Philosophy Now Forum

Kayla wrote:

Melchior wrote:No, the burden of proof is on you. These terms have historical meanings that you cannot wish away. Marriage is based on biology, ultimately, and males and females are not interchangeable.

using the same reasoning you can condemn senior citizens getting married since they cannot reproduce

But they are still male and female, and in principle can reproduce. In the past, couples were first engaged, then once the wife became pregnant they were married. That was the original purpose of engagement. They didn't want to waste their time on infertile partners.

scientists were able to produce a mouse with two genetic mothers and no father

so using your reasoning once this process can be reliably done with humans - same sex marriage - at least between women - will be ok?

Kayla wrote:scientists were able to produce a mouse with two genetic mothers and no father

so using your reasoning once this process can be reliably done with humans - same sex marriage - at least between women - will be ok?

It can't, so forget it.

Kayla wrote:scientists were able to produce a mouse with two genetic mothers and no father

so using your reasoning once this process can be reliably done with humans - same sex marriage - at least between women - will be ok?

You are assuming men and women are are equivalent. They are not, either psychologically or physiologically.

Melchior wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: It's called social evolution and progress. It's about giving everyone equal rights. It's about being an evolved and enlightened society. Women and children used to be the property of the husband. Rape didn't exist in marriage. Women had no marital rights at all. I'm sure that plenty of people objected when those things changed as well. There are always those who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present eg husbands who want to be able to beat and rape their wives with impunity.

All of this is false. Men and women are not interchangeable biologically, and biology is what is the foundation of marriage. I has absolutely nothing to do with 'equal rights' or becoming 'enlightened'.

This makes it look like I said, "It's called social evolution and progress." I was quoting vegetariantaxidermy. Like you, I wanted to show the comment has no bearing on the matter of SSM.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Touche to both of those, Hobbes.

Ta.

“Gay rights” activists take advantage of individuals who are addicted to desires for the self and fears for the self are easily controlled, who are too shallow to have their own desires and can therefore be easily be manipulated to have those desires that best fit the purposes of the ones in control of the message. By spreading rumors of constant danger and unfairness, they trigger the wish for calm and certainty, thereby encumbering the real potential individuals. The more shallow the individual grows, the more he/she expects to be rescued, protected, reassured, and is willing to support whoever promises that.

There is a truism I read a long time ago: “If God were to destroy a nation, he would first sow the seeds of disillusion.” “Gay rights” supporters are deluded to think they are the good guys because Nature is bigger than all of us, and it not gender-neutral. A society built around a lie digs its own grave because illusion always gives way to disillusion.

Inglorious. Are you suggesting that it is not unfair for societies to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or are you claiming that our notions of sexual orientation are a myth? Either argument is utterly unsustainable but which one are you actually putting?

The Inglorious One wrote:Pornographers take advantage of individuals who are addicted to desires for the self and fears for the self are easily controlled, who are too shallow to have their own desires and can therefore be easily be manipulated to have those desires that best fit the purposes of the ones in control of the message. By spreading rumors of constant danger and unfairness, they trigger the wish for calm and certainty, thereby encumbering the real potential individuals. The more shallow the individual grows, the more he/she expects to be rescued, protected, reassured, and is willing to support whoever promises that. .

Stop wanking if you can, but I can see you are utterly trapped in your own self loathing.

Obvious Leo wrote:Inglorious. Are you suggesting that it is not unfair for societies to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or are you claiming that our notions of sexual orientation are a myth? Either argument is utterly unsustainable but which one are you actually putting?

Are you saying nature is gender-neutral or that societies can function independently of reality? Either argument is utterly unsustainable. What's fair has nothing to do with it: I'm talking about reality vs. delusion. I'm saying that society's emphasis on an individuals's sexual orientation to the exclusion of the demands of reality as a whole is at best myopic.

I posted what I did to rub salt into the wounds of the defeated. The proponents of SSM lost the logical argument so they appeal to sentiment (like your rebuttal) or accuse those who point out the irrationality of their position as hateful, bigoted or a homophobe. There simply is no other argument. The ploy be effective in the political arena, but this is a philosophy forum and doing that makes them look ignorant troglodytes. You and Hobbs simply took the bait.

The Inglorious One wrote: Are you saying nature is gender-neutral or that societies can function independently of reality?

I've been in the philosophy business for over forty years and know a fucking troglodyte when I see one.

Try this question on for size, you moronic simpleton. What the fuck is REALITY??

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: Are you saying nature is gender-neutral or that societies can function independently of reality?

I've been in the philosophy business for over forty years and know a fucking troglodyte when I see one.

Try this question on for size, you moronic simpleton. What the fuck is REALITY??

I think I should apologize to troglodytes everywhere.

There is a big difference between editorializing and philosophy.

The Inglorious One wrote:I think I should apologize to troglodytes everywhere.

And I think you should answer the bloody question. What gives you the right to define to the world what is and is not real? That reality is a subjective construction of the human mind is a cornerstone principle of every philosophical school in human history. If you wish to put up a counter-argument to this universally accepted proposition then kindly do so.

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:I think I should apologize to troglodytes everywhere.

And I think you should answer the bloody question. What gives you the right to define to the world what is and is not real? That reality is a subjective construction of the human mind is a cornerstone principle of every philosophical school in human history. If you wish to put up a counter-argument to this universally accepted proposition then kindly do so.

You lost and you know it and are offering up a red herring instead admitting defeat. That's okay. I answered the question in a new thread.

Does homosexuality make any sense whatsoever? Sex is a most pleasurable thing, but the main reason for it is to procreate. Homosexuality eliminates the whole point of the act. The only semi-decent thing that comes out of homosexuality is that if the entire world was homosexual, we wouldn't have to worry about harming the planet, because we would cease to exist before the damage is done.

The male and female genitalia perfectly complement each other, for a reason.

All mental situations develop through how you are raised and if I remember correctly Kayla, it was your mother who advised you to become a lesbian, because of your disappointment with males.

What is natural about a dildo or inserting a penis into an orifice designed to excrete fecal matter.