If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[lunamoth]

Second of all, you know full well as I do that I did not and never will make such a connection. While sarcastic remarks are more than welcome, please, be careful what you say because that could easily be interpreted as a personal attack. While I'm an easy going person, I can easily see other people getting very upset by such a statement.

That was not meant as a personal attack in any way. Apologies that it seemed that way. (and actually I'm kind of confused about why you think it was such ) Perhaps I've confused some of your comments with those made by Nikki, but I thought you and she were making the case that one "deviant" form of marriage leads to all other "deviant" forms of marriage.

If a normal marriage is the eternal joining of one man and one woman, then divorce would also be a deviance. I see the same amount of justification (or perhaps I should say I see the same lack of justification) for calling divorce 'abnormal' as I do for calling polygamy 'normal.' That's all. It's the same argument Nikki is using against gay marriage. The slippery slope.

You both are arguing for the existence of a universal moral 'normality,' which I think does not exist for the institution of marriage. That does not mean I personally think anything goes. But, you are trying to apply some kind of objective logic here and I don't think that flies when it comes to human sexuality. It's very subjective.

luna

 

[MaddLlama]

Every aspect of sex boils down to family. Period. Physiologically, sex makes babies. You can't have babies and a family without sex. Sex releases chemicals that make you feel good and feel in love with the other person, as a result, making the relationship stronger. The child needs as much support as it can get so obviously it's going to serve this function to keep the two people having sex attracted to eachother so they're more likely to stay together therefore giving the baby a better chance. Sex makes you feel good. When you feel good, you're happy. When you're happy, there's less relationship friction, once again, keeping two people together. Are you seeing a trend yet?

What about couples who have sex who have no intention of having children? What about those that can't?

Sex is a lot more than making babies, and even more than just releasing happy endorphins. There is a very good reason why we are one of less than 5 species on the planet that get pleasure from sex. If you think sex is just about making babies and keeping two people from fighting about money, then I would suggest that you need to have more sex.

What about the spiritual aspect of sex? Tantric sex is quite invigorating.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is there any statistical data to back up that comment ?

It sounds like an argument from absurdity to me. :cover:

 

[nutshell]

I asked for mostly_harmless to provide reasoning on why the logical flow of legalizing some relationships (homosexual) leads to the legalization of others (polygamy) is absurd, and I've received no response. Can someone else help?

 

[Willamena]

I am not talking about whether or not it's possible to have babies without sex in modern time. I am talking about the fundamental purpose for sex, which always has been and always will be for families. So while that viewpoint might be "antiquated," in your opinion, that does not change the fact that that's the purpose that sex is supposed to serve.

The problem with this argument is that natural processes are not "supposed" to do anything, except in our opinions. There is no obligation for them to perform in certain ways, to achieve certain outcomes, or even to achieve any outcome at all.

 

[lilithu]

While Psychological handbooks may say that it's normal behavior, society does label it as deviant behavior. Almost any sociologist would agree with that statement.

Perhaps, but a sociologist would not attach a moral judgement to that label. Society does, and you are doing so.

I've asked you this in another post but perhaps you did not see it in this morass. So what if heterosexuality is the norm? What about that would suggest that it's morally preferable over less common sexual orientations?

There are far more right-handed people than left-handed. Is being right-handed morally preferable?

There are far more people with brown hair than blondes or redheads. Is being a brunette morally preferable?

There are far more Christians in this country than Baha'i. Is being Christian morally preferable?

On what basis is "the norm" a legitimate argument for deciding what is acceptable or preferable??

 

[michel]

I asked for mostly_harmless to provide reasoning on why the logical flow of legalizing some relationships (homosexual) leads to the legalization of others (polygamy) is absurd, and I've received no response. Can someone else help?

Well, I tried too, but AE merely confirmed that he was just as 'lost' as I was.

 

[sojourner]

O.k, fair enough, but my question was (or would have been if I hadn't tried to type it so fast)
Who was it who suggested that Homosexual relationships would lead to poligamy?........I was shocked to see that remark. Why should homosexuals be more promiscuous that heterosexuals?

Is there any statistical data to back up that comment ?

Homosexuals tend to present more promiscuously (as a group) than heteros, laregly, I think, because they have historically been driven underground, as the conservatives hope to do to them once again. They have been denied open, honest, and committed relationships. Perhaps, if they were not denied that, there would be less promiscuity on their part...

 

[sojourner]

There are far more Christians in this country than Baha'i. Is being Christian morally preferable?

Careful!!! Some here would say an enthusiastic "YES!" to that question!

