If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[lilithu]

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

Yeah, but I was bettting that Jmoum wouldn't.

And for those Christians who would answer yes, I'm sure I could find some other thing about them that makes them a minority, or "deviant" as Jmoum would say. People can only live under the delusion that majority=correct when they're not aware of how easily things could change and their own rights/values can be denied.

 

[sojourner]

Nope. If you ask any criminologist they will tell you that the reason why our justice system doesn't work is because you need three things in order for it to be effective as a deterent system. First, you need people to think that it is very likely that they will be caught. Second, the court system has to be swift. And third, the punishment has to be both swift and final. We only have the first one out of the three requirments. Hence, our woeful state of crime.

That's an opinion on your part. If you want, I could start polling a lot of my sociologist friends. Hell, I'll even ask some professors if it would make you happy. In fact, I'll even get their signatures and mail you the results. I am more than confident in that statement and I will continue to stand by it.

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!

Let's get together with rakes, pitchforks and torches and smoke out all the evil homos and quickly spirit them away to prison and shut the evilness out of our society for ever, because their "unions" are causing the downfall of society!!! Let's let them know that we will not tolerate their "lifestyle." Let's send them the clear message that they will be caught by the "corncob patrol," and we will swiftly cut off their collective plarg and hand it to them. That'll fix 'em! ... Last time I checked, "Yee Haw!" is not good domestic policy. Again, homosexuality is not a crime, so the "law and punishment" paradigm will not work here.

We could argue "who says what" all day. Won't get us anywhere. Fact is, "society" doesn't see homosexuality as "deviant." We have popular TV shows with homosexual themes popping up like zits on a teenager. There are more celebrities coming out of the closet than Fords off the assembly line. Some folks within society feel that homosexuality is deviant. That small but very unpleasant voice does not speak for all of us.

Yes, we are talking about the purpose of sex here. The infertility argument does work, because infertile people are still having sex. They largely don't say, "Oh, we can't have babies. I guess we'd better stop now." Second, if people are refraining from sex because they can't have babies, they're more than likely doing that for religious reasons, because it's largely the religious who feel that "sex is for making babies."

Again, the majority voice isn't usually "right." And I'm not so sure the average "Joe-on-the-street" would say that "sex is for making babies." As I said, making babies is included in the purpose for sex, but it's neither the main purpose, nor the only purpose. The reality here is that many, many, many folks, do recognize and espouse a spiritual dimension to lovemaking. One cannot dismiss that from a discussion of "societal norms."

 

[lunamoth]

not true - obviously there are differing threads of thought among sociologists, but we can look at patterns of behaviour and see common trends - we can look at school students and see how divorce affects grades, if we see common trends, we can define the norm in that society.

note: saying that one trend is the norm does not mean everyone in that situation will do it, it just means that is more likely to happen than anything else.

i don't agree with this side of sociology, because it relies on statistical analysis, but it is still a valid form of study

i would also add that people judge what is normal all the time, but only notice it when they see something they don't recognise as "normal" - these subconscious ideas of what is and what is not normal have come from somewhere.

i think a new thread would be needed to discuss/debate this point further, but i think the usage of these terms are fundamental in understanding human interactions

Hi Mike, and others who commented on my post about 'normal.'

Yes, people judge what they as individuals would consider normal, but that's not an objective term when it comes to actually determining human behaviors. I have not read papers in Sociology so I'll have to concede the point that it is used in an informative way in the field of Sociology. However, when I was writing papers in Biology describing the responses of organisms to various stimuli, they would have not made it past my major professor, much less get published, if I tried to use the word normal to describe any of my data. 'Norm' might be used if it was backed up by quantifiable, reproducible data.

luna

 

[lunamoth]

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?

This mess shows that there is no logical reason.

If I eat ice cream, it then follows that I will eat all sweet foods.

Is this true?

luna

 

[Mike182]

Hi Mike, and others who commented on my post about 'normal.'

Yes, people judge what they as individuals would consider normal, but that's not an objective term when it comes to actually determining human behaviors. I have not read papers in Sociology so I'll have to concede the point that it is used in an informative way in the field of Sociology. However, when I was writing papers in Biology describing the responses of organisms to various stimuli, they would have not made it past my major professor, much less get published, if I tried to use the word normal to describe any of my data. 'Norm' might be used if it was backed up by quantifiable, reproducible data.

luna

there is a massive difference between the two subjects though, primarily the fact that we can't control all the variables in a social experiement, where as you can control all the variables in a biological one.

 

[Sunstone]

The purpose of sex is to create a deep, meaningful, and mutually beneficial bond between a man and his Acme Latex Love Doll. This should be self evident and obvious.

