Gay Marriage Discussion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

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?

[/quote]

Are you reading what I’m writing?

It IS a deviation. It is! Yes, gay people are different, they vary form the norm. Yes. They do.

Okay? We have the covered?

The point is:

deviation, in this case, doesn’t mean bad, inferior or otherwise worth having undesirable action towards. Even if 33% of the population were gay, which would be an INSANE increase over what percent it is, it still wouldn’t prevent the continuation of the species.

So, if you’re going to use biology to say gay sex is wrong, you are going to lose every time until gay sex becomes such a significant portion of sex that population rates begin to plummet. Which I figure would start around 50+% of women being lesbians. Men could likely be 80% homosexual and we’d be fine.

302

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

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]

This was a very interesting debate here in Maine. What I found most notable was that the cars next to the anti-gay marriage demonstrations had A LOT of out of state plates!

That’s not to say there was no home grown opposition, as there obviously was with a 47/53 split. I was just somewhat surprised that people from Pennsylvania and Ohio were so concerned with what’s going on in Maine. I mean they REALLY cared about stopping gay people from getting married in Maine. Cared enough to drive their asses out here and stand around in the cold with their signs.

At any rate, the jury has been out for a while here and nobody is clamoring to lift this that I’ve heard of. Lobsters and lumber only get an economy so far, so I’ll gladly take the gay marriage tourism dollars.

A guy who lifts at my gym is a magician and wedding DJ who has definitely had some good business come his way with a few expensive gay weddings. Too bad he only does fucking bicep curls and leg machines, which I object to about as strongly as SM does gay marriage.

303

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

“The biological praxis of procreation” is a vague euphemism.

[/quote]

It’s not vague at all. In fact, it’s an argument you use yourself to forward evolutionary biology. As you’ve explained yourself, there is not necessarily a need for a personified causal agent. In which case, biological functions can have a teleological end without a personified causal agent.

That’s right it’s not an argument. My position is that it’s so obvious it doesn’t require an argument to sustain it. It would be a waste of my time trying to prove something so self evident. And if someone is forwarding an argument that doesn’t begin with this axiomatic assumption then it’s not an argument worth addressing. Essentially, if a response is worth my time it has to be based upon the acceptance of:

  1. The fact that men and women have essential and complimentary differences.

And

  1. The fact that sex is the praxis of procreation.

[quote]

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]

As I said, this is a false premise. There is no need for a personified causal agent. You’ve argued this yourself from the point of evolutionary biology.

304

[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.”

  • Let’s forget, for a moment, that this proposition isn’t even true.

[/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]

Here’s the deal: IT FEELS GOOD. That’s what prompts us to do it!

When I was 13 and rubbed one out for the first time, I wasn’t thinking,“Man I hope I get this sock pregnant”! I was thinking,“Man this is fucking COOOOOL! I wonder what ELSE I can stick it in?”.

There are VERY FEW people on the planet who are TRYING to have a baby when they fuck. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m saying that the MAJORITY of sex in a MAJORITY of the population is NOT about getting pregnant. It’s about getting OFF. ORGASM. PLEASURE. That’s what sex is to MOST of us.

Mother Nature is just a tricky bitch so she made pregnancy an outcome if you put it in the vajayjay when you bust a nut.

I also dispute your theory that people SHOULD have as many kids as possible. THAT’S WHY WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE ON WELFARE!!! People who can’t afford to be having kids SHOULD NOT BE HAVING KIDS! That’s the craziest shit I’ve heard you say yet. More people should NOT be having kids, my friend…

305

Lets put it this way:

The vast majority of sex throughout the history of man has been inter-gender.
A safe assumption is that there has always been intra-gender sexual interaction as well.
Intra-gender sexual interaction has never prevented the human population from growing.

Therefore, a statistically insignificant amount of intra-gender interaction TODAY, will not negatively affect population rates. And as such, from a biological perspective is not harmful, bad, undesirable, unsustainable, inferior or otherwise less that just “is”.

You ever eaten a yellow tomato? Most tomatoes are red correct? Does the handful of yellow ones for every hundred or so red one’s prevent the red ones from growing? NO. Therefore, from a top level biological perspective, a tomato being yellow is simply different than a red tomato.

306

I got my intra and inter mixed up, sorry guys

307

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Here’s the deal: IT FEELS GOOD. That’s what prompts us to do it!