 

[Mike182]

I asked for mostly_harmless to provide reasoning on why the logical flow of legalizing some relationships (homosexual) leads to the legalization of others (polygamy) is absurd, and I've received no response. Can someone else help?

at the moment, we have a set definition of what marriage is, and legal privelages (sp?) compliment the status of married.

if you open up that definition on the basis of removing discrimination, but close it again while it is still discriminating against others, it is hypocricy in the side or the ones who were discriminated against who are no longer discriminated against.

 

[MaddLlama]

Finally, we're talking about the purpose of SEX here. Your infertility argument doesn't work because that doesn't change the purpose of sex. Second, you guys were the ones who didn't want to bring religious arguments into this, so if we're going to look at sex, we're going to look at it from a scientific viewpoint and I'm pretty confident that even if we didn't, if you asked people what the basic purpose of sex was, no matter if they were atheist or a believer in God, a biologist or a simple shop keeper, they would almost all say it's to have a family. Finally, if we are to bring love into the equation, that further proves my point that it's for a family because what holds a family together? Oh, that's right. LOVE!

No, actually that isn't true. Pleasure is just as important of a scientific aspect of sex as procreation. Socially, I would say that pleasure is more important than making babies, since more people are having sex and not having babies than people who are having them. There are only four species on the planet that get pleasure from sex - humans, monkeys, dolphins (and I forget what the 4th one is..). There is a reason for that.
It really isn't just about making babies. Scientifically speaking, it serves both a biological (procreation) and social (pleasure) purpose equally.

 

[Sunstone]

...that's the purpose that sex is supposed to serve.

There is no such thing as "supposed to" in nature. If sex evolved into a mechanism for keeping the body warm, there would be nothing in nature to say that wasn't "supposed to" happen.

In humans, sex does a number of things. Obviously, it brings gametes together. It also bonds people. And it produces pleasure. You cannot single out one of these things and say, "That's what sex is supposed to do", as if that were the moral basis for sex. Evolution doesn't have a moral basis.

Your arms were used by your distant ancestors for walking and running. Are you going to assert that they are "supposed to" be used for walking and running because that's what they originally were used for?

 

[michel]

Originally Posted by jmoum

While Psychological handbooks may say that it's normal behavior, society does label it as deviant behavior. Almost any sociologist would agree with that statement

So what you are saying, is that you would rather rely on the superficiality of the Sociologist's world (which is conceptual at it's best) to the worl on the down to earth, every day psychologist ?

A sociologist makes statements (usually) based on polls; a psychologist, I would say, is far more "in Touch" with the real world.

 

[JerryL]

if you asked people what the basic purpose of sex was, no matter if they were atheist or a believer in God, a biologist or a simple shop keeper, they would almost all say it's to have a family.

They would be inaccurate. The accurate version:

The trait of sex which has likely been most predominant in sex being selected for through evolution is reproduction. Initially, its advantage was a type of reproduction which allowed a comingling of traits, but in humans it is the only method of reproduction.

Sex has no purpose. It has many functions. One of those functions is procreation.

What is the purpose of the hand? Is it's purpose to type on a keyboard? Shall we outlaw typing?

 

[Willamena]

Finally, we're talking about the purpose of SEX here. Your infertility argument doesn't work because that doesn't change the purpose of sex. Second, you guys were the ones who didn't want to bring religious arguments into this, so if we're going to look at sex, we're going to look at it from a scientific viewpoint and I'm pretty confident that even if we didn't, if you asked people what the basic purpose of sex was, no matter if they were atheist or a believer in God, a biologist or a simple shop keeper, they would almost all say it's to have a family. Finally, if we are to bring love into the equation, that further proves my point that it's for a family because what holds a family together? Oh, that's right. LOVE!

Families can exist without children.

 

[lilithu]

Finally, we're talking about the purpose of SEX here. Your infertility argument doesn't work because that doesn't change the purpose of sex. Second, you guys were the ones who didn't want to bring religious arguments into this, so if we're going to look at sex, we're going to look at it from a scientific viewpoint and I'm pretty confident that even if we didn't, if you asked people what the basic purpose of sex was, no matter if they were atheist or a believer in God, a biologist or a simple shop keeper, they would almost all say it's to have a family. Finally, if we are to bring love into the equation, that further proves my point that it's for a family because what holds a family together? Oh, that's right. LOVE!

FROM A SCIENTIFIC VIEWPOINT, THERE IS NO PURPOSE TO SEX. If you're taking all God-talk out of this, then you cannot ascribe any intentionality to sex. Intentionality/purpose requires an intender.

Sex exists. Sex often leads to procreation. There are other types of procreation that do not require sex. It is an interpretation on your part to say that the "purpose" of sex is to procreate.

