That’s why I skipped the chase and went for the religious angle. That’s the ONLY way they can justify being against it: if “GOD” says it’s wrong.
Since they can’t prove “god”, they have no leg to stand on.
Oh and by the way, there have been some AWESOME points made in the last few pages. But expect them to be ignored, that’s their strategy. They will NOT acknowledge a point that they cannot counter.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Sorry about the quotes. As I said, a lot of time can be saved by identifying the fundamental point of contention which is the “right” to actually change what marriage is.[/quote]
Society has the “right” change what it needs to. That’s how civilization evolves. Or “devolves” by your narrow definition. That’s why we have a legislature. That’s why we have a judicial system. We have a very good system of checks and balances that gives a variety of voices a platform. But at the end of the day justice will prevail.
And guess what? JUSTICE is beginning to prevail. So whether you like it or not, gay marriage WILL become a reality in the US. It already is in some states. The pendulum is swinging in the direction of TOLERANCE and EQUALITY.
No one person had the “right” to change marriage. But millions of people, both gay AND straight? I’d say WE HAVE THAT RIGHT… And we are successfully exercising that right in a civilized way using the rule of LAW.
So your contention about no one having the “right” to change what marriage is, is simply WRONG. Members of Society have that right, and they are doing it.
If you don’t like it, organize your side to do a better job of opposing it. But you will lose because WE have the numbers, the better legal arguments and the VOTES. And the politicians are listening.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But my point is this: one can have a strong basis for what a society deems acceptable based on nature and biology.
That’s all. [/quote]
Sure… They also used similar tactics to put a whole bunch of Jewish people in ovens.
Just be careful with it.
That’s all. [/quote]
Nazi “scientific” racism wasn’t based on biology though. In fact, it was based on crazy mysticism. It’s actually quite interesting if you look into it. The SS set the country’s racial policy and they based it upon the work of a mentally ill occultist; Guido von List who in turn was influenced by the occultist Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels. They believed,
that "Aryanâ?? peoples originated from interstellar deities (termed Theozoa) who bred by electricity, while “lower” races were a result of interbreeding between humans and ape-men (or Anthropozoa). The effects of racial crossing caused the atrophy of paranormal powers inherited from the gods, but these could be restored by the selective breeding of pure Aryan lineages. The book relied on somewhat lurid sexual imagery, decrying the abuse of white women by ethnically inferior but sexually active men. Thus, Lanz advocated mass castration of racially “apelike” or otherwise “inferior” males.
/---------
^^ That’s about as far from real biology and science as you can get. And I think you’d be surprised how much such lunatic mysticism actually influenced the Nazis. “Ariosophy” was the official religion of the SS and its ideology was the basis of all Nazi racial policy.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It is beyond obvious that the teleology of sex is procreation.
[/quote]
Argument by assertion.
Neither “Certain kinds of intercourse lead to procreation” nor “Procreation is impossible without intercourse”* entails that “Procreation is the only moral purpose (again, in whose estimation and by whose decree?) of intercourse and intercourse under non-procreative conditions is wrong or bad or a betrayal of teleology.”
[/quote]
I never mentioned morality. I think you’re doing your side a disservice by pretending that sex isn’t the biological praxis of procreation. You know it is. It’s beyond dispute.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I think you’re doing your side a disservice by pretending that sex isn’t the biological praxis of procreation. You know it is. It’s beyond dispute.
[/quote]
I don’t think he is doing that. In the most simple of terms I think he is arguing order of operations, not that babies come from sexytime.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But my point is this: one can have a strong basis for what a society deems acceptable based on nature and biology.
That’s all. [/quote]
Sure… They also used similar tactics to put a whole bunch of Jewish people in ovens.
Just be careful with it.
That’s all. [/quote]
Nazi “scientific” racism wasn’t based on biology though. In fact, it was based on crazy mysticism. It’s actually quite interesting if you look into it. The SS set the country’s racial policy and they based it upon the work of a mentally ill occultist; Guido von List who in turn was influenced by the occultist Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels. They believed,
that "Aryanâ?? peoples originated from interstellar deities (termed Theozoa) who bred by electricity, while “lower” races were a result of interbreeding between humans and ape-men (or Anthropozoa). The effects of racial crossing caused the atrophy of paranormal powers inherited from the gods, but these could be restored by the selective breeding of pure Aryan lineages. The book relied on somewhat lurid sexual imagery, decrying the abuse of white women by ethnically inferior but sexually active men. Thus, Lanz advocated mass castration of racially “apelike” or otherwise “inferior” males.
/---------
^^ That’s about as far from real biology and science as you can get. And I think you’d be surprised how much such lunatic mysticism actually influenced the Nazis. “Ariosophy” was the official religion of the SS and its ideology was the basis of all Nazi racial policy.[/quote]
plz stop ruining my hyperbole with data. 
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s all in the act of “sex”. Intercourse is the consummation.