When I was 13 and rubbed one out for the first time, I wasn’t thinking,“Man I hope I get this sock pregnant”! I was thinking,“Man this is fucking COOOOOL! I wonder what ELSE I can stick it in?”.

There are VERY FEW people on the planet who are TRYING to have a baby when they fuck. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m saying that the MAJORITY of sex in a MAJORITY of the population is NOT about getting pregnant. It’s about getting OFF. ORGASM. PLEASURE. That’s what sex is to MOST of us.

Mother Nature is just a tricky bitch so she made pregnancy an outcome if you put it in the vajayjay when you bust a nut.

[/quote]

Charmingly put. However, I don’t know what this is supposed to prove. The pleasure of sex is a reward mechanism with the purpose of motivating us to reproduce. It’s the proverbial carrot. The carrot is not the purpose. Procreation is the purpose. The carrot is what motivates people to fulfil the function.

It depends on who is procreating. We need more net value creators. And less takers. I’m not encouraging people who can’t afford children to procreate. I’m encouraging the intelligent, net value creators to have more children. The higher someone’s income the less children they’re likely to have. I’m suggesting this needs to be turned around. The poor should have less children; the wealthy should have more. But given I don’t like tyrannical government involvement in people’s lives this becomes a difficult thing to actually influence with policy. Essentially, I advocate tax breaks for having more children. If it’s a family that doesn’t actually pay tax then they would obviously get no benefit from it.

308

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’m not sure what argument of mine you’re referring to here, and since it’s the only response you’re offering (other than argument by assertion), I’d need an elaboration before responding.

309

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’m not sure what argument of mine you’re referring to here, and since it’s the only response you’re offering (other than argument by assertion), I’d need an elaboration before responding.[/quote]

You’ve argued against intelligent design. Essentially, you’ve argued that highly complex systems don’t need a personified causal agent. You’ve argued that a biological telos(like procreation for example) can exist as a result of random processes. And you’re now trying to argue the opposite. You’re now saying that for sex to have a “purpose” it must have a designer - ie, someone or something directing it.

310

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Here’s the deal: IT FEELS GOOD. That’s what prompts us to do it!

When I was 13 and rubbed one out for the first time, I wasn’t thinking,“Man I hope I get this sock pregnant”! I was thinking,“Man this is fucking COOOOOL! I wonder what ELSE I can stick it in?”.

There are VERY FEW people on the planet who are TRYING to have a baby when they fuck. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m saying that the MAJORITY of sex in a MAJORITY of the population is NOT about getting pregnant. It’s about getting OFF. ORGASM. PLEASURE. That’s what sex is to MOST of us.

Mother Nature is just a tricky bitch so she made pregnancy an outcome if you put it in the vajayjay when you bust a nut.

[/quote]

Charmingly put.
[/quote]Why thank you, sir, I do try my very best LOL[quote]
However, I don’t know what this is supposed to prove. The pleasure of sex is a reward mechanism with the purpose of motivating us to reproduce. It’s the proverbial carrot. [/quote]MOST people don’t figure that out until they are in their 30’s and have already pumped out a few kids. Mother Nature’s trick worked. Then the smart ones get a vasectomy and continue to fuck without worrying about it[quote]
The carrot is not the purpose. Procreation is the purpose. The carrot is what motivates people to fulfil the function.
[/quote]But then if the PLEASURE is the “carrot”, why is the “carrot” a “sin”? You just agreed that we were all MADE this way to enjoy pleasure. If pleasure is the carrot, what is the stick? Child support?[quote]

It depends on who is procreating. We need more net value creators. And less takers.
[/quote]Yet government policy REWARDS the takers by PAYING them more money if they have MORE illegitimate kids! [quote]
I’m not encouraging people who can’t afford children to procreate. I’m encouraging the intelligent, net value creators to have more children. The higher someone’s income the less children they’re likely to have. [/quote]That’s an easy one: LIABILITY. FINANCIAL EXPOSURE. The more kids you have, the more money you will have to pay out if your wife get’s a wild hair up her ass and divorces you. So smart men limit their exposure. Also, most successful people work MORE than less successful people and have less time for kids. The thought of having more is just overwhelming. At least that’s MYH personal perspective as a fairly successful man.[quote]
I’m suggesting this needs to be turned around. The poor should have less children [/quote]You say that, but in another thread you will argue against abortion… SMH…[quote]
; the wealthy should have more. But given I don’t like tyrannical government involvement in people’s lives this becomes a difficult thing to actually influence with policy. Essentially, I advocate tax breaks for having more children. If it’s a family that doesn’t actually pay tax then they would obviously get no benefit from it.
[/quote]

Tax policy is the best way to influence wealthy people. They are smart enough to understand it. We should also STOP paying welfare queens to pump out more kids so that they get a bigger check.

