Prop 8 Support Defense for those of us who are LDS or like-minded in moral values

[Magic Man]

That's what the "slippery slope" they talk about is for. It'd sit above the wall between the two territories, and the straight people would place their gay babies at the top and let them slide down to the gay territory.

They'd make it extra slippery to stop gay people from climbing up and polluting the straight territory with their gay ideas.

My question is "Do I get to live with the gays, if I want to?". It would suck to live with a bunch of women with whom I had no shot, but I'm sure it would be better than the alternative.

 

[DallasApple]

That's what the "slippery slope" they talk about is for. It'd sit above the wall between the two territories, and the straight people would place their gay babies at the top and let them slide down to the gay territory.

They'd make it extra slippery to stop gay people from climbing up and polluting the straight territory with their gay ideas.

Well then...what about the heteros who loved their gay babies and did not want to be segregated from them?...Would you take the baby away from them..slide it down the slide..and then give the mothers and fathers labotomies???(to help them forget)

Love

Dallas

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well then...what about the heteros who loved their gay babies and did not want to be segregated from them?...Would you take the baby away from them..slide it down the slide..and then give the mothers and fathers labotomies???(to help them forget)

Too bad for them. They should've thought of the consequences before sinning so heinously that their baby would be gay.


Note: in case people hadn't noticed, I'm not advocating this position seriously. Personally, I'd prefer no segregation at all, but if some folks do insist on it, they're free to segregate themselves... do what you want, just leave the rest of us out of it.

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEToo bad for them. They should've thought of the consequences before sinning so heinously that their baby would be gay.
][/QUOTE]

I see...they need to be punished..They must have done something wrong..Ya know..maybe they had pre-marital sex one time..or they smoked pot or something..Who knows..whatever it is..the parents deserve to be punished..

Love

Dallas

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Pedophilia is a person taking advantage of a weaker vulnerble and less powerful person...it is not a loving act.And has the potential for long lasting injuries to a child.

It can not be compared to two adults in a homesxual relationship that love each other and make each other feel happy and fullfilled.

Love

Dallas

Right. That's why the bonobos as an example was a poor example. Nada used it before and this time I was prepared. I had already done my research (mball notwithstanding).

I have no problem with homosexual relationships and I have deliberately stayed away from any statements that imply that it is intrinsically "sinful." I do not believe it is "evil." But no one has given a reason why it should be sanctioned by society other than to say it's "the right thing to do."

It is not about the intellect being over feelings or feelings being over the intellect. It is not about individual interests being over collective interests or vice versa. Neither is it about human beings being over nature or apart from nature. It's about integration and wholeness. The question, then, is does society align itself with the evolutionary "purpose" or direction, run against it, or does it play apathetic?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Well, then read up on homo sapiens. You likely couldn't swing a cat in a crowded room without hitting several people who are homosexual, and as you argued, humanity is part of nature... remember?

So is AIDS. So are mosquitoes.

You're making the same mistake again: the natural world informs our judgements, but it doesn't dictate our morality.

I agree. Evolution does.

You're also moving the goalposts. Your original argument here was that homosexuality was somehow contrary to "nature". The only one here trying to make moral inferences from other species is you.

This is a non sequitur. Nada, not me, was making the moral inference. According to Nada, Bonobos do it in their society so it must be okay in ours.

Never once did I say it doesn't happen in nature. Something being an aberration doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. That's why the bonobos as an example was a poor example. Nada used it before and this time I was prepared. I had already done my research (mball notwithstanding).

Exactly what research did you do to come to the conclusion that evolution imposes moral demands on us?

I have no problem with homosexual relationships and I have deliberately stayed away from any statements that imply that it is intrinsically "sinful." I do not believe it is "evil." But no one has given a reason why it should be sanctioned by society other than to say it's "the right thing to do."

Ahem:

The principle of substantial difference: people (and things) should only be treated differently inasmuch as is warranted by the relevant difference between them. To do otherwise is unethical.

One form of this principle is expressed in the Golden Rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It is not about the intellect being over feelings or feelings being over the intellect. It is not about individual interests being over collective interests or vice versa. Neither is it about human beings being over nature or apart from nature. It's about integration and wholeness. The question, then, is does society align itself with the evolutionary "purpose" or direction, run against it, or does it play apathetic?

Society should align itself with the "purpose" of evolution just as strongly as it aligns itself with the "purpose" of geology and meteorology.

 

[DallasApple]

[But no one has given a reason why it should be sanctioned by society other than to say it's "the right thing to do."
/QUOTE]

No one has given a "reasonable" reason why it shouldnt be..

And yes ...the reason why it should be is for practical reasons..And if there are no "practical" reasons to be married(legally) why in the world do heteros do it..?

Love

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

But no one has given a reason why it should be sanctioned by society other than to say it's "the right thing to do."

Actually, it's you who hasn't given a reason why it shouldn't be "sanctioned" by society. Everything is permissible unless you can show it isn't. It's not on us to show why it should be allowed. It's up to you to show why it shouldn't, or, if you'd like, to show why it isn't the right thing to do.

The question, then, is does society align itself with the evolutionary "purpose" or direction, run against it, or does it play apathetic?

Evolution doesn't have a purpose. It just happens. You really need to read up on evolution before continuing with this ridiculous argument.

Besides, if the goal is for this world to be a viable place to live, homosexuals only help. We are rapidly overpopulating the earth. At some point, we will simply have too many people for this planet to support us. Encouraging some people not to procreate helps to lessen the overcrowding, and at least slow down the process. So, you could look at it as population control. If, as you seem to be implying, evolution has the goal to keep this planet going, homosexuals are actually aligned with that purpose.

