Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:You still haven't addressed the point. Why is heterosexual marriage a foundational guiding principle without which no society can sustain itself, bearing in mind that it specifically discriminates against a significant proportion of the population for whom such a marriage is not a viable option?

Conservatives like inglorious' don't feel they have to explain their point of view. I think inglorious thinks he is the patriarch and as such, his word is just law.

At least that has been my experience with male conservatives in my country.

Since it is irrefutable that I did not say what I am expected to explain, am I free to say that in my experience liberals are philosophical morons?

I think a philosopher should be able to explain what he means. Why can't you?

From the Oxford dictionary, the most respected lexicon in the English language.

Liberal. Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:

Obvious Leo wrote:From the Oxford dictionary, the most respected lexicon in the English language.

Liberal. Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:

Right. So why is the word used arbitrarily nowadays? (I answered that question in a previous post.)

Now, answer MY question: why should I be expected to explain something I did not say?

The Inglorious One wrote:Now, answer MY question: why should I be expected to explain something I did not say?

You don't. However you do need to explain why you believe that same-sex marriage will have negative social consequences. Why don't we start there?

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Now, answer MY question: why should I be expected to explain something I did not say?

You don't. However you do need to explain why you believe that same-sex marriage will have negative social consequences. Why don't we start there?

Because I also happen to believe in evolution. It took tens of thousands of years for heterosexual marriage to evolve into what society had up until now. I am naive enough to think there is a reason it took that direction.

Now, why do you believe it won't?

Naivety is no excuse for scientific ignorance. Homosexual behaviour is common to almost all vertebrate genera and vertebrates have been around for over 500 million years. Mother nature is not renowned for endowing her creations with frivolous luxuries so obviously there is also a reason for this.

Obvious Leo wrote:Naivety is no excuse for scientific ignorance. Homosexual behaviour is common to almost all vertebrate genera and vertebrates have been around for over 500 million years. Mother nature is not renowned for endowing her creations with frivolous luxuries so obviously there is also a reason for this.

Excuses do not make an argument. Besides, if you want science, scientists who study the phenomenon warn against projecting human motives into animals. In short, you are making a category error. (I thought you had a lot of experience with philosophy.)

Other reasons were also given in response to Kayla.

Anyway, I'm done with this. It is clear that the only argument proponents of SSM have is that it just feels right and anyone who disagrees with those feelings is a 'bigot' or 'homophobic.' The civilized community calls that 'fascism.'

The Inglorious One wrote: if you want science, scientists who study the phenomenon warn against projecting human motives into animals.

I bloody well do want science and I didn't say a word about motives because the notion of motive is not a valid construct when it comes to questions of sexual behaviour. The only known motive for sexual behaviour in vertebrate biology is sexual gratification and if you wish to take a different view then you're making an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof so please provide such a proof.

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: if you want science, scientists who study the phenomenon warn against projecting human motives into animals.

I bloody well do want science and I didn't say a word about motives because the notion of motive is not a valid construct when it comes to questions of sexual behaviour. The only known motive for sexual behaviour in vertebrate biology is sexual gratification and if you wish to take a different view then you're making an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof so please provide such a proof.

You, sir, are an ignorant ass. Clearly, you have not taken a serious look at the issue. You brought up science, but we are warned by scientists who study homosexual behavior in animals not to anthropomorphize their behavior. Yet, that is exactly what you do. You are so eager to find an excuse for homosexual behavior in humans that you choose ignorance over the very science you invoke. Homosexual behavior among animals is known to oftentimes be used to establish dominance. There may be other reasons as well, including sexual gratification. I repeat: excusing human behavior on the grounds that it occurs in lower animals is a category error. You might as well be arguing that pedophilia is acceptable behavior because it something bonobos do on a regular basis and cannibalism should be acceptable because our closest cousins, chimpanzees, occasionally engage in it and is not uncommon in other vertebrate. Logically, that is in fact EXACTLY what you are arguing.

That regarding human beings as something more than our animal cousins should be deemed offensive is bewildering to me. It seems to me that the art of living has failed to keep pace with the technique of existence so humanity has, for the most part, reverted to the simple urge of living — the attainment of the satisfaction of present desires. Thus, "progressives" remain immature and society fails to grow up to full maturity. And when they fail to discriminate an end to their striving, they find themselves functioning on the animal level of existence. They fail to to take full advantage of the material acumen and moral discrimination which are an integral part of their humanness.

The Inglorious One wrote:You, sir, are an ignorant ass.

Does this mean you're not going to answer my question?

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:You, sir, are an ignorant ass.