311

Lol! Yeah. And having to live with your wife for the rest of your life. Either way you’re screwed. As to “sin” that’s a different subject and beyond the scope of a gay marriage discussion.

312

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You’ve argued against intelligent design. Essentially, you’ve argued that highly complex systems don’t need a personified causal agent. You’ve argued that a biological telos(like procreation for example) can exist as a result of random processes. And you’re now trying to argue the opposite. You’re now saying that for sex to have a “purpose” it must have a designer - ie, someone or something directing it.[/quote]

You are confusing Serving a purpose with Having a purpose.

Sex serves purposes of procreation and pleasure. (This is inarguable: I use sex exclusively for my and my girlfriend’s pleasure, and I actively work against its serving any procreative purpose at this time. The teloi of my sexual encounters are entirely pleasure-oriented.)

To argue that one of these purposes is intrinsically more legitimate, more in accordance with some design than another – this is to invoke god.

Again:

That [Sex done in X and only X way] occasions procreation

and

Procreation requires [sex done in X and only X way]

do not logically entail that

[Sex done in Y way] is illegitimate or contra some vague metaphysical purpose.

Edited.

313

Edit Never mind the illustrative analogy. It will only obfuscate.

314

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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.”

  • Let’s forget, for a moment, that this proposition isn’t even true.

[/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]

Here’s the deal: IT FEELS GOOD. That’s what prompts us to do it!

When I was 13 and rubbed one out for the first time, I wasn’t thinking,“Man I hope I get this sock pregnant”! I was thinking,“Man this is fucking COOOOOL! I wonder what ELSE I can stick it in?”.

There are VERY FEW people on the planet who are TRYING to have a baby when they fuck. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m saying that the MAJORITY of sex in a MAJORITY of the population is NOT about getting pregnant. It’s about getting OFF. ORGASM. PLEASURE. That’s what sex is to MOST of us.

Mother Nature is just a tricky bitch so she made pregnancy an outcome if you put it in the vajayjay when you bust a nut.

I also dispute your theory that people SHOULD have as many kids as possible. THAT’S WHY WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE ON WELFARE!!! People who can’t afford to be having kids SHOULD NOT BE HAVING KIDS! That’s the craziest shit I’ve heard you say yet. More people should NOT be having kids, my friend…
[/quote]

This is exactly how I feel. I hate to generalize but, on one hand they will fight for you to come into this world, anti abortion and innocent souls. But on the flip side they want people to pull themselves up by their own bootlaces in places where people are starving.

It’s like they have one foot in the grave when it comes to our own environment and overpopulation.

315

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

You are confusing Serving a purpose with Having a purpose.

[/quote]

I’m not sure the relevance of the distinction. It(sex) both serves and has a purpose.

No. The purpose is procreation. Pleasure is the means by which one is motivated to fulfil the ends(fertilisation).

That is subverting the process; short circuiting the process so that the motivating factor(pleasure) is attained without fulfilling the ends(fertilisation).

Yes, the teloi of the hoi polloi is joy.

I’m not making a value judgement as to whether pleasure or fertilisation is more “legitimate.” I am simply describing the process by which the human species, indeed all placental mammals, perpetuate themselves. I’m observing the process and describing it. I observe that copulation is the means, pleasure is the motivating factor; the drive, fertilisation the ends or “result” if you like. I’m not making any value judgements and I’m not necessarily, at least at this point in this particular post, suggesting a “design.” It does appear to be a “design” but that is incidental to the argument. Because I’ve said that I can argue against gay marriage and argue that homosexuality is unnatural without having to appeal to religion. I know this because I firmly believed all of this my whole life when I was an atheist.

[quote]

Again:

That [Sex done in X and only X way] occasions procreation

and

Procreation requires [sex done in X and only X way]

do not logically entail that

[Sex done in Y way] is illegitimate or contra some vague metaphysical purpose.