 

[Pah]

....

While Psychological handbooks may say that it's normal behavior, society does label it as deviant behavior. Almost any sociologist would agree with that statement.

Name some - give references and credentials - three will be enough. I think you are wishing it were true instead of actually being true.

Every aspect of sex boils down to family. Period.

Every aspect? Exaggeration and emphatic expression will not win your argument.

Physiologically, sex makes babies. You can't have babies and a family without sex.

Babies are made in vitro which means babies are made in a clinic or lab - a scientific, medical, procedural process.

Families, recognized in both society and law, do not need babies.

There is nothing true in the absoluteness of your statement. One false example discredits that argument and I've given two.

Sex releases chemicals that make you feel good and feel in love with the other person, as a result, making the relationship stronger

That would be true also of sex for pleasure. Therefore it does not support you larger argument

.The child needs as much support as it can get so obviously it's going to serve this function to keep the two people having sex attracted to eachother so they're more likely to stay together therefore giving the baby a better chance.

Same-sex couple the world over have been providing nurture. Many other species operate the same way

There was great praise by some Christians for the "family values" shown in the film about Antartic penguins. Little did those Christians know that some of the loving scenes of baby and parents were of a same-sex pair. You strike me as not knowing anymore about sociology as they did.

To empasis procreation over nuture is wrong in a social sense and wrong in an evolutionary sense. The species is not fit and will not survive if off-spring do not reproduce. Nurture makes that possible. Society will crumble if our children do not receive sufficient care.

Sex makes you feel good. When you feel good, you're happy. When you're happy, there's less relationship friction, once again, keeping two people together. Are you seeing a trend yet? ...!

I see the reason for unmarried couples in what you say.

 

[michel]

Originally Posted by jmoum

Finally, we're talking about the purpose of SEX here. Your infertility argument doesn't work because that doesn't change the purpose of sex. Second, you guys were the ones who didn't want to bring religious arguments into this, so if we're going to look at sex, we're going to look at it from a scientific viewpoint and I'm pretty confident that even if we didn't, if you asked people what the basic purpose of sex was, no matter if they were atheist or a believer in God, a biologist or a simple shop keeper, they would almost all say it's to have a family. Finally, if we are to bring love into the equation, that further proves my point that it's for a family because what holds a family together? Oh, that's right. LOVE!

No it doesn't. All the teenagers who engage in sex do not do so for the point of having children.............for most of them that is the last thing they want to happen.

Take China; where the number of Children born to a family was /Is (sorry, not sure if that is still in place). Why do couples engage in sex, once they have had a child?

 

[lilithu]

Except you missed it a long time ago when I told Maize that when I was using the term "Sexual Deviant" I was using it as a neautral, scientific description and that I in no way meant to use the word "deviant" as a negative connotation. That is also why I gave her the dictionary definition, so that she would know exactly what I meant. When I used that word, I was not putting any moral or emotional value on it. I just thought I should clarify that for you.

So then why is it relevant to the discussion? Why bring it up at all?

As for "Is such and such more morally preferable because it's the norm argument?" you're mistaking me, yet again. The things in red don't count because they are physical traits. They in no way influence behavior. Therefore, they don't count. The sentence in blue does count because that is something that influences behavior. Am I making any sense at all here?

Being left-handed doesn't influence behavior??! The only reason they are not the same to you is that you ascribe a moral judgement to who sleeps with whom and do not ascribe such a judgement on which hand we use.

 

[lunamoth]

Every aspect of sex boils down to family. Period. Physiologically, sex makes babies. You can't have babies and a family without sex.

Wrong. Adoptive parent here. We have two lovely daughters totally unrelated to sexual intercourse. Our marriage is quite strong, thank you.

Sex releases chemicals that make you feel good and feel in love with the other person, as a result, making the relationship stronger.

Evidence please.

The child needs as much support as it can get so obviously it's going to serve this function to keep the two people having sex attracted to eachother so they're more likely to stay together therefore giving the baby a better chance. Sex makes you feel good. When you feel good, you're happy. When you're happy, there's less relationship friction, once again, keeping two people together. Are you seeing a trend yet?

Would homosexual intercourse not make the couple feel as good and release these love chemicals just as well as heterosexual intercourse?

brb, I have to go move boxes. Hooray!

Be careful of your back (lift with the knees. I've been put practically in traction after moving!)

*Please know that it's nothing personal here jmoum. it's just that your arguments are not very tight yet they have far-reaching implications. I'm enjoying the exchange but I'll be happy to withdraw if you find this too antagonistic.*

luna