 

[DallasApple]

So is AIDS

So is cancer...So is every disease in the world...

So is heterosexuality..( a natural occurrence)

We draw the line at some point..to preserve life and quality of life..

I do not consider the natural occurrence of homesxuality with aids...or cancer.. people being homosexual is NOT something you or I need to be saved of..

Love

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

So is AIDS. So are mosquitoes.

And?

I agree. Evolution does.

You think evolution dictates our morality? How odd.

This is a non sequitur. Nada, not me, was making the moral inference. According to Nada, Bonobos do it in their society so it must be okay in ours.

No, her argument was that homosexuality is part of nature, so it's not unnatural. She didn't say that made it "okay" in our society. She just said that the argument that it's bad because it's unnatural is invalid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So is AIDS. So are mosquitoes.

I assume that this is your way of acknowledging that these points you made previously were incorrect:

• Nature does not sanction homosexual behavior because it has no use for it.
• If human society sanctions homosexual behavior, it is falsely declaring itself to be over nature and apart from it.

The point is, homosexual behavior does happen in nature, but it's an aberration and almost always the result of stressful or unnatural conditions.

I agree. Evolution does.

No, it doesn't. Our understanding of evolution, like our understanding of any physical process, may help us understand the consequences and effects of our decisions and actions, but it does not provide us with any sort of value judgement about whether those consequences and effects are good or bad. Evolution has no moral imperitive.

This is a non sequitur. Nada, not me, was making the moral inference. According to Nada, Bonobos do it in their society so it must be okay in ours.

First off: it's Nanda, not Nada. Two 'n's.

Second, that's not what she said. She pointed out that bonobos engage in homosexuality to express affection and social interaction in direct response to a claim made by you that homosexual activity in the wild is often not sexual at all.

Never once did I say it doesn't happen in nature. Something being an aberration doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I didn't claim that you said it doesn't happen in nature. What I said was that you implied that homosexuality is contrary to "nature", which you did do:

• Nature does not sanction homosexual behavior because it has no use for it.

And your inability to see how homosexuality might be indicative of an evolutionary advantage is rooted more in your lack of imagination than in any sort of natural principle.

 

[DallasApple]

And your inability to see how homosexuality might be indicative of an evolutionary advantage is rooted more in your lack of imagination than in any sort of natural principle.

I suspect...its existed for all time..And it hasnt killed us yet...No more than heterosexuality has..

Love

Dallas

 

[Rolling_Stone]

No, it doesn't. Our understanding of evolution, like our understanding of any physical process, may help us understand the consequences and effects of our decisions and actions, but it does not provide us with any sort of value judgement about whether those consequences and effects are good or bad. Evolution has no moral imperitive.

That's what I said.

First off: it's Nanda, not Nada. Two 'n's.

I like "Nada" more.

Second, that's not what she said. She pointed out that bonobos engage in homosexuality to express affection and social interaction in direct response to a claim made by you that homosexual activity in the wild is often not sexual at all.

Right, and to infer from that it's natural in human society is, well, stupid. The claim that it is to express affection is just that: a claim based on projection and one with which experts disagree.

I didn't claim that you said it doesn't happen in nature. What I said was that you implied that homosexuality is contrary to "nature", which you did do:

Not quite. I said it doesn't serve nature's only interest: procreation.

And your inability to see how homosexuality might be indicative of an evolutionary advantage is rooted more in your lack of imagination than in any sort of natural principle.

That puts the ball in your court. The onus is on you to show it.

 

[Magic Man]

I suspect...its existed for all time..And it hasnt killed us yet...No more than heterosexuality has..

Love

Dallas

Not yet, but just wait until we allow them to get married, and then it's all downhill from there. We're doomed I tell you, doomed.

 

[DallasApple]

That puts the ball in your court. The onus is on you to show it.

No its not...How have you or anyone you know been harmed because someone is homosexual?

The onus is on you to prove its harmful to society ....

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Not yet, but just wait until we allow them to get married, and then it's all downhill from there. We're doomed I tell you, doomed.

I know...Suddenly!! My children will say.."Im gay and I have aides"...and my husband will say "now that its o.k Im divorcing you and getting married to my man lover"..And I will be RELIEVED because there is this one girl...Yes..(blush) that I have had my I on...

Everything will go to s.h.i.t.s...Everyone will be gay...And the world will be destroyed..

Love

Dallas

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The onus is on you to prove its harmful to society ....

Not at all. I'm not the one trying to impose change.

 

[DallasApple]

Not at all. I'm not the one trying to impose change.

No...your the one trying to ignore it is what it is...always has been ..always will...

So ...what "changes" will be "imposed" on you?

Love

Dallas

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's what I said.

Where, exactly? It seems to me like you've been arguing the opposite.

Right, and to infer from that it's natural in human society is, well, stupid.

Debatable. I would say it's unnecessary, since the fact that homosexuality is natural in human society can be inferred from the fact that it does occur naturally.

Not quite. I said it doesn't serve nature's only interest: procreation.

Nature, being unsentient, has no interest in anything, including procreation. If we want our lineages to continue, each of us individually might have an interest in procreation, but that's not the same thing.

However, if you're talking about evolutionary advantage, I'd say that it's genetic propagation, not procreation, that's favoured. It's a small distinction, but I think it's important.

That puts the ball in your court. The onus is on you to show it.

I disagree. I think that if you're going to imply that there is no evolutionary advantage associated with a trait, the burden is on you to explain why you think this is the case.

However, since plausible evolutionary explanations can be given for things ranging from a peacock's tail to pet ownership to certain forms of cancer, I don't see why your world view can't have room to acknowledge that an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality might exist.