Edited.[/quote]

It’s not a “vague metaphysical purpose”. It’s blindingly obvious stuff that I would’ve thought atheists would be able to see as well as religious people. I’m not talking about morality here or even value judgements. I’m making observations, many of which apply to all organisms that copulate. And keep in mind I’m not claiming the normalisation of homosexuality in and of itself will have a significant impact on human fertility rates. Although it’s difficult to determine that for sure. As I said, it’s more of a symptom of decline than a cause. This is what I am saying from observation; no value judgements:

The primary “drive” or motivation of biologically advanced(or complex if you like) organisms is to attain food, shelter and sex. The more advanced organisms; the ones closest to humans, develop complex social relationships and the mother is driven to care for the offspring; the father driven to protect his offspring too, and together form a family structure. This structure in turn and the relationships of each to the other within, is fundamental to life itself. Each member is existentially contingent upon the structure itself. The species is contingent upon the structure itself.

The advanced mammals form tribal structures of which the family units are the building blocks. The social relations between the individual and the tribe and the family and the tribe develop into a community or with humans a civil society. This in turn allows for highly advanced collective efforts and development of social interactions and language. And in turn culture and science and art and so forth. In this whole process of life itself I see homosexual sex as an aberration; gay marriage as a subversion of life itself. As I said this all seems obvious to me.

It seems strange to me that so many people don’t seem to recognise what I say. It’s only been like that since around the 1990’s. The change in the collective consciousness was very rapid. It occurred in the early 90’s when the mainstream left took up the gay “rights” cause and it started getting a lot of attention in entertainment, the arts and left-wing and student politics. It wasn’t till about five or so years ago that it really ramped up and started getting frantic and crazy with all the gender dimensions and transitions and so on. Anyway, that’s my take it.

I’ve always felt the same as long as I can remember. I don’t know why people tell me I need to “accept” it or whatever. The one aspect that really concerns me, and I mean seriously concerns me, is this encouraging young kids in schools to “explore” their “gender identity” and their sexuality. It really is creepy. On tumblr and youtube there’s young kids, maybe nine or ten, who have been taught all about this genderqueer shit and they’ve chosen a “gender” for themselves like a kid chooses to be a goth or a punk or a skater. They’re sure it’s who they are and a fundamental part of their identity. But instead of going through an embarrassing goth stage as a kid or something they’re going through a transsexual/homosexual stage - they’re being sexualised, before puberty and before they understand sex, and they’re being warped and through the internet in particular getting drawn in with some very dubious people(LGBT community).

And lastly, I really don’t understand how people can have such neutral or positive feelings towards gay people in general given the exhibitionism and the fixation on sex and sexualisation of everything in gay culture. The gay “pride” parades are absolutely horrible. I seriously can’t understand why people aren’t completely turned off by seeing that sort of behaviour. I’m sure a lot of people will say I’m “hating” on gay people but I’m just being honest about why I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.

316

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I hate to generalize but, [/quote]

But then you proceed to do so, and to top it all off it is just the same false narrative talking points that get throw around in the hopes that saying something enough times will somehow make it fact.

317

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I hate to generalize but, [/quote]

But then you proceed to do so, and to top it all off it is just the same false narrative talking points that get throw around in the hopes that saying something enough times will somehow make it fact.
[/quote]

I would just ignore him. The parallel he tries to draw is absurd.

318

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Post
[/quote]

I appreciate the detailed post. I have to respond later in the weekend, as I’m busy for the next 48ish hours.

319

Supreme Court agrees to rule on gay marriage.

No matter how you feel about this, I think it’s an electoral positive for the GOP. If the SC rules that it’s not a right, the GOP can continue to fight it on a state by state basis. They’ll lose, eventually, but at least they can show their constituency they fought the good fight.

If the SC rules that same-sex marriage is a right, then it removes SSM as an election issue. The GOP gets nudged to the center a bit by the very fact that they no longer have to address the issue. They can simply defer to the fact that it’s now the law of the land. Or, curse out the day each SC Justice was born while holding up their hands. “Eh, what can you do?”

320

This whole issue is bullshit and killing the gop. They need to get over it, let people have their legal rights as a couple, and move on to issues that effect everyone.

I hope the SC rules in favor of gay marriage just to let the issue die, and we can stop hearing about it.