 

[lunamoth]

there is a massive difference between the two subjects though, primarily the fact that we can't control all the variables in a social experiement, where as you can control all the variables in a biological one.

I wish!

 

[nutshell]

This mess shows that there is no logical reason.

If I eat ice cream, it then follows that I will eat all sweet foods.

Is this true?

luna

You're just restating the conclusion. I want specific reasoning why it is absurd to think one may lead to another.

 

[lunamoth]

You're just restating the conclusion. I want specific reasoning why it is absurd to think one may lead to another.

:banghead3 :banghead3 :banghead3

 

[Mike182]

No. I said that because I was approacing the term "Sexual Deviant" from a sociological perspective. But thank you for misinterpreting my statements and putting words in my mouth. No, seriously. I appreciate it.

Fine, since I'm at work at the moment and can't really talk to any of my friends or proffesors, I'll give you a list of class syllabuses for Deviance Classes. Read them, and you'll find Homosexuality as a topic. Huh, who would have thunk?
http://www.unm.edu/~erbaugh/Soc213/213_syllabus.htm
http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/200lec.html
http://www.stthomasu.ca/academic/soci/weeks/2313.htm
http://www24.homepage.villanova.edu/thomas.arvanites/soc2200/index.htm
Should I continue?

are you assuming that something that is deviant is morally wrong?

 

[Mike182]

taken from http://www24.homepage.villanova.edu/thomas.arvanites/soc2200/index.htm

This course is a sociological examination of "deviant" (rule breaking) behavior. We first discuss the different definitions of deviance. We then move to the primary goal of the course which is an introduction to the major theories explaining "deviant" behavior. The major assumptions, concepts and propositions of each theoretical perspective will be emphasized. Selected research studies designed to test the predictive power of each theory will be discussed. These will address a variety of "deviant" behaviors (e.g. crime, juvenile delinquency, mental illness, homosexuality, drug use and institutional deviance).


this confuses deviancy with criminality - something can be classed by society at large as deviant even when it does not break any rules.


maybe we need another thread to discuss this aspect of the debate

 

[Willamena]

I would ask that people stop treating other people's ideas as absurd. Even if YOU THINK they are, it's quite obvious that the person stating them doesn't.

Badger badger :badger: . Nuff said.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's high time to raise the issue of whether naked homosexual migrant laborers should really be picking our fruits and vegetables or not? Who wants to go first?

 

[lunamoth]

But thanks for letting me know I still have some work to do when it comes to debating and thanks for giving me the practice. Just realize I'm not the only on here who could brush up their skills. I'd hate to be singled out just because I have a differing viewpoint.

We all benefit from bringing our ideas to the table and consulting freely about them.

The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87)

And yes, we all get better with practice in debate, consultation skills, everything.

peace,
luna

 

[Green Gaia]

You're just restating the conclusion. I want specific reasoning why it is absurd to think one may lead to another.

Because it is pure conjecture that one will automatically lead to another.

Just because I like one type of ice cream doesn't conclude that I will like all types of ice cream. I would have try each and judge them independently and separately on their own.

 

[standing_alone]

I think it's high time to raise the issue of whether naked homosexual migrant laborers should really be picking our fruits and vegetables or not? Who wants to go first?

I, for one, think they should be forced to buy clothing to help support the economy.

 

[Mike182]

Okay, even though I'm bowing out, I'm going to say it one more time people. No! I do not think that just because something is deviant that it is morally wrong. To me, deviant is neutral adjective. I do not place any moral or emmotional connotations to the word. Please, please, please try to understand that. I find it really upsetting that even after I've already said that two or three times you guys still think I feel that way.

sorry, i've only just tuned into your debate points :sorry1:

But not only that, it is not fair to other people when you make snap judgements about them based on what they do and say. I know it's much easier to just make conclusions about people and fit them under a predetermined label, but that's not fair to them because you don't necessarily know why they do the things they do and what they mean when they say what they say. Only when you know that can you be even remotely justified to start judging people, and even then, it's a bit of a stretch. Because while you might have learned that they say and do what they do because of what they believed, you don't necessarily know what has happened in their life to make them believe what they believe. Does that make any sense?

i am sorry, i was asking if you were or not, i was not saying you were and i was not intending to make any judgemental connotations :sorry1:

 

[doppelganger]

I think it's high time to raise the issue of whether naked homosexual migrant laborers should really be picking our fruits and vegetables or not? Who wants to go first?

Sure. As long as they are "white-collar" laborers. But then, they wouldn't be naked would they?

 

[Sunstone]

I, for one, think they should be forced to buy clothing to help support the economy.

Finally! Someone with the courage to discuss this burning question!

 

[Jaymes]

You're just restating the conclusion. I want specific reasoning why it is absurd to think one may lead to another.

Have you read up on logical fallacies?