Of course that’s totally good. [/quote]
I guess I’m still confused by your position. A blow job is definitely not consummation and it isn’t intercourse in my book either. If you use a condom you are actively avoiding procreation. So shouldn’t these things be labeled deviant using your definition? [/quote]
See above post concerning forplay. Using a condom/birth control to circumvent nature is another topic, but you are practicing NATURAL SEX. No biggie. [/quote]
I’ve read the subsequent posts. Foreplay is not a necessity for procreation. Birth control is actively avoiding procreation, which by your definition is the point, in order to have fun. How is that not deviant? [/quote]
No biggie. You would be practicing a behavior that is a prelude to intercourse. Just because you stop short, doesn’t make in “un-natural”.
If male and female dogs are sniffing each other’s butt and then decide not to hump (or a human break it up), is that not natural? Is all on the course of natural sexual practices.
[/quote]
I’m still confused. If I have sex with a condom on it isn’t a prelude to intercourse, it is intercourse. Yet, I actively avoid the biological purpose of intercourse. So that made it a deviant sexual act by your definition, right?
Same thing with a blowjob. If the “encounter” ends after the blow job without intercourse occurring wouldn’t that make the act deviant? [/quote]
Think of the relationship between genders not so much trying to parse specific acts.
Can anybody cite a civilization where homosexuality was the standard practice and not a deviation from the norm?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Society has the “right” change what it needs to. That’s how civilization evolves. Or “devolves” by your narrow definition. That’s why we have a legislature. That’s why we have a judicial system. We have a very good system of checks and balances that gives a variety of voices a platform. But at the end of the day justice will prevail.
[/quote]
At the end of the day justice will prevail? This is idealism with no factual basis. This is the dogma of liberalism and the product of the Enlightenment. Essentially, the Enlightenment philosophers were idealists who believed that society is moving forward on a linear path towards betterment. This is fundamentally a false assumption. The truth is society follows a cyclical trajectory and we are in the final phase of the cycle. We’re devolving not evolving.
Yes, I know what you believe. Despite what you say you are fundamentally a liberal. I don’t mean this in a derogatory sense. Your belief in society following a linear trajectory towards betterment and your faith in egalitarianism is a fundamentally liberal ideology. I don’t believe any of that. Quite the contrary. I’m staunchly against egalitarianism and I firmly believe we’re in decline. What’s more, I believe history demonstrates this fact.
[quote]
No one person had the “right” to change marriage. But millions of people, both gay AND straight? I’d say WE HAVE THAT RIGHT… And we are successfully exercising that right in a civilized way using the rule of LAW.
So your contention about no one having the “right” to change what marriage is, is simply WRONG. Members of Society have that right, and they are doing it.
If you don’t like it, organize your side to do a better job of opposing it. But you will lose because WE have the numbers, the better legal arguments and the VOTES. And the politicians are listening.[/quote]
As I said, you’ve bought into the big lie of the Enlightenment. You’re fundamentally a progressive and a liberal. There should be no reason for you to deny this. I’ve explained what conservatism is. You are opposed to traditionalism in every respect.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Think of the relationship between genders not so much trying to parse specific acts.
[/quote]
Lol… ok
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It is beyond obvious that the teleology of sex is procreation.
[/quote]
Argument by assertion.
Neither “Certain kinds of intercourse lead to procreation” nor “Procreation is impossible without intercourse”* entails that “Procreation is the only moral purpose (again, in whose estimation and by whose decree?) of intercourse and intercourse under non-procreative conditions is wrong or bad or a betrayal of teleology.”
[/quote]
I never mentioned morality. I think you’re doing your side a disservice by pretending that sex isn’t the biological praxis of procreation. You know it is. It’s beyond dispute.
[/quote]
“The biological praxis of procreation” is a vague euphemism. We’re talking about teloi. Now, you did absolutely invoke morality by implying that sex is binary in purpose – pro officially-sanctioned purpose and contra officially-sanctioned purpose. “This is self-evident” is not argument and won’t be addressed again.
My post from the last page, if you want to respond:
What you’re finally going to get at is that you think sex is supposed by a god to be for one thing. Without the god, there is no authoritative conscious assigner of value to the various functions sex serves in our society. My pleasure is as “biological” an event as is my generating a child. “Mother nature,” which is a misleading euphemism for natural physical-biological processes, does not and cannot assign more or less moral or objective or teleological value to one sex act vis-a-vis another. You can say that gay sex – sex for pleasure only – does not carry the possibility that the reproductive function of sex will be fulfilled, but you cannot say that it is “wrong” or contrary to some ambiguous and undefined “purpose” by appealing simply to the laws of physics and biology. For right and wrong, purpose and un-purpose, you need moral teleology.
So, either you can show me that there is a god and this god thinks gay sex is wrong/against his design and purpose, or you can try swimming against a different current.
Edited.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Think of the relationship between genders not so much trying to parse specific acts.
