertion, not mine. It makes a number of false assumptions, though. One, that *all* sex acts are instinctual behaviors and not learned behaviors. Two, that the woman giving the male oral sex is somehow a deception on the male's part. And three, that foreplay is an instinctual behavior and not a learned one (talk to some male high school virgins some time) or maybe just women who have sex with them.

It shouldn't be hard to dismantle my position then.

I have. You just ignore it in favor of repeating your position, while not offering an actual argument based off of logic or evidence.

OK to address this. I'll retract the claim. I still argue the principle.

http://www.sexualhealth.com/question/read/11787/

Thank you for your concession. I look forward for your arguments in favor of the principle.

I think I have a good grasp of evolution. You can point out why I am wrong.

You are wrong because you are making an outlandish statement with no basis, support, or education to warrant it. Okay though, you say you have a good grasp of evolution. If you can answer these following in your own words, then I'll apologize, retract my statements, and admit that you do understand it.

1) Please explain the process of Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.
2) Please explain the process of natural selection.
3) Please explain how random gene mutation operates within the theory.

You are simply seperating the act from the result for personal moral positions. If walking was a moral issue then I am certain people would have developed different walks.

Incorrect. I am using standard accepted definitions of words. They are separated because they are separate. You are the one trying to mash them together for 'moral' reasons.

Deadclown honestly I just feel the same.

Words have meaning. If marriage means any two things can form a union then I want to know what the word is for a man and a woman that form a union. I would prefer to keep the word marriage as defined and use new words to describe other couplings/triplings/social relationships. Now for the word sex I think it is too late to defend, probably marriage is too late as well. I just want to know what the word is for a man and a woman performing the act they creates children. Then you can have sex, oral sex, anal sex and I'll have sexx, oral sexx and anal sexx.

I'll quote Slopeshoulder here...

The desire to keep a word by narrowing its meaning to apply to a priviledged group is simply bigotry.
Shall we find new words for rock music and hip hop because fans of sinatra or montovani don't think it's music?
It's pure bigotry, xenophobia, mususe of power, otherizing, and violence.
You get the same word we all get: marriage. If you want a special word call it traditional, hetero, christianist marriage. But that would be divisive.

There is no magical word you are after. There is sex. Realize that wanting to say that homosexuals have a 'special sex' that isn't the same thing as heterosexual 'normal sex' at all is bigotry.

From there I argued that sex acts are all in the same set and you have said nothing to counter to that. Heck, the irony here is that if we were talking evolution/creation and each sex act was an animal you would be arguing they were related and I would be denying it- lol. This should help you realise why you are fighting your point so hard, it isn't logic or reason you are defending its your moral position.

This is incredibly insulting. Please do not put words in my mouth or paint hypothetical situations that make me over into a hypocrite. I do not even know what you mean by 'I argued that sex acts are all in the same set'. What does that even mean?

Also you make an Appeal to Motive Fallacy. It doesn't matter what my motives might be or what my opinions of you are. I am pointing out flaws in your logic. I could be a fanatical evil satanic athiest member of the liberal homosexual conspiracy (not that any such organization exists... OR DOES IT?!), and as long as my logic holds, it hardly matters.

[Autodidact]

Whilst procreation is the main reason, I would have added that sex is for pleasure and intimacy and those are purposes that God had in mind for sex as well. For example it is a platform for one man and one woman to deepen their relationship.

Or two men or two women.

Whilst I understand your urge to post, in the context of the thread where dianaiad stated sex is for procreation and I expanded the scope, your point can only be valid if two men or two women can procreate.

If sex is the word for two or more creatures seeking pleasure and intimacy what is the word for two or more creatures seeking pleasure and intimacy and procreation?

Reproduction. Which may or may not involve sex.

[Autodidact]

Personally I don't think the vasectomy changes the purpose of the act. Any man and women having sex have implicitly signed up to have a child.

This is factually incorrect. Do you have any other argument or should we just count you out now?

[Wootah]

The desire to keep a word by narrowing its meaning to apply to a priviledged group is simply bigotry.
Shall we find new words for rock music and hip hop because fans of sinatra or montovani don't think it's music?
It's pure bigotry, xenophobia, mususe of power, otherizing, and violence.
You get the same word we all get: marriage. If you want a special word call it traditional, hetero, christianist marriage. But that would be divisive.

Let's keep slander out of this site please. Discrimination is probably the key ingredient missing from today's society. Keep the discussions civil and socratic.

[Autodidact]

Is this your argument, Wootah:
Gay marriage is wrong because Gay sex is wrong. Gay sex is wrong because sex is only for reproduction, so only sex that could possibly lead to reproduction is moral?

[Switgent]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

As a moderate straight man, I'm in support of gay marriage. I believe strongly that being gay is not a choice, and that asking gay people to suppress sexual urges completely for their whole life is just ridiculous. They should have the same option to enter into a loving and committed relationship as heterosexuals.

I am finding some difficulties as regard the term 'Choice'. All actions emanates from a thought, urge and or feelings and emotions. A human makes a decision before he acts. The decision to go gay is a choice emanating from prolong thoughts and feelings (i.e. desires). Speaking from experience, there are some gay rich folks in my community who entice young and innocent children with monies and gifts and gradually introduce them to this act.

In a space of two years i can confirm the increase of same sex activities in one of our regions. Persons who were straight were introduced to the act by foreign white nationals who lured them with monies and or gifts just to sleep with them. YOU CAN DEFINITELY CALL THIS A CHOICE.