Does this mean you're not going to answer my question?

"Prove it" is the last refuge of fools.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Hell, giving structure is what philosophy does.

I've been in the philosophy business all my life so it is quite unnecessary for you to instruct me on its protocols.

Apparently it is. Why should I explain something I didn't say?

Case in point: I didn't say "heterosexual marriage is a foundational guiding principle without which no society can sustain itself."

Speaking as an anthropologist, the phrase (whoever said it) is bullshit.

Two reasons: One is that marriage in various forms, NOT following the modern "heterosexual" model of today, has been practiced in most societies, yet they have been perfectly successful; and there have been many societies with perfectly functional arrangements with NO formal marriage at all. Marriage comes very late in human history and rarely has it followed a practice recognisable to modern western culture. Human managed to colonise the entire planet way before women were taken up the isle, and way after they were taken up the back passage.

Secondly that homosexual and heterosexual marriage are not in competition or a challenge to "foundational guiding principles" whatever bit of old flim-flam that is. If we have gay marriage it will not mean an end to heterosexual marriage ON THE CONTRARY. In fact the advent of gay marriage is seen as a boost to a flagging institution. Gay marriage does not mean less heterosexual marriage.

People 100 years ago said the same bullshit about allowing in divorce, and before that they resisted the change away from buying your bride, which is still tragically practiced. Changes away from a no-divorce, and buying a selling people has been a success.

The Inglorious One wrote:The "butterfly effect has to do with chaos theory and accumulative effect of minor changes due to the sensitivity of initial conditions. The flutter of a butterfly wing can be the cause of a hurricane somewhere down the line.

does this constitute a meaningful argument against butterflies flapping their wings?

Kayla wrote:

everything has unintended and unforeseen consequences

my decision to switch to tea from coffee after my morning runs has unintended unpredictable consequences, what of it?

It changes the initial conditions: switching to tea can effect how you sleep which can effect your performance which can lead to who-knows-what.

of course

my attempts to cut down on can lead to me falling asleep at the wheel sending me and my whole family into the path of an oncoming 18 wheeler

or not cutting down on caffeine may do that by messing up my sleep even more

it is also possible that there is a batch of tea out there contaminated by rat droppings and and because of my switch to tea i will drink that and die horribly from some disease carried by rat droppings

none of this provides a meaningful argument against this change

Heck, even their brains are hard-wired differently.

which does not and should not matter from legal point of view

Actually it does. The difference between men and women means that a union between members of the same sex is qualitatively different; not better or worse, but different.

this is not invariably true

there are psychological differences between men and women but they are probabilistic not absolute

some men - even straight men - think act more girly than most women

mutatis mutandis this applies to women

so a marriage between a man and a woman whose thought processes are not typical for their gender will be qualitatively different from a marraige between a man and a woman whose way of thinking is more 'typical' for their gender -- so what of it?

taking your argument at its face value, one could start arguing that its ok for a really butch dyke to marry a girly girl, but its not ok for two girly girls or two dykes to get married

hat's fine, but what are the long-term consequences for society to put SSM on the same footing as traditional marriage? The fact is, you don't know and may not know until several generations have passed.

this is also true with the recent increase in tofu consumption - it may have unpredictable and non-trivial effects, for all we know

is that an argument against tofu consumption

if you want to marry your sister by all means argue for this right, lobby politicians, join forces with the likeminded

And the consequences be damned, right? Why do you think sibling marriage grew out of favor?

i am not saying that sibling marraige should necessary be allowed - i have not given the matter a whole lot of thought

I am only saying that if you think this is unjust, you are free to work to change that within limits of a democratic society - which is as it should be

the laws against siblings having sex are pretty much unenforceable

so removing those laws and allowing them to marry will probably not change anything anyway

Men and women are equal in worth as human beings but not equivalent, that is, not interchangeable in marriage.

Kayla wrote:is that an argument against tofu consumption

Unfortunately it isn't but tofu consumption remains a filthy habit which should be eradicated at all cost.

Kayla wrote: the laws against siblings having sex are pretty much unenforceable

so removing those laws and allowing them to marry will probably not change anything anyway

Sibling marriage was commonplace and widespread throughout a succession of Egyptian dynasties and Egyptian civilisation lasted for millennia. Clearly sibling marriage was not "the end of the world as we know it" as far as the Egyptians were concerned. Nowadays there are sound biological reasons why sibling marriage would be undesirable but from a sociological point of view the case is not so clear-cut. Obviously to argue whether such unions are "moral" or "immoral" behaviour are not questions worthy of philosophical enquiry.