[/quote]
How about if a woman straps on a dildo and goes to pound town on her, “man,” still not sexually deviant?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Society has the “right” change what it needs to. That’s how civilization evolves. Or “devolves” by your narrow definition. That’s why we have a legislature. That’s why we have a judicial system. We have a very good system of checks and balances that gives a variety of voices a platform. But at the end of the day justice will prevail.
[/quote]
At the end of the day justice will prevail? This is idealism with no factual basis. This is the dogma of liberalism and the product of the Enlightenment. Essentially, the Enlightenment philosophers were idealists who believed that society is moving forward on a linear path towards betterment. This is fundamentally a false assumption. The truth is society follows a cyclical trajectory and we are in the final phase of the cycle. We’re devolving not evolving.
Yes, I know what you believe. Despite what you say you are fundamentally a liberal. I don’t mean this in a derogatory sense. Your belief in society following a linear trajectory towards betterment and your faith in egalitarianism is a fundamentally liberal ideology. I don’t believe any of that. Quite the contrary. I’m staunchly against egalitarianism and I firmly believe we’re in decline. What’s more, I believe history demonstrates this fact.
[quote]
No one person had the “right” to change marriage. But millions of people, both gay AND straight? I’d say WE HAVE THAT RIGHT… And we are successfully exercising that right in a civilized way using the rule of LAW.
So your contention about no one having the “right” to change what marriage is, is simply WRONG. Members of Society have that right, and they are doing it.
If you don’t like it, organize your side to do a better job of opposing it. But you will lose because WE have the numbers, the better legal arguments and the VOTES. And the politicians are listening.[/quote]
As I said, you’ve bought into the big lie of the Enlightenment. You’re fundamentally a progressive and a liberal. There should be no reason for you to deny this. I’ve explained what conservatism is. You are opposed to traditionalism in every respect.[/quote]
I don’t think he believes that society is following a linear trajectory towards betterment. Society will just do whatever it wants. As long as enough people support something society will adapt for better or worse.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Can anybody cite a civilization where homosexuality was the standard practice and not a deviation from the norm?[/quote]
That isn’t the point.
The point is the deviation isn’t even statistically significant. Therefore different doesn’t matter. The species goes on, irrelevant of how a society treats lesbians. Because the number of homosexuals in a population with be, based on it always having been, low enough it won’t interfere with species continuance. (Particularly in the modern age where we can inseminate in a test tube for god’s sake.)
The point isn’t (well shouldn’t be) that homosexuality is “normal”. It isn’t “normal”, it is different. The point is, different isn’t always bad or inferior, most times it isn’t either, it is just different. The point is (well should be) that different is okay, and doesn’t harm anything.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Think of the relationship between genders not so much trying to parse specific acts.
[/quote]
How about if a woman straps on a dildo and goes to pound town on her, “man,” still not sexually deviant?[/quote]
Lol. C’mon man.
Or what about two people who went thru sex changes?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Think of the relationship between genders not so much trying to parse specific acts.
[/quote]
How about if a woman straps on a dildo and goes to pound town on her, “man,” still not sexually deviant?[/quote]
Sounds pretty uncomfortable
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Can anybody cite a civilization where homosexuality was the standard practice and not a deviation from the norm?[/quote]
That isn’t the point.
The point is the deviation isn’t even statistically significant. Therefore different doesn’t matter. The species goes on, irrelevant of how a society treats lesbians. Because the number of homosexuals in a population with be, based on it always having been, low enough it won’t interfere with species continuance. (Particularly in the modern age where we can inseminate in a test tube for god’s sake.)
The point isn’t (well shouldn’t be) that homosexuality is “normal”. It isn’t “normal”, it is different. The point is, different isn’t always bad or inferior, most times it isn’t either, it is just different. The point is (well should be) that different is okay, and doesn’t harm anything.
[/quote]
Isn’t it true that it’s such a small proportion of the population statistically (let’s take 3% of the U.S. Population), doesn’t that add credence to the practice being more of a deviation?
It wouldn’t be such a deviation if it was 33%.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Think of the relationship between genders not so much trying to parse specific acts.
[/quote]
How about if a woman straps on a dildo and goes to pound town on her, “man,” still not sexually deviant?[/quote]
Lol. C’mon man.
Or what about two people who went thru sex changes?
[/quote]
Don’t get mad at me, I’m trying to figure out your line of reasoning. I’d say that’s pretty damn deviant, but it’s an act between a man and a women and could easily be foreplay for the act of procreation. So, what’s the problem?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Think of the relationship between genders not so much trying to parse specific acts.
[/quote]
How about if a woman straps on a dildo and goes to pound town on her, “man,” still not sexually deviant?[/quote]
Sounds pretty uncomfortable[/quote]
That’s putting it mildly.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Or what about two people who went thru sex changes?
[/quote]
That’s a good point. What if a man that becomes a woman has sex with a woman that becomes a man. Is that okay?